ANTHROPOLOGY HW 3

OP-ED TOPIC FOR 2014 FALL

Introduction. . . _______________________________________________________________________________

Public Anthropology’s Community Action Website Project helps to provide students with key skills they need to be successful in their future careers: critical thinking, effective communication, and active citizenship. The Project encourages (1) critical thinking regarding an ethical issue, (2) a sharing of ideas among students from different universities, (3) improved writing skills, and (4) active citizenship – a sense that students working together can facilitate change.

Let's begin. . . _______________________________________________________________________________

THE ISSUE

The rules for regulating research are regularly updated. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, for example, is presently trying to complete a new set of regulations (see e.g. http://chronicle.com/article/Overhaul-of-Rules-for-Human/137811/). After reading the material below, you will be asked to address in your Op-Ed (or opinion piece) two questions regarding how much, or how little, governmental regulation of research is appropriate. Good luck.

There are four steps to this skill development process:

(1) READ: You should carefully read the background material to gain an idea of the issue you will be writing about. If you rush through the material, you will probably do poorly -- grade wise -- on this writing assignment.

(2) DECIDE: You will then take a stand on the issue discussed and, critically, develop an effective argument in support of your position.

(3) PREPARE: Before you write your Op-Ed (or opinion) piece, you should carefully look at the criteria others will use in evaluating your piece (see below) as well as examples of model Op-Eds from leading North American newspapers. These should provide a sense of how to frame and phrase your own Op-Ed.

(4) WRITE: You should write your Op-Ed in a word processing program – such as WORD – and cut and paste your Op-Ed into the space provided on the website.

RELATION TO READING: Why a Public Anthropology?

Why a Public Anthropology? begins with the sentence: "Cultural Anthropology has the potential to change the world." The first chapter highlights three anthropologists who actively addressed important social concerns -- Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Paul Farmer. The second chapter then describes in some detail cultural anthropology's potential for addressing a range of problems. But how does one proceed in an ethically positive way in addressing these problems, in trying to bring change?

In sections 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8, the book asks whether cultural anthropology should move beyond its current ethical stance of "do no harm" to a more positive stance of "doing good." These sections emphasize that "do no harm," when looked at closely, is an ethically ambiguous position. There are several cases where anthropologists, while in principle not desiring to do harm, in fact do considerable harm. And there are cases where national governments, in seeking to avoid ethical abuses, over-regulate research. In strictly regulating research, these governments limit the researcher's ability to do good, thereby causing harm in a different way.

In this assignment, you need to consider how research should best proceed for the good of all. How much regulation should there be to avoid harming research subjects? And how much freedom should there be so that researchers can produce results that help others?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In writing your Op-Ed, you are strongly encouraged to ONLY use the information provided below (especially the five case studies). Yes, there are lots of links in the following materials. But they are mainly provided so you appreciate the statements being made are well documented.

Writing your Op-Ed is primarily an exercise in critical thinking, not in collecting data from the web to support this or that position. Given the information as reliable as we can make it – given the demands of this assignment – what do you view as a reasonable stance? How do you reason with the information provided to a thoughtful position regarding freedom versus regulation in research?

A BIT OF HISTORY:

THE BELMONT REPORT (see http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_report) of 1979 constitutes the foundation for regulating research across all parts of the United States government. Quoting from the report itself:

On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law, there-by creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the charges to the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop

ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles

The report emphasized three basic ethical principles:

1. “Respect for Persons. -- Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.” 2. “Beneficence. -- Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being. . . . Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions . . .: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms. 3. “Justice. -- Who ought to receive the benefits of research and [who should] bear its burdens? . . . the exploitation of unwilling prisoners as research subjects in Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly flagrant injustice. In this country, in the 1940's, the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged, rural black men to study the untreated course of a disease that is by no means confined to that population. These subjects were deprived of demonstrably effective treatment in order not to interrupt the project, long after such treatment became generally available.

THE COMMON RULE “In 1991, 14 other Federal departments and agencies joined HHS in adopting a uniform set of rules for the protection of human subjects . . . This uniform set of regulations is the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, informally known as the ‘Common Rule’.” To insure these regulations are followed the Department or Health, Education, and Welfare, now Department of Health and Human Services, established the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) (see http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule/index.html http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter2/page04b.htm ).

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BROADS (IRBs): “The Office of Human Research Protections [OHRP] supervises the Institutional Review Boards charged with following the common rule.” Initially, IRBs only covered federally funded research. But over time, universities extended the jurisdiction of their IRBs to cover all faculty research (whether or not it was funded by the government). “The IRB has the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove all research activities that fall within its jurisdiction as specified by both the federal regulations and local institutional policy.” (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter1.htm).

According to the Code of Federal Regulations §46.111, the Criteria for IRB approval of research states http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.111 ). “In order to approve research . . . the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: . . .

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. . . (3) Selection of subjects is equitable

[“in a clinical investigation of a new drug intended for general use, the researcher should recruit a more or less representative sample of the population” , http://flpublichealthethics.net/index.php/eng/help_for_committee_members_and_staff/is_selection_of_subjects_equitable ] [“The selection process needs to be scrutinized in order to determine whether some classes (e.g. welfare patients. . .) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being studied” http://research.uthscsa.edu/irb/selection.shtml )

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject

[Informed consent involves gaining the research subject’s permission to conduct research involving that subject. “The principle of respect for persons demands that subjects' decisions whether to become involved in research must be voluntary and informed” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.116]

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented . . .

(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

THE CANADIAN RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD'S (REB'S) regulations were updated in 2010. The policy statement affirms: “Respect for human dignity has been an underlying value of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . . . since its inception. “ It continues “Respect for human dignity requires that research involving humans be conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the inherent worth of all human beings and the respect and consideration that theyare due.

In this Policy, respect for human dignity is expressed through three core principles – Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice.”It continues “Respect for Persons recognizes the intrinsic value of human beings and the respect and consideration that they are due. . . . An important mechanism for respecting participants’ autonomy in research is the requirement to seek their free, informed and ongoing consent. This requirement reflects the commitment that participation in research . . . should be a matter of choice and that, to be meaningful, the choice must be informed. An informed choice is one that is based on as complete an understanding as is reasonably possible of the purpose of the research, what it entails, and its foreseeable risks and potential benefits, both to the participant and to others. . . . Concern for Welfare means that researchers and REBs should aim to protect the welfare of participants, and, in some circumstances, to promote that welfare in view of any foreseeable risks associated with the research. . . . Justice refers to the obligation to treat people fairly and equitably. Fairness entails treating all people with equal respect and concern” (Tri-Council Policy Statement "Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans" (http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf ).

REASONING WITH FIVE KEY CASES

Rather than overwhelming you with piles of information, you are being asked to think carefully about the following five case studies. Two focus on the need for research regulation to prevent abuse. Two question whether the way regulations are now enforced is overly bureaucratic and unreasonable. Obviously, there is no “right” answer. But you are requested to think critically about the following five case studies and come to your own reasoned conclusion.

CASE ONE: THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT

SOURCE: NPR (National Public Radio) (cf. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1147234)

July 25, 2002 --Thirty years ago today, the Washington Evening Star newspaper ran this headline on its front page: "Syphilis Patients Died Untreated." With those words, one of America's most notorious medical studies, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, became public.

"For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects," Associated Press reporter Jean Heller wrote on July 25, 1972. "The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body."

The next morning, every major U.S. newspaper was running Heller's story. For Morning Edition, NPR's Alex Chadwick reports on how the Tuskegee experiment was discovered after 40 years of silence.

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance.

At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.

By then, dozens of the men had died, and many wives and children had been infected. In 1973, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action lawsuit. A $9 million settlement was divided among the study's participants. Free health care was given to the men who were still living, and to infected wives, widows and children.

But it wasn't until 1997 that the government formally apologized for the unethical study. President Clinton delivered the apology, saying what the government had done was deeply, profoundly and morally wrong:

"To the survivors, to the wives and family members, the children and the grandchildren, I say what you know: No power on Earth can give you back the lives lost, the pain suffered, the years of internal torment and anguish.

"What was done cannot be undone. But we can end the silence. We can stop turning our heads away. We can look at you in the eye and finally say, on behalf of the American people: what the United States government did was shameful.

"And I am sorry."

CASE TWO: STUDYING OLD BONES — PRESERVATION OR PERVERSION?

SOURCE: TheStar.com, October 09, 2011 by Mary Ormsby

A cross-border battle is brewing over 500-year-old bones belonging to some of Ontario’s original inhabitants — a case descendents describe as academic grave robbing. The Huron-Wendat Nation is demanding that Louisiana State University return the “stolen” remains of about 200 people. They say researchers improperly gathered the bones from an Ontario ossuary to use for unauthorized student research. . . .

The unusual dispute raises questions about the best way for academics to be culturally sensitive — particularly when studying human remains — in a CSI generation that considers bones a DNA treasure trove of clues to scientific, historic, medical and, sometimes, criminal puzzles.

Bastien, 79, is a Wendake Council representative who has been active in asserting Huron-Wendat rights in Ontario. Some of those rights, outlined in a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, mean First Nations people must be consulted before development begins in historic areas that might reveal burial grounds. If Huron-Wendat burial ossuaries (mass bone repositories) are accidentally disturbed . . . the nation must be notified immediately. . . .

Archaeologist Heather McKillop is the LSU professor who oversaw the excavation and eventual export of bones from the Poole-Rose ossuary near Cobourg to Baton Rouge, La., where she teaches. She was given permission to do so by the native community geographically closest to the ossuary, the Alderville First Nation, which is not Huron-Wendat. . . . . McKillop and co-author Lawrence Jackson described the Poole-Rose ossuary as fitting the Huron’s centuries-old Feast of the Dead burial-pit pattern in their 1991 report in the Ontario Archeological Society’s newsletter. . . .

Helen Robbins, a social anthropologist and repatriation director at the Chicago Field Museum, said a scientific middle ground might be reached more often if academics and indigenous people were more “open and honest” with each other. “ There can be benefits with indigenous people getting more access to museums, learning about museums as well as museums learning more about the tribe they have the human remains of — and may have been sitting there for 100 years,’’ says Robbins, who has no connection to the Huron-Wendat /LSU matter.

Prior to European contact, the Huron-Wendat population swelled to about 40,000. They lived in an area from the southern horn of Georgian Bay to the northerly shore of Lake Ontario, and from west of Toronto to Cornwall and Prescott in the east. Diseases brought by white settlers, including smallpox, devastated the once-mighty confederacy in the 17th century. A group of native survivors eventually migrated to Quebec in the mid- 1600s, in part to escape conflict with other nations. Today, Bastien said there are 3,000 Huron-Wendat in Canada and about 6,000 in the United States.

The Poole-Rose ossuary was carbon dated to about 1550. . . . For remains deemed very old and aboriginal, there are two choices under the Ontario Cemeteries Act: One is to contact the closest First Nations group, which in this case was the Alderville First Nation. The second option is to consult with the most likely people descended from the dead.

Alderville’s then-chief Nora Bothwell and her council gave McKillop permission to excavate, export and study the remains. Bothwell told the Star the bones were expected to be repatriated and that she hadn’t initially known the skeletons were Huron-Wendat. But McKillop “was likely aware at that time, or ought to have been aware, that the skeletons were ancestral Huron-Wendat,” claims a Sept. 16 letter sent to McKillop, LSU chancellor Michael Martin and provincial Tourism and Culture Minister Michael Chan. It was sent by Toronto lawyer David Donnelly, who represents the Quebec-based nation. . . .

“The fact is that for sensitive cultural heritage matters, the Ontario Cemeteries Act still treats aboriginal nations as being all alike. A statute that literally says talking to the closest Indian will do is despicable and illegal.”

Bastien hopes LSU officials will deliver the ancestral bones to Canada so they — and restless Huron souls — can be “returned to the earth” with a calming traditional ritual. A smudging ceremony with tobacco and sage will be performed by elders. Remains are then interred with beaver pelts, artifacts and “the three sisters” — corn, beans and squash. . . .

The Huron-Wendat believe buried bones are sacred because a person’s soul rests with the remains, while a second soul soars skyward.

CASE THREE: IRB OVERREACH?

SOURCE: Inside Education, March 18, 2011 by Dan Berrett (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/18/brown_professor_sues_university_for_barring_her_from_using_her_research )

An associate professor of education has sued Brown University for barring her from using her own data because she paid her human research subjects different amounts of money based on their economic status.

Jin Li, an associate professor of education and human development at Brown, alleges that the university’s Institutional Review Board overstepped its jurisdictional bounds, failed to have minority members on its panel and denied her due process. “Should the IRB ruling stand,” reads Li’s complaint, which was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, “plaintiff would be deprived of the fruits of years of research, and the education community would be deprived of the fruits of the same.”

Li is seeking $200,000 in losses due to the quashing of her four-year-old research project.

The suit raises questions about the role of IRBs in regulating privately funded research, the fairness of their process and the tensions that arise when such boards govern the work of social scientists. IRBs initially were meant to protect human subjects from being exploited when they submitted to biomedical research. But the authority of these boards in universities has widened to monitor research in the social and behavioral sciences as well as the humanities. Critics say the spread of IRBs to other disciplines, coupled with a lack of accountability and safeguards for due process, have led them to become unduly empowered, overly cautious and poor facsimiles of the peer-review process -- all of which has stifled research.

The suit is also not the first time that faculty members at Brown have found fault with the way IRBs are run there. Past disputes have centered on whether social sciences were adequately treated by the IRB, and whether such panels should oversee research done by undergraduates.

According to Li’s complaint, she raised more than $830,000 from two private foundations -- $670,186 from the Spencer Foundation and $163,570 from the Foundation for Child Development -- for her research project, “European American and Chinese Immigrant Children's Learning Beliefs and Related Socialization at Home.” . . .

Brown’s IRB approved payments of $600 to each family participating in the research, the complaint says. But, during the course of the investigation, Li says that she found that the lower-income families were spending far more time completing surveys and interviews than the middle or upper-middle income families. She decided that it would be fairer to pay the lower-income families $600 for three years and the upper- and middle-income ones $300 because this differential more accurately reflected the time they put into the investigation. All families signed consent forms reflecting the amount they would be paid, she says in the complaint. . . .

In February, she presented a request to the IRB to approve her efforts to modify parts of her investigation, including the pay differential. “The IRB denied that request and advised plaintiff that she may not use any of the data collected from the families that were paid $300 unless arrangements were made to make additional payments to those families to bring their total to $600,” Li alleges in her complaint. There was not enough money for her to do so, she says. “Plaintiff made numerous efforts to resolve this matter within the IRB, but to no avail.”

Li charges that the IRB overstepped its bounds by making her submit to its rule even though the money for her project came from private sources, not the federal government. She also notes in her complaint that her research involves educational testing, surveys and interviews and “poses no threat to any human subject.” While one clause of the federal guidelines that govern research involving human subjects says that IRBs must rule on any such research that is conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, it also seems to extend the reach of IRBs to any private research or funding entity, as long as it is doing research that is “designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Brown’s standards explain that all research conducted on human subjects must be cleared through its IRB, regardless of funding source.

Li also alleges that Brown’s IRB has no minority members and therefore fails to meet diversity guidelines set out under federal regulations. Those regulations call for an IRB that has members who are sufficiently qualified in experience and expertise, and to include consideration of race, gender, cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to community attitudes. . . .

It is Li's claim that she lacked an avenue through which she could appeal the IRB's decision that is most troubling -- and indicative of wider problems with IRBs, said Zachary M. Schrag, an associate professor of history at George Mason University, who has written a book, blogged (where he helped bring Li's case to light) and spoken out on the problems, as he sees them, with IRBs. . . . Even though an IRB does have a role to play in determining whether human subjects are paid appropriately, Schrag said, it's not clear that the punishment -- scuttling Li's research -- suited the alleged breach. “In this particular case, was the violation so great that it justifies what I take to be a pretty draconian action by the IRB?” he asked.

CASE FOUR: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

CASE FOUR: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

SOURCE: INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, February 8, 2012 By Mitch Smith

Many researchers level complaints against institutional review boards (IRBs), which can delay or derail projects their members deem unethical, unrealistic or illegal. Seeking to understand how the boards work . . . Laura Stark, sat through hours of deliberations at boards across the country. Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research, published this year by the University of Chicago Press, explains through observation and interviews how and why IRBs function the way they do. Stark agreed to answer a few questions from Inside Higher Ed. . . .

Q: You mention that something as simple as spelling errors – one applicant’s incorrect use of “principal” drew the ire of an IRB member – can speak to the competency of the researcher and play a role in a project’s approval or denial. Is that fair?

A: I think the real question is whether “fairness” should be the most important criteria that committees use in evaluating applications -- whether for grant funding, college admissions, or IRB approval. It would seem that fairness is not the only criteria used in IRB evaluations. In focusing on written errors, board members are looking for signs that researchers are trustworthy, careful people who aren’t going to make a mistake in their studies (e.g., giving incorrect dosages or passing too much responsibility to students). As I argue in the book, the seemingly disproportionate concern over typos and written mistakes in applications is not a matter of fairness, but of trustworthiness. Is that a criterion worth considering? If so, is attention to detail in written documents a good way to evaluate trustworthiness? For that matter, should researchers be evaluated at all, or simply the studies being proposed? These are questions for the scientific and scholarly community to answer.

Q: Your hypothetical proposal in which companies would be tested on whether they screen ex-convicts based on race received “very different” responses from each of the 18 IRBs that reviewed it. Is some level of inconsistency inevitable between IRBs and to what degree is it acceptable?

A: This finding goes to show the many ways in which IRB administrators and members can interpret the rules. In Chapter Two I explore Devah Pager’s experiences in getting approval at several IRBs for her excellent work on employment discrimination. Pager’s account illustrates that when IRB members read new protocols, they conjure their local institutional history and use case-based reasoning to make decisions.

The main aims of the book are to document how our everyday experience of the law is simply a product of how people enact the law and, specifically, how people with the power to apply rules that affect science and scholarship are, in effect, shaping what we can know and say for both good and ill -- whether we are considering IRBs or film censorship boards.

CASE FIVE: THE YANOMAMI – When Good Intentions Are Not Enough

SOURCE: Robert Borofsky (drawn from Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It and references cited below)

The Yanomami are perhaps the best-known Amazonian Indian group in the world. They are often portrayed in books and films, not necessarily correctly, as one of the world's last remaining prototypically primitive groups.

James Neel, perceived by some as the father of modern human genetics, began his research among the Yanomami in 1966. One may infer from his actions and writings that he felt research among the Yanomami – specifically collecting their blood samples for analysis – involved also providing them something in return for their assistance. When Neel learned the Yanomami were susceptible to measles, for example, he brought over 2,000 doses of the Edmonson B vaccine (that he obtained at minimal cost from the Center for Disease Control) to vaccinate the group against a potential deadly measles epidemic. Half of this supply he gave to the Venezuelan government to distribute. (What happened to that vaccine is not known.) He planned to hand the rest over to missionaries for an inoculation campaign. But when a measles epidemic unexpectedly broke out, he scrapped this plan and began a vaccination campaign himself to minimize the epidemics’ impact. He was only partially successful. He inoculated many Yanomami. A number, however, had adverse reactions to the vaccine because he failed to include immune gamma globulin (MIG). (He had given much of his gamma globulin to the Venezuelan authorities.) Regretfully, a number of Yanomami died.

Some praised Neel’s attempt to save Yanomami lives. Others have suggested that he helped spread the epidemic through his research or at least aggravated the problem by using the Edmonson B vaccine, without immune gamma globulin. If he had purchased a more expensive measles vaccine, the Yanomami would have had fewer adverse reactions. Today, the Yanomami rarely mention Neel’s assistance.

What is clear is that the Yanomami were barely consulted regarding Neel’s research. Neel decided to do his research without first gaining Yanomami permission. And he decided, on his own, what the reciprocal benefits of his research would be.

The Yanomami were promised that Neel’s blood samples would be analyzed to discover information helpful in fighting Yanomami diseases. That promise was never kept. Moreover, Napoleon Chagnon – the anthropologist who was central to Neel’s research – apparently never informed the Yanomami that the blood samples would be stored for years in research refrigerators in the United States rather destroyed soon after the research was over. Yanomami believe that all parts of a deceased Yanomami must be ritually disposed of so the deceased can spiritually leave this world. Forcing the deceased to spiritually remain in this world – as would occur by storing their blood in research refrigerators – could cause the deceased to turn on the living and bring them harm.

In his own anthropological research, Chagnon provided informants with a host of valued items—such as machetes, pots and even guns for hunting. Chagnon speaks movingly of his time with the Yanomami.

By repetitively returning and becoming more and more intimately associated with people like Kaobawä and Rerebawä [two of his informants], I became "involved" in their culture and now want to make sure that they and their children are given a fair shake in the inevitable changes that are occurring. I can do so only by becoming, as they say, involved—by becoming more active and becoming an advocate of their rights and their chances to have a decent future, one that does not condemn them to becoming inferior members of the lowest possible rung of the socioeconomic ladder (Borofsky 2005:27; Chagnon 1992:244-46).

Yet it is also true that during his research, Chagnon broke the American Anthropological Association’s Code of Ethics. Quoting from the Association’s El Dorado Task Force Report, in respect to the allegations it investigated against Changon: "first, allegations that his representations of Yanomami ways of life were damaging to them and that he made insufficient effort to undo this damage, and second that his association in the early 1990's with FUNDAFACI, a Venezuelan foundation that sponsored his research, represented an unethical prioritizing of his own research concerns over the well-being of the Yanomami. We concur with both these allegations" (Borofsky 2005:308; American Anthropological Association 2002, I:31). The first violated the anthropological injunction against do no harm. The second violated Venezuelan law and led to Chagnon’s

2002, I:31). The first violated the anthropological injunction against do no harm. The second violated Venezuelan law and led to Chagnon’s deportation from Venezuela.

Beyond doubt, both Neel and Chagnon wanted to provide the Yanomami with reciprocal benefits for the assistance the Yanomami provided them. Both clearly wanted to do well by the group. But in both cases, helping the Yanomami often involved the researchers specifying the requests as well as the benefits for assisting in their research. The Yanomami were not active negotiators in this process. There was no informed consent. They were lied to in respect to receiving back medical information from the blood samples to help in fighting Yanomami diseases. It also seems they were misled regarding the fate of the blood samples. Certainly when the Yanomami discovered that these blood samples were being stored in research refrigerators, there was an uproar that continues today. The Yanomami have vociferously campaigned for the return of these samples.

The result is that Chagnon and, to a lesser degree, Neel are now held up as examples of how NOT to conduct field research. The Yanomami feel taken advantage of by both researchers. The Yanomami clearly benefited from both individuals’ research. But they benefited in ways they did not always appreciate at the time and they vociferously criticize today. Both researchers are depicted in less than positive terms, sometimes vehemently so, by the Yanomami.

REFERENCES

American Anthropological Association 2002 El Dorado Task Force Final Report. 2 vols. and preface. Electronic document, (originally http://www.aaanet.org/edtf/index.htm but now dropped from the AAA website).

Borofsky, Robert et al. 2005 Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chagnon, Napoleon. 1992 Yanomamö. Fourth Edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

The assignment . . . _______________________________________________________________________________

Please note, this assignment is more than simply an exercise in critical thinking. It is also an exercise in civic engagement and active citizenship. You are to set out how you think research should be regulated in the United States and Canada and then, if you wish, you can forward your perspective to others..

You should address the following questions in writing your Op-Ed:

Based on the information presented above in the five case studies, you are to voice your view on how Institutional Review Boards (in the U.S.) and/or Review Ethics Boards (in Canada) should enforce a set of common rules regarding research. How much freedom should researchers be allowed in conducting their research? What regulations should be enforced to prevent the abuse of research subjects and ensure, more generally, that the research strives to promote positive benefits for the larger society sponsoring it?

Please remember, it is strongly preferred that you focus on the above information and only the above information in writing your Op-Ed. The emphasis is not on citing a host of additional sources. Rather it is on thinking critically about the information presented here. Also, offering a host of references at the end of your essay, common in academic writing, is rare in Op-Eds. You need not reference any and all sources. You should use quote marks, for example, to indicate when you directly quote a section (or sections) of this assignment. But you need not include the reference itself since the source is self-evident.You should only use references for direct quotes from sources outside this assignment.

_________________________________________________________________________

Guidelines for writing your Op-Ed (or opinion piece).

These are standards that will be used to evaluate it. EXAMPLES OF TWO QUALITY OP-EDS

Taking a Position: Does the opinion piece take a position that is clearly expressed? The position may be a recommendation for action or it may be to alert readers to a problem. The author should make a single point well. You, as the reader, should be able to explain the author's message in a sentence or two. If a student fails to address the specified topic-- that is, deals with another topic entirely -- you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.

6-7: The opinion piece has an original, well-argued position. The piece draws the reader into looking at the topic in a new way or with new insight. The reader can readily summarize what the author is saying and why.

4-5: The opinion piece takes a thoughtful position. But the supporting data appear a bit muddled. Readers are left with questions: Why did the author take this position? Why take this position rather than an alternative one?

2-3: The piece leaves readers confused as to what point the author is trying to make. The reader cannot readily summarize the author's key point

2-3: The piece leaves readers confused as to what point the author is trying to make. The reader cannot readily summarize the author's key point or the data supporting the position seem not to really support it.

1: The paper lacks an identifiable point. Readers are left confused as to what point the author is making and why.

Persuasive: Does the piece persuade the reader? A good piece argues effectively for a particular position. Even though the reader may not ultimately agree with the author, the reader comes away from the piece willing to seriously consider the author's perspective. If a student fails to address the specified topic-- that is, deals with another topic entirely -- you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.

6-7: A reader comes away from reading the piece feeling the author has effectively argued for a certain position. The author uses concrete examples that resonate with readers.

4-5: The opinion piece highlights an important topic. But it does not really convince readers as to the value of the author's position.

2-3: The opinion piece seems mostly a personal venting. The author is not reaching out to readers or trying to connect with them in a meaningful way.

1: The piece is unconvincing. An unbiased reader, reading this piece, would not find the piece very persuasive.

Hook and Structure: Does the opinion piece engage the reader right at the beginning? Is there evidence of thoughtful organization? Does the author summarize the main point at the end?

6-7: The main point is effectively stated in the first few sentences. These first few sentences capture the reader's attention and draw the reader into reading further. The author effectively summarizes the piece's argument in a strong final paragraph.

4-5: Readers are not immediately drawn into the argument. But they are not put off by it either. They find the piece reasonable but a little slow moving. It does not hold the reader's attention. The final paragraph does not offer a powerful restatement of the author's position.

2-3: The piece makes a basic point. But it does not catch your attention. It does not draw you in at the beginning nor does it summarize its message at the end.

1: The author never draws the reader into the opinion piece. It is not clear what the author is saying nor why it is important.

Writing and Clarity: Is the piece readily understandable by non-academic readers? General readers should find the piece easy and interesting to read. There should be few grammatical and spelling errors.

6-7: The writing is clear. The author's own voice and perspective come through in a convincing way. You can identify with the author and the position she or he takes. There are no grammatical mistakes that distract from the author's argument.

4-5: The writing is reasonable. The sentences and paragraphs are a bit too long or the passive voice is emphasized. There is a bit too much jargon.

2-3: The author tends to go on too long. It is not really clear what point she or he is making. The author has long sentences and paragraphs.

1: A reader is left confused as to what point the author is trying to make.

Tone: Is the opinion piece polite and respectful? The focus is on persuading the reader rather than voicing indignation or condemnation.

6-7: The opinion piece is polite and respectful in tone. Rather than dismissing the other side, it acknowledges its value while disagreeing with it. It comes across as written by a thoughtful professional versed in the subject being discussed.

4-5: There is generally a polite tone. But the author does not acknowledge that reasonable people might disagree regarding the point being made. The author asserts there is one reasonable position and she or he is presenting it.

2-3: The piece comes across as quite opinionated. It appears the author is "venting" about something that bothers her or him.

1: The piece is similar to a political "attack" ad. The author is pouring at rage with little concern for who is reading the piece.

EXAMPLES OF TWO QUALITY OP-EDS