MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W184387706 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2012.3.1.6

A Comparative Analysis of Indigenous Research Guidelines to Inform Genomic Research in Indigenous Communities

2012· article· en· W184387706 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nicole K Taniguchi, Maile Taualii, Jay E. Maddock

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRace, Genetics, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIndigenousHarmPolitical sciencePublic relationsBiologyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genetic research has potential benefits for improving health, such as identifying molecular characteristics of a disease, understanding disease prevalence and treatment, and developing treatments tailored to patients based on individual genetic characteristics of their disease. Indigenous people are often targeted for genetic research because genes are easier to study in communities that practice endogamy. Therefore, populations perceived to be more homogenous, such as Indigenous peoples, are ideal for genetic studies. While Indigenous communities remain the focal point of many genomic studies, some result in harm and unethical practice. Unfortunately, the harms of poorly formulated and unethical research involving Indigenous people have created barriers to participation that prevent critical and lifesaving research. These harms have led a number of Indigenous communities to develop guidelines for engaging with researchers to assist in safely bridging the gap between genetic research and Indigenous peoples. SPECIFIC AIMS: The specific aims of this study were: (1) to conduct an international review and comparison of Indigenous research guidelines that highlight topics regarding genetics and use of biological samples and identify commonalities and differences among ethical principles of concern to Indigenous peoples; and (2) develop policy recommendations for Indigenous populations interested in creating formal policies around the use of genetic information and protection of biological samples using data from specific aim 1. METHODS: A comparative analysis was performed to identify best research practices and recommendations for Indigenous groups from four countries: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. The analysis examined commonalities in political relationships, which support self-determination among these Indigenous communities to control their data. Current international Indigenous guidelines were analyzed to review processes of how genetic research is conducted and the use of biological samples is handled with Indigenous peoples. RESULTS: Results suggest the need for genetic and genomic research policies for the world’s Indigenous people. Indigenous groups are most vulnerable to research exploitation and harm; therefore, identifying principles that work for Indigenous people will lead to best practices for all populations. CONCLUSIONS: Development and implementation of best practices informed by research guidelines in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S. may be helpful to advise Indigenous leaders, policy makers, and researchers to the proper conduction of genetic research within Indigenous communities. Comparative analyses are a useful tool for identifying areas for further work in developing genetic research policy for Indigenous communities. OUTCOME: The outcomes of this analysis are relevant and useful to Indigenous communities and inform the development of community-based genetic research guidelines. The recommendations can be used in designing appropriate policies for future genomic research with Indigenous peoples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicRace, Genetics, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207