An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Abstract

In recent years, the field of paleogenomics has grown into an exciting and rapidly advancing area of scientific inquiry. However, scientific work in this field has far outpaced the discipline’s dialogue about research ethics. In particular, Indigenous peoples have argued that the paleogenomics revolution has produced a “vampire science” that perpetuates biocolonialist traditions of extracting Indigenous bodies and heritage without the consent of, or benefits to, the communities who are most affected by this research. In this article, we explore these ethical issues through the case study of a project that sequenced the ancient DNA (aDNA) of nine Ancestral Puebloan people from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. By providing a “thick description” of this controversy, we are able to analyze its metanarratives, periodization, path dependency, and historical contingencies. We conclude that the paleogenomics revolution needs to include an ethical revolution that remakes the field’s values, relationships, forms of accountability, and practices.

Archaeology in 2021: Repatriation, reclamation, and reckoning with historical trauma

“…The dearth of engagement with Indigenous peoples is clearest in scholarship on the first peopling of the lands now known as North America, where debates continue about the precise dating of various sites (e.g., Araujo et al 2021;Boulanger et al 2021;Bourgeon 2021;Eren, Meltzer, and Andrews 2021;Fiedel et al 2021) and the routes of arrival (Cassidy 2021;Easton, Moore, and Mason 2021). There is also an ongoing focus on ancient DNA analyses to help explain human movement, change, and interaction through time (Liu et al 2021), while ethical challenges remain in working with ancestors (Cortez et al 2021;Supernatant 2020;Tsotie, Fox, and Yracheta 2021)…”

Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines

“…Making Indigenous perspectives central is critical in regions with histories of settler colonialism, expropriation of Indigenous lands and artifacts, and persistent disenfranchisement of Indigenous communities; not consulting with communities can cause harm in such contexts 5,6 . In the USA, all ancient Native American remains held in federally funded institutions fall under the purview of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which mandates that institutions consult with and seek to transfer the remains of ancient individuals (culturally identifiable or not) to Indigenous groups.…”

“…Beyond contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge, making data fully available contributes to responsible stewardship of human remains, in that the ability to reuse data reduces the need for further sampling. However, we can envision scenarios in which discussions among stakeholders reveal that it would be ethical to limit the ways in which ancient DNA data can be reused, such as when reporting results from some types of analyses could harm stakeholders, which could outweigh the benefits of fully open data 6 , 10 , 82 . In these cases—which should be identified during a process of engagement prior to the inception of the study—the limitation of data distribution to qualified researchers who agree to only analyze the data for the purpose of reappraising the study findings should be part of the initial research plan.…”

“…The rapid increase in published genome-wide data from ancient humans-from none in 2009 to more than six thousand individuals today-has been accompanied by growing discussions about how to conduct ancient DNA research ethically [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] , building on earlier conversations [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] . The ethics of DNA research has a particular urgency because of the rapid growth of the field, the social and political impacts of studying ancestry, and the fact that ancient DNA work analyses once-living people who must be respected.…”

Pace and space in the practice of aDNA research: Concerns from the periphery

“…Ancient DNA (aDNA) research is characterized by asymmetric relationships between disciplines, institutions, and countries—“core‐peripheral” (Argüelles et al, 2022) or Global North and South (Haelewaters et al, 2021). These asymmetries are driven through practices that have been described as “parachute,” “parasitic,” or “helicopter research” (Haelewaters et al, 2021; Minasny et al, 2020; Minasny & Fiantis, 2018; Stefanoudis et al, 2021), as well as “vampire science” (Cortez et al, 2021; Tallbear, 2007). Regarding these concerns, different research groups recently proposed ethical guidelines, as well as methodological and theoretical insights for conducting research with ancient human remains (AHR) (Alpaslan‐Roodenberg et al, 2021; Bardill et al, 2018; Menéndez et al, 2022; Squires et al, 2022; Wagner et al, 2020).…”