This paper discusses the implications of traditional tikanga Māori practices with Genetic scientific research. The paper can be downloaded directly from here.

Objectives

There are four primary objectives for this research:

1. To show a direct relationship between traditional Māori tikanga and cosmology to explain why tikanga is applicable to genomic research.
2. To review the current guidelines for dealing with Māori and genomics.
3. To review the current guidelines for dealing with Māori and biobanks.
4. Create awareness for the need for new guidelines for Māori and genomics.

Background

In its simplest sense whakapapa is genealogy, in a wider sense whakapapa attempts to impose a relationship between an iwi and the natural world. Moreover, whakapapa is a metaphysical framework constructed to place oneself within the world (Tau, 2003). Whakapapa is no longer an oral or written tradition involving tracing a person’s genealogical descent using recorded names.

Since the early 2000’s, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and genomics has provided a genetic and biological form of whakapapa. Examination of DNA variations can provide clues about where a person’s ancestors might have come from and about relationships between families (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2018). Whakapapa is the genealogical descent of all living things, from gods to the present time. Everything has a whakapapa; birds, fish, animals, trees and every other living thing; soil, rocks and mountains have a whakapapa (Barlow, 1991).

Human genome research may be seen by Māori as interference with the basic structure of relationships between generations and between species, which is central to both the practical and spiritual aspects of Māori life (Gibbs, 1996).

Māori are actively motivated to settle treaty claims, seek the return of stolen land, resolve cultural misappropriation and ensure the repatriation of mokomokai as these are all taonga. However, when the most tapu of all taonga ‘whakapapa’ is stolen and researched with DNA tests, there is little understanding or attention to the theft and usage of Māori whakapapa. Māori often pay money to international corporates such as ancestory.com for DNA testing, thus placing their whakapapa and genomic data at risk of exploitation and ownership transfer.

DNA companies use DNA samples for the purpose of further research, analysis and potential commodity in overseas countries (Winston, 2017). Genomics is likely to be the new repatriation challenge for Māori within the next decade as Māori fight to regain sole ownership and access to their whakapapa. Terms of service by Ancestory.com and other popular DNA testing sites require consumers to assign full Intellectual Property Rights to the corporation who will then analyse, sell and modify DNA for commercial reasons, profit and redistribution (Winston, 2017).

In addition to the international conglomerates, Māori scientists and academics in the genomic field believe that within the next five years, all New Zealand medical records could contain every person’s complete genome. It is becoming more and more common for a person’s genomics to be made freely available on the Internet for other researches to study the genomes (BGI-Shenzhen, 2015). The issue of bioterrorism that scientists assert is already a feasible scientific weapon, is now a reality (Ackley, Greene, & Lowrey, 2003). Bioterrorism needs to be carefully considered as a possible outcome of genome misappropriation. Linked closely to bioterrorism is the proposed regeneration of extinct animals, that is currently being discussed and proposed by international scientists, for example the genomics of Huia and Moa birds are two popular candidates for regeneration (Neill, 2013).

Introduction

This paper discusses the implications of traditional tikanga Māori practices with Genomic scientific research.

Traditional knowledge and cosmology are the foundation of all tikanga, therefore stories that directly apply to genetics and genomics are used to introduce tikanga Māori and genomics, as in appropriate for scholarly understanding of a conjoined non-western and western academic framework.

The research begins by discussing cosmology as cosmology is the foundation of all tikanga Māori. The paper then discusses future forecasting of current and emerging scientific advancements of genomics.

The paper does not intend to state that there is one Māori world view. Mead (2016) asserts that in 1979 it was obvious that few people really understood tikanga, and this included our own people. This is likely due to the fact that Māori culture has been integrated into European culture for over three centuries by colonisation, intermarriage, introduced and forced western religion, urbanisation, politicians and educationalists encouraging the move away from Māori culture and government imposed assimilation.

This paper attempts to analyse the evolution of tikanga Māori in today’s rapidly changing and growing scientific and technological environment.

This research is based upon published literature, and discussions from the 2018 cohort of Aotearoa Summer Genomics held in Wellington and associated Facebook discussion groups.

Genomics: a western perspective

Classical genetics is the study of heredity, how characteristics and traits (phenotypes) of a living organism are transmitted from one generation to the next. This occurs via deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a double helix molecule in the cell’s nucleus that comprises genes—the basic unit of heredity.

Genomics is the next evolution of classical genetics, and only recently became possible due to significant advances in DNA sequencing and computational biology. In 2003 scientists collaborating on the Human Genome Project, identified all 3.2 billion DNA base pairs in the human genome (Collins, Morgan, & Patrinos, 2003).

While genetic research looks at the function of specific genes, genomic research looks at the functions of groups of genes and their interactions with the environment (M. Hudson et al., 2016b). Genomic researchers analyze DNA-sequence data to find variations that affect health, disease or drug response, or identify ancestors and cultures.

Genomics is associated with the structure, function, evolution, and mapping of genomes, which forms the basis of all biotechnology and genetic modification that science has the ability to experiment.

The extracted information is then stored in databases (often in the public domain) overseas. It is common for people to make their genome data freely available on the internet for others to analyse and research (Haeusermann et al., 2017). Any data that is stored in an overseas database is within the jurisdiction of that specific country. For example, in the United States of America, the Patriotic Act 2001 gives the US government full access and ownership to data stored in the US, this includes genomics (Etzioni, 2004).

Human and native species genes are being treated by science in the same way that indigenous “artefacts” were gathered by museums; collected, stored, immortalized, reproduced, engineered – all for the sake of humanity and public education. Western science goes to great lengths to de-humanize the humanness or life-force of human genes; hence, terms such as “specimens,” “materials,” “properties,” and “collections” are adopted as a means to ignore the essence of life contained within (Mead, 1996).

Genomics a Māori perspective

Traditionally whakapapa was only shared orally. With scientific advances in genetics, DNA and genomes are a biotechnological form of whakapapa. Cosmology stories and tikanga speak of the need to be careful with any part of the body. Human hair, blood, finger nails and other parts of the body were believed to be used by tohunga to attack the wellbeing of a person or their relatives.

Genomics is a human or any individual living organism’s (and those who have died) complete whakapapa of existence for all of eternity, encapsulating its past, present and future. It contains the whakapapa from Io, Te Po, Ranginui and Papatuanku, including all information that make up the physical, spiritual and cognitive memories of the individual, and includes information about all future generations of an individual’s offspring for eternity. A genome therefore is tapu as it contains whakapapa, mauri and wairua of tipuna, the living and the future generations.

Definition of Tikanga Māori

It is important to consider that four centuries of Christian, government lead assimilation and colonial influences has distorted what tikanga Māori is.

Prior to colonisation and the forced introduction of Christianity and colonial laws; Māori social, legal, political and spiritual realms of society were self-governed by intergenerational rules, values, ideologies and customary practices, called tikanga.

A common argument against tikanga is that it is no longer relevant. The same is often said of the Holy Bible and religion. Others believe that the Treaty of Waitangi is also obsolete in this age (Archie, 1995). Tikanga and the Treaty of Waitangi are both relevant and are unique building blocks for modern day New Zealand society. For many Māori, traditional tikanga is still applicable and highly relevant, though for some it is just instinct that cannot be described.

New Zealanders are familiar with many traditional tikanga such as pōwhiri and tangi. Breaching tikanga and suffering the consequences are a widely held belief among many Iwi and individuals (Stirling & Salmond, 1985). There are a number of sources that reference unexplained bad luck or the tikanga of makutu that occurred after breaking tikanga (O’Biso, 1999, Stirling & Salmond, 1985).

Tikanga Māori gives clear cultural guidelines about how we treat one another and how the human body is regarded. Every part of a human person or ira tangata is treated as tapu (sacred) and comes complete with the attributes of that person. All body parts, even severed limbs, are buried at the urupā as each body part includes the human gene – it is a part of ira tangata and therefore tapu. As descendants of ira atua, Māori are of an inter-related universe. Tikanga shows that we have to respect all forms of life and take some responsibility as kaitiaki (guardians) over te ao marama (the world of light) (Mead, 2004, p.1).

Tikanga has always been flexible, adaptable and able to be interconnected to fit with the demands of the moment or as new circumstances arise, including technology and science. Universities have Iwi and Māori consultations as a part of their ethics committees, including for sciences and technology.

The New Zealand Law Commission defines tikanga

“as well as common law, Māori custom law or tikanga must also be taken in to account. While there is ongoing debate and discussion as to the precise status of tikanga within New Zealand legal systems, there is no doubt that consideration of tikanga and its underlying values will be taken into account by the courts when adjudicating disputes involving Māori deceased or Māori custom. Rules and customary practices based on tikanga have also evolved over hundreds of years and give expression to the fundamental principles, values, and beliefs which underpin Māori culture. (New Zealand Law, 2013, p.17).

Mead (2016) defines tikanga as “Referring to the ethical and common law issues that underpin the behavior of members of whānau, hapū and iwi as they go about their lives and especially when then engage in the cultural, social, ritual and economic ceremonies of their society” (p,16).

Relevance of Tikanga Māori with genomics

An analysis of research by and for Māori, seeking opinions about genetic engineering, obtained from nineteen focus groups, and 94 informants with tikanga Māori knowledge, identified four primary relevant tikanga (Pihama et al., 2015). The primary tikanga were: Tapu, Wairua, Mauri and Kaitiakitanga of Whakapapa.

In addition Hutchings (2004) identified seven tikanga Māori concerns that are widely shared with other Indigenous Peoples regarding DNA and genomic research:

1. Breaches of culture
2. Use of Indigenous knowledge to create new biotechnological inventions
3. Lack of consultation with Indigenous Peoples
4. Lack of benefits to Māori people
5. Inability of Intellectual Property Laws to protect Māori and their traditional knowledge.
6. Loss of control of traditional knowledge
7. Commercialisation of genetic materials

In addition to the seven concerns identified, Hutchings (2004) highlights that “unique to Māori is the threat that genetic research could threaten sovereign rights and recognition of the Treaty of need Waitangi” (p 9.). Māori are given Tino Rangatiratanga of taonga including plants, animals and their own bodies (New Zealand Waitangi, 2003). Hutchings (2004) goes onto suggest that “there are three tikanga principles of genetics: Mauri, whakapapa and kaitiakitanga” (p 12.).

Hutchings (2007) relies on Māori feedback from the early 2000s from the consultation of Genetic Modification to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM). The feedback is consistent with Beaton et al. (2017); Hudson et al. (2016); Hutchings, J. (2004); Mead, A. T. P. (1996); Mead, A. T. P. (1998); Mead, S. M. (2016); New Zealand. Waitangi, T. (2003); Pihama et al. (2015); Pihama, L., Southey, K., Tiakiwai, S. (2015) who all state that the primary tikanga that effects genetic research is Kaitiakitanga, Tapu, Mauri, Wairua and Whakapapa.

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission recognises the need to include Māori spirituality as a fundamental tikanga. Maori spirituality is an inherent part of tikanga Maori, linking mana Atua, mana whenua and mana tangata. The recognition and protection of tikanga Maori (culture), in accordance with international human rights standards and with the Treaty of Waitangi, therefore cannot be separated from Maori spiritual beliefs (New Zealand Human Rights, 2004, p.2)

Primary Tikanga associated with genomics

Mauri and Wairua

In a Māori world view, all elements of the natural worlds, including humans and genetic materials, are related and are linked by the possession of mauri – the life force. In direct contrast to a Māori world view, western science goes to great lengths to de-humanize the humanness or life-force of human genes; hence, terms such as “specimens,” “materials,” “properties,” and “collections” are adopted as a means to ignore the essence of life contained within (Mead, 1996).

Mauri is a special power possessed by Io which makes it possible for everything to move and live in accordance with the conditions and limits of its existence. Everything has a Mauri, including people, fish, animals, birds, forests, land, seas, rivers: the Mauri is the power with permits these living things to exist within their own realm and sphere. No one can control their own Māori or life essence. When a person is born, the gods bind the two parts of the body and spirit together. Only the Mauri or power of Io can join them together (Barlow, 1991)

Whakapapa

Whakapapa is the genealogical descent of all living things from gods to the present time. It is the basic fundamental principal of Māori society. Everything has a whakapapa; birds, fish, animals, trees and every other living thing; soil, rocks and mountains have a whakapapa (Barlow, 1991). It is then clear that the human genome may be seen by Māori as interference with the basic structure of relationships between generations and between species, which is central to both the practical and spiritual aspects of Māori life (Gibbs, 1996).

Cosmological whakapapa, often recited in the form of chants, describe the origins of the universe from an ultimate cause (Roberts et al., 2004).

Whakapapa has always been a guarded secret to protect iwi and hapū succession rights to land and natural resources. The introduction of genomic research adds other complexities to whakapapa knowledge and further caution is necessary to prevent corporations from easily identifying and owning whakapapa.

Kaitiakitanga

Kaitiakitanga is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991 as the exercise of guardianship buy the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori in relation to natural and physical resources, and includes the ethic of stewardship based on the nature of the resource itself.

The most fundamental concern for Māori is to maintain the exclusive guardianship rights and responsibilities of individuals to ensure the safety of and non-interference with their multigenerational whakapapa (Te Whāiti, McCarthy, & Durie, 1997)

Article’s I, II, III of the Treaty of Waitangi assert that Māori are guaranteed the right to exercise ownership over their taonga. Taonga resources in this sense, include significant species and traditional knowledge that might be used to create new life forms or be the subject of a patent (Putahi, 1999).

The storage of DNA also needs consideration, the tapu knowledge of our ancestors being treated less humanely than mokomokai. Mokomokai have laws to protect them and international agreements to return them back to their ancestral lands (UNESCO, 1970, N.Z. Stat, 1975,Shyllon, 2012).

Tapu

Every part of a human person or ira tangata is treated as tapu (sacred) and comes complete with the attributes of that person. Nowadays all body parts, even severed limbs, are buried at the urupā as each body part includes the human gene – it is a part of ira tangata and therefore tapu. (Mead, 2004)

Hair, blood, mucus, the main sources used by westerners to collect DNA, are all tapu. In past times, touching the hair or even the hair comb of a Chief was punishable by death (Mead, 1996).

Knowledge of death is for none but the spirit called “Te Ringa Kaha o Aituā”, who traditional knowledge tells how she comes to collect the spirit of a person about to die. Analysis of a genome will show inherited diseases and the probability of death by a certain disease is in contrast to the science.

Māori cosmology

The purpose of any people’s evolutionary framework is and always will be the social, cultural and ethical values that are promoted amongst one’s members (Mead, 1998). Traditional Māori stories of cosmology, discuss knowledge of the human genome and the use of genetic engineering for both purposes of evil, trickery and health, including a caution that whakapapa can be changed and new creatures inadvertently created.

Cosmological narratives provide Māori with the whakapapa of existence and connection to everything. Every species of marine life, flora, fauna, animal, natural condition, natural object and any other natural species endemic to Aotearoa can be traced back to Ranginui and Papatuanku. These narratives promote concepts of integrity and inter-dependency of living things with the natural environment. Māori have a spiritual and cultural inter-relationship with nature that cannot be viewed as separate. However, indigenous cosmological views are often discounted in a post Darwin reductionist construct of ‘modern’ science or biology (Mead, 1998).

Maui had intimate knowledge of human and animal genomics. The story of Irawaru discusses how he was married to Maui’s sister Hina. But Maui became annoyed at his Brother in Law one day after fishing and turned him into a dog. After the genetic modification of Irawaru, Hina committed suicide by throwing herself into the ocean and became deformed by the exposure. Hina’s other brothers Ihuatami and Ihuweriweri found her disfigured body, revived her and changed her disfigurement back to her previous beautiful looks (Pomare & Cowan, 1987, p.134-135, Best, 1922, p.360).

Other stories of humans being able to change themselves into animals are also common. Maui transformed himself in to a pigeon on several occasions in order to visit the underworld (Pomare & Cowan, 1987, p.134).

Perhaps the most useful idea of changing forms and crossing domains of the gods is the story of Tāwhaki giving his blind grandmother Whaitiri sight again (Mead, 2016, p.377).

Tane Mahuta used his knowledge of human and animal genomics to create a new living creature. Tane is the deity of human and plant/tree genomes. Tane in his quest to quell his intimate desires for a woman, he began creating living species out of the earth. Through many errors Tane created plants, trees, shrubs and everything that lives in forests, trolls, monsters and many other living creatures. Eventually with the help of his brother Tumatauenga, Tane created the first woman Hineahuone. Tumatuenga stood beside the newly created form that Tane created and tore off a piece of his chest, giving it to the form, saying “Now it will have a heart of courage like mine” (Robinson, 2005).

Declarations, laws and Treaties recognising Tikanga Māori

There are a number of treaties and government agreements that are consistently mentioned in the genetic modification literature in response to the Royal enquiry of genetics: The Treaty of Waitangi, Declaration of Indigenous Rights, Mataatua Declaration and Wai 262. Each recognises the uniqueness of tikanga Māori and the governments responsibilities to recognise and uphold these values.

Hutchings (2007) collaborates the statements made by Mead (1998) that “Te Tiriti, The Declaration of Independence, Maatatua Declaration and United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights are also applicable to Māori tikanga and genomics. If governments recognise these obligations then protecting tikanga Māori will be more achievable.

Since 2000, and despite a large financial investment by the New Zealand government to develop genomics, there is still no Māori consultation and community input into the benefits, detriments and cultural issues of Māori and genomics. In 2017, the New Zealand government announced it is investing $35 million in a new cross-institutional Advanced Genomics Research Platform that will produce high quality research capability for the whole science sector (Ministry of Business and Employment, 2017).

Statutory Recognition of Tikanga Māori

In Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188, Chilwell J applied Public Trustee v Loasby (1908) 27 NZLR 801 to find that “customs and practices which include a spiritual element are cognisable in a Court of law provided they are properly established, usually by evidence.” He held that “Maori spiritual and cultural values could not be excluded from consideration if the evidence established the existence of spiritual, cultural, and traditional relationships to natural water held by a particular and significant group of Maori people.

It has been argued that tikanga Māori and religion have enough in common that the legislative protection of tikanga has the potential to affect New Zealand’s status as a secular State and its protection of religious freedoms (Wright, 2007). Furthermore, Wright recommends that legislative references to tikanga Māori should come with a clear statement of purpose. In addition, many tikanga Māori provisions should prompt advice to the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, even though few may ultimately warrant a section 7 report being tabled in Parliament.

Legal recognition of a gene

A gene and genomics is biodata and needs to be considered as data. While indigenous peoples have long claimed sovereign status over their lands and territories, debates about ‘data sovereignty’ have been dominated by national governments and multinational corporations focused on issues of legal jurisdiction. Missing from those conversations have been the inherent and inalienable rights and interests of indigenous peoples relating to the collection, ownership and application of data about their people, lifeways and territories (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016).

In New Zealand a gene cannot be patented. Section 16 of The Patent Examination Manual states that a gene cannot be patented (Intellectual Property Office New Zealand, 2018). Section 16 states:

(1)           Human beings, and biological processes for their generation, are not patentable inventions.

(2)           An invention of a method of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy is not a patentable invention.

(3)           An invention of a method of diagnosis practiced on human beings is not a patentable invention.

(4)           A plant variety is not a patentable invention.

(5)           For the purposes of subsection (4), plant variety has the same meaning as that given to the term variety in section 2 of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987.

The Patent manual does not stop an international company from taking a genome and applying for a patent or even assuming copyright ownership of it in an overseas jurisdiction. A patent on a gene or a DNA sequence covers anything that is derived from it, and ay extend to all plants, animals, micro-organisms, drugs and diagnostic tests that have been developed with the aid of the patented gene (GeneWatch, 2000).

Indigenous Peoples genes have been patented in the past without their knowledge. Secretary Ron Brown on behalf of the US Department of Commerce filed patent claims on the human cell lines of Indigenous Peoples from the Solomon Islands (Hutchings, 2007).

 

The Treaty of Waitangi

Articles I, II, III of the Treaty relate directly to the topic of genetics and genomics. Article I discuss good governance and partnerships; Article II, Tino Rangatiratanga incorporating the rights of self-determination and tribal self-development, active protection of taonga; Article III equality between Māori and other citizens of New Zealand.

The Treaty of Waitangi principles of partnership, participation and protection provide a framework for identifying Māori ethical issues, or Tikanga in terms of; rights, roles and responsibilities of researchers and Māori communities; the contribution that research makes towards providing useful and relevant outcomes; and addressing inequalities. All research in New Zealand is of interest to Māori, and research which includes Māori is of paramount importance to Māori (Hudson,2010).

Successful governments have failed to recognise its Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities to partner with Māori and to consider that DNA is a taonga, despite over 18 years of failed consolation with Māori about genetic engineering. The predecessor to Genomics was genetic modification which the New Zealand government established The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (Eichelbaum & New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic, 2001). The feedback from Māori consultations were ignored (Jackson, 2001).

WAI 262

Commonly known as the indigenous flora and fauna and cultural and intellectual property claim, or as WAI 262, this claim addresses the ownership and use of Māori traditional knowledge, cultural expressions and indigenous species of flora and fauna, all of which are known as taonga, and of inventions and products derived from indigenous flora and fauna and/or utilizing Māori knowledge.

In 2003, the fear was the scientists would discover how to map the genome and this claim was to protect Māori rights with taonga including the genome. The claim was never addressed but is still valid and contains a foundation of tikanga Māori and genomic concepts, including: Mātauranga, whanaungatanga, kaitiakitanga, kaitiaki, taonga, taonga works, taonga-derived works.

The tribunal found that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to ensure that guardian relationships between Māori and their taonga were acknowledged and protected. The tribunal recommended that future laws, policies and practices do acknowledge and respect those relationships.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday, 13 September 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favor, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine) (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2011). In 2010, New Zealand endorsed the declaration.

There are a number of sections in the deceleration that should be considered with genomic research. The following sections offer recognition and protection to tikanga values 1,2,3,7,8,9,11,12,15,16,21, 25, 27, 31, 39.

Mataatua Declaration on the cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In 1993, all of the nine iwi of Mataatua Bay of Plenty convened the First International Conference on the Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Mataatua Declaration must be considered with all DNA and genomic research. The Mataatua Declaration states that indigenous people are willing to share their knowledge with humanity provided their fundamental rights to define and control their knowledge is respected. Furthermore, that indigenous peoples are not anti-science or anti-development, but they do want their integrity of life and cultural knowledge to be respected. This statement allows for genomic research in a tikanga appropriate manner.

De-extinction and tikanga Māori

Advances in technology means that bringing back extinct species is no longer science fiction (Zimmer, 2013). De-extinction has been acknowledged as a real scientific proposition that scientists, conservationists and bioethicists are taking seriously enough to start shifting the frame of questions from ‘is this technology possible to considering its implementation (Neill, 2013). In New Zealand de extinction is outlawed. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO Act) is the main legal hurdle to potential developers of de-extinct species in New Zealand.

The Waitangi Tribunal states that, “[f]or kaitiaki, there can be no relationship with taonga if the taonga no longer exist; nor, without the taonga, can the mātauranga survive” Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: Taumata Tuarua (Legislation Direct 2011) Vol 1 [4.5.8] p340. Thus the question is raised whether kaitiakitanga continues in a species’ or a humans genetic resources when extinct. The answer is yes, as it has whakapapa.

Hybridisation is another technology used for de-extinction. The genome of a close relative is used as the foundation for the extinct species’ chromosomal and cellular structure. Genes for particular traits are then spliced to form a genetic hybrid which is physiologically like the extinct species. This is simpler than attempting to rebuild a genome and cellular structure from scratch.

Tikanga Māori Test

The Tikanga Test first proposed by Sir Hirini Moko Mead is a process of analysis to assist informed decision making regarding tikanga issues that need to be considered. It is also used to show how to act appropriately with tikanga issues (Mead, 2016).

This research proposes the addition of two more tests that reflect the myriad of publications about Māori views of genetics, Whakapapa and Kaitiakitanga. It is important to not confuse tikanga with Christian values or other cultural values, but to focus on the tikanga Māori values.

Test 1: The Tapu test

Consideration as to if the topic in question is tapu? (Mead, 2016).

Genomics is tapu as it is a new form of whakapapa and can be traced back to Io, Ranginui and Papatuanuku. A genome is the complete whakapapa of the individual from whom it was extracted, in addition to all of that individual’s past, present and future offspring.

Test 2: The mauri aspect

Does the topic have a mauri aspect? (Mead, 2016).

All living things including all the children of Tane have a mauri. Genomics is a living organisism therefore it must have a mauri. If the genetic sample is digitised, the mauri will be transferred from one living realm to another.

As a genome contains whakapapa of past, present and future the mauri of many generations of people are contained within the genome. Consideration must also be given to keeping a mauri alive of a dead person or thing.

Test 3: The Take-utu-ea or TUE test

If a breach of tapu and or mauri is established or is seen to be an issue, this step needs to be enacted upon. (Mead, 2016).

Take

This test involves a discussion of everyone involved with the topic to recognise that there is a breach of tapu or that there will be a breach. If there are non Māori or Māori who do not understand tikanga, this test will be difficult and should be managed uniquely for each situation. (Mead, 2016).

This research has clearly identified four primary tikanga that all constitute tapu. The cosmological story of Tane provides a warning to today’s society that genetic modification has risks. Having the knowledge of a genome and acting without the best interests of the wider community also has ramifications.

This research has proved that it is not possible to consult everyone involved with the topic. This breaches the Tapu test.

Utu

Once a breach of tapu has been agreed upon the most appropriate form of utu must be considered. Using one issue at a time; Consideration of who (people, gods etc.) are implicated in the breach? Why the breach? Is it to harm or benefit people? Before carrying out the new deed, was there an assessment of the likelihood of damage to the wellbeing of the people who will benefit from the results, technology or modifications? (Mead, 2016).

Society cannot ignore the fact that genomics is a modern-day necessity to assist with medical and scientific research that impacts the individual. Māori must mitigate the risks associated with genomic research and take ownership and recognition of their taonga. Detailed research into tikanga Māori issues and a review of current literature pertaining to tikanga ethics would be required.

Ea

The final desired state where a state of satisfaction where a sequence has been successfully closed, relationships have been restored, or peaceful interrelationships have been secured. (Mead, 2016).

The first step on this process is to recognise from a government and iwi leaders level that tikanga Māori is applicable to genomic research. The next option could be to create a state of satisfaction for Māori and to restore relationships could be the creation of a Māori/Iwi owned and controlled gene bank that has traditional Maori tikanga intertwined into its business processes.

Test 4: The precedent aspect

Is there a whakapapa to which the new event can be linked, or whether there is a model in our traditions that might help people understand the event and how to respond to it? (Mead, 2016).

This research has identified several cosmology stories and gods that are directly related to genomic research.

Scientific research has been in the public domain since 1999 stating that the revival of extinct species is possible once the genome of a species is discovered. Two examples of revival proposals are the revival of the Huia and Moa birds. The Huia and Moa bird have significant whakapapa and spiritual meanings to some Iwi. Reviving an extinct species interferes with the natural cycle of life.

Genetic control of New Zealand pests is another concern. Scientists are proposing a genetic weapon to remove possums from the life cycle. It is unknown what the implications are to the native forests in New Zealand that Tane created. The genetic weapon could harm the Mānuka which is the tuakana of the forest.

The genetic weapon could quickly skip the ocean and eradicate the possum population in Australia. This creates a new Indigenous issue for Australian Aborigines who use the possum for sacred cloaks.

Test 5: The principles aspect

It is possible that the first four tests are not applicable, in which case this the principles test should be applied. (Mead, 2016).

Test 5.1: Whanaungatanga

If the person seeking assistance is a blood relative, one is obliged to be helpful. It is expected that such assistance is given and provided. This principle and value can be extended to hapū, iwi and a wider constellation of non-kin colleagues or sympathisers. (Mead, 2016).

This test is not as relevant as the other tests as no one person or one whānau can claim ownership rights to a genome.

Test 5.2: Manaakitanga

The positive human behavior and encouragement of others to rise above their personal attitudes and feelings towards others and towards the issues they believe in. Being hospitable and looking after one’s visitors is given priority. The aim is to nurture relationships and reset the mana of other people no matter what their standing in the community is. To be prepared to listen to both sides of an argument on any particular issue. If an individual does not live up to the values of manaakitanga it will bring shame to the individual, their whanau, hapū and iwi. (Mead, 2016).

This test is not as relevant as the other tests as no one person or one whānau can claim ownership rights to a genome.

Test 5.3: Mana

An event should not damage the mana of the patient, consumer or anyone else involved with the event. Ideally a new event should enhance the mana of everyone involved. The idea needs have some basic ethical standards and should not be seen as being morally wrong, or at the least very doubtful. (Mead, 2016).

If an individual provides a genetic sample form their body, they will be denying the mana of all of their past, present and future descendants. It is morally wrong to give away something that is collectively owned.

Test 5.4: Noa

The stage of normality whereby a new idea is accepted, incorporated into the thinking of people and no longer is a cause for controversy. (Mead, 2016).

To be able to accept that genomics is noa, there will need to be widespread acceptance and understanding of the tikanga associated with genomics. Then genomic research must respect the tapu nature of a genome and act accordingly.

Test 5.5 tika

Ask the question if the event/cure/technology/miracle etc. is ethically, culturally, spiritually and medically right. If yes, then it is tika. If there are any doubts or second thoughts about the decision, it could mean it is not passing the critical test about what is right. (Mead, 2016).

No. Before this stage can be discussed, the Noa test must be able to be fully discussed.

A Critique of (S. M. Mead, 2016) Tikanga Test

The tikanga test forms a basis that requires additional steps to make it applicable for digital and scientific testing including genomics.

The following are proposed steps to be read in conjunction with the Tikanga test.

Whakapapa test

Whakapapa is the foundation of traditional Māori social structure and it perpetuates a value base that locates people through their relationships to the physical and spiritual worlds (Hudson, Ahuriri-Driscoll, Lea, & Lea, 2007).

Test 1: Does the topic have whakapapa?

Yes, genomics is whakapapa that has only recently been able to be analysed and understood.

Privacy Test

Who has access to the data once the testing is completed. Is it only the individual, whanau, hapū or Iwi?

Genomics will be shared with multiple corporations, government agencies and at this time considering New Zealand’s lack of Big Data infrastructure, the data will be housed within international data warehouses. The will be no privacy of the individual., whanau, Hapū and Iwi.

Treaty of Waitangi and Mataatua Declaration Test

Do Māori have control of their knowledge and is that knowledge being respected? Has the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 been considered? Section 8 Treaty of Waitangi states All persons exercising powers and functions under this Act shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

No. Genomics is shared with multiple corporations, government agencies and at this time considering New Zealand’s lack of Big Data infrastructure, the data will be housed within international data warehouses that do not recognise The Treaty of Waitangi or the Mataatua Declaration.

The will be no privacy of the individual., whanau, Hapū and Iwi.

UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights test

Does the topic reflect accurately and consider the UN Deceleration of Indigenous Peoples rights?

No. Genomics is shared with multiple corporations, government agencies and at this time considering New Zealand’s lack of Big Data infrastructure, the data will be housed within international data warehouses that predominately did not sign or recognise the UN Declaration.

Literature review

Te Mata Ira Guidelines for Genomic Research with Māori (Hudson et al., 2016b); Te Ara Tika (Hudson, 2010); (Hudson et al., 2016a)

Introduction

Te Ara Tika is the health industries ethical guidelines for dealing with Māori (Hudson et al., 2010); Te Mata Ira is the health industry ethical guidelines for dealing with Māori and genomic research (Hudson et al., 2016); He Tangata Kei Tua Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori is accepted as authoritative (Hudson et al., 2016a).

All three publications share 4 of the same authors: Mr Maui Hudson, Mrs Moe Milne, Professor Khyla Russell and Dr Barry Smith.

Te Ara Tika begins with a reference to a whakatauki with a modern day translation that ignores the traditional intention. The whakatauki “Kia aroha ki a Tangaroa”. Te Ara Tika translates this whakatauki “to be careful and aware of the potential dangers in the sea”. A traditional translation could read “Be loving to the god of the Ocean”. Tangaroa is the god of the ocean and all of the fish in the ocean are Tangaroa’s children. It is custom to always say a karakia to Tangaroa and to also offer back to Tangaroa some of the days catch. In addition to this, a person who takes fish from the ocean must also be careful about where they fillet the fish and place the leftovers, else Tangaroa will be angry and will not allow you to have a plentiful fishing trip (Edwards, 1990).

Missing tikanga

It is apparent upon reviewing all three publications that traditional Māori tikanga is missing. Public consultations by Māori for Māori into The Royal Commission of Genetic modification in New Zealand 2000 identified five primary tikanga Wairua, Mauri, Tapu, Kaitiakitanga, Whakapapa (Cram, Pihama, Barbara, 2000). Other consultations stated that the main tikanga of biotechnology are kaitiakitanga, wairua and whakapapa (Hutchings, 2004). This is consistent with other researcher’s findings including (Beaton et al., 2017); (Hutchings, 2004); (Mead, 1996); (Mead, 1998); (Mead, 2016); (Pihama et al., 2015); (Pihama, Cram, & Walker, 2002). Further consideration that all human organisms are tapu Mead (1996).

The three publications being reviewed briefly mention five tikanga (Tapu, Noa, Kaitiakitanga, Wairua, Whakapapa) yet offer no descriptions of these tikagna. Tikanga values are sometimes simply mentioned with no explanation or used incorrectly. Whakapapa is described with a one-word definition ‘relationships” (Hudson et al., 2016a, p.2): & (Hudson et al., 2010, p 10). Wairua has a one-word definition as “comfort” (Hudson et al., 2016, p 26)

Cosmology is the underlying principle to the creation of all tikanga, yet is not mentioned at all in the three publications.

Tapu

Te Ara Tika with no reference states verbatim Mead’s 1996 explanation of tapu. The publication then offers no further explanation of what tapu is except for a modern-day translation “restricted”. He Mata Ira and He Tangata Kei Tua states the term tapu is “sacred” and intertwines the word with taonga with no other details or understanding of the concept.

Kaitiakitanga

Kaitiakitanga is mentioned once with no explanation in Te Ara Tika to support recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and Mataatua Declaration (Hudson et al., 2010, p.16).

He Mata Ira and He Tangata Kei Tua have a section called Kaitiakitanga but do not offer any discussion about traditional ownership and intergenerational responsibilities of offering DNA samples for research, nor of any cosmological stories and tikanga about sharing DNA.

None of the three publications discuss kaitiakitanga or any relevant information about the indigenous concepts of ownerships of DNA. A common indigenous perspective of the wide scale theft of Indigenous Peoples genetic data is another form of colonisation. The commercial benefits to the American government of colonised genetic data far outweighs by at least 40 times, the whole trade aid budget (Shiva, 1997)

Iwi are debating with the scientific world about regeneration of extinct animals that Iwi consider a taonga, such as the Huia and Moa (Jackson, 2001). Such regenerations of matter use genomics of the animals that are being discussed. Despite this being a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and a breach of Tikanga, the topic of de extinction is not covered in any of the three publications.

Whakapapa

Te Ara Tika defines whakapapa as referring to quality of relationships and the structures or processes that have been established to support these relationships.

He Tangata Kei Tua offers a comprehensive explanation of whakapapa but does not include the relevance of whakapapa with wairua and kaitiakitanga. A person not familiar with these tikanga would not have enough information to understand the importance of whakapapa with genomic research.

A DNA strand is a branch of whakapapa and a genome is a complete set of past, present and future whakapapa that cannot be individually owned. The traditional definition of whakapapa and its relevance to DNA and genome is not discussed in the publications.

Wairua

Te Ara Tika does not mention wairua.

He Mata Ira and He Tangata Kei Tua use the same statement regarding wairua. The definition is hidden under a heading called “Kia tau te wairua o te tangata” which is referred to as the ‘level of comfort’ that participants and communities have in the research project. There is no explanation of wairua and how it is important to an individual and to whakapapa. Mead (2016) Tikanga test states that Wairua is an essential tikanga that must be used with discussing tapu and whakapapa.

Cosmology

It is common for Māori to use traditional stories to explain moral issues in today’s society (Mead, 1996). Cooper (2012) introduces a new Māori framework using traditional Māori stories and cosmology, in particular the story of Māui and Tāwhaki. This framework allowed an analysis of science shortfalls for Māori and a way to address them.

Despite it being common way to introduce Māori culture and tikanga, none of the three publications reference cosmology. Cosmology is used once with no further explanation or definition nor how it relates to genomics as an example of Māori research in Appendix 3 (Hudson et al, 2010). No further explanation or definition of what cosmology is or how it relates to genomics or how it relates to genomics appears in any of the publications.

Participants

Te Ara Tika and He Tangata Kei Tua do not mention any research participants. He Mata Ira states in footnote 4 on page 3 that the research is based on Iwi consultation. The Iwi referenced appaear to be those that the researches whakapapa to: Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Rakaipaaka, Southern Rūnaka o Ngāi Tahu, and Ngāti Whatua ki Ōrakei. There is no definition of what an Iwi consultation is?

Stating Southern Rūnaka o Ngai Tahu is ambiguous and does not clearly state who was involved. The question must be asked, were the southern rūnaka south of Kaikoura in the northern most Ngāi Tahu Rūnaka or south of Oraka Aparima the third southernmost rūnaka?

There is no formal recognition of any groups of rūnaka as each are their own traditional and modern legal entities with their own tikanga and kawa. This would make a southern rūnaka opinion difficult.

In comparison, a total of 94 individuals from multiple Iwi and regions were interviewed using kaupapa Māori research methodologies to gain a Māori view of Genetic Modification to the Royal Commission (Pihama et al, 2015).

Conclusion

Genomics is a recognised modern form of whakapapa that needs to be treated with the same tikanga as any other form of whakapapa. As genomics is genetic, there are a number of other tikanga that also need to be applied.

Oral traditional stories of cosmology that have been handed down from one generation to the next contain many stories and warnings about genomic knowledge and modification.

Tikanga is recognised by New Zealand statutes. Tikanga considerations are also protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, Declaration of Indigenous Rights and the Mataatua declaration. Therefore, while not all Māori have one opinion or belief system, genomic researchers need to be aware that there are a number of tikanga Māori that need to be considered.

References

Ackley, C. J., Greene, M. R., & Lowrey, C. H. (2003). Defensive applications of gene transfer technology in the face of bioterrorism: DNA-based vaccines and immune targeting. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 3(8), 1279-1289. doi:10.1517/eobt.3.8.1279.21286

Allentoft, M. E., Collins, M., Harker, D., Haile, J., Oskam, C. L., Hale, M. L., Bunce, M. (2012). The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 279(1748), 4724-4733

Archie, C. (1995). Maori sovereignty: the Pakeha perspective. Auckland, N.Z: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga whakaaro: Key concepts in Maori culture. Auckland, N.Z: Oxford University Press.

Beaton, A., Hudson, M., Milne, M., Port, R. V., Russell, K., Smith, B. Wihongi, H. (2017). Engaging Maori in biobanking and genomic research: a model for biobanks to guide culturally informed governance, operational, and community engagement activities. Genetics in Medicine, 19(3), 345

Best, E. (1922). Some aspects of Maori myth and religion (Vol. no. 1). Wellington Govt. Print.

BGI-Shenzhen. (2015). Complete Genomics About. Retrieved from http://www.completegenomics.com

Collins, F. S., Morgan, M., & Patrinos, A. (2003). The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology. Science, 300(5617), 286-290

Cram, F., Pihama, L., Barbara, G. P., University of Auckland. International Research Institute for, M., & Indigenous, E. (2000). Maori and genetic engineering: research report (Vol. 1). Auckland, N.Z: IRI, University of Auckland.

Edwards, M. (1990). Mihipeka: early years. Auckland, N.Z: Penguin.

Eichelbaum, T., & New Zealand. Royal Commission on Genetic, M. (2001). Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z.

Etzioni, A. (2004). How patriotic is the Patriot Act?: freedom versus security in the age of terrorism. New York: Routledge.

GeneWatch. (2000). Privatising Knowledge and Patenting Genes – The race to Control Genetic Information. GeneWatch UK, 11.

Haeusermann, T., Greshake, B., Blasimme, A., Irdam, D., Richards, M., & Vayena, E. (2017). Open sharing of genomic data: Who does it and why? PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0177158.

Hudson, M., Beaton, A., Milne, M., Port, W., Russell, K. J., Smith, B., Uerata, L. (2016a). He Tangata Kei Tua Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori: Te Mata Hautū Taketake – Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre, University of Waikato.

Hudson, M., Beaton, A., Milne, M., Port, W., Russell, K. J., Smith, B., Uerata, L. (2016b). Te Mata Ira: Guidelines for Genomic Research with Māori: Te Mata Hautū Taketake – Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre, University of Waikato.

Hudson, M., Health Research Council of New, Z., & Pūtaiora Writing, G. (2010). Te ara tika: guidelines for Māori research ethics : a framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Auckland, N.Z: Health Research Council of New Zealand on behalf of the Pūtaiora Writing Group.

Hudson, M., Russell, K., Uerata, L., Milne, M., Wilcox, P., Port, R. V., Beaton, A. (2016). Te Mata Ira -Guidelines for Genomic Research with Māori. Hamilton, New Zealand: Te Mata Hautū Taketake – Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre.

Hudson, M. L., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. L. M., Lea, M. G., & Lea, R. A. (2007). Whakapapa – A Foundation for Genetic Research? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 4(1), 43-49.

Hutchings, J. (2004). Tradition and Test tubes. Maori and GM. . In R. A. L. G. Hindmarsh (Ed.), Recording Nature, Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Hutchings, J. (2007). Is Biotecnology an appropriate development path for Māori. In A. T. P. R. Mead, Dr Steven (Ed.), Pacific Genes & Life Patents Pacific Indigenous Experiences & Ownership of Life (23-33).

IPONZ. (2018). The Patent Examination Manual.

Jackson, M. (2001). An Exquisite Politeness: The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and the Redefining of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda: ANU Press.

MBIE. (2017). The Advanced Genomics Research Platform. Retrieved from http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/science-innovation/investment-funding/how-we-invest/strategic-science-investment-fund/advanced-genomics-research-platform

Mead, A. T. P. (1996). Genealogy, Sacredness, and the Commodities Market. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(2), 46.

Mead, A. T. P. (1998). Sacred Balance. He PuKenga Korero, 3(2), 22-28.

Mead, H. M. (2004). Whakapapa and the human gene. In. Wellington: The Bioethics Council.

Mead, S. M. (2016). Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values. Wellington, N.Z: Huia.

Neill, M. J. (2013). Return of the Moa: Is our Law ready for extinction that’s not forever? (Bachelor of Laws (Honours), University of Otago – Te Whare Wananga o Otago, Otago.

New Zealand. Human Rights, C. (2004). Human rights in New Zealand today: Ngā tika tangata o te Motu : New Zealand action plan for human rights = Mana ki te Tangata. Auckland, N.Z.:

New Zealand. Law, C. (2013). The legal framework for burial and cremation in New Zealand: a first principles review (Vol. 34.;34;). Wellington: Law Commission.

O’Biso, C. (1999). First light (New ed.). Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

Pihama, L., Cram, F., & Walker, S. (2002). Creating Methodological Space: A Literature Review of Kaupapa Maori Research (Vol. 26).

Pihama, L., Southey, K., Tiakiwai, S., Waikato-Tainui College for, R., Development, Ngā Pae o te, M. r., & Te Kotahi Research, I. (2015). Kaupapa rangahau: a reader : a collection of readings from the Kaupapa Māori Research workshop series led by Associate Professor Leonie Pihama and Dr Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai. Kirikiriroa;Ngāruawāhia;Auckland;: Te Matenga Punenga o Te Kotahi, Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato.

Pomare, M., & Cowan, J. (1987). Legends of the Maori. Auckland, N.Z: Southern Reprints.

Putahi, A. (1999). Patenting of biotechnological inventions: A Ministry of Commerce paper on issues for discussion with Māori. Māori and the patenting of lifeform inventions: an information paper / produced by the Patenting of Life Forms Focus Group for the Ministry of Commerce. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z.

Roberts, M., Haami, B., Benton, R., Satterfield, T., Finucane, M. L., Henare, M., & Henare, M. (2004). Whakapapa as a Māori Mental Construct: Some Implications for the Debate over Genetic Modification of Organisms. The Contemporary Pacific, 16(1), 1-28.

Robinson, S. T. (2005). Tohunga: the revival : ancient knowledge for the modern era. Auckland, N.Z.: Reed Books.

Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Shyllon, F. (2012). First Special Meeting of the States Parties to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19(4), 583.

Stirling, E., & Salmond, A. (1985). Eruera: the teachings of a Maori elder (Vol. [New].). Auckland [N.Z.]: Oxford University Press.

Tau, T. M. (2003). Ngā pikitūroa o Ngāi Tahu: The oral traditions of Ngāi Tahu. Dunedin, N.Z: University of Otago Press.

Te Whāiti, P., McCarthy, M. B., & Durie, A. (1997). Mai I Rangiaatea: Maori Wellbeing and Development: Auckland University Press.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2011). Human Rights Quarterly, 33(3), 909-921.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2018) What is genetic ancestry testing? Retrieved from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/ancestrytesting

Winston, J. (2017). Ancestry.com takes DNA ownership rights from customers and their relatives. Think Progress, 2018. Retrieved from https://thinkprogress.org/ancestry-com-takes-dna-ownership-rights-from-customers-and-their-relatives-dbafeed02b9e/

Wright, F. (2007). Law, Religion and Tikanga Māori. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 5(2).