[ad_1]
The conversation
The rights of the living and the living clash as scientists extract DNA from human remains
Who decides for the dead, like this Egyptian mummy? AP Photo / Ric Feld The remains of a 6-inch-long Chilean mummy are not those of an alien from space, research shows. The tiny body with its odd features – a pointed head, elongated bones – had been the subject of fierce debate over whether a UFO could have left it behind. Scientists gained access to the body, which is now in a private collection, and their DNA tests proved the remains were from a human fetus. The undeveloped girl suffered from bone disease and was the child of an unknown local Atacama woman. This study was supposed to end the mummy controversy. Instead, he ignited another. The mummified fetus from the Atacama region of Chile. Bhattacharya S et al. 2018, the CC BY authorities in Chile denounced the research. They believe that a looter looted the girl from her grave and illegally took her out of the country. The Chilean Society for Biological Anthropology released a damning statement. He asked, “Can you imagine the same study done on the dead baby of a person who miscarried in Europe or America?” As an archaeologist, I share the excitement of how technology and techniques for studying DNA are taking a leap forward. Like never before, the mysteries of our bodies and our history find exciting answers – from the revelation that humans crossed paths with Neanderthals, to how Britain was populated, to the riddle of a mummy Egyptian beheaded. But I have also closely studied the history of collecting human remains for science. I am gravely concerned that the current “bone rush” for new genetic discoveries has triggered an ethical crisis. Looting Skulls for Science We’ve seen a scramble for human remains before. Over a century ago, anthropologists were eager to collect collections of skeletons. They were building a science of humanity and needed samples of skulls and bones to determine the history of evolution and define the characteristics of human races. Museums were crazy about skeletons at the turn of the 20th century. Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums, CC BY Researchers have emptied cemeteries and excavated ancient graves. They took skulls from the massacre sites. “It’s a very nasty job to steal bones from a grave,” the father of anthropology, Franz Boas once growled, “but what’s the point, someone has to do it.” The case of Qisuk, an Inuit, provides a particularly glaring example. In 1897, explorer Robert Peary brought Qisuk and five others to New York from Greenland, so that anthropologists could more easily study their culture. Four of them, including Qisuk, soon died of tuberculosis. Anthropologists and doctors conspired to fake Qisuk’s funeral to cheat on his 8-year-old son, then dissected the body and degreased the bones. Qisuk’s skeleton was mounted and hung in the American Museum of Natural History. (It is still questioned today whether Qisuk was only stored in the museum or on display to the public.) At the end of the 20th century, American museums held the remains of some 200,000 Native American skeletons. These skeletons have helped write the history of the Americas and foster an appreciation for Indigenous cultures. Yet the information gleaned from these collected remains came at a cost: the religious freedoms and human rights of Native Americans were systematically violated. Many Native Americans believe that the spirits of their ancestors were left behind. Others insist that all ancestors should be honored and that their graves should be protected. Today, a US federal law provides for the return of the stolen skeletons. Yet the legacy of these collections will haunt us for generations. Many Native Americans are deeply suspicious of archaeologists. And even after nearly 30 years of active repatriation of human remains, there are still more than 100,000 skeletons in American museums. By my estimate, it will take 238 years to return these remains at this rate – if ever they ever returned at all. Even non-destructive research methods – like the CT scan about to be performed on this 550-year-old Peruvian mummy – raise ethical questions. US Navy / Samantha A. Lewis, CC BY Request for consent For too long scientists have not asked basic ethical questions: Who should control collections of human remains? What are the positive and negative consequences of studies based on skeletons? And how can scientists work to improve, rather than undermine, the rights of the people they study? One place to look for answers is the Belmont Report. Published in 1979, it was the scientific community’s response to the Tuskegee study. In 40 years, the US government has denied medical treatment to more than 400 black men infected with syphilis, to track the disease’s progress. In the aftermath of the resulting scandal, the Belmont report insisted that biomedical researchers must respect people, try to do good as well as avoid harm, and fairly distribute the burdens and benefits of the research. Although these guidelines were intended for living subjects, they provide a framework for considering research on the dead. After all, research on the dead ultimately affects the living. One way to ensure these protections is to obtain the informed consent of individuals, parents, communities or legal authorities before conducting studies. In some cases, the consultation may be unwarranted. A skeleton of our first human ancestor, 300,000 years old, is a heritage we could all claim. However, a 40-year-old fetus with birth defects – even a sensational fetus like an alien from space – likely has parents and a community that should be considered. Between these two extremes lies the future of ethical engagement in DNA research. Are humans specimens? In its defense, the journal Genome Research, which published the analysis of the Chilean mummy, said the “specimen” – the girl – did not require special ethical consideration. She is not legally qualified as a “human subject” because she is not alive. Disregarding descendants’ rights, the editors only concluded that the controversy “highlights the evolving nature of this area of research, and has prompted our commitment to initiate community discussions.” Of course, such discussions are absolutely necessary. The same week that the mummy story made headlines, the New York Times published a profile of Harvard geneticist David Reich. The article celebrates how the leap forward in DNA research led to sudden and luminous advances in our understanding of human evolution and history. Reich said his dream was “to find ancient DNA from all known cultures of archeology all over the world.” It is a beautiful aspiration. But scientists and society now know the question is, where will this DNA come from? Who will give consent? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Read more: Kennewick Man will be re-buried, but dilemmas around human remains will not Foundation for Anthropological Research.
[ad_2]
Source link