Received informed consent to study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders using the DNA from the subjects so it was not as if not consent was given. Also the potential benefit from unencumbered biomedical research trumps the value of individual control. In my opinion I would not have been angered by the use of my DNA because it was for the potential benefit of others. It is not as if the researchers were creating a bio-weapon to use against the indian tribe but rather using the DNA to research other diseases.

The tribe signed a consent form with the exact words to “study the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.” This allows ASU to conduct as much research as they please using the tribes' blood samples. Additionally, for the sake of science, it is within the realm of acceptable ethical practice to use the samples if they benefit in discovering cures for other diseases, regardless of the original intent the samples were taken for.

The University wanted to do further research to potentially help cure/treat other diseases by testing the DNA of the tribe. The tribe was not harmed in anyway, nor was anything put into their bodies that could be potentially harmful. The research also proved to be beneficial.

ASU and the researchers provided the participants with an explanation of their intended efforts, "for wider-ranging genetic studies". While the desired outcome may have been identifying important clues regarding the tribe's diabetic epidemic, science pursues an objective truth above all else. This often comes in conflict with cultural beliefs, but research regularly leads to unforeseen paths which present themselves during the research process.

I side with ASU because they did not break any laws or ethical boundaries. They were given the blood samples by the tribe and the university was going to try to help them out with their diabetes problem which would be very beneficial to the tribe. The university told the tribe that they would use their blood for research. This statement was very broad and technically includes other experiments.

ASU may have thought that they were helping the tribe by doing further research on their DNA that could also help them understand any other issues in their genetics. The issue was of course not informing them of the additional research being done.

The tribe signed a consent form. No matter how broad or vague the consent form was, the tribe still gave consent to "study the causes of behavioral/ medical disorders."

ASU was able to create a greater scale of medical research by using the DNA for more than what they had originally intended it for.

I can see from an ethical standpoint where the tribe felt disrespected and taken advantage of, however, from a legal perspective, blood samples from 1990-1994 was provided through a consent form. ASU recognized that the tribe's donors where most likely English was their second language and was as simple and consise as possible. The study was not only to study diabetes but was described to study the causes of behavioral and medical disorders which is extrememly broad much like the consent form they signed to. The issue would be the lack of communication and informing them of the additional research that was conducted based upon the samples. The samples weren't being abused but rather focusing on other medical research that can help the tribe in the long run.

According to the article, the protection associated with "informed consent" is primarily for those participating in studies involving physical risk, experimental trials, or surgical trials. The cultivation of DNA does not fall under any of these categories. The DNA was mainly used for studies to find more information about the tribe to help them, never was it ASU intentions to harm them

"Researchers and institutions that receive federal funds are required to receive “informed consent” from subjects, ensuring that they understand the risks and benefits before they participate. But such protections were designed primarily for research that carried physical risks, like experimental drug trials or surgery." This does not apply for DNA, therefore the school did not break any rules. Also, the research was used for other medical purposes, and "that the potential benefit from unencumbered biomedical research trumps the value of individual control"

The use of the tribe's DNA was used for further research other than what the tribe requested, but it was beneficial to science and it did not harm the tribe in any way

The tribe signed a consent form that allowed the college to do what they wanted with the blood samples. By signing the contract the tribe said they understood the risks of taking part in the study.

Although I understand where the tribe may feel like they were disrespected or wronged, I side with ASU because they did obtain consent from the tribe. Also, the research done by ASU was beneficial, so overall it should help the Havasupai tribe, not hurt them.

The University gained consent from the tribe for "wide range genetic studies". Although the tribe hoped for studies about their history of diabetes, they did agree that their samples could be used for such wide range studies.