Catherine O'Neill

Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing Issues

Background: When conducting research with American Indian tribes, informed consent beyond conventional institutional review board (IRB) review is needed because of the potential for adverse consequences at a community or governmental level that are unrecognized by academic researchers. Objectives: In this article, we review sovereignty, research ethics, and data-sharing considerations when doing community-based participatory health–related or natural-resource–related research with American Indian nations and present a model material and data-sharing agreement that meets tribal and university requirements. Discussion: Only tribal nations themselves can identify potential adverse outcomes, and they can do this only if they understand the assumptions and methods of the proposed research. Tribes must be truly equal partners in study design, data collection, interpretation, and publication. Advances in protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) are also applicable to IRB reviews, as are principles of sovereignty and indigenous rights, all of which affect data ownership and control. Conclusions: Academic researchers engaged in tribal projects should become familiar with all three areas: sovereignty, ethics and informed consent, and IPR. We recommend developing an agreement with tribal partners that reflects both health-related IRB and natural-resource–related IPR considerations.

Risk Avoidance, Cultural Discrimination, and Environmental Justice for Indigenous Peoples

This article begins with the recognition that environmental justice for Native peoples requires attention to the interrelated cultural, spiritual, social, ecological, economic, and political dimensions of environmental issues. It observes, moreover, that “environmental justice requires an appreciation of each tribe’s particular historical circumstances and contemporary understandings, including each group’s aspirations for the flourishing of its culture.” It contends that some environmental decision makers and commentators have increasingly come to embrace “risk avoidance” – strategies that call upon risk-bearers to alter their practices in order to avoid the risk of environmental harms – in lieu of risk reduction – strategies that require risk-producers to cleanup or eliminate contamination that gives rise to risks. After noting the perils of a shift to risk avoidance from the perspective of the general population, the article focuses on the environmental justice implications of such a shift. It explores the resulting injustice in terms of distributive inequity and cultural discrimination. It argues, first, that the burden of having to undertake avoidance measures, such as reducing one’s fish consumption to avoid mercury contamination or staying indoors to avoid ozone pollution, is likely to fall disproportionately on American Indian tribal members and other indigenous peoples, as well as on other communities of color and low-income communities. It argues, second, that risk avoidance is only likely to be the strategy of choice when the practice or lifeway to be altered is not valued or thought indispensable by members of the dominant society. Yet the values and cultural understandings of the dominant society will often be different, sometimes profoundly so, from those of indigenous peoples. Environmental policy that is inattentive to this observation, the article contends, will continue to perpetuate cultural discrimination.

A Survey of Federal Agency Response to President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12898 on Environmental Justice

We are attempting to assess the progress the federal government has made toward integrating environmental justice into its policies, programs, and activities, as well as whether federal agencies have made a substantial effort to direct and deliver environmental services to environmental justice communities. We are also interested in seeing if an agencys goals are matched by reality. This independent report will also allow federal agencies to compare their efforts with those of other agencies. One of our goals is that this survey will be the first in a periodic series to assess the ongoing efforts of federal agencies to advance environmental justice.

Climate Change and the Puget Sound: Building the Legal Framework for Adaptation

The scope of climate change impacts is expected to be extraordinary, touching every ecosystem on the planet and affecting human interactions with the natural and built environment. From increased surface and water temperatures to sea level rise and more frequent extreme weather events, climate change promises vast and profound alterations to our world. Indeed, scientists predict continued climate change impacts regardless of any present or future mitigation efforts due to the long-lived nature of greenhouse gases emitted over the last century. The need to adapt to this new future is crucial. Adaptation may take a variety of forms, from implementing certain natural resources management strategies to applying principles of water law to mimic the natural water cycle. The goal of adaptation efforts is to lessen the magnitude of these impacts on humans and the natural environment through proactive and planned actions. The longer we wait to adopt a framework and laws for adapting to climate change, the more costly and painful the process will become.This publication identifies both foundational principles and specific strategies for climate change adaptation across the Puget Sound Basin. The projected impacts themselves of climate change in the region were well studied in a landmark 2009 report by the state-commissioned Climate Impacts Group. This publication analyzes adaptation options within the existing legal and regulatory framework in Washington. Recognizing the economic and political realities may not lead to new legislation, the recommendations focus on how existing laws can be applied and made more robust to include climate change adaptation.