The Resilient Taino

What everyone should know about research using DNA from indigenous communities

Photo by Kevin Olson on Unsplash

Nature magazine published an article, Oct. 14, 2011, entitled, “Rebuilding the genome of a hidden ethnicity,”¹ which boldly claimed the Taino were extinct. Completely decimated by the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. Three days later, they revised the article with this statement:

CORRECTED: This article originally stated that the Taíno were extinct, which is incorrect. Nature apologizes for the offence caused, and has corrected the text to better explain the research project described.

The article tested the DNA of 70 living Puerto Ricans in order to identify their ancestors, and found that most Puerto Ricans have between 10-15% of the DNA sequences found in Taino ancestors. The Taino community in Puerto Rico is just south of San Juan and exists on traditional lands. The impact of announcing in the world’s foremost scientific journal that a living people were “extinct” cannot be underestimated. The study authors, were suffering from the collective false memories and misinformation that the Taino no longer exist because Columbus and his Spanish fighting force, destroyed the indigenous people of the Carribean.

Now let’s go through a thought experiment (or one that may be true) and consider that a Native American individual who submits their DNA sample to one of the many online DNA analysis companies that identify not only recent ancestors but ancient DNA connections makes a discovery of a distant relative. Let us say for a moment that family surnames for that individual several generations back is Colon (Spanish for Columbus) and one of the children in the family tree is named “Christopher Columbus”. Then let’s say armed with that family tree information that same individual finds an ancestor through DNA analysis with the surname, Colon (Spanish for Columbus), who is identified as a distant cousin who lives in the Southwestern United States. Upon contacting that DNA match, the individual learns they are a descendant of Christopher Columbus, with descendants who reached present day U.S. through the Dominican Republic and then to Colorado. The raping and pillaging of Christopher Columbus becomes personal. It is not certain but at least plausible that the individual who is Native American is a descendant of one of the many victims of rape by the invading crew of Columbus. The juxtaposition of Columbus Day and Indigenous Peoples Day also takes on a personal significance.

Peter Newark American Pictures /The Bridgeman Art Library

These are stories that make it clear that DNA analysis of indigenous people must be done with informed consent and with complete disclosure about how the information will be used.

When a Tribe sued the researchers: Havasupai v. Arizona State University (2004)

Leaders of the Havasupai Tribe asked a researcher from Arizona State University to help them find how to stop the prevalence of diabetes among their citizens. The researchers who were geneticists, knew that since the Havasupai Tribal Citizens have traditionally lived at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, since their origin, their isolation might make identifying the genes identifiable that are responsible for their diabetes. Between 1990 and 1994, the researchers took blood samples and began analyzing them. They could not find a link to diabetes. But rather than stop, the researchers proceeded to do extensive origin research on their DNA, looking for other diseases, and making conclusions about their mental health as well as inbreeding —- all without consent from the individuals or Tribe.² The researchers even accessed individuals' medical records from medical facilities without consent.

They also tried to make conclusions about their origins by attempting to prove the Bering Strait land bridge theory (that Native Americans all migrated to North America). This contradicted the Tribe’s origin story that they came from the Canyon and were chosen to protect the Canyon.³ Erroneously publishing conclusions that the Tribe's origin stories and purpose were completely false in authoritative scientific journals is the equivalent of a science publication declaring to all Christians that the Bible is completely untrue.

The possession of their blood was also culturally against tradition, as it is part of the person from whom it came and had to be returned to traditional lands.⁴

A case was filed with six counts which included lack of informed consent and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other torts in 2004. ASU did not settle with the individuals until 2010 and then it was only for $700,000. ASU was also said to have spent $1.7 million defending their behavior.⁵

So this has led to better processes with Institutional Review Boards of Universities who must approve human subject research, as well as the informed consent documents and how they are presented to human subjects when their DNA is being used for research.

Before the human DNA analysis revolution, Andrew Kroeber, anthropologist did just as much damage with his research without DNA, when he declared inaccurately that the Ohlone Tribe in California was “extinct” which has prevented the present day members of that Tribe from receiving federal recognition.⁶ Now that DNA is a powerful tool in the arsenal for researchers, it carries authority and can do much more harm, thus there is a responsibility for researchers to be ethical and comply with guidelines. The Taino research should never have been published in 2011 in one of the most prestigious science journals, Nature, without a review of their consultation with the Taino people, and the fact that they said they were "extinct" made it all too convenient not to consult with them!

October 10, 2022 is Indigenous Peoples Day in the United States, and we should take a moment to consider the resiliency of all indigenous people who have been subjected to centuries of genocidal policies. In particular we can look to the Taino people who were the first to meet Christopher Columbus 530 years ago, yet they are still here as a proud, resilient and resurgent Native Tribe. A Tribe that continues to fight back against genocide: this time, paper genocide of mishandled and misrepresented DNA research.

1. Published online 14 October 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.592

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5310710/

3. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html

4. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2010/06/25/june-25-2010-informed-consent-and-medical-research/6545/ and see https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1247467672743/blood-journey.html

5. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/genetic-research-among-havasupai-cautionary-tale/2011-02

6. See

Naming buildings...