[HN Gopher] Ancient DNA yields surprising findings on earliest s...
___________________________________________________________________
Ancient DNA yields surprising findings on earliest seafarers
Author : thedday
Score : 32 points
Date : 2022-07-04 16:43 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| beastman82 wrote:
| This is a pretty clickbaity title. Just say it
| rossdavidh wrote:
| One of the authors of this paper, David Reich, published a book
| on genetic research into human prehistory, which I found quite
| good: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2605841954
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The book for the interested is Who We Are and How We Got Here:
| Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, and I
| thought it was excellent. It's a bit controversial but in a way
| that seems good given how many apple carts it turns over.
| causi wrote:
| The "Clovis cartel" interference in the study of New World
| genetics will never stop striking me as bizarre. If someone
| discovered that, say, Germans from three thousand years ago
| were genetically unrelated to Germans from ten thousand years
| ago I think it would barely be noticed, let alone reacted to
| so defensively.
| mc32 wrote:
| Careers, reputation at stake. And who wants to be wrong?
| But yeah, I think there should be no "sacreds" in research.
|
| For example, in the good reads article: " if you get people
| to voluntarily donate their DNA, for the explicit purpose
| of using it in scientific research, taking care to get
| informed consent forms signed, and then their tribe
| announces that they do not give consent for anyone in their
| tribe to take part in such research, what do you do? Ignore
| the issue of tribal-level consent, or deny the individuals
| the same right to self-determination (on having their DNA
| sequenced)"
|
| That should not be controversial. If you're being
| scientific and you get consent from the individual, then
| yeah, go ahead!
|
| It's as if you gave the police consent to your DNA and then
| some relative gets identified through your DNA and they try
| to toss out the case because they did not give consent.
|
| I'm sympathetic to some extent that they want to keep some
| things private, like the Vatican wants to keep some things
| private, but still the Vatican nor anyone else should be
| above science.
| causi wrote:
| _Ignore the issue of tribal-level consent_
|
| I don't understand how that's even an issue. A tribe has
| no more right over its members DNA than someone's parents
| or pastor do.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I loosely agree in principle. However, tribal groups in
| the US operate as their own little semi-autonomous ethno-
| states with a bizarre amount of oversight from the Bureau
| of Indian Affairs but still have a lot of latitude.
| There's a dodgy history of researchers lying to native
| groups in order to get DNA samples(including promising
| but not delivering medical services, so there's a lot of
| reticence around participation. There's also issuers
| around ancestral rights to land which could be
| complicated by DNA testing, and all of the tribes are
| intimately familiar with how the government handled the
| Osage Indian murders, which involved odd elements of
| heredity and weird legal stuff. Tribes, in places, with
| all of this stuff swirling around want to embargo
| participation in this research. The only way to keep
| their groups DNA out of the research is to stop any and
| all members from participating.
|
| TL;DR it's complicated and researchers in the past shit
| in the pool.
| mc32 wrote:
| These are good points but still a person fully informed
| should be able to share of themselves whatever they want
| to share without group approval --otherwise it appears to
| be similar to cult restrictions on member participation
| with the outside world.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| While I agree more or less, we are talking about people
| who have a totally different system of values who are
| historically put upon so I'm not quick to judge them.
| Scientists who have approached tribes differently have
| had better luck.
|
| Sometimes pluralism means accepting that other people
| have values you don't think are good and valid.
| zardo wrote:
| If you have rights to keep your own DNA private, doesn't
| that practically require restrictions on relatives rights
| to publish their DNA?
| mc32 wrote:
| At this time, I don't think there is such a right
| --otherwise Ancestry/genomics and other companies would
| exist in completely different form.
|
| I mean, I agree it is a very valid question; however that
| genie is out of the bottle and I don't see it going back
| in.
| whythre wrote:
| I would like to read more about the Clovis Cartel
| phenomenon, but finding more info about it is tough thanks
| to lots of clutter regarding criminal cartels. Got a good
| link I can check out?
| hyperboreanChad wrote:
| euroderf wrote:
| The opening chapter of James Michener's "Hawaii" is both relevant
| and inspiring.
| treis wrote:
| This doesn't really seem supported by the evidence. The evidence
| (as I understand it) is that men traveled to different islands
| and subsequently impregnated women. Wrapping that up in marriage
| seems to be quite a leap and hard to believe given what we know
| about humanity.
| ncmncm wrote:
| They missed the earliest seafarers by at least 40,000 years.
|
| Australians could only have got there by at least several open-
| ocean crossings.
| [deleted]
| ComputerCat wrote:
| Neat. Reminds me of Beak of the Finch and Darwin's thoughts
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-06 23:02 UTC)