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

We are a group of archaeologists, anthropologists, curators and geneticists representing diverse global communities and 31 countries. All of us met in a virtual workshop dedicated to ethics in ancient DNA research held in November 2020. There was widespread agreement that globally applicable ethical guidelines are needed, but that recent recommendations grounded in discussion about research on human remains from North America are not always generalizable worldwide. Here we propose the following globally applicable guidelines, taking into consideration diverse contexts. These hold that: (1) researchers must ensure that all regulations were followed in the places where they work and from which the human remains derived; (2) researchers must prepare a detailed plan prior to beginning any study; (3) researchers must minimize damage to human remains; (4) researchers must ensure that data are made available following publication to allow critical re-examination of scientific findings; and (5) researchers must engage with other stakeholders from the beginning of a study and ensure respect and sensitivity to stakeholder perspectives. We commit to adhering to these guidelines and expect they will promote a high ethical standard in DNA research on human remains going forward.

A genetic history of the pre-contact Caribbean.

Humans settled the Caribbean about 6,000 years ago, and ceramic use and intensified agriculture mark a shift from the Archaic to the Ceramic Age at around 2,500 years ago1-3. Here we report genome-wide data from 174 ancient individuals from The Bahamas, Haiti and the Dominican Republic (collectively, Hispaniola), Puerto Rico, Curaçao and Venezuela, which we co-analysed with 89 previously published ancient individuals. Stone-tool-using Caribbean people, who first entered the Caribbean during the Archaic Age, derive from a deeply divergent population that is closest to Central and northern South American individuals; contrary to previous work4, we find no support for ancestry contributed by a population related to North American individuals. Archaic-related lineages were >98% replaced by a genetically homogeneous ceramic-using population related to speakers of languages in the Arawak family from northeast South America; these people moved through the Lesser Antilles and into the Greater Antilles at least 1,700 years ago, introducing ancestry that is still present. Ancient Caribbean people avoided close kin unions despite limited mate pools that reflect small effective population sizes, which we estimate to be a minimum of 500-1,500 and a maximum of 1,530-8,150 individuals on the combined islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola in the dozens of generations before the individuals who we analysed lived. Census sizes are unlikely to be more than tenfold larger than effective population sizes, so previous pan-Caribbean estimates of hundreds of thousands of people are too large5,6. Confirming a small and interconnected Ceramic Age population7, we detect 19 pairs of cross-island cousins, close relatives buried around 75 km apart in Hispaniola and low genetic differentiation across islands. Genetic continuity across transitions in pottery styles reveals that cultural changes during the Ceramic Age were not driven by migration of genetically differentiated groups from the mainland, but instead reflected interactions within an interconnected Caribbean world1,8.

On the moral status of hominins.

This article evaluates the moral status of hominins, and obligations we may have towards them. In exploring these ethical considerations, I consider one of the most recent hominin finds: the 'graveyard' of Homo naledi in the Dinaledi caves at the Cradle of Humankind in South Africa. I argue that findings about H. naledi establish a pro tanto duty not to excavate their remains.

[Forensic analysis in tribal art and scientific integrity]. / Analyse médico-légale dans les arts premiers et intégrité scientifique.

TITLE: Analyse médico-légale dans les arts premiers et intégrité scientifique. ABSTRACT: La communauté scientifique, dans son ensemble, se préoccupe de plus en plus des questions de déontologie et d'intégrité de la recherche. Au cours de notre travail de thèse portant sur les intérêts et les limites de l'étude des œuvres d'art premier, nous avons été amenés à réfléchir sur la place de l'intégrité scientifique dans nos recherches. Nous avons observé que celle-ci ainsi que ses manquements pouvaient impliquer différents acteurs : la communauté scientifique, mais également les communautés autochtones desquelles provenaient les œuvres que nous étudions, et la communauté du marché de l'art. Nous avons donc voulu comprendre comment un manquement à l'intégrité de la recherche pouvait être préjudiciable pour la science, mais également en affecter les différents acteurs. Pour cela, nous nous sommes intéressés à la circulation des œuvres d'art premier★, et plus particulièrement à leur restitution, cette dernière faisant intervenir les différents acteurs que nous avons évoqués. Nous présentons ici une courte analyse de nos observations et quelques visées prospectives.

'Diverse epistemologies', truth and archaeology: in defence of realism.

In a recent journal article, as well as in a recent book chapter, in which she critiques my position on 'indigenous knowledge', Lesley Green of the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Cape Town argues that 'diverse epistemologies ought to be evaluated not on their capacity to express a strict realism but on their ability to advance understanding'. In order to examine the implications of Green's arguments, and of Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin's work in this regard, I apply them to a well-known controversy between Native American (or First Nations) creationism and archaeology. I argue that issues in social justice should be distinguished from issues in epistemology. Moreover, in tightening in this paper the link between knowledge and truth, I attempt to defend science as a 'privileged way of seeing the world'. The analysis of truth, and of related concepts like reality and 'the way the world is', will assume a central role here. I contend that, ultimately, the only coherent and consistent position is a realist view of the pertinent issues and ideas.

Archaeological politics and public interest in paleoamerican studies: lessons from Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man.

This paper discusses the Kennewick lawsuit as it relates to the intended purposes of NAGPRA. It also reflects upon comments made by Swedlund and Anderson (1999) in a recent American Antiquity Forum, which conceptually linked two ancient skeletons, Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man. Their assertions indicate the need for clarifying specific issues and events pertaining to the case. We comment on how times have changed with the passage of NAGPRA, how differently these two skeletons have been treated by the media and the scientists interested in them, and show how discussions of biological affiliation have relevance. There is still much to be learned from Kennewick Man and Gordon Creek Woman. But attempts to bring the concept of race or racial typing into the picture show misunderstanding regarding the use of morphological data in tracing population historical relationships, not to mention obfuscating the scientific issues they raise.