SCS 224 Ethics Journal: Documenting “Untouched Tribes” of Brazil and the Role of the IRB

SCS 224 Ethical Responsibilities and Professionalism Journal: documenting “untouched tribes” of Brazil

You are a cultural anthropologist who has been looking for a research position for six months, and your finances are stretched to the breaking point. To your surprise, you are contacted by a major network TV company for a funded opportunity to document the “untouched tribes” of Brazil. With the approval of the Brazilian government already established, do you make contact with a group of peoples who have not had interaction with much (if any) of the Western world in order to be published and receive a substantial paycheck? Do you deny the opportunity altogether knowing that someone else will likely fill your position? Do you accept in hopes that you will make contact as sensitively as possible, not trusting someone else to do it? Is it even your place to protect the cultural environment of people you do not know?

Keep the following questions in mind: What is an institutional review board (IRB), and what is its purpose? Do you think it actually works? Why, or why not?

Prompt: Discuss the ethical dilemma and write a response in your journal. Consider the role of the IRB. What is an IRB? What is its purpose? Would the IRB protect everyone involved in your research? If so, how? Address these critical elements:

• Institutional review board
• Does the IRB work?
• Ethical dilemma

Original example for study purposes (about 690 words). Rewrite it in your own voice and add your course readings.

Institutional Review Board

An institutional review board (IRB) is a committee that reviews research with human participants to protect their rights and welfare. In the United States, IRBs follow the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), which is grounded in the Belmont Report’s principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). An IRB checks that risks are minimized and justified by benefits, that participants are chosen fairly, that informed consent is meaningful and that privacy is protected (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2018). For international research, IRBs also expect approval from local authorities and respect for local customs, and anthropologists are guided by their professional code, which makes “do no harm” a primary responsibility (American Anthropological Association [AAA], 2012).

Does the IRB Work?

In this scenario, the IRB may not work at all, and that is part of the problem. A television documentary funded by a network is usually treated as journalism, not as research designed to produce generalizable knowledge, so it may never go to an IRB. If I were working through a university, an IRB would ask the right questions, but it would struggle to answer them. Informed consent is nearly impossible when people do not share a language, have no understanding of television or publication and have never chosen to be studied. The biggest risk, deadly disease, falls on a whole community rather than on individuals who signed up. Government approval also does not equal community consent. Brazil’s own Indigenous affairs agency, FUNAI, has followed a policy since 1987 of protecting isolated peoples without initiating contact, respecting their right to self-determination (Minority Rights Group, n.d.). So while IRBs protect participants in ordinary studies, they are not designed to protect a people who have, through their isolation, already signaled that they do not want contact.

The Ethical Dilemma

The dilemma pits my personal survival and career against the survival and autonomy of a group of people. The history of contact in the Amazon is clear: isolated peoples have little immunity to common diseases such as influenza and measles, and first contact has repeatedly caused epidemics. For example, when the BR-210 highway was built through Yanomami territory in the 1970s, about 40% of the Yawaripë subgroup in the area died (Minority Rights Group, n.d.). Anthropology has also learned hard lessons from research among the Yanomami; the controversy that followed Tierney’s (2000) book Darkness in El Dorado pushed the discipline to re-examine its obligations to the people it studies.

I would decline the job as it is offered. Making contact for a television program fails the principles of beneficence and respect for persons: the benefits go to the network, viewers and me, while the risks fall on people who cannot consent. Accepting “to do it gently” does not solve the problem, because the danger comes from contact itself, not from the manner of contact. The argument that “someone else will do it anyway” does not make the act ethical for me, and I can still try to prevent harm.

Instead of simply walking away, I would make a counteroffer. I would propose a documentary on the threats isolated peoples face, such as illegal logging, mining and land grabbing, and on the work of Indigenous organizations and FUNAI teams who protect their territories, all without contact. I would interview contacted Indigenous leaders who can speak for themselves about isolation and contact. If the network refused, I would share my concerns with Indigenous rights organizations and with my professional association, so that the planned contact receives scrutiny.

Is it my place to protect people I do not know? I believe it is my place not to harm them, and to use my knowledge to support their right to make their own choice. Protection here does not mean deciding what is best for them; it means respecting a decision they have already made by staying isolated. Turning down a paycheck when I am struggling would be difficult, but my professional integrity, and the lives of others, matter more than one job.

References

American Anthropological Association. (2012). Principles of professional responsibility. https://americananthro.org/wp-content/uploads/aaa-code-of-ethics-2012.pdf

Minority Rights Group. (n.d.). Indigenous peoples in isolation and initial contact of Brazil. https://minorityrights.org/communities/indigenous-peoples-in-isolation-and-initial-contact-of-brazil/

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

Tierney, P. (2000). Darkness in El Dorado: How scientists and journalists devastated the Amazon. W. W. Norton.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protection of human subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46

More model assignments posted today

• SCS 224 journal: Haiti clean water study
• SCS 224 journal: gang violence research
• Accreditation and curriculum development
• Supply chain risk PowerPoint
• Neurocognitive psychiatric evaluation
• Cloud, quantum and compliance cost proposal
• Concurrent access and data integrity
• Philosophical assumptions of science discussion