AUA Bio Anthropology Article Review

• de la Cova, C. (2019). Marginalized bodies and the construction of the Robert J. Terry anatomical skeletal collection: a promised land lost. In: M. L. Mant & A. J. Holland (eds) Bioarchaeology of Marginalized People (pp. 133–155). Academic Press.
• Spiros, M. C., Plemons, A. M., & Biggs, J. A. (2022). Pedagogical access and ethical considerations in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. Science & Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.03.008
• MOVE Penn Slate (2021, NO SUMMARY). This is an online magazine piece about the incidence where a professor in University of Pennsylvania used remains of the 1985 MOVE bombing victims to teach. Please read through this piece and prepare a couple of thoughts/questions/discussion points to share in class.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/move-bombing-victims-princeton-penn-museum-history-anthropology.htmlLinks to an external site.

Summary Instructions:

Submit a summary each for de la Cova (2019) and Spiros et al. (2022). Each summary should start with the article title and end with at least one question or discussion point. These do not count toward the word limit. The main content of a summary should include the key points or arguments of the article (not simply a list of headings or sections). Construct your sentences carefully to make your summary informative and comprehensive. Use your own sentences and NEVER just tweak the publish abstracts. Each summary should be between 120 and 150 words (single spaced). Put both summaries on one Word document.

Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science & Justice
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scijus
Pedagogical access and ethical considerations in forensic anthropology
and bioarchaeology
Micayla C. Spiros *, Amber M. Plemons, Jack A. Biggs
Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Forensic sciences
Digital pedagogy
Biological anthropology
Osteology
Traditional education in biological anthropology relies primarily on hands-on, highly visual experiences.
Forensic anthropologists, bioarchaeologists, and osteologists in general should aim to collaborate in developing
widespread digital pedagogy suitable for our discipline, increasing digital technologies used for education and
training. Considerations and suggested pathways toward a biological anthropology digital pedagogy include
accommodating for varying levels of digital fluency, understanding global perspectives and cultural beliefs,
equity in accessibility, ethical strategies, prioritization levels of content that should be made publicly available,
appropriate platforms and forms of media for disseminating different types of content, and the necessity of
multiple modalities. Using three online resources as case studies, this paper focuses on the discussion of peda­
gogy, access, and ethics surrounding digital osteology. These three digital tools, 3D MMS, MapMorph, and J-Skel,
can be used to teach students topics ranging from human variation methods and theory to juvenile age esti­
mation. Developing a pathway forward, we encourage the anthropology community to think critically about the
desired outcome of pedagogical tools in order to properly align the framework with the intended pedagogy, level
of accessibility, and ethical codes. The ideal model would aim for equitable access to training materials on a
global scale. Implementing these practices can foster a more adaptable and encompassing learning experience for
students and researchers in biological anthropology who may have dissimilar access to resources.
1. Introduction
In biological anthropology, theoretical concepts surrounding the
interactions of evolution, environment, genetics, and culture are some of
the foundations to understanding human variation. Although under­
standing human variation is fundamental to biological anthropology,
many programs and trainees have limited access to resources that allow
them to study or experience the wide range variation. Thus, it is an
important step for our education and training programs to offer
curricula that expose students to these interdependent causative forces
of variation to be adequately trained in recognizing human skeletal
variation, as well as provide access to educational resources in all areas
of our disciplinary research. To study human variation, those with ac­
cess to physical skeletal specimens and casts, full osteological collec­
tions, and education programs with traditional osteological training are
amongst the privileged few. Widespread access to a variety of learning
materials and methods is essential to promoting equitable learning, as
well as exposure to a range of variation that may be encountered during
skeletal analyses. Increasing free, publicly available digital and
computational resources provide a pathway for the discipline of bio­
logical anthropology to increase equity while also offering a more
comprehensive, global education system. However, with the increased
adoption of digital methods in higher education and public outreach,
accessibility concerns, and ethical ramifications must be critically
evaluated when utilizing research that involves skeletal remains and
open-access to human remains online.
Using three online resources as case studies, this paper will focus on
discussing the access and ethics of combining technology, pedagogy,
and osteology. These three digital projects, 3D MMS, MapMorph, and
J-Skel, can be used to teach biological anthropology students in topics
involving human variation methods and theory and juvenile age esti­
mation. Investing time into digitizing modern, donated skeletal collec­
tions while creating and maintaining ethical and privacy standards help
increase access and opportunities for current and future students.
2. Pedagogical theory and application of digital methods
Digital pedagogy is a method of teaching in which electronic
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spirosmi@msu.edu (M.C. Spiros).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.03.008
Received 30 September 2021; Received in revised form 13 March 2022; Accepted 28 March 2022
Available online 29 March 2022
1355-0306/© 2022 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
these methods to take careful consideration into how they want to
implement these tools and by whom they want these tools to be used.
Additionally, there is growing concern over the prominent colonialism
in digital pedagogy and digital heritage tools. A key point of this
perspective is that the digital fields and virtual learning tools are largely
created by white males and are greatly lacking in diversity and inclu­
sionary efforts [13–14]. This homogenous perspective often leads online
education to be treated as universal tools; this is not the case due to
cultural differences and belief systems, as well as differential access to
resources, such as internet connection [13–14]. Bali [13] encourages
teachers to collaborate via virtual platforms, such as EdConteXts and
Virtually Connecting, to engage in cross-cultural conversations around
effective pedagogy, as well as continue to offer tools in multiple lan­
guages, and begin an aggressive push for diversifying the digital
humanities.
However, the majority of the current global student population has
been dubbed ‘digital natives’. Given many have grown up immersed in
the world of technology, they are highly digitally expectant in their
education. This is especially true now with the transition to online
teaching during COVID-19 [3,11,17]. We expect the need for digital
pedagogy to increase substantially in the coming years [3–4]. Notably,
the rapid transition of online learning during COVID-19 occurred
disproportionately on a global scale [3,18–21]. The importance of
physical resources in biology and osteology were also illuminated;
specifically in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology, students lost
access to casts and anatomical teaching collections needed to learn
osteological features and the biological profiling methods. Innovative
digital methods for teaching were quickly developed, modified, and/or
employed to keep students engaged [6,22]. While the pandemic
accentuated this problem, even without COVID-19, students with access
to physical educational skeletal resources are highly privileged given
many programs do not have physical materials for learning. Therefore,
we urge biological anthropologists to create a narrative around this
topic while being cognizant of the noted fallbacks to build an accessible,
inclusive, and ethical digital pedagogy.
Biological anthropology, particularly within the realm of forensic
anthropology, has been reflecting on the current state of the discipline.
There are several recent publications centered on education programs,
core competencies [23], and training and education requirements in
forensic anthropology [24–25]. Amid these conversations, we would be
remiss to not acknowledge and initiate conversations on the role of
digital pedagogy in our education and training programs. Digital
pedagogy not only offers an avenue for increasing accessibility to our
technologies are used as educational tools. Technology can be used for
in-classroom teaching, hybrid applications, or in fully online educa­
tional contexts for improving learning modalities. However, to suc­
cessfully adopt a digital pedagogy, one must critically consider when to
use and when not to use digital tools for conveying information and how
the use of these tools may positively or negatively impact the world
around them [1,2]. With the rapid rate of technological advancement
coupled with the rapid shift to digital platforms during COVID-19, there
are many discussions and debates about the use of digital tools in
pedagogy [3–7]. Pedagogy is not simply a synonym for teaching. It is a
term that indicates the instructor is teaching while also thinking criti­
cally about, and measuring the effectiveness of, the methods they use to
optimize student engagement and comprehension.
Many people agree that digital tools can greatly enhance education.
Some have even replaced traditional programs and courses through the
implementation of widely accessible Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs). Proponents of digital educational tools believe these tech­
nologies help potentially overcome geographic and economic barriers in
higher education, making education more obtainable to people who
would otherwise not have access to these resources [8]. When incor­
porating technological learning schemes in thoughtful ways, students
can become co-creators of the course, guide their own learning objec­
tives, and transmit knowledge to other students and the teacher through
online messaging and social media platforms [9]. Additionally, digital
learning allows students to develop technological skills that can be used
outside of the classroom and throughout their lifetimes [10–11]. Salmon
[12] recommends a four-quadrant model that incorporates existing or
new technology and pedagogy with existing or new university mission
objectives (Fig. 1).
There is some opposition to digital pedagogies, as well as the great
need to decolonize pedagogy and digital heritage tools [13–14]. First,
some argue that relying solely or primarily on digital learning tools can
degrade the quality of education, alarming that online courses, like
MOOCs, implement a one-directional transmission of information from
teacher to student [13]. There are many institutions that offer bulk
online learning programs, removing human intervention and interaction
and resulting in mediocre education for the masses [15]. Additionally,
the tool or courses do not necessarily have the expected geographic
reach; thus, the tool does not reach the desired level of accessibility.
Enrollment geographic information for several MOOCs offered by major
private universities were mapped demonstrating very little reach
beyond the United States [16]. Due to these limiting and controversial
aspects of digital pedagogy, it is critical for the instructor employing
Fig. 1. Pedagogical Innovation Model (modified from Salmon [12]).
709
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
education and training, but it is also important to consider as a means for
improving modality of our education programs if we hope to increase
student engagement.
Research in biological anthropology often incorporates technology
into our techniques and methodological approaches. However, there is
great disconnect with this practice in our pedagogy leading to a
knowledge gap between those in training and those practicing. The
heavy reliance on physical skeletal remains for education has tradi­
tionally limited our capacity to keep up with other disciplines in their
ability to incorporate digital tools in the classroom. Improved technol­
ogy, such as 3D imagery and a wide range of open-access tools, has
greatly opened the realm of possibilities to improve modality and
accessibility in our pedagogy. The teacher can implement websites to
explore larger anthropological theories and concepts, online tools to
engage with current analytical methods, or even have students develop
their own online tools to encourage critical thinking and develop tech­
nological skills [26–27]. We encourage educators in biological anthro­
pology to apply the lens of critical pedagogy which creates space to
reevaluate the current teaching methods of our discipline and determine
where our pitfalls lie within our education and training programs
[27–28]. This is not to say that we expect or encourage digital tools to
replace physical specimens, but, rather, incorporate a digital modalities
into these spaces when possible and appropriate to accommodate
different learning styles, improve technical capabilities of the students,
aid teachers in instances of limited time and high student capacities, and
supplement education when available specimens lack needed informa­
tion or specimens are not available. The application of such digital re­
sources will and should change depending on the culture and user
specific access to resources.
to rectify systemic issues of access still needs to be expanded [35]. One of
the most effective ways to address issues of inequality in accessibility is
to implement instruction that utilizes open-access resources. These are
free, online repositories of knowledge that are mostly uninhibited by
copyrights and licensing restrictions [36]. Gershenson and colleagues
[34] found that when six previously proprietary high-impact journals
became open-access for a period of two months in 2017, article down­
loads increased by 55% to 95%. Many resources that are used in the
training of specific fields, such as in biological anthropology, are
distributed in proprietary publications or programs. Open-access re­
sources can begin to break through this barrier and provide researchers
with unrestricted access to larger quantities of knowledge.
However, it should be noted that while open-access appears to be
‘free’, there are still some biases in which resources become open-access.
While these materials might appear to be free for the user, there are
unseen costs. Open-access journal articles are done so usually by paying
a surcharge on top of the original publishing fee. These additional
charges can range anywhere from a few hundred dollars to over $5,000
depending on the journal and article length. Thus, only researchers or
institutions with the appropriate funds can make their data and publi­
cations free to access. This inherently skews the voices in open-access
resources to those who have the ability to make them open-access.
Additionally, open-access resources and programs must live some­
where. This means an individual, or institution, must pay for server
space to host the resource. Along with access to the internet, there are
still issues towards balancing the inequity of education but, despite these
shortcomings, they still allow users to access materials that they other­
wise not be able.
Perhaps one of the greatest potentials for increased open-access re­
sources is not the ability to gather information more easily, but to
disseminate it. This is a fundamentally important aspect for researchers
in biological anthropology. Although much of the research in biological
anthropology, specifically relating to osteological standards and
methods, were created on Western skeletal collections, access to these
resources can be more easily dispersed, studied, and augmented in nonWestern areas to create regionally-specific standards. While open-access
is not and cannot be the only cure for deficits in biological anthropo­
logical research, it is nonetheless a step towards allowing greater access
for those who may have previously had limited, if any, access. Openaccess is by no means a perfect system, but its ability to more easily
share ideas, and build upon them, is at the heart of scientific endeavors.
3. Access to digital scholarship and resources
Perhaps the most important tool in biological anthropology is access,
be it access to physical collections, scholarship, or datasets. However,
access to these resources has only recently undergone a major shift. The
proliferation of internet-related resources in the late 1990s and early
2000s led researchers and instructors from only being able to use the
resources at their immediate disposal (or waiting for the delivery of
materials) to near instantaneous access with the click of a button. In
principle, the accessibility of digital datasets from disparate areas of the
globe allows biological anthropologists to make comparisons with ease.
Yet, from a pedagogical perspective, digital repositories of knowledge
are not unanimously accessible to all universities, departments, stu­
dents, or even various cohorts within a student body [29–30].
In theory, digital resources and teaching tools should foster an
encompassing learning environment that draws information from
diverse sources and voices, thus creating a more informed education for
all [31]. While those in well-funded programs might be accustomed to
immediate access to seemingly infinite repositories of digital scholar­
ship, it is undeniable that there are discrepancies in accessing these re­
sources, as well as differing tiers of gatekeeping. Unfortunately, the
phrase -‘digital scholarship’ has commonly been synonymous with ‘free’
or ‘easy access’. This is certainly not the case as many resources exist
behind paywalls that generally only well-funded institutions can afford
[32]. Science only progresses by building on the ideas of previous
studies (or the refutation thereof). Schlitz [33] argues that paywalls
stymie the purpose of research within the scientific community and to
society in general. Limited access to these ideas through financial means
creates an inherent imbalance directly conflicting with the ethos of
scientific research [33]. Moreover, funding in libraries and academic
institutions have been cut, resulting in the cancellation of costly aca­
demic journal subscriptions [34]. This has placed an imbalance on the
resources needed to conduct research and instruct students with the
ability to access them around the globe.
While dialogue surrounding equity in higher education has gained
momentum, discovering how to pursue awareness and then take action
4. Ethical considerations of online osteology
Scholars have grappled with the use of human remains in research
for some time [37–44] including questions of photography as a mode of
preservation [45–46], but only recently has new technology, such as
digital scanning of photos and three-dimensional modeling, come into
question ethically [47–52]. Passalacqua and Pilloud [41] define ethics
as “guidelines for the behavior of individuals within a specific profession
or discipline” [41, pp. 3]. This definition, paired with codes of ethical
conduct from various professional anthropological associations [41,53],
guide practitioners to make informed decisions on how to respectfully
conduct research and access skeletal remains. However, we recognize
the definition of ethics is culturally and regionally dependent. A few
ways to improve upon our practices are by listening to, and working in
tandem with local communities, utilizing relative bioethical approaches,
and collaborating with cultural anthropologists who study mortuary
cultures (beliefs surrounding biological decision-making and autonomy)
[54]. Takala [55] describes how the four principles of global, medical
bioethical approaches (autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non­
maleficence) can be problematic. Contextually, the terms can be in
direct conflict with one another as there is also no global consensus of all
four terms. Bali [13] emphasizes this issue since terms can be defined
and viewed differently leading to confounding issues of interpretation.
Tosam [56] recommends that an open dialogue between all groups
710
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
involved is crucial to avoiding what he deems ‘moral imperialism’,
forcing Western hegemonic political, economic, and cultural moral
standards onto another group. Overall, a singular framework of ethical
perspective is not preferred, due to the wide variation of cultural
viewpoints. However, ethical frameworks can be used to guide research
and pedagogy through a flexible, culturally dependent lens.
When it comes to sharing photographs or models of skeletal remains,
what differentiates sharing these as resources on academic social media
platforms, in publications, or on open-access learning platforms
compared to personal social media? We believe the answer is encapsu­
lated by Errickson & Thompson’s key principles of ethics surrounding
digital distribution of human remains: permission, respect, justifica­
tion, and education [46]. Broadly, when it comes to sharing human
remains online, permission should be at the forefront of ethical strate­
gies. Permission from the individual before death or from family
members posthumously is the optimal standard, adhering to their beliefs
surrounding death. Closely tied with donation programs, clarity from
where and how the remains were obtained and de-identification of the
remains are highly suggested. Respect should be maintained through
proper curation practices and while collecting data. Simultaneously,
monetizing human remains for profit should not be considered. For
example, with education being a tenet of ethical digital distribution,
open-access should go hand-in-hand with the dissemination of the re­
sources. Beyond education, the justification behind sharing imagery of
skeleton remains needs to be taken into consideration. Is the use of the
imagery necessary for the overall goal of the tool?
Further, questions arise when accessing collections from bio­
archaeological contexts, for which there are no known descendants and
a lack of knowledge of the cultural beliefs related to sharing images of
human remains. When bioarchaeological contexts are considered,
respect and justification are essential. If known, would sharing skeletal
scans/photos be culturally sensitive to the individual’s beliefs? Is the
sharing of these remains done in a respectful way with context regarding
the need for sharing these remains? How does sharing this individual’s
remains assist education in forensic and bioarchaeological frameworks?
Time is a large component that needs to be taken into consideration
regarding these questions. The line between modernity and antiquity
can be blurry but should be assessed in relation to permissions and then
justification [40,42,44]. Some archaeological remains can be related to
modern groups through shared identity, such as Native American tribes
under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of
1990. But permissions are not always possible in the bioarchaeological
record. When ancestry and cultural beliefs are unknown, turning to
respect and justification are vital. For a more detailed discussion on the
link between death, dignity, respect, and morality in the archaeological
context, see de Tienda Palop and Currás [57].
While permission, respect, justification, and education are essential
for beginning to explore the ethics of the dissemination, we caution
accepting these as universal principles. Even each of these concepts may
not translate effectively across cultures or perspectives and will vary to
their degree of importance based on specific mortuary systems and
practices. This bodes the question of who should even be allowed to
provide permissions in these circumstances (e.g., curators, community
spokespersons, direct family). Again, this highlights the need for diverse
perspectives when establishing digital pedagogy and tools incorporating
human remains through broad, cross-cultural collaborations, and open
communication with the decedent’s community.
Ethical codes associated with human remains are broad, including
treating remains with respect, interacting responsibly with research
subjects, informed consent when possible, and accessibility of research
results. While comprehensive they still are broad. Even so, how are
ethical standards upheld in individuals practicing outside professional
bodies or without professional certifications? Do the ethical re­
sponsibilities then lie within the purview of the institution retaining the
remains, the responsibility of the individual, or a combination of both?
The issue surrounding the inability to enforce or regulate these
individuals’ actions highlights the necessity for further calls to action.
We see three immediate actionable approaches as beginning steps for­
ward: 1) teaching ethics, 2) requirements of ethics statements, and
3) professional certification, when appropriate.
First, aiming to forgo any misconduct of individuals outside of pro­
fessional organizations, specifically students, teaching about ethics,
respect, and transparency when working with and accessing human
remains is essential as early as possible in education programs in bio­
logical anthropology [41,58–59]. Caffell and Jakob [58] discuss both
ethical education and education of ethics regarding human remains in
universities. They explore the range of variation within a single element
of the human skeleton which cannot be properly replicated through
models and casts of a so-called “normal” skeleton. These variations can
illustrate pathological conditions, sex estimators, systemic stress in­
dicators, population variation, age indicators, and a myriad of other
aspects essential to understanding the human condition. Without ethi­
cally acquired skeletal collections, the goals of forensic anthropology
and bioarchaeology will be stunted in past, antiquated research and
education. Again, highlighting widespread academic access to donated
skeletal materials, ethical curation, and dissemination aims to begin to
eliminate the mistreatment of human remains. One avenue to equitable
learning is open-access paired with digital dissemination of pedagogical
resources. However, scholarship surrounding humans, in any context,
should be equally tied to the education and consideration of ethical
principles regarding the treatment of human remains. While legality is
one way to consider how humans should be treated after death, legis­
lation is slow moving, struggling, or not attempting to stay current with
constantly evolving pedagogical approaches. This reinforces the need
for culturally relative moral and ethical discussions within education.
Second, the requirement of ethics statements in publications and
projects should start being required. Most recently, Squires and col­
leagues [60] discuss ethical considerations related to publishing on
bioarchaeological remains. They argue that all research and subsequent
publications of archaeological human remains should include ethical
approval and related ethics statements. They review three journals that
publish bioarchaeological research to assess the current state of ethics in
the field with each journal requiring ethics statements only for the
living. Overall, only 35 of the 939 research articles examined in this
study specifically mention ethics and only 24 state they had ethical
approval. The authors aim to stimulate discussion for the need for
standards regarding ethical publishing. They list eight questions that
may be used to guide ethical research (Table 1), all of which could be
also used when thinking about online osteological pedagogy. We see the
benefit of all of these guidelines but, Passalacqua and Pilloud [61]
discuss the negative ramifications of vague standards. To which we ask,
to what extent can they be cherry-picked before or even after a project
begins? Further discussion, and subsequent action, surrounding ethics
and skeletal remains need to continue.
Table 1
Questions for Guiding Ethical Research (Squires and colleagues [60]).
1. Has your research project been approved by a research/ethics committee/panel in
your institution/other institutions? If so, please name the institution(s) and, where
applicable, provide the ethical approval reference number/code.
2. If you did not need formal approval, explain why (e.g., no ethics committee in
place at your home institution or museum where the remains are curated).
3. Did approval take into consideration any ethical implications arising from the
research (e.g., the remains of a historical person, Indigenous population, cultural
and religious sensitivities, living descendants)?
4. If your study involved destructive sampling, justify why this was necessary in
relation to the questions being addressed or the hypotheses to be tested.
5. What steps did you take to limit damage/maintain the integrity of the remains?
6. Did you follow any good practice guidance (e.g., national or international codes)?
7. In the case of more recent remains, was anonymity retained?
8. Are all the images you have used justifiable and has consent been given to include
them in publications by curating institutions and living descendants, where
appropriate?
711
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
Regulation under Part 46 “Protection for Human Subjects” [65], which
defines a human subject only as a living individual (45 § CFR 46.102(e)
(1)). The IRB permission from our university determined that since these
data were collected from skeletal remains, the projects do not involve
human subjects, with which we wholly disagree. However, with the IRB
being the only review needed at our university, we made certain that
each project upheld ethical considerations proposed by researchers both
in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology [46,60].
Finally, proper certification and membership to professional orga­
nizations, in countries or regions that have these standards, is promising
to lead to increased ethical standards in biological anthropology. Espe­
cially compared to the history of forensic anthropology as a [62], we
have come a long way but still have quite a way to go. As seen in other
disciplines working with humans (e.g., nursing, psychology, medicine,
and law) certification and professional membership can increase
accountability. One example is that diplomates within the American
Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) are required to sign the “Code of
Ethics” on an annual basis with revocation or suspension in cases of
misconduct found by the ABFA Ethics Committee [41,63]. Professional
certifications and professional membership are just two other actionable
items to hold practitioners to a standard, beyond their own beliefs. We
acknowledge that professional certifications are not globally available,
but the current reach of certification bodies is promising (e.g.,
Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología Forense; American Board
of Forensic Anthropology; Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe;
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie; Royal Anthropological Institute).
Limited access to exam study materials, travel for testing, time, and
financial burdens can lead to inequity in biological anthropology pro­
fessionalization; these are things that professional associations should
continue to improve in order to work towards equitable access, which
we discuss further in our pathways forward.
5.1. 3D MMS Initiative
The 3D MMS Initiative (http://www.3DMMS-initiative.com/) is a
teaching tool for cranial and postcranial variations that are not well
represented in digital archives. Forensic science techniques and meth­
odology has been continuously pushed to be more accurate and
consistent in scoring protocols, which requires practice and experience.
With new methodology comes inconsistencies of application, an issue
that could be partially rectified by this online learning tool (Fig. 2). The
3D MMS Initiative (3D MMS) allows for in-depth method instruction
through a new, interactive medium allowing students to see 3D traits
alongside previously conceived trait definitions.
5.1.1. 3D MMS & pedagogy
This website is multi-faceted. 3D MMS can assist individuals in col­
lecting data with current/published, freely available data analysis pro­
grams (i.e., MaMD Analytical & Combo MaMD Analytical) [72,90].
Viewing these programs concurrently will allow users to compare the
skeleton they are scoring to the 3D examples (Fig. 3).Targeted audiences
for this website are students in forensic anthropology (beginners to
advanced) to visualize a diverse range of morphological skeletal varia­
tion, known as macromorphoscopic (MMS) traits. Macromorphoscopic
traits are morphological variations in the skeleton that can be scored
visually by osteologists. These variations have been used in scholarship
ranging from standardization and error testing [66–72], to biodistance
and population history studies [73–81], and forensic identification
[82–89]. Currently, there are limited teaching resources available online
due to the sensitive nature and ethical concerns of sharing 3D models of
human skeletal material, resulting in limited accessibility to learning
protocols in forensic anthropology.
The goal of this project was also to bolster evolutionary theory into
population history and avoid associating any single variation with a
single population [76,89,90–91]. Though a trait may be more probable
due to gene flow, genetic frequency, and environmental influences,
without statistical models and multivariate approaches, this one-to-one
correlation is an unscientific, inaccurate approach. While these
5. Case studies
Several examples of digital tools that can be implemented in current
programs are presented below, along with discussions on accessibility
and ethical considerations for each tool. These tools were developed as a
part of the Cultural Heritage Informatics Initiative (CHI) Graduate
Fellowship Program at Michigan State University (MSU). The CHI pro­
gram (https://chi.anthropology.msu.edu/) provides fellowships to
graduate students whose research focuses on any aspect of cultural
heritage. The program pairs digital technology, community, and
creating a project with a “strong public component, using or producing
open data (where appropriate), and leveraging open-source tools,
framework, and technologies” [64, pp. 142]. Students often use their
dissertation research or other personal research interests to develop a
digital heritage project.
The projects below, 3D MMS, MapMorph, and J-Skel, were created
during these fellowships and serve as an example of considerations made
when considering adopting a digital pedagogy and training. These
projects were reviewed by the Institutional Board Review (IRB) and
deemed as “Determined not ‘Human Subjects’” as codified in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Code of Federal
Fig. 2. Landing page for the 3D MMS Initiative.
712
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
Fig. 3. Accessory transverse foramen module.
morphological changes occur at different frequencies on a global scale
due to the mechanisms of evolution, population history, environment,
and epigenetics, associating a single variation with one population is a
typological, outdated approach.
5.1.2. 3D MMS & access
Paywalls limit access to forensic anthropology resources. Access to
physical specimens is also a limitation to students’ learning success. 3D
MMS includes a reference page that highlights direct links to openaccess macromorphoscopic programs for analysis [72]. It also includes
an interactive timeline of MMS-related research between 2009 and 2021
with key highlighted quotes from each publication. This provides a hub
of information for exploring the complex relationship of population
history and skeletal morphology. A separate resource, the MMS Litera­
ture Web, depicts the far-reaching utility of macromorphoscopic traits
from forensic anthropology, archaeology, and clinical literature. This
allows users to explore connections between resources taken from
Google Scholar data (Fig. 4).
It is essential to have equitable access to learning materials to allow
biological anthropologists to advance their knowledge without
attending a university with a skeletal collection, requiring travel to
skeletal collections, and to prevent unethical curation of skeletal re­
mains [61,92]. In the nine months this website has been live (May 2021January 2022), 3D MMS has been visited by individuals in 50 countries
and 240 cities. The fifteen countries with the most traffic include: the
United States, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, Canada, China, India,
Turkey, Germany, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, France, Georgia,
Mexico, and Serbia. This illustrates the need for more tools like this one
to amplify globalized pedagogy in an equitable way. Tools aimed to­
wards practicing techniques should be standardized globally for crossdisciplinary research; this approach is reflected through a Google
Translate element added to the website for increased accessibility. While
the automatic translation is not perfect, it is an attempt to begin to break
down the barriers of the Eurocentric perspective of English-only
resources.
Fig. 4. MMS Literature Web.
scanned from the MSU Forensic Anthropology Laboratory Donated
Collection. The individuals donated their bodies for teaching, outreach,
and research to advance science. Permission: Permission was granted
via donation forms signed by the families of each individual donated to
the MSUFAL teaching collection understanding that the remains will be
used for education and research. Education: 3D MMS aims to give access
to new learners in the field by giving open-access to these skeletal ele­
ments to learn about human variations in an ethical manner. Justifi­
cation: This tool aims to give access to students without the ability to
study skeletal collection illustrating variation and aiming for equitable
learning. Respect: Out of respect for the decedents, no identifying
5.1.3. 3D MMS & ethics
All human remains highlighted on the 3D MMS website were
713
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
understanding patterns and causes of human phenotypic variation.
Student users are guided through modules explaining how climate and
genetics work concurrently to influence human phenotypes. These
concepts are then discussed within the context of MMS traits variants
across space using maps as visual aids. Several cranial morphological
features traditionally believed to be discrete traits associated with those
with African ancestry are highlighted. The maps demonstrate that traits
are not discrete, but rather trait frequencies fluctuate across geographic
space as we see with other common phenotypic variation (Fig. 5). The
tool offers another modality for teaching human variation and helps
others less familiar with these topics teach human variation, promoting
diversity and inclusion efforts through education.
factors were included to maintain anonymity of the donors.
5.1.3.1. 3D MMS Responses to Squires and colleagues [60] Guiding Ethics
Questions.
1. This project was deemed exempt from IRB review.
2. Formal approval not needed due to non-living subjects; No ethics
committee in place apart from IRB at this institution.
3. The IRB approval did not take into consideration any ethical impli­
cations arising from the research being exempt from being “human
subject” under their review.
5.2.2. MapMorph & access
The MapMorph tool is hosted on a free website that is available to
anyone with internet access (https://www.plemonsa.github.io/
MapMorph/). The access provided here is to free educational re­
sources on foundational anthropological theory using data driven evi­
dence to demonstrate evolutionary processes directly influencing
human phenotypic expression. Should the tool be adapted for other
societies through collaborative efforts, the issue of disparate internet
access should be addressed. The modality could be altered so the in­
formation could be disseminated in more appropriate ways (e.g.,
recorded video lectures with associated worksheets or printed manuals).
4. No destructive sampling was necessary.
5. The remains were not damaged, and integrity was upheld through
three-dimensional modeling using non-destructive, blue-light tech­
nology via the Artec Space Spider (Artec 3D, Luxembourg).
6. This project follows the Scientific Working Group for Forensic An­
thropology (SWGANTH) Code of Ethics and Conduct [93], the British
Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology Rec­
ommendations on the Ethical Issues Surrounding 2D and 3D Digital
Imaging of Human Remains [94], and the Code of Ethics of the
American Association of Physical (Biological) Anthropologists [95].
5.2.3. MapMorph & ethics
The MMS trait data used for this project were collected from in­
dividuals housed at the Natural History Museum (NHM) of London.
There is a history of anthropological research on ancestry being mis­
construed and used for modern eugenicist and racist movements, which
is a consideration that should be made when publicly releasing any in­
formation or research on human variation and is included in this
narrative. The content should be clear and direct to avoid content being
taken out of context and being misappropriated. Permission: Permis­
sions were obtained from museum curators to collect these data, which
technically satisfies Squires and colleagues [60] proposed ethical con­
siderations. Further discussion on permission associated with ethics is
discussed in the pathways forward. Education: The intention of
7. Out of respect for the decedents, no identifying factors were included
in order to maintain anonymity of the donors.
8. The website creator ensured that permission was granted via dona­
tion forms signed by the families of each individual donated to the
MSUFAL teaching collection, understanding that the remains will be
used for education and research.
5.2. MapMorph
MapMorph is a pedagogical tool for understanding the evolutionary
forces shaping human variation, dispelling the idea that race is biolog­
ical. This freely available, interactive website provides a map of Africa
with frequency patterns of MMS traits, allowing users to explore how
various traits are present at different frequencies and how climate and
genetics creates patterns in human phenotypic variation. This variation
is continuous across the world and phenotypic traits can be expressed in
all socially-defined races or ancestral groups. The tool aims to educate
users on the concept that while human variation results from population
histories, there are no definitive boundaries that can assign someone to a
specific group. The outdated belief that social race is rooted in biological
truths has had many negative social consequences. When we understand
why we see physical differences between people around us, we can see
that we are all more alike than we are different and begin to ease racial
tensions in the current sociopolitical climate. The goal is to disseminate
anthropological knowledge for aiding in lasting social change through
education.
5.2.1. MapMorph & pedagogy
MapMorph is intended to serve as a supplementary educational tool
used in the classroom. The target audiences are secondary school-aged
children and introductory level college courses. The tool is structured
as various modules with a suggested workflow to guide the users along
the content in a meaningful way. Upon entering the site, students are
presented with background information on the history of race theory
and how these perspectives in anthropological theory have moved
beyond measuring crania for defining and ranking human races to now
Fig. 5. Map of MMS trait variant frequencies for Wide Nasal Aperture Width
by country.
714
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
MapMorph is to dispel racial constructs in the younger generation
through education. Only trait frequency summary information is pre­
sented as a means for discussing geographic trait distributions,
excluding individualizing information as it is not necessary for the
educational goals of this tool. Justification: The data presented on this
tool aims to educate youth and young adults on the intersection of race
and human variation to use anthropological knowledge for bettering
social climates. Respect: Morphological data presented on MapMorph is
anonymized and no photography or 3D images of the individuals are
displayed. This not only provides respect for the decedents and families
but also reduces the risk of the images being used unethically.
6. This project follows the SWGANTH Code of Ethics and Conduct [93],
the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteo­
archaeology Code of Ethics [96], and the Code of Ethics of the
American Association of Physical (Biological) Anthropologists [95].
7. Anonymity of all remains were retained and no individualizing in­
formation is included in the tool.
8. No images were collected or used for this project.
5.2.3.1. MapMorph Responses to Squires and colleagues [60] Guiding
Ethics Questions.
5.3. J-Skel
J-Skel is a tool designed to aid osteologists in the estimation of age
for juvenile human individuals (http://www.j-skel.com; Fig. 6). Most
courses on human skeletal remains in postsecondary educational envi­
ronments focus on adult age cohorts. There is noticeably less emphasis
on the features and morphology of juvenile individuals. While the ma­
jority of forensic cases and individuals encountered in archaeological
contexts are adults, the disproportionate level of education concerning
juvenile osteology is concerning. This topic is rarely discussed in intro­
ductory osteology classes and even infrequently studied in advanced
graduate courses. J-Skel is designed to help fill in one aspect of this gap
in education.
Although necessary and highly informative, adult aging methodol­
ogies are inherently more susceptible to larger age ranges. This is due to
the lived experiences that differentially affect the rates of degenerative
1. This project was deemed exempt from IRB review.
2. Formal approval not needed due to non-living subjects; No ethics
committee in place apart from IRB at this institution.
3. The IRB approval did not take into consideration any ethical impli­
cations arising from the research being exempt from being “human
subject” under their review.
4. No destructive sampling was necessary.
5. The remains were not damaged in any way and were handled
following NHM curatorial standards.
Fig. 6. Landing page for J-Skel: The Digital Age Estimator for Subadult Skeletons.
715
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
sections: 1) illustrations of the bone/elements, 2) descriptions of the
elements and their growth and development patterns, 3) a list of struc­
tures and their fusion stages (as interactive buttons – e.g., the fusion of
pars basilaris to pars lateralis in the occipital bone with the options for
selecting unfused, fusing, or complete fusion), and 4) a box that gives an
estimated age range depending on the state of fusion selected.
The functionality was designed such that users can look at the bone/
element they are trying to score and compare it to the illustrations and
descriptions on the site, select the state of union, and generate an age
estimation (Figs. 7-8). Within each description are the citations used for
that particular element so they can explore a particular bone or topic in
greater depth, if necessary.
changes in skeletal morphology between adult individuals. Juveniles are
not immune to these factors, but the order and rates of osteological
changes during growth and development are more strictly controlled by
genetics than the changes seen in adult skeletons [97–98]. Thus, juvenile
individuals can be more accurately and precisely estimated into discrete
age cohorts than adult individuals given that the context of the indi­
vidual is considered. This results in more exact age estimations that can
have greater impacts relating to forensic cases or bioarchaeological
research questions.
5.3.1. J-Skel & pedagogy
As described above, J-Skel is a program designed to fill in some of the
deficits in juvenile osteological knowledge in postsecondary learning.
While there are multiple methods of age estimation for juvenile in­
dividuals, such as dental formation/eruption and long bone length, JSkel currently only focuses on stages of epiphyseal union. These criteria
were selected largely due to time constraints to create and publish the
program; however, there are plans to add in other methodologies in the
future. Compared to other methods of juvenile age estimation, stages of
epiphyseal union do not require any specialized equipment, only a
macroscopic assessment.
J-Skel is not an intensive program that overwhelms the user with
data. It is designed to give users an introduction to a specific juvenile
skeletal aging method. Most juvenile skeletal aging methods are the
product of White European or American researchers that use European
or American samples. There is still a dearth of regionally and culturally
specific age-related studies concerning non-Western groups. While the
ethics and politics of obtaining these data are difficult to navigate, there
is still an inherent bias in osteological studies. Despite this, J-Skel acts as
a resource within this small but significant topic in biological anthro­
pology, giving students open-access to introductory materials and
possibly an interest in addressing some of these biases.
Users are given a description of the project, how to interact with the
site, and an interactive scalable vector graphic (SVG) of a juvenile
skeleton. Different regions of the skeleton (skull, upper limbs, lower
limbs, thorax, or pelvic girdle) can be selected by clicking on an element
within these regions. This takes the user to a separate page where they
can further select a particular bone from a representative SVG, a list, or
simply by scrolling down the page. The page is then separated into four
5.3.2. J-Skel & access
The research and data used to create J-Skel were modified from
publications that traditionally exist in reference books and research
articles [98–101]. Some institutions have greater access to these re­
sources for students, but books and journal subscriptions cannot be
afforded by all students or universities. By creating an open-access space
where these resources can be used freely, the full effectiveness of the
data used in J-Skel (as well as in the other CHI case studies discussed)
can be reached. Although this website should be able to be accessed by
anyone with an internet connection, it should be emphasized that
epiphyseal unions are a biological phenomenon in all people, but with
variation. Temporal, geographic, and cultural differences affect the
growth and development of bones, resulting in regional patterns. As
noted previously, the majority of the studies conducted by the re­
searchers referenced in this website are on populations that many not be
the most applicable in non-Western contexts.
5.3.3. J-Skel & ethics
All illustrations of skeletal remains in J-Skel were made by the
website creator, based on skeletal remains housed in the MSU Bio­
archaeology Lab. Permission: Permission was given by the lab director
for the use of the remains to create the illustrations. Education: J-Skel
was designed as a tool to estimate the age of juveniles using epiphyseal
union as well as to familiarize students with juvenile osteology. Justi­
fication: This website aims to educate students on human osteology that
is not commonly accessible due to the fragile nature of juvenile remains
Fig. 7. Example of a body regions page for J-Skel. The bone illustrations are clickable SVGs that take the user to the bone that is selected.
716
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
Fig. 8. Photograph, descriptions, epiphyses list, and age estimation for the femur.
and their underrepresentation in donated collections. Respect: The aim
of J-Skel is not to present images of juvenile skeletal remains for shock
value, but to instruct and educate. Out of respect for the individuals,
detailed illustrations were created from the remains so that no photo­
graphs are on the site.
8. Detailed illustrations were created from images of the remains. No
images of juvenile remains are on the website.
6. Pathways TO DIGITAL PEDAGOGY
5.3.3.1. J-Skel Responses to Squires and colleagues [60] Guiding Ethics
Questions.
The next step is to create a pathway to digital pedagogy within
biological anthropology. This is arguably easier said than done. Ques­
tions that should be considered before creating a new tool include: Who
are you trying to reach? How will you ensure your pedagogical tool is
accessible to your intended audience? What is the intentionality for the
tool: a stand-alone educational course, a supplementary tool in the
classroom, and/or for data collection and analysis? How are you ac­
commodating for varying levels of digital fluency between the users?
These questions allow practitioners to begin to ascertain how appro­
priate platforms, media, and various modalities come into play when
trying to reach a variety of individuals. Whether it is public engagement,
higher level education, various learning styles, differential cultural
perspectives on or access to technology, or understanding the techno­
logical capabilities of your audience, it is important to think about these
elements before creating and implementing digital resources. (Fig. 9).
Actionable items can be put forth related to pedagogy, access, and
ethics. First, for pedagogical assessments, creating committees and/or
working groups within professional organizations to evaluate current
state education is one way forward. Assessment questions can include
but are not limited to: Do our programs actually prepare students to be
functioning professionals by today’s standards? What students are we
reaching, and how can we expand this reach? How can we improve
modality? These working groups should be a collaborative effort to
amplify diverse voices and underprivileged students from the ground up,
including non-Western voices with different definitions and beliefs
1. This project was deemed exempt from IRB review.
2. Formal approval not needed due to non-living subjects; No ethics
committee in place apart from IRB at this institution.
3. The IRB approval did not take into consideration any ethical impli­
cations arising from the research being exempt from being “human
subject” under their review.
4. No destructive sampling was necessary.
5. The remains were not damaged in any way and were only photo­
graphed, from which illustrations were created.
6. This project follows the SWGANTH Code of Ethics and Conduct [93],
the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteo­
archaeology Code of Ethics [96], and the Code of Ethics of the
American Association of Physical (Biological) Anthropologists [95].
7. Anonymity was retained as the remains came from an archaeological
expedition.
717
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
Fig. 9. Pathway to digital skeletal pedagogy.
surrounding digital heritage. Second, access is closely related to the
pedagogical pathway incorporating questions related to equity of re­
sources in our field. Additionally, we can ask: In what ways can our
education system be more accessible? What tools and resources are
necessary and appropriate for furthering osteological techniques and
method dissemination? Third, whether related to education or research,
ethical considerations for osteological pedagogy tools and ethical codes
related to skeletal remains are extremely important. While professional
certification is a wonderful way to have field accountability, we recog­
nize the pitfalls surrounding privilege and access related to certification.
When certification is not available in an individual’s working country,
professional organization membership should aim to be obtained. Pas­
salacqua and Pilloud [61] discuss the importance of ethical codes in
biological anthropology, arguing that more rigorous and contextdependent professional standards need to be further developed with
ethics, equity, and community opinions taken into consideration. More
specifically, we strongly believe that following the suggestions from
Squires and colleagues [60] and Errickson & Thompson [46] is a great
step forward. Additionally, we argue that discussions within the pro­
posed working groups are a way to assess how to bolster these frame­
works specifically in a community-first perspective.
We encourage researchers and those creating pedagogical tools
related to skeletal remains to embrace the eight questions to ethically
guide bioarchaeological projects that Squires and colleagues [60] call
for in the field. Although each case study presented technically adheres
to the ethical guidelines presented by Squires and colleagues [60], we
found that these guidelines were easily satisfied and perhaps too vague
for our discipline. We agree that these guiding questions are a great
starting point, but can be improved upon considerably with open con­
versations, perhaps through professional working groups. For example,
our projects adhere to Western codes of ethics (i.e. Question 6), but is
this enough?
For example, the MapMorph project adheres to the Squires and
colleagues [60] guiding questions, as well as Errickson & Thompson’s
[46] principles of ethical distribution (e.g., permission was given by the
NHM curators, the remains are being curated by the NHM with utmost
respect, the use of the data is clear for both educational purposes to
continue to try to dismantle scientific racism [102], and justification
includes that these data are solely being used for education and
research). Even with this context, we feel as though the use of the data
could still be viewed as morally grey, a topic that has been discussed
extensively throughout the museum community [103–110]. The ques­
tion surrounding permission is highlighted here as decedents, their
families, or communities have not given direct permission for the use of
these remains. This is largely due to their unknown provenance as a
result of the colonial history of collecting human remains without con­
sent or documented contexts [104].
Faye [104] discusses the NHM’s perspective on human remains and
adaptation to ethical questions including the 2008 creation of the
Human Remains Unit, their publicly accessible code of ethics [111] and
open information on their collections [112] The museum discusses data
collection through the Human Remains Data Collection Project in which
it aims: “to improve knowledge of holdings of human remains,
particularly in relation to the provenance of individual remains and their
origin” [113, pp. 5]. Currently, the MMS data collected from the NHM
were shared with the curator in an attempt to add to information related
to the skeletal provenance. Moving forward, we encourage others to
work towards these considerations when building digital pedagogical
tools. We have outlined the ways in which we believe our discipline can
move towards equity in accessibility and ethical strategies through
digital, pedagogical tools when research involves human remains.
Developing and designing ways to measure education outcomes and
efficacy of these resources and clear guidelines in forensic disciplines for
creating open-access, digital tools are just a few ways to continue to
move forward.
7. Conclusion
Ethics regarding the physical use of human skeletal remains is still
contentious in biological anthropology [114]. Adding in the digital
perspective, even for positive outcomes of equity and access, does not
make the discussion any easier. We believe that this difficult discussion
should not stop individuals from creating pedagogical tools. Instead, a
benefit of the virtual world, is the ability to change. Going forward, we
are certain that standards and beliefs surrounding the studying of human
remains will change, as we have seen throughout history. With these
tools being digital, we are able to be aware of the continuously changing
environment, adapt to new knowledge, and update digital tools to
reflect the continuous growth of the field.
3D MMS, MapMorph, and J-Skel are three examples of different
pedagogical approaches through digital tools, as well as how to address
and consider a range of accessibility and ethical concerns. 3D MMS is a
way to allow forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology practitioners
and students to train without needing access to a physical skeletal
collection. MapMorph, a website aimed at secondary school-aged
children and introductory level college courses is a great resource that
takes a difficult topic to explain to novice learners and gives them
interactive tools to study both at home and in the classroom. Lastly, JSkel has clear usage for forensic anthropology practitioners and students
when approaching juvenile casework or learning the various ages of
fusion in an interactive, intuitive way.
Going forward, it is important to think critically about the desired
outcome of the pedagogical tool in to properly align the framework with
the intended pedagogy, level of accessibility, and ethical code by asking
some of the questions presented above. The ideal model would aim for
equitable access to training materials on a global scale. This includes
considering integration into the classroom at different levels of educa­
tion, proper avenues of public engagement, and more open-access re­
sources. Implementing these practices can help close the gap between
individuals in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology with disparate
access to resources.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
718
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
the work reported in this paper.
[24] N.V. Passalacqua, M. Pilloud, Education and training in forensic anthropology,
Foren. Anthropol. 3 (2) (2020) 66.
[25] N.V. Passalacqua, M.A. Pilloud, D. Congram, Forensic Anthropology as a
Discipline, Biology 10 (8) (2021) 691.
[26] J.R. Rosen, M. A. Smale, Open digital pedagogy= Critical pedagogy, (2015).
[27] M.A. Sarvary, K.M. Gifford, Engaging students in large classrooms: turning
classical lectures into dialogues using digital pedagogy. Examples, Benefits and
Pitfalls, 2016.
[28] J.T. Hilton, Digital critical dialogue: A process for implementing transformative
discussion practices within online courses in higher education, J. Online Learn.
Teach. 9 (4) (2013) 602–614.
[29] L. Archer, Diversity, equality and higher education: a critical reflection on the ab/
uses of equity discourse within widening participation, Teach. Higher Educat. 12
(5–6) (2007) 635–653.
[30] T. McCowan, Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education, Compare:
J. Comparat. Int. Educat. 46 (4) (2016) 645–665.
[31] W.G. Thomas III, The promise of the digital humanities and the contested nature
of digital scholarship, (2014).
[32] S. Marginson, Higher education and public good, High. Educat, Quart. 65 (4)
(2011) 411–433.
[33] M. Schiltz, Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of
full and immediate open access, PLoS Med. 15 (9) (2018), e1002663.
[34] S. Gershenson, M.S. Polikoff, R. Wang, When paywall goes AWOL: The demand
for open-access education research, Educat. Res. 49 (4) (2020) 254–261.
[35] N.L. Ward, Improving equity and access for low-income and minority youth into
institutions of higher education, Urban Education 41 (1) (2006) 50–70.
[36] P. Suber, Open access overview. Open Access: Unrestricted Access to Published
Research, (2006). 7-12.
[37] H.J. Fossheim, Research on Human Remains: An Ethics of Representativeness, in:
K. Squires, D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Human
Remains: A Global Challenge in Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology,
Springer, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 59–72.
[38] D.G. Jones, The ethical awakening of human anatomy: reassessing the past and
envisioning a more ethical future, in: K. Squires, D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant
(Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Human Remains: A Global Challenge in
Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology, Springer, Switzerland, 2019,
pp. 73–94.
[39] D.G. Jones, Three-dimensional printing in anatomy education: Assessing potential
ethical dimensions, Anat. Sci. Educat. 12 (4) (2019) 435–443.
[40] C.S. Larsen, P.L. Walker, The Ethics of Bioarchaeology, in: T.R. Turner (Ed.),
Biological Anthropology and Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity, State
University of New York Press, New York, 2004, pp. 111–119.
[41] N.V. Passalacqua, M.A. Pilloud, Ethics and professionalism in forensic
anthropology, Academic Press, 2018.
[42] Roberts, C. A. (2019). Ethical and practical challenges of working with
archaeological human remains, with a focus on the UK. In K. Squires, D.
Errickson, & N. Márquez-Grant (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Human Remains (pp.
133-155). Switzerland: Springer.
[43] K. Squires, D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant, Ethical Approaches to Human
Remains: A Global Challenge in Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology,
Springer Nature, 2020.
[44] D.H. Ubelaker, H. Khosrowshahi, Ethical Perspectives in Forensic Anthropology
and Museum Curation in the United States of America, in: K. Squires,
D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Human Remains,
Springer, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 387–400.
[45] T. Biers, Rethinking Purpose, Protocol, and Popularity in Displaying the Dead in
Museums, in: K. Squires, D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant (Eds.), Ethical
Approaches to Human Remains, Springer, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 239–263.
[46] D. Errickson, T.J.U. Thompson, Sharing is not always caring: Social media and the
dead, in: K. Squires, D. Errickson, N. Márquez-Grant (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to
Human Remains, Springer, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 299–313.
[47] C.S. Hirst, S. White, S.E. Smith, Standardisation in 3D Geometric Morphometrics:
Ethics, ownership, and methods, Archaeologies 14 (2) (2018) 272–298.
[48] N. Márquez-Grant, D. Errickson, Ethical considerations: An added dimension, in:
Human remains: Another dimension, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 193–204.
[49] S.E. Smith, C.S. Hirst, 3D data in human remains disciplines: the ethical
challenges, in: Ethical Approaches to Human Remains, Springer, 2019,
pp. 315–346.
[50] E.L. Thompson, Legal and ethical considerations for digital recreations of cultural
heritage, Chap. L. Rev. 20 (2017) 153.
[51] T.R. Turner, Commentary: data sharing and access to information, in: T.R. Turner
(Ed.), Biological Anthropology and Ethics : From Repatriation to Genetic Identity,
State Univ of New York Press, New York, 2005, pp. 281–287.
[52] G.R. Schug, K. Killgrove, A. Atkin, K. Barona, 3D Dead: Ethical Considerations in
Digital Human Osteology, Bioarchaeol. Int. 4 (3–4) (2021) 217–230.
[53] T.R. Turner, J.K. Wagner, G.S. Cabana, Ethics in biological anthropology, Am. J.
Phys. Anthropol. 165 (4) (2018) 939.
[54] L. Turner, From the local to the global: Bioethics and the concept of culture,
J. Med. Philos. 30 (3) (2005) 305–320.
[55] T. Takala, What is wrong with global bioethics? On the limitations of the four
principles approach, Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 10 (1) (2001) 72–77.
[56] M.J. Tosam, Global bioethics and respect for cultural diversity: how do we avoid
moral relativism and moral imperialism? Med. Health Care Philos. 23 (4) (2020)
611–620.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Professor Caroline Fournet and Dr. Helen
Tidy for putting together this special issue. Thank you to Dr. Ethan
Watrall for his support in the Cultural Heritage Informatics Initiative
Fellowship, his suggestions for the technical and functional aspects of
our projects, and instilling the importance of open-access, collaborative
work in the digital humanities. Dr. Carolyn Isaac, thank you for granting
access to the MSUFAL Donated Collection Permission for the 3D MMS
website. Thank you to Dr. Joseph Hefner, for supporting the creation of
the MapMorph and 3D MMS Initiative websites. Thank you to the Nat­
ural History Museum in London and the gracious curators that provided
access and guidance to the skeletal collections used for MapMorph.
Lastly, to our reviewers, thank you for your support, critical discussions,
and time that went into reviewing this manuscript.
References
[1] D. Lewin, D. Lundie, Philosophies of digital pedagogy, Stud. Philos. Educ. 35 (3)
(2016) 235–240.
[2] T. Machet, D. Lowe, C. Gütl, On the potential for using immersive virtual
environments to support laboratory experiment contextualisation, Europ. J. Eng.
Educat. 37 (6) (2012) 527–540.
[3] J. Crawford, K. Butler-Henderson, J. Rudolph, B. Malkawi, M. Glowatz, R. Burton,
S. Lam, COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy
responses, J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 3 (1) (2020) 1–20.
[4] P.K. Jena, Impact of Covid-19 on higher education in India, Int. J. Adv. Educat.
Res. (IJAER) 5 (2020).
[5] P. Poblete, S. McAleer, A.G. Mason, 3D Technology Development and Dental
Education: What Topics Are Best Suited for 3D Learning Resources? Dentist. J. 8
(3) (2020) 95.
[6] T.J.U. Thompson, A.J. Collings, H. Earwaker, G. Horsman, S. Nakhaeizadeh,
U. Parekh, Forensic undergraduate education during and after the COVID-19
imposed lockdown: Strategies and reflections from India and the UK, Forensic Sci.
Int. 316 (2020), 110500.
[7] M. Kissel, S.D. Blum, Let’s talk teaching: Progressive pedagogy in anthropology
courses, Am. J. Human Biol., Early View e23706 (2021).
[8] A. Lane, S. Caird, M. Weller, The potential social, economic and environmental
benefits of MOOCs: operational and historical comparisons with a massive ‘closed
online’course, Open Praxis 6 (2) (2014) 115–123.
[9] Rama Devi, V. N., Vijayalata, Y., Raju, N. V., Murthy, J. N., Praveen, J., & Raju, K.
V. S. (2019). Significance of Digital Technologies in Teaching and Learning: A Case
Study on Finishing School, Griet.
[10] Clarke, T., & Clarke, E. (2009). Born digital? Pedagogy and computer-assisted
learning. Education & Training..
[11] J. Howell, Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity,
Oxford University Press, 2012.
[12] G. Salmon, Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and
pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions, ALT-J 13 (3) (2016)
201–218.
[13] Bali, M. (2018). The “Unbearable” Exclusion of the Digital. Disrupting the Digital
Humanities, Dorothy Kim and Jesse Stommel (eds.). Punctum books, 295-320.
[14] D. Kim, J. Stommel, Disrupting the digital humanities, Punctum books, 2018.
[15] B.V. Murty, K.N. Rao, April). Digital Pedagogy–An Opportunity or a Threat?. In
Proceedings of International Conference on Digital Pedagogies (ICDP), 2019.
[16] J. Knox, Posthumanism and the MOOC: opening the subject of digital education,
Stud. Philos. Educ. 35 (3) (2016) 305–320.
[17] C. Kivunja, Embedding digital pedagogy in pre-service higher education to better
prepare teachers for the digital generation, Int. J. Higher Educat. 2 (4) (2013)
131–142.
[18] I. Jung, J. Lee, A cross-cultural approach to the adoption of open educational
resources in higher education, Br. J. Educat. Technol. 51 (1) (2020) 263–280.
[19] T. Hall, C. Connolly, S.Ó. Grádaigh, K. Burden, M. Kearney, S. Schuck, P. Kosmas,
Education in precarious times: A comparative study across six countries to
identify design priorities for mobile learning in a pandemic, Information and
Learning Sciences, 2020.
[20] F. Pedró, COVID-19 y educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: efectos,
impactos y recomendaciones políticas, Análisis Carolina 36 (1) (2020) 1–15.
[21] A. Aguilera-Hermida, Patricia, et al. “Comparison of students’ use and acceptance
of emergency online learning due to COVID-19 in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and
Turkey.” Education and Information Technologies (2021): 1-23.
[22] L.D. Bauler, K.M. Lesciotto, W. Lackey-Cornelison, Factors Impacting the Rapid
Transition of Anatomy Curricula to an Online Environment in Response to Covid19, Anatom. Sci. Educat. (2021).
[23] N.R. Langley, M. Tersigni-Tarrant, Core Competencies in Forensic Anthropology:
A Framework for Education, Training, and Practice, Forens. Anthropol. 3 (2)
(2020) 76.
719
M.C. Spiros et al.
Science & Justice 62 (2022) 708–720
[86] C. Maier, Evaluating mixed-methods models for the estimation of ancestry from
skeletal remains, Forens. Anthropol. 2 (1) (2019) 45.
[87] M.A. Pilloud, C. Maier, G.R. Scott, J.T. Hefner. Advances in cranial
macromorphoscopic trait and dental morphology analysis for ancestry
estimation. In New Perspectives in Forensic Human Skeletal Identification 2018, (pp.
23-34): Elsevier.
[88] A. Plemons, J.T. Hefner, Ancestry estimation using macromorphoscopic traits,
J. Acad. Foren. Pathol. 6 (3) (2016) 400–412.
[89] A.P. Winburn, B. Algee-Hewitt, Evaluating population affinity estimates in
forensic anthropology: Insights from the forensic anthropology database for
assessing methods accuracy (FADAMA), J. Forensic Sci. 66 (4) (2021)
1210–1219.
[90] R.R. Dunn, M.C. Spiros, K.R. Kamnikar, A.M. Plemons, J.T. Hefner, Ancestry
estimation in forensic anthropology: A review, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Foren. Sci. 2 (4) (2020), e1369.
[91] A.H. Ross, M. Pilloud, The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary
theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
(2021).
[92] N.V. Passalacqua, M.A. Pilloud, Unethical Use of 1985 MOVE Bombing Skeletal
Remains Highlights Inequality in Death Investigations. Retrieved from https://
www.forensicmag.com/575503-Unethical-Use-of-1985-MOVE-Bombing-SkeletalRemains-Highlights-Inequality-in-Death-Investigations/, (2021).
[93] Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology. Code of Ethics and Conduct;
2013. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2018/03/13/swganth_
code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf.
[94] British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO).
BABAO Recommendations on the Ethical Issues Surrounding 2D and 3D Digital
Imaging of Human Remains. (2019a). Retrieved from https://www.babao.org.
uk/assets/Uploads/BABAO-Digitalimaging-code-2019.pdf.
[95] American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). (2003). Code of Ethics
of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Retrieved from https://
physanth.org/documents/3/ethics.pdf.
[96] British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO).
(2019b). Codes of Ethics and Practice. Retrieved from https:// www.babao.org.
uk/assets/Uploads/BABAO-Code-of-Ethics-2019.pdf.
[97] M. Schaefer, S.M. Black, M.C. Schaefer, L. Scheuer (2009). Juvenile osteology:
Elsevier.
[98] C. Cunningham, L. Scheuer, S. Black, Developmental juvenile osteology,
Academic press, 2016.
[99] M. Schaefer, S. Black, Epiphyseal union sequencing: aiding in the recognition and
sorting of commingled remains, J. Forensic Sci. 52 (2) (2007) 277–285.
[100] D.H. Ubelaker, Estimating age at death from immature human skeletons: an
overview, J. Forensic Sci. 32 (5) (1987) 1254–1263.
[101] M.E. Lewis, A. Flavel, Age assessment of child skeletal remains in forensic
contexts, in: Forensic Anthropology and Medicine, Springer, 2006, pp. 243–257.
[102] M.L. Blakey, On the biodeterministic imagination, Archaeol. Dialogues 27 (1)
(2020) 1–16.
[103] Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2005) Guidance for the care of human
remains in museums. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, London.
[104] H. Faye, Understanding human remains repatriation: practice procedures at the
British Museum and the Natural History Museum, Museum Managem.
Curatorship 30 (2) (2015) 138–153, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09647775.2015.1022904.
[105] C. Fforde, Collecting the dead: archaeology and the reburial issue, Duckworth,
London, 2004.
[106] C. Fforde, J. Hubert, P. Turnbull (Eds.), The dead and their possessions:
repatriation in principle, policy and practice, Routledge, London, 2002.
[107] D. Hanchant, Practicalities in the return of remains: the importance of provenance
and the question of unprovenanced remains. (2002). The dead and their
possessions: Repatriation in principle, policy and practice, 312-316.
[108] S. Hedley, The Value of Human Remains in Museum Collections, Public
Archaeology 6 (3) (2007) 193–197, https://doi.org/10.1179/
175355307X243636.
[109] T. Jenkins, Dead bodies: The changing treatment of human remains in British
museum collections and the challenge to the traditional model of the museum,
Mortality, 13:2, (2008) 105 118, DOI: 10.1080/13576270801954419.
[110] J. Lohman, K. Goodnow (Eds.), Human remains and museum practice, UNESCO,
Paris, 2006.
[111] Natural History Museum (NHM). (n.d,a). Code of ethics. Retrieved November 31,
2021, from https://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/governance/code-of-ethics.html.
[112] Natural History Museum (NHM). (n.d,b). Human comparative collection. [Online].
Retrieved November 31, 2021, from https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/
collections/palaeontology-collections/human-comparative-collection.html.
[113] Natural History Museum (NHM). (2010) “Policy on Human Remains 2010”
[Online]. Retrieved November 31, 2021. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/
files/110523nhm_human-remains-policy-2010-update-final-98153.pdf.
[114] Shanna E. Williams, Ann H. Ross, Ethical dilemmas in skeletal collection
utilization: Implications of the Black Lives Matter movement on the anatomical
and anthropological sciences, The Anatomical Record (2021).
[57] L. de Tienda Palop, B.X. Currás, The Dignity of the Dead: Ethical Reflections on
the Archaeology of Human Remains, in: Ethical Approaches to Human Remains,
Springer, 2019, pp. 19–37.
[58] A. Caffell, T. Jakob, ‘The Dead Teach the Living’: Ethical Considerations
Concerning the Management of Collections of Human Remains in Universities, in:
Ethical Approaches to Human Remains, Springer, 2019, pp. 179–209.
[59] T.R. Turner, Ethical issues in human population biology, Curr. Anthropol. 53 (S5)
(2012) S222–S232.
[60] K. Squires, C.A. Roberts, N. Márquez-Grant, Ethical considerations and publishing
in human bioarcheology, Am. J. Biol. Anthropol., Early View (2022) 1–5.
[61] N.V. Passalacqua, M.A. Pilloud, The importance of professional organizations as
disciplinary leaders and the need for meaningful ethical codes in anthropology,
Am. Anthropol. Early View (2022) 1–6.
[62] D.H. Ubelaker, A history of forensic anthropology, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 165
(2018) 915–923.
[63] American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA). (2020). ABFA Policies and
Procedures Manual. http://theabfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020ABFA-Policies-and-Procedures-recert2.pdf.
[64] E. Watrall, Building Scholars and Communities of Practice in Digital Heritage and
Archaeology, Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 7 (2) (2019) 140–151.
[65] Welfare, Public. (2018). Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Title 45 § CFR 46.102(e)(1). https://www.ecfr.
gov/on/2018-07-19/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46.
[66] J.T. Hefner, Cranial nonmetric variation and estimating ancestry, J. Forensic Sci.
54 (5) (2009) 985–995.
[67] J.T. Hefner, The macromorphoscopic databank, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 166 (4)
(2018) 994–1004, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23492.
[68] K.R. Kamnikar, A.M. Plemons, J.T. Hefner, Intraobserver error in
macromorphoscopic trait data, J. Forensic Sci. 63 (2) (2018) 361–370.
[69] M.W. Kenyhercz, A.R. Klales, C.W. Rainwater, S.M. Fredette, The optimized
summed scored attributes method for the classification of US blacks and whites: A
validation study, J. Forensic Sci. 62 (1) (2017) 174–180.
[70] A.R. Klales, M.W. Kenyhercz, Morphological assessment of ancestry using cranial
macromorphoscopics, J. Forensic Sci. 60 (1) (2015) 13–20, https://doi.org/
10.1111/1556-4029.12563.
[71] M.C. Spiros, Standardization of Postcranial Nonmetric Traits and Their Utility in
Ancestry Analysis, Forens. Anthropol. 2 (1) (2019) 29–44.
[72] M.C. Spiros, J.T. Hefner, Ancestry estimation using cranial and postcranial
macromorphoscopic traits, J. Forensic Sci. 65 (3) (2020) 921–929.
[73] M.L. Atkinson, S.D. Tallman, Nonmetric Cranial Trait Variation and Ancestry
Estimation in Asian and Asian-Derived Groups, J. Forensic Sci. 65 (3) (2020)
692–706.
[74] J.T. Hefner, Biological distance analysis, cranial morphoscopic traits, and
ancestry assessment in forensic anthropology, in: Biological Distance Analysis,
Elsevier, 2016, pp. 301–315.
[75] J.T. Hefner, J.F. Byrnes, Globalization, transnationalism, and the analytical
feasibility of ancestry estimation, in: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, CRC
Press, 2019, pp. 51–66.
[76] J.T. Hefner, K.C. Linde, Atlas of Human Cranial Macromorphoscopic Traits,
Academic Press, 2018.
[77] N.P. Herrmann, A. Plemons, E.F. Harris, Estimating ancestry of fragmentary
remains via multiple classifier systems: A study of the Mississippi State asylum
skeletal assemblage, in: Biological Distance Analysis, Elsevier, 2016,
pp. 285–299.
[78] K.R. Kamnikar, J.T.Hefner, T. Monsalve, L.M.B. Florez. Craniometric Variation in
a Regional Sample from Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia: Implications for Forensic
Work in the Americas. Forensic Anthropology, (2021).
[79] C.M. Pink, C. Maier, M.A. Pilloud, J.T. Hefner, Cranial nonmetric and
morphoscopic data sets, in: M. Pilloud, J.T. Hefner (Eds.), Biological Distance
Analysis: Forensic and Bioarchaeological Perspectives, Academic press, San
Diego, CA, 2016, pp. 91–108.
[80] R.C. Redfern, D.R. Gröcke, A.R. Millard, V. Ridgeway, L. Johnson, J.T. Hefner,
Going south of the river: a multidisciplinary analysis of ancestry, mobility and
diet in a population from Roman Southwark, London, J. Archaeol. Sci. 74 (2016)
11–22.
[81] R.C. Redfern, J.T. Hefner, “Officially absent but actually present”:
Bioarchaeological evidence for population diversity in London during the Black
Death, AD 1348–50. (2019). In Bioarchaeology of marginalized people (pp. 69-114):
Elsevier.
[82] M.C. Go, J.T. Hefner, Morphoscopic ancestry estimates in Filipino crania using
multivariate probit regression models, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 172 (3) (2020)
386–401.
[83] J.T. Hefner, M.K. Spradley, B.E. Anderson, Ancestry assessment using random
forest modeling, J. Forensic Sci. 59 (3) (2014) 583–598.
[84] C.V. Hurst, Morphoscopic Trait Expressions Used to Identify Southwest Hispanics,
J. Forensic Sci. 57 (4) (2012) 859–865, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15564029.2012.02080.x.
[85] E.N. L’Abbe, C. Van Rooyen, S.P. Nawrocki, P.J. Becker, An evaluation of nonmetric cranial traits used to estimate ancestry in a South African sample, Forensic
Sci. Int. 209 (2011) 1–3.
720