ArticleDiabetologia2024
Scientists and scientific journals should adhere to ethical standards for the use and reporting of data from Indigenous people.
Article in Diabetologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Equity, Diversity and Inclusion is essential for rigorous science and good for health.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for type 1 diabetes risk screening.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Research and data sovereignty in genetically admixed populations.Diabetologia · 2025Article
- Research and data sovereignty in genetically admixed populations. Reply to Zoller L, Kumar R and Lorenzo Bermejo J [letter].Diabetologia · 2025Article
- The responsiveness of surgical research to Māori in Aotearoa, New Zealand-a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- A decade of research on genetic privacy: the findings of the GetPreCiSe Center at Vanderbilt University.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Internationally, governments and scientists are bound by legal and treaty rights when working with Indigenous nations. These rights include the right of Indigenous people to control the conduct of science with Indigenous nations. Unfortunately, in some cases, individual scientists and scientific teams working with biological and genetic data collected from Indigenous people have not respected these international rights. Here, we argue that the scientific community should understand and acknowledge the historical harms experienced by Indigenous people under the veil of scientific progress (truth) and implement existing standards for ethical conduct of research and sovereign control of data collected within Indigenous communities (reconciliation). Specifically, we outline the rationale for why scientists, scientific journals and research integrity and institutional review boards/ethics committees should adopt, and be held accountable for upholding, current international standards of Indigenous data sovereignty and ethical use of Indigenous biological samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39103722What 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.