Credit: DOJ
In October 2021, more than 60 archaeologists, anthropologists, curators and geneticists representing 31 countries proposed five globally applicable guidelines for ethical ancient DNA research in a Nature perspective. The publication of Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. was met with divisive commentary on both sides.
Now, a group of 21 Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars from disciplines spanning the sciences, social sciences, and humanities has published a commentary (Kowal et al.) suggesting that Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. do not sufficiently consider the interests of Indigenous communities.
Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al.’s original guidelines
The five proposed guidelines published by the team in Nature in 2021 are as follows:
- Researchers must ensure that all regulations were followed in the places where they work and from which the human remains derived.
- Researchers must prepare a detailed plan prior to beginning any study.
- Researchers must minimize damage to human remains.
- Researchers must ensure that data are made available following publication to allow critical re-examination of scientific findings.
- Researchers must engage with other stakeholders from the beginning of a study and ensure respect and sensitivity to stakeholder perspectives.
While Kowal et al. have specific concerns about all five guidelines, it is really numbers four and five that the team heavily addresses in their new commentary, published in Human Genetics and Genomics Advance (HGG Advances).
Ethics vs. community
Interestingly, one of Kowal et al.’s biggest concerns lies in the introduction to the guidelines, rather than the guidelines themselves.
The introduction to the guidelines in Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. reads, “We begin with guidelines that address issues of scientific ethics and then return to the topic of ensuring sensitivity of research to perspectives of communities, including Indigenous groups.”
Kowal et al. calls that the false separation of “scientific” and “community” concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members.
“In our view, ‘scientific ethical issues’ cannot and should not be seen as separate from engaging with descendant communities, nor should community engagement be framed as a secondary concern,” say Kowal et al.
The idea of prioritizing science over descendants appears again in Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. when they say “community ethical engagement is context-specific.” The team argues that, in some cases, opening a conversation could prove harmful. They also say there are global differences in the meaning of Indigeneity, and potential harm could come from emphasizing group identity.
For example, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. says, in cases where the identity of the descendant community is not immediately clear, the burden of consulting with communities outweighs the risks of not consulting.
While Kowal et al. acknowledge that consultation may sometimes contribute to a pre-existing conflict, the authors vehemently disagree with the notion that not consulting is the solution.
“If descendant communities cannot be identified or conflicts exist, the ethical course of action is to not proceed with the research until these issues are addressed,” according to Kowal et al.
The authors point to two examples where this already happened with negative consequences—one during a conference presentation at the International Congress of Human Genetics by J.K. Byrnes et al., and another for an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History.
Controversial data sharing
Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al.’s Guideline No. 4 calls for all data generated from aDNA research and projects to be openly shared and published. However, that is in direct opposition to key principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS).
IDS refers to the recognized right of Indigenous peoples to control data from and about their communities and lands. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the international instrument upon which IDS relies—has been endorsed by 182 countries, including at least 17 countries in regions where Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. claim the concept of Indigenous people is “not relevant.”
Interestingly, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. does not mention IDS directly; however, the paper does allude to it and include it in a few citations.
“It has been suggested that stakeholders such as Indigenous groups could be responsible for managing distribution of data after publication to researchers,” reads Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. “However, it is not consistent with professional ethics for researchers to participate in a study where those with a stake in the research findings can deny the sharing of data to qualified researchers whose goal is to critically re-examine the questions covered by the original research agreement.”
Calling that claim absurd, Kowal et al. argue that researchers have just as much stake in study findings as descendants, so why do the scientists get to make the final decision on sharing someone else’s data in a public forum?
“Researchers have clear and significant interest in all research that they conduct, as research can lead to monetary benefit (i.e., further grant funding) and career advancement,” reads Kowal et al. “Excluding community perspectives on ‘ethical’ grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Researchers have an interest in not consulting (particularly if the consultation process may be complex) so that their research more quickly and easily proceeds to publication.”
Overall, Kowal et al. call for a collaborative approach to Indigenous-related projects with no conditions or exceptions made for “complex” situations.
“The key difference between our approach and that of Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. is that 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 descendant communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research,” Kowal et al. conclude.