Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines (original) (raw)
Related papers
Nature, 2021
We are a group of archaeologists, anthropologists, curators and geneticists representing diverse global communities and 31 countries. All of us met in a virtual workshop dedicated to ethics in ancient DNA research held in November 2020. There was widespread agreement that globally applicable ethical guidelines are needed, but that recent recommendations grounded in discussion about research on human remains from North America are not always generalizable worldwide. Here we propose the following globally applicable guidelines, taking into consideration diverse contexts. These hold that: (1) researchers must ensure that all regulations were followed in the places where they work and from which the human remains derived; (2) researchers must prepare a detailed plan prior to beginning any study; (3)
Nature, 2021
We are a group of archaeologists, anthropologists, curators and geneticists representing diverse global communities and 31 countries. All of us met in a virtual workshop dedicated to ethics in ancient DNA research held in November 2020. There was widespread agreement that globally applicable ethical guidelines are needed, but that recent recommendations grounded in discussion about research on human remains from North America are not always generalizable worldwide. Here we propose the following globally applicable guidelines, taking into consideration diverse contexts. These hold that: (1) researchers must ensure that all regulations were followed in the places where they work and from which the human remains derived; (2) researchers must prepare a detailed plan prior to beginning any study; (3) researchers must minimize damage to human remains; (4) researchers must ensure that data are made available following publication to allow critical re-examination of scientific findings; and (5) researchers must engage with other stakeholders from the beginning of a study and ensure respect and sensitivity to stakeholder perspectives. We commit to adhering to these guidelines and expect they will promote a high ethical standard in DNA research on human remains going forward.
Ethical Guidance in Human Paleogenomics: New and Ongoing Perspectives
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 2022
Over the past two decades, the study of ancient genomes from Ancestral humans, or human paleogenomic research, has expanded rapidly in both scale and scope. Ethical discourse has subsequently emerged to address issues of social responsibility and scientific robusticity in conducting research. Here, we highlight and contextualize the primary sources of professional ethical guidance aimed at paleogenomic researchers. We describe the tension among existing guidelines, while addressing core issues such as consent, destructive research methods, and data access and management. Currently, there is a dissonance between guidelines that focus on scientific outcomes and those that hold scientists accountable to stakeholder communities,such as descendants. Thus, we provide additional tools to navigate the complexities of ancient DNA research while centering engagement with stakeholder communities in the scientific process.
A Code of Ethics for Evidence-Based Research With Ancient Human Remains
As clinical research constantly advances and the concept of evolution becomes a strong and influential part of basic medical research, the absence of a discourse that deals with the use of ancient human remains in evidence-based research is becoming unbearable. While topics such as exhibition and excavation of human remains are established ethical fields of discourse, when faced with instrumentalization of ancient human remains for research (i.e., ancient DNA extractions for disease marker analyses) the answers from traditional ethics or even more practical fields of bio-ethics or more specific biomedical ethics are rare to non-existent. The Centre for Evolutionary Medicine at the University of Zurich solved their needs for discursive action through the writing of a self-given code of ethics which was written in dialogue with the researchers at the Institute and was published online in Sept. 2011: http://evolutionaremedizin.ch/coe/. The philosophico-ethical basis for this a code of € conduct and ethics and the methods are published in this article. Anat Rec, 298:1175–1181, 2015. VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Incidental findings in the use of DNA to identify human remains: An ethical assessment
Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2013
Over the past two decades, DNA analysis has been increasingly used to identify the remains of victims of conflicts and disasters [see, e.g., . Although there are many techniques that investigators can use to facilitate the identification of missing people (e.g., fingerprinting, forensic odontology [dentistry], and forensic anthropology), in cases of badly damaged, fragmented remains, or where antemortem records are unavailable, DNA is often the best way to make a positive individual identification.
The Gap between Ideal and Actual Practice in Ancient DNA Research
This article explores how the competitive quest for bone samples used in genomic analyses of ancient DNA (aDNA) creates a pressing concern for anthropological research. It investigates the premises and effects of this phenomenon-a global hunt for petrous bones as treasured sources of DNA resembling a gold fever-from the situated perspectives of archaeologists and curators of ancient human remains. We present findings from an anonymous questionnaire involving 60 archaeologists and curators from major museums and research projects across the world, complemented with 16 semistructured interviews, providing a unique empirical basis to analyze professional relations and structural issues in this expansive sector of anthropology. Through a thematic analysis, we discuss how industrial-scale ambitions and competition among large laboratories promote colonial attitudes and the hoarding of samples. Comparing our results with recent discussions within the field, we identify a gap between the ideal practices advocated by researchers invested in archaeogenomic research and the actual practices of aDNA research fostered by the tangled incentives of high-impact publications and research grants. This gap between ideal and actual practices unveils a fundamentally asymmetrical academic landscape that engenders conflict and ethical dilemmas.
Community partnerships are fundamental to ethical ancient DNA research
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances , 2022
The ethics of the scientific study of Ancestors has long been debated by archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and, more recently, ancient DNA (aDNA) researchers. This article responds to the article ''Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines'' published in 2021 in Nature by a large group of aDNA researchers and collaborators. We argue that these guidelines do not sufficiently consider the interests of community stakeholders, including descendant communities and communities with potential, but yet unestablished, ties to Ancestors. We focus on three main areas of concern with the guidelines. First is the false separation of ''scientific'' and ''community'' concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members. Second, the commitment of the guidelines' authors to open data ignores the principles and practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Further, the authors argue that involving community members in decisions about publication and data sharing is unethical. We argue that excluding community perspectives on ''ethical'' grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Third, we stress the risks of not consulting communities that have established or potential ties to Ancestors, using two recent examples from the literature. Ancient DNA researchers cannot focus on the lowest common denominator of research practice, the bare minimum that is legally necessary. Instead, they should be leading multidisciplinary efforts to create processes to ensure communities from all regions of the globe are identified and engaged in research that affects them. This will often present challenges, but we see these challenges as part of the research, rather than a distraction from the scientific endeavor. If a research team does not have the capacity to meaningfully engage communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research.