Ethical debate: Research
Although it is clearly unacceptable to acquire or display items that are illicit, is it acceptable to use these items for academic research?
If it is morally unacceptable for a museum to acquire and display illicit objects then it is likewise unacceptable to conduct academic research on them. If the tide of ‘trade’ in illegally acquired objects is to be stopped, or at least allayed, then researchers and universities must unequivocally take the ethical higher ground.
There is no reason why academic research needs to be carried out at any cost, devoid of any social and ‘political’ responsibilities. Academic institutions and museums should, in any case, work more closely together than they currently seem to. Those who do have shown how academic research can help trace the rightful location of a cultural artefact, whether a painting spoliated during the second world war or ancient funerary objects from an Iraqi museum.
This may be the only case for allowing scholars to work on certain objects of known or suspected illegal origin. Even humanities academic research these days requires commitments to certain ethical standards by funding bodies.
If it is not happening already, I suggest that funding bodies join the cause of putting an end to the trade in illegally-acquired artefacts by requiring a commitment from academics to report suspect material to its holding institution and omit them from their research programmes altogether.
Tehmina Goskar, Centre for Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of Southampton
We tackled this sort of question a couple of years ago in relation to some fossilised hadrosaur eggs we repatriated to Patagonia. We also discussed this widely as part of the development of our new acquisition and disposal policy and came down firmly on the side that ethics and our ethical responsibility transcends both politics and so-called ‘academic freedom’.
While this is not necessarily a position colleagues elsewhere in the university take, the fact that a museum will not acquire such material makes it increasingly difficult for them to use it in their research.
Tradition within universities is that once the research has been published, the specimens are retained in a ‘recognised institution’ to allow examination and confirmation of the results, but this no longer fits with our new policy.
We had discussions over whether our stance would prevent such research in future and concluded that our duty as a museum is to uphold an ethical stance rather than to collude in the theft of cultural and/or natural heritage.
The argument that ‘it would be lost to science’ is one that prefers a western-based taxonomic science of universal significance over any other belief system. Our repatriation of the eggs has led to closer ties with academics in Patagonia and may result in interesting research that would not have been possible otherwise.
Malcolm Chapman, head of collections management, Manchester Museum
If it is morally unacceptable for a museum to acquire and display illicit objects then it is likewise unacceptable to conduct academic research on them. If the tide of ‘trade’ in illegally acquired objects is to be stopped, or at least allayed, then researchers and universities must unequivocally take the ethical higher ground.
There is no reason why academic research needs to be carried out at any cost, devoid of any social and ‘political’ responsibilities. Academic institutions and museums should, in any case, work more closely together than they currently seem to. Those who do have shown how academic research can help trace the rightful location of a cultural artefact, whether a painting spoliated during the second world war or ancient funerary objects from an Iraqi museum.
This may be the only case for allowing scholars to work on certain objects of known or suspected illegal origin. Even humanities academic research these days requires commitments to certain ethical standards by funding bodies.
If it is not happening already, I suggest that funding bodies join the cause of putting an end to the trade in illegally-acquired artefacts by requiring a commitment from academics to report suspect material to its holding institution and omit them from their research programmes altogether.
Tehmina Goskar, Centre for Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of Southampton
We tackled this sort of question a couple of years ago in relation to some fossilised hadrosaur eggs we repatriated to Patagonia. We also discussed this widely as part of the development of our new acquisition and disposal policy and came down firmly on the side that ethics and our ethical responsibility transcends both politics and so-called ‘academic freedom’.
While this is not necessarily a position colleagues elsewhere in the university take, the fact that a museum will not acquire such material makes it increasingly difficult for them to use it in their research.
Tradition within universities is that once the research has been published, the specimens are retained in a ‘recognised institution’ to allow examination and confirmation of the results, but this no longer fits with our new policy.
We had discussions over whether our stance would prevent such research in future and concluded that our duty as a museum is to uphold an ethical stance rather than to collude in the theft of cultural and/or natural heritage.
The argument that ‘it would be lost to science’ is one that prefers a western-based taxonomic science of universal significance over any other belief system. Our repatriation of the eggs has led to closer ties with academics in Patagonia and may result in interesting research that would not have been possible otherwise.
Malcolm Chapman, head of collections management, Manchester Museum
