ANDES Communiqué – May 2011
Genographic Project
Hunts the Last Incas
Resurrected ‘Vampire Project’ Brings
Fears of Biopiracy to Cusco Region
“The Q’ero Nation knows that its history, its past
present, and future, is our Inca culture, and we don’t
need research called genetics to know who we are.
We are Incas, always have been and always will be.”
– Letter from the Hatun Q’eros Community
30 April 2011
Summary
globalization is under intensifying pressure as
highways carve their way into Q’ero territory,
bringing potentially exploitative tourism
initiatives and attracting the interest of mining
companies and bioprospectors – like the
researchers from the Genographic Project.
In early April, Asociación ANDES received word
that seven researchers from the Genographic
Project will arrive in Peru in the first week of
May to collect human DNA samples from the
Q’eros people. This information is not widely
known in the Cusco Region because the USbased Genographic Project did not approach
local or regional authorities about their plan,
rather, the Project hired a local tour guide and
sent a cursory one page notification of their
upcoming visit to people in a Q’ero town.
The Q’eros were not consulted beforehand
about the DNA collection which, they have been
informed, will take place following a
presentation on May 7th (2011). The
Genographic Project has urged the Q’ero to
bring children and elders to the DNA collection
and, in true neo-colonial style, promises a “fun”
presentation with “pretty pictures” to induce
attendees to offer DNA samples.2
The Q’eros are an isolated indigenous group
who live in a rural province of the Cusco
Region.1 They are renowned for their shamanic
knowledge and self-proclaimed identity as ‘The
Last Incas.’ The Q’eros inhabit a diverse territory
that many would consider inaccessible, and
they have maintained cultural traditions from
pre-Hispanic times. The Q’eros’ decision to
purposefully maintain their identity and
traditions despite the increasing reach of
The Genographic Project’s plan presents a
challenge to Cusco Region, which is known for
efforts to protect its genetic patrimony and for
taking a cautious approach to biotechnology. It
has declared itself a GMO-free region has
1
2
Peru’s largest political subdivisions are Regions, which are
subdivided into Provinces, which are in turn composed of Districts.
Cusco Region is one of 25 regions in Peru.
Letter to persons in Qocha Moqo, Peru concerning Genographic
Project. 7 April, 2011.
http://64.22.85.140/~communiq/pdf/Carta_a_Qeros.pdf
1
adopted a biopiracy ordinance to regulate
bioprospecting. Cusco’s ordinances have clear
requirements for bioprospecting collection of
genetic materials,3 including human DNA, as do
applicable international conventions, national
law, and local customary law. These appear to
have been largely ignored.
researchers at 14 other universities, institutes
and a DNA sequencing company. The Project
planned to end DNA collections in 2010, but it
still collecting indigenous peoples’ DNA for
reasons that have yet to be publicly explained.
The Genographic Project was constructed and is
steered by architects of the Human Genome
Diversity Project (HGDP) and their protégés. It is
an uncomfortable heritage. In the 1990s, the
HGDP’s plan to collect blood from indigenous
people proved so controversial that it earned
the popular name ‘The Vampire Project.’
The Q’ero have decided to resist the
Genographic Project’s incursion. On 30 April,
following a community assembly, the Q’ero
wrote the President of the Cusco Region asking
that the government ensure that the
Genographic Project does not violate Q’ero
rights and complies with law. The Q’eros
emphasized that the Project did not have its
consent for DNA collections and that Project
researchers are not welcome in Q’ero territory.
In 1997, the HGDP was effectively terminated
when its efforts to obtain US government
funding were rejected due to ethical
shortcomings.4 The Genographic Project claims
to have solved some of the HGDP’s problems;
but its own transparency is lacking. Because it is
privately funded, there are few requirements
for public disclosure of its activities, and
oversight by government and civil society
organizations is highly curtailed.
Many in Cusco will view the Genographic
Project’s plans as unethical and exploitative.
The Project’s human bioprospecting has
obvious problems with disclosure and informed
consent, incurs risks of theft of genetic material
(and data) and genetic discrimination, and
arrogantly purports to inform indigenous
people, whose self-identity is not in question,
who they “really” are. And in the false promise
of the latter, it may cause averse legal
consequences to its research subjects.
To obtain DNA, the Genographic Project collects
swabs of cheek tissue (which it emphasizes)
and blood samples (not publicly emphasized).
The Project says that it will not create selfreplicating “immortal” cell lines from blood
samples, as the HGDP proposed, but that
doesn’t mean that the samples are not
“immortal” in other senses. The samples and
sequence data an be indefinitely preserved, and
DNA of interest duplicated.
Background: The Genographic Project
The Genographic Project is a large scale genetic
study that seeks to collect DNA samples of
hundreds of thousands of people from around
the world, particularly indigenous people. By
sequencing and comparing the DNA samples,
the Project purports to be able to map human
migration over history, one of many purposes
to which the DNA samples may be put to use.
The computing giant IMB is the principle
corporate sponsor of the Project. Key Project
scientists are employed by the US National
Geographic Society. Members of the Project’s
“Genographic Consortium” also include
While the Project has identified some things
that it will not do with the samples (e.g. create
cell lines), it has not clearly identified the future
genetic studies that it plans, and the relatively
few Genographic Project studies published to
date have focused on scientifically “low
hanging fruit” (i.e. relatively obvious topics and
methods). Mainly, these studies have
compared variations in Y chromosomes (the
4
US National Academies of Science 1997. Evaluating Human
Genetic Diversity. Commission on Life Sciences. URL:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5955
3
Government of Cusco Region. Ordenanza Regional 048 - 2008
CR/GRC.CUSCO contra la biopiratería
2
number of perspectives. In the present case,
Q’ero self-identity is strong, vibrant, and wellrecognized. The Genographic Project, however,
claims that it will tell the Q’eros scientific truths
about who they are that the Q’eros do not
already know. Among them: If and how the
Q’eros are related to the Incas (as if Inca is
defined genetically), related to the Aymara (a
neighbouring indigenous linguistic group), or to
“people from the jungle” (i.e. Amazonian
peoples).
male chromosome) and in maternally inherited
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
One of the activities that the Project says that it
will not conduct is medical research, but this
does not mean that its research may not have
medical implications. The genetic markers it
chooses to use may or may not be linked to
disease predispositions, but either way, now or
in the future such implications may become
apparent. Even though the Y chromosome and
mtDNA together constitute a very small
proportion of the human genome, various
conditions have been linked to mutations on
them. For example, forms of male infertility,
deafness, and diabetes are linked to specific
sequences on the Y chromosome, and an even
greater number of medical conditions is linked
to mtDNA mutations.
Historical claims by molecular biologists
sometimes overreach their field of competence
and what can ultimately be concluded through
science and the historical record. They are
influenced by and reliant on assumptions about
genetically “isolated” or “inbred” populations
that discount historical fluidity of cultures and
previous intermarriage. Evidence of these
shortcomings in attempting to explain human
history in the Americas can be found in the
genetic claims and counterclaims published in
the last two decades about possible ancient
exchanges between South America, Polynesia,
Asia, and Melanesia as well as varying theories
about migrations from Asia to Alaska (and
thence the rest of the Americas).
Of course, mtDNA and the Y chromosome are
the topic of current studies, and are not the
only research that will be conducted. The
samples contain the full complement of each
participants DNA, and it may be expected that
future studies (or current unpublished studies)
will expand into analysis of other areas of the
genome. The Genographic Project is notably
uninformative about where, for what purposes,
and under whose control it will store DNA
samples and data for such future uses.
Genetic “Truth” and Consequences
Now, thanks to the Genographic Project, the
Q’eros could become genetic pawns in new
academic debate over what constitutes an Inca.
While a genetic search for a “real” Inca might
make for National Geographic TV programming,
it’s unlikely to yield a defensible result or be
helpful for the Q’eros and other indigenous
peoples. For the Genographic Project’s
professors, who have no significant personal
investment in the Q’ero community, the stakes
are comparatively low – they relate to academic
publications and scientific prestige. For the
Q’eros, alleged molecular “proof” or “disproof”
of their heritage as the “Last Incas” could have
profound and unanticipated social and legal
consequences.
The validity of the genetic results of the
Genographic Project, as applied to human
history and cultures, are debateable from a
Complicating matters is some scientists disdain
for indigenous peoples origin stories, and pieces
of the historical record that don’t fit the
Genetic predispositions and medical theories
about them are constantly being identified and
modified. Thus, even if Genographic Project
research that is not explicitly linked to medical
conditions today, it may become so in the
future. When sequences are linked to specific
indigenous communities there may be direct
social and medical consequences. These are not
so keenly felt in a large population where
bearers of a particular trait may be dispersed in
ways that are relatively unpredictable.
3
contemporary genetic theory. The head of the
Genographic Project in Peru, Ricardo Fujita
Alarcón, a US-trained molecular biologist,
reflected this attitude in a 2004 paper on his
genetic studies of indigenous people from the
Lake Titicaca region. Fujita claims, “The origin of
many contemporary native communities is
unknown, of them we only have theories based
on oral traditions or rolls taken by Spanish
conquistadors beginning in the 16th Century.”5
We, however, have yet to meet any indigenous
people who don’t know who they are and
where they come from. It seems then that Fujita
doesn’t have a great deal of respect for
indigenous peoples own stories.
studies with clear commercial and medical
implications.7 For example, a 2002 study by
Fujita asserted that 60% of the indigenous
residents of the Peruvian Lake Titicaca islands
of Anapia and Suana8 have a “defective” gene
that “predisposes them to infectious diseases
such as tuberculosis and HIV, and to autoimmune
diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus,
among others.” According to the study, the
gene was found at the highest frequency ever
documented in the Peruvian islanders.9
Five years later, in 2007, Fujita and Genographic
Project researchers returned to Lake Titicaca to
collect DNA samples from other islanders.10 It is
not known if the 2007 Lake Titicaca DNA donors
were made aware of Fujita’s publication history.
Publication of detailed genetic information on
small communities impacts personal privacy and
could contribute to social prejudice or
discrimination in medical care, insurance, or
employment. No results of the 2007 collections
have thus far been made available.
Culture Clash and Confused Purposes
In Andean Peru, the clash of cultures between
the Genographic Project and its human research
subjects is much deeper than divergent
historical narratives. The leader of the
Genographic Project in Peru not only believes
that biotechnology will determine the identity
of indigenous peoples, but that it also should be
a motor of economic development. For
example, while the Region has declared itself
GMO-free, Genographic’s Fujita disagrees, and
has appeared on television to promote
agricultural biotechnology, in particular an
alpaca genetics project that he leads.6 With
Cusco’s proud agrocentric culture, such views
fuel suspicions of the Genographic Project.
The Limits of Promises
While the Project prohibits commercial
exploitation per se of DNA and data by
members of the Genographic Consortium,
potentially harmful publications such as the
Anapia study arguably do not constitute
commercial use. Nor would it seem that the
Genographic Project has any ability to prevent
others from commercially exploiting the
sequence and diversity data that it publishes.
Finally, the future disposition of the samples it
collects is not well-defined and it is unclear if
Although the Genographic Project professes to
have no commercial or medical intent, its
representatives in Peru are active in biomedical
and pharmacology research related to
indigenous peoples. Fujita’s research center, in
the capitol Lima, is pursuing pharmacogenomic,
human “disease gene”, and medicinal plant
7
See URL:
http://www.medicina.usmp.edu.pe/Academico/Investigacion/genet
ica.php
8
Anapia and Suana are both small, rural islands located in southern
Lake Titicaca, east of the Bolivian city of Copacabana. The 2005
Peruvian census recorded 2,400 people on the five islands of the
Anapia district, an area characterized by very strong indigenous
identity and tradition.
9
Sandoval J et al 2002. Alta frecuencia de un haplotipo susceptible
del gen Mannose Binding Lectin, en las islas Anapia-Suana del Lago
Titicaca. Horizonte Medico (Peru). Vol. 2, Nº 1-2. December.
10
Genographic Project 2011. Fabricio R. Santos (web page). URL:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/pi/santos
_notes.html (accessed 14 April 2011).
5
Sandoval J et al. 2004. Variantes del ADNmt en isleños del lago
Titicaca: máxima frecuencia del haplotipo B1 y evidencia de efecto
fundador. Rev. peru. biol. 11(2): 161-168.
6
Interview on Potential Benefits of Transgenic Crops to Local
Agriculture and the Future Impact of Modern Biotechnology on the
Peruvian Economy. Channel 21. Cusco, Peru. 2007. URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-zELGVo1FA and Proyectos del
Centro de Genética y Biología Molecular, Canal N. Lima, Peru. 2010.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtNqQEaKBig.
4
the Genographic Project has the ability and will
to bind future recipients to its terms, or to
monitor and prevent hijacking of its samples
and data.
The researchers at each of the regional
centers around the world work first with
collaborators and leaders in individual
communities not just to explain the
Genographic Project, but also to better
understand how and if those communities
are interested in learning about their
migratory history, before any other
planning takes place. Sampling of DNA
takes place only when consultation—which
may take weeks and months—is complete
and there is both collective and individual
interest in participating.
Hijacking DNA samples collected for one
purpose and applying them to another has been
a repeated problem with studies on indigenous
peoples’ DNA. A long history of such cases
exists, and doubtless many more remain to be
documented. In a noted case, the Havasupai
Tribe in the United States challenged
researchers from Arizona State University,
banishing them from tribal lands and suing
them in court. The reason: The researchers,
who collected blood for diabetes research,
performed a variety of other studies with them
unbeknownst to the Havasupai. These included
published research identifying the Havasupai’s
ancestors as Asian, in conflict with the
Havasupai’s own origin stories.11
Yet the approach to the Q’eros has been
nothing of the sort. The Q’eros were sent a one
page letter that presents the Project and its
goals in a single paragraph. DNA is defined as “a
chemical that all of us have in our bodies that
shows our origins and family connections from
centuries ago”, as if its purpose is historical
genetics. Then, the letter continues (emphasis
in the original):
Q’eros 2011: Informed Consent Issues
The 7th of May I’ll arrive with 7 people from
National Geographic, from the US and Lima,
to give you a presentation on the study at
the Qocha Moqo school. We’re going to use
a projector and pretty pictures! Please,
invite everybody from Qocha Moqo (adults,
elders, children) to participate, because the
presentation is going to be very interesting!
Everything is voluntary, there’s no
obligation, but you’re going to have fun and
learn a lot!
The Q’eros have now been thrust into the
middle of the Genographic Project and have
little time to determine a course of action. The
planned collection of Q’ero DNA is scheduled to
take place in the community of Qocha Moqo on
7 May 2011, even if serious questions about the
legality, ownership, disposition, and profitability
of the genetic materials remain open.
Those questions certainly are not addressed by
the Genographic Project’s invitation to the
Q’eros to give DNA samples, whose casual tone
and threadbare content is at strong odds with
the detailed procedures that the Genographic
Project claims to conduct. The Project states
that participants grant informed consent that is
deliberate, considered, individual and collective.
According to the Project:12
If you want, you can participate in the study.
The benefit is that the people of Q’eros can
know their ancestral roots, that is, know if
they are related to the Incas, Aymara, or
people in the jungle. You can learn about
your origin from centuries and centuries ago.
We’re going to explain well on the 7th of
May, so if you don’t understand now, come
that day and we’ll explain.
11
See Harmon A 2010. Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of
Its DNA. New York Times. 22 April. URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html
12
Genographic Project 2011. Frequently Asked Questions (web
page). URL:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/fa
qs_about.html (accessed 26 April 2011).
On the basis of that presentation, the Q’ero will
be asked to consent to DNA collection. While
the letter makes clear that participation is
5
voluntary, the consent process it describes
cannot be remotely reconciled with what the
Genographic Project says are its procedures:
“collectivity” appears to be that proportion of
the people from a single settlement that care to
attend the Project’s presentation.
• The Genographic Project claims that it
conducts a consultation process “before any
other planning takes place”, but this collection
was planned down to date, exact location, and
time of day before the Q’eros were contacted.
• The explanation of what the Genographic
Project is, and attendant ethical and legal
issues, is glib and undetailed. Even if it is
elaborated upon at the Project’s presentation,
the Q’ero would have no opportunity to consult
alternative sources of information before being
asked to donate DNA. This flies in the face of
the Project’s claim that prior informed consent
is considered and deliberate.
• The Genographic Project says that its
consultation process is lengthy and detailed,
and “may take weeks and months”. For the
Q’eros, however, Genographic plans a single
powerpoint presentation immediately before
collecting DNA. This “fun” presentation with
“pretty pictures” manages to invoke the sordid
legacy of religious prosthelytizing with mirrors
and trinkets, although the Bible has now been
replaced by a DNA sequencer as the ultimate
font of truth.
• There is no indication that the Genographic
Project has obtained legal permission to
conduct the collections, another practice the
Project claims to follow.
Analysis of Q’ero genetic material, meant to
determine migration patterns, could impact the
interests and aspirations of the Q’eros and
other indigenous nations, in particular
perceptions of their historical identity and
contemporary affiliation with traditional
‘homelands.’ The Genographic Project’s findings
have potential to become arguments to vacate
legal title to territory, erode cultural cohesion
and inflame state-community conflicts over land
and natural wealth. Resource extractive
industries, for example, have a pressing interest
in invalidating land claims, cultural practice and
identity that are perpetuated through national
memory, and livelihoods are that rooted in
traditional knowledge, which may conflict with
activities such as commercial mining.
• The Genographic Project claims that it
determines that communities are “interested in
learning about their migratory history” (or, at
least, the version of it that Genographic offers).
Yet there is no such determination here.
Instead, the Q’ero are presumed to be
interested in what genetics has to offer, which
is presented as objective truth rather than
evolving science. Access to this information is
used as an inducement to participate (a
“benefit”).
• The Genographic Project claims to be
interested in indigenous perspectives on the
Project, yet it expresses no interest in the
Q’eros perspective, nor could they effectively
shape the Project design as the Q’eros’ only
opportunity to express them is at the time of
DNA collection.
The Genographic Project Study of the
Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe
The only publication to date by the Genographic
Project that is focused on an indigenous people
in the Americas is a case in point as to why the
Q’eros have reason to be concerned. The 2010
study is on the Seaconke Wampanoag people of
the northeastern United States, and it appears
to significantly damage their attempt to gain
legal recognition.
• The Genographic Project claims to seek
collective consent, but there is no apparent
effort to do so here. It would be physically
impossible for the Q’ero of Qocha Moqo to
consult with other Q’ero communities in the
time allowed to contemplate the Genographic
Project’s proposition. In this case, the
6
make a decision.17 Lack of recognition means
the US government does not acknowledge
Seaconke Wampanoag sovereignty.18
Although the study includes Wampanoag coauthors, and it recounts their history in unusual
detail for such a publication, what matters in a
genetics publication is genetics. And the
conclusion is inescapable: “our study did not
find any maternal Native American lineages in the
Seaconke Wampanoag tribe”. 13 What that
means is that the Genographic Project claims
that Seaconke Wampanoag women are recent
arrivals from Europe and Africa and are not
“genetic” Native Americans.
Implications for the Q'eros, Indigenous Peoples
in Peru, and Around the World
Like many indigenous communities, the Q’eros
and their agroecological knowledge and
traditional livelihoods are already seriously
threatened by biopiracy and extractive
industries. The Q’eros are presently in the
crosshairs of the Genographic Project, but they
are far from the only indigenous people to face
it. Most of the issues facing the Q’ero are
manifestations of larger problems raised by the
Genographic Project that effect not only other
indigenous peoples from whom the Project is
taking DNA samples, but all indigenous peoples
whose traditions and identities are challenged
by Western genetic science and the economic
and belief systems associated with it. Some of
these legal, ethical, economic, and cultural
issues are summarized below:
Seaconke Wampanoag men fared little better.
The Genographic Project claims that they are a
mix of Native American, European, African, and
Melanesian. It adds that none of the “Native
American DNA” it found could be conclusively
linked to the historical indigenous inhabitants of
the US northeast.14
In short, if the Seaconke Wampanoag were
looking to the Genographic Project for support
of their appeal for recognition by the US
government, as has been reported,15 the study
was an unmitigated disaster for the tribe. Will
this paper will be presented to the Q’eros?
Political/Legal: By visiting Indigenous
communities in Cusco and collecting DNA
without contacting the regional government,
the Genographic Project will violate Cusco’s
sovereignty and standing ordinance on
bioprospecting.19 As agents of a foreign entity,
Project researchers should make their
intentions fully known beforehand to governing
bodies – state, regional, and Indigenous – and
acquire appropriate approvals.
Whether or not one is confident in the
Genographic Project’s result, or believe that it is
culturally significant even if it were empirically
correct,16 the Seaconke Wampanoag’s attempts
to gain recognition by the US government have
been dealt a setback. The genetics results can
be interpreted as adverse evidence with respect
to several criteria used by the government to
13
Zhadanov SI et al 2010. Genetic heritage and native identity of
the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts. Am J Phys
Anthropol. 2010 Aug;142(4):579-89.
14
In other words, the Genographic Project claims, even the
proportion of Seaconke Wampanoag men with ‘Native American’ Y
chromosome DNA may be recent migrants from other areas of
North America, meaning that the DNA may not represent a genetic
artifact of Seaconke Wampanoag identity.
15
See TallBear K 2007. Narratives of Race and Indigeneity in the
Genographic Project. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 35:3,
citing press accounts. Also well-worth reading for its other discusion
on the Genographic Project.
16
The Wampanoag are widely known to have intermarried with
other people for many generations, a fact that does not inherently
dilute their indigenous identity, and which the authors point out.
Cast in the mode of thinking of molecular biology, however, genetic
evidence of this already known fact can easily construed to
undermine their legal claims.
The Project’s ambiguity about storage of
samples and data raises more legal questions,
including human rights. The consent procedures
that the Genographic Project says it has
adopted have been have flagrantly disregarded
17
US Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR 83. Procedures for
Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.
18
For interesting further commentary on this article see: TallBear K
2010. Genographic and the Seaconke Wampanoag (web page).
URL: http://www.kimtallbear.com/1/post/2010/10/genographicand-the-seaconke-wampanoag.html
19
Ordenanza Regional 048 - 2008 CR/GRC. CUSCO contra la
biopiratería.
7
in the Q’eros case and do not appear to satisfy
applicable law. Further, in the future, with
stored samples, can informed consent be
obtained for future procedures or technologies
that do not yet exist? Granted that the
Genographic Project states that participants
may withdraw at any time, but will they be
aware of the future location and use of these
samples?
Peru. In reality, informed consent may be
impossible without specialized training in
genetics and medicine, without which it is
difficult to evaluate the claims of the scientists.
The Genographic Project’s communication with
the Q’eros characterizes the DNA collection as a
“fun” social event that every man, woman, and
child should attend. It skirts the serious issues
inherent in human genetic research, suggesting
that the Project holds only rewards for the
Q’eros, and not risks. This tactic renders a
balanced consideration of participation
impossible. Rather than discuss risks, the
Genographic Project suggests it may genetically
trace Q’eros ancestry to the Incas. These
promises are speculative and obscure both risk
and scientific uncertainty.21
Article 31 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People declares that “Indigenous
peoples have the right to maintain, control,
protect and develop their cultural heritage,
traditional knowledge and traditional cultural
expressions”. By collecting indigenous peoples
DNA, storing it for future research under nonindigenous control, and purporting to
determine cultural heritage by genetics, does
the Genographic Project not seek, by design, to
usurp the rights of indigenous people? To say
nothing of the other potential legal abuses that
could result from neglect or deliberate act by
the Project, such as disenfranchisement and
discrimination?
Economic: The Genographic Project’s scientists
may conclude that indigenous peoples are not
descended from the original inhabitants of their
territories, but migrants from other lands. This
is not a hypothetical concern, as demonstrated
by the Genographic Project’s study of the
Wampanoag. There is a related risk in some
regions that the Project could ‘discover’ that
Indigenous groups are not genetically ‘pure,’
but instead are ‘admixed’ with European or
other ancestry. Such findings have potential to
endanger territorial claims and legal
recognitions. And in an even crueller twist of
fate, depending upon where in the genome the
Project looks for its evidence, or upon future
research, these ‘discoveries’ are subject to
revision.
Ethical: The Genographic Project was never
intended to serve the needs or interest of
Indigenous Peoples, but to satisfy the curiosity
of Western scientists. Indigenous Peoples were
not consulted about the Project when it was in
the planning stages. The Project created a code
of ethics for itself and by itself, a dubious
strategy in any circumstance, evidenced by the
fact that it is violating its own published
procedures in its approach to the Q’eros.
Because of its use of living people as the
subjects of scientific research designed to
answer academic questions and lack of intent to
provide Indigenous participants with any
tangible benefit, the initiative is exploitative.
The collection of samples was halted in Alaska,
for example, because consent forms were
improperly explained to the local community,20
and ethical problems are again surfacing in
Such discussions about the significance of
genetic evidence for migration or intermarriage
may suit comfortably ensconced professors’
academic purposes just fine; but it is unjust to
21
Another ethical aspect that merits its own analysis is the
Genographic Project’s Legacy Fund, which makes small donations to
cultural preservation projects. The lack of relevant links between
the DNA research at hand and Indigenous Peoples’ cultural
continuity is troubling. Without stronger justification, the Legacy
Fund cannot cogently counter accusations that its function is to
deflect attention from predatory elements of the research, making it
essentially a ‘whitewashing’ effort, or an attempt to simply buy
Indigenous participation.
20
Harmon A 2006. DNA Gatherers Hit Snag: Tribes Don’t Trust
Them. New York Times. 10 December.
8
confusing what is flashy with what is valid and
meaningful. This clash of scientific findings and
traditional knowledge of tribal history
happened in the case of the Havasupai.
subject the territorial claims and self-identities
of Indigenous human cultures to their young
and evolving science, particularly when it
purports to provide objective truth. If
Indigenous territorial claims are so threatened,
this opens the door for transnational actors –
particularly corporations, which already operate
with too few legal and ethical constraints – to
move in and begin extracting the natural
resource wealth of the region.
By virtue of their conscious cultural and
geographic separation, the Q’eros are especially
vulnerable to Western modes of organizing of
culture and knowledge, wherein the local and
customary must give way to the (Euro-)modern.
Certain cultural expressions of the Q’eros are
particularly vulnerable to the aggressive
promotion of alien hierarchies. Their status as
shamans, for example, whose knowledge is
almost by definition set in opposition to (and
ranked below) scientific understandings of
natural and human phenomena.
Mining interests are already poised to stake a
claim in Q’ero territory, while similar corporate
ambitions have surfaced all across Peru. If
scientists announce that, in their opinion, the
Q’eros are not Indigenous to the region, their
hold on their territory is rendered more
precarious, and may be weighed against
competing interests in the land and the material
wealth found therein. A logical extension of
’non-Indigenous’ status would also hold that,
since they are not originally from Qocha Moqo,
any other geographical location should suit the
Q’eros equally well, in which case relocation of
this community becomes a possibility.
More broadly, the Q’eros view of themselves
and of history, as well as the view of the nation
taken by outsiders, may be substantially altered
by the planned research. Self-definition and
self-determination (recognized and protected
by the International Labour Organization’s
Convention No.169, among other legal
instruments) may be overridden by scientific
hypotheses of origin and migration, and
political opinions about the resulting legal and
ethical claims.
Socio-cultural: It is misleading to assert that
genetic research exists independently of public
perceptions of groups, or that scientific
assertions are a neutral or benign parallel
narrative to indigenous cultures’ own
knowledge. Scientists have their own ideas
about Indigenous cultures, which often conflict
with local knowledge and can be damaging to
that knowledge. The Project acknowledges
that the narratives can be different; but not that
its own can be damaging. Science and history
are not the same in Western and indigenous
cultures, and when they are in opposition the
Western model is usually been taken as
‘truthful’ while Indigenous knowledge is
labelled ‘superstition’ and ‘myth,’ despite the
inherently provisional nature of scientific
‘evidence.’
Other Considerations: Even if the Genographic
Project was otherwise commendable, random
samples that test for very narrow markers
cannot provide reliable or more widely useful
information, and these results will probably
raise as many questions as they answer. It is
therefore wise to ask whether this research is
really even productive in the service of Western
knowledge, or whether it will actually produce
the greatest benefits for its ‘parent’ companies
(The National Geographic Society and IBM) and
the reputations of the researchers involved.
Concerns about hidden agendas arise not only
from the huge financial interest in
bioinformatics of project sponsor IBM but in
Peru specifically from the fact that the incountry director of the Genographic Project is
both an advocate of agricultural biotechnology
Even within the most traditional communities,
because what is Western is often seen as
‘modern’ or ‘cosmopolitan,’ it easily captures
the attention (particularly of youth) based on
9
precedents for any similar research
undertakings that may follow in its wake.
and performs biomedical genetic studies on
indigenous people – both things that the
Genographic Project states that it is not
involved in. This has special relevance for
agrocentric cultures, such as the Quechua;
regions that have banned genetically-modified
organisms, such as Cusco; and delicate,
megadiverse ecosystems that house the centre
of origin of key food crops, such as the Andes.
To begin this process, Asociación ANDES and
the Indigenous communities of the Cusco
region of Peru call on representatives of the
Genographic Project to respect the Q’eros
decision not to participate in their project, and
to attend a public forum in order to answer
questions and concerns about their research,
both undertaken and planned. Further, this
dialogue should be followed up by bringing all
articulated concerns, along with the results of
the public forum, to the global community, via
the United Nations.
Recommendations
The extent and seriousness of the concerns
about the Genographic Project call for an
immediate halt to, and review of its research
activity. Indigenous peoples’ communities,
nations, and organizations; institutions of local,
regional, state, and global governance; and
human rights, social justice, and development
agencies must ally in support of a thorough,
formal, transparent, and independent
investigation into the mandate and activities of
the Genographic Project, and set firm
Ultimately, we assert that the minimum
acceptable standard for continuation for the
Genographic Project is that Indigenous Peoples
participate fully in every facet of the research,
including wielding veto power over any aspect
of the Project.
Published in May 2011 by
Asociación ANDES
Ruinas 451
Cusco PERU
Tel: +51 84 245021
Fax: +51 84 245021
[email protected]
http://www.andes.org.pe
10