Conference Agenda

‘Ethical regime’, a concept introduced by Radin and Kowal (2015) within that scholarship, articulates that underpinning supposedly ‘universal’ ethical principles there are specifically and historically situated moral, political and economic stakes. Examples of ethical regimes include US and Australian scientific research ethics with roots in post-war responses to the atrocities of Nazi science and other infamous medical experiments. Importantly, they highlight ethical regimes critical of Western research, for example alternatives emerging since the 1980s from pan-indigenous rights movements in Australia.

Alternative ethical regimes are also evolving elsewhere, with notable examples including frameworks for research involving indigenous peoples and/or their land. For example, in New Zealand, ‘Te Ara Tika’ is well-recognized (despite uneven progress, Smith 2021). Canadian examples are seen as possible models across Sápmi (Drugge 2016) - while the Nordic countries have various stringent and advanced ethical research guidelines, the Sami perspectives is missing. While the UN-backed principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is widespread, it has never been ratified in countries such as Brazil and Colombia (but can be part of challenges brought by the indigenous peoples’ organization APIB to the International Criminal Court in the Hague).

Design researchers have engaged critically and creatively with ethical regimes. Critical studies trace design within medical science ethics abuses of colonial subjects and women (e.g. Prado 2015). This conversation will engage critically and creatively with diverse ‘ethical regimes’, specifically our universities’ ethical regulation of research in relation to principles developed with/within indigenous contexts.