Statement on Ethics
General Principles
The 2025 Scientific Advisory Board members represent eight countries across four continents, and therefore, bring to DeMoDa a range of scientific and societal perspectives. The ethical questions related to these legacy data were discussed in-depth during a board meeting on June 2-4, 2025.
The data in DeMoDa are based on observations of human skeletal material. These data were collected in a non-destructive manner. Variations in tooth shape were assessed visually and assigned numerical scores based on comparison with published standards. At the time of collection, all data were obtained in accordance with the applicable governmental laws and institutional policies and procedures in place at that time.
These data are typically based on the study of institutional/museum skeletal collections. The different histories of how human remains were incorporated into institutional collections raise a variety of ethical concerns. Some of the populations included in these institutional collections were incorporated as a consequence of serious inequities and injustices, ranging from societal neglect to racism and, in some instances, genocide. In many cases, institutions lack adequate information to ascertain the provenience context of their collections.
Various professional organizations have been engaging with the ethical issues surrounding the treatment, repatriation, and curation of human remains. These professional and legal entities across the globe are moving to respect the wishes of descendant communities and other communities of care (reflected in the 3rd principle of the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains adopted by the World Archaeological Congress in 1989). There is also a recognition of respect for the potential scientific research value of skeletal remains (the 4th principle of the Vermillion accord). Both of these viewpoints are seen as legitimate and need to be balanced (5th and 6th principles of the Vermillion accord).
In contrast to the direct study of human remains, there has been less ethical engagement with the use of the legacy data collected from human remains, particularly data that has already been published either in full or in part (such as the dental morphological data in DeMoDa). Given this current situation, the Advisory Board recognizes that the decisions made and actions taken during their first meeting (June 2-4, 2025) will provide a point of debate and discussion for how legacy data are managed in the future.
The Board set the six principles of the World Archaeology Congress’ Vermillion Accord (1989) as the foundation to which DeMoDa adheres, holding respect for both societal concerns and scientific value, noting that the application of the six principles for legacy data may differ in some ways from how they are applied to human remains. We also incorporate the points raised by the Global Indigenous Alliance’s CARE principles, that data be shared following both FAIR and also respect Indigenous communities’ through an evaluation of the Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics. The numerous academic and governmental organizations from around the world that have expanded on the Vermillion principles in regards to human remains provide essential perspectives that the DeMoDa Scientific Advisory Board brought into consideration.
The Board will continue to assess and discuss DeMoDa’s impact in both scientific and societal realms, recognizing the dynamic nature of laws and policies across the world (that cannot be fully represented by any one committee). We welcome and appreciate feedback on our chosen approach (described below). We envision that the decisions and policies of our Board will be adjusted as the scientific community, descendant communities, communities of care, and other stakeholders have the opportunity to respond to this first step. We hope that our approach facilitates discussions and provides an opportunity to reimagine ethical futures of research and data collection from human remains.
Putting the Ethical Principles into Action
The study of human variation is historically rooted in efforts to identify similarities and differences between human populations - sometimes with the intent of using those differences to justify mistreatment, a discipline referred to as scientific racism, framed into colonial practices. Although the academic discipline has largely shifted to more diverse and biologically grounded motivations for studying human variation, the legacy of harm still lingers. For many of the communities harmed by scientific racism, the wounds remain raw.
The potential benefit
The DeMoDa Scientific Advisory Board recognizes that the information preserved in DeMoDa provides data that can serve to counter the historical typological studies that led to injustices. The data in DeMoDa preserve a much more nuanced record of continuous human dental variation, not only in terms of the scope of the dataset, but also in its reporting of raw data for individuals.
The DeMoDa Scientific Advisory Board notes that these historical data provide a unique and important opportunity to modernize studies of human dental variation at the species level, with relevance to biological, biomedical, and evolutionary research. The potential benefits to society ranges from:
● the basic biological research from which new insights about human physiology are derived, to
● a more realistic view of human variation that is continual and complex, and can serve to counter the racialized analyses of the past, as well as
● enabling descendant groups to access data of ancestral communities and become active stewards and researchers.
The potential for harm
The challenge that the DeMoDa Scientific Advisory Board discussed at-length is how to balance the value of the scientific insights with the negative impacts that may be experienced by some communities and populations whose dental variation is included in the database. The Advisory Board deeply respects that the wishes of descendant communities should have weight in how the dental variation of their ancestors is used to study the histories of their communities. Neglecting to do this type of consultation prior to the analysis of a range of biological data has led to scientific studies that are at odds with the values and beliefs of some communities, furthering the harm inflicted by scientific racism.
The dental morphological scores in DeMoDa are from hundreds of repositories across the globe, representing many hundreds of descendant communities. While the DeMoDa Scientific Advisory Board respects and appreciates the intentions behind the calls for individual community consultation, in compiling the DeMoDa data, it was immediately clear that this type of population-by-population consultation would not be feasible. It is not always possible to re-trace the data-collection steps of each researcher as the depth of detail that would be necessary was not recorded or no longer exists.
One option to address this situation is to develop a standardized approach for all populations. However, from a global perspective, community concerns are so variable that there is no one policy that would be appropriate for the full range of populations represented in DeMoDa.
Another option the Scientific Advisory Board considered is to not share any data until this challenge is addressed. This option could well render these historical data moot, despite their potential for societal benefit, and rendering past dental anthropology research irreproducible.
A balanced step forward
In order to balance the value and potential harm embedded in the database, a curated dataset of worldwide human dental morphological variation is being released in order to achieve the goal of promoting the study of human variation at the global scale. These comprehensive dental data are made public with less granular information about the populations and the individuals within each population. The Scientific Advisory Board hopes that this combination of data-availability with population and individual de-identification will adequately address the most serious ethical concerns.
Two steps were taken to de-sensitize the contextual data for the dental morphological scores published in this curated global dataset. Rather than using names of populations, or even providing detailed geographical locations, we compiled data into geographical regions so that no one particular population can be identified. We also removed the individual repository identification numbers for the human remains, so that it is not possible to recover this identifying information. In an effort towards transparency, we provide a separate list of the populations included in the database to be available for descendant communities and communities of care to evaluate.
For the time being, DeMoDa will serve as a secure repository for the more-detailed contextual data (individual and population identifications) until communities with a vested concern have had a chance to provide feedback and an appropriate next-step is determined.