USoM is an association under the 1901 law aiming to act for the protection of human remains, their biological products and their studies in archaeological and ethnographic contexts and for the union of scientific disciplines relating to human being.
The international scientific scene has been animated in recent years by the desire for a more visible application of the statute of common good concerning the anthropological remains from museum, ethnographic and archaeological collections. With the arrival of new (bio-) technologies always more efficient and the development of multidisciplinary studies, these human supports take a preponderant place in other disciplines.
Indeed, beyond the role until now played in the reconstruction of the morphological and geographical evolution of our distant ancestors, this material of study is, in recent decades, more and more involved in the understanding of our state. current health (for example).
Thus, they find themselves at the heart of a more sustained ethical reflection.
Particularly because of their status as furniture and no longer as a human body, the human biological material collected (during anthropological missions) is stored independently in the various research organizations that have carried out the sampling and / or the study. This represents a significant number of raw human samples, i.e. the initial sample, or intermediate samples, i.e. resulting from biological manipulation, as well as generated data (raw, published or not).
These independent collections are often only known to the researchers of the unit in question and accessible (by decision of the holder) to certain outside specialists who request them, sometimes in a hazardous manner.
The lack of transparency of these collections and the absence of a management structure generate ethical questions as to the appropriation, competition and decision-making power of the organizations and researchers holding this human material.
This observation of scientific isolation, going against the common scientific objective and the general interest, calls for a review of these interventions in a more collective and transdisciplinary manner while respecting the fragility of resources, the associated culture and their human character.
The question of a loss of humanity of the beings represented by these samples arises.
It should not be forgotten, however, that the subject's original approach is purely altruistic in the case of traditional populations and not granted in archaeological cases.
It is important to think of common protective actions.