Analyzing asymmetries and praxis in aDNA research: A bioanthropological critique

Abstract

Recent developments in molecular-biology-oriented studies regarding ancient DNA (aDNA) from human remains have brought into the contemporary discussions within archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and geneticists a set of disputes, tensions, and collaborations that need to be analyzed in practical and epistemological terms. We emphasize the relevance that techno-scientific collaborations have in this context focused mainly on human evolution and the peopling of the world. These international academic collaborations constitute an ecology in which aDNA studies are currently being worked out. An ecosystem that reproduces the geo-political-economic asymmetries within science, and more specifically in aDNA research, which in turn opens the possibility for thinking from an ethical and epistemological perspective about the economic and power differentials and imbalances of these asymmetric relationships. We argue for building a critical conceptual tool kit in order to tackle the problematics emerging from such investigations. We propose and define three core concepts: academic sovereignty, sustainability, and intermediary. Additionally, we offer the term academic vulnerability as a consequence of cultural vulnerability. The frame we offer here provides a structure to interrogate the dynamics of vulnerabilities in the current context of scientific praxis within aDNA research and illustrate the interplay between hegemonic science and the heritage of developing countries.

Recommendations for Sustainable Ancient DNA Research in the Global South: Voices From a New Generation of Paleogenomicists

“…As described by ( Patton, 2020 ), global systems must be contextually sensitive and grounded in the interaction between local and global processes. In aDNA research, this would entail applying global premises of sustainability and justice and maintaining awareness of the historical harms caused by scientific colonialism, extractivism, and other forms of exploitation of Global South nations by Global North researchers ( Argüelles et al, 2022 ). Locally, aDNA researchers must be attuned to the implications of their research, especially regarding heritage regulation and management, knowledge and resource sharing, the development or strengthening of local expertise, involvement of Indigenous communities, and conflicts that may arise with traditional knowledge systems.…”

“…However, in recent years, critics have raised concerns about this “grab-and-go” approach, calling out its extractive nature and lack of engagement or meaningful involvement with local researchers and communities (e.g. ( Bardill et al, 2018 ; Claw et al, 2018 ; Hudson et al, 2020 ; Tsosie et al, 2020 ; Wagner et al, 2020 ; Argüelles et al, 2022 ), more references in 1 ). This practice is particularly conflictive when involving the collection and destruction of samples from nations in the “Global South”–a term often used to identify lower-income countries, many of which have been historically oppressed by colonialism ( Dados and Connell, 2012 )–by laboratories in the “Global North” (the complementary set of countries, many of which earned their higher wealth by colonization and exploitation of “Global South” nations).…”

“…In the last 5–6 years, paleogenomics data generation has been overtaken by the ‘1240k’ capture panel, costing nearly $250 per reaction without accounting for shipping and other export regulatory costs. Despite its early branding as “democratizing” paleogenomics ( Pickrell and Reich, 2014 ), the capture panel remains out of reach for many laboratories in the Global South and may become yet another means of unequitable foreign collaborations ( Argüelles et al, 2022 ).…”

Distinct positions of genetic and oral histories: Perspectives from India

“…While institutional ethical frameworks such as institutional review boards (IRBs) exist, the push for diversification in genomics has, in several regions, not been matched with accountability measures to safeguard the interests of participating populations. A lack of equitable partnerships in the research process often leads to an extractive and imbalanced power dynamic between researchers and participants (Hwang 2008; Haelewaters, Hofmann, and Romero-Olivares 2021; Argüelles, Fuentes, and Yáñez 2022). Moreover, the conflation between self-identities derived from a myriad of sources and life experiences and genetics can lead to biases, misinterpretations, and confusion.…”

Are museums the future of evolutionary medicine?

“…Museums are both managers and holders of biological resource collections, and have an obligation to ensure the respect of these ethical norms. Moreover, museum collections could be considered as a powerful way to promote capacity and capability building to reduce scientific inequalities between nations that curate collections, and nations from where the artefacts originally come from (Fox and Hawks, 2019;Argüelles et al, 2022).…”