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. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 23 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Pace and space in the practice of aDNA research: Concerns from the periphery

“…On a positive note, there are academic and public well‐founded motivations related to ethnic and cultural identities and sovereignties in the Global North which intertwine to push the big aDNA laboratories (in the core) to develop best practices with proper ethical considerations. This dynamic is being driven mostly by Indigenous researchers belonging to peripheral spaces in the Global North, as well as their allies, and have made visible the need for ethical committees from journals and funding agencies to request transparency and detailed information on permits and consent obtained by researchers (Bardill et al, 2018; Carroll et al, 2022; Cortez et al, 2021; Fleskes et al, 2022; Wagner et al, 2020). Some of these motivations include, but are not limited to, calls for transparency in research projects, accountability with the results obtained, and consent from the Indigenous or descendant communities culturally associated with the AHR, as well as an engagement with its stewardship, management and curation.…”

“…Therefore, we agree with the recent assertions that a better power‐balanced strategy relies on a community‐based research approach, building relationships with the communities ahead of data collection to ensure local voices and concerns are well represented and unfold within their processes and pacing. This approach acts to ensure that the priorities within local communities are considered by respecting the timing and processes of their decision‐making, even if that means a delay in the speed of research and publication time or an outright refusal to participate (e.g., Benjamin, 2016; Fleskes et al, 2022; Radin, 2018). Carroll et al (2022) have described some suggestions for doing this, such as the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) in the context of the United States.…”

“…It is worrying that the issue of the pace of the practice has not been considered in the different guidelines and critiques of the AHR‐aDNA ecosystem. We understand that the main focus of ethical discussions has been on a centrally important specific set of critiques of the aDNA project (Alpaslan‐Roodenberg et al, 2021; Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Fleskes et al, 2022; Haelewaters et al, 2021; Wagner et al, 2020). Nevertheless, our call is also to make room—space—for a substantive discussion of the specific frame of pace and disequilibria between the researchers in the core of aDNA analysis and those in the periphery, where frequently the samples are obtained, and the knowledge of the archeological/anthropological contexts associated to them is built.…”

“…Therefore, our call is oriented towards journal reviewers, editorial boards, and funding agencies to consider changing their policies and demand research projects and publications based on truly grounded engagement between “benefited institutions” and “vulnerable peripheral contexts” or any other stakeholder. This goal could be achieved by requiring the implementation of the well‐established principles published by stakeholders in the literature (e.g., Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Carroll et al, 2022; Claw et al, 2018; Fleskes et al, 2022; Wagner et al, 2020). This implementation should not rely on the goodwill of researchers or ethical review boards; instead, this community‐based framework should be updated as a minimum ethical and funding standard for pushing aDNA research in a new direction.…”

“…This contrasts with the manner and amount of information obtained from the sequencing and extraction (industry) of aDNA in the last 12 years (Heidt, 2022). Following this thread and taking into consideration Pendergast's statements in Heidt's briefing note (2022), two of her comments draw our attention: (1) "The pandemic provided a meaningful pause … to reflect on where the field is going in the future," and ( 2) "Something that is really apparent … is that there's just huge discrepancies between the Global North and South Fleskes et al, 2022;Haelewaters et al, 2021;Wagner et al, 2020). Nevertheless, our call is also to make room-space-for a substantive discussion of the specific frame of pace and disequilibria between the researchers in the core of aDNA analysis and those in the periphery, where frequently the samples are obtained, and the knowledge of the archeological/anthropological contexts associated to them is built.…”