A Biocultural Ethics Approach 57
Many Anishinaabe people enjoy sharing their knowledge except if it is obtained in improper ways or used for inappropriate purposes. […] [P]ropriety
and appropriateness are best defined in harmony with the systems which
generate these insights.
(Borrows, 2018, p. xv)
An ongoing question, then, is how our Western institutions, policies and
practices that aim to reconcile with Indigenous peoples and appropriately include
their Indigenous knowledge can evolve insightfully and more harmoniously with
Indigenous knowledge systems, in contrast to becoming more mechanistic and
rationalistic in implementing Indigenous rights. In other words, how do we tend
to the aspects of biocultural rights that involve righting wrongs by fostering
“right relationships”, which are not likely to be addressed by directing our gaze
too narrowly on rights-based solutions?
A key part of righting past harms has included creating space within Western
academic institutions for enacting Indigenous community protocols
3 (e.g. ethical
codes, codes of practice and cultural protocols) that have been developed in recent
years by many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities in Canada. However,
the formulaic approaches often taken by universities (and governments) to meet
what are (in part) inherently relational needs can manifest as transactional processes and outcomes. Because transactions are built primarily on expectations for
reciprocal exchange of goods, services or actions, these processes chronically fall
short of mutual goals for respectful and equitable interactions and relationships
involving Indigenous peoples and their biocultural knowledge.
For example, important considerations such as consent, ownership and mutual
benefit feature prominently in discussions of biocultural rights. These are key
elements in Canadian ethics policy and in most Indigenous community protocols, as well as in ethical guidelines and toolkits developed by Indigenous and
other organizations in Canada. There are deeply held ethical principles underlying consent, ownership and mutual benefit, based in respect for human dignity, concern for well-being and justice. However, the enactment of these ethical
principles is often limited to transactional activities that are required by institutionalized procedures and mechanisms (e.g. consent forms, copyright agreements
or intellectual property rights agreements). Furthermore, the common use of
convenient acronyms, such as FPIC (i.e. free, prior informed consent), OCAP
(i.e. ownership, control, access and possession) and MAT (i.e. mutually agreed
terms), can diminish our awareness and sensibility to situated meanings and
understandings that the acronyms are supposed to represent – especially those
of a relational dimension that necessitate respectful, meaningful and sometimes
nuanced processes to enact ethically.
With this awareness in mind, the principle of consent is explored throughout
this chapter as one of several elements essential for ethical research relationships
and for respecting the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples,
including biocultural rights that relate to protection of culture and environment.
4
Many Anishinaabe people enjoy sharing their knowledge except if it is obtained in improper ways or used for inappropriate purposes. […] [P]ropriety
and appropriateness are best defined in harmony with the systems which
generate these insights.
(Borrows, 2018, p. xv)
An ongoing question, then, is how our Western institutions, policies and
practices that aim to reconcile with Indigenous peoples and appropriately include
their Indigenous knowledge can evolve insightfully and more harmoniously with
Indigenous knowledge systems, in contrast to becoming more mechanistic and
rationalistic in implementing Indigenous rights. In other words, how do we tend
to the aspects of biocultural rights that involve righting wrongs by fostering
“right relationships”, which are not likely to be addressed by directing our gaze
too narrowly on rights-based solutions?
A key part of righting past harms has included creating space within Western
academic institutions for enacting Indigenous community protocols
3 (e.g. ethical
codes, codes of practice and cultural protocols) that have been developed in recent
years by many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities in Canada. However,
the formulaic approaches often taken by universities (and governments) to meet
what are (in part) inherently relational needs can manifest as transactional processes and outcomes. Because transactions are built primarily on expectations for
reciprocal exchange of goods, services or actions, these processes chronically fall
short of mutual goals for respectful and equitable interactions and relationships
involving Indigenous peoples and their biocultural knowledge.
For example, important considerations such as consent, ownership and mutual
benefit feature prominently in discussions of biocultural rights. These are key
elements in Canadian ethics policy and in most Indigenous community protocols, as well as in ethical guidelines and toolkits developed by Indigenous and
other organizations in Canada. There are deeply held ethical principles underlying consent, ownership and mutual benefit, based in respect for human dignity, concern for well-being and justice. However, the enactment of these ethical
principles is often limited to transactional activities that are required by institutionalized procedures and mechanisms (e.g. consent forms, copyright agreements
or intellectual property rights agreements). Furthermore, the common use of
convenient acronyms, such as FPIC (i.e. free, prior informed consent), OCAP
(i.e. ownership, control, access and possession) and MAT (i.e. mutually agreed
terms), can diminish our awareness and sensibility to situated meanings and
understandings that the acronyms are supposed to represent – especially those
of a relational dimension that necessitate respectful, meaningful and sometimes
nuanced processes to enact ethically.
With this awareness in mind, the principle of consent is explored throughout
this chapter as one of several elements essential for ethical research relationships
and for respecting the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples,
including biocultural rights that relate to protection of culture and environment.
4