Dear Oaxacan friends and colleagues:
Though i have worked for over twenty years as a geographer in Oaxaca,
I have been reluctant to comment on the México Indígena project. In
part this is due to my lack of knowledge about the Bowman expeditions
other than what has been circulated in emails and what is available
from the México Indígena, Bowman Expedition, and US Foreign Military
Studies Office websites; in part it is due to a previous dispute with
Peter Herlihy over the character of the Oaxacan social movement.
However, I am deeply disappointed by their criticisms of Oaxacan NGOs
and NGO leaders who have devoted their lives to social causes. The
connections and character of Bowman efforts -- and statements by
Bowman expedition promoters -- do raise many legitimate questions: I
feel that the defenders of the Bowman expeditions would be better
served in undertaking a serious review to assess what efforts the
Bowman researchers might make to provide a systematic remedy that will
avoid violations -- or even the appearance of violations -- of
informed consent and confidentiality norms.
Apropos, I'm attaching a rather strongly worded statement calling for
new and strengthened geodata research protocols. Using the México
Indígena incident as a case study, I address what appear to be ethical
lapses under US research and geographic ethical guidelines. My
interest, however, is to focus on the development of geodata ethics
that would cover all geodata-producing research, including my own on
organic and fairtrade coffee. For this reason I am not going to
directly address the politics and ethics of funding the Bowman
Expeditions through military contracts.
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
I wish to call for a strengthening of geodata research protocols. As
concerns voiced by and about the México Indígena project indicate, and
as many have pointed out, this should serve as a wake-up call for all
of us who gather geodata regardless of source of financing or
disciplinary background. Speaking as a geographer, I would advocate:
1. A strengthening of the Association of American Geographers
(AAG) ethics statement to specify ‘full disclosure’ in greater detail;
and
2. A statement to the effect that geodata remains the intellectual
property of the originating peoples – indigenous or no – and should in
no case be removed from their physical control.
The México Indígena project raises many important questions. After
reading statements by México Indígena researchers, I remain
unconvinced that they had a coherent and systematic plan for
disclosing funding sources to each and every research participant.
Their approach appears rather to have been at best ad hoc. In my view,
a failure to fully disclose funding sources to research participants
in a systematic manner would violate the ethical principles of both
the Association of American Geographers (AAG) and the Belmont Report
(the standard for research ethics in the US).
Most importantly, ethical standards hold that a failure to inform
participants about all aspects of research that may pose a risk,
however minimal, abrogates the principal of informed consent, thus
violating participant’s rights. Certainly foreign military-funded
research does pose a risk, particularly within the context of an often
fraught and occasionally divisive village and inter-village political
scene that can have and has had real consequences for individuals and
families already pressured by political parties, divided by religious
factionalism, and torn by international migration.
Research Ethics in Geography
The scholars involved in México Indígena have carried out their
research under the auspices of the American Geographical Society (AGS)
– the second largest geographers’ association. I am not a member of
that organization, but would point out that México Indígena
researchers are also members of the larger AAG – to which I belong –
and hence bound by our ethical principles. They also received Internal
Review Board approval from the University of Kansas, and are thus
covered by Belmont Report principles. Each of these ethical frameworks
requires disclosure of information that is necessary for project
participants to make informed decisions. (In addition, one would do
well to reflect upon the politics and perhaps legality of undertaking
research in Mexico that is funded by the US military. I am fairly
certain that research funded by foreign militaries is not permitted in
the United States. It would also appear to be is highly questionable
under the Mexican Constitution’s ‘no intervención’ clause – unless the
Mexican military were also involved.)
The Belmont Report that guides US university researchers adheres to
the standard of ‘informed consent’. Under this rubric, each and every
study participant has the individual right to be fully informed of all
aspects of the research project in question in order to determine
whether or not s/he will agree to participate. The standard as
developed within the context of university-backed research furthermore
understands disclosure to be systematic, with each participant
receiving the same information, usually in written form. This is
required for, as the Belmont Report admonishes, we as researchers may
not be permitted to trust our own judgments where we have a vested
interest in the data that is to be gathered.
The ethical principles of the AAG require ‘full disclosure’ and
respect for persons. The AAG Statement on Professional Ethics, Section
A. Project Design and Development provides the following guidelines:
“Regardless of whether the information collected in the field is
intended for academic or practical application, researchers should
seek to anticipate the impacts of their field work prior to its
inception. It follows that they should design and complete projects in
a manner that, in so far as possible, protects and preserves the
animate and inanimate subjects of field research, and the persons who
assist in the realization of research goals. In cases where field
methods are invasive or may cause long-term alterations or
transformations to people and environments, strong justification as
well as appropriate safeguards are reasonable obligations. In such
situations, the costs and benefits of the research should be weighed
carefully while planning the field work--not once the work is
underway. There is a limit to what can reasonably be anticipated, but
at the outset geographers should be mindful of the potential uses of
the data generated by their field work over time. Issues to consider
include the rights of national or international agencies that fund
research to information; full disclosure requirements; potential
“misuses” of information by third parties; and the economic and
environmental impacts of projects.”
Certainly it does not appear that AAG standards are as strong as
Belmont Report standards, rather constituting a broad norm of respect.
However, AAG guidelines do direct researchers to respect full
disclosure requirements. The overarching ethical principle is that
researchers must actively seek to actively and systematically inform
each and every participant of all concerns related to the research,
both actual and potential. Collaboration with a third party such as a
Mexican University does not absolve researchers from the obligation to
provide for informed consent, nor does a mention of funding sources
during a professional meeting or on a website, nor the mention of the
relationship in a meeting in which not all of the participants are
present. The subject of informed consent is the community and each
research participant.
Did México Indígena meet the Belmont Report standard for informed
consent?
No, at least not in evidence presented thus far. Peter Herlihy’s
statements (‘AGS Bowman Expedition México Indígena Ethics’, n.d.)
suggest that México Indígena researchers did not meet the standard of
providing a systematic framework for informing each participant of
their funding by and relationship to the US Foreign Military Studies
Office. The discussion presented fails to address informed consent:
either the researchers systematically provided detailed information in
written statements about the FMSO and US Military funding in their
initial presentations – not in subsequent question and answer sessions
– or they did not. Likewise the presence of an FMSO representative at
one Huasteca session does not resolve the problem. Indeed this only
highlights the apparently ad hoc character of informational efforts
and raises further questions since foreign military personnel can only
be present in México with the permission of the Mexican military
authorities – which would presuppose cooperation between México
Indígena and Mexican military authorities that would also require
disclosure.
The memo's many examples in which the FMSO was mentioned deepen the
sense that communications where informal and unplanned, highlighting
the lack of a systematic method for informing participants about an
issue that, if controversial within the US academic community, is
doubly so for Mexican communities given the long history of US
intervention in Mexico and Latin America and the high rates of
migration that bring Mexican indigenous peoples to work in US and
Mexican cities. It matters not from an ethical standpoint whether the
FMSO or its personnel are good or bad, and even less what opinion we
in universities may have of them: the question is what Mexican
participants think about it and how they may calculate the pluses and
minuses of participation.
Is there a risk for Indigenous communities?
The key point is this: indigenous communities and the individuals
resident within them have the right to decide what is or is not risky.
The present political firestorm confronted by Mexican study
participants highlights risks that they confront. My twenty years of
working in Oaxacan indigenous communities has taught me that
communality can be quite fragile. Village social institutions are
reproduced year on year by collective labor and cargos; this same
unity may be undone by projects that sow dissention. This can also
have repercussions with relations between communities and other
communities, government bureaucracies and the many dozens of NGOs that
cultivate long-term relationships with communities. If a research
project produces an excellent map and yet leaves discord in its wake,
what then?
Certainly a mapping project can fill in a wealth of place names and
provide knowledge that is useful in subsequent community conservation
activities ranging from forest and endemic species conservation to
environmental services provisions such as clean water and carbon
sequestration and to certified activities such as fairtrade, organic,
and bird-friendly agriculture. There is no reason, however, why this
information needs to be removed from communities, particularly in
digital form. It can just as well be kept in community-controlled
computers and archives that, these days, are present in the vast
majority of Oaxacan indigenous communities and that are also needed
for environmental services and other work. This furthermore provides
an incentive for researchers to maintain long-term relationships and
continue supporting the skilled labor capabilities necessary to engage
with global conservation initiatives.
Other risks must include the potential for exposing participants to
harm when it becomes generally known that the research is funded in
part by a US military institution. During the period in question, a
guerrilla force publically announced its presence in the Sierra Juárez
region where the mapping took place. Mapping can also produce risks of
confrontation with other communities since boundaries between villages
are points of long-term, occasionally violent confrontations. Mapping
one village can inspire attempts to claim new land, or serve corrupt
authorities in their attempts to claim and then resell land to
developers as has happened recently in other Oaxacan regions. I hope
that the boundary mapping was undertaken as a consensual exercise
between communities with shared borders.
Finally, the transformation of geodata from an oral indigenous
knowledge to digital data is a conversion that alters the character of
the information: What was knowledge that was protected from outsiders
through language barriers and a community structure that includes
certain gatekeepers becomes digital information that can easily be
copied, transmitted, traded, and modified, and, given the realities of
computer literacy and access, is in most cases less controllable by
the communities who originally generated it. In this case, the
researcher now becomes the new information broker with ethical
responsibilities that require explicit professional standards.
Is the México Indígena data confidential? Who can use it for future
purposes?
This question is prompted by Peter Herlihy’s 2006 interview for the
Lawrence Journal World and News:
LJWorld.com (Lawrence Journal World and News)
Exploring the world anew: Expeditions touted as modern intelligence
gathering By Sophia Maines
October 23, 2006
‘The researchers have traveled to La Huasteca and Oaxaca. They have
taught the residents cartography and used their knowledge to develop
maps of the area. They're gathering information about property,
demographics and who buys and who sells each parcel of land.
‘They share what they gather with the residents, but Herlihy also sees
other uses for the information. Much of the ejido land is forested, he
said, thus the fate of the land has implications for environmental
conservation. And the land changes also affect immigration, he said.
‘The Kansas City nonprofit SmartPort Inc. is pressing ahead with plans
to turn Kansas City into an inland port for shipments from Mexico,
allowing goods to pass over the Mexican border freely and to go
through customs in Kansas City.
‘Herlihy said the research in Mexico also can benefit SmartPort
planners by offering information about the areas along the Mexican
railway.
‘ "They can take this information and use it for all kinds of things
to really understand what they call the cultural terrain," Herlihy
said. "You can't even predict all the uses." ‘
Given that the geodata collected by México Indígena would appear to be
available for commercial uses, I am led to ask what is meant by
confidentiality? Are México Indígena researchers free to make whatever
use they will of the data as long as they do not share the ‘raw’
personal data with others? Who is included in the ‘confidential’
group? Is SmartPort included? What about Radiance Technologies (the
military contractor that has supported the México Indígena group)?
Given these statements, it is entirely understandable that Oaxacans,
whether in NGOs or villages, voice doubts about México Indígena.
Bowman Expedition researchers would do well to work to improve the
systematic character of informed consent and confidentiality
procedures rather than disparage the character of NGO representatives
who raise legitimate questions about the Bowman Expeditions.
Conclusion: Geodata is a form of intellectual property
In retrospect, the AAG’s decision to include its statements with
regard to full disclosure in the ‘design’ section is entirely correct:
decisions with regard to disclosure need to be made systematically and
with each participant to ensure that the requirements of informed
consent are respected. Both AAG and Belmont Report ethics frameworks
are in agreement with the principle that research participants cannot
consent to participation unless each participant is fully informed
about the research in question. I have argued, however, that language
defining full disclosure needs to be tightened and adjusted to better
specify the requirements of informed consent with respect to geodata.
Again, it may be that México Indígena researchers were undermined by a
lack of a clear system for informing participants about military
connections and would be willing to contribute to such an effort.
Secondly, many problems identified may be remedied if researchers
agree to:
1.
Recognize that geodata is a form of intellectual property;
2.
Provide contractual protection for originator’s rights; and
3.
Agree not to remove geodata from originating communities.
This final point is problematic. In places such as Oaxaca, village
authorities may well be able to keep, manage, and make good use of
geodata produced in collaborative research projects, and researchers
would then be motivated to develop long-term relationships with
communities to help with subsequent environmental conservation, land
management, organic agricultural, or other activities of interest.
Researchers certainly should be able to undertake analysis within
village contexts. For other contexts such as urban neighborhoods,
comparable local authorities may not exist, raising questions about
who would hold the corresponding intellectual property rights and
databases. In addition, there are many legal issues with respect to
intellectual property contract rights that must be carefully addressed.
I hasten to add that these thoughts are preliminary and are meant only
to suggest a few points of departure for a rethinking of geodata
ethics. Although I do not agree with México Indígena’s politics
regarding military contracting of international research, I believe
that the problem of geodata rights is more extensive and should
include NGO and scientific community funded research as well.
Tad Mutersbaugh
University of Kentucky