Human remains: objects to study or ancestors to bury?

for a variety of reasons, including medical purposes. The debate on this issue, held at the College in May 2003. It showed that the retention of human remains by museums is a complex and contentious issue, just as it is for medical institutions. This report covers issues of ‘ownership’: since in the UK no one can legally own human remains, who has the strongest claim to them and why? The age of the remains is also explored: it is generally accepted that ancient remains should remain in collections as they are largely uncontested, yet where a direct biological line to the claimant can be determined, these remains should be returned. Human remains have played an important role in our understanding of humankind, and there is undoubtedly more to be discovered in the future. This is weighed up against the argument for the return or reburial of remains. Finally the debate is put into the context of politics today, and what this may signify. The Government set up a Human Remains Working Group (HRWG) in May 2001 to examine the current legal status of human remains in the collections of publicly funded museums and galleries in the UK, but it took two and a half years for its conclusions to be published in November 2003.1 They endorsed the repatriation of indigenous human remains wherever possible and appropriate from both public and private collections. However, they did not reach a consensus, highlighting the complex nature of the issue. One of the members of the Working Group, Sir Neil Chalmers, Director of the Natural History Museum in London, believes that the recommendations of the report are heavily slanted towards the wishes of claimant communities, as opposed to the needs of the medical and scientific community. A scoping survey of 146 museums in England, commissioned by the HRWG, showed that 132 hold human remains. Cressida Fforde states that ‘human remains exist in many different types of collections, for example universities, teaching hospital museums, anatomical museums, anthropological museums, ethnographical museums, phrenological museums and private museums.’2 More than two-thirds of the institutions have some or all of their collection of human remains on public long-term display (more than one year). Of these 132 institutions, 27 hold human material acquired for medical purposes, of which 20 hold fewer than 50 items, and four more than 500. The category of ‘human material acquired for medical purposes’ excludes material acquired through post-mortem examination in the UK, or from living people after 1947, both of which fall under the remit of the Retained Organs Commission. Why was the debate held at the Royal College of Physicians? The College has human remains in its historical collections: six seventeenth century anatomical tables, believed to have been originally owned by the physician John Finch when he was teaching Anatomy at the University of Padua. They are on long-term public display in the Dorchester Library. Anatomical tables are extremely rare, and their value as historic and scientific evidence is considerable. It is important therefore, for the College actively to participate in this debate, in order that it can be clear on its rationale for keeping and displaying this part of its collections. Objects change in value and/or status throughout their existence. Whereas human remains were once depersonalised through entering a museum, it is now generally agreed that human remains should not be treated in the same way as other objects in museum collections.3 The debate at this meeting was between those who view human remains as specimens, largely held by scientists and museum curators, and on the other side, those who believe that some communities CONFERENCE REPORTS