Regarding Indigenous community research involving interviews and genomic analyses, which statements are true?

• A. Some Indigenous studies can meet minimal risk
• B. The REB determines minimal risk
• C. All of the above
• D. None of the above

Answer: (D)

In Indigenous community research, risk is not just about individuals; it also includes potential impacts on the community and how data, especially genomic data, are governed. TCPS2 emphasizes meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities, consent that respects communal as well as individual interests, and robust data governance. Because of these collective considerations, the idea that some Indigenous studies can simply meet minimal risk isn’t universally true. Even studies that protect individuals well may pose higher-than-minimal risk to a community if data could affect group integrity, rights to data ownership, or future uses beyond the original consent.

Risk assessment isn’t the sole job of the research ethics board in these contexts. While the board evaluates risks to participants, Indigenous research often requires community oversight, governance agreements, and consent processes that address collective risks and data sovereignty. Simply stating that the ethics board determines minimal risk overlooks these essential community dimensions that can influence what is considered acceptable risk.

So, neither statement fully captures how risk is determined in Indigenous genomic research. The appropriate conclusion is that none of the blanket claims apply universally; risk must be considered within both individual protections and community governance, and with active engagement from Indigenous communities.