| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立東華大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 96 === For the environmental and other scientific reasons, indigenous peoples are special subjects for genetic researchers. However, there are many conflicts with each other, such as the Human Genetic Diversity Project and the Havasupai case in America, or the Kavalan case in Taiwan, to present us that genetic research not only may lead to “discrimination” or ”stigma” to indigenous peoples, but also destroy their traditional culture value.
As the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and the important ethics principle “respect for persons” which the Belmont Report of 1979 provided, most research ethics issues merely focused on protecting participant’s autonomy and never provided enough considerations for indigenous peoples. Therefore, we had better design proper research ethics principles and mechanisms on the basis of the protection of “collective rights” for special communities in genetic research.
This thesis has a trial to establish the genetic research ethics structure for indigenous peoples according to the new principle “respect for communities” and protection of collective rights. Furthermore, the main idea of this structure is asking researchers to provide indigenous peoples with sufficient chances and avenues to express their opinions in the process. For example, indigenous peoples should have opportunities to review the research proposals, and discuss benefit-sharing issues as well. This is mainly by means of presenting the conflicts between research and indigenous culture to respect for their collective rights.
However, the statues related nowadays in Taiwan, such as Native Peoples Basic Law and other research ethics regulations, are insufficient to deal with special genetic ethics problems of indigenous peoples. Our legal system remains to emphasize on protection of participant’s autonomy, and it seems hard to avoid disputes between indigenous peoples and genetic researchers. Indeed, it’s not easy for legal norms to protect abstract “culture.” But as this thesis wishes, indigenous peoples should obtain their chances to express opinions in research, at least in biotechnology area, and so as to supplement non-mainstream concepts neglected by researchers and IRB members.
|
|---|
