Statement posted on the AAA web site in the discussion of the disingenuous Referendum authored by Thomas A. Gregor and Daniel Gross for the March 2005 vote of the AAA membership.
THIS REFERENDUM IS DEAD ON ARRIVAL!
This referendum is fatally flawed in its procedures; in the quality of the evidence and reasoning on which it is based (Gregor and Gross 2004); in the absence of genuine attention to the Code of Ethics of the AAA; and in its potential to compromise that Code, the Association as a whole and its public image, and the relation between anthropologists and communities who host field research. Each of the ten "whereas" clauses in this referendum is an accusation. Moreover, each is compromised by omissions of crucial information and/or inclusions of misinformation.
ACCUSATION 1. Gregor and associates accuse the AAA of violating its own guidelines. They apply the word "prohibition" to try to represent the AAA statements regarding adjudication as some absolute truth for all eternity that is inflexible. The AAA' s statement in the Preamble of the Code of Ethics of June 1998 is that: "The American Anthropological Association (AAA) does not adjudicate claims for unethical behavior." Words like prohibition never appear. This statement does not say that the AAA cannot or will never inquire into serious allegations of unethical conduct. In the case of Tierney 's book, obviously the Association simply had no choice but to undertake a systematic inquiry in depth into the more serious allegations. Otherwise, the self and public images of the Association and the profession as a whole would have been even more seriously damaged. Eventually many Native American and other communities who host anthropological field research would have noted the failure of the Association and profession to even consider claims that particular anthropologists have caused harm to some of them.
ACCUSATION 2. Gregor and associates accuse the Task Force of ignoring basic principles of fairness and due process. This is inaccurate. From the very outset of this controversy avenues were available for Chagnon himself to address the allegations, and in some instances he did. (1) Promptly after Tierney's allegations surfaced, Chagnon and associates posted extensive commentaries on his faculty web site. Those comments were available to the AAA Task Force. (2) Chagnon was invited to participate in the Thursday evening panel on "Ethical Issues in Field Research Among the Yanomami" at the annual convention of the AAA on November 16, 2000 . He refused with the claim that this would be a feeding frenzy against him. Actually from the outset of the panel it quickly became obvious that it was stacked against Tierney. Tierney had been invited too, and he did appear and participate. (3) Chagnon was invited to communicate with the Task Force. He did not, except through his surrogates and in his posting of a few comments on the AAA web site in response to the Preliminary Report. For example, in the latter case, on April 4, 2002 , Chagnon posted this comment: " Kenneth Good is a liar. I made no such comment to him regarding James V. Neel's reluctance to intervene in the 1968 measles epidemic." However, scrutiny of the Neel papers in the archives of the American Philosophical Society reveal that Neel himself recorded his reluctance to sacrifice research time to provide Yanomami medical attention in the midst of that lethal epidemic. (4) Also Chagnon had an opportunity to post comments on the Douglas Hume web site, the most thorough archive of the entire controversy. (5) Chagnon and associates could also attempt to refute the Final Report point by point on his own faculty web page. (6) Now, yet again, Chagnon has an opportunity to respond to any allegations against him in the Final Report by positing his comments on the AAA and Public Anthropology web sites. But he remains silent so far, although that in itself speaks volumes.
In any case, Gregor and associates try to falsely frame the Task Force inquiry as a legal process, and then try to discredit it by claiming that it cannot be one. The Task Force never claimed that it was involved in any legal process. "Due process" is a legal term that refers to court proceedings with lawyers, jury, judge, and so on. Due process is guaranteed in the US Constitution in the Fifth Amendment for federal government proceedings and in the Fourteenth Amendment for state proceedings. In any case, if Gregor and associates believe that Chagnon was not afforded fair treatment and "due process," then they should have made that case years ago at some stage in the inquiry by the Task Force. They had ample time and opportunity to do so. Clearly they either have not done so or they have not succeeded.
Gregor and associates are calling for "due process." Give them the process they are due C a new Task Force. One possibility is to tap for its membership the more than 60 Ph.D. anthropologists in the AAA who are also lawyers.
ACCUSATION 3. Gregor and associates accuse the Task Force of being compromised by conflicts of interest, although some might see this accusation as a charge of guilt by association. By far the most serious conflict of interest was the inclusion of Raymond Hames as a member of the Task Force. However, at a late stage in the Task Force's inquiry Hames finally resigned to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Many years earlier Hames had been a student of Chagnon, like Task Force member Fernando Coronil had been a student of Terence Turner many years earlier. However, unlike the relationship between Coronil and Turner, Hames and Chagnon were long-term associates in grants, research, and publications. That involves a conflict of interest on a very different level than the case of Coronil and Turner and should have automatically prevented the appointment of Hames to the Task Force. Yet another conflict of interest was the Task Force member Trudy Turner's previous association with the Department of Human Genetics at the University of Michigan and with James Neel. Read her contributions to the Final Report and draw your own conclusions.
For this contentious issue the optimum corrective measure would be to establish a completely new Task Force of anthropologists who are completely neutral and independent of the principals in this controversy and have never made any statements on the controversy of any kind. Then charge them with sifting through the Final Report to draw their own conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of Chagnon and others with respect to the multitude of diverse allegations made by Tierney. However, in some ways to some degree this has already been achieved in the book edited by Robert Borofsky (2005) which is adeptly designed to provide adequate background, discussion, and debate to allow undergraduate students and other readers to draw their own conclusions.
Eugene Hunn comments: A Absent the means to offer a fair and impartial judgement of the case, the proper role of the Task Force would have been to air the range of opinions, detail the accusations and the evidence put forward for and against such allegations, and then allow the readers to judge for themselves. Many who have actually read the entire Final Report would affirm that this is exactly what the Task Force did. It is certainly exactly what is accomplished by the book edited by Borofsky (1995). Read it and decide for yourself if you haven' t yet done so.
ACCUSATION 4 and ACCUSATION 5. Gregor and associates accuse the Task Force of presenting a biased or inappropriate sample of Yanomami comments. That is debatable, for example, as Janet Chernela observes in her comments. However, even if it were true, it is no reason to try to censor the Yanomami. It is another reason for a new Task Force with further fieldwork to be sure that a representative sample of opinions is obtained from the Yanomami.
It must also be mentioned that it is quite a paradox that anthropologists who build their career on interviews with Native Amazonians do not respect their opinions when they disagree with them. Apparently Native Amazonians are useful in providing data to fuel an anthropologist's career, but they should not be allowed to ever express any opinions about the work and conduct of anthropologists, especially in a controversy involving allegations about harm done to some members of their own society. That is sheer hypocrisy.
ACCUSATION 6. Gregor and associates accuse the AAA Task Force of arriving at conclusions contrary to those of the four other scientific organizations that produced investigations claiming that the allegations by Patrick Tierney that they examined had no merit. However, Gregor and associates neglect to mention the facts that soon after the controversy erupted the organizations they cite hastily investigated a very narrow range of allegations. Anyone who reads the reports of these organizations which are readily available through the Douglas Hume web site and other internet sources will quickly find out that the reports by the American Society of Human Genetics, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and the National Academy of Sciences are all almost exclusively about James V. Neel. Indeed, the report by the ASHG explicitly and specifically states at the outset that they did not investigate Tierney's allegations against Napoleon Chagnon. Similarly, the report by The Society for Visual Anthropology is almost exclusively about Timothy Asch while Chagnon is barely mentioned. If the implication by Gregor and Gross in the AA article and this referendum that these four scientific organization vindicated Chagnon is made out of ignorance, then it demonstrates their incompetence. If the implication is made with the full knowledge of the contents of these reports, then it is yet another instance of disinformation. Either way seriously compromises the referendum.
It is also crucial to admit another fact that Gregor and Gross ignore. All of the investigations cited by them were conducted years before the AAA Final Report and other investigations, evidence, and discussions. The investigations they cite have never taken subsequent findings like the Final Report of the AAA Task Force into account, even though there are some glaring discrepancies with their own reports. Furthermore, unlike Barbara Johnston's systematic and meticulous research alluded to in her comments on this web site about the referendum, these organizations only examined public documents, not declassified documents. Also Gregor and Gross fail to consider the investigations in Brazil and the statements by the Brazilian Anthropological Association which do not completely vindicate Neel and Chagnon by any means (e.g., Albert 2001).
In short, the investigations by the four organizations cited by Gregor and Gross leave much to be desired in terms of scientific and scholarly objectivity, thoroughness, and rigor. Clearly science is not always a self-correcting process in this case. Perhaps politics were involved in those investigations as well. They appear to be pre-emptive strikes to influence the AAA inquiry by trying to refute the more serious and sensationalistic allegations made against Neel by Tierney, this, perhaps, with the hope that Chagnon would somehow be vindicated in the process. The dates of the investigations of the four other scientific organizations cited in the referendum are November 9, 2000 (NAS), November 17, 2000 (SVA), IGES ( May 16, 2001 ), and November 19, 2001 (ASHG). The Final Report of the Task Force of the AAA was submitted to the Executive Board on May 18, 2002 .
Some of the charges leveled by Tierney at Neel and Chagnon have been found to have substantial merit by the Task Force, even though clearly its procedure and report do not meet everyone's satisfaction. However, Gregor and associates fail to mention that the Brazilian investigations (Albert 2001) and independent research by individuals such as Barbara Johnston and Terence Turner (2001) have demonstrated that some of the allegations made by Tierney are valid. For instance, in her comments on the AAA and Public Anthropology web sites Johnston mentions that her extensive archival and other research has revealed some errors in fact and interpretation in Tierney's allegations, but that actually much more has been corroborated. Also it is important to emphasize again that Johnston examined declassified documents which were apparently not examined by the other organizations cited by Gregor and Gross. Likewise, the book edited by Borofsky (2005) confirms many of Tierney's allegations. When individuals who claim to be scientists and scholars habitually present only information and sources that favor their position and ignore those that do not then their arguments are compromised to say the least.
The AAA Task Force failed to reach any conclusions on some points in the fifth set of allegations they were charged to inquire into by the Executive Board meeting on February 3-4, 2001; namely, "... activities by anthropologists, scientists and journalists that may have contributed to malnutrition, disease and disorganization." The latter refers in part to Tierney's allegation that by giving relatively large amounts of trade goods to selected villages in a short period of time Chagnon increased tensions, conflicts, and even violence among Yanomami. This allegation was largely based on Chapter 13 in the book by Brian Ferguson. There Ferguson (1995:278) writes: "In this chapter, I attempt to demonstrate that the wars and other conflicts of the middle 1960s, those made famous in Yanomamo: The Fierce People, are directly connected to changes in the Western presence around Boca Mavaca, including the arrival of Chagnon himself." The excuse that the Task Force gave for ignoring this very serious issue, even though it is part of the fifth charge from the Executive Board, is that Hames, who is a Yanomami specialist, resigned from the Task Force even though that happened at a late stage in the inquiry. However, other members of the Task Force could have still conducted an inquiry into this matter. Anyone can read Chapter 13 in Ferguson's book and draw their own conclusions. The seriousness of this allegation demands further inquiry and that is yet another strong reason why I would support the idea of a new Task Force.
ACCUSATION 7. Gregor and associates accuse the Task Force of being political and imply that this automatically renders the entire process and report invalid. If that were so, then the article by Gregor and Gross (2004) in the American Anthropologist would be invalid as would be the Referendum because both are obviously political.
Furthermore, the research of Neel, Chagnon, and associates would be invalid because ultimately it was political. The initial research was funded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Neel was a common denominator in genetic research on the irradiated survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; the irradiated survivors of subsequent U.S. bomb testing in the Marshall Islands ; and the Yanomami as a base line population which had not been irradiated and could be used for comparison (Neel 1994). The ultimate rational for that research is political. In addition, Chagnon's persistent characterization of the Yanomami as "primitive" and essentially "Hobbesian savages" is political (e.g., Chagnon 1997: 5, 10, 11, 19, 31, 76, 79, 139, 144, 145, 211, 247, 248). Indeed, Chagnon (1996:202, 207-209, 214) recognized that some of his work was political.
Such considerations expose the fact that science, including anthropology, can be political, and to deny that is to be less than honest. The question is not whether or not anything is political, but so what? The political aspects of anthropology need to be more openly and critically analyzed, discussed, and debated rather than denied, and that includes the political agenda and tactics of Gregor and associates. Fortunately, there is substantial relevant literature to begin an inquiry into the political aspects of anthropology (see, for example, Hymes 1999, Patterson 2001, Price 2004, Vincent 1990). In any case, it is unscientific, un academic, disingenuous, and cowardly to try to hide from the reality of the political.
Indeed, the Task Force was political in that it involved a power struggle over truth, some members and others beyond trying to hide the truth, some members and others beyond persistently trying to expose the truth. Readers can judge which side Gregor and associates are on. However, among the individual members of the Task Force there was not a uniform political orientation, agenda, and so on, and perhaps these differences balance out in the end. Yet again this is another strong reason why I favor a new Task Force for further inquiry.
ACCUSATION 8. Gregor and associates accuse the Association of condoning a "culture of accusation." Who is so naive as not to recognize that Gregor and associates are active agents in the creation and maintenance of accusations since the inception of this unprecedented scandal? Every one of the ten "whereas" clauses and other points in this referendum are accusations. Yes, "serious but unevaluated charges" have been posted in various public venues, this referendum is a prime example. Who shall police discussion and debate? Who shall censor those who do not agree with them? So far we still live in a democracy with freedom of speech. So far professors still have academic freedom. Ideally science and scholarship progress through a self-corrective process of investigation, criticisms, discussion, and debate, and not through censorship (cf. Price 2004). Censuring the Task Force and its Final Report, like boycotting Tierney's book and publisher, is antithetical to science and academia.
ACCUSATION 9. Gregor and associates accuse the AAA, the Task Force, and the Final Report of damaging the reputation of its targets; distracting public attention from the real sources of the Yanomami tragedy; and misleadingly suggesting that anthropologists are responsible for Yanomami suffering. Actually, the reputation of the Yanomami has been damaged for decades by Chagnon's persistent characterization of them as traditional "primitives" and essentially "Hobbesian savages." This has distracted attention from their plight in a colonial situation and perhaps even helped reinforce that relationship. For example, just compare the accounts of the Yanomami by Chagnon (1997), Early and Peters (2000) , Peters (1998), and Ramos (1995).
Leda Leitao Martins ( in Borofsky 2005:135-140, 189-192) has documented in detail how Chagnon's statements about the Yanomami actually endangered them. Furthermore, as early as December 1948, the Council of the AAA adopted the "Resolution on Freedom of Publication" which in part states that whereas "...indiscretion in publication may harm informants or groups from which the information is obtained...." iit resolves that "the interests of the persons and communities or other social groups studied are protected." (For the full context examine the "Statements on Ethics" file under Commitee on Ethics in the AAA web site). That resolution was adopted in 1948, 16 years prior to the start of Chagnon's fieldwork with the Yanomami in 1964. This is not applying a 1998 Code of Ethics to 1964 fieldwork.
What have individuals and organizations done to promote Yanomami survival and welfare? Apparently Chagnon's Yanomami Survival Fund did little if anything; no information is available about it in spite of the requests of several different individuals over many years (e.g., Rabben 1998:36-37, 138:n7). Compare the record of that Fund with the initiatives of the AAA Yanomami Commission. (See their report under the historical documents of the Committee for Human Rights on the AAA web site). Compare that with the Pro-Yanomami Commission in Brazil (see their web site below). Perhaps it is no coincidence that the individuals and organizations who have done the most to promote the survival and welfare of the Yanomami over more than three decades are also among those who have been most critical of Chagnon. Among the individuals and organizations are David Maybury-Lewis of Cultural Survival, Bruce Albert and Alcida Rita Ramos of the Pro-Yanomami Commission, and Fiona Watson of Survival International. These individuals cannot be dismissed as postmodernists. Neither can the members of the Task Force be dismissed as postmodernists, contrary to Gregor and Gross (1994).
In the "Preface for El Dorado Task Force Papers" written by then AAA President Donald Brennis the fourth item mentions the newly named AAA Commission on the Status of Indigenous Peoples in South America while the seventh item states: "AAA will take the initiative in facilitating discussion between the Yanomami and the scientists who hold their blood or other bodily samples as to the disposition of those materials." A recent key word search of the AAA web site, including under the Committee for Ethics and under the Committee for Human Rights, revealed no information about any progress on these two extremely important initiatives which were promised years ago. However, this cannot be excused because of any distraction by the lingering controversy, it is an apparent failure on the part of the individuals involved to deliver any progress in a timely manner. A. Magdalena Hurtado is a member of the aforementioned Commission. Therefore, she should know that the Task Force is charged to attend to the allegations in Tierney's book and the Commission she is charged to attend to matters like health crises among indigenous peoples like the Yanomami.
The fact that the Yanomami have faced far greater dangers than from any anthropologists does not mean that some anthropologists have never harmed them too. The fact that the AAA had to respond to Tierney's allegations does not mean that simultaneously other venues and initiatives have not worked to help the Yanomami. There is no evidence that the Task Force was any obstacle to the work of CCPY, Cultural Survival, Survival International and other organizations as well as various individuals on behalf of the Yanomami. There is abundant evidence that the initiatives in this controversy by Gregor and associates have almost entirely ignored the Yanomami, but then complain about the Yanomami being ignored. What hypocrisy! The only time the Yanomami became the focus of interest for Gregor and Gross is when some of their testimony was made public with which they disagreed, and then they tried to censor them just as they are trying to do in effect with this referendum.
ACCUSATION 10. Gregor and associates accuse the AAA leadership of, in effect, preempting the Association's bylaws in which "The Members of the Association shall constitute the final authority of the Association." However, this referendum is on the ballot for the membership to vote on by May 15, 2005. It is now available for discussion and debate by the membership and others on the AAA and Public Anthropology web sites, thanks to the leadership of AAA President Elizabeth Brumfiel and to that of Robert Borofsky of Public Anthropology. That is not preemption of the membership. However, the initial attempt by Gregor and Gross to offer this referendum for a vote by the membership was obviously an attempt to preempt any meaningful discussion about it, a political tactic and agenda.
The Final Report of the Task Force was endorsed by the duly elected Executive Board which reflects their collective opinion and nothing more. That endorsement is now history and history cannot be censored or repealed by any referendum. The membership in voting on this ballot may disagree with that leadership, but that is simply a second opinion. There are other opinions as well, including those of anthropologists beyond the AAA and beyond the U.S.A., the general public, the readers of the book edited by Borofsky, the viewers of the pertinent material on the Public Anthropology and Douglas Hume web sites, future historians, and so on. In other words, rescinding the "Association's Acceptance of the Report of the El Dorado Task Force" will not succeed in erasing the historical record let alone changing history. However, approval of the referendum may well cause further damage to the public image and to the self-image of the AAA and profession in general; weaken the AAA's administration of its Code of Ethics and the future work of the Committee on Ethics; further distract attention from the Yanomami; and alienate indigenous and other communities with whom anthropologists live and work in their research.
Just when it appeared that this controversy had subsided, and that individuals genuinely concerned with professional ethics in anthropology were moving on to seriously examine the broader issues, implications, and ramifications, such as in the book edited by Borofsky, Gregor and Gross through their article in the AA and this referendum have succeeded in reigniting the controversy. Fortunately, many of the comments in the AAA and Public Anthropology web sites have applied reason to arguments and evidence, rather than personal attacks or emotions. Many of the comments are constructive, instructive, and insightful. Perhaps the levels of ethical information, awareness, sensitivity, and responsibility will be elevated in this process in spite of the continuing political tactics and maneuvers by Gregor and associates to divert attention from Chagnon for some five years now.
Gregor and Gross in their AA article and together with associates in this referendum try to shift the attention and guilt to the AAA instead of Chagnon. In this tactic they remain true to form. As they state in the referendum, "The intent of this resolution is not to address the merits of the charges leveled against Neel and Chagnon, but rather the conduct of the Association in its investigation." However, logically, either Chagnon is innocent, or he is guilty of some of the diverse multitude of allegations made by Tierney. If he is 100% innocent, then why all of this fuss for more than three decades, all these investigations, all these discussions and debates, and all of the instances of self-incrimination in his own public statements in his publications and in the media?
If Chagnon is guilty of any ethical misconduct, and if Gregor and any associates realize that, then are they less than honest in not acknowledging it? Do Gregor and associates really think that it is ethical to routinely violate local customs of the community hosting research, like sacred name taboos which obviously seriously disturb and even outrage Yanomami when they are misused (Chagnon 1968:10-12, 1997:19-21, cf. Albert in Borofsky 2005:164-165)? Do Gregor and associates really think that it is ethical for an anthropologist to facilitate a raid which could potentially have murderous consequences (Chagnon 1997:201-203)? Do Gregor and associates really think that it is ethical to advertise near the end of a widely read book for donations to a Yanomami Survival Fund which does little or nothing (Rabben 1998:36-37, n7)? Do Gregor and associates really think that it is ethical to remain silent when your statements are being used against the society with which you conducted research (Martins in Borofsky 2005:135-140, 189-192)? Numerous other points like this could be raised, many embedded in Chagnon's own publications quite independently of Tierney or any other critics. In short, is it ethical for Gregor and associates to continually evade such questions for five years?
The assertions by Gregor and Gross in their AA article and in the referendum that these documents take no stand on whether Chagnon is innocent or guilty are disingenuous. Rescinding the Executive Board's endorsement of the Final Report in effect rescinds the Final Report itself, and that includes not only points regarding probable guilt but also points regarding probable innocence. If this referendum is passed by a vote of the membership, then the only alternative is to launch a new second Task Force to sift through the Final Report to extract points that are conclusive and summarize those in a second report. Several commentators on the Public Anthropology web site have in various ways recommended a second Task Force including, so far, Jeffrey David Ehrenreich, Michael Fischer, Robert Hays, Jane Lancaster, Douglas Raybeck, and Eluned Schweitzer. I would support an initiative by the current Executive Board to launch a second Task Force.
It should be recognized that, contrary to the impressions of some uninformed commentators, controversies and scandals surrounding Chagnon did not start with Tierney in 2000. In 1976 there was the Time magazine article degrading Yanomami as animals that was criticized by Gerald Berreman and James S. Boster among nine other anthropologists; in 1975 and beyond there were acrimonious confrontations over the animal protein hypothesis with Marvin Harris and others; in 1988-90 criticisms by Bruce Albert and Alcida Ramos appeared although others were censored by the editor regarding Chagnon's article in the journal Science; in 1991 criticisms by Timothy Asch and Kenneth Good surfaced regarding the exaggeration, sensationalization, and stigmatization of the Yanomami as the fierce people; in 1992-1996 confrontations between Chagnon and the Salesian missionaries of Venezuela spilled into the New York Times and included an investigation and then a session at the annual convention of the AAA in 1994 (Salamone 1996 , 1997); in 1993-1994 Chagnon was expelled from Yanomami territory by a judge and military expedition investigating the Hashimu massacre and again articles appeared in the New York Times. Berreman, Boster, Harris, Asch, Good, the Brazilian Anthropological Association, Salesian missionaries, Venezuelan government officials and military, and others involved in these criticisms cannot be dismissed as postmodernists.
The above history may help explain why Chagnon, alone among sociobiologists, was the main subject of Tierney's book and the inquiry of the Task Force, rather than others who also pursue sociobiology and/or related approaches such as Kim Hill, Eric Alden Smith, and so on. Yes, some have been critical of Chagnon's scientific work and sociobiological explanation of Yanomami aggression for many years, but in academic contexts and ways (see Sponsel 1998). The Task Force context focuses on professional ethics, not sociobiology and allied approaches. It is a diversionary political tactic to try to frame this controversy as about science, evolution, and sociobiology, even though some individuals who are either naive or disingenuous appear to believe this (cf. Franfurt 2005). If this controversy were simply a debate about divergent world views---- modernism versus postmodernism, science versus humanism, biological versus cultural approaches, and the like, then it would be argued in the usual scientific and academic contexts of publications, conferences, and the like. Indeed, aspects of Chagnon's work have been considered for about four decades in such contexts. However, this controversy is overwhelmingly about professional ethics, and tactics to distract attention from this will not succeed, except perhaps in misleading those who are ignorant, naive, or gullible.
In the case of the commentary on this and the Public Anthropology web sites, some individuals appeal to emotions rather than reason in labeling this controversy McCarythism, a puritanical purge, a witch hunt, character assassination of grandparents, unseemly bickering, and so on. Others complain about broken friendships. One scientist even paraphrases a Biblical passage. However, only facts and reason will begin to resolve this controversy.
In conclusion, first consider clause B.2. of the 1998 Code of Ethics of the AAA: "Anthropological researchers bear responsibility for the integrity and reputation of their discipline, of scholarship, and of science. Thus, anthropological researchers are subject to the general moral rules of scientific and scholarly conduct: they should not deceive or knowingly misrepresent (i.e., fabricate evidence, falsify, plagiarize), or attempt to prevent reporting of misconduct, or obstruct the scientific/scholarly research of others." This applies to Gregor, Gross, and associates as well. This was violated in their AA article and in their referendum, and Gregor and Gross as well as some others have repeatedly violated this in previous publications, a fact that can be documented and proven beyond doubt. They have left a paper trail in public in places such as The Chronicle of Higher Education (Sponsel and Turner 2002).
By now it should be clear that this referendum is fatally flawed as many others have observed. It is time to move ahead to the larger ethical issues raised by the controversy and to seriously consider ways to advance professional ethics in anthropology in the AAA and beyond. In another comment I suggested some possibilities to consider toward a more constructive approach to professional ethics in the AAA and our profession in general.
References Cited
Albert, Bruce, ed., 2001, Research and Ethics: The Yanomami Case (Brazilian contributions to the Darkness in El Dorado controversy), Boas Vista, Brazil: Pro-Yanomami Commission (CCPY) Documentos Yanomami N. 2.
American Anthropological Association
Borofsky, Robert, with Bruce Albert, Raymond Hames, Kim Hill, Leda Leitao Martins, John Peters, and Terence Turner, 2005, Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy And What We Can Learn From It, Berkeley , CA : University of California Press.
Chagnon, Napoleon A., 1968, Yanomamo: The Fierce People (First Edition), New York , NY : Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Chagnon, Napoleon A., 1996, "Chronic Problems in Understanding Tribal Violence and Warfare," in Genetics of Criminal and Antisocial Behaviour, G.R. Bock and J.A. Goode, eds., New York , NY : John Wiley & Sons, pp. 202-236.
Chagnon, Napoleon A., 1997, Yanomamo (Fifth Edition), Fort Worth , TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Chagnon, Napoleon A., et al., n.d., Napoleon Chagnon Responds to Darkness in El Dorado . Electronic document, <http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/chagnon.html>.
Early, John D., and John F. Peters, 2000, The Xilixana Yanomami of the Amazon: History, Social Structure, and Population Dynamics, Gainesville , FL : University of Florida Press.
Ferguson , R. Brian, 1995, "The Yanomamo and the Anthropologist: 1960 to 1966," in his Yanomami Warfare: A Political History, Santa Fe , NM : School of American Research Press, pp. 277-306.
Frankfurt , Harry G., 2005, On Bullshit, Princeton , NJ : Princeton University Press.
Hume, Douglas W., n.d., Darkness in El Dorado Information: The Anthropological Niche of Douglas W. Hume, Electronic document, <http://members.aol.com/archaeodog/index.htm>.
Hymes, Dell, ed., 1999, Reinventing Anthropology, Ann Arbor , MI : University of Michigan Press.
Neel, James V., 1994, Physician to the Gene Pool: Lessons and Other Stories, New York , NY : John Wiley.
Patterson, Thomas C., 2001, A Social History of Anthropology in the United States , New York , NY : Berg.
Peters, John F., 1998, Life Among the Yanommai: The Story of Change among the Xilixana on the Mucajai River in Braxil, Orchard Park , NY : Broadview Press.
Price, David H., 2004, Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI = s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, Durham , NC : Duke University Press.
Pro-Yanomami Commission (CCPY)
Rabben, Linda, 1998, Unnatural Selection: The Yanommai, the Kayapo, and the Onslaught of Civilization, Seattle, WA : University of Washington Press.
Ramos, Alcida Rita, 1995, Sanuma Memories: Yanomami Ethnography in Times of Crisis, Madison , WI : University of Wisconsin Press.
Salamone, Frank A., 1996, Who Speaks for Yanomami? Williamsburg , VA : Studies in Third World Societies Publication Number 57.
Salamone, Frank A., 1997, The Yanomami and Their Interpreters: Fierce People or Fierce Interpreters? Lanham, MD : University Press of America, Inc.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 1999, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, New York , NY : Zed Books.
Sponsel, Leslie E., 1998, "Yanomami: An Arena of Conflict and Aggression in the Amazon," Aggressive Behavior 24(2):97-122.
Sponsel, Leslie E., and Terence Turner, 2002 (August 9), "Counterpoint: Charges of Wrongdoing by Anthropologists," The Chronicle of Higher Education Section 2 B13.
Turner, Terence, 2001, The Yanomami and the Ethics of Anthropological Practice. Ithaca , NY : Cornell University Latin American Studies Program Occasional Paper Series Volume 6.
Vincent, Joan, 1990, Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions, and Trends. Tucson , AZ : University of Arizona Press.