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.