Applied Expertise in Human Osteology
Legal and Educational Considerations in the United States
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24314791 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Martha L Carter (0000-0002-5751-3662, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine Auburn Alabama USA), Ryan M Seidemann (0009-0006-6180-1823, Departments of Anthropology and Planning & Urban Studies University of New Orleans New Orleans Louisiana USA), Justine L Newman (Southern Illinois University School of Law/Medicine Springfield Illinois USA), Edward A Reedy (Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences Montgomery Alabama USA), Christine L Halling (Department of Planning and Urban Studies University of New Orleans New Orleans Louisiana USA) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 187 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2025-07-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Biological Anthropology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2692-7691 • E-ISSN: 2692-7691 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/ajpa.70091 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 14 |
This synthesis investigates the value of osteological expertise by the US legal system, as well as aims to iterate the value of a unique education and certification in the profession of forensic anthropology. Additionally, the study proposes a graduate curriculum that includes clinical skeletal biology to disseminate the practice of forensic anthropology across related healthcare disciplines. A survey of relevant statutory and case law was performed using the Westlaw legal databases. Cases from 2012 to 2022, including the terms “forensic anthropologist,” “forensic archaeologist,” and “osteologist” were examined to analyze how the judiciary manages individuals who purport to be forensic anthropology or osteology experts. From the cases examined, it became clear that there was significant subjectivity in judges' “gatekeeping” of testimony under the evidentiary Daubert rule, ultimately leading to the admissibility of flawed anthropologic or archeologic methodologies. The criteria relied upon to determine witness qualifications were heterogeneous and often incongruent with the current focuses of anthropologic training. These analyses feed into a discussion and recommendations for paths forward to professionalizing the education, training, licensure, and practice of forensic anthropology. Because the modern application of forensic anthropology is strongly being improved through scientific research and evidence‐based practice, there is a need for objectivity in the admissibility of advanced human osteological evidence in courts of law. As the discipline becomes more integrated with the legal system, like medical practice, it is increasingly critical to educate judges, jurors, and students working in related disciplines of the importance of anthropologists' qualifications to prevent inappropriate admission of “junk science.”
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |