Contact Us

We extract and analyse DNA (and sometimes RNA) from bone, tooth, soil, and other types of samples. Some examples of our ongoing research include:

• Ancient pathogen research
• Yersinia pestis the causative agent of the Black Death (plague)
• Rickettsia prowazekii (epidemic typhus)
• Plasmodium falciparum, one of the causative agents of malaria (and other parasites)
• Brucella melitensis (brucellosis)
• Alpha coronaviruses
• HIV
• Pleistocene megafauna (mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, etc.)
• Paleoecology based (often with soil cores and environmental DNA approaches)
• Additional projects – check out our Team Members page for a summary of current research

We do not perform stable isotope analyses or radiocarbon dating. We can prepare samples for these analyses which can lower the costs at radiocarbon facilities.

Please do not send samples/remains to the lab without contacting us and completing the ethics form first. If we receive samples that have not been previously discussed, we will return them to the sender.

Please contact kuchm@mcmaster.ca for collaboration inquiries.

We are certainly open to trainees coming to the McMaster Ancient DNA Centre to learn more about our analyses and techniques. However, this does require a significant investment of time and effort from a graduate student in our lab group, as well as other resources. In filling out the collaboration questionnaire, please indicate at the appropriate question that someone is interested in visiting and learning, and we will discuss in what capacity that can occur.

Ancient DNA work is limited by a number of factors, including sample preservation. The majority of the samples we process do not contain endogenous/target aDNA usable for analyses. Even a sample that did yield target DNA in the past may not yield target DNA again, since different areas of one sample may have different DNA preservation and concentration. These negative results don’t often appear in the literature but they do make up the bulk of sample outcomes.

A realistic timeline for an aDNA project has to include time for the wet lab work, as well as the sequence data analysis or dry lab component. The number of samples also plays a role here, as well as whether we are able to get data on the first try or whether additional experiments need to be done. This timeline will also be impacted by where the trainee is in their degree – trainees need to complete a full lab training process as well as balance their coursework and other degree requirements (see below). A timeline can be discussed early on in the project planning process.

The trajectory of a Masters or PhD student is variable and depends on the nature of their research project. However, it is important to note that Masters/PhD students have other requirements outside of research such as course work, laboratory training, teaching assistantships, and communal laboratory responsibilities. The diagrams below show a simplified timeline of a “typical” trainee at the masters and PhD level. Note that the student cannot begin wet-laboratory work with/for collaborators until they have completed laboratory training, which takes ~ 1 year to ensure that the trainee can work independently and safely in the laboratory.

Starting the conversation about collaboration earlier is generally better – that way, there is more time to discuss specifics like who will work on the project, where are they in their degree, would any students like to come to McMaster, etc.

If you are in the planning stage of your project, we encourage collaborators to consider the ethical implications of their research questions and potential stakeholders who should be involved in our collaboration. If research is already underway, then we hope that ethics reviews have already been carried out, and amendments can be made to incorporate ancient DNA into the research plan.

We encourage all those interested in collaboration to first email Research Associate Melanie Kuch at kuchm@mcmaster.ca, who actively monitors collaboration inquiries. Please note that we cannot guarantee a timely response through other points of contact. If the research aligns with our interests, we will then ask you some preliminary questions about your proposed or ongoing research through a fillable form. Once we receive the completed form, we will discuss the research as a group and identify a potential student who is willing and able to take on the work. We will inform all
collaborators who submit forms of our decision within a month.

Ancient DNA work is inherently destructive, and aDNA researchers have too often sampled indiscriminately and destroyed large amounts of samples for little to no results, resulting in a permanent loss for the site or individual. In particular, destroying samples from a site or individual limits the interpretation of other, non-destructive analyses that can be done on that site or individual. Therefore, we strive to use only the necessary amount of samples for our work, and we do not accept samples that represent the last remaining material from a site or individual.

Genetic research, ancient DNA research included, carries potential risks for individuals, communities, and other stakeholders. Few institutions require ethical review of ancient DNA research, and while legal obligations do exist, they are certainly not a guarantee of ethical research.

Genetic information can be misused and misrepresented, even by authors publishing their own data. Ancestry analyses in humans can be used to reinforce racist essentialism and white supremacy. Ancient pathogen research can fuel anti-immigration prejudice and discrimination. Researchers can partake in “helicopter research”, where academics “swoop in” to collect samples for aDNA analysis without contacting communities beforehand, involving descendants, or communicating research afterwards – essentially extracting what they consider valuable without considering the impact to the people living there. All of these outcomes are harmful and, in many cases, further stigmatize already
marginalized and vulnerable people.

Even if authors are careful to avoid the above, there are still other risks. Many granting agencies and journals require uploading sequence data to an open-access archive, where anyone can download the data and use it for their own purposes. A community may grant permission for analyses A, B, C to take place, but once the data is freely available there is no way to prevent another party from performing X, Y, Z analysis. Ancient DNA ethics guidelines do exist – see this review from Kaestle and Horsburgh 2002 – but application of existing guidelines is an ongoing issue.

At the McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, we are committed to carrying out research in an ethical manner. All new projects will undergo ethics board review at McMaster University, and will also be subject to in-house ethical review using ancient DNA-specific guidelines. Consulting with communities connected to the samples (whether genetically, culturally, geographically, or otherwise) will be considered an essential part of any new projects. For existing projects, we are working to conduct both formal ethical review and to initiate partnered research with communities.

Over the past few decades the field of aDNA has expanded rapidly, encouraging researchers to gain access to large numbers of unique samples from museums, excavations, and historical collections, ultimately resulting in increased levels of competition within the field. This rush for samples has resulted in many researchers (intentionally and/or unintentionally) collecting samples without consideration of the ethical implications of their work. Commonly, scientists fall into patterns of helicopter research and ethics dumping. This lack of consideration is further amplified at an
institutional level, as many aDNA research proposals are often not subject to ethical review because our human data is considered to be collected from secondary anonymous sources, meaning it cannot be traced back to any particular person. However, this does not mean that aDNA data cannot be used in harmful ways that affect the living (please refer to Chaco Canyon as an example ). In fact,
the effect of aDNA on living groups stretches beyond genetic data collected solely from human skeletal remains (read these reviews). As many aDNA research projects fall outside of current institutional review board guidelines for ethics, researchers and students are left with few resources and some groups (such as our own) have instead created laboratory-wide guidelines and best-practices to mitigate harmful outcomes from our future research. The creation of these guidelines is incredibly important as genetic data is portable, permanent, reusable, and commonly manipulated
for political purposes. Additionally, as publically available data storage for the accepted norm within genetic research due to questions of reproducibility and open science practices our highly vulnerable research falls into many ethical pitfalls which must be holistically considered. Finally, on a broader level, historically and in the present day, ancient samples are viewed as having extractive potential (scientific data and knowledge), and therefore are treated as “things” rather than as beings.

• Helicopter (parachute) research occurs when researchers enter a community or region, extract samples/data/knowledge and leave with little or no local involvement, benefit, or credit. Key characteristics of this process involve the research agenda being set externally, local researchers, institutions, and communities being excluded from the study design,absent, or tokenized in authorship, findings being published in high-impact journals, and not being shared with local communities, as well as minimal long-term engagement and capacity building. This is most often seen in the field of aDNA with sampling from the global south and indigenous territories, with interpretations of results published without local and/or indigenous perspectives. Helicopter research reinforces colonial power structures, extracts intellectual and biological resources, and undermines local expertise and sovereignty.
• Ethics dumping occurs most often in countries with limited heritage protections and unclear consent frameworks, allowing for the exploitation of regulatory gaps between nations and institutions. This treats ethical protection as negotiable rather than universal. Overall, this allows for the continued exploitation of marginalized populations within scientific research.