Emma Kowal and colleagues argue against restricting access to genomic data collected from indigenous peoples (Nature 546, 474; 2017), citing our study of Aboriginal Australians as a case in point (A.-S. Malaspinas et al. Nature 538, 207–214; 2016). In fact, the collection of these samples was fully in accordance with Australia's National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Moreover, the researchers worked with the Aboriginal donors to develop the conditions for data sharing.
Kowal et al. mischaracterize this ethical framework as a perceived series of “hurdles” in the pursuit of scientific goals. Also, many researchers hold the view that journals have a moral obligation to make genomic data publicly available, when journals' only responsibility is to ensure that the work was ethically conducted and that the findings are reproducible.
In our view, the implication that scientific goals should take priority over the rights and concerns of indigenous participants smacks of a paternalism that has dogged this research field for decades.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lambert, D., Millar, C. & Willerslev, E. Data sharing: do scientists know best?. Nature 548, 281 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/548281b
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/548281b