Sir

Your News story about the repatriation of Tasmanian bones (“Aboriginal remains head for home” Nature 444, 411; 2006) largely ignores the ethics of scientific investigation of these remains. It is my understanding that the Natural History Museum in London is to gather data on these samples before returning them, which is a good compromise in the controversial circumstances. However, it is difficult to agree that — as some researchers seem to suggest — the remains should stay in the museum's possession indefinitely.

In modern science, for example in the field of medical research, we can proudly say that we strictly control the ethical aspects of our experiments, and do not carry out experiments on human samples obtained unethically or without permission. Not being a historian, I do not know the histories of the items in question. However, Tasmanian remains such as these were typically obtained without consent in circumstances that would now be considered unethical — including theft, grave-robbing and post-mortem mutilation (see Helen MacDonald Human Remains: Dissection and its Histories Yale Univ. Press, 2006).

These are not comparable to archaic remains found by archaeologists or palaeoanthropologists. Archaic remains are discovered in the course of science, not displaced at death and relocated to a site for investigation without permission from relatives. These Tasmanian remains are old, but they are not archaic.

Additionally, the scientific value of these remains is unclear. The quoted phrase “Who knows what kind of questions we could ask?” does not provide a solid enough reason for investigating human remains. Scientists have to be specific in order to avoid criticism. If some researchers consider this a blow, they have to change their mindset and find alternative avenues of investigation. Most medical scientists wouldn't dream of carrying out experiments on human tissue that had been obtained unethically.

As for the issue of ownership, the burden of proof should be on the investigating scientists to show that their samples were obtained ethically, and that continuing investigation is warranted, rather than on descendants to prove ownership.

Is the suggestion that, if nobody can prove a genealogical link with the remains, then any course of investigation is warranted?

If only the Tasmanian Aborigines had been regarded with ethical consideration, they would not have been systematically exterminated. Science was not responsible for their deaths, of course, but we can derive lessons from this sad history. Perhaps sometimes we have to learn to put ethics and humanity above our scientific curiosity.