The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7283 p100
24 January 2004

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 90K

Who owns old bones? more
Reversing the decline in chemistry teaching more
Shades of Darwin debate in new war between religion and science more

Who owns old bones?

There has been an ambivalent attitude to human skeletal remains for generations. The claim of anatomists that human bones removed from archaeological excavations and taken into museums for study by experts constitute a valuable source of research data into the habits of our forefathers has always been maintained by the scientists involved. Moreover, the experts have always been reluctant to return any specimens once they have gained possession, in case more advanced techniques of investigation might reveal data that had been undetermined previously. As a result, the museums of the Western world are rich in human remains that have been ignored for years.

Since previously ignored societies have taken a lively interest in their ancestors and their customs, attitudes have changed. Indigenous tribes in Australia, New Zealand and America have long accused the West of acquiring their forefathers’ bones as part of the imperialist invasions of a technologically advanced state of a primitive one. The conquerors of new territories had little respect for the customs and rituals that determined the attitude of the aborigines towards family remains. Of late, however, the indigenes have insisted on their moral right to deal with their ancestors’ remains as they think fit, and there can be no gainsaying the claim.

In Nature for 13 November there is a report that a panel of academics and museum curators has recommended that the British government legalise the repatriation of bone collections. They should be kept only with the consent of direct descendants or their representatives. It is estimated that half the specimens in the University of Cambridge and the London Natural History Museum originate from other countries and would be subject to repatriation. The indigenous Australians are foremost in the ranks of the claimants of specimens in British museums. They claim that the bones were stolen, and human remains deserve to be buried if this is desired. Naturally, researchers argue that breaking up the collections would undermine efforts to understand human evolution and the history of indigenous peoples. They say that the proposed repatriation would be like burning a library.

The Government has promised to respond to the recommendation in January, and to consult with museums and universities before any new legislation is drafted. However, there is an outstanding agreement with Australia to carry out the repatriation. In the United States a Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act dating from 1990 has prompted fierce legal battles between indigenous groups and scientists over how human remains shall be handled. How many indigenous peoples all over the world are likely to take an active interest in repatriating tribal remains is not clear. No doubt some will see no point in pursuing the move, while others who hold religious customs seriously will be stimulated into action.

Back to Top

Reversing the decline in chemistry teaching

According to Sir Harry Kroto, president of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a research professor in the School of Chemistry, Physics and Environmental Science of the University of Sussex, writing in the January issue of Chemistry World, the decline in the popularity of studying chemistry must be reversed if we value our future. He points out that developed nations are recognisable from having harnessed “the innovative genius of scientists and engineers to provide abundant food, shelter, clothing, warmth, medicine and other necessities to survive.” Moreover, science professionals have also helped to provide our luxuries. We must address the current decline in popularity of chemistry and revitalise its teaching if we are to look forward to sustainable development.

Sir Harry maintains that the present rate of dissipation of earthly resources cannot be maintained, and that chemists understand this better than anyone else. This makes the study of chemistry fundamental to the 21st century. Industrialists, politicians, engineers, scientists, farmer and fishermen must co-operate to make sustainability of human life on earth a priority.

Unfortunately, many sensitive young people are apprehensive and disillusioned by prognoses of the future. If they can be persuaded that future innovation is driven by the desire for sustainability they might bring their creative potential into the study of science, and particularly chemistry. A drop of 25 per cent in the number of undergraduate chemists over the past five years has serious implications. The Royal Society of Chemistry is working with other United Kingdom science organisations to persuade the government that the present market-driven complacency over the flow of scientists can only result in disaster. It is necessary to improve teachers’ skills in explaining the importance of chemistry to the future of our country.

Back to Top

Shades of Darwin debate in new war between religion and science

An editorial article by Alan Leshner in Science for 28 November 2003 draws attention to the curious battle being waged, particularly in the United States, between ideology and religious doctrine on the one hand and scientific research on the other. Leshner comments that in the previous few weeks a right-wing religious group had questioned the legitimacy of some 200 grants made by the US National Institutes of Health towards behavioural and social research into such issues as sexuality (particularly homosexual relationships), transmission of HIV and abuse of drugs. He points out that political or ideological intervention is not new. For example, in the 1970s and ’80s United States Senator William Proxmire cast ridicule on science by handing out his “Golden Fleece awards’’ to projects that were presented as stupid and a wicked waste of public money, although many of them later proved to be valuable.

It is true that scientific researchers should be fully accountable to the public which pays through its taxes. Research should be an open enterprise that invites informed criticism. But when healthy scrutiny makes way for irresponsible attacks a limit must be drawn. The recent attacks have been intended to impose narrow ideologies and religious doctrines on deliberations to award research grants. Moral objection may be raised to drug habits and sexual practices, but problems of public health cannot be solved by forbidding research into them.

The present controversy is strangely reminiscent of the great debate on evolution which Charles Darwin aroused in 1859 with the publication of his ‘On the origin of the species’. Then Bishop Wilberforce called the book “atheistical” and Pope Pius IX called the theory of evolution “a system which is repugnant at once to history, to exact science, to observation, and even to reason itself ... a tissue of fables”. Today there are some who maintain those objections — but not many.

Back to Top

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later