Genomic Justice for Native Americans: Impact of the Havasupai Case on Genetic Research
Open accessAbstract
In 2004, the Havasupai Tribe filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona State University (ASU) researchers upon discovering their DNA samples, initially collected for genetic studies on type 2 diabetes, had been used in several other genetic studies. The lawsuit reached a settlement in April 2010 that included monetary compensation and return of DNA samples to the Havasupai but left no legal precedent for researchers. Through semistructured interviews, institutional review board (IRB) chairs and human genetics researchers at US research institutions revealed their perspectives on the Havasupai lawsuit. For interviewees, the suit drew attention to indigenous concerns over genetic studies and increased their awareness of indigenous views. However, interviewees perceived no direct impact from the Havasupai case on their work; if they did, it was the perceived need to safeguard themselves by obtaining broad consent or shying away from research with indigenous communities altogether, raising important questions of justice for indigenous and minority participants. If researchers and IRBs do not change their practices in light of this case, these populations will likely continue to be excluded from a majority of research studies and left with less access to resources and potential benefit from genetic research participation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
If OCAP principles were respected, they would rule out most of the unethical data scooping we've seen, such as secret web scraping or unconsented DNA sequencing, because those acts violate each element of OCAP and take ownership and possession away from the community.
“These principles, if respected, would rule out most of the unethical data scooping we've seen (such as secret web scraping (Radford et al. 2023) or unconsented DNA sequencing (Garrison 2012) because those acts violate each element of OCAP ® and take ownership and possession away from the community.”
From Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance (2026) · cites this paper as Garrison 2012
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese biometric technologies are often supplied by Western contractors such as Clearview AI, Palantir, and NEC, whose algorithms are trained predominantly on non-consensual data.
“These technologies are often supplied by Western contractors such as Clearview AI, Palantir, and NEC, whose algorithms are trained predominantly on non-consensual data (see example of non-consent in Garrison 2012).”
From Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance (2026) · cites this paper as Garrison 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research
Epstein, S. (2007) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226213118.001.0001 · Cited by 792 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- AJMG (American Journal of Medical Genetics) 2010 After Havasupai Litigation, Native Americans wary of Genetic Research American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 152 7 ix 20583166
- Arbour Laura Cook Doris 2006 DNA on Loan: Issues to Consider When Carrying out Genetic Research with Aboriginal Families and Communities Community Genetics 9 3 153 60 16741344
- Bowekaty Malcolm B Davis Dena S 2003 Cultural Issues in Genetic Research with American Indian and Alaskan Native People IRB: Ethics and Human Research 25 4 12 15 14649249
- Boyer Bert B Dillard D Woodahl EL Whitener R Thummel KE Burke W 2011 Ethical Issues in Developing Pharmacogenetic Research Partnerships with American Indigenous Communities Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 89 3 343 45 21326261 PMC3090734
- Burke Wylie Edwards Kelly Goering Sara Holland Suzanne Trinidad Susan Brown 2011 Achieving Justice in Genomic Translation: Rethinking the Pathway to Benefit New York Oxford University Press
- Cochran Patricia AL Marshall Catherine A Garcia-Downing Carmen Kendall Elizabeth Cook Doris McCubbin Laurie Gover Reva Mariah S 2008 Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Implications for Participatory Research and Community American Journal of Public Health 98 1 22 27 18048800 PMC2156045
- Dalton Rex 2004 When Two Tribes go to War Nature 430 6999 500 02 15282577
- Goering Sara Holland Suzanne Fryer-Edwards Kelly 2008 Transforming Genetic Research Practices with Marginalized Communities: A Case for Responsive Justice Hastings Center Report 38 2 43 53 18457228
- Jasanoff Sheila 2004 States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order London, UK Routledge
- Jasanoff Sheila 2005 Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
- McCabe Linda L McCabe Edward RB 2008 DNA: Promise and Peril Berkeley University of California Press
- Mello Michelle M Wolf Leslie E 2010 The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case–Lessons for Research Involving Stored Biologic Samples New England Journal of Medicine 363 3 204 207 20538622
- Reardon Jenny 2005 Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an age of Genomics, Information Series Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
- Reverby Susan M 2009 Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy Chapel Hill The University of North Carolina Press
- Saha K Hurlbut JB 2011 Research Ethics: Treat Donors as Partners in Biobank Research Nature 478 7369 312 13 22012372
- Santos LorriAnn 2008 Genetic Research in Native Communities Progress in Community Health Partnerships 2 4 321 27 20208312 PMC2862689
- Winickoff DE Winickoff RN 2003 The Charitable Trust as a Model for Genomic Biobanks New England Journal of Medicine 349 12 1180 84 13679534
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lee, S. S.-J., Cho, M. K., Kraft, S. A., Varsava, N., Gillespie, K., Ormond, K. E., Wilfond, B. S., & Magnus, D. (2019) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0032-6 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
NAGPRA at 30: The Effects of Repatriation
Nash, S. E., & Colwell, C. (2020) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-075435 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Chapman, C. R., Quinn, G. P., Natri, H. M., Berrios, C., Dwyer, P., Owens, K., Heraty, S., & Caplan, A. L. (2025) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2276161 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Dutta Roy, T. P. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.80494 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education
Rasmussen, L. M. (2024) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2239145 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Schulz, M., & Loewen-Colón, J. (2026) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02931-z · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Garrison, N. A.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Garrison, Nanibaa' A.
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-12-21
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 201-223
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- PMC
- PMC5310710
- OpenAlex
- W2028301228
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science Technology & Human Values (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- University of California, San Francisco
- National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG003389, F32HG005931)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Keywords
- indigenous peoples, human genetic research, informed consent, broad consent, research ethics committees, research ethics, genetic research participation, minority groups, research exclusion, benefit sharing
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