Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Ethical microbiome research with Indigenous communities


Human–microbiome interactions have been associated with evolutionary, cultural and environmental processes. With clinical applications of microbiome research now feasible, it is crucial that the science conducted, particularly among Indigenous communities, adheres to principles of inclusion. This necessitates a transdisciplinary dialogue to decide how biological samples are collected and who benefits from the research and any derived products. As a group of scholars working at the interface of biological and social science, we offer a candid discussion of the lessons learned from our own research and introduce one approach to carry out ethical microbiome research with Indigenous communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Lewis, C., Obregon-Tito, A., Tito, R., Foster, M. & Spicer, P. The Human Microbiome Project: lessons from human genomics. Trends Microbiol. 20, 1–4 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Claw, K. et al. A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nat. Commun. 9, 2957 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reardon, J. Race to the Finish (Princeton University Press, 2009).

  4. Tsosie, K., Yracheta, J., Kolopenuk, J. & Smith, R. Indigenous data sovereignties and data sharing in biological anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 174, 183–186 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsosie, K., Yracheta, J., Kolopenuk, J. & Geary, J. We have ‘gifted’ enough: Indigenous genomic data sovereignty in precision medicine. Am. J. Bioeth. 21, 72–75 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haring, R. C. et al. Empowering equitable data use partnerships and Indigenous data sovereignties mid pandemic genomics. Front. Public Health 9, 742467 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Asad, T. in The Politics of Anthropology: from Colonialism and Sexism Toward a View from Below (eds Huizer, G. & Mannheim, B.) 85–96 (Ithica Press, 1973).

  8. Deloria, V. Custer Died for Your Sins: an Indian Manifesto (University of Oklahoma Press, 1969).

  9. Hymes, D. Reinventing Anthropology (Pantheon, 1974).

  10. Trouillot, M. R. Global Transformations (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

  11. Broesch, T. et al. Navigating cross-cultural research: methodological and ethical considerations. Proc. R. Soc. B (2020).

  12. Urassa, M., Lawson, D., Wamoyi, J., Gurmu, E. & Gibson, M. Cross-cultural research must prioritize equitable collaboration. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 668–671 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blanchard, J. et al. Power sharing, capacity building, and evolving roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research. Collaborations 3, 18 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hudson, M. et al. in Ethics in Indigenous Research, Past Experiences—Future Challenges (Vaartoe Centre for Sami Research, 2016).

  15. Schroeder, D., Chatfield, K., Singh, M., Chennells, R. & Herissone-Kelly, P. Equitable Research Partnerships: a Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping (Springer Nature, 2019);

  16. Jobson, R. The case for letting anthropology burn: sociocultural anthropology in 2019. Am. Anthropologist 122, 259–271 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kowal, E. Orphan DNA: Indigenous samples, ethical biovalue and postcolonial science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43, 577–597 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, L. T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021).

  19. Viswanathan, M. et al. Community‐Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence: Summary (AHRQ, 2004).

  20. Caniglia, G. et al. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coombes, B., Johnson, J. & Howitt, R. Indigenous geographies III: methodological innovation and the unsettling of participatory research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38, 845–854 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharp, R. & Foster, M. Community involvement in the ethical review of genetic research: lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Environ. Health Perspect. 110, 145–148 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B. in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity (eds Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G. & Minkler, M.) 17–29 (John Wiley and Sons, 2017).

  24. Obregon-Tito, A. et al. Subsistence strategies in traditional societies distinguish gut microbiomes. Nat. Commun. 6, 6505 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mandava, A., Pace, C., Campbell, B., Emanuel, E. & Grady, C. The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries. J. Med. Ethics 38, 356–365 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Afolabi, M. O. et al. Informed consent comprehension in African research settings. Tropical Med. Int. Health 19, 625–642 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Edwards, T., Cadigan, R., Evans, J. & Henderson, G. Biobanks containing clinical specimens: defining characteristics, policies, and practices. Clin. Biochem. 47, 245–251 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grady, C. et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am. J. Bioeth. 15, 34–42 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis, C., McCall, L.-I., Sharp, R. & Spicer, P. Ethical priority of the most actionable system of biomolecules: the metabolome. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 171, 177–181 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McCarty, C., Chapman-Stone, D., Derfus, T., Giampietro, P. & Fost, N. Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 146A, 3026–3033 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsosie, K. S., Yracheta, J. M. & Dickenson, D. Overvaluing individual consent ignores risks to tribal participants. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 497–498 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chavis, D. M., Stucky, P. E. & Wandersman, A. Returning basic research to the community: a relationship between scientist and citizen. Am. Psychologist 38, 424 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Godoy, R., Reyes-García, V., Byron, E., Leonard, W. & Vadez, V. The effect of market economies on the well-being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 121–138 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Reardon, J. & TallBear, K. ‘Your DNA is our history’ genomics, anthropology, and the construction of whiteness as property. Curr. Anthropol. 53, 233–245 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schnorr, S. et al. Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers. Nat. Commun. 5, 3654 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Doherty, K. C. et al. Opinion: conservation and stewardship of the human microbiome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14312–14313 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dubois, G., Girard, C., Lapointe, F.-J. & Shapiro, J. The Inuit gut microbiome is dynamic over time and shaped by traditional foods. Microbiome 5, 151 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sprockett, D. et al. Microbiota assembly, structure, and dynamics among Tsimane horticulturalists of the Bolivian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 11, 3772 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Stagaman, K. et al. Market integration predicts human gut microbiome attributes across a gradient of economic development. MSystems 3, 00122-17 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Conteville, L. C., Oliveira-Ferreira, J. & Vicente, A. C. P. Gut microbiome biomarkers and functional diversity within an Amazonian semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer group. Front. Microbiol. 30, 1743 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fischer, M. In the science zone: the Yanomami and the fight for representation. Anthropol. Today 17, 9–14 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Goncalves Martin, J. Opening a path with papers: Yanomami health agents and their use of medical documents. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Anthropol. 21, 434–456 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Redford, K. & Maclean Stearman, A. Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conservation of biodiversity: interests in common or in collision? Conserv. Biol. 7, 248–255 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vega, C., Orellana, J., Oliveira, M., Hacon, S. & Basta, P. Human mercury exposure in Yanomami indigenous villages from the Brazilian Amazon. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1051 (2018).

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Clemente, J. et al. The microbiome of uncontacted Amerindians. Sci. Adv. 1, 1500183 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gibbons, A. Hadza on the brink. Science 360, 700–704 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pollom, T. R., Herlosky, K. N., Mabulla, I. A. & Crittenden, A. N. Changes in juvenile foraging behavior among the Hadza of Tanzania during early transition to a mixed-subsistence economy. Hum. Nat. 31, 123–140 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Crittenden, A. N. et al. Harm avoidance and mobility during middle childhood and adolescence among Hadza foragers. Hum. Nat. 32, 150–176 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wynberg, R. & Chennells, R. in Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing (eds Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D. & Chennells, R.) 89–124 (Springer, 2009);

  50. Rubel, M. et al. Lifestyle and the presence of helminths is associated with gut microbiome composition in Cameroonians. Genome Biol. 21, 122 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sankaranarayanan, K. et al. Gut microbiome diversity among Cheyenne and Arapaho individuals from Western Oklahoma. Curr. Biol. 25, 3161–3169 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rogers, G. B., Ward, J., Brown, A. & Wesselingh, S. L. Inclusivity and equity in human microbiome research. Lancet 39, 728–729 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ambler, J. et al. Including digital sequence data in the Nagoya Protocol can promote data sharing. Trends Biotechnol. 39, 116–125 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Morgera, E. The need for an international legal concept of fair and equitable benefit sharing. Eur. J. Int. Law 27, 353–383 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bissell, W. Engaging colonial nostalgia. Cultural Anthropol. 20, 215–248 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Crittenden, A. in The Secret Lives of Anthropologists (ed. Hewlett, B. L.) 299–321 (Routledge, 2019).

  57. Redford, K. H. The ecologically noble savage. Cultural Survival Q 15, 46–48 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Carmody, R. N., Sarkar, A. & Reese, A. T. Gut microbiota through an evolutionary lens. Science 372, 462–463 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

  60. McClain, V. W. Patents on life: a brief view of human milk component patenting. World Nutr. 9, 57–69 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hill, J. H. ‘Expert rhetorics’ in advocacy for endangered languages: who is listening, and what do they hear? J. Linguistic Anthropol. 12, 119–133 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was funded by a National Science Foundation SBE Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (award no. 1810060), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska–Curie grant agreement no. 847693, the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomics Research (grant no. RM1HG009042), and the Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. The authors thank those who evaluated previous versions of the manuscript and provided critical comments, provided opportunities to present early drafts and fostered insightful discussions throughout the process of constructing this work: H. Bachner, H. C. Barrett, D. Benyshek, D. Berry, G. Caniglia, A. Gomez, B. Hewlett, R. Hitchcock, C. Hofman, D. Shopo, J. Indaya, A. Laciny, W. Lukasi, I. Mabulla, R. Matiyas, S. Strum and D. Western.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa N. Crittenden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

S.M.M. and A.N.C. declare non-financial competing interests as unpaid board members for a 501c(3) educational non-profit organization that works with the Hadzabe community, the Olanakwe Community Fund ( The work of the mutual aid organization is unrelated to biological research. S.L.S. and J.R.L. declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mangola, S.M., Lund, J.R., Schnorr, S.L. et al. Ethical microbiome research with Indigenous communities. Nat Microbiol 7, 749–756 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing