Kuljian begins her book with a brief history of the origins of evolutionary thought, more specifically, their ties with racial thought. In this exploration, she interestingly suggests that South Africa and the United States share similarities in their histories, each country’s tale inextricably connected to the other in a time of explicit racialized thought. By noting the American training and racialized ideas of some of the scientists based in South Africa, like Raymond Dart, she alludes to the international pervasiveness of eugenic thought. Such beliefs were a major driver of the research conducted on the African continent. As a result, South Africa became a laboratory of sorts, and research done there, in many ways, fed the presupposed theories of difference that came from Europe and the United States. Kuljian brilliantly explores the connected histories of colonialism and modern anthropology. Though she recounts these stories in the context of South Africa, specifically tracking Raymond Dart’s ventures, similar stories can be found on the North American continent as well as in other countries that had a colonial past. Kuljian also sheds light on the more unsavory aspects of Dart’s character, highlighting his personal life. As a man filled with contradictions, he struggled to reconcile his beliefs in Ernest Haeckel’s recapitulation theory, which claimed that during development children undergo stages that resemble different evolutionary phases, with his perception towards his son, who had learning disabilities. His belief in this theory led him to conclude that his son “had not evolved sufficiently”.

In many ways, ideas about racial differences were rooted in biased research conducted by the academic and medical community. In Kuljian’s text, we begin to see this as the bodies of the native Khoikhoi and Bantu people were perceived by the academic public as means to an end. The question as to whether they were considered human, too, shaped the perception of the scientific community towards the native population. There was an apparent fascination with this native community as the “missing link” between man and ape.  Yet in the quest to find the missing link, Dart undertook a racialized investigation, and his research interests could not be separated from the social and political context of his time or his peers. He began to mesh unsound ideas, confusing his exploration of ancient artifacts with individuals that were living. The field of comparative anatomy, once used to compare the anatomies of different species, was used to justify the delineation of races as different species in his work. Kuljian highlights that in creating racial classes and names of specimens, the academic community wielded institutional power. She notes that “the matter of who does the naming indicates who holds the power”.  In creating “scientific categories” for racial groups by naming them as four distinct classes of Homo sapiens, Carl Linnaeus, as part of the academic community, assigned authority and legitimacy to the idea of biological racial classes. 

Just as her mentor Stephen J. Gould, explored the complexities of Samuel Morton, a physician at the University of Pennsylvania who undertook a similar task in seeking difference in anatomy between races through his collection of skulls, Kuljian highlights the importance of the social context of scientific investigations. “They go together; the goal of the colonial project and scientific racism fed each other”, she noted.  However, the consequences of racial typology and the colonial project are still evident today. In conversation, Kuljian pointed out that “Both Hertha de Villiers and Phillip Tobias were students of Dart and they really idolized Dart, so they both embraced race typology… [and] continued to teach students who are still doctors today.” 

The book has utmost relevance today, as we continue to understand how vestiges of racial thought, bias and discrimination may still live on in medicine albeit in a more insidious manner. We must not forget that just as medicine played a role in propagating these ideas, it must also play a role in dismantling them. By recognizing how society and preconceived notions may cloud scientific studies, we must engage in a rigorous assessment of our work, and ensure that data, conclusions, and scientific questions are as devoid of these biases as possible.