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

Abstract

Ancient DNA (aDNA) research is characterized by asymmetric relationships between disciplines, institutions, and countries—“coreperipheral” or Global North and South. These asymmetries are driven through practices that have been described as “parachute,” “parasitic,” or “helicopter research,” as well as “vampire science.” Regarding these concerns, different research groups recently proposed ethical guidelines, as well as methodological and theoretical insights for conducting research with ancient human remains (AHR). 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.”