Cultural Challenges to Biotechnology: Native American Genetic Resources and the Concept of Cultural Harm

Wu A. O. , “Surpassing The Material: The Human Rights Implications of Informed Consent in Bioprospecting Cells Derived from Indigenous People Groups,” Washington University Law Quarterly 78, no. 3 (2000): 979–1003, at 983–84.

Tilousi et al. v. AZ State University et al. (CV2004–0115, AZ Superior Ct., Coconino County); Havasupai Tribe v. AZ State University et al. (CV 2004–0146, ZA Superior Ct. Coconino County).

Id. (Tilousi compliant), at 7; id. (Havasupai Tribe complaint), at 6.

See, e.g., Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991).

See generally Rao R. , “Property, Privacy, and the Human Body,” Boston University Law Review 80, no. 2 (2000): 359–460.

See generally Korngold G. Morriss A. P. , eds., Property Stories (New York: Foundation Press 2004): 1–2.

Id., at 1.

Posner R. A. , Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed. (New York: Aspen Law and Business, 2003): 31–91.

Id., at 31–91. See, e.g., at 32 (all resources should be owned by someone), at 34–36 (exclusivity as value, developing this point further in subsequent text), and at 75 (transferability).

Demsetz H. , “Toward a Theory of Property Rights,” American Economic Review 57, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1967): 347–59.

See, e.g., Chilkat Indian Village, IRA v. Johnson, 20 Indian L. Rep. 6127 (Chilkat Tr. Ct. 1993) (explaining the concept of “clan trust property,” which is under the stewardship of particular tribal members, but cannot be alienated to nonmembers).

Clinton R. N. , “The Rights of Indigenous Peoples as Collective Group Rights,” Arizona Law Review 32, no. 4 (1990): 739–744, at 740.

Id., at 740.

Id., at 742.

See Hardin G. , “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162, no. 3859 (December 13, 1968): 1243–48.

U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8 (ratified 1789).

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

Tsosie R. , “Reclaiming Native Stories: An Essay on Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Rights,” Arizona State Law Journal 34, no. 1 (2002): 299–358, at 311–13.

See generally Trigger B. , “The Past as Power: Anthropology and the North American Indian,” in McBryde I. , Who Owns the Past? (Melbourne/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985): 11–40; see also id.

See Tsosie , supra note 21.

See Rao , supra note 5, at 444–45.

Id., at 389.

Id., at 402.

Florida v. Powell , 497 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1986).

See Rao , supra note 5, at 402–3.

Id., at 384–87.

Brotherton v. Cleveland , 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1991).

See Rao , supra note 5, at 406.

Id., citing Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F. 2d, at 481.

Id., at 428.

See Moore , supra note 4.

See Rao , supra note 5, at 433.

Id., at 440.

Id., at 442–43.

Id., at 441.

See Rao R. , “Genes and Spleens: Property, Contract, or Privacy Rights in the Human Body,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 3 (2007): 371–382.

See, e.g., Kymlicka W. , Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Tsosie R. , “American Indian and the Politics of Recognition: Soifer on Law, Pluralism, and Group Identity,” Law and Social Inquiry 22, no. 2 (Spring 1997): 359–388, at 377.

See Tsosie , supra note 21, at 332–46.

Kymlicka W. , Liberalism, Community, and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989): at 169.

The status of Indian nations as “domestic, dependent nations” emerged from Chief Justice John Marshall's opinions in the Cherokee cases. See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831); Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974).

Margalit A. Halbertal M. , “Liberalism and the Right to Culture,” Social Research 61, no. 3 (1994): 491–510.

Hart J. , “Translating and Resting Empire: Cultural Appropriation and Postcolonial Studies,” in Ziff B. Rao P. V. , eds., Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997): At 137–8.

See Margalit Halbertal , supra note 49, at 497–98.

See generally Anaya S. J. , Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). (Appendix contains relevant provisions of documents cited in this article.)

Id., at 132. For the full text, please see, Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), article 27, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, December 16, 1966 (entered into force March 23, 1976).

See Vecsey C. , ed., Handbook of American Indian Religious Freedom (New York: Crossroad Press, 1991): at 16.

Clinton R. N. Goldberg C. E. Tsosie R. , American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System, Cases and Materials, 5th ed. (LexisNexis/Mathew Bender, 2007): At 35–6.

See, e.g., Moore S. C. , “Sacred Sites and Public Lands,” in Vecsey C. , Handbook of American Indian Religious Freedom (New York: Crossroad Press, 1991): At 81–99.

See Tsosie R. , “Tribal Environmental Policy in an Era of Self-Determination: The Role of Ethics, Economics, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge,” Vermont Law Review 21, no. 1 (1996): 225–333, at 225.

Id., at 288–89.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988).

In re Exxon Valdez , 1994 W.L. 182856 (D. Alaska), 1995 A. M.C. 1440 (D. Alaska, 1994); affirmed 104 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 19997)

In re Exxon Valdez , 1994 W.L. 182856 (D. Alaska), 1995 A.M.C. 1440; In re Exxon Valdez: Alaska Native Class v. Exxon Corp., 104 F. 3d 1196 CA9 (Alaska) 1997.

104 F. 2d at 1198.

1994 W.L. 182856 at *4.

See 1994 W.L. 182856 at *5 (“enjoyment of life damages are unavailable…[T]he plaintiffs must find recompense for interference with their culture from the public recoveries that have been demanded of and received from Exxon.”)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001–3013.

See Trope J. F. Echo-Hawk W. R. , “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History,” Arizona State Law Journal 24, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 35–77, at 66.

25 USC § 3001 (3) (D).

25 USC § 3001 (3) (C).

See United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) (holding that 1877 federal statute extinguished tribal treaty rights to the Black Hills without payment of just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment); cf. Crow v. Gullet (D.S.D.) (Native claimants not protected by the First Amendment in efforts to protect the integrity of Bear Butte, a sacred site within the Black Hills).

25 U.S.C. 305–305(e) and amendments.

These claims were brought in federal court and in tribal court under different legal theories. For an excellent summary of the litigation, see Jessup Newton N. , “Memory and Misrepresentation: Representing Crazy Horse in Tribal Court,” in Ziff Rao , supra note 50; Herrera J. R. , “Not Even His Name: Is the Denigration of Crazy Horse Custer's Final Revenge?” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 29, no. 1 (1994): 175–195.

Id. (Herrera), at 186–87.

Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady , 819 F. Supp. 1227 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).

Hornell Brewing Co. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, 133 F.3d 1087, 1093–94 (8th Cir. 1998).

See McGregor J. , “Research Ethics for Genetic Research on Groups,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 3 (2007): 356–370.

See National Research Act, 42 USC § 289 and regulations codified at 34 CFR 46 (human subjects protections for federally funded research).

See Summary Meeting Report, American Indian and Alaska Native Genetics Research Policy Formulation Meeting, February 7–9, 2001, at 5. (The meeting was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Genome Research Institute.)

See D. Harry, S. Howard, B. L. Shelton, and the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB), “Indigenous Peoples, Genes and Genetics: What Indigenous People Should Know about Biocolonialism,” IPCB, May 2000, at 19–23; id; American Indian Law Center, Inc., Model Tribal Research Code, 3rd ed., September 1999, at 1–2.

Bowekaty M. B. , “Perspective on Research in American Indian Communities,” Jurimetrics 42 (Winter 2002): 145–48, at 147–48.

See Havasupai Tribe complaint, supra note 2.

See TallBear K. , “Narratives of Race and Indigeneity in the Genographic Project,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 3 (2007): 412–424.

See Whelan M. L. , “What, If Any, Are the Ethical Obligations of the U.S. Patent Office? A Close Look at the Biological Sampling of Indigenous Groups,” Duke Law and Technology Review, no. 14 (2006): at 5.

See TallBear , supra note 82; Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).

Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital, 264 F. Supp.2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003).

See Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823).

See TallBear , supra note 82.

Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton , 894 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Haw. 1995).

894 F. Supp., at 1403.

Id., at 1402–03.

Id., at 1403–04.

Id., at 1406.

Id., at 1409

Id., at 1409, n. 9.

Id., at 1418.

Id., at 1408.

Id., at 1407.

Id., at 1415–17.

Id., at 1410–14.

Id., at 1411–13.

Id., at 1413.

Id., at 1414.

Bonnichsen v. United States , 357 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2004).

357 F. 3d, at 979–80.

Id., at 966, 979.

Id., at 979.

See generally Clinton Goldberg Tsosie , supra note 55.

See, e.g., Tsosie R. , “Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights,” University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 47, no. 6 (2000): 1615–72,.

Deloria V. Jr. Wildcat D. R. , Power and Place: Indian Education in America (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 2001).

His Holiness the Lama Dalai , Ethics for the New Millennium (New York: Riverhead Books, 1999).