1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
  4. Volume 23, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volume 23, 2022

Ethical Guidance in Human Paleogenomics: New and Ongoing Perspectives

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the study of ancient genomes from Ancestral humans, or human paleogenomic research, has expanded rapidly in both scale and scope. Ethical discourse has subsequently emerged to address issues of social responsibility and scientific robusticity in conducting research. Here, we highlight and contextualize the primary sources of professional ethical guidance aimed at paleogenomic researchers. We describe the tension among existing guidelines, while addressing core issues such as consent, destructive research methods, and data access and management. Currently, there is a dissonance between guidelines that focus on scientific outcomes and those that hold scientists accountable to stakeholder communities,such as descendants. Thus, we provide additional tools to navigate the complexities of ancient DNA research while centering engagement with stakeholder communities in the scientific process.

Keyword(s): ancient DNA, consent, ethics, Indigenous, paleogenomics, stakeholders
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239
2022-08-31
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/23/1/annurev-genom-120621-090239.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Alpaslan-Roodenberg S, Anthony D, Babiker H, Bánffy E, Booth T et al. 2021. Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines. Nature 599:41–46
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Am. J. Med. Genet. 2010. After Havasupai litigation, Native Americans wary of genetic research. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 152A:ix
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Anagnostou P, Capocasa M, Milia N, Sanna E, Battaggia C et al. 2015. When data sharing gets close to 100%: what human paleogenetics can teach the open science movement. PLOS ONE 10:e0121409
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Arbour L, Cook D. 2006. DNA on loan: issues to consider when carrying out genetic research with aboriginal families and communities. J. Commun. Genet. 9:153–60
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Atalay S. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. Am. Indian Q. 30:280–310
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Atalay S. 2007. Global application of Indigenous archaeology: community based participatory research in Turkey. Archaeologies 3:249–70
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Atalay S. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  8. 8.
    Austin RM, Sholts SB, Williams L, Kistler L, Hofman CA. 2019. Opinion: to curate the molecular past, museums need a carefully considered set of best practices. PNAS 116:1471–74
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Bader AC, Carbaugh AE, Bardill J, Malhi RS, Petzelt B, Mitchell J 2020. Building relationships to shift accountability: doing paleogenomic research with Indigenous nations and Ancestors. Working with and for Ancestors: Collaboration in the Care and Study of Ancestral Remains CH Meloche, L Spake, KL Nichols 166–77 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Bardill J, Bader AC, Garrison NA, Bolnick DA, Raff JA et al. 2018. Advancing the ethics of paleogenomics. Science 360:384–85
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Battle-Baptiste W. 2017. Black Feminist Archaeology New York: Routledge
  12. 12.
    Beauchamp TL. 2011. Informed consent: its history, meaning, and present challenges. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 20:515–23
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Behar DM, Rosset S, Blue-Smith J, Balanovsky O, Tzur S et al. 2007. The Genographic Project public participation mitochondrial DNA database. PLOS Genet 3:e104
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Benn Torres J. 2021. Who does our research serve? Paper presented at the Ethical Futures for Curation, Research, and Training in Biological Anthropology Conference, Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC: Nov. 14–17
  15. 15.
    Bhambra GK, Holmwood J. 2021. Colonialism and Modern Social Theory Cambridge, UK: Polity
  16. 16.
    Bolnick DA, Bonine HM, Mata-Míguez J, Kemp BM, Snow MH, LeBlanc SA. 2012. Nondestructive sampling of human skeletal remains yields ancient nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 147:293–300
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Boulton G, Rawlins M, Vallance P, Walport M. 2011. Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data. Lancet N. Am. Ed. 377:1633–35
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Brandt AM. 1978. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Cent. Rep. 8:21–29
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Bruning SB. 2006. Complex legal legacies: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientific study, and Kennewick Man. Am. Antiq. 71:501–21
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare HJA, Kaye J, Beck S, Bentzen HB et al. 2017. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med. Ethics 18:4
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Callaway E. 2017. Stop hoarding ancient bones, plead archaeologists. Nature Aug. 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22445
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Campbell EG, Louis KS, Blumenthal D. 1998. Looking a gift horse in the mouth: corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA 279:995–99
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL, Holbrook J, Lovett R et al. 2020. The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19:43
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Cassell EJ. 2000. The principles of the Belmont report revisited: How have respect for persons, beneficence, and justice been applied to clinical medicine?. Hastings Cent. Rep. 30:12–21
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Chatters JC, Kennett DJ, Asmerom Y, Kemp BM, Polyak V et al. 2014. Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans. Science 344:750–54
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn J et al. 2002. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J. Law Med. Ethics 30:170–78
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Citron DK, Solove DJ. 2022. Privacy harms. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 102:793–863
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Claw KG, Anderson MZ, Begay RL, Tsosie KS, Fox K et al. 2018. A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nat. Commun. 9:2957
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Claw KG, Lippert D, Bardill J, Cordova A, Fox K et al. 2017. Chaco Canyon dig unearths ethical concerns. Hum. Biol. 89:177–80
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Colwell-Chanthaphonh C 2012. Archaeology and Indigenous collaboration. Archaeological Theory Today I Hodder 267–91 Cambridge, UK: Polity. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Constantin A. 2018. Human subject research: international and regional human rights standards. Health Hum. Rights 20:137–48
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Cortez AD, Bolnick DA, Nicholas G, Bardill J, Colwell C. 2021. An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study. J. Soc. Archaeol. 21:157–78
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Counc. Int. Organ. Med. Sci. 2016. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Geneva: Counc. Int. Organ. Med. Sci., 4th ed.. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
  34. 34.
    Cramer M. 2021. DNA confirms Sitting Bull was South Dakota man's great-grandfather. New York Times Oct. 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/sitting-bull-dna-great-grandson.html
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Dalton R. 2004. When two tribes go to war. Nature 430:500–2
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    DeWitte SN. 2015. Bioarchaeology and the ethics of research using human skeletal remains. Hist. Compass 13:10–19
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Dunnavant J, Justinvil D, Colwell C. 2021. Craft an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Nature 593:337–40
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Einav S, Ranzani OT. 2020. Focus on better care and ethics: Are medical ethics lagging behind the development of new medical technologies?. Intensive Care Med. 46:1611–13
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Fine-Dare KS. 2002. Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
  40. 40.
    Fleskes RE, Ofunniyin AA, Gilmore JK, Poplin E, Abel SM et al. 2021. Ancestry, health, and lived experiences of enslaved Africans in 18th century Charleston: an osteobiographical analysis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 175:3–24
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Forssén A, Meland E, Hetlevik I, Strand R. 2011. Rethinking scientific responsibility. J. Med. Ethics 37:299–302
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Fox K. 2020. The illusion of inclusion—the “All of Us” research program and Indigenous peoples’ DNA. N. Engl. J. Med. 383:411–13
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Fox K, Hawks J. 2019. Use ancient remains more wisely. Nature 572:581–83
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Franklin M. 2001. A Black feminist-inspired archaeology?. J. Soc. Archaeol. 1:108–25
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–55
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Garrison NA. 2013. Genomic justice for Native Americans: impact of the Havasupai Case on genetic research. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38:201–23
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Garrison NA, Carroll SR, Hudson M. 2020. Entwined processes: rescripting consent and strengthening governance in genomics research with Indigenous communities. J. Law Med. Ethics 48:218–20
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Garrison NA, Cho MK. 2013. Awareness and acceptable practices: IRB and researcher reflections on the Havasupai lawsuit. AJOB Prim. Res. 4:55–63
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Garrison NA, Hudson M, Ballantyne LL, Garba I, Martinez A et al. 2019. Genomic research through an Indigenous lens: understanding the expectations. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 20:495–517
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Gasser U, Ienca M, Scheibner J, Sleigh J, Vayena E. 2020. Digital tools against COVID-19: taxonomy, ethical challenges, and navigation aid. Lancet Digit. Health 2:e425–34
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Gibbon VE. 2020. African ancient DNA research requires robust ethics and permission protocols. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21:645–47
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Gibbons A. 2016. Ancient DNA divide. Science 352:1384–87
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW, Maricic T, Stenzel U et al. 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328:710–22
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Haraway D. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14:575–99
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Harmon A. 2006. DNA gatherers hit a snag: The tribes don't trust them. New York Times Dec. 10, pp. A1, A38. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/us/10dna.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Harney É, Cheronet O, Fernandes DM, Sirak K, Mah M et al. 2021. A minimally destructive protocol for DNA extraction from ancient teeth. Genome Res. 31:472–83
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Harry D, Kanehe LM, Pennisi E, Greely H. 2006. Genetic research: collecting blood to preserve culture. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine 29:4 https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/genetic-research-collecting-blood-preserve-culture
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents Az. Ct. App. 1 CA-CV 07-0454, 07-0801 2008.)
  59. 59.
    Hublin J-J, Pääbo S, Derevianko AP, Doronichev VB, Golovanova LV et al. 2008. Suggested guidelines for invasive sampling of hominid remains. J. Hum. Evol. 55:756–57
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Hudson M, Garrison NA, Sterling R, Caron NR, Fox K et al. 2020. Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21:377–84
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. 1998. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19:173–202
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Jacobs B, Roffenbender J, Collmann J, Cherry K, Bitsói LL et al. 2010. Bridging the divide between genomic science and indigenous peoples. J. Law Med. Ethics 38:684–96
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Jones JH 2008. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics CC Grady, DD Wendler, EJ Emanuel, FG Miller, RK Lie, RA Crouch 86–96 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Kaestle FA, Horsburgh KA. 2002. Ancient DNA in anthropology: methods, applications, and ethics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 119:Suppl. 3592–130
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Kass NE. 2017. A journey in public health ethics. Perspect. Biol. Med. 60:103–16
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Kennett DJ, Plog S, George RJ, Culleton BJ, Watson AS et al. 2017. Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty. Nat. Commun. 8:14115
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Kitchin R. 2013. Four critiques of open data initiatives. Programmable City http://progcity.maynoothuniversity.ie/2013/11/four-critiques-of-open-data-initiatives
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Ledford H. 2014. Indirect costs: keeping the lights on. Nature 515:326–29
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Lee LM. 2017. A bridge back to the future: public health ethics, bioethics, and environmental ethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 17:5–12
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Lepore J. 2021. When Black history is unearthed, who gets to speak for the dead?. New Yorker Sept. 27. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/04/when-black-history-is-unearthed-who-gets-to-speak-for-the-dead
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Lindo J, Achilli A, Perego UA, Archer D, Valdiosera C et al. 2017. Ancient individuals from the North American Northwest Coast reveal 10,000 years of regional genetic continuity. PNAS 114:4093–98
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Lynott MJ, Wylie A, eds. 1995. Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol.
  73. 73.
    Makarewicz C, Marom N, Bar-Oz G. 2017. Palaeobiology: ensure equal access to ancient DNA. Nature 548:158
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Marchant GE, Allenby BR, Herkert JR. 2011. The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem London: Springer
  75. 75.
    Marciniak S, Perry GH. 2017. Harnessing ancient genomes to study the history of human adaptation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18:659–74
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Mariella P, Brown E, Carter M, Verri V. 2009. Tribally-driven participatory research: state of the practice and potential strategies for the future. J. Health Dispar. Res. Pract. 3:241–58
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Mittelstadt BD, Floridi L. 2016. The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22:303–41
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Moltke I, Korneliussen TS, Seguin-Orlando A, Moreno-Mayar JV, LaPointe E et al. 2021. Identifying a living great-grandson of the Lakota Sioux leader Tatanka Iyotake (Sitting Bull). Sci. Adv. 7:eabh2013
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Mount Isa Mines Ltd v. Pusey 125 C.L.R. 383 1970. (H. Ct. Aust.)
  80. 80.
    Mulligan CJ. 2006. Anthropological applications of ancient DNA: problems and prospects. Am. Antiq. 71:365–80
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Mullings L, Torres JB, Fuentes A, Gravlee CC, Roberts D, Thayer Z. 2021. The biology of racism. Am. Anthropol. 123:671–80
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Natl. Comm. Prot. Hum. Subj. Biomed. Behav. Res. 1978. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research Rep. Natl. Comm. Prot. Hum. Subj. Biomed. Behav. Res. Washington, DC:
  83. 83.
    Natl. Mus. Am. Indian. 2022. Repatriation. National Museum of the American Indian. https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/repatriation
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Natl. Park Serv. 1998. Management of ethnographic resources. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. Washington, DC: Natl. Park Serv https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/nps28/28chap10.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Natl. Park Serv. 2021. Frequently asked questions: Who is responsible for complying with NAGPRA?. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/frequently-asked-questions.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Nicholas GP. 2014. Indigenous archaeology. Oxford Bibliographies: Anthropology JL Jackson Jr. Oxford UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199766567-0073
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Nordmann A, Rip A. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4:273–74
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Nowotny H, Scott PB, Gibbons MT. 2013.. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty New York: Wiley
  89. 89.
    Orlando L, Allaby R, Skoglund P, Der Sarkissian C, Stockhammer PW et al. 2021. Ancient DNA analysis. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1:14
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    O'Rourke DH, Geoffrey Hayes M, Carlyle SW 2000. Ancient DNA studies in physical anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29:217–42
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Prendergast ME, Sawchuk E. 2018. Boots on the ground in Africa's ancient DNA “revolution”: archaeological perspectives on ethics and best practices. Antiquity 92:803–15
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Prictor M, Huebner S, Teare HJA, Burchill L, Kaye J. 2020. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections of genetic heritage: the legal, ethical and practical considerations of a dynamic consent approach to decision making. J. Law Med. Ethics 48:205–17
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Pyburn KA 2011. Engaged archaeology: Whose community?. Which public? In New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology K Okamura, A Matsuda 29–41 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Reynolds A. 2018. Ancient DNA labs. Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1qwXOKV5uoQntgBsxQrxS01YHpbs&ll=52.19802207086801%2C-5.195632878906151&z=5
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Romain PL. 2015. Conflicts of interest in research: looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 8:122–27
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Scarre G 2006. Can archaeology harm the dead?. The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice G Scarre, C Scarre 181–98 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Sealy J. 2003. Managing collections of human remains in South African museums and universities: ethical policy-making and scientific value. S. Afr. J. Sci. 99:238–39
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Sirak KA, Fernandes DM, Cheronet O, Novak M, Gamarra B et al. 2017. A minimally-invasive method for sampling human petrous bones from the cranial base for ancient DNA analysis. BioTechniques 62:283–89
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Sirak KA, Sedig JW. 2019. Balancing analytical goals and anthropological stewardship in the midst of the paleogenomics revolution. World Archaeol. 51:560–73
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Skoglund P, Mathieson I. 2018. Ancient genomics of modern humans: the first decade. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 19:381–404
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Smith RWA, Non AL. 2022. Assessing the achievements and uncertain future of paleoepigenomics. Epigenomics 14:167–73
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Soc. Am. Archaeol. 2021. Statement concerning the treatment of human remains Statement Doc., Soc. Am. Archaeol. Washington, DC: https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-careerpractice/statement-concerning-the-treatment-of-human-remains.pdf
  103. 103.
    Stumpf G. 2009. Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act Rep. Bur. Land Manag., US Dep. Interior Washington, DC: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/646/GuidetoNAGPRA.pdf
  104. 104.
    Swain GR, Burns KA, Etkind P. 2008. Preparedness: medical ethics versus public health ethics. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 14:354–57
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    TallBear K. 2007. Narratives of race and indigeneity in the Genographic Project. J. Law Med. Ethics 35:412–24
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    TallBear K. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  107. 107.
    Tobler R, Rohrlach A, Soubrier J, Bover P, Llamas B et al. 2017. Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia. Nature 544:180–84
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Torres JB, Kittles RA. 2007. The relationship between “race” and genetics in biomedical research. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 9:196–201
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. II The Medical Case 1949. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.
  110. 110.
    Trinidad SB, Blacksher E, Woodbury RB, Hopkins SE, Burke W et al. 2021. Precision medicine research with American Indian and Alaska Native communities: results of a deliberative engagement with tribal leaders. Genet. Med. 24:622–30
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Tsosie KS, Bader AC, Fox K, Bolnick DA, Garrison NA, Smith RWA. 2021. Ancient-DNA researchers write their own rules. Nature 600:37
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Tsosie KS, Begay RL, Fox K, Garrison NA. 2020. Generations of genomes: advances in paleogenomics technology and engagement for Indigenous people of the Americas. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 62:91–96
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Tsosie KS, Claw KG, Garrison NA. 2021. Considering “respect for sovereignty” beyond the Belmont Report and the Common Rule: ethical and legal implications for American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. Am. J. Bioeth. 21:27–30
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Tsosie KS, Fox K, Yracheta JM. 2021. Genomics data: the broken promise is to Indigenous people. Nature 591:529
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Tsosie KS, Yracheta JM, Kolopenuk J, Smith RWA. 2021. Indigenous data sovereignties and data sharing in biological anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 174:183–86
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Tuana N. 2007. Conceptualizing moral literacy. J. Educ. Adm. Hist. 45:364–78
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Turner H. 2020. Cataloguing Culture: Legacies of Colonialism in Museum Documentation Vancouver, Can: UBC Press
  118. 118.
    Turner TR 2012. Biological Anthropology and Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity Albany: State Univ. N.Y. Press
  119. 119.
    Ubelaker DH, Grant LG. 1989. Human skeletal remains: preservation or reburial?. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 32:Suppl. 10249–87
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    UN Comm. Econ. Soc. Cult. Rights. 2020. General comment No. 25 (2020) on science and economic, social and cultural rights (article 15 (1) (b), (2), (3) and (4) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) Doc. E/C.12/GC/25 UN, New York: https://undocs.org/E/C.12/GC/25
  121. 121.
    UN Gen. Assem. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Resolut. 217A UN, New York: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  122. 122.
    UN Gen. Assem. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Decl. A/RES/61/295 UN, New York:
  123. 123.
    UN Off. High Comm. Hum. Rights. 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant Doc. UN, New York: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
  124. 124.
    Vlamis K. 2021. Sitting Bull's great-grandson says he always knew his ancestry but some historians would say ‘you cannot trust the Natives’ oral history.’. Insider Nov. 2. https://www.insider.com/sitting-bull-great-grandson-always-knew-grandfather-dna-confirmation-2021-10
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Wagner JK, Colwell C, Claw KG, Stone AC, Bolnick DA et al. 2020. Fostering responsible research on ancient DNA. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 107:183–95
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Watkins J. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
  127. 127.
    Watkins J. 2005. Through wary eyes: Indigenous perspectives on archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:429–49
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Wells S. 2007. Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project Washington, DC: Natl. Geogr. Books
  129. 129.
    Wickenheiser RA. 2019. A crosswalk from medical bioethics to forensic bioethics. Forensic Sci. Int. Synergy 1:35–44
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJJ, Appleton G, Axton M et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3:160018
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    World Med. Assoc. 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–94
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Wright JL, Wasef S, Heupink TH, Westaway MC, Rasmussen S et al. 2018. Ancient nuclear genomes enable repatriation of Indigenous human remains. Sci. Adv. 4:eaau5064
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239
Loading
Ethical Guidance in Human Paleogenomics: New and Ongoing Perspectives
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 23, 627 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-120621-090239
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error