Sir

As a member of the panel that published the Palmer report supporting the principle of repatriation of ancestral remains (“Bone archives face prospect of dispersal” Nature 426, 109; 200310.1038/426109a ), but also as the sole author of a statement of dissent, I argue that competing concerns must be weighed carefully on a case-by-case basis.

There must be a balance between the concerns of claimant communities on the one hand and, on the other, the loss to humanity resulting from wholesale return on request. It is clear to me that this balance will be destroyed if the return of human remains on request becomes the order of the day.

There is a strong case for the retention of human remains in the scientific collections of museums and university departments. Research into collections at the Natural History Museum in London over recent years has enabled surgeons to explore improved surgical techniques on damaged knee joints. It has increased our understanding of diverse human groups' responses to malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases, and has trained forensic anthropologists in methods which they then used to help identify bodies found in Bosnia's mass war graves.

The benefits that these collections provide to humanity are not sufficiently recognized in the Palmer report. Its recommendations that there should be return on request from claimant communities or individuals within those communities are tantamount to mandatory repatriation.