time the National Geographic Society sold non-profit self-testing kits to members of the general public who wished to participate in the project as "citizen scientists". Such outreach for public participation in research has been encouraged by organizations such as International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), which is seeking to promote benefits from scientific research. This includes supporting, organization and dissemination of personal DNA (genetic) testing. The ISOGG supports citizen participation in genetic research, and believes such volunteers have provided valuable information and research to the professional scientific community. In a 2013 speech to the Southern California Genealogical Society, Spencer Wells discussed its encouragement of citizen scientists. He said: Since 2005, the Genographic Project has used the latest genetic technology to expand our knowledge of the human story, and its pioneering use of DNA testing to engage and involve the public in the research effort has helped to create a new breed of "citizen scientist." Geno 2.0 expands the scope for citizen science, harnessing the power of the crowd to discover new details of human population history. Criticism Shortly after the announcement of the project in April 2005, the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB) noted its connections to controversial issues (such as concern among some tribes that the results of genetic human migration studies might indicate that Native Americans are not indigenous to North America). The IPCB recommended against indigenous people participating. The reason why Indigenous people were discouraged to participate in the Genographic Project is offered by the claims of the founder of IPCB Debra Harry. According to Harry, a Northern Paiute Native American and Associate Professor in Indigenous Studies at Nevada University, The Genographic project resulted in a human genetic testing practice that appeared to mask an ulterior motive rather than mere scientific research. Particularly, the great concern about the possible political interest behind the Genographic Project, motivated the IPCB to preemptively alert the global indigenous community on the “not so altruistic motivations” of the project. Additionally, IPCB argues that the Genographic project not only provides no direct benefit to Indigenous peoples but instead raises considerable risks. Such risks, raised by Harry in an interview released in December 2005, were used to advocate against the indigenous participation in the project. Another comment made by IPCB founder Debra Harry was that the Genographic Project served as a method to discredit kin relations through the possibility that ancestral identities may