There are four steps you need to take in this initial phase of the assignment:

(1) You should carefully read the background material to gain an idea of the issue you will be writing about. If you rush through the material below, you cannot help but do poorly on your letter. Please think carefully about the material presented. Feel free to print it out if you wish.
(2) You will then take a stand on the issue discussed and, critically, develop an effective argument in support of the position you take.
(3) Before you write your letter, you should carefully look at the criteria others will use in grading your letter (see below) as well as examples of highly ranked letters. These provide guidelines for writing your own letter.
(4) You will type your letter in a word processing program – such as WORD – and cut and paste your letter into the space provided on the website.

The questions you should keep in mind, as you read the following background material, are: Should the subjects of an anthropological study receive positive benefits for participating in the study or is it sufficient for researchers to simply avoid doing harm? And building on that, if benefits are important, how should anthropologists demonstrate they actually have provided such benefits to the people they have worked with?

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGISTS
AND THE RESEARCH COMMUNITIES THEY WORK IN?

Anthropology usually involves researchers from relatively privileged First World countries working with informants from less privileged Third World settings:

Since its disciplinary beginnings, cultural anthropology has tended to be the study of less powerful groups by scholars from more powerful groups. Whether you phrase it as the First World studying the Third, “us” studying “ them,” or the richer studying the poorer, there is almost always a power differential involved. Those with more power are usually studying those with less [from the online YANOMAMI mini-book, page 53].

How, then, do anthropologists establish fair and just relations with the people they study, especially if they have more power and a better standard of living than their informants?

The answer anthropologists traditionally give to this question (following the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath), is that they must “Do No Harm” – meaning they do not cause problems or difficulties for the people they are studying. The 1998 Anthropological Association statement on ethics asserts that “anthropological researchers must do everything in their power to ensure that their research does not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities” (AAA 1998) [online YANOMAMI mini-book, p. 55] .

That position, however, leaves unanswered what, if anything, an anthropologist should do for those who are already suffering before the anthropologist arrives.

What does “do no harm” mean when informants have been suffering—perhaps for decades—before you arrive? Do you help lessen the pain, the problems? Or do you simply sidestep the pains, believing that since you did not cause them, they are not your problem? [YANOMAMI, p. 55]

The American Anthropological Association’s Code of Ethics touches on reimbursing informants. But it never really addresses whether, as a result of participating in ethnographic research, informants should derive benefits from it.

Let me offer an opinion, if I may. Readers are free to disregard it if they choose. It is meant to stimate reflection not close off options. From my perspective, the emphasis on “do no harm” misses a critical point. Rarely are the medical and political problems communities face directly caused by anthropologists working in them. Generally, the problems result from the political and economic contexts the research communities exist within -- especially their subordinate positions within larger state structures. The resources these communities need tend to be allocated to others with more power and status. Though anthropologists rarely cause the central problems facing these communities, one might ask if anthropologists still have some obligation to help the people who are helping them in their research? Anthropologists may not be able to correct the problems their research communities face. But should they try to soften the harm done by others?

Until recently, anthropologists were free to privately work out their relationships with their informants as they saw fit. On the positive side, this meant that anthropologists had the freedom to interpret “Do No Harm” and provide suitable benefits in accord with local conditions. On the negative side, incidents such as the Yanomami Controversy and the swirl of negative rumors sometimes surrounding the discipline in non-Western settings meant that anthropologists were not necessarily esteemed figures in certain Third World locales. Many -- justly or unjustly -- feel anthropologists take away information of value but do not necessarily provide adequate benefits, in return, to the people studied.

THE FEDERAL AND UNIVERSITY REGULATION OF RESEARCH

Today, American anthropologists no longer have the freedom to carry out research projects as they see fit. The National Research Act of 1974 and the 1979 Belmont Report (described in YANOMAMI p. 76) gradually placed limits on this freedom. Building on them, the federal government in the 1990s instituted what is termed “the Common Rule” – a set of regulations that created research standards all government agencies were required to follow. (The rule is termed “common” because it was common to all federal departments.)

As a result of the Common Rule, anthropologists are now required to submit research proposals to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) of peers at their university. Initially anthropologists only had to submit research proposals to IRBs if they were requesting federal funds. But most major universities decided, in an effort to embrace the federal standards as their own standards, any research associated with the university needed to be reviewed by that university’s IRB.

The new regulations stipulated that “Doing No Harm” was no longer a sufficient standard for research. There also needed to be benefits for informants involved in the research. According to federal regulations – as specified under the Department of Health and Human Services’ Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects [see 46.116, (a),(3), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.116 ] anthropologists, when they ask individuals to participate in a research project, must clearly now present a description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research. Institutional Review Boards when they review applications to conduct research [see 46.120 (a)] need “take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.” The National Science Foundation emphasizes that, the universities and Institutional Review Boards reviewing anthropological research have a responsibility “for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects of research” [45 CFR, PAR 690, Subpart A, .103 (1) http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/45cfr690.pdf ].

A stronger formulation of this policy is expressed in the National Academy of Science’s statement on the subject: “Consent [i.e. voluntary participation in the project] alone cannot justify research on populations that will not be able to benefit from it because such research violates basic principles of social justice and equality” (quoted by Annas, American Ethnologist, 33,4:542).

BENEFITS?

Today, all anthropological research, in order to gain Institutional Review Board approval, must list the risks and benefits of the research for those participating in it. The standard formulation is that benefits must outweigh risks.

Specifying risks is sometimes a tricky task. Anthropologists can strive(as part of “Doing No Harm”) to avoid certain obvious risks. But what about the risks anthropologists are not aware of at the time of their research? In 1937-39, Cora DuBois studied a group on the Indonesian island of Alor. Some of her informants, because they claimed, through her, an association with America, were executed by the Japanese during World War II as enemy agents. When DuBois did her fieldwork in 1937-39, who could have foreseen this? World War II had not begun; she conducted her research in a fairly remote locale on a relatively remote island.

Benefits, at first, may appear easier to delineate. But there are problems here as well.

For example, when anthropologists come before their Institutional Review Boards and specify how their research will benefit the people they work with, they are usually expressing a hypothetical hope given they have not begun their fieldwork. They can only guess at what benefits the community might desire or what benefits are practical to provide. What the Institutional Review Board request helps do is draw anthropologists into considering how their research communities MIGHT benefit for their research. It draws them into thinking in terms of benefits rather than solely focusing on “Do No Harm.”

Thoughtful pronouncements, of course, are not enough. In the case of the Neel expedition, the Yanomami were promised medical assistance that was never given. As noted in the YANOMAMI mini-book (see page 77-78), many Yanomami felt lied to. The Yanomami had been promised, for donating blood samples, medical information regarding their blood that would assist in fighting the various diseases attacking them. Such information was never provided. The Yanomami were induced to participate in a research project under false pretenses.

What might be considered, if I may express an opinion again, is a second step after the research is completed. Anthropologists might specify how their research, in fact, benefitted their research communities. It seems unreasonable to make anthropologists specify every detail relating to every person. But it would be reasonable – at least in my opinion – if they describe, in general terms, the benefits the research communities they worked in received as a result of their research. They might provide their IRB, for example, a two page summary of benefits received that the IRBs could put on their websites and anthropologists could placed in their publications.

Readers may disagree, but from my perspective making the perceived benefits of anthropological research to a community public might have two positive effects. First, it could draw anthropologists into seriously focusing on providing benefits to those who help them in their research rather than simply acknowledging it should be done in their IRB applications. And second, others, beyond the discipline could examine these anthropologists’ claims. They could compare the claims made with other data (such as what people in various research communities state). If significant discrepancies existed between what an anthropologist claimed and what other data suggest– as occurred in the Yanomami controversy – an IRB could review the discrepancies and strive to make sense of them. Such IRB evaluations, presumably, would be rare. Still the possibility of such evaluations might help keep everyone a bit more honest about the benefits provided.

PLEASE NOTE THE LETTER YOU WILL WRITE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
TO DR. PRITCHARD.

Dr. Pritchard is the Acting Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Human Research Protections,OHRP. His office oversees IRBs and the protection of research participants, more generally, for the federal government.

Your letter should begin: Dear Dr. Pritchard,

What you should say in your letter depends on the position you decide to take.

(3) The request does not impose an onerous, bureaucratic requirement on researchers. It simply asks them to clarify what most already claim to be doing – giving something back to their research communities.

(4) Researchers are not being forced into giving specific things back to their research communities. They are free to negotiate the specifics of what is being given back with members of the community. All that is being required, as stated in the background information, is that the results of the negotiations be available to the public so others, if they wish, can learn about them. It will replace rumors with concrete, verifiable statements.

(5) If anthropologists are unsure what benefits they should give back to their communities, they might consult the standards specified in the on-line YANOMAMI minibook. Students can read these by referring to (a) Rawl’s THEORY OF JUSTICE (see YANOMAMI 2005: 56-57, 88-89); (b) focusing on relationships (see YANOMAMI 2005:57, also 2005:80-86), and (c) the guidelines suggested by the participants in the roundtable discussion of Part II (quoted in YANOMAMI 2005:88-89). As readers will see, these are flexible, reasonable, and practical.

==>Choice Two

You lean toward the position that anthropologists should carefully follow the current standard of the American Anthropological Association, -- to "Do No Harm" in respect to the subjects of their research. It is too complicated and too time-consuming for researchers to get involved in the the fuzzy, ambiguities of insuring their research subjects also gain something beneficial. If anthropologists wish to provide participants something in return for their help, that is fine. But it should not be required and it should not be made public. Providing benefits in return for participating in a research project is a private matter between each informant and the anthropologist. It is no one else's business really and should not be stipulated in federal regulations or a be a requirement for IRB approval. It should depend on what each anthropologist feels is appropriate and has time for. (An Alternative Position is Listed Above, You Might Also Want to Read That Position As Well Before Deciding.) Below are some suggestive points to think about if you decide to take this position.

(1) If one sets aside the Yanomami controversy, few cases have come to public attention relating to the obligations anthropologists have toward their research communities. Hence, this is not something the federal government or IRBs should make a regulation about. It involves too few people.

(2) What transpires during one’s research is a very personal, intimate experience. Making public that the researcher was physically threaten by certain members of a community – as Chagnon, for example, was – can be embarrassing to the researcher. Also, a researcher may have strong objections to providing assistance to certain people or communities because they created difficulties for the researcher.

(3) Why should everyone who participated in the research project get assistance? Some participants provided only token assistance. Why should they be rewarded?

(4) Researchers may, in the course of their research, provide all sorts of informal gifts or assistance. There is no reason why these need be made part of a public record as if giving back to a research community was a matter of some formal accounting. Much of the assistance provided by the researcher may be of a personal nature and the members of the community involved may not wish that it be made public.

(5) Rather than restricting researchers with regulations, researchers should be left to act as they, with the best of intentions, see fit. By and large, anthropologists are well meaning people and others can trust them to do what they deem best. The traditional informal arrangements supported by the American Anthropological Association's Code of Ethics seem to work well. There is no reason to change this arrangement.

Remember, you are not required to follow one or the other of the two positions cited above. They are presented as suggestive positions to stimulate your thinking. You can take any stand you wish in writing Dr. Pritchard regarding the standards anthropologists should follow in their fieldwork. Once you decide what position you will take, write a well-developed argument to support it.

HERE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WILL BE USED
TO EVALUATE YOUR LETTER

1. DOES THE LETTER SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSIGNMENT? The letter should stick to the issue as defined in the assignment, not alter it to a different one more in line with the student’s interests.

2. DOES THE LETTER (1) ASK THE READER TO TAKE A SPECIFIC ACTION AND (2) PRESENT AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT FOR TAKING THIS ACTION? The action (or actions) the student requests should be clear and specific. The letter should emphasize a few key points presented in a clear, sequential order with factually correct information.

3. IS THE LETTER (1) FOCUSED ON THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, (2) WRITTEN IN A POLITE, PROFESSIONAL TONE, AND (3) USES THE STUDENT’S OWN WORDS RATHER THAN EXTENSIVELY QUOTING FROM OTHERS? The letter needs to treat the person to whom it is addressed with respect. It should assume that person is a reasonable individual and relate the requested action to that person's interests. It should explain your poisiton in your own words, not someone's. Try to avoid quoting other people when possible.

4. DID THE STUDENT FOLLOW STANDARD GRAMMATICAL, SPELLING AND FORMATTING PRACTICES? The letter should not include run-on sentences, spelling and punctuation errors, or incorrect capitalization. It should include four or more paragraphs. Each paragraph should be separated from the next one by a clearly demarcated space (or return) since indentations at the beginning of a paragraph are not allowed in the html software used on the web.

5. DO YOU FEEL, LOOKING AT THE LETTER AS WHOLE, THAT IT IS LIKELY TO PERSUADE THE PERSON READING IT? The letter should be convincing. It should effectively convey to the person to whom it is adressed that the requested action would be reasonable and in that person's own interest.