User:PaleoNeonate/Ata

Research history
A 2018 paper published in the Genome Research journal by Bhattacharya et al. summarized previous speculations about the skeleton like that it could be ancient, another primate, a human fetus with genetic abnormalities or an extraterrestrial, due to it having fewer ribs, to its small size and the shape if its head. It reported that DNA analysis confirmed it was a human female, estimating that it was six to eight years-old at the time of death and likely Chilean. According to this paper, DNA analysis suggested that the skeleton was not ancient but from a modern age and that the infant suffered from the genetic disorder skeletal dysplasia, that this could explain the peculiar anatomic features.

Ethics and methodology concerns
A follow-up comment posted same year in the same journal by Nolan and Butte in relation to the Bhattacharya paper provided more context about previous claims about the remains, how it came to eventually be tested and the concerns expressed by the scientific community about the ethical implications of such a find. The authors called for repatriation of the girl's remains to Chile and stressed the importance of providing cultural, historical and political context when studying the DNA of archaeological human remains. It summarized the history of commercial and exploitative use of the body, that after having been apparently discovered in 2003 in Chile was sold multiple times to end up in a private collection in Spain. It was also used to promote tourism and outlandish claims, including in YouTube videos. It was only after experiments done in 2013 that it was confirmed to be human and that it was less than 500 years old. Lachman's analysis of DNA samples and X-rays, other than supporting the human origin, also raised the possibility that disease resulted in physical abnormalities, that the remains were not exotic.

A 2018 paper by Halcrow et al. published in International Journal of Paleopathology evaluated the 2018 paper by Bhattacharya et al. Referring to the remains as a preterm baby, rather than only as the "Atacama skeleton", it criticized the paper for making hasty conclusions and failing to take in consideration anthropological approaches and ethics, to scientifically interpret the evidence. "Drawing on scientific analytical techniques using human developmental osteology standards, comparative foetal osteological material, and paediatric genetic syndrome literature", it argued that first performing DNA analysis seemed unjustified, since other factors already plausibly explained the state of the remains, other than providing insight on what to look for.

In 2019, May and Nakano-Okuno argued for the importance of ethical sample chain of custody before hasty genetics research be published. Citing the Bhattacharya et al. 2018 research, they add that the "proper steward" of the Chilean human fetus was the Chilean government and that not only research had been performed without their permission but that the skeletton had been paraded for entertainment purposes by ufologists. Nolan and Butte's call to return the sample to Chile is cited in the context of "looting and smuggling of artifacts" and legal scope of property rights. Critics consider the research "tainted", with proponents questioning if it qualified as "human subjects research", and critics stressing for the importance of ethical research rather than only federal legal compliance. The distinction is highlighted between moral or empirical scientific reasons to determine if research should be done and incentives and disincentives, like the refusal to publish, discussed. Factors to determine if research is ethical, like prior public knowledge and the time and history of artifacts are evaluated. Prior practice like engaging communities in the context of Havasupai Tribe genetics research is cited.

In a 2020 International Journal of Paleopathology journal article, Snoddy et al. wrote about the importance of scientific rigor and transparency with the press about the results and limitations of scientific research, to avoid misconstrued sensational claims and recommended a multidisciplinar approach to assessment of samples, method and interpretation informed by "clinical sciences, anthropology, and the humanities" while taking ethics in consideration. The authors asserted that although most palaepathological and archaeological work on human remains is sound, some specific studies may have tainted the public perception of the field due to misguided methods and interpretations, also resulting in sensational claims and expectations, termed the "CSI effect". These being multidisciplinatory fields of research, they stress for the importance of collaboration.