David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bette Jacobs, Jason Roffenbender, Jeff Collmann, Kate Cherry, LeManuel Lee Bitsói, Kim Bassett & Charles H. Evans
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (3):684-696 (2010)
The new science of genomics endeavors to chart the genomes of individuals around the world, with the dual goals of understanding the role genetic factors play in human health and solving problems of disease and disability. From the perspective of indigenous peoples and developing countries, the promises and perils of genomic science appear against a backdrop of global health disparity and political vulnerability. These conditions pose a dilemma for many communities when attempting to decide about participating in genomic research or any other biomedical research. Genomic research offers the possibility of improved technologies for managing the acute and chronic diseases that plague their members. Yet, the history of particularly biomedical research among people in indigenous and developing nations offers salient examples of unethical practice, misuse of data, and failed promises. This dilemma creates risks for communities who decide either to participate or not to participate in genomic science research. Some argue that the history of poor scientific practice justifies refusal to join genomic research projects. Others argue that disease poses such great threats to the well-being of people in indigenous communities and developing nations that not participating in genomic research risks irrevocable harm. Thus, some communities particularly among indigenous peoples have declined to participate as subjects in genomic research. At the same time, some communities have begun developing new guidelines, procedures, and practices for engaging with the scientific community that offer opportunities to bridge the gap between genomic science and indigenous and/or developing communities. Four new approaches warrant special attention and further support: consulting with local communities; negotiating the complexities of consent; training members of local communities in science and health care; and training scientists to work with indigenous communities. Implicit is a new definition of “rigorous scientific research,” one that includes both community development and scientific progress as legitimate objectives of genomic research. Innovative translational research is needed to develop practical, mutually acceptable methods for crossing the divide between genomic researchers and indigenous communities. This may mean the difference between success and failure in genomic science, and in improving health for all peoples
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Doug Brugge & Mariam Missaghian (2006). Protecting the Navajo People Through Tribal Regulation of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):491-507.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Terry Dunbar & Margaret Scrimgeour (2006). Ethics in Indigenous Research – Connecting with Community. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (3):179-185.
Rogeer Hoedemaekers, Bert Gordijn & Martien Pijnenburg (2006). Does an Appeal to the Common Good Justify Individual Sacrifices for Genomic Research? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (5):415-431.
Gail E. Henderson, Eric T. Juengst, Nancy M. P. King, Kristine Kuczynski & Marsha Michie (2012). What Research Ethics Should Learn From Genomics and Society Research: Lessons From the ELSI Congress of 2011. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):1008-1024.
Megan Jane Davis, Indigenous Rights and the Constitution: Making the Case for Constitutional Reform.
Tim S. Gray (1999). An Autonomy-Based Justification for Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Communities. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):177-190.
Anthony J. Stenson & Tim S. Gray (1999). An Autonomy-Based Justification for Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Communities. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):177-190.
A. Knight Jennifer, J. Comino Elizabeth & Lisa Jackson-Pulver Elizabeth Harris (2009). Indigenous Research: A Commitment to Walking the Talk. The Gudaga Study—an Australian Case Study. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (4).
Paulina Tindana, Susan Bull, Lucas Amenga-Etego, Jantina de Vries, Raymond Aborigo, Kwadwo Koram, Dominic Kwiatkowski & Michael Parker (2012). Seeking Consent to Genetic and Genomic Research in a Rural Ghanaian Setting: A Qualitative Study of the MalariaGEN Experience. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):15-.
T. M. Baetu (2012). Genomic Programs as Mechanism Schemas: A Non-Reductionist Interpretation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):649-671.
Kjetil Rommetveit (2008). Towards a Hermeneutic of Technomedical Objects. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (2):103-120.
Maui L. Hudson & Khyla Russell (2009). The Treaty of Waitangi and Research Ethics in Aotearoa. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):61-68.
David A. Lertzman & Harrie Vredenburg (2005). Indigenous Peoples, Resource Extraction and Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 56 (3):239 - 254.
Segun Gbadegesin & David Wendler (2006). Protecting Communities in Health Research From Exploitation. Bioethics 20 (5):248-253.
Added to index2010-09-30
Total downloads3 ( #420,898 of 1,696,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?