What is the essence of human frailty? How was it shaped in the past, and how do we shape it when viewing the past? It is a collaborative effort of experiences and evidence, found and interpreted, and when mediated by mortuary contexts and associated human remains, exceptional care is needed – this is where we place the project BeFRAIL: Porto in Times of Cholera and War: A Bioarchaeological Approach to Human Frailty (Alves-Cardoso 2025). The BeFRAIL project, which takes a holistic and transdisciplinary approach to human frailty in the past by exploring a 19^th century burial site in Porto, Portugal, invites reflection on the essence of frailty, a condition both universal and deeply personal, that has shaped human experience across centuries. Contextualising the delicate interplay between the body (remains), society, and mortality in 19^th century Porto, BeFRAIL explores how vulnerability, epidemics, and ethical reckoning intertwine with our search for the meaning of frailty.

Hence, within the scope of BeFRAIL, a series of webinars exploring a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches relevant to our work was organized in the first half of 2025.  Following a first edition that ran in 2024, this second series featured seven invited speakers and seven early career researchers who responded to an open call (Figure 1). The aim was to share experiences with those working on related issues, specifically on topics concerning ethical considerations and social impacts within bioarchaeology and biological anthropology. As the webinars unfolded, it became clear that more ethical practices are urgently needed within our fields, as was repeatedly stressed by the organisers, speakers, and audience members. Thus, the aim was no longer limited to exploring current issues, but also to explore possible solutions and foster dialogues. Thanks to the continued interest in the BeFRAIL webinar series, a third edition, scheduled to take place in 2026, is currently under development.

Figure 1: Promotional Flyer with programme of the 2025 BeFRAIL webinar series.

The events were well received with over 800 tickets booked and over 250 people in attendance across all webinars. While we were able to reach a global audience, viewership was still predominantly from Europe and North America (Figure 2).

Each talk was followed by questions from the audience and a discussion among the audience and speakers. From the engaging conversations, various thematic threads emerged, namely the issues related to research impacts on marginalised individuals and communities, opportunities and challenges of the media age, and finally practical solutions to address ethical concerns and positively contribute to social impacts. The discussions encouraged critical reflections and prompted the sharing of personal and lived experiences, which ultimately helped to broaden these topics beyond just academic content. Further, the limitations of current academic outreach were acknowledged; emphasizing the importance and much-needed cross-cultural engagement within the broader academic and professional communities, as well as non-academic ones, if the aim is to cultivate inclusive and solution-oriented conversations. We bring forward and reflect upon these important contributions and discussions below, which found resonance throughout the various talks.

Figure 2: Map showing the distribution of people who reserved tickets (source: Eventbrite).

Doing right by them…

Unfortunately, bioanthropology has a history and enduring legacy of violence against marginalised people and communities. Therefore, we are grateful that many of our speakers tackled these issues head-on. Sadie Tremblay and Sara Næss Elleskov turned our attention to indigenous communities, exploring unethical and extractivist anthropological work in the past, as well as the urgent need for anthropological work that benefits indigenous communities and their ancestors. Sadie Tremblay’s work seeks to help address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous persons (MMIP) by improving facial reconstruction methods to aid in identification. This work must involve addressing past and present racist practices in anthropology, unreliable ancestral identification practices, and ethical obligations towards ancestral remains. To do so she developed her relational model “Miyeu wiichayhtoowuk”, which encompasses relations to other humans, living entities, the natural world, specific places, and research collaborators.

Sara Næss Elleskov gave us an in-depth look at research on and removal of Kalaallit (meaning Greenlandic) Inuit remains by primarily Danish scientists, going as far back as the 18^th century. She stressed the colonial nature of this collection-making and the scientific racism of the associated research with enduring consequences to this day. This includes remains still physically held at institutions outside Kalaallit Nunnat, ongoing use of colonial terminology, and asymmetrical knowledge production practices in research.

Pamela L. Geller also spoke to these themes and explored them through the lens of biopolitics. She explained how scientists and physicians were instrumental in shaping biopower, but did not see all people as equally worthy of care. The bodies of those neglected in life were then often appropriated in death for research and collections, which were used to advance racist, classist, and sexist scientific theories. Pamela L. Geller explored these dynamics using the example of Samuel George Morton, who initiated the eponymous cranial collection at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, United States of America.

Disabled people have historically often been exploited by the palaeopathological community and been objectified as “specimens” to be included in pathology collections, often without their consent. At the same time palaeopathology has much to offer to those with chronic diseases and disabilities by illuminating the social histories of their conditions. For example, Vanessa Campanacho’s research has found YouTube commenters relating to palaeopathological work, because they share a disease or disability with the deceased individuals discussed in the videos. Here, Anna Freed’s research into disabled people’s perspectives on palaeopathological research marks an important intervention centering marginalised voices at the forefront of palaeopathological work. Her work highlights that researchers still frequently use harmful language and interpretations that portray disabled people as lacking agency, which ultimately diminishes their social roles and centres care givers over disabled people themselves. Participants in Freed’s focus groups and interviews pointed out that this runs the risk of reproducing stereotypes and undermining social progress.

Another often overlooked vulnerable group are children, who are still underrepresented in bioarchaeological research. Isobel Grimley stressed in her talk that they deserve thoughtful and careful consideration of their particular complexities, since they are “not just little adults”. This requires specialised knowledge and methods, to which her research makes an important contribution. Throughout her talk, she also argued for a particular concern and sensitivity when sharing research findings and images of child remains.

Kirsty Squires turned our attention to a very different kind of vulnerability, that of taphonomically altered human remains, which includes for example cremated bones and mummified remains. These pose unique ethical challenges for a number of reasons, including how their preservational stage plays a considerable role in how professionals and the public may interact with them. Likewise, in terms of storage and research additional considerations may be necessary. A particularly pertinent issue is of course the display of such remains, which must consider the dignity of the deceased, consent issues, social and cultural contexts, and living descendants (to name but a few).

Monika Milosavljević turned our attention to our role in doing right by science itself and society at large. She discussed how new technologies can be implicated in pseudoscience, such as when aDNA research is appropriated by the far right to prop up essentialist thinking about race and ethnicity. This echoes the histories of biologisation of cultural phenomena explored by her, as well as by other speakers in the series, and stresses their ongoing threat in the current political climate. But, as Monika made clear, technological advances such as in aDNA and isotopic research can also help to address socially relevant questions; new technologies are neither panacea nor to be disregarded. She also pointed out that we must also think critically about global inequalities within the scientific community, who has access to such technologies and who gets to author conceptual and interpretative frameworks.

The work of Amy Brooks-Cole also engages with these issues around the potentials and accessibility of investigative technologies. Concerning the study of violence, she demonstrated how the application of a Keyence VHX 3D scanning microscope over more expensive imaging techniques such as computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy allows for a more inclusive approach to studying the socio-political identity of human remains.

Going digital…

Some webinars specifically set out to investigate and tackle ethical issues in the virtual realm, and several others also touched on digital media and the new opportunities as well as new challenges that come with it.

Damien Huffer discussed the global issue of human remains trafficking and cultural heritage crime and how those are enabled by digital spaces. The unethical trade in human remains is not, as many may believe, limited to the so-called dark web, but often happens through social media, especially short and long form video platforms. Damien Huffer presented data showing that human remains are often trafficked from the global south to the global north; thereby still mirroring and reproducing violent colonial relations that were also discussed by other speakers. This can also include the “theft to order” of conflict antiquities, including human remains, a practice unfortunately common in the early days of colonial collecting that is still not eradicated today.

Another major ethical concern repeatedly raised was how we, as professionals as well as the wider public, are handling the reproduction and dissemination of images of human remains online. These issues begin already during excavation, as we saw in Linda Melo’s talk, where she spoke about her experiences conducting bioarchaeological fieldwork. For instance, she reported the frequent inappropriate sharing of images on social media. Vanessa Campanacho dove deeper into these issues by exploring how human remains are represented and discussed on YouTube as well as audiences’ reactions. She demonstrated that while such videos garner a substantial viewership, they are typically not produced by specialists and may reproduce discrimination. She also raised the issue of the language accompanying such images of human remains, which is often objectifying, mirroring the findings of Damien Huffer and his colleagues discussed above. Vanessa Campanacho also offered examples of more empathic and humanising language that professionals are encouraged to use in public engagements as well as amongst each other. Additionally, ethical issues in the digital domain go beyond human remains themselves and images thereof and also arise with the myriad of other data associated with human remains generated by bioarchaeologists. Here, Chris Stantis turned our attention to the ethics of data stewardship by introducing the audience to the FAIR principles: data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable. She stressed that while FAIR principles democratise data, the CARE principles – Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics – were created by and for indigenous communities. She argued that the latter principles are important to know and understand for anyone working with human remains.

Ways forward…

Across the second BeFRAIL webinar series many approaches to addressing ethical concerns were presented by speakers and stirred discussions amongst participants sharing experiences from varied contexts. Speakers right off the bat not only introduced and explained good practices, but literally put them into practice. For instance, Chris Stantis opened with a positionality statement while Sadie Tremblay and Damien Huffer offered very thoughtful land acknowledgements at the beginning of their talks, with Sadie Tremblay stating that these are not just empty words but to be understood as a call to action.

Reflecting upon the wide range of ethical issues explored above, the proposed ways forward were equally diverse. Rachel Carew discussed how within the fields of bio-archaeology andanthropology foundational questions of moral philosophy remain underexplored, such as: what are ethics? Which ethical principles are relevant? And how are these concepts applied in practice? She explored these questions theoretically, as well as by researching public opinion on the use of 3D printed remains in forensic settings, particularly in the courtroom. This allowed her to develop a hierarchical ethical framework, which incorporates nine deontological ethical principles, namely: anonymity, consent, autonomy, context, non-maleficence, beneficence, proportionality, transparency, and justice. She highlighted how this approach could be adapted to other specific uses within the field, for example for museum displays.

Linda Melo stressed the need for ethical guidance documents. While some audience members pointed out that issues persist despite the existence of numerous guidance documents, the need for official guidance from appropriate government agencies or professional bodies is severely felt in countries lacking such guidance, including Portugal. On the level of governance, Damien Huffer also reported on the need for legislative changes to fully address the realities of the online trade in human remains. While making her case for the scientific value of human skeletal remains, Angela Silva Bessa stressed that human remains must maintain their human status after death. She discussed the specific case of Portugal, where this is not the case. Instead, she explained, the Portuguese legislation considers human remains to be like any other type of archeological remains.

Considerable emphasis was placed on our ethical responsibilities of advocating for better ethical practices. Linda Melo emphasised the need to educate new generations of scientists by modelling good practices, as well as explicitly insisting upon adherence to ethical codes, in the field, the lab and during dissemination of our work. This sentiment was echoed by many others throughout the webinar series. Pamela L. Geller, reflecting on medicine and anthropology, both with a history of deeply unethical practices, proposed moving from ethical practices to a habit informing bioethos of care within our scientific communities.

With regards to research dissemination, Vanessa Campanacho’s findings highlight critical voices from online viewers who stress the need for consent, with some also advocating for the use of casts as an alternative (e.g. in museum displays). Vanessa also offered specific recommendations for the use of images of human remains online: including content notes, careful deliberation if images are needed and done respectfully, restricting images to educational purposes, avoiding images in thumbnails, and using humanising language such as ancestors, person, and individual. She stressed that public outreach and education are needed to combat misinformation and discrimination, particularly in areas such as aDNA, ancestry, and facial reconstruction and that scientists must not shy away from this responsibility. Isobel Grimley also discussed the ethical implications of sharing research findings and brought up the use of photos, and the particularly strong emotive impact of children’s remains on the public. Isobel strongly stressed that we must not lose sight of individuals’ lived experiences. She also reiterated the importance of meaningful engagement with relevant communities and the need to be sensitive in how we talk about the individuals we study.

When it comes to ethical data stewardship Chris Stantis presented a number of archaeological projects implementing best practices that may serve as a positive example for researchers. She further concluded that while FAIR and CARE are solid bases, what is still needed is bridging the gaps between data generated by various institutions, including those in the private, public, and academic spheres. Chris also stated that we should move away from proprietary formats, use large scale collectives to open up data, and cultivate ethical ecosystems, i.e. incorporate ethical frameworks in education and training, day-to-day work, and interpersonal relationships.

As Sadie Tremblay showed, a relational approach does not only apply to relationships as researchers and with the public, but relationality can also be used to great success as a framework for data analysis and interpretation.

Further engagement with the ethics of our theoretical approaches came from Monika Milosavljević, who proposed solutions centred around epistemic optimism, moving toward transdisciplinarity, symbiotic research programs, and a methodological omnivorism which considers how multiple methods function as a group and bridge the gap between social theory and scientific developments.

Conclusions

There is increasing recognition of unethical practices and the need for improvement in the work with human remains. However, lost in a diverse forest of varying perspectives, it can be difficult to see the path forward in terms of specific practices. During these webinars a wide range of areas of ethical concerns were addressed, namely fieldwork practices, data stewardship, public engagement, forensic work, heritage crime, conceptual frameworks and theory. Many speakers and attendees stressed that the webinar series was an important forum for discussion on how to move forward toward better ethical practices. Doing justice to the variety and complexity of the talks presented in this series is no easy task. And a brief essay, such as this, can only provide a first glimpse into the urgent ethical issues analysed by the speakers and the many ways forward. We are therefore pleased to inform that the webinar talks by Pamela L. Geller, Monika Milosavljević, Isobel Grimley, Chris Stantis, Linda Melo, and Vanessa Campanacho are now available on the BeFRAIL Educast channel. We encourage everyone to watch them and to dive deeper into the themes presented above. For those who want to take their exploration even further, we have also put together a small selection of further reading suggestions from this year’s speakers and on the covered topics.

Anne Malcherek (LABOH – CRIA / NOVA FCSH, IN2PAST, Departamento Municipal de Gestão do Património Cultural - C. M. Porto)

Steffi Vassallo (LABOH – CRIA / NOVA FCSH, IN2PAST, 3D Printing Center for Health / NOVA FCT)

Carlos Moreira (LABOH – CRIA / NOVA FCSH, IN2PAST, iBB / IST ULisboa)

Zélia Rodrigues (LABOH – CRIA / NOVA FCSH, IN2PAST, Arqueologia e Património Lda)

Francisca Alves Cardoso (LABOH – CRIA / NOVA FCSH, IN2PAST)

Anne Malcherek is a PhD student in Archaeology at NOVA University Lisbon and a member of the BeFRAIL team. Aiming to explore human frailty and resilience in the face of mortality crises, her project develops a comparative analysis of burial sites and mortuary practices in the city of Porto. Anne holds a Master of Arts (MA) in Archaeology from the University of Warsaw, Poland, and a Bachelor of Science in Forensic Anthropology from the University of Dundee, Scotland.

Steffi Vassallo is a Biological Anthropology PhD student within the BeFRAIL project at NOVA University Lisbon (PT), where she specialises in palaeopathology, 3D modelling and emotions. She holds a BSc (Hons) in Anthropology from Durham University (UK), an MSc in Anatomy & Advanced Forensic Anthropology from the University of Dundee (UK) and a DipFMS from the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries (UK).

Carlos Moreira is a PhD student in the joint doctoral program at the University Institute of Lisbon / NOVA FCSH - NOVA University Lisbon and is part of the BeFRAIL team. With prior training in Anthropology and Mechanical Engineering, he is developing a project with an ethnographic approach to the ethical issues raised by the use of digital models of human remains, while at the same time developing technical research around these models.

Zélia Rodrigues is a PhD student in Archeology at FCSH NOVA and a member of the BeFRAIL project team. Her research focuses on the contextualized study of the human remains in a secondary deposition. With a career spanning over two decades as a bioanthropologist in the field of preventive archeology, she has a degree in Anthropology and a specialization in Human Evolution and Bioanthropology from the University of Coimbra.

Francisca Alves Cardoso holds a PhD in Archaeology (2008), specializing in Biological Anthropology, from Durham University (UK). She is an Assistant Research Professor at NOVA FCSH and coordinates the Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and Human Osteology (LABOH) at CRIA – Centre for Research in Anthropology (Portugal). Her research explores socioeconomic, cultural, and health inequalities through the study of human remains and mortuary contexts, alongside associated ethical issues.