Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 511–521

Research with groups: Group rights, group consent, and collaborative research

Commentary on protecting the navajo people through tribal regulation of research


group consent research with groups collaborative research group rights concept of group 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brugge, Doug and Missaghian, Miriam. (2006) Protecting the Navajo People through tribal Regulation of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12/3: 491–507.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. (2003) Ethics and Anthropology 1890–2000: A Review of Issues and Principles in Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn ed. (2003) Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for Ethically Conscious Practice, 2nd edition, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, p. 19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell, G and Happe, K. (2001) Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research. Journal of Medical Humanities, 22: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manson, S., Garroutte, Goins, E. and Nez Henderson, P. (2004) Access, Relevance and Control in the Research Process: Lessons from Indian Country. Journal of Aging and Health Supplement to Vol. 16, No. 5: 58s-77sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrews, L. (2004) Havasupai Tribe Sues Genetic Researchers. Lab Report: Law and Bioethics Report Volume 4, Issue 2: 10–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray, T. (1980) Learning to Deceive. The Hastings Center Report 10: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin, Paul. (2004) Indian Givers. p.1–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juengst, E. (1998) Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing, Morally Hazardous and Practically Useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.2: 183–200.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wellman, C. (2001) Alternatives for a Theory of Groups Rights in Sistare, C., May L., and Francis, L. eds. Groups and Group Rights, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 17–43.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wall, E. (2003) Problems with the Groups Rights Thesis: American Philosophical Quarterly, 40: 269–285.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchanan, A. (1991) The Right to Self Determination: Analytic and Moral Foundations. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 8: 44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams, S. (2005) A Case Study of Ethical Issues in Genetic Research: The Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson Story” in Turner, T. ed., Biological Anthropology and Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity. State University Press of New York; 185–208.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anonymous. “Forbidden Knowledge,” (2000) in Brian Schrag, ed. Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, Vol 4, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Bloomington. 25–28.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonas, Hans. (1969) Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects, Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Spring. Boston Massachusetts. Reprinted in Munson, R. (2004) ed. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 7th edition, Thompson/Wadsworth, Belmont, p.49.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khanlou, N. and Peters, E. (2005) Participatory Action Research: Considerations for Ethical Review,” Social Science and Medicine 60: 2333–2340.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. and Ferguson, J.T. (2004) Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Journal of Social Archaeology 4: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharp, R. and Foster, M. (2000) Involving Study Populations in the Review of Genetic Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 28: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Executive Secretary, Association of Practical and Professional EthicsBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations