A Biocultural Ethics Approach 63
who were largely unaware that the guidelines existed (Rocher, 1999 as cited in
McDonald, 2009, p. 11). The TCPS aimed to ensure the protection of h uman
participants in any research funded by Canada’s three national granting councils, i.e. the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and C anadian
Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). However, from 1998 to 2010, the
section of the TCPS on research involving Indigenous peoples was left in
abeyance with explicit recognition that the section was based largely on publicly available information and i nsufficient discussions had taken place with
representatives of Indigenous peoples or researchers involved in such work
(McDonald, 2009).
To address the pressing need for national ethical guidance during this interval,
CIHR (one of the three granting councils) established a working group from
2004 to 2007 and a process to undertake extensive consultation with Indigenous
communities and researchers in Canada to inform development of new CIHR
Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People (Canadian Institutes for
Health (CIHR), 2007).
6 The CIHR Guidelines offered the first national policy in Canada with detailed philosophical grounding and practical guidance for
academic researchers working with Indigenous peoples.
CIHR Guidelines and FPIC
FPIC was explicitly named in the CIHR Guidelines as the requirement for one
of two levels of consent. As Section 2.5: Community and Individual Consent,
Article 4 states:
A researcher who proposes to carry out research that touches on traditional or sacred knowledge of an Aboriginal community, or on community members as Aboriginal people, should consult the community leaders
to obtain their consent before approaching community members individually. Once community consent has been obtained, the researcher will still
need the free, prior and informed consent of the individual participants.
Community consent is distinct from, and additional to, individual consent
from each research participant.
(Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR), 2007, p. 20)
The CIHR Guidelines explained the need for two levels of consent as follows:
Although individual consent is essential, Aboriginal social norms and
values tend to be organized around an operative principle of collective
Aboriginal knowledge, ownership and decision-making. This is one of the
reasons why the notion of community consent is so important in research
involving Aboriginal people. Thus, an Aboriginal community is entitled to
decide whether a research project is in the best interest of the community
who were largely unaware that the guidelines existed (Rocher, 1999 as cited in
McDonald, 2009, p. 11). The TCPS aimed to ensure the protection of h uman
participants in any research funded by Canada’s three national granting councils, i.e. the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and C anadian
Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). However, from 1998 to 2010, the
section of the TCPS on research involving Indigenous peoples was left in
abeyance with explicit recognition that the section was based largely on publicly available information and i nsufficient discussions had taken place with
representatives of Indigenous peoples or researchers involved in such work
(McDonald, 2009).
To address the pressing need for national ethical guidance during this interval,
CIHR (one of the three granting councils) established a working group from
2004 to 2007 and a process to undertake extensive consultation with Indigenous
communities and researchers in Canada to inform development of new CIHR
Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People (Canadian Institutes for
Health (CIHR), 2007).
6 The CIHR Guidelines offered the first national policy in Canada with detailed philosophical grounding and practical guidance for
academic researchers working with Indigenous peoples.
CIHR Guidelines and FPIC
FPIC was explicitly named in the CIHR Guidelines as the requirement for one
of two levels of consent. As Section 2.5: Community and Individual Consent,
Article 4 states:
A researcher who proposes to carry out research that touches on traditional or sacred knowledge of an Aboriginal community, or on community members as Aboriginal people, should consult the community leaders
to obtain their consent before approaching community members individually. Once community consent has been obtained, the researcher will still
need the free, prior and informed consent of the individual participants.
Community consent is distinct from, and additional to, individual consent
from each research participant.
(Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR), 2007, p. 20)
The CIHR Guidelines explained the need for two levels of consent as follows:
Although individual consent is essential, Aboriginal social norms and
values tend to be organized around an operative principle of collective
Aboriginal knowledge, ownership and decision-making. This is one of the
reasons why the notion of community consent is so important in research
involving Aboriginal people. Thus, an Aboriginal community is entitled to
decide whether a research project is in the best interest of the community