Publications of Bannister, Kelly

In this chapter, we explore ways the precautionary principle can and should encompass “social and cultural harms.” We use the discipline of ethnobiology as an instructive case to examine issues arising from the documentation and use of traditional knowledge of Indigenous cultures. In particular, we discuss uncertainties and potential harms posed by the appropriation of biocultural knowledge by mainstream society, and the inadequacies of existing legal and moral frameworks to address this problem. Our discussion is grounded in a Canadian context and centered on issues related to First Nations cultures, academic and industrial research, and regulatory efforts. This case study not only illustrates the need to include social and cultural harms under the umbrella of the precautionary principle, but also highlights useful and timely guidelines that are emerging in response to these issues in ethnobiological and related research.

The intellectual and methodological plurality of ethnopharmacology poses a variety of theoretical and practical challenges. One of these is developing a sense of cohesion among researchers with such diverse sub-specialties as anthropology, natural products chemistry, and comparative religion. Sharing a common applied goal, and some fundamental principles to uphold in achieving that goal, are unifying aspects of any group. But defining a research ethic and level of professional responsibility that work for all members is challenging in today’s complex ethical and legal climate, especially for research involving biodiversity and the medicinal knowledge of indigenous or traditional peoples. This chapter critically examines the state of research ethics and professional responsibility in ethnopharmacology. Published sources and publicly available materials are drawn upon to construct an understanding of current thinking on the topic, identify issues and challenges, and offer considerations for the future of the discipline. Both internal standards (moral obligations widely agreed within the field), and externally imposed standards (by regulatory bodies, national governments, international environmental and human rights laws, and community protocols) are considered. The latter includes approvals, permissions and permits related to documentation of cultural knowledge and genetic resources, compensation, benefit-sharing, credit and rights issues, and community protocols. There is an expectation that today’s ethnopharmacologists have an understanding of the ethical, legal, ecological, sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects and implications of their work. There also is significant pressure from governments, interest groups and stakeholders to build equity into research relationships, especially given widespread accusations of “biopiracy” and “cultural appropriation”. With increased effort to develop a more unified collective perspective, ethnopharmacologists, as brokers of knowledge and agents of change, are well-positioned to be leaders in developing ethical and equitable research practices, if these are based on agreed values and terms that are co-defined with involvement and due respect for all stakeholders.

Should Canadian universities create a social sciences and humanities “knowledge broker” equivalent to the “technology transfer office” model that serves natural sciences and engineering? The knowledge broker concept suggests the requirement for university capacity to take into account needs for applied work in the humanities and social sciences and to connect relevant work to potential applications in social decisions and community action. Such an outreach capacity supporting a two-way flow of information between practitioners in the community and researchers in the academy is not a substitute for the inclusive, interactive deliberative processes essential to policy-relevant research and construction of a knowledge base to support legitimate social action, but it is an essential part of the university’s role in the promotion of community-based research. How can the university create this organizational capacity to support community-based research, and allocate the space necessary to accommodate the critical mass of people and information essential to the initiative? And how to address special challenges in identifying funding possibilities and building up necessary information bases? It is harder in the social sciences and humanities to identify cognate activities or counterpart individuals in industry, government or NGOs; to characterize expertise within the university; to track the practical spin-off results from research in the social sciences and humanities; and to identify these precisely enough as to tease out financial support in a world demanding quick and measured outcomes.

The cultural knowledge and local expertise of Indigenous communities are increasingly recognised as valid and important contributions to understanding the natural world, and promoting human and ecosystem health. As such, there is growing awareness that research with Indigenous communities must move away from subject-centered models of ‘studying Indigenous cultures’ toward more collaborative and respectful practices wherein community members are essential partners in defining and conducting research. Building research relationships and mutual understanding are prerequisite to working collaboratively, and essential to ethical research practices. However, adequate time and funds to build relationships, develop informed consent, and establish appropriate research goals and processes are often overlooked by research granting agencies and university administrations. Conducting collaborative research, therefore, may lead to significant tensions for researchers--as a result of entrenched norms in academic reward structures, research and ethics policies, and publication practices. This seminar explores ethical, legal and practical considerations in collaborative research with Indigenous communities.

A major research and community engagement initiative in the Clayoquot Sound region is the “Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training”. This is a partnership of the University of Victoria and the communities of the Clayoquot Sound region, through the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust as a conduit. The partnership is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under its Community-University Research Alliance program. Several projects are in progress or under development with community partners as key contributors. Some of these include: studies on sustainable resource management, creation of learning materials for Nuu-chah-nulth language training, extension of the Clayoquot archives for community access and use, expansion of the Long Beach Model Forest Society’s sustainable forestry research inventory and database to include human and ecosystem health. In addition, a major project to develop consensus on protocols and guidelines for community-based research with local community groups and the central region Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations is in progress under the guidance of a local working group. In this dialogue session, community and university representatives will provide an overview of the Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training and briefly describe some of the projects for discussion, feedback and identification of participatory opportunities.

This panel will discuss the flow of information between research institutions, communities, and government. We will present three projects that aim to support community instigated research. The first is a newly initiated project based in coastal British Columbia(Canada). Modeled on the Dutch “science shops”, this project aims to facilitate community-led research on human and ecosystem health in cooperation with university researchers. The second project involves citizen volunteers in wetlands research in an urbanizing watershed. It is a cooperative venture between the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, Princeton University, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, with a primary aim to increase public understanding of policy alternatives by actively involving citizens in the research process. The third project concerns the history and evolving theory of a proposed Research Natural Area for the Warner Creek fire area in Oregon’s Willamette National Forest. Founded on collaborations between scientists, activists, and managers, this Fire Process Research Natural Area is one model of a research and education oriented advocacy group. Panel presentations and discussion will focus on the following questions: • How is scientific information communicated among various sectors of civil society? • How does the process of generating information and conducting research affect the way in which results are integrated into regional, federal and international policy-making? • How can communication be improved to support mutual learning to address complex social and environmental issues?