Ancient-DNA researchers write their own rules

Tsosie, Krystal S.; Bader, Alyssa C.; Fox, Keolu; Bolnick, Deborah A.; Garrison, Nanibaa’ A.; Smith, Rick W. A.

doi:10.1038/d41586-021-03542-y

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a selective focus at the moment by researchers regarding the potential controversies and challenges related to the acquisition and use of samples, as well as the rights to share and distribute the results from the study conducted with those samples. This is truly important and several scholars have expressed their concern about the lack of effective and genuine commitment of some research groups in the search for and implementation of this legitimate objective (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Somel et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2021). These scholars are pushing for a change in current detrimental dynamics, and the absolute need to take into account the interests, demands, historical and political contexts of the current regulations towards the management of AHR in those countries, Indigenous and descendant communities, and institutions, and the potential research it can yield beyond just DNA research (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022).…”

Section: Asymmetries/inequities/imbalances In the Adna Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yáñez

Fuentes

Silva

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Asymmetries/inequities/imbalances In the Adna Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yáñez

Fuentes

Silva

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some indigenous communities have endorsed the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (see above) that reinforce their right to engage in the decision‐making process in accord with indigenous values and collective interests (GIDA, 2019). Recent publications that provide guidelines for ethical ancient DNA research expand the stakeholder communities by stressing the need to engage descendent communities and highlight data sharing as a particular issue of concern (Tsosie et al, 2021; Wagner et al, 2020). Ultimately, greater discussion and collaboration between scholars and indigenous communities support the CARE principles and will lead to richer and more holistic research (e.g.…”

Section: Benefits Challenges and Solutions To More Open Data Sharing ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent publications that provide guidelines for ethical ancient DNA research expand the stakeholder communities by stressing the need to engage descendent communities and highlight data sharing as a particular issue of concern (Tsosie et al, 2021;Wagner et al, 2020).…”

Section: Benefits Challenges and Solutions To More Open Data Sharing ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Data sharing in biological anthropology

Mulligan

Boyer

Turner

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open data sharing democratizes science by making data more equitably available throughout the world. Furthermore, open data sharing improves the reproducibility and quality of research and enables new collaborations powered by the freely available data. Open data are defined as data that can be freely used, reused, and redistributed by anyone. For an interdisciplinary field like biological anthropology, data sharing is critical since one person cannot easily collect data across the domains relevant to our field. The goal of this paper is to encourage broader data sharing in our discipline by exploring the state of data sharing in the field of biological anthropology. Our paper is divided into four parts: the first section describes the benefits, challenges, and emerging solutions to open data sharing; the second section presents the results of our data archiving and sharing survey that was completed by over 700 researchers; the third section presents personal experiences of data sharing by the authors; and the fourth section discusses the strengths of different types of data repositories and provides a list of recommended data repositories.

show abstract

“…Another related, significant set of issues involves analyses that destroy biological tissues (Squires, Booth, & Roberts, 2019). While there is the potential for significant information that cannot be recovered in any other manner concerning such topics as biological (genetic) relatedness, diet, pathogens, and residential history, consideration of destructive sampling should adhere to recommendations for ethical engagement with relevant communities and be justified in terms of the significance of specific research questions to all stake‐holders (Harry, 2009; Somel, 2021; Tsosie, 2021; Wagner et al, 2020).…”

Section: Bioarchaeology Decolonization Transformation and Ethical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty‐first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward

Buikstra

DeWitte

Baker

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents outcomes from a Workshop entitled “Bioarchaeology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward,” which was held at Arizona State University (ASU) on March 6–8, 2020. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU), and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research (CBR, ASU), the Workshop's overall goal was to explore reasons why research proposals submitted by bioarchaeologists, both graduate students and established scholars, fared disproportionately poorly within recent NSF Anthropology Program competitions and to offer advice for increasing success. Therefore, this Workshop comprised 43 international scholars and four advanced graduate students with a history of successful grant acquisition, primarily from the United States. Ultimately, we focused on two related aims: (1) best practices for improving research designs and training and (2) evaluating topics of contemporary significance that reverberate through history and beyond as promising trajectories for bioarchaeological research. Among the former were contextual grounding, research question/hypothesis generation, statistical procedures appropriate for small samples and mixed qualitative/quantitative data, the salience of Bayesian methods, and training program content. Topical foci included ethics, social inequality, identity (including intersectionality), climate change, migration, violence, epidemic disease, adaptability/plasticity, the osteological paradox, and the developmental origins of health and disease. Given the profound changes required globally to address decolonization in the 21st century, this concern also entered many formal and informal discussions.

show abstract

Ancient-DNA researchers write their own rules

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Data sharing in biological anthropology

Twenty‐first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About