Comparative Canadian Aboriginal perspectives on Draft Values and Ethics in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research.

Abstract

Introduction The paper by Gillam and Pyett is of direct relevance to researchers, ethicists, policy makers and community members working in the area of Aboriginal.' health in Canada. It describes and critically evaluates the ethical frameworks guiding research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia.s In our response to Gillam and Pyett's commentary we emphasize a comparative perspective describing divergent and parallel developments in ethics review of research in Aboriginal communities in Canada. A comparative perspective on the development of indigenous research ethics reflects parallels in the influence on both indigenous and research communities in Canada and Australia of (1) inequities in population health and service access within colonial and post-colonial environments, (2) growing demands for indigenous governance of health care and control/ownership of health research, (3) increased awareness of common interests and strategies between indigenous health professionals and researchers, particularly in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Gillam and Pyett's commentary- is particularly relevant to Canadians because it documents the historical development of research policies within the context of indigenous values and also explores pragmatic approaches to representing and protecting the interests of participants, communities and organizations through' an indigenous ethical review process. The Commentary proposes a framework for more effective implementation of the 'Draft' for Human Research Ethics Committees within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and external health research ethics committees through the development of three targeted documents. These documents would expedite value clarification, promote mutual respect and fair sharing of research benefits, and facilitate the development of