Distinct positions of genetic and oral histories: Perspectives from India.

Over the past decade, genomic data have contributed to several insights on global human population histories. These studies have been met both with interest and critically, particularly by populations with oral histories that are records of their past and often reference their origins. While several studies have reported concordance between oral and genetic histories, there is potential for tension that may stem from genetic histories being prioritized or used to confirm community-based knowledge and ethnography, especially if they differ. To investigate the interplay between oral and genetic histories, we focused on the southwestern region of India and analyzed whole-genome sequence data from 156 individuals identifying as Bunt, Kodava, Nair, and Kapla. We supplemented limited anthropological records on these populations with oral history accounts from community members and historical literature, focusing on references to non-local origins such as the ancient Scythians in the case of Bunt, Kodava, and Nair, members of Alexander the Great's army for the Kodava, and an African-related source for Kapla. We found these populations to be genetically most similar to other Indian populations, with the Kapla more similar to South Indian tribal populations that maximize a genetic ancestry related to Ancient Ancestral South Indians. We did not find evidence of additional genetic sources in the study populations than those known to have contributed to many other present-day South Asian populations. Our results demonstrate that oral and genetic histories may not always provide consistent accounts of population origins and motivate further community-engaged, multi-disciplinary investigations of non-local origin stories in these communities.

Lessons learned in the practice of community-based participatory research with community partner collaboration in study design and implementation: the community scientist model.

Engagement of community participation is an innovative driver of modern research. However, to benefit the communities being studied, it is imperative to continuously evaluate ethical considerations, the relationship dynamic between researchers and community members, and the responsiveness of research teams to the needs and preferences of communities. Northwestern University's Center for Health Equity Transformation founded a community scientist program in 2018 that implemented a study using the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model. This project is an ongoing study of heavy metal exposure by geographic location in Chicago. Community scientists from various backgrounds, communities, and organizations formed an advisory panel, partnering with the cancer research team. This commentary describes lessons learned in structuring meaningful community involvement and benefit in CBPR, with a focus on three lessons learned that relate to ethics, relationships, and responsiveness. Our findings lay new groundwork for iteratively shaping best practices in CBPR.