At the 2021 meeting of the American Association of Biological Anthropologists, the “Ethics and Best Practices of Studying Contemporary Human Populations” symposium brought together a diverse panel of scientists to address the growing concerns related to consent, communication, and ethical practices in biological anthropology research. Drawing from historical parallels and current practices, the panel underscored the responsibilities of researchers to engage transparently and respectfully with the subjects of their studies. This article summarizes some of the topics raised and debated at that meeting, including the specific challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting surge in studies utilizing biological data from diverse populations, and the meaning of informed consent, genetic privacy, and data justice. The authors emphasize the importance of diversity and inclusion within research teams and leadership roles, and the role this can play in reshaping research approaches and fostering innovation in our field. They challenge the traditional notions of informed consent and encourage a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges the historical context and respects refusals as a form of knowledge production. The diverse perspectives shared at the symposium offer a glimpse into the ongoing efforts of biological anthropologists to navigate ethical challenges in contemporary human population studies. The collective aim is to spark sustained conversations and collaborative endeavors within biological anthropology and to promote continuous improvement in ethical standards and best practices.

Anthropologists have challenged bioethicists to incorporate more holistic approaches to applying ethics in real-world situations. Where bioethicists tend to use systematic philosophical approaches to moral dilemmas, anthropologists apply malleable approaches designed to be responsive to variable cultural contexts. For example, in decision making anthropologists emphasize the importance of community and the effects of social issues, political economy, and cultural tradition. This difference in approaches contributes to the contentious relationship between anthropologists and bioethicists. Despite nuanced perspectives, anthropologists have not enjoyed a durable role in shaping contemporary bioethics. This lack of nuance becomes problematic when researchers attempt to reconcile ethical issues against a rigid standard of morality, rather than what Patricia Marshall defines as a “culturally constituted and continually evolving” process. Reflecting on the institutional review board (IRB) review of the author's work with African descendants in the United States and Nigeria, this discussion covers the importance of conceptualizing bioethics as a dynamic issue, especially when working with communities abroad. Comparing these review processes reveals the organizational structures, influenced by culture and society, that impact decision making in respective communities. This contribution to the special issue suggests that a focus on how IRB reviews are done can also offer insights and contextualization into community decision making. Within a cross-cultural setting, considerations of the IRB review processes can lead to more informed conversations on bioethics and can aid researchers in applying more holistic approaches to study design.

Work in biological anthropology and human biology that engages with, extracts, manipulates, analyzes, and disseminates biological data from and associated with people requires serious ethical investment as central to method, theory, and practice. However, ethics is not enough. Moving beyond a call for better (or more) ethics, there is a core need for anthropological, historical, antiracist/anticolonialist method and theory in dealing with human data (existing, newly collected, and future collections). But there are structures in the academy, historical, financial, hierarchical, discriminatory, that impede sincere and effective actions to make such changes. Encouragingly, calls for structural change and some actions entailing it are under way. But individual efforts are not enough—systemic, profession-level processes need to be addressed.

In 2023 and 2024, a wave of anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) legislation has been passed in multiple states, representing a dramatic reversal from 2019–2022, when violence and systemic injustices against minority individuals were highlighted and DEI measures increased. In forensic anthropology, where practitioners frequently work with remains of individuals from marginalized identities, these events have forced a necessary period of disciplinary and individual self-reflection regarding our complicity in the entrenched racism and cis-heteropatriarchy that underlies our society. This article reflects on the role that professional forensic science organizations play in perpetuating and/or combatting inequity. It discusses how recent anti-DEI legislation negatively impacts forensic science, hurting both practitioners and scholarly output, and the ethical responsibilities of professional organizations to publicly affirm support for minority members and contradict scientific misinformation around these legislative measures. In particular, the authors highlight how the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) has responded—often with silence and a lack of meaningful change—and propose potential remedies to promote long-term equitable changes both within the AAFS and external to it. The role of professional organizations in supporting all of their members, and good science, is more important now than ever, and it is time we expect and demand more from them.