Genetic research with Indigenous Peoples: perspectives on governance and oversight in the US

IntroductionIndigenous Peoples are increasingly exerting governance and oversight over genomic research with citizens of their nations, raising questions about how best to enforce research regulation between American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples and researchers.MethodsUsing a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics research with Indigenous Peoples in the US.ResultsWe report findings related to (1) considerations for Indigenous governance, (2) institutional relationships upholding sovereignty, (3) expectations for research approvals, and (4) agreements enacting Indigenous governance. Participants described concerns about different ways of exerting oversight, relationships and agreements between Indigenous Peoples and researchers, and gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen existing governance of genomic data.DiscussionThe results will ultimately guide policy-making and development of new strategies for Indigenous Peoples to enforce oversight in research to promote ethically and culturally appropriate research

Weaving the Strands of Life (Iiná Bitł’ool): History of Genetic Research Involving Navajo People

To date, some genetic studies offer medical benefits, but lack a clear pathway to benefit for people from underrepresented backgrounds. Historically Indigenous people, including the Diné (Navajo people), have raised concerns about the lack of benefits, misuse of DNA samples, lack of consultation, and ignoring cultural and traditional ways of knowing. Shortly after the Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board was established in 1996, the Navajo Nation recognized growing concerns about genetic research and established a moratorium on human genetic research studies in 2002. The moratorium effectively has protected their citizens from potential genetic research harms. Despite the placement of the moratorium, some genetic research studies have continued using blood and DNA samples from Navajo people. In order to understand the history of genetic research involving Navajo people, we conducted a literature review of 79 genetic or genetic-related research publications that involved Navajo people from the years 1925 to 2018. In this review, we divided the genetic research studies into the following general classifications: a) bacteria or virus genetics studies, b) blood and human leukocyte antigen, c) complex diseases, d) forensics, e) hereditary diseases, and f) population genetics and migration. We evaluated the methods for each study, described the number of Navajo individuals included in each study, recorded the academic or tribal approval statements, and noted whether the study considered Diné cultural values. Several studies focused on Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disease, population history, neuropathy, albinism, eye and skin disorders that affect Navajo people. We found genetic research publications involving Navajo people spanning over the course of 93 years. To our knowledge, no known literature reviews have examined the history of genetic research in the Navajo community. In our Discussion, we contextualize Diné ways of knowing related to genetics and health with Western scientific concepts to acknowledge the complex philosophy and belief system that guides Diné people and recognizes Indigenous science. We encourage researchers consider cultural perspectives and traditional knowledge that has the potential to create stronger conclusions and better informed, ethical, and respectful science

Chaco Canyon Dig Unearths Ethical Concerns

The field of paleogenomics (the study of ancient genomes) is rapidly advancing with more robust methods of isolating ancient DNA and increasing access to next-generation DNA sequencing technology. As these studies progress, many important ethical issues have emerged that should be considered when ancient Native American remains, whom we refer to as ancestors, are used in research. We highlight a recent article by Kennett et al. (2017), “Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty,” that brings several ethical issues to light that should be addressed in paleogenomics research (Kennett et al. 2017). The study helps elucidate the matrilineal relationships in ancient Chacoan society through ancient DNA analysis. However, we, as Indigenous researchers and allies, raise ethical concerns with the study’s scientific conclusions that can be problematic for Native American communities: (1) the lack of tribal consultation, (2) the use of culturally-insensitive descriptions, and (3) the potential impact on marginalized groups. Further, we explore the limitations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which addresses repatriation but not research, as clear ethical guidelines have not been established for research involving Native American ancestors, especially those deemed “culturally unaffiliated”. As multiple studies of culturally unaffiliated remains have been initiated recently, it is imperative that researchers consider the ethical ramifications of paleogenomics research. Past research indiscretions have created a history of mistrust and exploitation in many Native American communities. To promote ethical engagement of Native American communities in research, we therefore suggest careful attention to the ethical considerations, strong tribal consultation requirements, and greater collaborations amongst museums, federal agencies, researchers, scientific journals, and granting agencies

Getting Genetic Ancestry Right for Science and Society

There is a scientific and ethical imperative to embrace a multidimensional, continuous view of ancestry and move away from continental ancestry categorie

ASHG Position Statement : The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

© 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This author accepted manuscript is made available following 6 month embargo from date of publication (April 2019) in accordance with the publisher’s copyright policyThe evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant’s clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors

Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decision-making and control of data. Given that much data are generated from research, Indigenous research governance and Indigenous Data Governance overlap. In this paper, we broaden the concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty by using the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance to discuss how research legislation and policy adopted by Indigenous Peoples in the US set expectations around recognizing sovereign relationships, acknowledging rights and interests in data, and enabling Indigenous Peoples' participation in research governance

Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons?

National and international public–private partnerships, consortia, and government initiatives are underway to collect and share genomic, personal, and healthcare data on a massive scale. Ideally, these efforts will contribute to the creation of a medical information commons (MIC), a comprehensive data resource that is widely available for both research and clinical uses. Stakeholder participation is essential in clarifying goals, deepening understanding of areas of complexity, and addressing long-standing policy concerns such as privacy and security and data ownership. This article describes eight core principles proposed by a diverse group of expert stakeholders to guide the formation of a successful, sustainable MIC. These principles promote formation of an ethically sound, inclusive, participant-centric MIC and provide a framework for advancing the policy response to data-sharing opportunities and challenges

Return of Genomic Results to Research Participants: The Floor, the Ceiling, and the Choices In Between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants’ health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles