Supervised machine learning (SML) is a powerful method for predicting a small number of well-defined output groups (e.g., potential buyers of a certain product) by taking as input a large number of known well-defined measurements (e.g., past purchases, income, ethnicity, gender, credit record, age, favorite color, favorite chewing gum). SML is predicated upon the existence of a training dataset in which the correspondence between the input and output is known to be true. SML has had enormous success in the world of commerce, and this success may have prompted a few scientists to employ it in the study of molecular and genome evolution. Here, we list the properties of SML that make it an unsuitable tool in certain evolutionary studies. In particular, we argue that SML cannot be used in an evolutionary exploratory context for the simple reason that training datasets that are known to be a priori true do not exist. As a case study, we use an SML study in which it was concluded that most human genomes evolve by positive selection through soft selective sweeps (Schrider and Kern 2017). We show that in the absence of legitimate training datasets, Schrider and Kern (2017) used (1) simulations that employ many manipulatable variables and (2) a system of cherry-picking data that would put to shame most modern evangelical exegeses of the Bible. These two factors, in addition to the lack of methodological detail and negative controls, lead us to conclude that all evolutionary inferences derived from so-called SML algorithms (e.g., S-HIC) should be taken with a huge shovel of salt.

The past years saw the rise of genomic biobanks and mega-scale meta-analysis of genomic data that promise to reveal the genetic underpinnings of health and disease. However, the over-representation of Europeans in genomic studies not only limit the global understanding of disease risk and intervention efficacy, but also inhibit viable research into the genomic differences between carriers and patients. Whilst the community has agreed that more diverse samples are required, it is not enough to blindly increase diversity; the diversity must be quantified, compared, and annotated to lead to insight. Genetic annotations from separate biobanks need to be comparable, computable, operate without access to raw data due to privacy concerns. But they must be comparable, both for regular research and to allow international comparison in response to pandemics. Here, we evaluate the appropriateness of commonly used genomic tools used to depict population structure in a standardized and comparable manner. The end goal is to reduce the effects of confounding and learn from genuine variation in genetic effects on phenotypes across populations, which will improve the value of biobanks, locally and internationally, increase the accuracy of association analyses, and inform developmental efforts.

Advancements in DNA methods and biotechnology have enabled forensic scientists to explore the DNA evidence found as part of a criminal investigation on a much more comprehensive and predictive level. This has led to a rise in research into DNA intelligence tools such as phenotypic prediction (i.e., eye and hair colour) and inference of biogeographical ancestry. Both of which can be applied to gain further insights about a scene or sample in question. Although microorganisms have played a role in forensics for decades, investigations were focused on the pathogenicity aspect, mainly to determine the cause and time of death. Recent progress in studying the human microbiome has implicated the potential use of this data in forensics. Since each individual, place, or item has its own microbial pattern, a new suite of tools are now available to be exploited in criminal investigations. Although there is much interest and potential for these emerging metagenomic and microbial forensic tools, best practices and reference ranges need to be established before they are implemented. Here, we discuss existing DNA intelligence tools applied to forensic science, the application of microbial forensics and metagenomics along with the challenges and concerns that future developments entail.