Opinion: Demystifying native American genetic opposition to research

Evolutionary Anthropology

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 88-92

  Schroeder, Kari Britt ^a   Malhi, Ripan S ^b   Smith, David Glenn ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Trace Genetics Inc   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746158172     PISSN: 10601538     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/evan.20100     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Sharp RR, Michael AY, Wilson SH. 2004. Shaping science policy in the age of genomics. Nat Rev Genet 5:1-6.
2. Greely H. 2001. Human genomics research: new challenges for research ethics. Perspect Biol Med 44:221-229.
3. International HapMap Consortium. 2004. Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project. Nat Rev Genet 5:467-475.
4. Greely H. 2001. Human genome diversity: what about the other human genome project? Nat Rev Genet 2:222-227.
5. Dalton R. 2004. When two tribes go to war. Nature 430:500-502.
6. Bowekaty MB, Davis D. 2003. Cultural issues in genetic research with American Indian and Alaskan Native people. IRB 25:12-15.
7. Harry D, Dukepoo F. 1998. Indians, genes, and genetics: what Indians should know about the new biotechnology. Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. http://www.ipcb.org.
8. Committee on Human Genome Diversity. 1997. Evaluating human genetic diversity. National Research Council. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, p 44-68.
9. Foster MW, Bernsten D, Carter TH. 1998. A model agreement for genetic research in socially identifiable populations. Am J Hum Genet 63:696-702.
10. Tallbear K. 2000. Genetics, culture, and identity in Indian Country. Seventh International Congress on Ethnobiology, International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management, October 23-27. Athens, Georgia, http://www.iirm.org.
11. Grounds R. 1996. The Yuchi community and the Human Genome Diversity Project: historic and contemporary ironies. Cult Survival Q 20:64-69.
12. Moore JH. 1996. Native Americans, scientists, and the HGDP. Cult Survival Q 20:60-64.
13. Shelton BL, Marks J. 2001. Genetic markers not a valid test of identity. GeneWatch 14:6-8.
14. Kosmin BA, Mayer E, Keysar A. 2001. American religious identification survey, New York: The Graduate Center of the City, University of New York.
15. Kearns R. 2003. October 8. Indigenous Puerto Rico: DNA evidence upsets established history. Indian Country Today, p B1.
16. Marks J 2001. Scientific and folk ideas about human heredity. In: Zilinskas RA, Balint PJ, editors. The Human Genome Project and minority communities: ethical, social, and political dilemmas. Westport, CN: Praeger. p 53-66.
17. Juengst ET. 1998. Group identity and human diversity: keeping biology straight from culture. Am J Hum Genet 63:673-677.
18. Reilly PR. 1998. Rethinking risks to human subjects in genetic research. Am J Hum Genet 63:682-685.
19. Dula A, Royal C, Secundy MG. 2003. The ethical and social implications of exploring African American genealogies. Dev World Bioethics 3:1471-8731.
20. Tallbear K. 2003. December 3. Can DNA determine who is American Indian? Indian Country Today, p A5.
21. UK BIOBANK. 2004. UK BIOBANK ethics and governance framework: summary of comments on Version 1.0. http://www.wellcome. ac.uk/assetsAVTD003285.pdf.