Lesson 6: Mātauranga Māori & Indigenous Perspectives on Biotechnology
Demonstrating understanding of biological responses and human implications in a socio-scientific issue.
🎯 Ngā Whāinga Akoranga | Learning Intentions
Te Ao Māori perspectives on genetic manipulation: Whakapapa integrity, Mauri (life force), Tapu/Noa boundaries, Taonga species protections under WAI 262, and Mana Motuhake in scientific governance.
Analyse WAI 262 Waitangi Tribunal report recommendations, evaluate impact of genomic editing on whakapapa and mauri, and articulate indigenous bioethical governance models.
🎥 Media Anchor & Pedagogical Scaffold
Indigenous Bioethics & WAI 262 Governance
Video Clip: Biotechnology innovation and socio-scientific issue analysis (Runtime: 3m 8s).
🧠 1. Before Viewing (Activate & Predict)
How does viewing living organisms through the lens of Whakapapa (interconnected genealogy) transform biological ethics?
👁️ 2. After the Clip (Work With a Job)
- Kōrero: Examine how genetic modification can be perceived as altering ancestral whakapapa lines.
- Kōrero: Analyse WAI 262 claims regarding indigenous intellectual property and taonga species DNA.
- Kōrero: Evaluate co-governance models where tikanga Māori guides biotechnological research approvals.
🗣️ 3. After Viewing & Kaiako Move (Process & Apply)
Kaiako Move: Invite local iwi taiao advisors or study court documents from the EPA (Environmental Protection Authority) indigenous advisory committee.
Immediate Task: Complete Section 6 of your Biology Portfolio: Tikanga Māori & WAI 262 Biotechnology Analysis.
⚡ Whakaoho | Do Now: Socio-Scientific Concept Recall (10 mins)
WAI 262 asked a question science cannot answer: who decides? The claim concerned rights and interests in indigenous flora and fauna, mātauranga Māori, and taonga species.
Two minutes: a gene drive released to protect a taonga species would alter the whakapapa of another living thing. Say who, in your view, holds the authority to consent to that — and notice that your answer is a claim about tino rangatiratanga, not about biology.
📖 Activity 1: Biological Evidence & Ethical Analysis (25 mins)
Read the claim (15 min). Using the WAI 262 material your kaiako provides, identify what the claim asked for regarding taonga species and mātauranga. Then apply it to your chosen issue: who would need to be at the table, at what stage, and with what standing — consulted, or deciding?
Concepts as constraints (10 min). For your issue, work through whakapapa integrity, mauri, and tapu/noa boundaries. For each, state what it would rule out, permit, or require. Do not translate these into utilitarian costs and benefits — the point is that they operate differently from the frameworks in Lesson 5.
Kaiako — mātauranga handoff. The activity structure here is ours to run; the authoritative account of whakapapa, mauri, tapu and noa, and of WAI 262's meaning for local hapū and iwi, is not. Please bring kaiako Māori, and where possible local iwi with mana whenua over the taonga species in question, into this lesson before teaching it. Ākonga should hear these concepts from people who hold them. Do not present them as an alternative ethical framework alongside Lesson 5's — that framing is itself contested.
📝 Activity 2: Level 3 Biology (Internal) Report Drafting & Merit/Excellence Scaffolding (20 mins)
Report — Section 6. Submit: (1) what WAI 262 sought regarding taonga species and mātauranga, in your own words; (2) your governance analysis naming who must be at the table, when, and with what standing; (3) whakapapa, mauri and tapu/noa applied to your issue, each stated as a constraint rather than a cost.
🏫 Kaiako Planning & Pedagogy Notes
NCEA Level 3 Alignment: Direct preparation for NCEA Level 3 Biology — Internal (Integrate biological knowledge to develop an informed response to a socio-scientific issue). Emphasise balanced consideration of alternative perspectives and justified conclusions for Merit/Excellence grades.