(C)ELSI‐us: Reducing Friction with Indigenous Communities in Genomic Research

Hudson, Māui; Wilcox, Phillip; Smith, Barry; Beaton, Angela; Milne, Moe; Russell, Khyla

doi:10.1111/aman.13043

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These had either been derived from, or previously applied to, genomic studies involving Indigenous communities in their respective countries. These guidelines incorporate "cultural logic" derived from cultural traditions and norms of Indigenous communities (40). They aim to enable researchers to position genomic data and science within culturally appropriate overarching research and oversight frameworks that maximize benefits and minimize risks for participating communities.…”

Section: Research Informed By Indigenous Ethical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts

Caron

Chongo

Hudson

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research Informed By Indigenous Ethical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts

Caron

Chongo

Hudson

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, Traditional Knowledge often augments research (e.g., Ross et al, 2018), and the Notices and Labels provide a safe system to promote this exchange. The trust that is intrinsically built in the process of applying Labels will further facilitate meaningful future collaboration (discussed in Hudson et al, 2018, Hudson et al, 2020), and potentially easier implementation of conservation and management plans informed by the research. Such a process enables Indigenous communities to be directly connected with research findings, to inform stewardship of resources according to traditional roles (Hudson et al, 2020; Smith, 2016), to act as citizen scientists, and to build capacity across diverse communities (Hudson et al, 2018; Nanibaa’ et al, 2019).…”

Section: Benefits Of a Research System Inclusive Of Indigenous Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating space for Indigenous perspectives on access and benefit‐sharing: Encouraging researcher use of the Local Contexts Notices

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent Molecular Ecology editorial made a proactive statement of support for the “Nagoya Protocol” and the principle of benefit‐sharing by requiring authors to provide a “Data Accessibility and Benefit‐Sharing Statement” in their articles. Here, we encourage another step that enables Indigenous communities to provide their own definitions and aspirations for access and benefit‐sharing alongside the author's “Statement”. We invite the Molecular Ecology research community to use Biocultural‐, Traditional Knowledge‐, and Cultural Institution Notices to help Indigenous communities gain visibility within our research structures. Notices are one of the tools offered by the Biocultural Labels Initiative (part of the Local Contexts system) designed specifically for researchers and institutions. The Notices are highly visible, machine‐readable icons that signal the Indigenous provenance of genetic resources, and rights of Indigenous communities to define the future use of genetic resources and derived benefits. The Notices invite collaboration with Indigenous communities and create spaces within our research systems for them to define the provenance, protocols, and permissions associated with genetic resources using Labels. Authors contributing to Molecular Ecology can apply Notices to their articles by providing the persistent unique identifier and an optional use‐statement associated with the Notice in their “Data Accessibility and Benefit‐Sharing Statement”. In this way, our research community has an opportunity to accelerate support for the principles of the Nagoya Protocol, to alleviate concerns regarding Indigenous Data Sovereignty and equitable outcomes, and to build better relationships with Indigenous collaborators to enhance research, biodiversity, and conservation outcomes.

show abstract

“…This lack of engagement means that the full costs and benefits of research may not be considered, and researchers may adopt research protocols that tribal communities object to, such as the destructive sampling techniques used in the Kennett et al study to remove tissue for radiocarbon dating and genetic analysis (Claw et al, 2017). The absence of consultation and collaboration also affects the conclusions and presentation of research, with the questions asked, and the forms of knowledge produced, potentially narrowed and incomplete because the study authors did not consider tribal ways of knowing or consult Indigenous knowledge keepers (Bolnick et al, 2019;Hudson et al, 2018;Matisoo-Smith, 2018).…”

Section: Ethics Beyond Nagpramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the National Park Service was not the only organization to undertake consultation and make hard decisions about the cultural affiliation of ancestral remains and objects from Chaco Canyon under NAGPRA. Other museums, such as the Museum of Natural History at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, culturally affiliated all the Pueblo tribes (but not the Navajo Nation) with Chaco individuals (Hutt, 2006, 2008). Although every museum makes its own cultural affiliation determinations under NAGPRA, these well-known precedents make it clear that the AMNH’s approach to tribal consultation was incongruous with that employed by other institutions holding ancestral remains and objects from the same archaeological culture.…”

Section: The Chaco Canyon Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Cortez

Bolnick

Nicholas

et al. 2021

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the field of paleogenomics has grown into an exciting and rapidly advancing area of scientific inquiry. However, scientific work in this field has far outpaced the discipline’s dialogue about research ethics. In particular, Indigenous peoples have argued that the paleogenomics revolution has produced a “vampire science” that perpetuates biocolonialist traditions of extracting Indigenous bodies and heritage without the consent of, or benefits to, the communities who are most affected by this research. In this article, we explore these ethical issues through the case study of a project that sequenced the ancient DNA (aDNA) of nine Ancestral Puebloan people from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. By providing a “thick description” of this controversy, we are able to analyze its metanarratives, periodization, path dependency, and historical contingencies. We conclude that the paleogenomics revolution needs to include an ethical revolution that remakes the field’s values, relationships, forms of accountability, and practices.

show abstract

(C)ELSI‐us: Reducing Friction with Indigenous Communities in Genomic Research

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts

Creating space for Indigenous perspectives on access and benefit‐sharing: Encouraging researcher use of the Local Contexts Notices

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About