The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Protection of Genetic Information within Human Remains

原住民遺骸之遺傳資源保障：以美國原住民族墓穴保護及歸返法案為例

10.29910/TJIS.201112.0001

林孟玲(Meng-Ling Lin)

原住民族墓穴保護及歸返法 ； 基因樣本 ； 基因資訊 ； 原住民遺骸 ； 文化資產 ； The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ； genetic evidence ； human remains ； genetic information ； cultural property

台灣原住民族研究季刊

4卷4期（2011 / 12 / 01）

1 - 32

英文

關於原住民遺骸之遺傳資源保障，應分兩方面加以思考：實體的基因樣本以及抽象的基因資訊之保障。「美國一九九０年原住民族墓穴保護及回復法案（NAGPRA）」要求：聯邦政府資金所贊助之博物館所擁有之原住民族遺骸及文化遺產應諮詢適當原住民族後，基於原住民族之要求加以返還。近年來，漸有呼聲要求以基因證據（genetic evidence）為工具，以了解該法案所規範之「文化關聯（cultural affiliation）」，作為原住民遺骸部落歸屬之證據。然而，「原住民族墓穴保護及回復法」只就實體的原住民族文化遺產及遺骸以財產法（property law）之概念加以規範；傳統財產法概念是否就原住民遺骸基因資訊之提供保障不無疑問。有鑒於目前科學界以原住民DNA證明原住民世系仍有相當不確定性，以及從事此類基因資訊科學研究時，對於原住民族之特殊觀點應予尊重：原住民族視基因資訊與原住民族遺骸為一整體，而非獨立存在。NAGPRA既規範原住民遺骸為部落之財產，此規範應涵蓋基因資訊，方不失NAGPRA為原住民人權法案之良法美意。本文進一步建議：為呼應原住民族權利為集體權利而非個別權利，NAGPRA應以文化資產（cultural property）取代傳統財產法（property law）之用語。於文化資產規範體系下，科學家以及原住民族應以部落集體權利以及文化照管為前提，作為原住民遺骸返還之基礎。考量原住民族遺骸返還時，依NAGPRA意旨，所有相關證據皆等價之前提下，應優先考量其他可能證據，而暫時擱置有爭議之基因證據之使用。

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 requires that federally funded museums in possession and control of indigenous human remains, associated funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony consult with the appropriate tribal groups and, upon the tribes' requests, provide for the repatriation of these items. In order to assess cultural affiliation for human remains repatriation as required by NAGPRA, there has been a call to incorporate genetic evidence as biological evidence in recent years, and both ancient and modern DNA analyses are being considered. In 2000, the Department of the Interior admitted that ”genetic evidence is a kind of biological evidence that may be relevant in determining cultural affiliation.” This attitude may lead to insensitivity toward non-Western human remains and a profound lack of empathy toward descendants of the deceased because scientists tend to ignore that in most native cultures there is a profound reverence for the deceased, and it is considered sacrilegious to conduct research on the deceased.Therefore, this article will illustrate the scientific uncertainty in proving native ancestry by ancient DNA and also the view of indigenous peoples that their genetic information should rather be understood within the context of their cosmology as a whole. Thus, their genes cannot be segregated as a separate part of the human remains, and both the genetic information and human remains should be regarded as a whole. Furthermore, the article recommends that the NAGPRA replaces property language with the cultural property concept, which can better draw tribal communal interests rather than individual ones. Through the cultural property narrative, both the scientists and the tribes can better consider the peoplehood and cultural stewardship in regard to the human remains repatriation. Accordingly, scientists should not use genetic evidence as a means to prove tribal cultural affiliation at will and should consider other possible evidence such as tribal narratives and oral history, which the NAGPRA considers of equal evidentiary weight as scientific data in the evaluation of cultural affiliation between ancient and contemporary Native Americans.

1. U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Human Genome Research Institute. 2001. American Indian and Alaska Native Genetics Research Policy Formulation Meeting Summary Meeting Report.U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Human Genome Research Institute.
2. Bereano, Philip. 1995. “Patent Nonsensense-Patent Pending: The Race to Own DNA-Guaymi Tribe was Surprised to Discover They Were Invented.” The Seattle Times, August 27, B5.
3. Marks, Jonathan and Brett Lee Shelton.“Genetic “Marks”-Not a Valid Test of Native Identity.” Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, (http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html)(2010/11/15)
4. “Are the Saami Indigenous People?” Varas News (March 3, 1999), (2002/4/3).
5. InSCIght, Immune Genes Hint at Human Origins (http://www.apnet.com/inscight/030211998/grapha.html) (1998/3/3)
6. Anaya, S. James(2004).Indigenous Peoples in International Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
7. Andrews, Lori B.,Nelkin, Dorothy(1998).Whose Body Is It, Anyway? Disputes Over Body Tissue in a Biotechnology Age.The Lancet,351,53-55.
8. Big Boy, Marla,Lakota, Oglala(1999).Colville Tribe on Kennewick.Anthropology News,40(5)
9. Flessas, Tatiana(2003).Cultural Property Defined, and Redefined as Nietzschean Aphorism.Cardozo Law Review,24(1067),1072-73.
10. Frigo, Manlio(2004).Cultural Property v. Cultural Heritage: A "Battle of Concepts" in International Law?.International Review Red Cross,86(367),369.
11. Harry, Debra(2009).Indigenous Peoples and Gene Disputes.Chicago-Kent Law Review,84(147),162.
12. Harry, Debra,Kanehe, Le'a Malia(2006).Asserting Tribal Sovereignty Over Cultural Property: Moving Towards Protection of Genetic Material and Indigenous Knowledge.Seattle Journal for Social Justice,5(27),33+49.
13. Holm, S.(2001).The privacy of Tutankhamen-utilising the genetic information in stored tissue samples.Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics,22(5),437-449.
14. Jones, Peter N.(2004).American Indian Mtdna, Y Chromosome Genetic Data, and the Peopling of North America.Boulder:Bauu Press.
15. Kaestle, F.A.,Horsburgh, K.A.(2002).Ancient DNA in Anthropology: Methods, Applications, and Ethics.Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,45(92),92-95+100+106-108.
16. Kaestle, Frederika A.,Smith, David G.(2005).Working with ancient DNA:NAGPRA, Kennewick Man, and Other Ancient Peoples.Biological Anthropology and Ethics-from Repatriation to Genetic Identity
17. Katyal, K.,Riley, Angela R.(2009).In Defense of Property.Yale Law Review,118(1022),1031.
18. Kenney, Cortelyou C.(2011).Reframing Indigenous Cultural Artifacts Disputes: An Intellectual Property-based Approach.Cardozo Arts and Environment Law Review,28(501),546.
19. Khan, Zeshan Q.(1999).Colonialism Revisited: Insights into the Human Genome Diversity Project.Journal of Law ＆ Social Challenges,3(89),104.
20. Lannan, Robert W.(1998).Anthropology and Restless Spirits: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and The Unresolved Issues of Prehistoric Human Remains.Harvard Environmental Review,22(369),391.
21. Lewontin, Richard(2000).It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions.New York:New York Review of Books.
22. Lewontin, Richard,Rose, Steven,Kamin, Leon J.(1984).Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature.New York:Pantheon Books.
23. Lie, John(2004).Modern People.Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
24. Lock, Margaret(1999).Genetic Diversity and the Politics of Difference.Chicago-Kent Law Review,75(83),88.
25. Merrill, Thomas W.(1998).Property and the Right To Exclude.Nebraska Law Review,77(730),730.
26. Merryman, John Henry(2000).Thinking About the Elgin Marbles.U.S.A.:Aspen Publishers, Inc..
27. Nelkin, Dorothy(2002).A Brief History of the Political Work of Genetics.Jurimetrics Journal,42(121)
28. Olson, Steve(2001).The Genetic Archaeology of Race.The Atlantic Monthly,2001(April),69.
29. Painter-Thrne, Suzianne D.(2002).Contested Objects, Contested Meanings: Native American Grave Protection Laws and the Interpretation of Culture.U.C. Davis Law Review,35(1261),1270.
30. Petrich, Matthew J.(2000).Litigating NAGPRA in Hawai'i: Dignity or Debacle?.University of Hawaii Law Review,22(545),562.
31. Pipes, Richard(1999).Property and Freedom.New York:Alfred A. Knopf.
32. Riley, Angela R.(2005).'Straight Stealing': Towards an Indigenous System of Cultural Property Protection.Washington Law Review,80(69),77.
33. Riley, Angela R.(2000).Recovering Collectivity: Group Rights to Intellectual Property in Indigenous Communities.Cardozo Arts and Environment Law Review,18(175),214.
34. Rose, Carol M.(1988).Crystals and Mud in Property Law.Stanford Law Review,40(577),578-80.
35. Scafidi, Susan(2001).Intellectual Property and Cultural Products.Boston University Law Review,81(793),812-13.
36. Schiller, Herbert(1976).Communication and Cultural Domination.White Plains, N. Y.:International Arts and Sciences Press.
37. Sharp, Lauriston(1952).Stone Age Axes for Stone Age Australians.Human Organization,11(2)
38. Singer, Joseph William(2000).Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property.New Haven:Yale University Press.
39. Strickland, Rennard(1997).Tonto's Revenge: Reflections on American Indian Culture and Policy.Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
40. TallBear, Kimberly(2000).Genetics, Culture and Identity in Indian Country.GENETICS, CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN INDIAN COUNTRY, ISE 2000 CONFERENCE
41. Tsosie, Rebecca(2007).Cultural Challenges to Biotechnology: Native American Genetic Resources and the Concept of Cultural Harm.Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics,35(396),409.
42. Underkuffler, Laura S.(2003).The Idea of Property: Its Meaning and Power.U.K.:Oxford University Press.
43. Williams, Robert A., Jr.(1990).Encounters on the Frontiers of International Human Rights Law: Redefining the Terms of Indigenous Peoples' Survival in the World.Duck Law Journal,1990(660),663.

1. 黃之棟(2020)。原住民族遺骨與文物返還的制度性反思：從「2017年馬遠布農族遺骸爭議」出發。台灣政治學刊，24(2)，105-150。
2. (2015)。從原住民族的文化權內涵評原創條例－以國際法觀點出發。中正財經法學，10，167-217。