ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesData management

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing Issues (Papers: Anna Harding, et al | 2011)0

Posted by Admin in on July 17, 2018


Background: When conducting research with American Indian tribes, informed consent beyond conventional institutional review board (IRB) review is needed because of the potential for adverse consequences at a community or governmental level that are unrecognized by academic researchers.

Objectives: In this article, we review sovereignty, research ethics, and data-sharing considerations when doing community-based participatory health–related or natural-resource–related research with American Indian nations and present a model material and data-sharing agreement that meets tribal and university requirements.

Discussion: Only tribal nations themselves can identify potential adverse outcomes, and they can do this only if they understand the assumptions and methods of the proposed research. Tribes must be truly equal partners in study design, data collection, interpretation, and publication. Advances in protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) are also applicable to IRB reviews, as are principles of sovereignty and indigenous rights, all of which affect data ownership and control.

Conclusions: Academic researchers engaged in tribal projects should become familiar with all three areas: sovereignty, ethics and informed consent, and IPR. We recommend developing an agreement with tribal partners that reflects both health-related IRB and natural-resource–related IPR considerations.

Keywords: American Indian, data sharing, informed consent, intellectual property, IRB, research ethics, sovereignty, tribal

Harding A, Harper B, Stone D, O’Neill C, Berger P, et al. (2011) Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing Issues. Environmental Health Perspectives.  120: 6–10. pmid:21890450
Publisher (Open Access):

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, Philippines (NCIP | 2012)0

Posted by Admin in on July 5, 2018

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012

Section 1. Title. This guideline shall be known as “The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines of 2012.

Section 2. Legal Bases.
This Guidelines is hereby promulgated pursuant to the Constitution, Republic Act No. 8371 and other pertinent and applicable laws, international covenants, treaties and declarations.

Section 3. Policy Statement.

It is the policy of the Commission to:

a. Promote, protect and recognize the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to cultural integrity and to prescribe protection mechanisms at the international and national government levels and within the context of relevant customary laws;

b. Ensure and guarantee the due exercise by the concerned ICCs/IPs of their right to allow or reject, through free and prior informed consent (FPIC), research and documentation of their IKSPs and customary laws and their derivatives; and

c. Regulate the use of IKSPs and customary laws, and ensure that the ICCs/IPs benefit from the use of research output/outcome.

Read the rest of the Filipino guidelines


National Commission for Indigenous Peoples, Philippines (2012) The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines of 2012. NCIP Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012.

Australian Academy of Science – Code of Conduct0

Posted by Admin in on June 3, 2018

“This Code of Conduct and associated implementation plan, guidelines, policy and procedures have been developed to provide context and guidance to Academy Fellows, employees and others representing or otherwise involved with the Academy in its efforts to achieve its mission.

It’s great to see an Australian code of conduct specifically refer to bullying and harassment.

The document covers the Academy’s values, expectations and requirements regarding conduct, the policy principles on which the code and its implementation are based, and guidelines and procedures for responding to breaches of the code.
The Academy does not tolerate bullying and harassment and has a commitment to investigating and where warranted acting on reported or alleged instances of bullying and harassment in a prompt and decisive manner…”

Access the Code of Conduct and related materials

What factors do scientists perceive as promoting or hindering scientific data reuse? – LSE Impact Blog (Renata Gonçalves Curty, et al | March 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on May 17, 2018

Increased calls for data sharing have formed part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development. Data openness for reuse also resonates with the recognised need for more transparent, reproducible science. But what are scientists’ perceptions about data reuse? Renata Gonçalves Curty, Kevin Crowston, Alison Specht, Bruce W. Grant and Elizabeth D. Dalton make use of existing survey data to analyse the attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse. Perceived efficiency, efficacy, and trustworthiness are key; as is whether scientists believe data reuse is beneficial for scientific development, or perceive certain pressures contrary to the reuse of data. Looking ahead, synthesis centres can be important for supporting data-driven interdisciplinary collaborations, and leveraging new scientific discoveries based on pre-existing data.

There can be real societal benefits from data sharing, which is among the reasons why many research funding bodies require (or at least encourage) funded researchers to share their data. But it is not without its research ethics and research integrity challenges. The idea of sharing can be a source of disquiet for some researchers. Understanding why, and supporting practice in this area would increase the amount of data that is shared. We have gathered here a list of resource items about data sharing.

“If I have seen further, it was by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” This quote, attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, expresses the cumulative and synergistic nature of the growth of science. Intellectual progress and major scientific achievements are built upon the contributions of previous thinkers and discoveries. Thus the scientific enterprise thrives upon openness and collaboration.
The unrestricted sharing of research outputs is increasingly seen as critical for scientific progress. The calls for data sharing in particular, aligned with investment in infrastructures for housing research data, have been part of many governments’ agendas to boost innovation and scientific development, while optimising resources. The ability of researchers to access and build upon previous knowledge has thus evolved from elementary access to final published manuscripts and research reports, to the capability of accessing different outputs produced throughout the research lifecycle, including digital data files.
There have been a number of promising developments in funding bodies’ policies promoting and requesting compliance with data sharing requirements to ensure preservation and access to scientific data for further reuse. In the US, the Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is committed to broadening education on data-related issues (e.g. data documentation, data citation), as well as to provide standards/guidelines and sustainable cyberinfrastructure to secure openness, persistence, robustness, findability, and accessibility to environmental science data

Read the rest of this discussion piece