Speaking at the 2015 meeting of the American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG), Krystal Tsosie from Vanderbilt University said this case exemplified how indigenous groups are taking charge of their fates in the world of modern genetics. “The Tribe approached the researchers, not vice versa,” she said. “The researchers are more like consultants.”

The Akimel O’odham dictated the goals of the project right from the start and retained control over their own samples, effectively loaning them to TGen, who acted as temporary stewards. TGen, meanwhile, agreed not to do any studies beyond the bounds of their agreement, or to distribute samples or publish data without the community’s consent. A tribal elder even blessed the TGen laboratory and its staff.

This case stands in stark contrast to the most infamous collision between genetic research and Native American culture. In the 1990s, scientists from Arizona State University collected samples from the Havasupai tribe to study the genetics of diabetes but, without their knowledge, also used those samples to study schizophrenia, inbreeding, and migration patterns. When the Havasupai found out, they successfully sued the university for $700,000 and banned its researchers from their land.

This case, and others, have created an atmosphere of distrust, as Rose Eveleth covered for The Atlantic earlier this year. This pall might also help to explain the relative absence of indigenous groups in genetics research. “Why is that?” asked Keolu Fox, from the University of Washington School of Medicine. “Were we invited to the party and said, ‘No, thank you,’ or were we not invited at all? It’s a combination.”

Young geneticists like Fox (a native Hawaiian) and Tsosie (from the Navajo Nation) are now looking to move past the lingering shadow of the Havasapui controversy, and take positive steps forward. Speaking at the ASHG conference, in a session called “Engaging Indigenous Peoples in Genetics,” they called for more community-based participatory research (CBPR)—a model exemplified by the partnership between the Akimel O’odham and Tgen.

Rather than the usual approach, in which researchers helicopter in, do their thing, and tell their participants what they found under the rubric of “engagement,” CBPR requires communities to actively and equally participate in all phases of the research, from planning to publication. They become genuine scientific partners, not guinea pigs.

This is hard work. At the same ASHG session, Kate West from the University of Washington spoke about her work with Yupik Eskimos from Alaska. That involved: repeated flights and boat trips to get to the communities; a lot of time spent making contacts, attending local council meetings, and occasionally eating seal; and much last-minute rescheduling. “Research takes a back seat to community matters,” she said.