CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cultural Challenges to Biotechnology: Native American Genetic Resources and the Concept of Cultural Harm

Tsosie, Rebecca·2007·Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2007.00163.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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 (ASU) 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2007.00163.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Havasupai Tribe brought a claim in relation to blood samples collected by Arizona State University researchers during the early 1990s, when they agreed to allow blood samples to be taken from Tribal members for a diabetes study.

    “This was the claim that the Havasupai Tribe brought in relation to the blood samples collected by a research team from Arizona State University during the early 1990s, when they agreed to allow blood samples to be taken from Tribal members for a diabetes study (Tsosie 2007).”

    From Archaeology and Social Justice in Native America (2022) · cites this paper as Tsosie 2007

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 2000, “Indigenous Peoples, Genes and Genetics: What Indigenous People Should Know about Biocolonialism,”, 1
  2. Anaya, 2004, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 10.1093/oso/9780195173499.001.0001 · DOI
  3. Margalit, 1994, “Liberalism and the Right to Culture,”, Social Research, 61, 491
  4. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00164.x · DOI
  5. Whelan, 2006, “What, If Any, Are the Ethical Obligations of the U.S. Patent Office? A Close Look at the Biological Sampling of Indigenous Groups,”, Duke Law and Technology Review, 5
  6. Rao, 2000, “Property, Privacy, and the Human Body,”, Boston University Law Review, 80, 359
  7. Korngold, 2004, Property Stories, 1
  8. Moore, 1991, Handbook of American Indian Religious Freedom
  9. Hart, 1997, Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation
  10. Trigger, 1985, Who Owns the Past?, 11
  11. Deloria, 2001, Power and Place: Indian Education in America
  12. Wu, 2000, “Surpassing The Material: The Human Rights Implications of Informed Consent in Bioprospecting Cells Derived from Indigenous People Groups,”, Washington University Law Quarterly, 78, 979
  13. Kymlicka, 1995, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights
  14. Lama, 1999, Ethics for the New Millennium
  15. Clinton, 1990, “The Rights of Indigenous Peoples as Collective Group Rights,”, Arizona Law Review, 32, 739
  16. 20. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).
  17. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00161.x · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00160.x · DOI
  19. Posner, 2003, Economic Analysis of Law, 31
  20. Bowekaty, 2002, “Perspective on Research in American Indian Communities,”, Jurimetrics, 42, 145
  21. Demsetz, 1967, “Toward a Theory of Property Rights,”, American Economic Review, 57, 347
  22. Vecsey, 1991, Handbook of American Indian Religious Freedom, 16
  23. Kymlicka, 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture, 169
  24. Tsosie, 1996, “Tribal Environmental Policy in an Era of Self-Determination: The Role of Ethics, Economics, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge,”, Vermont Law Review, 21, 225
  25. Tsosie, 2000, “Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights,”, University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 47, 1615
  26. Hardin, 1968, “The Tragedy of the Commons,”, Science, 162, 1243, 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Tsosie, 2002, “Reclaiming Native Stories: An Essay on Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Rights,”, Arizona State Law Journal, 34, 299
  28. 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb00876.x · DOI
  29. Jessup Newton, 1994, “Not Even His Name: Is the Denigration of Crazy Horse Custer's Final Revenge?”, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 29, 175
  30. Clinton, 2007, American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System, Cases and Materials
  31. Trope, 1992, “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History,”, Arizona State Law Journal, 24, 35

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tsosie, R.
Venue
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2007
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
396-411
ISSN
  • 1073-1105
  • 1748-720X
DOI
10.1111/j.1748-720x.2007.00163.x
Cited by
64
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 5114 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review