Recent Story Analogous to Sara Baartman

In response to the 4th question in the previous post:
4) Are there any parallels in this 19th century case with today’s world?

I came across a news story today which struck me as quite similar to it and the discussion in class today: Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones . Basically, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center of Australia wants Britain's Museum of Natural History to return the remains of 17 individuals believed to be from the original Aboriginal population there.

But what is in contention here isn't whether the remains will be returned; the museum has agreed to return the bones to Australia. However, the museum wishes to take samples of the bones and conduct tests on them prior to returning them. These tests are deemed important for anthropological and genetic studies, since the last of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal population was wiped out over a century ago. However, the present-day Australian Aboriginal population would see any such tests as a desecration of these remains, and forbid the tests to take place.

Personally, I'm inclined to side with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center. They have been deemed the rightful owner of the remains, and so the museum has no right to conduct their own tests on the bones. Even though the museum says the tests will at most be removing microscopic samples of the material, I think that's not the point at all. It seems extremely arrogant of the museum to try to act with complete disregard for the Aboriginal population's traditions and beliefs, and particularly since it seems the scientific value of these tests is uncertain at best. If a genetic study of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population were needed to help unlock the secrets of a genetic disorder or a disease, then maybe it would be justifiable. But I see no strongly compelling reason for the museum to do so.