Position statement: research and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in rural health journals

Lock, Mark; McMillan, Faye; Bennett, Bindi; Martire,; Warne, Donald; Kidd, Jacquie; Williams, Naomi; Roberts, Russell; Worley, Paul; Hutten‐Czapski, Peter

doi:10.22605/rrh7353

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authorship and representation may have affected the narrative of the articles reviewed, and the focus of the content. As previously noted, positionality of authorship is becoming an increasing necessity for works that seek to draw conclusions and implications for Indigenous communities (i.e., nothing about Indigenous Peoples without Indigenous Peoples) (18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the lack of wider appreciation for Indigenous research methodological approaches, it is additionally important for the authors to position themselves as Indigenous Peoples working with the purpose to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities in this current work. This positionality is becoming an increasing necessity for works that seek to draw conclusions and implications for Indigenous communities (i.e., nothing about Indigenous Peoples, without Indigenous Peoples) (18). With this, the first author is a second-year medical student and an enrolled member of the Kiowa Tribe in the United States and Onondaga from Six Nations, Canada (T.T).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The commercialization of biospecimens from Indigenous Peoples: A scoping review of benefit-sharing

Tone-Pah-Hote

Redvers

2022

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is ongoing and increasing interest in the commercialization of biospecimen-derived products from Indigenous Peoples. Discourse on benefit-sharing specifically in the context of the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples biospecimens are currently lacking. A better understanding of the potential ethical imperatives is in need of exploration on this emerging topic. This review sought to elucidate through categorization the current discourse in the peer-reviewed literature on the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' biospecimens from a benefit-sharing perspective.MethodsA scoping review methodology was utilized to perform a search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Google Scholar. A two-stage screening process was used to assess the relevance of any included articles with subsequent manual open coding of articles. Content analysis was applied to identify the main categories and sub-categories within the article data.ResultsThirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Four overarching categories from the included articles were identified regarding the most common discourse on the commercialization of Indigenous Peoples' biospecimens from a benefit-sharing perspective, including: exploitation through biocolonialism, sovereignty and Indigenous rights, ethical considerations for benefit-sharing, and guidelines and standards concerns.ConclusionThis scoping review highlighted the crucial need to keep Indigenous communities at the center of research projects, ensuring any benefits, advancement, and potential commercial profits are returned to communities through clear and ethical agreements. We encourage all research institutions and institutional ethical review bodies to better clarify the collective needs and interests of Indigenous communities while centering their sovereignty and rights within the research process as it pertains to potential biospecimen product commercialization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The commercialization of biospecimens from Indigenous Peoples: A scoping review of benefit-sharing

Tone-Pah-Hote

Redvers

2022

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As increasingly recognized in all corners of the social sciences (for anthropology: Lock, 2015 ; Thayer & Non, 2015 ), avoiding neomolecular reductionism goes hand in hand with a meaningful engagement with the communities that are subjects of study. Adopting the adage “Nothing about us, without us” will provide an important safeguard to help ensure that this work is conducted in ways that are in service of the needs and interests of participant communities (Bader, 2019 ; Lock et al, 2022 ; Wallerstein et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Fostering a Balanced Approach In Postgenomic Treatments Of Racementioning

confidence: 99%

A biosocial return to race? A cautionary view for the postgenomic era

Meloni

Moll

Issaka

et al. 2022

American J Hum Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies demonstrating epigenetic and developmental sensitivity to early environments, as exemplified by fields like the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) and environmental epigenetics, are bringing new data and models to bear on debates about race, genetics, and society. Here, we first survey the historical prominence of models of environmental determinism in early formulations of racial thinking to illustrate how notions of direct environmental effects on bodies have been used to naturalize racial hierarchy and inequalities in the past. Next, we conduct a scoping review of postgenomic work in environmental epigenetics and DOHaD that looks at the role of race/ethnicity in human health (2000–2021). Although there is substantial heterogeneity in how race is conceptualized and interpreted across studies, we observe practices that may unwittingly encourage typological thinking, including: using DNA methylation as a novel marker of racial classification; neglect of variation and reversibility within supposedly homogenous racial groups; and a tendency to label and reify whole groups as pathologized or impaired. Even in the very different politico‐economic and epistemic context of contemporary postgenomic science, these trends echo deeply held beliefs in Western thinking which claimed that different environments shape different bodies and then used this logic to argue for essential differences between Europeans and non‐Europeans. We conclude with a series of suggestions on interpreting and reporting findings in these fields that we feel will help researchers harness this work to benefit disadvantaged groups while avoiding the inadvertent dissemination of new and old forms of stigma or prejudice.

show abstract

“…The issue of author identity is especially relevant for rural and remote health journals because Indigenous peoples living in rural and remote health locations experience health inequities linked to racism and cultural suppression. We, the editorial teams of the Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) , Rural and Remote Health (RRH) , and the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine (CJRM) , are changing our editorial rules so that research published about Indigenous peoples includes Indigenous peoples as authors, or evidence is provided of Indigenous peoples' genuine engagement in all stages of the research process, including crafting the manuscript 2–4 . Our next step is to propose the development of an Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS, pronounced ‘I‐keye‐ras’, short ‘I' sound in I ndigenous, hard ‘k’ sound for C ulture, and long ‘eye’ sound in I dentity) (Figure 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4] Our next step is to propose the development of an Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS, pronounced 'I-keye-ras',…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

ICIRAS: Research and reconciliation with indigenous peoples in rural health journals

Lock

McMillan

Warne

et al. 2022

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We aim to promote discussion about an Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS) for academic journal publications. Context This is based on a gap in research publishing practice where Indigenous peoples' identity is not systematically and rigorously flagged in rural health research publications. There are widespread reforms, in different research areas, to counter the reputation of scientific research as a vehicle of racism and discrimination against the world's Indigenous peoples. Reflecting on these broader movements, the editorial teams of three rural health journals—the Australian Journal of Rural Health, the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, and Rural and Remote Health—recognised that Indigenous peoples' identity could be embedded in authorship details. Approach An environmental scan (through a cultural safety lens where Indigenous cultural authority is respected, valued, and empowered) of literature was undertaken to detect the signs of inclusion of Indigenous peoples in research. This revealed many ways in which editorial boards of Journals could systematically improve their process so that there is ‘nothing about Indigenous people, without Indigenous people’ in rural health research publications. Conclusion Improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples worldwide requires high quality research evidence. The philosophy of cultural safety supports the purposeful positioning of Indigenous peoples within the kaleidoscope of cultural knowledges as identified contributors and authors of research evidence. The ICIRAS is a call‐to‐action for research journals and institutions to rigorously improve publication governance that signals “Editing with IndigenUs and for IndigenUs”.

show abstract

Position statement: research and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in rural health journals

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The commercialization of biospecimens from Indigenous Peoples: A scoping review of benefit-sharing

The commercialization of biospecimens from Indigenous Peoples: A scoping review of benefit-sharing

A biosocial return to race? A cautionary view for the postgenomic era

ICIRAS: Research and reconciliation with indigenous peoples in rural health journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About