The article raises question not only to the moral standings of the anthropologists brought to attention in this article, but those all around the world. What other wrongs are committed against natives as they are being studied or documented? The article also highlights the concept of social Darwinism and eugenics and assumptions made by anthropologists as to their potential workings in native cultures such as the Yanonami. Neel and Chagnon seemed to work under the impression that the Yanonami people would be immune to diseases that affected people that they were used to dealing with. Neel was also, according to the article, a firm believer that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory would be much more prevalent in the Yanonami people than in his own society because there were far fewer of them, and they were used to fighting for survival and so the people left were the most fit and dominant. This then brings to question the harm in making assumptions about groups of people and how this affects them in turn. Other questions that come to mind that may be interesting to research include those revolving around the facts read in one New Yorker article on the issue: do we know for certain that this is exactly what happened to the Yanonami people? External sources of information will be helpful.