As research manager of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council (GLSC), I was involved in your discussion of Aboriginal genome research (Nature 477, 522–523; 2011) and would like to make it clear that the decision to allow analysis of the 90-year-old hair sample was made by the duly mandated people. The decision took proper account of ethical research practices and of the rights of Aboriginal people to safeguard their cultural heritage.

The GLSC is the representative body for the Aboriginal people in the region where the sample was obtained, and is recognized under the Native Title Act 1993. The directors are elected by GLSC members, and membership is open to all Aboriginal residents of the region. In granting their permission for the research, the board exercised properly defined moral, cultural and legal authority to speak on behalf of the Aboriginal people there.

Most research — be it sociological, historical or genetic, or even political polling — extrapolates from a sample to draw conclusions. Participants are rarely expected to seek consent from their entire group before giving up information.

Because the hair sample was almost certainly given to British ethnologist Alfred Cort Haddon voluntarily in the early 1920s, this example of an informal exchange between an Aboriginal person and a researcher does not provide a model for all such exchanges in the future. These should be underpinned by a standard indicating that free, prior and informed consent was sought from the proper people.