Cited by 309Ethics in Clinical ResearchRace, Genetics, and SocietyIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights

Genomic Justice for Native Americans: Impact of the Havasupai Case on Genetic Research

Open access
Garrison, Nanibaa' A.·2013·Science, Technology, & Human Values

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0162243912470009

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 measured
  • These 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).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Dalton Rex 2004 When Two Tribes go to War Nature 430 6999 500 02 15282577
  8. 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
  9. Jasanoff Sheila 2004 States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order London, UK Routledge
  10. Jasanoff Sheila 2005 Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
  11. McCabe Linda L McCabe Edward RB 2008 DNA: Promise and Peril Berkeley University of California Press
  12. 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
  13. Reardon Jenny 2005 Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an age of Genomics, Information Series Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
  14. Reverby Susan M 2009 Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy Chapel Hill The University of North Carolina Press
  15. Saha K Hurlbut JB 2011 Research Ethics: Treat Donors as Partners in Biobank Research Nature 478 7369 312 13 22012372
  16. Santos LorriAnn 2008 Genetic Research in Native Communities Progress in Community Health Partnerships 2 4 321 27 20208312 PMC2862689
  17. 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

Authors
Garrison, N. A.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Garrison, Nanibaa' A.
Venue
Science, Technology, & Human Values
Published
2012-12-21
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
201-223
ISSN
  • 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8251
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
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