Extending Research Protections to Tribal Communities.

The history of research in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has been marked by unethical practices, resulting in mistrust and reluctance to participate in research. Harms are not limited to individual persons-tribal communities experience harmful misrepresentation and generalizations disrespectful of AI/AN groups' heritage, cultures, and beliefs. The Belmont Report's research ethics principles are applied primarily to protect individual research participants. The principles of sovereignty and solidarity are argued to be important concepts in extending Belmont's research protections to tribal communities. Sovereignty, an expression of respect for autonomy at a group level, is the basis for tribal self-determination. The principle of solidarity provides an ethical underpinning for tribes' obligations to protect community interests and culture. Extension of Belmont through these principles should serve to minimize harms to AI/AN groups in research.

Genomic Research and American Indian Tribal Communities in Oklahoma: Learning From Past Research Misconduct and Building Future Trusting Partnerships.

Research misconduct and consequential harms have been inflicted upon American Indian/Alaska Native communities for decades. To protect their people and culture and to retain oversight over research, many Native communities have established tribal health research and institutional review boards. The Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) Study showcases a successful, trusting research collaboration with tribal nations and academic investigators in Oklahoma. In 2006, the TODAY Study investigators proposed a modification of the study protocol to collect biological specimens from participants for genomic analyses and indefinite storage. Partnering American Indian tribal nations elected not to participate in the genomics collection and repository proposal. Reasons included 1) protection of cultural values, 2) concerns regarding community anonymity, 3) a potential threat to tribal services eligibility, 4) broad informed consent language, and 5) vague definitions of data access and usage. The nations believed the proposed genomics analyses presented a risk of harm to their people and nations without clear benefit. Since the 2006 proposal and the advancement of genomics research, many tribal communities in Oklahoma, appreciating the potential benefits of genomic research, are developing policies regarding oversight of/access to data and biological specimens to mitigate risks and provide members and communities with opportunities to participate in safe and meaningful genomic research.

Partnering in research: a national research trial exemplifying effective collaboration with American Indian Nations and the Indian Health Service.

Despite the fact that numerous major public health problems have plagued American Indian communities for generations, American Indian participation in health research traditionally has been sporadic in many parts of the United States. In 2002, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) and 5 Oklahoma American Indian research review boards (Oklahoma City Area Indian Health Service, Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, and Choctaw Nation) agreed to participate collectively in a national research trial, the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescence and Youth (TODAY) Study. During that process, numerous lessons were learned and processes developed that strengthened the partnerships and facilitated the research. Formal Memoranda of Agreement addressed issues related to community collaboration, venue, tribal authority, preferential hiring of American Indians, and indemnification. The agreements aided in uniting sovereign nations, the Indian Health Service, academics, and public health officials to conduct responsible and ethical research. For more than 10 years, this unique partnership has functioned effectively in recruiting and retaining American Indian participants, respecting cultural differences, and maintaining tribal autonomy through prereview of all study publications and local institutional review board review of all processes. The lessons learned may be of value to investigators conducting future research with American Indian communities.

Unique Serum Immune Phenotypes and Stratification of Oklahoma Native American Rheumatic Disease Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Native American (NA) populations have higher rates of rheumatic disease and present with overlapping disease symptoms and nontraditional serologic features, thus presenting an urgent need for better biomarkers in NA diagnostics. This study used a machine learning approach to identify immune signatures that more effectively stratify NA patients with rheumatic disease. METHODS: Adult NA patients with autoantibody-positive (AAB+) rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n = 28), autoantibody negative (AAB-) RA (n = 18), systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (n = 28), arthralgia/osteoarthritis (n = 28), or polyarthritis/undifferentiated connective tissue disease (n = 28), and control patients (n = 28) provided serum samples for cytokine, chemokine, and AAB assessment. Random forest clustering and soluble mediator groups were used to identify patients and control patients with similar biologic signatures. The American College of Rheumatology criteria specific for systemic disease and RA identified differences in disease manifestations across clusters. RESULTS: Serum soluble mediators were not homogenous between different NA rheumatic disease diagnostic groups, reflecting the heterogeneity of autoimmune diseases. Clustering by serum biomarkers created 5 analogous immune phenotypes. Soluble mediators and pathways associated with chronic inflammation and involvement of the innate, B cell, T follicular helper cell, and interferon-associated pathways, along with regulatory signatures, distinguished the 5 immune signatures among patients. Select clinical features were associated with individual immune profiles. Patients with low inflammatory and higher regulatory signatures were more likely to have few clinical manifestations, whereas those with T cell pathway involvement had more arthritis. CONCLUSION: Serum protein signatures distinguished NA patients with rheumatic disease into distinct immune subsets. Following these immune profiles over time may assist with earlier diagnoses and help guide more personalized treatment approaches.

Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska Native People about the Ethics of Genomics: An Adapted Model of Deliberation Used with Three Tribal Communities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design, implementation, and process outcomes from three public deliberations held in three tribal communities. Although increasingly used around the globe to address collective challenges, our study is among the first to adapt public deliberation for use with exclusively Indigenous populations. In question was how to design deliberations for tribal communities and whether this adapted model would achieve key deliberative goals and be well received. METHODS: We adapted democratic deliberation, an approach to stakeholder engagement, for use with three tribal communities to respect tribal values and customs. Public deliberation convenes people from diverse backgrounds in reasoned reflection and dialogue in search of collective solutions. The deliberation planning process and design were informed by frameworks of enclave deliberation and community-based participatory research, which share key egalitarian values. The deliberations were collaboratively designed with tribal leadership and extensive partner input and involvement in the deliberations. Each deliberation posed different, locally relevant questions about genomic research, but used the same deliberation structure and measures to gauge the quality and experience of deliberation. RESULTS: A total of 52 individuals participated in the deliberations across all three sites. Deliberants were balanced in gender, spanned decades in age, and were diverse in educational attainment and exposure to health research. Overall, the deliberations were positively evaluated. Participant perceptions and external observer datasets depict three deliberations that offered intensive conversation experiences in which participants learned from one another, reported feeling respected and connected to one another, and endorsed this intensive form of engagement. CONCLUSION: The adapted deliberations achieved key deliberative goals and were generally well received. Limitations of the study are described.

Deliberations About Genomic Research and Biobanks With Citizens of the Chickasaw Nation.

Amid the rapid growth of precision medicine and biobanking initiatives, there have been few efforts at cataloging the implications of these initiatives for Indigenous communities. A consortium involving a university and three American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) community partners is working to promote deliberation and dialog in AIAN communities about the potential benefits and risks of genomic research for those communities. The first of the consortium's three planned deliberations was held in September 2018 with citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, a federally recognized tribe in south-central Oklahoma with a full-service medical center and growing research capacity and oversight. Consortium members and the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health Administration designed a deliberative forum for Chickasaw citizens to consider the potential benefits and risks of participating in genomic research and biobanks. In this manuscript, we describe the deliberative method used in this event and report on the ideas discussed during the tribal citizens' deliberations. Chickasaw citizens identified many risks and benefits associated with genomic research and biobanks, including the potential for medical advancements that might benefit the Chickasaw community as well as the possibility of discrimination against the Chickasaw people. Although participants thought the potential benefits outweighed the potential risks, that moral calculation was contingent on whether control of the research and biobanks rested with Chickasaw leadership, researchers, and citizens.

Expanded Autoantibody Profiles for Subsetting of Native American, African American, and European American Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Many Native American (NA) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) do not exhibit the classical SLE autoantibody profiles of European American (EA) and African American (AA) patients with SLE. The poorer SLE disease outcomes noted in NA patients highlights a need for more equitable diagnostic and prognostic tools for NA patients with SLE. The objective was to identify informative autoantibody profiles for NA, AA, and EA patients with SLE using an expanded set of autoantigens. METHODS: Sera from 49 NA, 49 AA, and 49 EA age-, sex-, and antinuclear autoantibody titer-matched patients with SLE who met the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria and 10 ethnicity-, sex-, and age-matched controls were tested for autoantibody reactivity by autoantigen microarrays. Autoantibodies that were significantly elevated in patients with SLE compared with ethnicity-specific controls were selected for hierarchical clustering. Differences in clinical criteria between patient clusters were determined by Fisher's exact test and corrected for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: NA, AA, and EA patients with SLE each had a cluster distinguished by higher levels of anti-Ro52 and another cluster distinguished by nucleic acid-specific autoantibodies. Additional clusters were distinguished in NA patients by elevated extracellular matrix autoantibodies and were distinguished in AA patients by elevated Sm/RNP autoantibody and elevated nucleolin/histone autoantibody. Two EA patient clusters with similar nucleic acid- and Ro52-specific autoantibodies were distinguished by either high or low histone 2A reactivity. Renal manifestations trended higher in the NA Ro52 cluster and were significantly enriched in the AA nucleolin/histone cluster. The AA nucleolin/histone cluster and EA H2A cluster had higher disease activity. CONCLUSION: Expanded autoantibody profiles can identify informative subsets of patients with SLE.

Deliberative democracy and historical perspectives on American Indian/Alaska native political decision-making practices.

Public deliberation has risen to the forefront of governance as a technique for increasing participation in policy making. Scholars and practitioners have also noted the potential for deliberation to give greater influence to historically marginalized populations, such as Indigenous peoples. However, there has been less attention paid to the potential fit between the ideals of deliberation and the governance and decision making practices of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing accounts of AI/AN governance from the perspective of deliberation, and note areas of overlap, synergy, and conflict. We conduct a close reading of key historical and ethnographic accounts of four historical AI/AN contexts-the Iroquois Confederation under the Great Law of Peace, 19th century accounts of the Ojibwa village, the Santa Clara Pueblo government in pre-19th century, and Yup'ik village life in the early 20th century-and a more contemporary case in the form of the Santa Clara Pueblo's Constitution from the Indian Reorganization Act period. We then apply two sets of key criteria for deliberative democracy-from the scholars Robert Dahl and John Gastil-to these accounts and note the ways in which each system is or is not congruent with these frameworks of deliberation. We find variations between these historical tribal contexts in our analysis. Social components of deliberation, such as respectful discussion and equal opportunities to participate, were partially or fully present in many accounts of governance practices, but it was less clear whether the analytic components, such as discussion of a range of solutions, were included in some forms of tribal governance. We then explore the potential implications of our findings for public deliberation within and in AI/AN tribes. We note that deliberative scholars and practitioners should be wary of over-generalizing about AI/AN tribes.

Fostering Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research in Tribal Communities: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.

Genomic research raises unique ethical concerns among Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) people and their communities. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) was created to foster research that takes these concerns into account while considering the sovereign status of AN/AI tribal nations. Relationships developed within CEIGR have allowed for effective, collaborative research among individuals who come from diverse cultures, political and historical backgrounds, and academic disciplines, and who work for organizations with varying resources, capacities, and expectations. The CEIGR framework may inform other groups seeking to conduct social science research related to genomic research with tribal people and their communities.

Power Sharing, Capacity Building, and Evolving Roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.

Persistent, unresolved issues stemming from a legacy of scientific exploitation and bio-colonialism have kept many tribal nations from participating in genomic research. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) aims to model meaningful community engagement that moves toward more inclusive and equitable research practices related to genomics. This article reflects on key successes and challenges behind CEIGR's efforts to shape Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research in ways that are informed by Indigenous perspectives, to locate community partnerships at the center of genomics research, and to conduct normative and empirical research with Indigenous communities that is grounded in the concepts of reciprocity, transparency and cultural competency. The structure of CEIGR represents an important shift away from a traditional model centered on a university-based principal investigators toward a partner-centered research approach that emphasizes equity and community control by distributing power and decision-making across all CEIGR partner sites. We discuss three features of CEIGR that have contributed to this shift towards an equitable, community-driven partnership: 1) balancing local priorities with collective goals; 2) distributing power in ways that promote equitable partnerships; and 3) capacity building and co-learning across partner sites. The discussion of these three areas in this article speaks to a particular strength of our Center: the interdependence among partners and collective willingness to maintain a plasticity of leadership that creates space for all of our partners to lead, support, exchange and strengthen ELSI research.

Community Protections in American Indian and Alaska Native Participatory Research-A Scoping Review.

Experiences with unethical research practices have caused some American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals, organizations, and tribes to mistrust health research. To build trust and repair relationships, current research with AIAN peoples often involves participatory research (PR) approaches. This article assesses community-level protections described in the scientific literature on PR involving AIAN communities. A scoping review search in PubMed and PsychInfo for articles published between January 2000 and June 2017 yielded an AIAN PR article dataset. Of 178 articles, a subset of 23 articles that described aspects of community protections were analyzed for descriptions of community-level protection practices. We identified the presence or absence of a description of four community protection measures in each article: a tribal research department, the development of community-level mechanisms for research regulation if not present, community collaboration throughout the research process, and project employment of a community member. The development of community-level mechanisms for research regulation was described in 39% of the articles. Ninety-one percent of these articles described community collaboration during the research process. Seventeen percent included descriptions of all four community-level protection measures. The extent and consistency to which community-level protections are described is variable; the current literature lacks reporting on community-level protection practices specific to tribal communities.