Background

Historical Context

Obligatory Responsibilities

Why is this Process Needed?

Background

In recent times, the relationship between Māori and contemporary science has been at best fraught with difficulty and at worst non-existent (Roberts & Fairweather, 2004). In some cases, it was felt that communication was one-way, and consultation processes had predetermined outcomes (Cram et al. 2002; Cronin and Jackson 2004).

This lack of engagement has led to:
(1) the marginalisation of Māori in relation to the benefits and opportunities posed by research and;
(2) a general inaccessibility of information to Māori on the outcomes of research.

Opposition and fear often stem from such a lack of information, causing people to avoid engaging with the new or unknown (Durie, 2004; McHughen, 2007; Sinemus, 2007; TallBear, 2007). For Māori, this can mean maintaining an opposition and general mistrust of research (Laws 2002; Cronin and Jackson 2004; Durie, 2004; Roberts & Fairweather, 2004). Reasons for such mistrust include the undermining of indigenous status, plagiarism of indigenous knowledge by western researchers and a limited methodology which only allows for limited outcomes (Durie 2004). For researchers, it often means avoiding cross-cultural interactions and engagement beyond scientific communities (Durie, 2004).

New technologies have inherent risks, and evaluation of these risks will change over time and among cultures (Sinemus, 2007). Scientists have a clear and shared description of risks and how to estimate them, but this understanding is only valid within the context of the scientific community. The same risks will be viewed very differently from different perspectives (Brauerhaoch et al., 2007), and Māori scholars and communities have given much thought to how best to evaluate the risks associated with contemporary technologies in a traditional framework (Mead, 2003). While there are a huge variety of views among Māori on things like biotechnology, these views are not static and can be shifted if concerns are satisfied (Te Momo, 2007). For example, new technologies are more likely to be adopted by Māori if they are viewed as having benefits that outweigh perceived risks, will not harm future generations, and will benefit communities and not just researchers and government agencies (Roberts & Fairweather, 2004; Te Momo, 2007).

There has been a lack of effective processes to ensure that Māori perspectives are incorporated into GM research programmes in a manner that ensured positive outcomes for both Māori and science providers. Te Aroturuki begins to address this by seeking new ways to positively influence Māori attitudes to science, particularly biotechnology.

The ability of science organisations advocating controversial technologies to effectively communicate with whanau, hapu and Iwi about the risks, costs, and benefits of these technologies will dependant on multiple factors and it is important lessons of past are heeded.

• First, where the experience and skills do not exist within a science research entity to deal with often complex issues and Māori community dynamics, such expertise must be found outside of the organisation as specialist expertise and networks are required and this work can not be done by anyone.
• Second, long term relationships must be developed immediately as this should not left to when there is a proposal to implement a controversial technology is developed and then local consent sought,
• Third, if controversial technologies are to be given an increased chance of progressing through positive dialogue and exploration of mutual beneficial relationships, new frameworks for science organisations and scientists themselves are required.

Past models of communication with Māori often involved predetermined outcomes and telling communities how they should respond to science and technology in order to convince them and reorient their perceptions of risk. Such approaches have eroded trust amongst Māori and commentators have stated that continuation of such approaches may result in a cynical response to renewed attempts at dialogue and create increased problems social resistance in future.

“Fundamentally, people need to learn new rules. The Te Aroturuki process encourages engagement in a new and promising way. Invoking new ways of conducting dialogue is worth doing as although the environment is new and somewhat artificial or even contrived, it seeks to “disrupt old channels and expectations of participants” (Cronin and Jackson, 2004:137)”.