6 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. Biomedical and Behavioral Research

      After reading this, I feel like a lot of the language in this report is geared towards biomedical research, which, after reading Tuck, sounds also an awful lot like damage-centered research, which in the definition is said to pathologize damage. Do we have different expectations for medical research (as in, if there's a virus attacking a place with little institutional power, can we as the capital-A Academy step in and give the people medicine without being as concerned with Respect and Autonomy)?

    2. Almost all commentators allow that distinctions based on experience, age, deprivation, competence, merit and position do sometimes constitute criteria justifying differential treatment for certain purposes.

      Who is making these distinctions? Is it the community or the outsider-researcher?

    3. In most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information. In some situations, however, application of the principle is not obvious.

      Tuck, Suspending Damage: "For example, on the Aleutian Islands, those of my grandmother’s generation were forced subjects in a range of studies, the purposes of which were concealed from them. Extending the long arm of the eugenics movement on behalf of colonization, white scientists entered Aleut communities with the full support of the U.S. government and with the arrogance and absence of reflexivity afforded by white supremacy" (italics added)

    4. For the most part, the term "practice" refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success. The purpose of medical or behavioral practice is to provide diagnosis, preventive treatment or therapy to particular individuals

      I may be looking through a Suspending Damage lens since I just finished that reading, but I think this uses damage-centered research language (or at least doesn't dissuade people from conducting damage-centered research)

      using Tuck's definition of damage-centered research as "research that operates, even benevolently, from a theory of change that establishes harm or injury to achieve reparation" and comparing that to the idea of "enhancing the well-being"

      I recognize that the report is referencing in part individual therapy here, but I think it also applies to larger "practical/practicing" research projects that are just long arms of colonialism

    5. . It has also posed some troubling ethical questions.

      It's interesting that the substantial positive affects on society are given a tangible name ("benefits"), while the myriad heinous affects on society are merely "ethical questions"

  2. Sep 2018
    1. “Scientists planning the next phase of the human genome proj­ect are being forced to confront a treacherous issue: the genetic differences between human races,” he wrote in a July 20, 2001, article, For Genome Mappers, the Tricky Terrain of Race Requires Some Careful Navigating. The question was no longer whether or not racial differences exist at the molecu­lar level, but how to go about discovering them.

      This reminds me of an article I just read about how organizations like 23andMe are perpetuating racial divides and making racist science seem acceptable again (as well as ignore indigenous structures of indigeneity). I've tried a couple of times to attach the link, but it's not working! It's 'We've Been Here for 2,000 Years: White settlers, Native American DNA and the phenomenon of indigenization' by Darryl Leroux.