New Ethical Standards for the Study of Human Remains

The American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) has established new ethical guidelines for the management and study of human remains, a move spurred by the 2021 revelation that the remains of two MOVE bombing victims were held by the University of Pennsylvania without family consent. These guidelines, developed by a dedicated task force, prioritize community engagement, formal partnerships with descendants, and explicit consent before scientific research proceeds.

The MOVE Bombing and Its Legacy

On May 13, 1985, the City of Philadelphia authorized police to drop an explosive device on a row house occupied by MOVE, a Black liberation and natural living organization. The resulting fire destroyed 61 homes and killed 11 people, including five children. Decades later, it was discovered that the University of Pennsylvania had been holding the remains of two victims—identified as 14-year-old Katricia “Tree” Africa and 12-year-old Delisha Africa—in a cardboard box, using them as teaching materials without the knowledge or consent of their families.

Following public outcry, the university and the city issued apologies, and the remains were returned to the families. This incident highlighted a systemic issue in biological anthropology: the long-standing practice of researchers holding human remains without descendant oversight.

Evolution of Ethical Research Practices

Anthropologists have historically studied human remains with little regard for the consent of the deceased or their communities. For instance, 19th-century physician Samuel George Morton collected hundreds of human skulls to support theories of white superiority. Today, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History alone maintains approximately 30,700 individuals, many sourced from pauper graves, slave cemeteries, and indigenous burial sites.

The shift toward ethical oversight began in the 1970s, led by activists like Maria Pearson of the Yankton Sioux. Her advocacy resulted in the 1976 Iowa law protecting Native American burial sites, which eventually paved the way for the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). While NAGPRA facilitated the return of thousands of remains, it also triggered high-profile legal battles, such as the decade-long dispute over the “Kennewick Man,” whose remains were eventually returned to tribes for burial in 2017.

New Guidelines for Institutional Accountability

In 2021, the AABA formed a task force co-chaired by biological anthropologist Fatimah Jackson and evolutionary biologist Benjamin Auerbach to create a framework for the ethical management of human remains. The task force focused its efforts on African American remains, which are frequently overrepresented in legacy collections.

Over four years, the team engaged with more than 3,000 African Americans across 35 states to understand community expectations regarding ancestral remains. The resulting recommendations, published in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology, mandate:

* Explicit Consent: Researchers must obtain clear permission from descendant communities before conducting studies.
* Inventory Transparency: Institutions are required to audit their legacy collections to identify the remains they currently hold.
* Community Partnership: Institutions must establish formal, mutual partnerships with descendant groups to determine the future of these remains, whether through continued respectful study or repatriation and reburial.

Challenges in Contemporary Anthropology

While these new standards represent a significant shift, experts acknowledge that the work is far from over. Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas, notes that researchers are now tasked with the complex process of consulting with contemporary descendants, many of whom harbor deep-seated mistrust due to historical abuses like the Tuskegee syphilis study.

Furthermore, the current political climate poses risks to this progress. Fatimah Jackson has expressed concern that reduced funding for social sciences and social justice initiatives could hinder the ability of institutions to conduct the necessary community outreach and ethical inventory work required by the new guidelines. Despite these hurdles, the focus has shifted toward acknowledging the rights of descendant communities, marking a change in how the scientific community addresses the legacy of its past.