The conversation
Rights of the dead and the living clash when scientists extract DNA from human remains
Who decides for the dead, like this Egyptian mummy? AP Photo / Ric FeldThe remains of a 15-cm mummy from Chile are not an alien from space, according to the research. The tiny body with its strange features – a pointed head, elongated bones – was the subject of a heated debate about whether a UFO could have left it behind. Scientists had access to the body, which is now in a private collection, and their DNA tests proved that the remains are from a human fetus. The underdeveloped girl suffered from a bone disease and was the daughter of an unknown woman from Atacama. This study should end the mummy controversy. Instead, he lit another. The mummified fetus from the Atacama region in Chile. Bhattacharya S et al. 2018, CC BY authorities in Chile denounced the survey. They believe that a looter stole the girl from her grave and took her out of the country illegally. The Chilean Society for Biological Anthropology issued a strong statement. He asked, “Could you imagine the same study carried out using the corpse of an aborted baby in Europe or America?” As an archaeologist, I share the excitement about how technology and techniques for studying DNA are advancing. As never before, the mysteries of our bodies and stories are finding exciting answers – from the revelation that humans crossed with Neanderthals, to how Britain was populated, to the riddle of a beheaded Egyptian mummy. But I have also closely studied the history of collecting human remains for science. I am seriously concerned that the current “bone race” to make new genetic discoveries has triggered an ethical crisis. Plundering skulls for science We have seen a race for human remains before. More than a century ago, anthropologists were eager to gather collections of skeletons. They were building a science of humanity and needed samples of skulls and bones to determine evolutionary history and define the characteristics of human races. Museums were crazy about skeletons at the turn of the 20th century. Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums, CC BY Researchers emptied cemeteries and excavated ancient tombs. They took skulls from massacre sites. “It is a very unpleasant job to steal bones from a grave,” mumbled the father of anthropology, Franz Boas, “but what’s the use, someone has to do that.” The case of Qisuk, an Inuit man, provides an especially striking example. In 1897, explorer Robert Peary brought Qisuk and five others from Greenland to New York, 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 burial to deceive his 8-year-old surviving son, then dissected the body and disinfected the bones. Qisuk’s skeleton was assembled and hung at the American Museum of Natural History. (It is still questioned today whether Qisuk was just stored in the museum or put on public display.) In the late 20th century, US museums kept the remains of some 200,000 Native American skeletons. These skeletons helped to write the history of the American continent and promote an appreciation for native cultures. However, the insights gained from these collected remains have come at a high price: the religious freedoms and human rights of Native Americans have been systematically violated. Many Native Americans believe that the spirits of their ancestors were left to wander. Others insist that all ancestors must receive honor and their graves must be protected. Today, a US federal law provides for the return of stolen skeletons. Still, the legacy of these collections will haunt us for generations. Many Native Americans are deeply suspicious of archaeologists. And even after almost 30 years of active repatriation of remains, there are still more than 100,000 skeletons in US museums. By my estimation, it will take 238 years to return these remains at this rate – if ever they will be returned. Even non-destructive research methods – such as the CT scan that is to be performed on this 550-year-old Peruvian child mummy – raise ethical questions. US Navy / Samantha A. Lewis, CC BY Seeking consent Scientists have long ceased to ask basic ethical questions: Who should control collections of remains? What are the positive and negative consequences of skeleton-based studies? And how can scientists work to improve, rather than undermine, the rights of those who study? One place to look for answers is the Belmont Report. Published in 1979, this was the response of the scientific community to the Tuskegee Study. Over the past 40 years, the United States government has denied medical treatment to more than 400 blacks infected with syphilis, to monitor the disease’s progress. After the resulting scandal, the Belmont Report insisted that biomedical researchers must respect people, try to do good and avoid harm and fairly distribute the burdens and benefits of research. Although these guidelines were aimed at living subjects, they provide a framework for considering research on the dead. After all, research on the dead ends up affecting the living. One way to ensure these protections is to seek informed consent from individuals, relatives, communities or legal authorities before conducting the studies. In some cases, the consultation may be unjustified. A skeleton of our oldest human ancestor, 300,000 years old, is a heritage that we could all claim. However, a 40-year-old birth defect fetus – even one sensationalized as an alien from space – probably has relatives and a community that should be considered. Between these two extremes is the future of ethical engagement in DNA research. Are they human specimens? In its defense, the magazine Genome Research, which published the analysis of the Chilean mummy, said that the “specimen” – the girl – did not require special ethical consideration. She does not qualify legally as a “human subject” because she is not alive. Thus, disregarding the rights of descendants, the editors only concluded that the controversy “highlights the evolutionary nature of this field of research and led to our commitment to initiate discussions in the community”. To be sure, these discussions are desperately needed. In the same week that the mummy’s story made headlines, The New York Times published a profile of Harvard geneticist David Reich. The article celebrates how advances in DNA research have led to sudden and bright advances in our understanding of human evolution and history. Reich said his dream is “to find ancient DNA from all cultures known to archeology around the world”. It is a beautiful aspiration. But both scientists and society now know how to ask: where will this DNA come from? Who will give your consent? This article was republished from The Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Read more: Kennewick Man will be buried again, but the dilemmas surrounding human remains will not. Foundation for Anthropological Research.