1

ANDES Communiqué – May 2011

Genographic Project Hunts the Last Incas

Resurrected ‘Vampire Project’ Brings Fears of Biopiracy to Cusco Region

“The Q’ero Nation knows that its history, its past present, and future, is our Inca culture, and we don’t need research called genetics to know who we are. We are Incas, always have been and always will be.”

– Letter from the Hatun Q’eros Community 30 April 2011

Summary

In early April, Asociación ANDES received word that seven researchers from the Genographic Project will arrive in Peru in the first week of May to collect human DNA samples from the Q’eros people. This information is not widely known in the Cusco Region because the US-based Genographic Project did not approach local or regional authorities about their plan, rather, the Project hired a local tour guide and sent a cursory one page notification of their upcoming visit to people in a Q’ero town. The Q’eros are an isolated indigenous group who live in a rural province of the Cusco Region.1 They are renowned for their shamanic knowledge and self-proclaimed identity as ‘The Last Incas.’ The Q’eros inhabit a diverse territory that many would consider inaccessible, and they have maintained cultural traditions from pre-Hispanic times. The Q’eros’ decision to purposefully maintain their identity and traditions despite the increasing reach of

1 Peru’s largest political subdivisions are Regions, which are subdivided into Provinces, which are in turn composed of Districts. Cusco Region is one of 25 regions in Peru.

globalization is under intensifying pressure as highways carve their way into Q’ero territory, bringing potentially exploitative tourism initiatives and attracting the interest of mining companies and bioprospectors – like the researchers from the Genographic Project. The Q’eros were not consulted beforehand about the DNA collection which, they have been informed, will take place following a presentation on May 7th (2011). The Genographic Project has urged the Q’ero to bring children and elders to the DNA collection and, in true neo-colonial style, promises a “fun” presentation with “pretty pictures” to induce attendees to offer DNA samples.2 The Genographic Project’s plan presents a challenge to Cusco Region, which is known for efforts to protect its genetic patrimony and for taking a cautious approach to biotechnology. It has declared itself a GMO-free region has

2 Letter to persons in Qocha Moqo, Peru concerning Genographic Project. 7 April, 2011. http://64.22.85.140/~communiq/pdf/Carta_a_Qeros.pdf

2

adopted a biopiracy ordinance to regulate bioprospecting. Cusco’s ordinances have clear requirements for bioprospecting collection of genetic materials,3 including human DNA, as do applicable international conventions, national law, and local customary law. These appear to have been largely ignored. The Q’ero have decided to resist the Genographic Project’s incursion. On 30 April, following a community assembly, the Q’ero wrote the President of the Cusco Region asking that the government ensure that the Genographic Project does not violate Q’ero rights and complies with law. The Q’eros emphasized that the Project did not have its consent for DNA collections and that Project researchers are not welcome in Q’ero territory. Many in Cusco will view the Genographic Project’s plans as unethical and exploitative. The Project’s human bioprospecting has obvious problems with disclosure and informed consent, incurs risks of theft of genetic material (and data) and genetic discrimination, and arrogantly purports to inform indigenous people, whose self-identity is not in question, who they “really” are. And in the false promise of the latter, it may cause averse legal consequences to its research subjects.

Background: The Genographic Project

The Genographic Project is a large scale genetic study that seeks to collect DNA samples of hundreds of thousands of people from around the world, particularly indigenous people. By sequencing and comparing the DNA samples, the Project purports to be able to map human migration over history, one of many purposes to which the DNA samples may be put to use. The computing giant IMB is the principle corporate sponsor of the Project. Key Project scientists are employed by the US National Geographic Society. Members of the Project’s “Genographic Consortium” also include

3 Government of Cusco Region. Ordenanza Regional 048 - 2008 CR/GRC.CUSCO contra la biopiratería

researchers at 14 other universities, institutes and a DNA sequencing company. The Project planned to end DNA collections in 2010, but it still collecting indigenous peoples’ DNA for reasons that have yet to be publicly explained. The Genographic Project was constructed and is steered by architects of the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) and their protégés. It is an uncomfortable heritage. In the 1990s, the HGDP’s plan to collect blood from indigenous people proved so controversial that it earned the popular name ‘The Vampire Project.’ In 1997, the HGDP was effectively terminated when its efforts to obtain US government funding were rejected due to ethical shortcomings.4 The Genographic Project claims to have solved some of the HGDP’s problems; but its own transparency is lacking. Because it is privately funded, there are few requirements for public disclosure of its activities, and oversight by government and civil society organizations is highly curtailed. To obtain DNA, the Genographic Project collects swabs of cheek tissue (which it emphasizes) and blood samples (not publicly emphasized). The Project says that it will not create self-replicating “immortal” cell lines from blood samples, as the HGDP proposed, but that doesn’t mean that the samples are not “immortal” in other senses. The samples and sequence data an be indefinitely preserved, and DNA of interest duplicated. While the Project has identified some things that it will not do with the samples (e.g. create cell lines), it has not clearly identified the future genetic studies that it plans, and the relatively few Genographic Project studies published to date have focused on scientifically “low hanging fruit” (i.e. relatively obvious topics and methods). Mainly, these studies have compared variations in Y chromosomes (the

4 US National Academies of Science 1997. Evaluating Human Genetic Diversity. Commission on Life Sciences. URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5955

3

male chromosome) and in maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). One of the activities that the Project says that it will not conduct is medical research, but this does not mean that its research may not have medical implications. The genetic markers it chooses to use may or may not be linked to disease predispositions, but either way, now or in the future such implications may become apparent. Even though the Y chromosome and mtDNA together constitute a very small proportion of the human genome, various conditions have been linked to mutations on them. For example, forms of male infertility, deafness, and diabetes are linked to specific sequences on the Y chromosome, and an even greater number of medical conditions is linked to mtDNA mutations. Of course, mtDNA and the Y chromosome are the topic of current studies, and are not the only research that will be conducted. The samples contain the full complement of each participants DNA, and it may be expected that future studies (or current unpublished studies) will expand into analysis of other areas of the genome. The Genographic Project is notably uninformative about where, for what purposes, and under whose control it will store DNA samples and data for such future uses. Genetic predispositions and medical theories about them are constantly being identified and modified. Thus, even if Genographic Project research that is not explicitly linked to medical conditions today, it may become so in the future. When sequences are linked to specific indigenous communities there may be direct social and medical consequences. These are not so keenly felt in a large population where bearers of a particular trait may be dispersed in ways that are relatively unpredictable.

Genetic “Truth” and Consequences

The validity of the genetic results of the Genographic Project, as applied to human history and cultures, are debateable from a

number of perspectives. In the present case, Q’ero self-identity is strong, vibrant, and well-recognized. The Genographic Project, however, claims that it will tell the Q’eros scientific truths about who they are that the Q’eros do not already know. Among them: If and how the Q’eros are related to the Incas (as if Inca is defined genetically), related to the Aymara (a neighbouring indigenous linguistic group), or to “people from the jungle” (i.e. Amazonian peoples). Historical claims by molecular biologists sometimes overreach their field of competence and what can ultimately be concluded through science and the historical record. They are influenced by and reliant on assumptions about genetically “isolated” or “inbred” populations that discount historical fluidity of cultures and previous intermarriage. Evidence of these shortcomings in attempting to explain human history in the Americas can be found in the genetic claims and counterclaims published in the last two decades about possible ancient exchanges between South America, Polynesia, Asia, and Melanesia as well as varying theories about migrations from Asia to Alaska (and thence the rest of the Americas). Now, thanks to the Genographic Project, the Q’eros could become genetic pawns in new academic debate over what constitutes an Inca. While a genetic search for a “real” Inca might make for National Geographic TV programming, it’s unlikely to yield a defensible result or be helpful for the Q’eros and other indigenous peoples. For the Genographic Project’s professors, who have no significant personal investment in the Q’ero community, the stakes are comparatively low – they relate to academic publications and scientific prestige. For the Q’eros, alleged molecular “proof” or “disproof” of their heritage as the “Last Incas” could have profound and unanticipated social and legal consequences. Complicating matters is some scientists disdain for indigenous peoples origin stories, and pieces of the historical record that don’t fit the

4

contemporary genetic theory. The head of the Genographic Project in Peru, Ricardo Fujita Alarcón, a US-trained molecular biologist, reflected this attitude in a 2004 paper on his genetic studies of indigenous people from the Lake Titicaca region. Fujita claims, “The origin of many contemporary native communities is unknown, of them we only have theories based on oral traditions or rolls taken by Spanish conquistadors beginning in the 16th Century.”5 We, however, have yet to meet any indigenous people who don’t know who they are and where they come from. It seems then that Fujita doesn’t have a great deal of respect for indigenous peoples own stories.

Culture Clash and Confused Purposes

In Andean Peru, the clash of cultures between the Genographic Project and its human research subjects is much deeper than divergent historical narratives. The leader of the Genographic Project in Peru not only believes that biotechnology will determine the identity of indigenous peoples, but that it also should be a motor of economic development. For example, while the Region has declared itself GMO-free, Genographic’s Fujita disagrees, and has appeared on television to promote agricultural biotechnology, in particular an alpaca genetics project that he leads.6 With Cusco’s proud agrocentric culture, such views fuel suspicions of the Genographic Project. Although the Genographic Project professes to have no commercial or medical intent, its representatives in Peru are active in biomedical and pharmacology research related to indigenous peoples. Fujita’s research center, in the capitol Lima, is pursuing pharmacogenomic, human “disease gene”, and medicinal plant

5 Sandoval J et al. 2004. Variantes del ADNmt en isleños del lago Titicaca: máxima frecuencia del haplotipo B1 y evidencia de efecto fundador. Rev. peru. biol. 11(2): 161-168. 6 Interview on Potential Benefits of Transgenic Crops to Local Agriculture and the Future Impact of Modern Biotechnology on the Peruvian Economy. Channel 21. Cusco, Peru. 2007. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-zELGVo1FA and Proyectos del Centro de Genética y Biología Molecular, Canal N. Lima, Peru. 2010. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtNqQEaKBig.

studies with clear commercial and medical implications.7 For example, a 2002 study by Fujita asserted that 60% of the indigenous residents of the Peruvian Lake Titicaca islands of Anapia and Suana8 have a “defective” gene that “predisposes them to infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV, and to autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, among others.” According to the study, the gene was found at the highest frequency ever documented in the Peruvian islanders.9 Five years later, in 2007, Fujita and Genographic Project researchers returned to Lake Titicaca to collect DNA samples from other islanders.10 It is not known if the 2007 Lake Titicaca DNA donors were made aware of Fujita’s publication history. Publication of detailed genetic information on small communities impacts personal privacy and could contribute to social prejudice or discrimination in medical care, insurance, or employment. No results of the 2007 collections have thus far been made available.

The Limits of Promises

While the Project prohibits commercial exploitation per se of DNA and data by members of the Genographic Consortium, potentially harmful publications such as the Anapia study arguably do not constitute commercial use. Nor would it seem that the Genographic Project has any ability to prevent others from commercially exploiting the sequence and diversity data that it publishes. Finally, the future disposition of the samples it collects is not well-defined and it is unclear if

7 See URL: http://www.medicina.usmp.edu.pe/Academico/Investigacion/genetica.php 8 Anapia and Suana are both small, rural islands located in southern Lake Titicaca, east of the Bolivian city of Copacabana. The 2005 Peruvian census recorded 2,400 people on the five islands of the Anapia district, an area characterized by very strong indigenous identity and tradition. 9 Sandoval J et al 2002. Alta frecuencia de un haplotipo susceptible del gen Mannose Binding Lectin, en las islas Anapia-Suana del Lago Titicaca. Horizonte Medico (Peru). Vol. 2, Nº 1-2. December. 10 Genographic Project 2011. Fabricio R. Santos (web page). URL: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/pi/santos_notes.html (accessed 14 April 2011).

5

the Genographic Project has the ability and will to bind future recipients to its terms, or to monitor and prevent hijacking of its samples and data. Hijacking DNA samples collected for one purpose and applying them to another has been a repeated problem with studies on indigenous peoples’ DNA. A long history of such cases exists, and doubtless many more remain to be documented. In a noted case, the Havasupai Tribe in the United States challenged researchers from Arizona State University, banishing them from tribal lands and suing them in court. The reason: The researchers, who collected blood for diabetes research, performed a variety of other studies with them unbeknownst to the Havasupai. These included published research identifying the Havasupai’s ancestors as Asian, in conflict with the Havasupai’s own origin stories.11

Q’eros 2011: Informed Consent Issues

The Q’eros have now been thrust into the middle of the Genographic Project and have little time to determine a course of action. The planned collection of Q’ero DNA is scheduled to take place in the community of Qocha Moqo on 7 May 2011, even if serious questions about the legality, ownership, disposition, and profitability of the genetic materials remain open. Those questions certainly are not addressed by the Genographic Project’s invitation to the Q’eros to give DNA samples, whose casual tone and threadbare content is at strong odds with the detailed procedures that the Genographic Project claims to conduct. The Project states that participants grant informed consent that is deliberate, considered, individual and collective. According to the Project:12

11 See Harmon A 2010. Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA. New York Times. 22 April. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html 12 Genographic Project 2011. Frequently Asked Questions (web page). URL: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/faqs_about.html (accessed 26 April 2011).

The researchers at each of the regional centers around the world work first with collaborators and leaders in individual communities not just to explain the Genographic Project, but also to better understand how and if those communities are interested in learning about their migratory history, before any other planning takes place. Sampling of DNA takes place only when consultation—which may take weeks and months—is complete and there is both collective and individual interest in participating.

Yet the approach to the Q’eros has been nothing of the sort. The Q’eros were sent a one page letter that presents the Project and its goals in a single paragraph. DNA is defined as “a chemical that all of us have in our bodies that shows our origins and family connections from centuries ago”, as if its purpose is historical genetics. Then, the letter continues (emphasis in the original):

The 7th of May I’ll arrive with 7 people from National Geographic, from the US and Lima, to give you a presentation on the study at the Qocha Moqo school. We’re going to use a projector and pretty pictures! Please, invite everybody from Qocha Moqo (adults, elders, children) to participate, because the presentation is going to be very interesting! Everything is voluntary, there’s no obligation, but you’re going to have fun and learn a lot!

If you want, you can participate in the study. The benefit is that the people of Q’eros can know their ancestral roots, that is, know if they are related to the Incas, Aymara, or people in the jungle. You can learn about your origin from centuries and centuries ago.

We’re going to explain well on the 7th of May, so if you don’t understand now, come that day and we’ll explain.

On the basis of that presentation, the Q’ero will be asked to consent to DNA collection. While the letter makes clear that participation is

6

voluntary, the consent process it describes cannot be remotely reconciled with what the Genographic Project says are its procedures: • The Genographic Project claims that it conducts a consultation process “before any other planning takes place”, but this collection was planned down to date, exact location, and time of day before the Q’eros were contacted. • The Genographic Project says that its consultation process is lengthy and detailed, and “may take weeks and months”. For the Q’eros, however, Genographic plans a single powerpoint presentation immediately before collecting DNA. This “fun” presentation with “pretty pictures” manages to invoke the sordid legacy of religious prosthelytizing with mirrors and trinkets, although the Bible has now been replaced by a DNA sequencer as the ultimate font of truth. • The Genographic Project claims that it determines that communities are “interested in learning about their migratory history” (or, at least, the version of it that Genographic offers). Yet there is no such determination here. Instead, the Q’ero are presumed to be interested in what genetics has to offer, which is presented as objective truth rather than evolving science. Access to this information is used as an inducement to participate (a “benefit”). • The Genographic Project claims to be interested in indigenous perspectives on the Project, yet it expresses no interest in the Q’eros perspective, nor could they effectively shape the Project design as the Q’eros’ only opportunity to express them is at the time of DNA collection. • The Genographic Project claims to seek collective consent, but there is no apparent effort to do so here. It would be physically impossible for the Q’ero of Qocha Moqo to consult with other Q’ero communities in the time allowed to contemplate the Genographic Project’s proposition. In this case, the

“collectivity” appears to be that proportion of the people from a single settlement that care to attend the Project’s presentation. • The explanation of what the Genographic Project is, and attendant ethical and legal issues, is glib and undetailed. Even if it is elaborated upon at the Project’s presentation, the Q’ero would have no opportunity to consult alternative sources of information before being asked to donate DNA. This flies in the face of the Project’s claim that prior informed consent is considered and deliberate. • There is no indication that the Genographic Project has obtained legal permission to conduct the collections, another practice the Project claims to follow. Analysis of Q’ero genetic material, meant to determine migration patterns, could impact the interests and aspirations of the Q’eros and other indigenous nations, in particular perceptions of their historical identity and contemporary affiliation with traditional ‘homelands.’ The Genographic Project’s findings have potential to become arguments to vacate legal title to territory, erode cultural cohesion and inflame state-community conflicts over land and natural wealth. Resource extractive industries, for example, have a pressing interest in invalidating land claims, cultural practice and identity that are perpetuated through national memory, and livelihoods are that rooted in traditional knowledge, which may conflict with activities such as commercial mining.

The Genographic Project Study of the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe

The only publication to date by the Genographic Project that is focused on an indigenous people in the Americas is a case in point as to why the Q’eros have reason to be concerned. The 2010 study is on the Seaconke Wampanoag people of the northeastern United States, and it appears to significantly damage their attempt to gain legal recognition.

7

Although the study includes Wampanoag co-authors, and it recounts their history in unusual detail for such a publication, what matters in a genetics publication is genetics. And the conclusion is inescapable: “our study did not find any maternal Native American lineages in the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe”. 13 What that means is that the Genographic Project claims that Seaconke Wampanoag women are recent arrivals from Europe and Africa and are not “genetic” Native Americans. Seaconke Wampanoag men fared little better. The Genographic Project claims that they are a mix of Native American, European, African, and Melanesian. It adds that none of the “Native American DNA” it found could be conclusively linked to the historical indigenous inhabitants of the US northeast.14 In short, if the Seaconke Wampanoag were looking to the Genographic Project for support of their appeal for recognition by the US government, as has been reported,15 the study was an unmitigated disaster for the tribe. Will this paper will be presented to the Q’eros? Whether or not one is confident in the Genographic Project’s result, or believe that it is culturally significant even if it were empirically correct,16 the Seaconke Wampanoag’s attempts to gain recognition by the US government have been dealt a setback. The genetics results can be interpreted as adverse evidence with respect to several criteria used by the government to

13 Zhadanov SI et al 2010. Genetic heritage and native identity of the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Aug;142(4):579-89. 14 In other words, the Genographic Project claims, even the proportion of Seaconke Wampanoag men with ‘Native American’ Y chromosome DNA may be recent migrants from other areas of North America, meaning that the DNA may not represent a genetic artifact of Seaconke Wampanoag identity. 15 See TallBear K 2007. Narratives of Race and Indigeneity in the Genographic Project. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 35:3, citing press accounts. Also well-worth reading for its other discusion on the Genographic Project. 16 The Wampanoag are widely known to have intermarried with other people for many generations, a fact that does not inherently dilute their indigenous identity, and which the authors point out. Cast in the mode of thinking of molecular biology, however, genetic evidence of this already known fact can easily construed to undermine their legal claims.

make a decision.17 Lack of recognition means the US government does not acknowledge Seaconke Wampanoag sovereignty.18

Implications for the Q'eros, Indigenous Peoples in Peru, and Around the World

Like many indigenous communities, the Q’eros and their agroecological knowledge and traditional livelihoods are already seriously threatened by biopiracy and extractive industries. The Q’eros are presently in the crosshairs of the Genographic Project, but they are far from the only indigenous people to face it. Most of the issues facing the Q’ero are manifestations of larger problems raised by the Genographic Project that effect not only other indigenous peoples from whom the Project is taking DNA samples, but all indigenous peoples whose traditions and identities are challenged by Western genetic science and the economic and belief systems associated with it. Some of these legal, ethical, economic, and cultural issues are summarized below: Political/Legal: By visiting Indigenous communities in Cusco and collecting DNA without contacting the regional government, the Genographic Project will violate Cusco’s sovereignty and standing ordinance on bioprospecting.19 As agents of a foreign entity, Project researchers should make their intentions fully known beforehand to governing bodies – state, regional, and Indigenous – and acquire appropriate approvals. The Project’s ambiguity about storage of samples and data raises more legal questions, including human rights. The consent procedures that the Genographic Project says it has adopted have been have flagrantly disregarded

17 US Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR 83. Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe. 18 For interesting further commentary on this article see: TallBear K 2010. Genographic and the Seaconke Wampanoag (web page). URL: http://www.kimtallbear.com/1/post/2010/10/genographic-and-the-seaconke-wampanoag.html 19 Ordenanza Regional 048 - 2008 CR/GRC. CUSCO contra la biopiratería.

8

in the Q’eros case and do not appear to satisfy applicable law. Further, in the future, with stored samples, can informed consent be obtained for future procedures or technologies that do not yet exist? Granted that the Genographic Project states that participants may withdraw at any time, but will they be aware of the future location and use of these samples? Article 31 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People declares that “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions”. By collecting indigenous peoples DNA, storing it for future research under non-indigenous control, and purporting to determine cultural heritage by genetics, does the Genographic Project not seek, by design, to usurp the rights of indigenous people? To say nothing of the other potential legal abuses that could result from neglect or deliberate act by the Project, such as disenfranchisement and discrimination? Ethical: The Genographic Project was never intended to serve the needs or interest of Indigenous Peoples, but to satisfy the curiosity of Western scientists. Indigenous Peoples were not consulted about the Project when it was in the planning stages. The Project created a code of ethics for itself and by itself, a dubious strategy in any circumstance, evidenced by the fact that it is violating its own published procedures in its approach to the Q’eros. Because of its use of living people as the subjects of scientific research designed to answer academic questions and lack of intent to provide Indigenous participants with any tangible benefit, the initiative is exploitative. The collection of samples was halted in Alaska, for example, because consent forms were improperly explained to the local community,20 and ethical problems are again surfacing in

20 Harmon A 2006. DNA Gatherers Hit Snag: Tribes Don’t Trust Them. New York Times. 10 December.

Peru. In reality, informed consent may be impossible without specialized training in genetics and medicine, without which it is difficult to evaluate the claims of the scientists. The Genographic Project’s communication with the Q’eros characterizes the DNA collection as a “fun” social event that every man, woman, and child should attend. It skirts the serious issues inherent in human genetic research, suggesting that the Project holds only rewards for the Q’eros, and not risks. This tactic renders a balanced consideration of participation impossible. Rather than discuss risks, the Genographic Project suggests it may genetically trace Q’eros ancestry to the Incas. These promises are speculative and obscure both risk and scientific uncertainty.21 Economic: The Genographic Project’s scientists may conclude that indigenous peoples are not descended from the original inhabitants of their territories, but migrants from other lands. This is not a hypothetical concern, as demonstrated by the Genographic Project’s study of the Wampanoag. There is a related risk in some regions that the Project could ‘discover’ that Indigenous groups are not genetically ‘pure,’ but instead are ‘admixed’ with European or other ancestry. Such findings have potential to endanger territorial claims and legal recognitions. And in an even crueller twist of fate, depending upon where in the genome the Project looks for its evidence, or upon future research, these ‘discoveries’ are subject to revision. Such discussions about the significance of genetic evidence for migration or intermarriage may suit comfortably ensconced professors’ academic purposes just fine; but it is unjust to

21 Another ethical aspect that merits its own analysis is the Genographic Project’s Legacy Fund, which makes small donations to cultural preservation projects. The lack of relevant links between the DNA research at hand and Indigenous Peoples’ cultural continuity is troubling. Without stronger justification, the Legacy Fund cannot cogently counter accusations that its function is to deflect attention from predatory elements of the research, making it essentially a ‘whitewashing’ effort, or an attempt to simply buy Indigenous participation.

9

subject the territorial claims and self-identities of Indigenous human cultures to their young and evolving science, particularly when it purports to provide objective truth. If Indigenous territorial claims are so threatened, this opens the door for transnational actors – particularly corporations, which already operate with too few legal and ethical constraints – to move in and begin extracting the natural resource wealth of the region. Mining interests are already poised to stake a claim in Q’ero territory, while similar corporate ambitions have surfaced all across Peru. If scientists announce that, in their opinion, the Q’eros are not Indigenous to the region, their hold on their territory is rendered more precarious, and may be weighed against competing interests in the land and the material wealth found therein. A logical extension of ’non-Indigenous’ status would also hold that, since they are not originally from Qocha Moqo, any other geographical location should suit the Q’eros equally well, in which case relocation of this community becomes a possibility. Socio-cultural: It is misleading to assert that genetic research exists independently of public perceptions of groups, or that scientific assertions are a neutral or benign parallel narrative to indigenous cultures’ own knowledge. Scientists have their own ideas about Indigenous cultures, which often conflict with local knowledge and can be damaging to that knowledge. The Project acknowledges that the narratives can be different; but not that its own can be damaging. Science and history are not the same in Western and indigenous cultures, and when they are in opposition the Western model is usually been taken as ‘truthful’ while Indigenous knowledge is labelled ‘superstition’ and ‘myth,’ despite the inherently provisional nature of scientific ‘evidence.’ Even within the most traditional communities, because what is Western is often seen as ‘modern’ or ‘cosmopolitan,’ it easily captures the attention (particularly of youth) based on

confusing what is flashy with what is valid and meaningful. This clash of scientific findings and traditional knowledge of tribal history happened in the case of the Havasupai. By virtue of their conscious cultural and geographic separation, the Q’eros are especially vulnerable to Western modes of organizing of culture and knowledge, wherein the local and customary must give way to the (Euro-)modern. Certain cultural expressions of the Q’eros are particularly vulnerable to the aggressive promotion of alien hierarchies. Their status as shamans, for example, whose knowledge is almost by definition set in opposition to (and ranked below) scientific understandings of natural and human phenomena. More broadly, the Q’eros view of themselves and of history, as well as the view of the nation taken by outsiders, may be substantially altered by the planned research. Self-definition and self-determination (recognized and protected by the International Labour Organization’s Convention No.169, among other legal instruments) may be overridden by scientific hypotheses of origin and migration, and political opinions about the resulting legal and ethical claims. Other Considerations: Even if the Genographic Project was otherwise commendable, random samples that test for very narrow markers cannot provide reliable or more widely useful information, and these results will probably raise as many questions as they answer. It is therefore wise to ask whether this research is really even productive in the service of Western knowledge, or whether it will actually produce the greatest benefits for its ‘parent’ companies (The National Geographic Society and IBM) and the reputations of the researchers involved. Concerns about hidden agendas arise not only from the huge financial interest in bioinformatics of project sponsor IBM but in Peru specifically from the fact that the in-country director of the Genographic Project is both an advocate of agricultural biotechnology

10

and performs biomedical genetic studies on indigenous people – both things that the Genographic Project states that it is not involved in. This has special relevance for agrocentric cultures, such as the Quechua; regions that have banned genetically-modified organisms, such as Cusco; and delicate, megadiverse ecosystems that house the centre of origin of key food crops, such as the Andes.

Recommendations

The extent and seriousness of the concerns about the Genographic Project call for an immediate halt to, and review of its research activity. Indigenous peoples’ communities, nations, and organizations; institutions of local, regional, state, and global governance; and human rights, social justice, and development agencies must ally in support of a thorough, formal, transparent, and independent investigation into the mandate and activities of the Genographic Project, and set firm

precedents for any similar research undertakings that may follow in its wake. To begin this process, Asociación ANDES and the Indigenous communities of the Cusco region of Peru call on representatives of the Genographic Project to respect the Q’eros decision not to participate in their project, and to attend a public forum in order to answer questions and concerns about their research, both undertaken and planned. Further, this dialogue should be followed up by bringing all articulated concerns, along with the results of the public forum, to the global community, via the United Nations. Ultimately, we assert that the minimum acceptable standard for continuation for the Genographic Project is that Indigenous Peoples participate fully in every facet of the research, including wielding veto power over any aspect of the Project.

Published in May 2011 by Asociación ANDES Ruinas 451 Cusco PERU Tel: +51 84 245021 Fax: +51 84 245021 communique@andes.org.pe http://www.andes.org.pe