ArticleFrontiers in genetics2020
Deliberations About Genomic Research and Biobanks With Citizens of the Chickasaw Nation.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salutogenomics: embracing the full spectrum of human health.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2026Review
- Virtual deliberation on genetics research: report-out of key themes from Diné (Navajo) research & healthcare professionals.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Health technology design considerations specific to Indigenous Data Sovereignty and implementation science.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Trusted partners, community priorities, and data protections: requirements for precision medicine research with Alaska Native peoples.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Culturally safe and ethical biomarker and genomic research with Indigenous peoples-a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Qualitative genomic research with Indigenous peoples: a scoping review of participatory practice.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Genetic research with Indigenous Peoples: perspectives on governance and oversight in the US.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Tribal Deliberations about Precision Medicine Research: Addressing Diversity and Inequity in Democratic Deliberation Design and Evaluation.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Review
- Values and Practices to Strengthen Genetic Research Partnerships with Indigenous Communities.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2022Article
- Deliberative Forums to Bolster Tribal Self-Determination.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
- Extending Research Protections to Tribal Communities.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
- Being in Good Community: Engagement in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
- Power Sharing, Capacity Building, and Evolving Roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.Collaborations (Coral Gables, Fla.) · 2020Article
- Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska Native People about the Ethics of Genomics: An Adapted Model of Deliberation Used with Three Tribal Communities in the United States.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Amid the rapid growth of precision medicine and biobanking initiatives, there have been few efforts at cataloging the implications of these initiatives for Indigenous communities. A consortium involving a university and three American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) community partners is working to promote deliberation and dialog in AIAN communities about the potential benefits and risks of genomic research for those communities. The first of the consortium's three planned deliberations was held in September 2018 with citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, a federally recognized tribe in south-central Oklahoma with a full-service medical center and growing research capacity and oversight. Consortium members and the Chickasaw Nation Department of Health Administration designed a deliberative forum for Chickasaw citizens to consider the potential benefits and risks of participating in genomic research and biobanks. In this manuscript, we describe the deliberative method used in this event and report on the ideas discussed during the tribal citizens' deliberations. Chickasaw citizens identified many risks and benefits associated with genomic research and biobanks, including the potential for medical advancements that might benefit the Chickasaw community as well as the possibility of discrimination against the Chickasaw people. Although participants thought the potential benefits outweighed the potential risks, that moral calculation was contingent on whether control of the research and biobanks rested with Chickasaw leadership, researchers, and citizens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.