Research with groups: Group rights, group consent, and collaborative research. Commentary on Protecting the Navajo People through tribal regulation of research

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 511-521

  Schrag, Brian ^a,b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Association of Practical and Professional Ethics   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative research; Concept of group; Group consent; Group rights; Research with groups

Indexed keywords

AMERICAN INDIAN; DECISION MAKING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; NOTE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RESEARCH ETHICS; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; INDIANS, NORTH AMERICAN; INFORMED CONSENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33748360484     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-006-0049-0     Document Type: Note

References (19)

1. Brugge, Doug and Missaghian, Miriam. (2006) Protecting the Navajo People through tribal Regulation of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12/3: 491-507.
2. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. (2003) Ethics and Anthropology 1890-2000: A Review of Issues and Principles in Fluehr-Lobban,
3. nd edition, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, p. 19.
4. Mitchell, G and Happe, K. (2001) Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research. Journal of Medical Humanities, 22: 41-53.
5. Manson, S., Garroutte, Goins, E. and Nez Henderson, P. (2004) Access, Relevance and Control in the Research Process: Lessons from Indian Country. Journal of Aging and Health Supplement to Vol. 16, No. 5: 58s-77s
6. Andrews, L. (2004) Havasupai Tribe Sues Genetic Researchers. Lab Report: Law and Bioethics Report Volume 4, Issue 2: 10-11.
7. Murray, T. (1980) Learning to Deceive. The Hastings Center Report 10: 11-14.
8. Rubin, Paul. (2004) Indian Givers. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/ 2004-05-27/news/feature p. 1-9.
9. Juengst, E. (1998) Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing, Morally Hazardous and Practically Useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.2: 183-200.
10. Wellman, C. (2001) Alternatives for a Theory of Groups Rights in Sistare, C., May L., and Francis, L. eds. Groups and Group Rights, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 17-43.
11. Wall, E. (2003) Problems with the Groups Rights Thesis: American Philosophical Quarterly, 40: 269-285.
12. Buchanan, A. (1991) The Right to Self Determination: Analytic and Moral Foundations. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 8: 44.
13. Williams, S. (2005) A Case Study of Ethical Issues in Genetic Research: The Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson Story" in Turner, T. ed., Biological Anthropology and Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity. State University Press of New York; 185-208.
14. Anonymous. "Forbidden Knowledge," (2000) in Brian Schrag, ed. Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, Vol 4, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Bloomington. 25-28.
15. Jonas, Hans. (1969) Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects, Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Spring. Boston Massachusetts.
16. th edition, Thompson/Wadsworth, Belmont, p.49.
17. Khanlou, N. and Peters, E. (2005) Participatory Action Research: Considerations for Ethical Review," Social Science and Medicine 60: 2333-2340.
18. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. and Ferguson, J.T. (2004) Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Journal of Social Archaeology 4: 5-27.
19. Sharp, R. and Foster, M. (2000) Involving Study Populations in the Review of Genetic Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 28: 41-52.