The benefits of a research system that is inclusive of
Indigenous perspectives
The Biocultural (BC) Label Initiative is designed to directly support
and benefit Indigenous communities, but it will also enhance research,
biodiversity, and conservation outcomes. For instance, Traditional
Knowledge often augments research (e.g. Ross et al., 2018), and the
Notices and Labels provide a safe system to promote this exchange. The
trust that is intrinsically built in the process of applying Labels will
further facilitate meaningful future collaboration (discussed in Hudson
et al., 2018, 2020), and potentially easier implementation of
conservation and management plans informed by the research. Such a
process enables Indigenous communities to be directly connected with
research findings, to inform stewardship of resources according to
traditional roles (Smith, 2016; Hudson et al., 2020), to act as citizen
scientists, and to build capacity across diverse communities (Hudson et
al., 2018; Nanibaa’ et al., 2019).
There are evident benefits academically and reputationally for
researchers that use Notices. Engaging with the Local Contexts system
provides researchers with a visible profile on the Local Contexts Hub
promoting their research activity among researchers and Indigenous
communities. The collaboration between Local Contexts and ORCiD will
further support the recognition of researchers using Notices and will
facilitate their transmission to publications. The application of
Notices (and subsequently Labels) also tracks ABS beyond the initial
collaboration, attributing greater impact to research and publications.
Such transparency and accounting can be useful in our own peer-review
research system. The Nagoya Protocol calls for domestic legislation to
create legal guidelines for those seeking to access and utilize genetic
resources for research and development (United Nations, 2011). The
Biocultural Label Initiative is not proposed to replace domestic
legislation, but can initiate a common standard for the research
community as well as Indigenous communities collaborating across
national boundaries, and for reviewers, editors, funding agencies, and
downstream data-users wanting to support the principles of ABS.
As a research community there is incentive to support Indigenous
interests and ABS (Eds., 2020 Nature Reviews Genetics ; Marden et
al., 2020). Without appropriate means to build trust and safeguard
Indigenous interests, research and most importantly, biodiversity and
conservation outcomes for our shared futures may be compromised (Marden
2018; Marden et al., 2020; Smyth, Macall, Phillips, & de Beer, 2020).
To ensure equitable understanding of the opportunities and risks
associated with the access and use of genetic resources, both Indigenous
communities and our research community would benefit from the heightened
transparency, communication, and accounting afforded by the BC Labels
and Notices. We all have a role and a responsibility to forward new
initiatives that place equity at the center of research practice and
digital infrastructures. For example: researchers, reviewers, editors,
and journals will need to encourage uptake; data repositories will need
to implement and enable retention of Labels and Notices as metadata that
interoperate with the Local Contexts Hub; and funders will need to
request specific statements regarding Indigenous Data Sovereignty and
ABS within data management plans. Crucially, Indigenous communities and
researchers will need to work together toward mutual understanding. For
authors publishing in Molecular Ecology and Molecular
Ecology Resources , the provisioning of a “Data Accessibility and
Benefit‐Sharing Statement” is a place to start, and through
additionally using Notices, we can also make space for our Indigenous
collaborators and partners to be properly recognized, attributed and
included. This will build more trust in the research and data, better
relationships in practice for the future and more equitable outcomes.