Who owns your bones? 48%

By Nancy Shute0%

7/18/2026, 11:00:00 AM

Keywords: Bones, Humans

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Anecdotal, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 517 faulty-reasoning hits from 245 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.3% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,407 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

In 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and RepApropriation Act. 
It requires institutions to return remains and artifacts to lineal descendants, tribes or other culturally affiliated organizations, or gain consent for their continued use. 
Progress has been slow, and controversies over remains held by scientific institutions continue to erupt, extending beyond those from Indigenous communities. 
In 2021, journalists in Philadelphia reported that the University of Pennsylvania was holding human remains from the 1985 MOVE bombing, in which city police dropped a bomb on a row house serving as headquarters for a group calling for Black liberation. 
Eleven people were killed, including children. 
Some of the MOVE families’ remains were used to teach anatomy classes. 
Although those remains were returned to family members, more have since been found. 
Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist recently retired from Howard University in Washington, D.C., is leading a new effort spurred by the MOVE revelations to prevent such abuses. 
“We’re the ones who are holding this material,” she told freelance contributor Michael Marshall. 
“The scientists are the culprits here.” 
Jackson aims to guide universities and museums in ethically managing remains in their possession that were obtained without consent, including those from African American cemeteries. 
And there’s progress on other fronts. 
Medical schools now rely on people who choose to donate their bodies after death for anatomy studies. 
Some schools hold ceremonies honoring donors when the class ends. 
Hrytl no doubt would have been amazed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.4%Nancy Shute: 0.8%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Nancy Shute: 6.4%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic19.2%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.9%Nancy Shute: 1.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias2.9%This article: 2.9%Nancy Shute: 1.9%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 11.8%Nancy Shute: 10.1%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%Nancy Shute: 2.3%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Nancy Shute: 3.0%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 16.3%Nancy Shute: 5.4%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias16.3%This article: 20.0%Nancy Shute: 15.8%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Nancy Shute: 1.9%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 1.6%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Nancy Shute: 5.0%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect15.1%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Nancy Shute: 2.9%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Nancy Shute: 0.8%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem2.4%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.0%Nancy Shute: 3.7%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority11.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.5%Nancy Shute: 6.8%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization15.5%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.5%Nancy Shute: 6.0%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion15.5%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Nancy Shute: 1.4%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 16.7%Nancy Shute: 5.6%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal16.7%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.7%Nancy Shute: 1.9%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.7%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Nancy Shute: 0.8%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground2.4%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.7%Nancy Shute: 1.9%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 2.4%Nancy Shute: 0.8%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 10.2%Nancy Shute: 4.4%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 4.9%Nancy Shute: 1.6%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nancy Shute: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

245 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.2%attributed speech225writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageFatimah Jackson • 14 words • 100.0% coverageFatimah Jackson • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fatimah Jackson

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+70.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fatimah Jackson: 70.0%70.0%Quote-first Misdirection+30.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fatimah Jackson: 30.0%30.0%Indoctrination+27.3 ptsWriter: 2.7%Fatimah Jackson: 30.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Fatimah Jackson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.