Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Genomics and Human Genetics: Genomic Equity and Justice for Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples have been stewarding lands with fire for ecosystem improvement since time immemorial. These stewardship practices are part and parcel of the ways in which Indigenous Peoples have long recorded and protected knowledge through our cultural transmission practices, such as oral histories. In short, our Peoples have always been data gatherers, and as this article presents, we are also fire data gatherers and stewards. Given the growing interest in fire research with Indigenous communities, there is an opportunity for guidance on data collection conducted equitably and responsibly with Indigenous Peoples. This Special Issue of Fire presents fire research approaches and data harvesting practices with Indigenous communities as we “Reimagine the Future of Living and Working with Fire”. Specifically, the article provides future-thinking practices that can achieve equitable, sustainable, and just outcomes with and for stakeholders and rightholders (the preferred term Indigenous Peoples use in partnerships with academics, agencies, and NGOs). This research takes from the following key documents to propose an “Indigenous fire data sovereignty” (IFDS) framework: (1) Articles declared in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as identified by the author and specified in Indigenous-led and allied Indigenous fire research in Australia, Canada, and the U.S.; (2) recommendations specific to cultural fire policy and calls for research in the 2023 Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission report; (3) research and data barriers and opportunities produced in the 2024 Good Fire II report; and threads from (4) the Indigenous Fire Management conceptual model. This paper brings together recommendations on Indigenous data sovereignty, which are principles developed by Indigenous researchers for the protection, dissemination, and stewardship of data collected from Tribal/Nation/Aboriginal/First Nations Indigenous communities. The proposed IFDS framework also identifies potential challenges to Indigenous fire data sovereignty. By doing so, the framework serves as an apparatus to deploy fire research and data harvesting practices that are culturally informed, responsible, and ethically demonstrated. The article concludes with specific calls to action for academics and researchers, allies, fire managers, policymakers, and Indigenous Peoples to consider in exercising Indigenous fire data sovereignty and applying Indigenous data sovereignty principles to fire research.

<p>Chapter 21 in the book <em><a href="http://www.africanminds.co.za/dd-product/state-of-open-data/">The State of Open Data: Histories and Horizons.</a></em></p>

This study explores the current state and dynamics of the global Indigenous data sovereignty movement-the movement pressing for Indigenous peoples to have full control over the collection and governance of data relating to their lived realities. The article outlines the movement's place within the broader push for Indigenous self-determination; examines its links to big data, open data, intellectual property rights, and access and benefit-sharing; details a pioneering assertion of data sovereignty by Canada's First Nations; outlines relevant UN and international civil society processes; and examines the nascent movement in Africa. The study identifies a fundamental tension between the objectives of Indigenous data sovereignty and those of the open data movement, which does not directly cater for Indigenous peoples' full control over their data. The study also identifies the need for African Indigenous peoples to become more fully integrated into the global Indigenous data sovereignty movement.

American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

In this article we argue that in Australian social work context and practice, Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) needs to be operationalised by enacting the principles of Indigenous Data Governance (ID-GOV). Failure to embed ID-SOV and ID-GOV leaves the profession open to claims that it is complicit in disempowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to data. ID-SOV is a global movement focused on Indigenous Peoples having access to, and ownership, control, and possession of, their data. Social work is a profession committed to championing equal rights and challenging injustices. Therefore, it has an obligation to decolonise existing data structures in its workplaces. This article outlines the Australian ID-SOV movement, including current scholarship on operationalising ID-SOV in the form of ID-GOV, and the challenge for social work to position itself in alliance with the ID-SOV movement and in active participation in changing the way Indigenous data have traditionally been collected and used in Australia IMPLICATIONS The Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) movement demands the data rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and is re-shaping the Australian data landscape. If social work is true to its stated commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination, the profession needs to engage with ID-SOV and work to operationalise Indigenous Data Governance (ID-GOV) across social work environments. A particular focus of this article is the importance of ID-SOV and ID-GOV being operationalised within social work research and policy in areas such as “child protection”, the criminal justice system, health and wellbeing, and housing.

In the current data‐driven landscape of wildlife conservation, data sovereignty (i.e. governance and security) is fundamental to determining how knowledge is created and applied to pressing biodiversity concerns. Western science increasingly champions open data, which uplifts data stewardship and sharing to make data more accessible. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples stress the importance of Indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) to assert Indigenous rights over Indigenous data. These two philosophies offer distinct approaches to data sovereignty, creating possible tensions in collaborations between Western scientists and Indigenous Peoples. Awareness of this issue in wildlife conservation is slowly growing, and practical guidance is needed for balancing IDS and open data in collaborations. Here, we review current literature to identify challenges in bringing IDS and open data together in collaborative wildlife conservation. We include specific commentary for wildlife sensors (camera traps and autonomous recording units) due to the growing use and demonstrated interest in open data practices for these technologies and their appeal in Indigenous‐led conservation. We describe three nested themes of data sovereignty: collaborative relationships, data governance and data stewardship. Within these themes, we identify nine recommendations to navigate potential IDS and open data tensions in collaborations, stressing the need to focus on relationship building, support Indigenous data governance agendas and to discuss upfront expectations for data stewardship. Additionally, we suggest reflective questions to consider throughout the data life cycle. This provides a framework for understanding the sociocultural implications of wildlife data and supporting IDS throughout the collaborative process, while identifying opportunities to apply open data stewardship practices. Synthesis and applications: Our work demonstrates the need for explicit recognition of IDS principles for wildlife data and proposes general guidance for addressing data sovereignty in collaborative initiatives. We recognize that our recommendations are not exhaustive and that each collaborative context brings unique challenges and opportunities. We invite continued discussion on data governance and stewardship to promote shared learning. Our recommendations can be applied more broadly to facilitate a new approach to data sovereignty in collaborations across the natural sciences. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

American Indians, Alaska Natives and other Indigenous Peoples throughout the world continue to experience research abuse. Data that draw on Indigenous knowledge, including intellectual property, oral histories, interviews, cultural expressions and other qualitative data are especially at risk of appropriation, theft and misrepresentation and threaten cultural sovereignty. As more Indigenous Peoples assert their right to govern research in their communities, universities must consider their role in this growing movement of Indigenous research rights. Overall, the expectations, requirements and processes of university institutional review boards generally do not support Indigenous Data Sovereignty. In this chapter, I discuss political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty and Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the United States. I also discuss the role of universities in addressing Indigenous Data Sovereignty by exploring select United States university institute review board guidelines that specifically address research with Indigenous Peoples. Finally, I offer recommendations for universities and university-affiliated researchers to support Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

Indigenous peoples have cultivated biodiverse agroecosystems since time immemorial. The rise of metagenomics and high‐throughput sequencing technologies in biodiversity studies has rapidly expanded the scale of data collection from these lands. A respectful approach to the data life cycle grounded in the sovereignty of indigenous communities is imperative to not perpetuate harm. In this paper, we operationalize an indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) framework to outline realistic considerations for genomic data that span data collection, governance, and communication. As a case study for this framework, we use arthropod genomic data collected from diversified and simplified farm sites close to and far from natural habitats within a historic Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) agroecosystem. Diversified sites had the highest Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) richness for native and introduced arthropods. There may be a significant spillover effect between forest and farm sites, as farm sites near a natural habitat had higher OTU richness than those farther away. We also provide evidence that management factors such as the number of Polynesian crops cultivated may drive arthropod community composition. Through this case study, we emphasize the context‐dependent opportunities and challenges for operationalizing IDS by utilizing participatory research methods, expanding novel data management tools through the Local Contexts Hub, and developing and nurturing community partnerships—all while highlighting the potential of agroecosystems for arthropod conservation. Overall, the workflow and the example presented here can help researchers take tangible steps to achieve IDS, which often seems elusive with the expanding use of genomic data.

Data have become the new global currency, and a powerful force in making decisions and wielding power. As the world engages with open data, big data reuse, and data linkage, what do data-driven futures look like for communities plagued by data inequities? Indigenous data stakeholders and non-Indigenous allies have explored this question over the last three years in a series of meetings through the Research Data Alliance (RDA). Drawing on RDA and other gatherings, and a systematic scan of literature and practice, we consider possible answers to this question in the context of Indigenous peoples vis-á-vis two emerging concepts: Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance. Specifically, we focus on the data challenges facing Native nations and the intersection of data, tribal sovereignty, and power. Indigenous data sovereignty is the right of each Native nation to govern the collection, ownership, and application of the tribe’s data. Native nations exercise Indigenous data sovereignty through the interrelated processes of Indigenous data governance and decolonizing data. This paper explores the implications of Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance for Native nations and others. We argue for the repositioning of authority over Indigenous data back to Indigenous peoples. At the same time, we recognize that there are significant obstacles to rebuilding effective Indigenous data systems and the process will require resources, time, and partnerships among Native nations, other governments, and data agents.

Yarning is a trusted, culturally integral way of creating new knowledge that is different from focus groups. This article is a reflection piece from an Aboriginal Researcher engaging with Indigenous Standpoint and auto-ethnographic approaches to explore how yarning interfaces with Indigenous data sovereignty. It is argued through the themes of deep listening, tension, relationality, and power—from memories and lived experiences—that yarning upholds the rights of Indigenous data sovereignty because it enables intimacy, connection, and recognition of cultural knowledge holders. IMPLICATIONS Indigenous Data Sovereignty recognises the rights of Indigenous people to determine the means of collection, ownership, and dissemination of data pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. The level of intimacy and connection between First Nations Peoples obtained through yarning is at risk of being compromised if non-Indigenous researchers conflate yarning with focus groups.

In an increasingly digital world, we are continuously being met with novel and unprecedented challenges, the likes of which we have never encountered in our human history. Not only are we engaged in the balancing act of protecting individual and personal rights and freedoms with respect to both positive and negative rights, but we are also working to balance the interests of our communities, societies, and the greater global world in this novel forum. We have seen a growth in the desire for equality and equity for under-recognized and marginalised social groups, including the interest in indigenous rights and data sovereignty, as well as greater environmental accountability and transparency with regard to the inner workings of data centres and large technological infrastructure projects. Finally, we are seeing the fast-paced growth of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the corresponding concerns relating to human rights and ethics. These topics, and many more, are the ones which we will have to face as emerging topics in data sovereignty and digital governance in the months and years to come.In this chapter, we will discuss some of the major emerging topics in data sovereignty and digital governance, including the concept of digital rights, indigenous data sovereignty, the issues associated with data centres and data mines, digital self-determination, artificial intelligence, social responsibility, and data policing.KeywordsDigital rightsIndigenous data sovereigntyData centres and minesDigital self-determinationArtificial intelligence

Indigenous data sovereignty is of global concern. The power of data through its multitude of uses can cause harm to Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and Nations in Canada and globally. Indigenous research principles play a vital role in guiding researchers, scholars and policy makers in their careers and roles. We define data, data sovereignty principles, ways of practicing Indigenous research principles, and recommendations for applying and actioning Indigenous data sovereignty through culturally safe self-reflection, interpersonal and reciprocal relationships built upon respect, reciprocity, relevance, responsibility and accountability. Research should be co-developed, co-led, and co-disseminated in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and/or nations to build capacity, support self-determination, and reduce harms produced through the analysis and dissemination of research findings. OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access & Possession), OCAS (Ownership, Control, Access & Stewardship), Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles in conjunction the 4Rs (respect, relevance, reciprocity & responsibility) and cultural competency including self-examination of the 3Ps (power, privilege, and positionality) of researchers, scholars and policy makers can be challenging, but will amplify the voices and understandings of Indigenous research by implementing Indigenous data sovereignty in Canada.

Indigenous people constitute the lowest represented ethnic minority group in most genomic and precision health research studies. However, most efforts to increase engagement of Indigenous people have been problematized in terms of increasing recruitment but without correcting past research practices deemed extractive by Indigenous communities. For instance, recent efforts to increase engagement of Indigenous people in research are tied to increasing “inclusion of diverse populations” but with vague promises of someday leading to future innovations in genomics and precision health. Yet, structural barriers and lack of preventative healthcare contribute more proximally to gaps in health disparities and are unlikely to be addressed by indeterminate advances of precision medicine in Indigenous communities. Merely increasing inclusion of Indigenous people in precision health research without also expanding decision-making agency and equity is effectively misusing “inclusivity” as a guise for continued extractive work. Empowering Indigenous-led biorepositories enables participation and tribal oversight, but still facilitates research under tribal oversight that is more culturally consistent with Indigenous models of consent. Change is needed to build trust and encourage tribal participation in precision health research. Empowering Indigenous genomic and data sovereignty is the path forward for truly increasing health equity.

This article explores the technology underpinning the decentralized data revolution and encourages Indigenous Peoples (IPs) to secure their Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) over the Metaverse and Web3. More specifically, this article will survey blockchain technologies, exploring some disturbing colonial uses and providing an international legal framework that IPs can use to advance their IDSov internationally and domestically. This article will consider the role that cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, decentralized oracles, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralized finance (DeFi), and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) might play in advancing IDSov as it relates to western conceptualizations of Web3 and the Metaverse. The worldwide web's global data structure is undergoing a seismic shift that will significantly impact IPs. As inherent sovereigns, IPs are uniquely positioned to use and regulate these technologies in manners consistent with their cultural values and international indigenous human rights instruments. However, the march toward Web3 also looms menacingly over IPs. As such, we intend to examine IPs' novel risks and opportunities with Web3 and the Metaverse. We conclude by encouraging IPs to become fluent in the minutia of these technologies and to exert their inherent sovereignty over these nascent technologies in international and domestic arenas by building culturally informed systems to address their particularized needs. Future research should look toward the specific hurdles, and successes IPs are experiencing as they apply the technologies and principles discussed here.

Indigenous Peoples' right to sovereignty forms the foundation for advocacy and actions toward greater Indigenous self-determination and control across a range of domains that impact Indigenous Peoples' communities and cultures. Declarations for sovereignty are rising throughout Indigenous communities and across diverse fields, including Network Sovereignty, Food Sovereignty, Energy Sovereignty, and Data Sovereignty. Indigenous Research Sovereignty draws in the sovereignty discourse of these initiatives to consider their applications to the broader research ecosystem. Our exploration of Indigenous Research Sovereignty, or Indigenous self-determination in the context of research activities, has been focused on the relationship between Indigenous Data Sovereignty and efforts to describe Indigenous Peoples' Rights in data.