Science Friction_ Where the Known Meets the Unknown - Michael Shermer [51]
Another venomous snake in the viper pit of the anthropology wars is the question of research ethics. It is simply impossible for anthropologists to observe anything remotely resembling Star Treks “prime directive,” where one never interferes with the subject of one’s study. To get to know the people, you have to interface with them on numerous levels and no one has ever gotten around the problem of the “observer effect” and retained anything worth saying. That’s a given, and the Code of Ethics published by the American Anthropological Association is correspondingly vague, offering such “ethical obligations” as:
To avoid harm or wrong, understanding that the development of knowledge can lead to change, which may be positive or negative for the people or animals worked with or studied.
To respect the well-being of humans and nonhuman primates.
To work for the long-term conservation of the archaeological, fossil, and historical records.
To consult actively with the affected individuals or group(s), with the goal of establishing a working relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved.
Can you have sexual relations with the natives? The Code of Ethics is no help. Point 5 under section A states: “Anthropological researchers who have developed close and enduring relationships (i.e., covenantal relationships) with either individual persons providing information or with hosts must adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the relationship.”17 That’s as clear as Amazonian mud during the rainy season. Thus, it is hard to say whether the scientists Tierney says were unethical were, in fact, in violation of their professional standards and obligations.
Tierney’s strongest case may be against Jacques Lizot who, he documents, engaged in homosexual activities for years with so many Yanomamö young men, and so frequently, that he became known in Yanomamöspeak as “Bosinawarewa,” which translates politely as “Ass Handler” and not so politely as “anus devourer.”18 In response to these claims not only did Lizot not deny the basic charges (that also included exchanging goods for sex), but he admitted to Time magazine: “I am a homosexual, but my house is not a brothel. I gave gifts because it is part of the Yanomamö culture. I was single. Is it forbidden to have sexual relations with consenting adults?”19 No, but Tierney disputes both the age of Lizot’s partners and whether or not they consented, and suggests that even if it were both legal and moral this is hardly the standard of objectivity one might have hoped for in scientific research, and that it is Lizot who best deserves the descriptive adjective “erotic.”
I asked Ken Good about the charges against Lizot. Good said he never once witnessed homosexual behavior in any Yanomamö village and that, in his opinion, it was obvious that the Yanomamö young men were involved with Lizot for one reason only—to obtain machetes and trade goods. I have been