Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Claw, K. G. et al. A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with communities. Nat. Commun. 9, 2957 (2018).
Amann, R. I. et al. Toward unrestricted use of public genomic data. Science 363, 350–352 (2019).
Salter, B. & Salter, C. Controlling new knowledge: genomic science, governance and the politics of bioinformatics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47, 263–287 (2017).
David-Chavez, D. M. A Guiding Model For Decolonizing Environmental Science Research and Restoring Relational Accountability with Indigenous Communities. Thesis Colorado State Univ. (2019).
McInnes, R. R. 2010 presidential address: culture: the silent language geneticists must learn — genetic research with indigenous populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88, 254–261 (2011).
Rainie, S. C. et al. in The State of Open Data: Histories and Horizons (eds Davies, T., Walker, S., Rubinstein, M. & Perini, F.) 300–319 (African Minds and International Development Research Centre, 2019).
Stephens, C., Porter, J., Nettleton, C. & Willis, R. Disappearing, displaced, and undervalued: a call to action for Indigenous health worldwide. Lancet 367, 2019–2028 (2006).
Garrison, N. A. et al. Genomic research through an indigenous lens: understanding the expectations. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 20, 495–517 (2019).
Cohn, E. G., Husamudeen, M., Larson, E. L. & Williams, J. K. Increasing participation in genomic research and biobanking through community-based capacity building. J. Genet. Counseling 24, 491–502 (2015).
Scherr, C. L., Ramesh, S., Marshall-Fricker, C. & Perera, M. A. A review of African Americans’ beliefs and attitudes about genomic studies: opportunities message design. Front. Genet. 10, 548 (2019).
Bonevski, B. et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14, 42 (2014).
Martin, A. R. et al. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat. Genet. 51, 584–591 (2019).
Geary, J., Jardine, C. J., Guebert, J. & Bubela, T. Access and benefits sharing of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in northern Canada: understanding the legal environment and creating effective research agreements. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 72, 1–9 (2013).
Jacobs, B. et al. Bridging the divide between genomic science and indigenous peoples. J. Law, Med. Ethics 38, 684–696 (2010).
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Calling upon the National Institutes of Health to consult with tribal nations and establish policies and guidance for tribal oversight of data on tribal citizens enrolled in the All of Us research program. NCAI www.ncai.org/ABQ-19-061.pdf (2019).
Porteri, C., Togni, E. & Pasqualetti, P. The policies of ethics committees in the management of biobanks used for research: an Italian survey. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 22, 260–265 (2014).
Joly, Y., Dyke, S. O., Cheung, W. A., Rothstein, M. A. & Pastinen, T. Risk of re-identification of epigenetic methylation data: a more nuanced response is needed. Clin. Epigenetics 7, 45 (2015).
Mills, M. C. & Rahal, C. A scientometric review of genome-wide association studies. Commun. Biol. 2, 9 (2019).
Bentley, A. R., Callier, S. & Rotimi, C. N. Diversity and inclusion in genomic research: why the uneven progress? J. Community Genet. 8, 255–266 (2017).
Kraft, S. A. et al. Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am. J. Bioeth. 18, 3–20 (2018).
Jackson, L., Kuhlman, C., Jackson, F. & Fox, P. K. Including vulnerable populations in the assessment of data from vulnerable populations. Front. Big Data 2, 19 (2019).
Garrison, N. A. Genomic justice for Native Americans: impact of the Havasupai case on genetic research. Sci. Technol. Human Values 38, 201–223 (2013).
Kowal, E. E. in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (ed. Wright, J. D.) 962–968 (Elsevier, 2015).
Hudson, M. et al. Key informant views on biobanking and genomic research with Māori. N. Z. Med. J. 129, 29–42 (2016).
Prictor, M., Teare, H. J. A. & Kaye, J. Equitable participation in biobanks: the risks and benefits of a ‘Dynamic Consent’ approach. Front. Public Health 6, 253 (2018).
Aramoana, J. & Koea, J. An integrative review of the barriers to indigenous peoples participation in biobanking and genomic research. J. Glob. Oncol. 5, 1–9 (2019).
TallBear, K. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science (Univ. of Minnesota, 2013).
Blanchard, J. W., Outram, S., Tallbull, G. & Royal, C. D. M. ‘We don’t need a swab in our mouth to prove who we are’: identity, resistance, and adaptation of genetic ancestry testing among Native American communities. Curr. Anthropol. 60, 637–655 (2019).
Woodbury, R. B., Beans, J. A., Hiratsuka, V. Y. & Burke, W. Data management in health-related research involving indigenous communities in the United States and Canada: a scoping review. Front. Genet. 10, 942 (2019).
Beans, J. A. et al. Community protections in American Indian and Alaska Native participatory research — a scoping review. Soc. Sci. 8, 127 (2019).
Woodbury, R. B., Ketchum, S., Hiratsuka, V. Y. & Spicer, P. Health-related participatory research in American Indian and Alaska Native communities: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 2969 (2019).
Hanna, P. & Vanclay, F. Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of free, prior and informed consent. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31, 146–157 (2013).
Barelli, M. Free, prior and informed consent in the aftermath of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples: developments and challenges ahead. Int. J. Hum. Rights 16, 1–24 (2012).
Wynberg, R. & Laird, S. in Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case (eds Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D. & Chennells, R.) 69–86 (Springer, 2009).
Jonas, H., Bavikatte, K. & Shrumm, H. Community protocols and access and benefit sharing. Asian Biotechnol. Dev. Rev. 12, 49–76 (2010).
United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) (United Nations, 2007).
Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., & Chennells R. Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case (Springer, 2009).
Karger, E. Study on the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources in Germany (Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation), 2018).
Tsosie, K. S., Yracheta, J. M. & Dickenson, D. Overvaluing individual consent ignores risks to tribal participants. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 497–498 (2019).
Mead, A. & Ratuva, S. Pacific Genes & Life Patents: Pacific Indigenous Experiences & Analysis of the Commodification & Ownership of Life (Earth Llamado de la Tierra and the United Nations University of Advanced Studies, 2007).
Taylor, J. & Kukutai, T. Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda (ANU, 2016).
Greely, H. T. Genes, patents, and indigenous peoples: biomedical research and Indigenous peoples’ rights. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/genes-patents-and-indigenous-peoples-biomedical-research (1996).
Malerba, L. et al. Considerations for meaningful collaboration with tribal populations. The Tribal Collaboration Working Group Report to the All of Us Research Program Advisory Panel. NIH https://allofus.nih.gov/sites/default/files/tribal_collab_work_group_rept.pdf (2018).
Henare, K. L. et al. Mapping a route to Indigenous engagement in cancer genomic research. Lancet Oncol. 20, e327–e335 (2019).
Arbour, L. & Cook, D. DNA on loan: issues to consider when carrying out genetic research with aboriginal families and communities. Community Genet. 9, 153–160 (2006).
Doris Schroeder, et al. Ethics Dumping: Case Studies from North–South Research Collaborations (Springer International, 2018).
Tiffin, N. Tiered informed consent: respecting autonomy, agency and individuality in Africa. BMJ Glob. Health 3, e001249 (2018).
Budin-Ljøsne, I. et al. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med. Ethics 18, 4 (2017).
Walter, M. & Lovett, R., Bodkin Andrews, G. & Lee, V. Indigenous data sovereignty. Briefing paper: 2018. Australian Indigenous Governance Institute https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e9b10f9de4bb8d1fb5ebbc/t/5b29778d1ae6cf6c80c327e2/1529444243638/Indigenous+Data+Sovereignty+Summit+June+2018+Briefing+Paper.pdf (2018).
Te Mana Raraunga. Principles of Māori data sovereignty. Te Mana Raraunga https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e9b10f9de4bb8d1fb5ebbc/t/5bda208b4ae237cd89ee16e9/1541021836126/TMR+Ma%CC%84ori+Data+Sovereignty+Principles+Oct+2018.pdf (2018).
Hudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. & Smith, B. Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics: A Framework for Researchers and Ethics Committee Members (Health Research Council of New Zealand on behalf of the Pūtaiora Writing Group, 2010).
Johnson, S. B., Slade, I., Giubilini, A. & Graham, M. Rethinking the ethical principles of genomic medicine services. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 28, 147–154 (2020).
Jooma, S., Hahn, M. J., Hindorff, L. A. & Bonham, V. L. Defining and achieving health equity in genomic medicine. Ethnicity Dis. 29, 173–178 (2019).
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches. Canadian Institutes of Health Research https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf (2012).
Gagliardi, A. R., Berta, W., Kothari, A., Boyko, J. & Urquhart, R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement. Sci. 11, 38 (2015).
Kothari, A. & Sibbald, S. L. Using complexity to simplify knowledge translation comment on ‘using complexity and network concepts to inform healthcare knowledge translation’. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 7, 563–565 (2017).
Taylor, N. et al. A transformative translational change programme to introduce genomics into healthcare: a complexity and implementation science study protocol. BMJ Open 9, e024681 (2019).
Tauali’i, M. et al. Native Hawaiian views on biobanking. J. Canc Educ. 29, 570–576 (2014).
James, R. et al. Exploring pathways to trust: a tribal perspective on data sharing. Genet. Med. 16, 820–826 (2014).
Anderson, J. & Bowrey, K. The politics of global information sharing: whose cultural agendas are being advanced? Soc. Leg. Stud. 18, 479–504 (2009).
Merriman, T. & Cameron, V. Risk-taking: behind the warrior gene story. N. Z. Med. J. 120, U2440 (2007).
Robertson, S. P. et al. Genomic medicine must reduce, not compound, health inequities: the case for hauora-enhancing genomic resources for New Zealand. N. Z. Med. J. 131, 81–89 (2018).
Wellcome Trust. Sharing Data from Large-scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility (Wellcome Trust, 2003).
European Union. EU data protection rules. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/justice-and-fundamental-rights/data-protection/2018-reform-eu-data-protection-rules_en (2019).
Wang, S. et al. A community effort to protect genomic data sharing, collaboration and outsourcing. NPJ Genom. Med. 2, 33 (2017).
Berger, B. & Cho, H. Emerging technologies towards enhancing privacy in genomic data sharing. Genome Biol. 20, 128 (2019).
Chen, I.-M. A. et al. IMG/M: integrated genome and metagenome comparative data analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D507–D516 (2017).
Takashima, K. et al. Ethical concerns on sharing genomic data including patients’ family members. BMC Med. Ethics 19, 61 (2018).
Hudson, M. et al. He Tangata Kei Tua — Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori (Te Mata Hautū Taketake — Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre, Univ. of Waikato, 2016).
Beaton, A. et al. Engaging Māori in biobanking and genomic research: a model for biobanks to guide culturally informed governance, operational, and community engagement activities. Genet. Med. 19, 345–351 (2017).
Kaye, J. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 13, 415–431 (2012).
Hudson, M. et al. (C)ELSI-us: reducing friction with Indigenous communities in genomic research: world anthropologies. Am. Anthropol. 120, 330–332 (2018).
Hudson, M. et al. Te Mata Ira: guidelines for genomic research with Māori. Te Mata Hautū Taketake — Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre https://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/321534/Te-Mata-Ira-Genome-Research-Guidelines.pdf (2016).
Yakubu, A. et al. Model framework for governance of genomic research and biobanking in Africa — a content description. AAS Open Res. 1, 13 (2018).
The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. South Australian Aboriginal Health Research accord: companion document. SAHMRI Research https://www.sahmriresearch.org/user_assets/2fb92e8c37ba5c16321e0f44ac799ed581adfa43/companion_document_accordfinal.pdf (2014).
Schuster, S. C. et al. Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from Southern Africa. Nature 463, 943–947 (2010).
South African San Institute. San Code of Research Ethics. South African San Institute http://trust-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/San-Code-of-RESEARCH-Ethics-Booklet-final.pdf (2017).
Nordling, L. San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0933 (2017).
Callaway, E. South Africa’s San people issue ethics code to scientists. Nature 543, 475–476 (2017).
Stokstad, E. Major U.K. genetics lab accused of misusing African DNA. Science https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/major-uk-genetics-lab-accused-misusing-african-dna (2019).
Research Data Alliance. International Indigenous Data Sovereignty IG. RDA https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/international-indigenous-data-sovereignty-ig (2019).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Global Indigenous Data Alliance. CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. GIDA https://www.gida-global.org/care (2019).
Ruckstuhl, K. et al. Recognising and valuing Māori innovation in the high-tech sector: a capacity approach. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 49, 72–88 (2019).
BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Silent Genomes Project. BCCHR https://www.bcchr.ca/silent-genomes-project (2019).
Genomics Aotearoa. Aotearoa New Zealand genomic variome. Genomica Aotearoa https://www.genomics-aotearoa.org.nz/projects/aotearoa-nz-genomic-variome (2019).
The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. Overview. SAHMRI Research https://www.sahmriresearch.org/our-research/themes/aboriginal-health/theme-overview (2019).
SPHERE Stanford Precision Health for Ethnic and Racial Equity. BRAICELET: Bio-repository for American Indian capacity, education, law, economics and technology. Stanford Medicine http://med.stanford.edu/sphere/research-intiatives/braicelet.html (2019).
Tiffin, N. Potential risks and solutions for sharing genome summary data from African populations. BMC Med. Genomics 12, 152 (2019).
Chagné, D. et al. A high density linkage map and quantitative trait loci for tree growth for New Zealand mānuka (‘Leptospermum scoparium’). N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 47, 261–272 (2019).
Genomics Aotearoa. Genomics Aotearoa is a collaborative research platform for genomics and bioinformatics. Genomics Aotearoa https://www.genomics-aotearoa.org.nz/ (2019).
Morgan, E. R., Perry, N. B. & Chagné, D. Science at the intersection of cultures — Māori, Pākehā and mānuka. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 47, 225–232 (2019).
Anderson, J. Options for the future protection of GRTKTCES: the traditional knowledge license and labels initiative. J. World Intellect. Property Organ. 4, 66–75 (2012).
Anderson, J. & Christen, K. Traditional knowledge (TK) labels. Local Contexts https://localcontexts.org/tk-labels/ (2019)
Deck, J. et al. The Genomic Observatories Metadatabase (GeOMe): a new repository for field and sampling event metadata associated with genetic samples. PLOS Biol. 15, e20029252017 (2017).
The authors acknowledge the learnings gained from the various Indigenous communities that they have partnered with in research. They also acknowledge the SING (Summer internship for INdigenous peoples in Genomics) networks, the Centre for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomics Research and the Indigenous Data Sovereignty networks, including the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, for the contributions they make towards generating new ideas and scholarship in this area.
J.Y. and K.F. are executive board members of the Native BioData Consortium biorepository (501.C.3 non-profit). The other authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Atlas of Living Australia: https://www.ala.org.au/
About this article
Cite this article
Hudson, M., Garrison, N.A., Sterling, R. et al. Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data. Nat Rev Genet 21, 377–384 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0228-x
Scanning the human genome for “signatures” of positive selection: Transformative opportunities and ethical obligations
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews (2021)
Response to Open Peer Commentaries: Distinguishing the “Gift” from “Donation” as a Path toward Reciprocity and Relational Ethics
The American Journal of Bioethics (2021)
Creating space for Indigenous perspectives on access and benefit‐sharing: Encouraging researcher use of the Local Contexts Notices
Molecular Ecology (2021)
PLOS Genetics (2021)
Operating principles for collective scholar-activism: Early insights from the Agroecology Research-Action Collective
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development (2021)