Do No Harm

Unit author: Brian Gilley (Alabama Creek, Cherokee)

Description

A complexification of the previous unit with a focus on the idea of non-maleficence or “do no harm” emphasizing the ways in which the potential for harm exists in all research and may be an unintended consequence of a project.

Do No Harm

In the previous unit, we studied the role of “non-maleficence” in ethical decisions concerning the Chaco Canyon DNA study at the NMNH.  In this unit we will further explore non-maleficence, which is also characterized as the principle of “do no harm.”

"Do no harm" originates in the field of medicine where doctors are continually required to ask themselves:  is the medical intervention (medicine, surgery, hospitalization) more harmful than the condition of the patient.  They must ask, is it better to do nothing than potentially cause more harm?

Unfortunately it has taken much longer for the principle of “do no harm” to find its way into social science research and the field of anthropology.  The social, historical and artistic nature of anthropological research creates difficulties for the researcher to see the potential for harm in their research.  Subdisciplines using art, antiquities, language and other non-organism forms of data for their research often see themselves as exempt from the possibilities of ‘doing harm’ to research subjects.  Yet, the act of producing knowledge about the history of a people, analyzing cultural objects, and sometimes preserving languages all have the potential for harm when seen through different cultural lenses.  One anecdote that has circulated among anthropologists for many years recounts the experiences of a Pueblo intern at the Smithsonian.  The Smithsonian has a large collection of Kachina dolls, which are sacred representations of deities in the Puebloan religion.  However, not every Pueblo person has the religious authority to interact with every Kachina and interacting with Kachinas can be spiritually dangerous for the uninitiated.  The story tells of a Pueblo student intern who encountered Kachinas too powerful for his status in the community.  As such the student was made ill by the experience and was required to return home to attend a ceremony to correct his exposure to the object.  The question becomes, was there unexpected maleficence because the Smithsonian staff did not warn the student about the presence of Kachinas in his workspace?

Learning Goals

• Describe the origins of the bioethical concept of do no harm
• Evaluate the potential for harm in research
• Compare cross-cultural perspectives on what constitutes harm
• Identify the unexpected possibilities of harm in a research project