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

Towards an ethical and legal framework in archeogenomics: A local case in the Atlantic coast of central Patagonia

“…Concerns related to ethical issues in scientific endeavors have led to an increase in studies seeking to establish best practice guidelines to mitigate the potential harm of genetic scientific studies to other social actors (Arbour & Cook, 2006; Claw et al, 2018; Hudson et al, 2020; Tsosie et al, 2020; Wagner et al, 2020; Yáñez et al, 2022). Undeniably, the field of aDNA opens the possibility of studying the biological past directly with a temporal scope without parallel in other disciplines (Orlando et al, 2021; Schwartz‐Marin, 2015).…”

“…Moreover, these standards do not address the historical, cultural, political, and social aspects of the studied region to ensure a contextualized approach. This lack of concern about the consequences of research and lack of engagement with local communities associated with NHA could be interpreted as a consequence of the asymmetry in the "core-periphery" relationship and the "hegemonic practices," as discussed in other works (Argüelles et al, 2022;Ávila-Arcos et al, 2022;Yáñez et al, 2022). According to these asymmetries, the financial, economic, and/or market interests of the leading laboratories are prioritized over the local and non-center participants' interests.…”

“…Ethical discussions of genetic research on Ancestors of Indigenous populations have in fact been a subject of debate since the early days of the aDNA field (Harry, 2009; Kaestle & Horsburgh, 2002; O'Rourke et al, 2005; Sealy, 2003). With the development of new technologies and the reduction of DNA sequencing costs, aDNA studies have expanded their geographic coverage, and with it, the ethical concerns surrounding the subject, as we can see from the emerging body of literature (Alpaslan‐Roodenberg et al, 2021; Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Bardill et al, 2018; Cortez et al, 2021; di Fabio Rocca et al, 2021; Fleskes et al, 2022; Fox & Hawks, 2019; Haelewaters et al, 2021; Heidt, 2022; Somel et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2020; Tsosie et al, 2021; Wagner et al, 2020; Wolinsky, 2019; Yáñez et al, 2022).…”

“…As result, as stated by others, for some Global North research groups, implementing high ethical standards in publications might be seen as "not practical" (Heidt, 2022). For a more in-depth analysis of the accelerated pace of archeogenomic practices and the limited space for alternative voices, practices, and interests see Yáñez et al (2022). These notions put the ethical framework that should guide genomic studies when working with Indigenous communities on the back burner.…”

A sensitive and open‐mind genetic perspective on the origin and history of Native AmericansJenniferRaffOrigin: A Genetic History of the Americas(2022) New York, USA: Twelve, Hachette Book Group. ISBN 978-1-53874-971-5, $30.00. Hardcover.

“…The advantage of this narrative is that not only provides clarity but also helps in building stronger connections with both Indigenous people and other scientists who would be interested in interdisciplinary and international collaborations. Raff also takes the opportunity to describe the ecosystem of aDNA research as being dominated by large and well‐funded labs, which usually conduct fast science by prioritizing the continuous production of new data and publication of papers, while disregarding meaningful and long‐standing collaborations with both researchers from peripheral countries and with Indigenous communities 2 . However, an aspect that could be explored further is what are the implications of that concentration of resources for studying ancient human migrations.…”