Reconstruct Paper

Critical Essay: The Genographic Project

The Genographic project has faced varied from people across the world since its inception in the year 2005. According to Annas(543) some people have welcomed it warmly as a source of answers to the many questions revolving their origin while others have openly rejected it and joined the opposing organizations led by the Indigenous people’s council on Bio-colonialism (IPCB). It is only after a critical assessment of the reasons forwarded by both of these sides that we can be able to gauge this project and determine its value and benefit.

There are many people who argue that this project is not only similar and related to the failed Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) but it is its continuation. This perspective gives reasons such as the involvement of the current Director of the Genographic project Dr Spencher on both of these projects and the similarity in procedure and methodology to support their reasons (Nicholas and Hollowell, 45). On a critical note, this perception is biased since the projects greately differ in procedure and objectives and Dr Spencher involvement by both these projects was by coincidence. The National Genographic project unlike the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) does not have any aspects of medical or genealogical research simply because there is no creation of cell lines from the corrected DNA and there will be limited matching of the genotypes of the people who are currently alive. This means that it will not be possible to use the genetic information gathered by this project to trace you to your current location and identity but it will be used to create anonymous gene patterns which can help you trace how you migrated and your ancestors. Information which cannot reveal identity and location would be quite useless for purposes of medical research.

This project is widely opposed on the premise that it is exploitative and does not seek consent from the indigenous local communities from who it wishes to draw its samples. This project is also alleged to be exploitative for it seeks to use the remains of their ancestors for research purposes (Debra, 20). The affiliate organizations which oppose the project including the Global Indigenous Caucus (GIC), Knowledge Aboriginal Youth Association (KAYA), International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) and the Indigenous Peoples Council on Bio- Colonialism (IPCPB) even wrote to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) seeking halting of the project a request which was granted and an order to halt the project granted. These organizations most of which were responsible for the collapse of the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) argue that the project is unethical and has no benefits to these Indigenous Communities and even uses the remains of their ancestors for destructive research purposes without their consent. These arguments and reasons are fallacious for as Dr. Spencher says Participation in the Human Genographic project is voluntary and all participants are briefed on the project objectives before consenting. Representatives of the project are also sent to talk to elders of all the involved communities so as to seek permission for the use of ancestral remains in the research.

There is conflict as to whether the project is political has government support or is geared towards commercially benefiting some individuals. Tall Bear(2) who is a supporter of the project says that the project is an independent project which gets funding from Private organizations such as the National Geographic Society, Waitt family Foundation and the IBM corporation as well as Gateway Computer Fortunes. These funding organizations will oversee the project from its start to the end and no government funding is required. The problem however comes on the issue of the project selling the Geno 2.0 kits at $100. By selling these research kits to anyone willing to participate the issue of financial gain cannot be ignored. The selling price for the kit also seems quite exaggerated bearing in mind that it is just two simple items one for scratching and extracting a layer of skin from the mouth lining and the other one for storing this genetic material(Rimmer,20). The claim by project management that the proceeds from these sales will be used to fund further research as well as preserve the cultures of the endangered indigenous communities is not convincing enough. The project management should find ways of collecting these samples freely if they had no profit making intentions.

The viability and the legality of this project is another cause of conflict amongst people. There are many questions and concerns as to why the United States Government would allow such a project to continue after the failure of the Human Genome Diversity Project which was similar. The reason given here by many debaters is that the project is a very crucial anthropological undertaking which will try to prove or disapprove the Evolutionary theories in History. These theories argue that Human beings originated from Africa and then Migrated to other parts of the world. The project will also add up to the existing database of information which will bring more understanding of our past which will make it possible and easier to solve our present problems as well as discover new possibilities for the future. It is unlikely that the US government would call off such a project bearing in mind these benefits and the lack of real proof of the project being unethical or harmful.

The project is opposed by many scientists and activists due to the fact that Genographic project expects to get full informed consent from indigenous people in only 20 minutes and this consent involves agreeing that their blood and genetic materials be used for further human migration studies. Twenty minutes is too little for an indigenous person in a remote village in Africa or Asia to grasp and understand the implications of participating in this Genographic studies. As Hua tai and Tsong Chiou(110) argue these 20 minutes is a way of tricking people to participate in the research without full knowledge of the implications of their participation.

Their genetic material might be used for other forms of research apart from human migration researches and they can do nothing about it since they consented and these samples are shipped and stored abroad. Then as much as the information will be made public, this information might never reach the indigenous community members who are many in remote places of the world such as Africa and Asia who do not have access to computers. This leaves these people with nothing to benefit from by engaging in this research. They might never even get to find answers to their simple questions of where they came from and why people from different places of the world have different physical appearances if they all came from the same place In Africa.

This research project is also likely to bring about conflicting theories and explanations about originality which might bring about confusion and contradict existing knowledge and beliefs of indigenous communities regarding aboriginality. This is a way of undermine the rights of indigenous people. The project will come up with own findings which might disapprove existing indigenous beliefs and information about our originality upon which religion and some traditions are based

In conclusion, the National Genographic project has both strengths as weaknesses as presented in the arguments above. However as seen, the project faces a lot of critism and rebellion from different societies across the world and has a possibility of collapsing just like its predecessor the Human Genome Diversity Project which was even nicknamed the vampire project due to its perceived lack of benefit to participants and many unethical aspects.

Bibliography

Armelagos, George J. 'Anthropology And The Genographic Project'. American Anthropologist 114.1 (2012): 140-142. Web.

Anderson, Jane. 'Commentary On Implications Of The Genographic Project'. International Journal of Cultural Property 16.02 (2009): 213. Web.

Annas, George. IRB’s and Human Rights. Journal of the American Ethnological Society.Vol1

33. Issue 4.N.p., 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

Debra Harry. Indigenous people and Gene Disputes.N.p., 2007. Web. 26 Mar. 2015

Hua Tai, Terence and Tsong Chiou. Equality and Community in Public Deliberation: Genetic

Democracy in Taiwan. International Library of Ethics, Law and the new Medicine. N.p.,

2009. Web. 26 mar 2015.

Nicholas, George and Hollowell Julie. Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project for

archeology and cultural Heritage. International Journal on Cultural heritage Vol16.Issue

2. N.p., 2009. Web. 26 Mar 2015.

Rimmer, Mathew. The Genographic project: Traditional Knowledge and Population Genetics.

Australian Indigenous Law Review Vol 11.Issue No 2. N.p., 2007.Web. 26 Mar 2015.

Tall Bear, Kim. Narratives of Race and Indigeneity in the Genographic project. Journal of

Law, Medicine and Ethics. Vol 35.Issue3. N.p., 2007. Web. 26 Mar 2015

Fudge 2