KENNEWICK MAN

June 2001
		Who owns the bones of a 9,000-year-old skeleton? Three experts answer questions about the fate of Kennewick Man.

Online Special Kennewick Man Questions in this forum: What evidence links Kennewick Man to modern tribes? What's the harm in studying or not studying the bones? Does science have a right to study any subject? Is this battle actually a philosophical disagreement?         National Park Service Kennewick Man site Burke Museum in Seattle Tri-City (Wash.) Herald Kennewick Man site NOVA first Americans special Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Friends of America's Past	The rights of science Does science assume it has the right to study any subject or phenomenon that exists? Is there a limit to that right? Daniel Dominic Lyons, Berkeley, Calif. James Chatters, archaeologist: I'll repeat here something I alluded to above. Science is not just a modern enterprise, nor is it confined to Western thought. Science, often known in this context as ethnoscience, is a part of all cultures. It is how we have learned what plants are safe to eat, what materials best serve which technological purposes, how to navigate, how to create computers. Science does explore all things, and without that constant questing, much of what we now rely on, from domestic plants to modern medicine to electrical transmission grids, would not have come to be. As for rights, that is a constitutional issue. The right to access to knowledge, when that access does no harm (and by this I mean physical, not emotional harm, since the latter is a matter of claim and perception that is not subject to verification), is as fundamental to our political system as the right to free speech and the freedom from state sponsored religion. When the government owns a set of information and national security is not at risk from the release of that information, the citizens capable of deciphering that information have a right of access to it. As for whether there is a limit to the right of access to information, that limit is set by statute. It cannot be set by one group or another's moral standard, since to allow that to occur violates constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion. A good case of where religion has not been allowed to interfere with individual rights is the subject of abortion. Some believe it is morally wrong, others that it is a fundamental right. The courts side with the latter claim. In the case of NAGPRA, which is at issue here, Congress has mandated that when a tribe can make a reasonable claim to affiliation with a skeleton, that tribe has the right to dictate whether study can or cannot be done. I concur with that intent and have participated in repatriation of more than 80 skeletons to tribes. Some requested study, others prohibited them. In this case the relationship mandated by congress has not been established, so we must fall back on constitutional guarantees. Audie Huber, tribal spokesman: So far in the litigation we have seen no proposed limitation on this novel theory of a constitutional right to study and destroy portions of tribal ancestors. If this right is found to exist, who can exercise it? Does it mean that any number of scientists have an entitlement to study all Native American human remains, and if so what is to prevent needless destructive studies being conducted on remains, studying those remains into oblivion? Our involvement in this case is based on the fact that we want to prevent our ancestors from becoming the test subjects for every new theory in archaeology that scientists can dream up. It is unquestionable that the freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution, but the plaintiffs have asked the court to find a right grossly in excess of that constitutional freedom. The tribe has no quarrel with the plaintiffs pursuing their careers or publishing their theories under the First Amendment. However, when those rights are alleged to supersede our rights to protect our ancestors, then we will strenuously object and resist any attempt to balance our human rights against their perceived constitutional rights. These eight scientists do not represent a majority of anthropologists or archaeologists, they only represent a small fraction of scientists in the field. Many archaeological organizations around the world recognize the rights of aboriginal people to protect their ancestors. Roger Downey, journalist: Science, not being a person but an abstract noun, does not assume anything. Scientists assume lots of things, often contradicting one another's assumptions. I think that virtually all scientists would agree that it is desirable that all subjects and phenomena be considered fair material for study except when some strong countervailing argument exists. I think virtually all would also agree that such arguments do exist in some cases, though there will be great dispute about which those cases might be. Consider the current dispute over the appropriateness of using embryonic stem cells in biomedical research.