Our society currently faces many complex and perplexing issues related to biotechnology, including the need to define the outer boundaries of genetic research on human beings and the need to protect individual and group rights to human tissue and the knowledge gained from the study of that tissue. Scientists have increasingly become interested in studying so-called “population isolates” to discover the nature and location of genes that are unique to particular groups. Indigenous peoples are often targeted by scientists because “the (...) relative isolation of the communities ensures minimal gene flow.” Such studies raise a number of issues related to privacy rights, property rights, informed consent, and group rights versus individual rights. These issues recently came to light in a case brought by the Havasupai Tribe and its members over the use of blood samples, handprints, and genealogy information initially taken by researchers at Arizona State University for a diabetes project. These materials were then allegedly used by researchers at ASU and other institutions for a multitude of unauthorized purposes, including research into the frequency of mental health disorders and the origin of human populations. Consequently, the affected members sued for damages under several legal theories. However, underlying all of these claims was the allegation that this unauthorized use of genetic resources and data not only injured the individuals who gave samples, but also caused a collective harm to the Havasupai Tribe and the cultural and spiritual beliefs of its members. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Genetics research, like research in sociology and anthropology, creates risks for groups from which research subjects are drawn. This paper considers what sort of protection for groups from the risks of genetics research should be provided and by whom. The paper categorizes harms by distinguishing process‐related from outcome‐related harms and by distinguishing two kinds of group harms. It argues that calls for community engagement are justified with respect to some kinds of harms, but not with respect to others; and (...) it cautions that community engagement may itself be harmful. (shrink)

The genetic revolution is well underway, with genetic research and knowledge expanding at an exponential rate. Much of the new genetics research is focused on population groups, and proponents of “population genomics” argue that such studies are necessary since genetic “variation” among human populations holds the most promise for technological innovations that can improve human health and lead to increased understanding of the origin of human populations. Population genomic research thus targets specific groups to discover variation that could lead to (...) knowledge about genetic disorders, possible cures, and the origin and migration patterns of distinctive peoples. Research on genetic differences among groups or populations, however, raises many pressing ethical and legal questions. For example, focus on biological differences of racial and ethnic groups has in the past lead to assumptions about superiority and inferiority between groups, and in practice resulted in stigmatization and discrimination. Consequently, attention on groups should raise legal and moral red flags and compel us to move cautiously in this area. Pragmatically, targeting population groups as the object of study requires the determination of the nature and scope of “population groups” for purposes of genetics research. (shrink)

The goal of the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) was to reconstruct the history of human evolution and the historical and geographical distribution of populations with the help of scientific research. Through this kind of research, the entire spectrum of genetic diversity to be found in the human species was to be explored with the hope of generating a better understanding of the history of humankind. An important part of this genome diversity research consists in taking blood and tissue samples (...) from indigenous populations. For various reasons, it has not been possible to execute this project in the planned scope and form to date. Nevertheless, genomic diversity research addresses complex issues which prove to be highly relevant from the perspective of research ethics, transcultural medical ethics, and cultural philosophy. In the article at hand, we discuss these ethical issues as illustrated by the HGDP. This investigation focuses on the confrontation of culturally diverse images of humans and their cosmologies within the framework of genome diversity research and the ethical questions it raises. We argue that in addition to complex questions pertaining to research ethics such as informed consent and autonomy of probands, genome diversity research also has a cultural–philosophical, meta-ethical, and phenomenological dimension which must be taken into account in ethical discourses. Acknowledging this fact, we attempt to show the limits of current guidelines used in international genome diversity studies, following this up by a formulation of theses designed to facilitate an appropriate inquiry and ethical evaluation of intercultural dimensions of genome research. (shrink)