Transcultural research run amok or Arctic hysteria?

I would like to begin my commentary with thanks to Dr. Edward Foulks, for his effort at self-disclosure and critique in this journal. From one perspective, Foulks presents us with an anatomy of a failure. It is my impression that he has written this review to inform American Indian and Alaska Native communities as well as mental health researchers in their future collaborations. He allows us to benefit from mistakes in the Barrow Alcohol Study that led to the serious consequences of misalliances. Obviously, this post-mortem examination is reported from the author's bias; this does not detract from the uniqueness of its disclosure. First, a personal word about Foulks. He received his medical degree from McGill University with advanced training in child psychiatry and postdoctoral studies in anthropology. He has served as a faculty member at Hahnemann Medical College, the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, the University of Pennsylvania, and currently at Tulane University. His subspecialty interests have included administrative psychiatry, consultationliaison psychiatry, individual psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, as well as transcultural psychiatry. Prior to the Barrow Alcohol Study, he had worked at the University of Fairbanks with Alaska Natives and written with sensitivity on clinical issues in transcultural psychiatry. The design, implementation, and outcome of the Barrow Alcohol Study are reported in detail in his paper. Critics of the study have labeled it as a product of cultural imperialism. Ironically, one of the most vociferous critiques was a non-Native faculty member of the Inupiat University of the Arctic. This critic said,