Here.
H/T Pechanga.
DNA
Sanders on Genomic Research in Indian Country
Marren Sanders has posted “Genomic Research in Indian Country: The New Road to Termination?” on SSRN.
The abstract:
Genomic science has generated controversy in the social, legal, and ethical arenas for decades, and indigenous populations continue to be a subject of great interest in this area. This article looks at the recent concept of population genomics, a biotechnology used to help scientists understand how genetic variation relates to human health and evolutionary history. Parts II and III examine the debate among scientists as to the migration of the “first Americans” into North America, a debate that is quickly being influenced by the DNA markers found in the human genome. Part IV surveys the history of scientific research involving indigenous peoples – a history predominantly colored by ignorance and bias – as science was presented as conclusive proof of their savage nature and inferiority as a race. Scientists today proffer evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans were, in reality, colonists who immigrated from Africa, Europe, and/or Asia, and Part V analyzes a number of indicators that point to the possibility of genomic research providing justification for another termination of the special status and rights of Native Americans. Part VI looks at a number of tools that tribes may wish to consider using to help protect the genetic information of their members as they are faced with the seemingly endless need of researchers for Native American DNA. The article concludes that while suppositions of geneticists are in actuality just theories of historic migration, these theories have gained acceptance as fact in mainstream society. Given current indicators, Congress and/or the courts may very well use genomic science to justify another termination of the federal/tribal trust relationship.
On Being (Mis)Cited by the Supreme Court
From the NY Times.
Nor was Justice Kennedy’s brief quotation from “Actual Innocence” especially punctilious. Here is how the justice rendered it, including his brackets and ellipses: “[P]rompt [DNA] testing … would speed up apprehension of criminals before they commit additional crimes, and prevent the grotesque detention of … innocent people.”
Those first three dots covered a lot of ground. They took the place of more than six sentences and suggested a different point than the one the authors were making. The original passage concerned evidence collected at crime scenes, not from people who might be connected to it.
“What we were saying had nothing to do with post-arrest testing of suspects,” said Jim Dwyer, a co-author of the book who is now a columnist for The New York Times. “We were arguing that all evidence should be tested, whether or not a suspect had been charged.”
Mr. Neufeld agreed. “The ‘prompt testing’ is referring to something completely different than the latter phrase,” he said. “Barry, Jim and I never endorsed arrestee databases.”
The omission of two words with the second set of dots is easier to understand. The authors had written that testing could prevent “the grotesque detention of thousands of innocent people.” Justice Kennedy apparently did not want to endorse the possibility that the criminal justice system had such widespread shortcomings. (The Innocence Project, which is affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, says that more than 300 prisoners have been exonerated using DNA.)
NYTs Article on the Earliest Americans
Here is the article on new DNA evidence about the earliest Americans.
Rebecca Tsosie on Native American Genetic Resources
Rebecca Tsosie (Arizona State) has published “Cultural Challenges to Biotechnology: Native American Genetic Resources and the Concept of Cultural Harm” in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2007).
You can download the article here: Tsosie Article
Turtle Talk 