關於原住民遺骸之遺傳資源保障，應分兩方面加以思考：實體的基因樣本以及抽象的基因資訊之保障。「美國一九九０年原住民族墓穴保護及回復法案 (NAGPRA)」 要求：聯邦政府資金所贊助之博物館所擁有之原住民族遺骸及文化遺產應諮詢適當原住民族後，基於原住民族之要求加以返還。近年來，漸有呼聲要求以基因證據(genetic evidence)為工具，以了解該法案所規範之「文化關聯(cultural affiliation)」，作為原住民遺骸部落歸屬之證據。然而，「原住民族墓穴保護及回復法」只就實體的原住民族文化遺產及遺骸以財產法(property law)之概念加以規範；傳統財產法概念是否就原住民遺骸基因資訊之提供保障不無疑問。有鑒於目前科學界以原住民DNA 證明 原住民世系仍有相當不確定性，以及從事此類基因資訊科學研究時，對於原住民族之特殊觀點應予尊重：原住民族視基因資訊與原住民族遺骸為一整體，而非獨立存在。NAGPRA 既規範原住民遺骸為部落之財產，此規範應涵蓋基因資訊，方不失NAGPRA 為原住民人權法案之良法美意。本文進一步建議：為呼應原住民族權利為集體權利而非 個別權利，NAGPRA 應以文化資產(cultural property) 取代傳統財產法(property law)之用語。於文化資產規範體系下，科學家以及原住民族應以部落集體權利以及文化照管為前提，作為原住民遺骸返還之基礎。考量原住民族遺骸返還時，依NAGPRA 意旨，所有相關證據皆等價之前提下，應優先考量其他可能證據，而暫時擱置有爭議之基因證據之使用。

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 requires that federally funded museums in possession and control of indigenous human remains, associated funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony consult with the appropriate tribal groups and, upon the tribes’ requests, provide for the repatriation of these items. In order to assess cultural affiliation for human remains repatriation as required by NAGPRA, there has been a call to incorporate genetic evidence as biological evidence in recent years, and both ancient and modern DNA analyses are being considered. In 2000, the Department of the Interior admitted that “genetic evidence is a kind of biological evidence that may be relevant in determining cultural affiliation.” This attitude may lead to insensitivity toward non-Western human remains and a profound lack of empathy toward descendants of the deceased because scientists tend to ignore that in most native cultures there is a profound reverence for the deceased, and it is considered sacrilegious to conduct research on the deceased. Therefore, this article will illustrate the scientific uncertainty in proving native ancestry by ancient DNA and also the view of indigenous peoples that their genetic information should rather be understood within the context of their cosmology as a whole. Thus, their genes cannot be segregated as a separate part of the human remains, and both the genetic information and human remains should be regarded as a whole. Furthermore, the article recommends that the NAGPRA replaces property language with the cultural property concept, which can better draw tribal communal interests rather than individual ones. Through the cultural property narrative, both the scientists and the tribes can better consider the peoplehood and cultural stewardship in regard to the human remains repatriation. Accordingly, scientists should not use genetic evidence as a means to prove tribal cultural affiliation at will and should consider other possible evidence such as tribal narratives and oral history, which the NAGPRA considers of equal evidentiary weight as scientific data in the evaluation of cultural affiliation between ancient and contemporary Native Americans.