A Biocultural Ethics Approach 73
certain conditions”. As well, “custom may restrict the observation, r ecording,
or reporting of ceremonies or certain performances and require approval
of a ppropriate individuals” (Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR) et al.,
2018, p. 119).
TCPS2 Chapter 9 (Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR) et al., 2018, p. 121)
notes that while Indigenous community codes of practice, institutional research
ethics policies and research agreements developed between communities and
researchers may share similar goals, “the approaches to achieving those goals may
differ significantly”. It is seen as inappropriate to “insist on uniformity between
community practices and institutional policies”. An example offered is when
Indigenous Elders are willing to share their knowledge according to traditional
customs of consent, other processes and language that may feel culturally inappropriate or awkward for the Elders should not be imposed.
Like the CIHR Guidelines, TCPS2 essentially offers insights on how to uphold
the key elements of FPIC while deepening and strengthening the principle of
consent through relational processes that are needed to enact rather than simply
transact consent, namely within collaborative relationships based on participatory approaches and guided by the Indigenous communities involved. These
understandings are preferably represented in a written research agreement, not
necessarily in the spirit of trying to create an enforceable contractual arrangement, but as a shared documentation of what is agreed between those who are in
relationship together.
It is important to acknowledge that the implementation of TCPS2 as national
research ethics policy varies widely across universities and other research institutions in Canada. Thus, the relational potential of consent (and other principles)
also depends on interpretations of research ethics boards and specific institutional
research policies. For better and worse, conflation between the goals of r esearch
ethics (i.e. protection of humans) and managing general risk of l iability in research
at the institutional level is common in Canadian universities, influencing the
form and nature of research agreements.
Indigenous Community Protocols
Across Canada, many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities have developed
Indigenous community protocols (e.g. community research codes and guidelines referred to in TCPS2 Chapter 9) as a governance tool to articulate their
expectations and requirements regarding conditions such as access, use, ownership and protection of their Indigenous knowledge and biocultural h eritage.
Indigenous community protocols can be thought of as expressions of Indigenous
self- determination that also fill legal, policy and educative voids in Canada amid
a nation-wide moral and legal commitment to reconciliation with First Nations,
Métis and Inuit peoples.
Canada’s legal commitment to reconciliation stems from the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 6-volume final report and 94 Calls to
certain conditions”. As well, “custom may restrict the observation, r ecording,
or reporting of ceremonies or certain performances and require approval
of a ppropriate individuals” (Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR) et al.,
2018, p. 119).
TCPS2 Chapter 9 (Canadian Institutes for Health (CIHR) et al., 2018, p. 121)
notes that while Indigenous community codes of practice, institutional research
ethics policies and research agreements developed between communities and
researchers may share similar goals, “the approaches to achieving those goals may
differ significantly”. It is seen as inappropriate to “insist on uniformity between
community practices and institutional policies”. An example offered is when
Indigenous Elders are willing to share their knowledge according to traditional
customs of consent, other processes and language that may feel culturally inappropriate or awkward for the Elders should not be imposed.
Like the CIHR Guidelines, TCPS2 essentially offers insights on how to uphold
the key elements of FPIC while deepening and strengthening the principle of
consent through relational processes that are needed to enact rather than simply
transact consent, namely within collaborative relationships based on participatory approaches and guided by the Indigenous communities involved. These
understandings are preferably represented in a written research agreement, not
necessarily in the spirit of trying to create an enforceable contractual arrangement, but as a shared documentation of what is agreed between those who are in
relationship together.
It is important to acknowledge that the implementation of TCPS2 as national
research ethics policy varies widely across universities and other research institutions in Canada. Thus, the relational potential of consent (and other principles)
also depends on interpretations of research ethics boards and specific institutional
research policies. For better and worse, conflation between the goals of r esearch
ethics (i.e. protection of humans) and managing general risk of l iability in research
at the institutional level is common in Canadian universities, influencing the
form and nature of research agreements.
Indigenous Community Protocols
Across Canada, many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities have developed
Indigenous community protocols (e.g. community research codes and guidelines referred to in TCPS2 Chapter 9) as a governance tool to articulate their
expectations and requirements regarding conditions such as access, use, ownership and protection of their Indigenous knowledge and biocultural h eritage.
Indigenous community protocols can be thought of as expressions of Indigenous
self- determination that also fill legal, policy and educative voids in Canada amid
a nation-wide moral and legal commitment to reconciliation with First Nations,
Métis and Inuit peoples.
Canada’s legal commitment to reconciliation stems from the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 6-volume final report and 94 Calls to