Angela Beaton1, Maui Hudson2, Moe Milne3, Ramari Viola Port4, Khyla Russell5, Barry Smith6, Valmaine Toki2, Lynley Uerata2, Phillip Wilcox7, Karen Bartholomew8, Helen Wihongi8. 1. Waikato Institute of Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand. 2. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. 3. DipTeaching, Te Moemoea Ltd, Moerewa, New Zealand. 4. Independent researcher, New Zealand. 5. Otago Polytechnic, Otago, New Zealand. 6. Lakes District Health Board, Rotorua, New Zealand. 7. University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand. 8. Waitemata District Health Board, Westlake, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: He Tangata Kei Tua, a relationship model for biobanks, was developed to facilitate best practice in addressing Māori ethical concerns by guiding culturally informed policy and practice for biobanks in relation to governance, operational, and community engagement activities. METHODS: The model is based on key issues of relevance to Māori that were identified as part of the Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded research project, Te Mata Ira (2012-2015). RESULTS: This project identified Māori perspectives on biobanking and genetic research, and along with tikanga Māori it developed cultural guidelines for ethical biobanking and genetic research involving biospecimens. The model draws on a foundation of mātauranga (Indigenous knowledge) and tikanga Māori (Māori protocols and practices) and will be useful for biobanks, researchers, ethics committee members, and those who engage in consultation or advice about biobanking in local, regional, national, or international settings. CONCLUSION: This article describes the model and considers the policy and practice implications for biobanks seeking to address Māori ethical concerns. Although the model has focused on Māori aspirations in the New Zealand context, it provides a framework for considering cultural values in relation to other community or indigenous contexts.Genet Med 19 3, 345-351.
PURPOSE: He Tangata Kei Tua, a relationship model for biobanks, was developed to facilitate best practice in addressing Māori ethical concerns by guiding culturally informed policy and practice for biobanks in relation to governance, operational, and community engagement activities. METHODS: The model is based on key issues of relevance to Māori that were identified as part of the Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded research project, Te Mata Ira (2012-2015). RESULTS: This project identified Māori perspectives on biobanking and genetic research, and along with tikanga Māori it developed cultural guidelines for ethical biobanking and genetic research involving biospecimens. The model draws on a foundation of mātauranga (Indigenous knowledge) and tikanga Māori (Māori protocols and practices) and will be useful for biobanks, researchers, ethics committee members, and those who engage in consultation or advice about biobanking in local, regional, national, or international settings. CONCLUSION: This article describes the model and considers the policy and practice implications for biobanks seeking to address Māori ethical concerns. Although the model has focused on Māori aspirations in the New Zealand context, it provides a framework for considering cultural values in relation to other community or indigenous contexts.Genet Med 19 3, 345-351.
Authors: Maui Hudson; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Rogena Sterling; Nadine R Caron; Keolu Fox; Joseph Yracheta; Jane Anderson; Phil Wilcox; Laura Arbour; Alex Brown; Maile Taualii; Tahu Kukutai; Rodney Haring; Ben Te Aika; Gareth S Baynam; Peter K Dearden; David Chagné; Ripan S Malhi; Ibrahim Garba; Nicki Tiffin; Deborah Bolnick; Matthew Stott; Anna K Rolleston; Leah L Ballantyne; Ray Lovett; Dominique David-Chavez; Andrew Martinez; Andrew Sporle; Maggie Walter; Jeff Reading; Stephanie Russo Carroll Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Pearl A McElfish; Marie-Rachelle Narcisse; Christopher R Long; Britni L Ayers; Nicola L Hawley; Nia Aitaoto; Sheldon Riklon; L Joseph Su; Shumona Z Ima; Ralph O Wilmoth; Thomas K Schulz; Susan Kadlubar Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2017-07-08
Authors: Amy A Lemke; Edward D Esplin; Aaron J Goldenberg; Claudia Gonzaga-Jauregui; Neil A Hanchard; Julie Harris-Wai; Justin E Ideozu; Rosario Isasi; Andrew P Landstrom; Anya E R Prince; Erin Turbitt; Maya Sabatello; Samantha A Schrier Vergano; Matthew R G Taylor; Joon-Ho Yu; Kyle B Brothers; Nanibaa' A Garrison Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Roseann E Peterson; Karoline Kuchenbaecker; Raymond K Walters; Chia-Yen Chen; Alice B Popejoy; Sathish Periyasamy; Max Lam; Conrad Iyegbe; Rona J Strawbridge; Leslie Brick; Caitlin E Carey; Alicia R Martin; Jacquelyn L Meyers; Jinni Su; Junfang Chen; Alexis C Edwards; Allan Kalungi; Nastassja Koen; Lerato Majara; Emanuel Schwarz; Jordan W Smoller; Eli A Stahl; Patrick F Sullivan; Evangelos Vassos; Bryan Mowry; Miguel L Prieto; Alfredo Cuellar-Barboza; Tim B Bigdeli; Howard J Edenberg; Hailiang Huang; Laramie E Duncan Journal: Cell Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Imogen Elsum; Callum McEwan; Emma E Kowal; Yvonne Cadet-James; Margaret Kelaher; Lynn Woodward Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Cynthia A Ochieng; Joel T Minion; Andrew Turner; Mwenza Blell; Madeleine J Murtagh Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Nadine Rena Caron; Meck Chongo; Maui Hudson; Laura Arbour; Wyeth W Wasserman; Stephen Robertson; Solenne Correard; Phillip Wilcox Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-04-24