A Parallel Process
article
A ‘Parallel Process’? Beginning a constructive conversation about a Maori methodology Fiona Cram Katoa Ltd, Wellington Hazel Phillips Canterbury Polytechnic Institute of Technology Bevan Tipene -Matua Canterbury Polytechnic Institute of Technology Murray Parsons Independent Consultant Katrina Taupo University of Canterbury
Abstract This paper documents the beginning of a conversation about what it means to be Maori within a larger, mainstream research project. This larger project was conceived by a team of researchers that included a Maori principal investigator, and funding was gained from a funding agency that has established criteria for Maori responsiveness. The Maori component of the project was, however, not initially conceived of as sep arate from the non-Maori component. Discussions about this were initiated approximately one year into the project in response to Maori team members' desires to undertake Kaupapa Maori research. This effectively means that the Maori team collects and analys es the Maori research data prior to re-engaging with the full research team. While there is a level of uncertainty about how this process will play itself out, there is a commitment to continue a constructive conversation within the team and to journey tog ether in good faith and trust.
Key Words Kaupapa Maori research, parallel research processes The present paper explores the roles of a subgroup of Maori researchers working within a larger, mainstream research project. This larger project is examining the usefulness of dialogue processes as a way of gaining greater public participation in decision-making about biotechnology. The Maori responsiveness of the original funding application for the research funding was about ensuring that the methodologies de veloped for dialogue would be appropriate for Maori and allow for the investigation of `Maori
responses to specific applications of biotechnology'. Given Maori concerns about biotechnologies, especially those involving genetic manipulation, it is appropriate that this larger project seeks to give voice to Maori responses.(1,2) Several writers have written about the importance, and often silence, of Maori values in the debates and decisions made about these biotechnologies.(2-5) If a way can be found to `mainstream' Maori concerns and to connect them with the concerns of other groups within this country then policy and decision -making will undoubtedly reflect the concerns of citizens rather than being dominated by a science discourse.(1,5)
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
14
A Parallel Process
This is not to say that Maori are anti science. In an exploration of more general experiences with science and scientists, Cram and her colleagues (6) found that Maori were embracing science to help them fulfill their own goals for the environment and for their people. Similarly, indigenous peoples in the Americas are also open to science. As Judy Gobert, of Blackfoot, Nakota and Salish decent and a member of the Board of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (ICPB), explains, `We see science as a tool - a tool to preserve our land, our water, our air, our plants not as a weapon, not as a way to make money'.(7) Even genetic testing is plausible according to Kuna indigenous leader Atencio Lopez, if that testing is part of a not-for-profit medical study.(8) It is just that many of the experiences of indigenous people to date have led to doubts that any goodwill for indigenous health and well-being exists within biotechnology companies. Maori concerns about 'biocolonialism' are sourced in beliefs about the sacredness of whakapapa (genealogies) and the genetic material that ensures its survival across generations. These beliefs make the tampering with or mixing of whakapapa lines unacceptable to many Maori.(]) Angeline Greensill (9), for example, writes that From a tangata whenua perspective genealogy or whakapapa is the foundation stone of all life not only in Aotearoa but also in the world. All species are descended from Atua or gods who are responsible for particular domains ... We take it for granted that everythi ng in our environment is unique and in balance. Everything possesses mauri or a life force and is to be respected. Because everything is interrelated and inter-connected, any mutilation, modification or unnatural desecration of any part affects the whole. Issues of informed consent and intellectual property rights are also pivotal for Maori and other indigenous peoples.(4,10,11) Over the past 10-12 years a number of declarations have been written by indigenous peoples to express concerns about biocoloniali sm and the challenges science poses to
indigenous peoples' right to selfdetermination (e.g., Maataatua Declaration, June 1993; Guaymi General Congress, Panama 1994). The 'Constructive Dialogue Whakaaetanga Korero' research project was therefore initiate d and designed with these imperatives in mind. In the first year of the project the Maori research team consisted of five researchers, including one postgraduate student doing further study within the project. Nine Tauiwi (non -Maori) researchers and a number of postgraduate students were also involved. The development of the dialogue processes to be used in the first stage of the project, along with the resources that would support these processes, was a full team effort. As it happened a decision was made to explore the use of a tikanga-based dialogue process and to ensure that up to one third of the group interviews were with Maori stakeholders. In this way a partnership relationship was formed between Maori and Tauiwi researchers on this project. Notions of partnership within research are more usually discussed in connection with the relationships (non indigenous) researchers are encouraged to form with indigenous communities that they wish to conduct research with. (12,13) The term is applied to the first year of this project because, as the Maori research team, we also felt that our relationship with our Tauiwi colleagues was `founded on mutual understanding and trust' * (12) Approximately one year into this project the Maori research team expressed our desire to conduct 'by Maori, for Maori' research; that is, Kaupapa Maori research (see below). This request was prompted by our aspiration, in the first instance, to respond to the challenge from some of our Maori stakeholder groups that they would only be involved in this research if it was `by Maori, for Maori: Further, they expected that the Maori researchers would care for and protect their korero (discussion) from the research sessions. We took this feedback very seriously and returned to the larger research group with a request that the remaining Maori stakeholder groups be facilitated by Maori, and that
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
15
A Parallel Process
the project effectively 'ring-fence' the Maori data for an initial, 'by Maori, for Maori' analysis. This was an interesting request as the larger proje ct had not initially been conceived of in this way. Effectively what we were asking was that the Maori data be collected and analysed, in the first instance, by the Maori team separate from our Tauiwi colleagues. Then, once we were satisfied with our own processes, we would be happy to re engage with the full research team to discuss and write about the Maori data as a part of the larger, project dataset. In this way, a’ parallel process' was discussed as a interlude to the otherwise 'partnership relationship' of the project that had produced the research methodology and would, in future, produce joint publications. In the remainder of the present paper we explore the background to this decision. First we discuss some of the changes that have happened within social science research in this country over the past 20-30 years that make our request all that more plausible, including the development of `by Maori, for Maori' research. Following this we briefly examine two research projects that informed our notion of a’ parallel process' and further tease out how such a process might work in the present project. We then offer some conclusions. Changing Times Over the past 20-30 years there has been a growth in awareness about the implications of doing research on indigenous peoples.(14,15) This has largely been in response to protests from indigenous peoples that such research has not only failed to address issues of concern to them, but has often resulted in the embedding of stereotyped deviance from a non-indigenous 'normality'.(] 6) In 1968, for example, Koro Dewes exclaimed that he was `sick and tired of hearing [Maori] blamed for their educational and social shortcomings, their limitations highlighted and their obvious strengths of being privileged New Zealanders in being bilingual and bicultural ignored:(17) At least three, interrelated factors underpin Maori protests over this period: the Maori education
movement;(5) the development of research capability among iwi, prompted by their desires to document 'their' history in order to achieve redress before the Waitangi Tribunal;(18) and the general revitalisation of Maori culture that has occurred over the past 30 years.(19) These factors have resulted in challenges to deficit-based research and non -Maori versions of Maori realities.(5) As a result Tauiwi researchers have been asked by both their disciplinary bodies and funding agencies to demonstrate responsiveness to Maori within their research practices.(13) This local movement has also been mirrored on the international stage.(12) Protocols and guidelines sought to ensure that such research was conducted in collaboration with Maori, rather than on Maori. In this way, it became no longer acceptable to treat Maori as the `other' and/or to conduct research that had an assimilatory agenda. Tauiwi researchers were also instructed to share their skills with their Maori collaborators and many funding agencies instigated training and scholarship opportunities for Maori interested in research careers. As Maori research capa city has built, Maori researchers have become more able to lead research that is by, for, and with Maori. The imperative that Maori research should be undertaken by Maori, with Maori was succinctly expressed by Maori health researchers at a 1996 hui at Hon goeka Marae, Plimmerton. The first point of the Hongoeka Declaration on Maori Health Research that emerged from this hui was that'... we believe Maori health research should be determined and coordinated by Maori, working with Maori, for Maori'; in other words, Kaupapa Maori health research.(5,20) At this same hui, Moana Jackson (21) argued that the Treaty of Waitangi reaffirmed our right to make this assertion, stating that ... we have to accept that the Treaty did not submit us to the research methodologi es and ethics of somebody else. The Treaty reaffirmed our right to develop the processes of research which are appropriate for our people, and to do that, the only
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
16
A Parallel Process
people we have to seek permission from are our own. Thus strengthening capacity has also led to the generation of new research questions, methodologies, and methods that arise from within or are imported into a Maori worldview (5). This reclaiming of research is a worldwide phenomenon among indigenous peoples and conversations between different indigenous groups will undoubtedly lead to innovative and exciting research practices.(22) According to the World Health Organisation,(22) '... the increasing numbers of indigenous peoples who have slowly taken the initiative in their own research ... have turned the bogeyman of "otherness" on its head. They now seek to determine the agenda of research about themselves, what to study, how, and who will do the research'. This is effectively the situation that was reflected in the `Constructive Dialogue Whakaaetanga Korero' research project. In the first year of the project the partnership relationship between Maori and Tauiwi colleagues provided a synthesis that ensured both responsiveness to Maori and the benefits of Maori input for the project as a whole. Similarly the expertise and skills of our Tauiwi colleagues facilitated broader understandings of the research topics. The need to then create a Maori space for the collection Parallel process and analysis of Maori data meant that we had to consider options other than the 'all-in-one' approach that had worked for us up until that point. One approach to creating this Maori space is found in Kaupapa Maori. Kaupapa Maori Kaupapa Maori is an emancipatory theory that has grown up alongside the theories of other groups who have sought a better deal from mainstream society; for example, feminist,(23) African -American,(24) and worldwide indigenous theorising.(25) At a high level these theories have commonalities and similar concerns, including the displacement of oppressive knowledge
and a social change agenda. At a local level Kaupapa Maori addresses the oppression of Maori in our own land and the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees of tino rangatiratanga. In this way it is unique. Kaupapa Maori research is set within this historical context. It is an attempt to retrieve space for Maori voices and perspectives, whereby Maori realities are seen as legitimate. This means centering Te Ao Maori.(26) Graham Smith (27) locates Kaupapa Maori research within the wider project of Kaupapa Maori, saying that Kaupapa Maori research: • is related to `being Maori'; • is connected to Maori philosophy and principles; • takes for granted the validity and legitimacy of Maori; • takes for granted the importance of Maori language and culture; and • is concerned with the `struggle for autonomy over our own cultural wellbeing'. At least two of the Maori stakeholder groups had made the assumption that the research being conducted was Kaupapa Maori research. This assumption was largely founded on the track record of the first author who had made a similar assumption. In addition, past experience has shown that those involved on a Kaupapa Maori project need not work in isolation from Tauiwi colleagues. At least two projects provided models for how a parallel process might work within a partnering relationship. A’ Parallel Process'? The term `parallel process' might not necessarily capture the essence of what we are attempting to achieve, hence the question mark in the title of this paper. However the term does portray a notion of two projects running side by -side so that even if this only occurs for a portion of the present project the concept may aid understanding of what we are trying to achieve. We also know of at least two other research projects that model this process within some elements of their work. The first project was instigated by Maori and Pakeha academics within the Education Department, University of Auckland in the 1990s. This project on
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
17
A Parallel Process
Native Schooling involved interviews with ex-pupils and ex-teachers of Native Schools.(28) Maori (mostly ex-pupils with some ex-teachers) were interviewed by Maori researchers and Pakeha (mostly ex-teachers and some ex-pupils and children of ex-teachers) by Pakeha researchers. The pu blications that came from this project were mostly joint efforts. A second, parallel project was initiated by Linda Smith, Fiona Cram, Tim McCreanor, Ray Nairn and Wayne Johnstone in their investigation of discourses of Maori health.(29,30) In this project the Maori investigators asked Maori about Maori health and their interactions with Pakeha general practitioners (GPs), while the Pakeha investigators asked Pakeha GPs about Maori health and their interactions with Maori patients. While each component of the project was committed to a kaupapa of Maori health, the two parallel projects looked quite different in their theoretical underpinnings, interview questions, analytical frameworks, and conclusions. The two teams, however, worked together on the project and conversed throughout the project's journey. Initial publications from this project were done separately with the team currently engaged in the preparation of joint publications in which the findings from the parallel projects are able to `talk' to each other. These projects are of interest as they demonstrate at least two important research realities: first that Maori have both the capacity and capability to undertake research with and for Maori; and second, that Maori and Pakeha research teams can collaborate to undertake research projects that are of mainstream interest. Our revised parallel process means that the Maori groups are to be facilitated by Maori. The issue of whether all researchers attached to these groups (e.g., as helpers or observers) should be Maori remains open for discussion. Pragmatically it may be difficult to arrange this due to availability and transportation costs (as this issue was not to the forefront during the budgeting exercise for the current project). However it has already become clear that at least two groups would not have consented to be part
of the research had Tauiwi been involved in the focus group process in any capacity. We also have no way of telling what remains unsaid (or perhaps is said) when Tauiwi are on the research team for Maori groups (and also vice -versa - when Maori are part of the research team when Tauiwi groups are run). An essential next step on our journey is the development, debate and refinement of our understanding and analysis of the Maori focus group transcripts. We have therefore asked that the Maori researchers control the use of the transcripts and produce the first analysis of them. Once this is achieved to our satisfaction we will be in a good position to engage with our other research colleagues about what is of interest to them in the Maori transcripts. We fully anticipate that this next stage of conversation will help us to refine and strengthen our analysis. So while we might remain uncertain about the term `parallel process', we are certain of our right, as Maori, to undertake this research journey. We are also certain that this journey is about Kaupapa Maori; in other words, exploring ways of operating that are about Maori managing things Maori in a Maori way.(5) From the standpoint of Kaupapa Maori, then, our journey is about exploring what the current research project means for Maori - from the questions that are being asked through to the analysis of findings and the conclusions that are drawn. Once we have established `our view' o n these issues we will have a strong basis from which to interact and collaborate with our Tauiwi research colleagues. This is not to say that our viewpoint is inflexible within this collaboration; we remain open to the things we can learn as a team that will help us evolve our own standpoint further. This is the next step on from research protocols written in the 1980s and 1990s that addressed the lack of Maori research capacity by providing guidelines for Tauiwi researchers who wished to undertake research with Maori. This lack of
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
18
A Parallel Process
capacity meant that if there was to be Maori research it was pivotal that Tauiwi be somehow involved. While the usefulness and importance of such guidelines is not questioned here, we are proposing that they are a stepping stone, rather than a stopping place. Concluding Remarks In many ways this paper has been about the assertion of our rights as tangata whenua within this land. For many decades Maori encounters with researchers were about the researchers studying the `otherness' of us. Often the purpose of these studies was to determine how to change this `otherness' into 'sameness'. In other words, research underpinned assimilatory and integrationist political agendas. However, is full participation in society ever possible when integration within a dominant society begins with this notion of `otherness'?(22) Increasing Maori research capacity has turned this notion of `otherness' on its head as 'by Maori, for Maori' research has become a reality. Within this paper we have talked through the notion of parallel processes as it might apply to the current research project. While we may not be certain about where this journey will take us, and the research project as a whole, we have reserved our right to journey. At the same time, this journey is not about us meandering off into the distance without so much as a fond farewell. Most of us do not live in isolated pockets or self-contained Maori groups. Just as we negotiate our daily lives within this society, so we seek to negotiate what our aspirations might mean for the entire research team and the project. In other words we are wanting a Treatybased relationship in which we are all parties to this research project. By using the phrase 'partnership relationship' we are signaling that partnership may be the end point of our journey and that the journey itself is about negotiation and conversation (and perhaps a few songs). The subtitle of the paper is 'beginning a constructive conversation about a Maori methodology: To begin
this conversati on we have set out some of the key questions that will undoubtedly initiate further discussion. Perhaps the best sign of successful journeying is when we can look back at the end and reflect on the many things we have learned. For this reason this conversa tion is evolving as our understanding of what a parallel process is, is informed by both theory and practice. We will continue to learn as we go. Acknowledgements This research project referred to in this paper is funded by the Foundation of Research, Science and Technology research grant to the University of Canterbury (UOCX0221). The programme leaders are Rosemary Du Plessis and Bevan Tipene Matua. We acknowledge the helpful feedback of our research colleagues to the development of this paper; namely, Ros emary Du Plessis, Joanna Goven, Andrew Moore and Anne Scott.
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
19
A Parallel Process
Correspondence Fiona Cram:
[email protected] References 1. Cram F. Pihama L. Philip-Barbara G. Maori and genetic engineering. Tamaki Makaurau: IRI Publications: 2000. 2. Greensill A. Genetic engineering - Maori views and values. Pacific World 1999 Oct:25 -28. 3. Cram F. Back grounding Maori views on genetic engineering. In: Barker J. editor. Sovereignty. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska Press, in press 2004. 4. Mead ATeP. Misappropriation of indigenous knowledge: The next wave of colonisation. In: Nga tikanga, nga taonga. Cultural and intellectual property - The rights of indigenous peoples. University of Auckland: RUME; 1996. 5. Smith L. Decolonising methodologies: Research arid indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books 8 Dunedin: Otago University Press: 1999. 6. Cram F. in collaboration with Henare M. Hunt T. Mauger J. Pahiri D. Pitama S. Tuuta C. Maori and science - Three case studies. A report prepar ed for the Royal Society of New Zealand. Tamaki Makaurau: 1Rl Publications: 2002. [cited 2004 Oct 12]. Available from: www.rsnz.govt.nz/news/talks/scisoclMaori crant.pdf. 7. Kirby M. [homepage on the Internet]. Global approach to genetic enquiry is essential. Canberra: High Court of Australia: no date. [cited 2004 26 June]. Available from: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/ kirbyj/kirbyj_genetics.htm. 8. Netlink. Panama: Indigenous people raise alarms about... [press release on the Internet]. Netlink: 1997 Oct 12. [cited 2004 26 Jun]. Available from: http:/Iwww.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/971219 b.htm. 9. Greensill A. Statement of Evidence of Angeline Greensill in the matter of Application for Approval to Field Test in Containment any Genetically Modified Organism, by AgResearch. 10. Harry D. Biopiracy and globalization: Indigenous peoples face a new wave of colonialism. Splice 2007 Jan/April; 7(2Et3). [cited 2004 June 10]. Available from: http://www.ipcb.org/publications/other_art l index.html. 11. Shelton BL. Consent and consultation in genetic research on American Indians and Alaska Natives. [briefing paper on the Internet]. Nixon (NV): Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism; no date. [cited 2004 Apr 15]. Available at: hitp:/Iwww.ipcb.org/publications/ briefing_papers/tiles/consent.html . 12. Graham A. McDonald J. Ethical principles for the conduct of research in the North. [monograph on the Internet]. Yukon College: Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies: 1997 [cited 2002 16 Sept] Available from: http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/ -agraham/ 82comp97.htm. 13. Health Research Council. Guidelines for
researchers on health research involving Maori. Auckland: Health Research Council of New Zealand: 1998. 14. Humphrey K. Setting the rules: The development of the NHMRC guidelines on ethical matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait [slander health research. N Z Bioethics J. 2003 Feb;4(1):14 -9. 15. Te Awekotuku N. He tikanga whakaaro: Research ethics in the Maori community. Wellington: Manatu Maori; 1991. 16. Cram F. Developing partnerships in research: Maori research and Pakeha researchers. SITES 1997:35:44 -63. 17. Dewes K. Maori education. In: Report of the Young Maori Leaders Conference. Department of University Extension. The University of Auckland: 1968. 18. Cram F. Rangahau Maori: Tona tika, tona pono. In: Tolich M, editor. Research ethics in Aotearoa. Auckland: Longman: 2001. p. 35 -52. 19. Bishop R. Addressing issues in self -determination and legitimation in Kaupapa Maori research. In: Webber B, compiler. He paipai korero. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research: 1996. p. 152 -165. 20. Pihama L. Cram F. Walker S. Creating methodological space: A literature review of Kaupapa Maori research. Can J Native Educ. 2002:26:30 -43. 21. Jackson M. Maori health research and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In: Hui Whakapiripiri: A hui to discuss strategic directions for Maori health research. Wellington School of Medicine: Te Ropii Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare; 1996. 22. World Health Organization. Toward a comprehensive approach to health guidelines for rese arch with Indigenous Peoples. Report of the Working Group on Research. November 29-December l. 1995. Washington. DC: Division of Health Systems and Services Development World Health Organization. Pan American Health Organization; 1997. 23. Lather P. Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge; 1991. 24, hooks b. Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Cambridge (MA): South End Press: 1984. 25. Ca ,jete G. Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Sante Fe: Clear Light: 2002. 26. Pihama LE. Tungia te uruma. kia tupu whakaritorito te tepu o te harakeke. MA thesis. The University of Auckland: 1993. 27. Smith GH. The development of Kaupapa Maori theory and praxis. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Auckland: 1997. 28. Simon J. Smith LT with Cram F. Hohepa M. McNaughton S, Stephenson M. A civilising mission? Perceptions and representations of the Native Schools system. Auckland: Auckland University Press: 2001. 29. Crarn F. Smith L. Johnstone W. Mappi ng the themes of Maori talk about health. N Z Med J. 2003 Mar 14;716(1170). 30. McCreanor T. Nairn R. (2002). Tauiwi general practitioners' talk about Maori health: interpretative repertoires. N Z Medical J. 2002 Dec13:115(1167).
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
14
A Parallel Process
Journal of Bioethical In quiry (Formerly the New Zealand Bioethics Journal) The Journal of Bioethical Inquiry is an independent, peer-reviewed journal associated with the Bioethics Centre at the University of Otago, the Australasian Bioethics Association (ABA) and the Australian Institute of Health, Law and Ethics (AIHLE).
contents Editorial ................................................................ 3 Public Consultation in Ethics............................ 4 Michael Burgess A 'Parallel Process'? ............. ........................... 14 Fiona Cram, Hazel Phillips, Benan Tipene-Matua, Murray Parsons and Katrina Taupo Out of the Armchair........................................ 20 Nicole LiSelling Organs and Souls ................... 27 Dominic Wilkinson, Winner of the Max Charlesworth Prize The West's Dismissal of the Khabarovsk Trial as Communist' Propaganda ........................ 32 JingBao Nie Law Section: Recent Developments .................................... 43 John MePhee and Cameron Steivart Courts as Communicators...............................49 Loane Skene Book Review: Challenging Science ..................................... 57 Edited by Kevin Dew and Ruth Fitzgerald Reviewed bv Peter Wilson In That Case.................................................. 60 Ian Kerridge and Nicole Gilroy
Editors Lynley Anderson, University of Otago. New Zealand Chris Jordens. University of Sydney, Australia Associate Editors (Law) Lvnle_v Anderson and Chris Jorderts John McPhee. University of Sydney, Australia Cameron Stewart. Macquarie University. Australia Editorial Board Rachel Ankeny. University of Sydney, Australia Donald Evans. University of Otago, New Zealand Ian Kerridge, University of Sydney. Australia Paul Komesaroff. Monash University. Australia Andrew Moore, University of Otago, New Zealand Neil Pickering, University of Otago, New Zealand International Advisory Board Annette Baier. University of Otago. New Zealand Alastair Campbell, University of Bristol, UK, Leo de Castro. University of the Philippines, Ros Diprose. University of New South Wales, Australia Deborah Diniz, State University of Rio de Janeiro. Brazil Jocelyn Downie, Dalhousie University, Canada Zhizheng Du, Dalian Medical University, PRC, Nancy Dubler, Montefoire Medical Center, USA Carl Elliott, University of Minnesota, USA Martyn Evans. University of Durham, UK, Grant Gillett. University of Otago. New Zealand Raanan Gillon. Imperial College. London Elizabeth Grosz, Rutgers University. USA , Matti Hayri. University of Central Lancashire. UK, Henk ten Have, Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands Rob Irvine. University of Newcastle, Australia, Arthur Kleinman. Harvard University, USA , Hilde Lindemann. Michigan State University, USA Alphonso Lingis, Pennsylvania State University. USA Miles Little. University of Sydney. Australia, Ruth Macklin. Albert Einstein College of Medicine. New York, USA Paul McNeill, University of New South Wales, Australia, Jim Martin. University of Sydney, Australia, Kathleen Montgomery. University of California, Riverside, USA Gavin Mooney, Curtin University. Australia, Thomas Murray. Hastings Center. New York, USA JingBao Nie. University of Otago. New Zealand Peter Skegg, University of Otago, New Zealand
journal of bioethical inquiry volume one number one
15
