CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
12
Arizona State Havasupai Indians
Debate Score:37
Arguments:29
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Arizona State (19)
 
 Havasupai Indians (10)

Debate Creator

mangelo19(32) pic



Data Ethics

Read the following article.  In your current events group, assign one person to be for ASU, one person for the Havasupai Tribe, and one person to be the clincher (whichever side you choose)

Do you side with the Havasupai tribe or the researchers at ASU?  List your thoughts below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?pagewanted=all

Arizona State

Side Score: 25
VS.

Havasupai Indians

Side Score: 12
2 points

I am siding with Arizona State. Even though they did not ask for informed consent, they used the DNA they received to try to see if other mental and physical illnesses could be cured, so I believe that Arizona State should be seen as being morally right.

Side: Arizona State
2 points

I do not feel that Arizona State did anything wrong regarding the samples from the Havasupai tribe. The samples were anonymous in which that means nothing can be traced directly back to the individuals of the tribe. All the data collected from the DNA samples only led to allow the tribe to learn more information about the family and tribe's history. It allowed them to learn which diseases they are at risk for and how to prevent or cure it. Although Arizona State could have mentioned they were using the DNA samples for other testings as well, it does not hurt the individuals of the tribe by withholding that information.

Side: Arizona State
2 points

I think ASU is some what in the wrong. They should have been specific when it came to outlining what they were going to be researching and what their intent was but the contracts did explicitly say that the research was to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.” I understand it is offensive to the tribe but they should have stated that before they allowed the University to conduct any research. The University was trying to do good for the community by attempting to find a cause for their diabetes issues as well as other diseases. However, the doctor(s) who was granted permission for use of the blood in the study should have been the only one(s) to use the blood at any point in time. Despite the religious views or beliefs of the tribe, I would hope that ASU would have the best interest of the tribe in mind and that it was just an unfortunate miscommunication.

Side: Arizona State
2 points

Arizona State University is okay for using the blood collected from the Havasupai Tribe due to multiple reasons. Although the Tribe felt offended and upset over the fact that the University studied their blood for multiple reasons, they were given the right to do so. This is true in the article when it states, “Roughly 100 tribe members who gave blood from 1990 to 1994 signed a broad consent that said the research was to study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.” Clearly, this shows that many tribe members actually did give consent to using their blood to study various medical and behavioral disorders, and not just diabetes. Additionally, I also believe that it is all right for ASU to study the blood for a broad array of diseases, for the Tribe could actually have had illnesses they were not aware of. Not knowing they had these certain illnesses could be harmful as it might, down the line, quicken the mortality rate amongst the tribe. In other words, I believe that what ASU did was ok, because ASU’s ultimate goal was to inform the Havasupai of any illnesses they had, ensuring the Tribe has better health in the future. This is evident in the article when it states, “Many scientists say no, arguing that the potential benefit from unencumbered biomedical research trumps the value of individual control.”

Side: Arizona State
2 points

I do not think that Arizona State did anything wrong. The DNA samples were given to them with permission for "wider ranging genetic studies" and thats what they did so I don't think that they were wrong in any way. The results of the test are also anonymous so other people will not know that the DNA came from the tribe.

Side: Arizona State
2 points

I am siding with Arizona State. The reason is because they were trying to help the tribe by doing additional testing on their blood. The reason the Natives were mad was because they were not asked by Arizona State to do any additional test. Even though Arizona State did not have consent, they are legally obligated to run additional test, and in doing so they found out information that could benefit the tribe.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I am siding with Arizona State University. They were given the blood to do tests on so all they did was do additional research. The research found only provided more information to the Natives and there were no negative consequences from looking at it. Additionally, the results are anonymous so I do not think it is a big deal.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

While I think that ASU took advantage of the Native's willingness to participate in a study, I slightly lean towards the side of the school. I feel this way because the article explained that ASU gave a broad and general explanation of what they'd be doing with Native DNA, and that the natives could ask any questions they wanted. This fact leaves me to wonder why none of the natives were curious about the specifics of the procedure and didn't take it upon themselves to stipulate the conditions of the researcher's requests.

However, I am sure the researchers had to know that the natives valued blood, and shouldn't have abused the generosity of the subjects.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I side with Arizona State. Although the native tribe may feel as if they were being taken advantage of, they signed the broad contract that allowed the college to study the cause of behavior and medical disorders. That agreement allows the college to not only use the blood samples for diabetes research, but also for a wide variety of health issues.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

Although ASU are in the wrong for acting without the permission of the tribe, the ASU researchers were only trying to help and learn about the tribe. ASU's research and findings were all done anonymously in order to prevent offending individuals of the tribe. ASU put time and effort into helping the tribe and learning about their genetics in order to prevent further disease and create cures. Even though they discovered the tribe's real origins, which makes a lot of the tribe's rituals and beliefs fake or wrong, the ASU individuals should not have been so heavily punished for doing more extensive and informative research.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I completely agree with you Tom. I think that ASU took the proper steps by keeping its research anonymous and trying to find remedies for other diseases.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I side with Arizona State University because its first group of scientists had good intentions when trying to research about the tribe's predisposition to diabetes. It's second group of scientists simply used the blood as a resource for further learning and experimentation, with no intent to harm the tribe or its reputation. Any results that came of the research were scientific and non biased. Ultimately, if the tribe didn't want their blood used for more than one specific thing, they should not have signed broad consent statements the way they did when "Roughly 100 tribe members who gave blood from 1990 to 1994 signed a broad consent that said the research was to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.”

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I agree with ASU in that the article mentions that the researchers were given broad consent. The researchers simply stated that they were to study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders. Being that these terms were very broad, the tribe could have asked questions if they wanted more specific information as far as what tests were to be ran, what they would be okay with or what they would not be okay with. I definitely believe that it was the responsibility of the tribe to question what their DNA was exactly being used for before even giving their consent.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I personally don't think that the Arizona State researchers did anything wrong. They were given blood to do tests on it, and that is what they did. Perhaps they could have asked permission to perform additional tests, but what harm did it do? I understand that blood was considered sacred to the Indians, but if it has already been used for one test already, which they agreed upon, I do not understand what the issue is. The situation was explained to them prior as it should have and the Indians agreed, that's my stance.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

Many scientists say no, [ to asking someone who already donated their blood to research if the scientist can do further research,] arguing that the potential benefit from unencumbered biomedical research trumps the value of individual control.

Wouldn't it be better for the people to know where they are truly from rather than spend their whole life living a life that isn't their own.

The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I am siding with Arizona State because the Havasupai Indians willingly gave blood samples to be tested by Arizona State University. While the reason they wanted to be tested was to find out genetic clues about the devastating rate of diabetes, ASU tested for more health problems. I think ASU innocently tested all potential health issues to benefit the tribe, not anger them. ASU was trying to help the tribe by finding out mental illnesses and other diseases from their blood samples and informing the tribe about these issues. ASU did not have any malicious intent, and only sought out more information to help improve the health of the tribe. Furthermore, the tribe was not forced to give a blood sample, they willingly chose to do so. I think if you are willingly giving blood samples to be tested, it is perfectly acceptable to be tested for all health problems.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I do think ASU took advantage of the native's generosity and poor education somewhat but I am leaning more towards the schools side. The school did in fact give a very broad explanation of what they wanted to do with the natives DNA. They signed a broad consent that said the research was to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.” The article also stated that the natives were allowed to ask questions but none of them really questioned the specific of this research. The researchers slightly abused the generosity and poor education to their favor but I think the school was not trying to harm them in any way. They were just taking research to the next level and applying it to other aspects.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

I am siding with Arizona State. The subjects that donated their blood were allowed to ask any questions they had, and the students got written and verbal permission from each participant. In addition, in the article it states they were going to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders". This is very broad and could mean that they could be doing other tests on the subject's blood samples.

Side: Arizona State
1 point

Even though Arizona State did not receive informed consent from the Havasupai Indians, these protections are used for research that poses any physical risks for its subjects. For DNA collection, there is not much risk involved making the rules for informed consent less strict. In addition Arizona State was trying to help the tribe by testing their blood. They were trying to find a cure so that the tribes people would not have to leave the cannon. Initially, roughly 100 members gave their blood and signed a broad consent about where the research was going. From this consent they were open to ask any questions and were instructed to explain the project with written consent.

Side: Arizona State
2 points

I side with the Havasupai tribe because their blood samples were used for scientific purposes other than those of which they were informed. Those who gave samples were taken advantage of since they did not give consent to have their blood used for other tests. The tribe had a right to know instead of being kept in the dark. In the article, the tribe and ASU reached a settlement to right the wrongs of this case which "implied that the rights of research subjects can be violated when they are not fully informed about how their DNA might be used".

Side: Havasupai Indians
2 points

I am siding with the tribe because I feel like the students at ASU took advantage of the lack of knowledge of the tribe which is why they used their DNA for other topics of research without their consent. I believe that they should have asked the tribe for permission before doing this because even though its for a good cause and they may discover something important and beneficial, they could've given the tribe the opportunity to say yes which would've led to the same discoveries but with it being done the correct way. Instead, ASU did not get informed consent and therefore is not morally correct.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

ASU discovered "theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories" thus ruining their reputation. Also, the University was using their DNA for 10 years never contacted the tribe about their potential mental health issues. Plus, the University was awarded tons of grants and degrees without informing the subjects

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

They did not have consent. I am siding with the Havasupai Indians because of that and they didn't even ask for the University's help. Their research was going against everything the Indians knew as a tribe. In their culture, they all grew up listening to stories about their origins and what makes them who they are, and the research that the University did without their permission confused and hurt their culture.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

The Havasupai Indians were not completely informed of all the uses of their blood samples, which means they were not able to really consent to the studies that used their blood. Also, their findings accused their members of inbreeding, which is frowned upon in their culture (“We say if you do that, a close relative of yours will die.”) Their findings have also caused them to be confused about their origins, kind of disrespecting the elders who have been telling stories with certain information and their traditions.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

I support the Havasupai Indians because they did not give informed consent for their DNA to be used in other research. They wanted help with lowering the rate of diabetes in their tribe, and that is it. Once no link was found, research should have stopped. In the article, it says "They [the Havasupai Indians] were always given the opportunity to ask questions," however this is not a fair statement, since the tribe didn't even know to ask questions or what questions to ask. They have very little knowledge about science/genetics, and this needs to be taken into consideration.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

Because I have nursing ethics ingrained in me, I have learned the importance of advocating for patients and therefor am on the side of the Havasupai tribe. Although informed consent was given, I believe it is important for them to share ALL aspects of the experimentation. I think because the tribe is slightly isolated from a society, Arizona State thought that they would be oblivious to what was happening and therefore not be bothered by the matter. In these circumstances, it had worked out to benefit the tribe. However, the tribe was taken advantage of and was not given the full amount of information regarding what their DNA was being used for and I think that is not right.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

Using the blood of the tribe for other research other than what they connected from caused a lot of people distress as they are forced to abandon a life they had previously been living. Their identity will be wiped away since they are told they are not who they have been all along.

Also, many are angry because they had been lied to about their ancestry

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

The Havasupai tribe was only aware that their blood was used to learn more about the rate of diabetes increasing within the tribe. Since the geneticist used it to research more, it violates the concept of informed consent. It also violates confidentiality because they shared the tribes DNA with other researchers to find their results and there were articles posted based on the blood samples. These articles shared information that contradict the stories that have been passed through generations throughout the tribe.

Side: Havasupai Indians
1 point

While Arizona State did have good intentions, they should not have used the Indian tribes' blood for other purposes. Arizona should have made it very clear what they intended on using their blood for. Arizona State should have made sure it was ok to use their blood for other purposes. The Indian tribes have different cultures and values. Arizona State hurt individuals and they felt betrayed, especially the elders. What they did was ethically wrong.

Side: Havasupai Indians