國內外研究皆發現，過去原住民基因研究頻傳倫理爭議，主因是原住民社群與研究者對於基因研究的認知不同。針對此爭議許多國家已經設計並執行社群研究同意權的審查制度，讓被研究社群能夠針對研究者提出的研究計畫表示意見，並提出對等的條件，以維護社群自身的權利。國內的基因研究倫理規範僅止於個人同意權保障，雖然2005 年公告實施的〈原住民族基本法〉中，對於針對原住民族的研究項目有社群同意權的制度設計，但至今施行辦法闕如，並無法對研究者產生規範作用。然而近期國內實際發生了兩例原住民社群研究同意權實踐的案例，一是噶瑪蘭社群要求研究單位銷毀社群檢體，二是西拉雅社群與研究者簽署研究平等公約後同意採檢。噶瑪蘭一案被採檢者依照現行個人研究同意權保障中的反悔權為基礎，以「集合個人反悔權」的形式執行社群反悔權。西拉雅一案則在被研究社群展現強烈的自主意識下，達成社群究同意權實質審查。此兩例將作為臺灣建立社群研究同意權審查制度的重要案例，更重要的是可引導被研究社群在制度尚未完整建立前，如何實際運作社群研究同意權。

The conceptual difference between indigenous peoples and genetic researchers is the main reason of ethical controversies in genetic researches. A group consent proved by the Indigenous Community Review Board (CRB) is necessary to prevent those ethical controversies and to protect the collective right of Taiwan indigenes. The requirement of CRB is designed in the Basic Act of Taiwan Indigenes, but cannot be practiced because of lack of penalty. However, there were two cases which really practiced indigenous group consent in 2007, by complying the requirement of the Regulation for Collection of Human Subjects. A Kavalan village decided to withdraw their saliva and DNA material collectively by the practice of retracting right designed in the Regulation,and a Siraya village worked with genetic researchers to design a research contract to protect their collective right toward genetic research. These two cases can be seemed as models to practice group consent toward any researches while the Basic Act has not yet completed.