Researchers and institutions have long treated human remains as research property without consent from the deceased or their families, a practice rooted in colonial-era grave robbing and slavery. Nancy Shute, editor in chief of Science News, examines how this history continues to shape modern bioethics.

For centuries, anatomists obtained cadavers through theft and exploitation. Enslaved people and marginalized populations provided most specimens for medical schools and museums. Families had no say in what happened to their relatives' bodies after death. This dynamic persisted well into the 20th century, with indigenous communities particularly victimized by researchers who removed and stored remains without permission.

The ethical reckoning came slowly. Institutional review boards now require consent for research involving human tissue. Many museums have repatriation programs that return remains to indigenous nations and descendant communities. Yet gaps remain. Some older collections lack clear provenance records, making repatriation difficult. Researchers in developing nations sometimes face pressure to provide specimens without adequate consent frameworks. Unclaimed bodies in morgues still enter research pipelines with minimal oversight in certain jurisdictions.

Shute traces how these standards evolved from scandals and activism. The Havasupai case in Arizona highlighted how genetic researchers violated tribal sovereignty. The story of Henrietta Lacks exposed how doctors extracted cancer cells from a Black woman without her knowledge, then profited while her family struggled financially. These incidents forced institutions to reckon with power imbalances embedded in research.

Modern protocols require informed consent, institutional review, and community engagement, especially for indigenous remains. Some countries now mandate DNA testing restrictions and limit how long institutions can hold human material. But implementation varies globally. Wealthy nations with strong legal frameworks enforce these rules more rigorously than others.

The conversation reflects broader questions about bodily autonomy, scientific advancement, and historical justice. Ownership of human remains cannot be separated from colonial