2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101265
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ancient DNA studies: Use of ethnonyms and collaborative research in South America

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
2

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
10
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We agreed on the importance of treating human remains with due respect (Aranda et al, 2014). We also subscribe to existing guidelines on ethics and social issues of aDNA studies (e.g., Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Bolnick et al, 2016; Di Fabio Rocca et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2020; Wagner et al, 2020). Therefore, we kept a photographic record of all the teeth processed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We agreed on the importance of treating human remains with due respect (Aranda et al, 2014). We also subscribe to existing guidelines on ethics and social issues of aDNA studies (e.g., Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Bolnick et al, 2016; Di Fabio Rocca et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2020; Wagner et al, 2020). Therefore, we kept a photographic record of all the teeth processed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, we used the smallest amount of material necessary for analyses. In this study, we did not use any ethnonym or essentialized label to name the individuals (Di Fabio Rocca et al, 2021), and are committed to clear and responsible communication of the genetic results, which is only one of the many ways of addressing knowledge about indigenous peoples.…”
Section: Ethics Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this increased technological and analytic capacity has not been separate from the problematic histories and practices in the fields of human evolution, biological anthropology, and archaeology and may have even amplified colonialist, discriminatory, and nepotistic practices (Bardill et al 2018;Bolnick 2016;Cortez et al 2021;Fox and Hawks 2019;Wagner et al 2020). The problematic aspects of aDNA research are centered on the use and abuse of samples; ethical, moral, and legal obligations; formal recognition of and consultation with all stakeholders; respect for diverse cultural considerations; engagement of local communities in research; support of local capabilities/capacities; coauthorship and copresentation; and plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship with the descendent, affiliated, or stakeholder communities (Bardill et al 2018;Di Fabio Rocca et al 2021;Wagner et al 2020; see also Urassa et al 2021).…”
Section: Adna Research In Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Take, for example, the recent overview of sixtyeight aDNA studies (published between 1994 and 2018) involving samples from South America. Di Fabio Rocca et al (2021) found that 44 percent of the publications included no information on the permits granted for analysis and 49 percent had no information on the custody of the human remains. In 24 percent of the articles where no direct reference to permits was made, there was the statement that "local" museums, institutions, and/or researchers "provided" or "facilitated" the samples.…”
Section: Adna Research In Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ethical discussions of genetic research on Ancestors of Indigenous populations have in fact been a subject of debate since the early days of the aDNA field (Harry, 2009; Kaestle & Horsburgh, 2002; O'Rourke et al, 2005; Sealy, 2003). With the development of new technologies and the reduction of DNA sequencing costs, aDNA studies have expanded their geographic coverage, and with it, the ethical concerns surrounding the subject, as we can see from the emerging body of literature (Alpaslan‐Roodenberg et al, 2021; Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Bardill et al, 2018; Cortez et al, 2021; di Fabio Rocca et al, 2021; Fleskes et al, 2022; Fox & Hawks, 2019; Haelewaters et al, 2021; Heidt, 2022; Somel et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2020; Tsosie et al, 2021; Wagner et al, 2020; Wolinsky, 2019; Yáñez et al, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%