Bridging the Divide between Genomic Science and Indigenous Peoples
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00521.x/abstract
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Volume 38, Issue 3, pages 684–696, Fall 2010.
Bette Jacobs, Jason Roffenbender, Jeff Collmann, Kate Cherry, LeManuel
Lee Bitsói, Kim Bassett, and Charles H. Evans, Jr.
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.