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

Abstract

Paleogenomics - the study of ancient genomes - has made significant contributions, especially to our understanding of the evolutionary history of humans. This knowledge influx has been a direct result of the coupling of next-generation sequencing with improved methods for DNA recovery and analysis of ancient samples. The appeal of ancient DNA studies in the popular media coupled with the trend for such work to be published in “high impact” journals has driven the amassing of ancestral human remains from global collections, often with limited to no engagement or involvement of local researchers and communities. This practice in the paleogenomics literature has led to limited representation of researchers from the Global South at the research design and subsequent stages. Additionally, Indigenous and descendant communities are often alienated from popular and academic narratives that both involve and impact them, sometimes adversely. While some countries have safeguards against ‘helicopter science’, such as federally regulated measures to protect their biocultural heritage, there is variable oversight in others with regard to sampling and exportation of human remains for destructive research, and differing requirements for accountability or consultation with local researchers and communities. These disparities reveal stark contrasts and gaps in regional policies that lend themselves to persistent colonial practices. While essential critiques and conversations in this sphere are taking place, these are primarily guided through the lens of US-based heritage legislation such as the Native American Graves and Protection Act (NAGPRA). In this article, we aim to expand the scope of ongoing conversations by taking into account diverse regional contexts and challenges drawing from our own research experiences in the field of paleogenomics. We emphasize that true collaborations involve knowledge sharing, capacity building, mutual respect, and equitable participation, all of which take time and the implementation of sustainable research methods; amass-and-publish strategy is simply incompatible with this ethos.

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

“…We claim that the conflicts currently faced by scientists as well as other stakeholders from the periphery have not yet been thoroughly examined in much of the criticism published in the specialized literature focused on the ethics of working with aDNA, or DNA in general. Most of these conflicts are due to the historical (and colonial) asymmetric relations between core‐peripheral contexts involving differential financial resources, capacity building, technological infrastructure, and identification of relevant stakeholders (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022). These asymmetries impact research project planning, equitable participation, journal editorial processes, and bibliographic accessibility, among others.…”

“…There is a selective focus at the moment by researchers regarding the potential controversies and challenges related to the acquisition and use of samples, as well as the rights to share and distribute the results from the study conducted with those samples. This is truly important and several scholars have expressed their concern about the lack of effective and genuine commitment of some research groups in the search for and implementation of this legitimate objective (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Somel et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2021). These scholars are pushing for a change in current detrimental dynamics, and the absolute need to take into account the interests, demands, historical and political contexts of the current regulations towards the management of AHR in those countries, Indigenous and descendant communities, and institutions, and the potential research it can yield beyond just DNA research (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022).…”

“…This is truly important and several scholars have expressed their concern about the lack of effective and genuine commitment of some research groups in the search for and implementation of this legitimate objective (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Somel et al, 2021; Tsosie et al, 2021). These scholars are pushing for a change in current detrimental dynamics, and the absolute need to take into account the interests, demands, historical and political contexts of the current regulations towards the management of AHR in those countries, Indigenous and descendant communities, and institutions, and the potential research it can yield beyond just DNA research (Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022). Most importantly, those aspects should be included within the research design and project proposals from the beginning, allowing equitable participation of all stakeholders during the whole project and trying to avoid or minimize the inequities between different contexts.…”

“…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.…”

“…We contribute to this discussion by offering a critique based on the differential pace and space of the practice between geographies, institutions and disciplines —particularly paleogenomics versus bioanthropology and bioarchaeology. To do this, we focus on a relevant point that we think has not been addressed in the current critiques and proposals: the asymmetrical attention paid to the concerns of research and researchers and other stakeholders from the Global South and periphery compared to the Global North and what we call “core” (see, e.g., Ávila‐Arcos et al, 2022; Somel et al, 2021). Thus, we first emphasize that recent ethical guidelines (e.g., Alpaslan‐Roodenberg et al, 2021; Bardill et al, 2018; Wagner et al, 2020) are prescriptions for conducting research and overcoming the obstacles specifically framed in, and by, the ongoing “aDNA global research project” but they do not offer a comprehensive attempt to address the problems and conflicts faced by different scholars and stakeholders related to AHR in peripheral (non‐core) contexts (see e.g., Argüelles et al, 2022).…”