Towards reconciliation: Ten Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada

PERSPECTIVE Towards reconciliation: Ten Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada

Abstract

In twenty fifteen, after documenting testimonies from Indigenous survivors of the residential school system in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released ninety-four Calls to Action to enable reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Without personal connections to Indigenous communities, many Canadians fail to grasp the depth of intergenerational impacts of residential schools and associated systemic racism. Consequently, reconciliation remains an elusive concept. Here we outline ten Calls to Action to natural scientists to enable reconciliation in their work. We focus on natural scientists because a common connection to the land should tie the social license of natural scientists more closely to Indigenous communities than currently exists. We also focus on natural sciences because of the underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in this field. We draw on existing guidelines and our experiences in northern Canada. Our ten Calls to Action are triggered by frustration. The authors have witnessed examples where natural scientists treat Indigenous communities with blatant disrespect or with ignorance of Indigenous rights. These ten Calls to Action challenge the scientific community to recognize that reconciliation requires a new way of conducting natural science, one that includes and respects Indigenous communities, rights, and knowledge leading to better scientific and community outcomes.

Introduction

In twenty fifteen, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released ninety-four Calls to Action to redress the intergenerational legacy of, and the systemic racism behind, residential schools in Canada. Over one hundred fifty thousand Indigenous children attended these schools, which operated for over one hundred fifty years as tools of cultural assimilation by the Canadian government. The Calls to Action were developed to facilitate and enable reconciliation, rebalance relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, to tell this part of Canadian history, and to create a path forward based on mutual respect. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that "virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered" for true reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The majority of the ninety-four Calls to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are aimed at governments and institutions and not at the level of individuals. Factual Indigenous history, including the history of residential schools in Canada, is a recent addition to public education in Canada. As a result, most non-Indigenous adults have received no education concerning Indigenous history or the legacy of residential schools. Without personal connections to Indigenous communities, colleagues, or friends, many Canadians fail to grasp the residual injustice and racism in Canada or the depth of intergenerational trauma and other impacts of residential schools. Consequently, understanding how to enable reconciliation at the level of individual Canadians remains an elusive concept. In this paper, we outline ten Calls to Action to natural scientists to enable reconciliation. We hope these calls will spark initiative and engagement and help natural scientists build a foundation of mutual respect and understanding with Indigenous peoples that allows for direct reconciliatory actions.

Scientific research is not immune to or removed from the need for reconciliation. Indigenous communities distrust researchers from all disciplines because of past exploitations, which include treatment of Indigenous peoples as research subjects without consent, misuse of health data, theft of cultural resources, and manipulation of wildlife. Reconciliation is required to rebuild trust and respect. We focus on natural scientists because of the strong connections between Indigenous peoples and the land. Natural scientists and Indigenous communities alike are interested in understanding patterns at the level of landscapes and, more recently, how landscapes are changing with human influences, most notably climate change. We argue this shared connection to the land should tie natural scientists' social license to conduct research more closely to Indigenous communities than currently exists. Social license is the informal acceptance of the research and expectations of its benefits by the community and the public at large.

Social and health scientists in Canada have been guided for years on the ethical conduct for research involving humans by a policy which was jointly issued by the three federal research agencies in Canada-the Tri-Council: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The Tri-Council's Policy Statement on the Ethical Conduct for Research Involving chapter on working with Indigenous communities. Although Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is part of the Tri-Council, we argue that very few natural science researchers are aware of the guidance given by TCPS two on working with Indigenous communities. It would appear most natural scientists do not see the link between their work and Indigenous communities if people are not directly interviewed or sampled.

We also focus on natural sciences because of the underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in natural science fields. Indigenous people in Canada are less likely to obtain science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and computer science degrees than non-Indigenous Canadians. Only zero point nine percent of the Indigenous population older than fifteen years hold a bachelor's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degree and zero point two percent hold a graduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degree. Non-Indigenous education attainment rates for these degrees are four and ten times higher: four point zero percent and two point zero percent respectively. Relatively more Indigenous people hold degrees in business, humanities, health arts, social science, and education fields: five point five percent hold bachelor's degrees and two point zero percent hold graduate degrees. Under-representation in the natural sciences means it is challenging for Indigenous perspectives to influence scientific processes and endeavours, including decisions on educational content, research ethics, research methods, and funding.

More disconcerting is the large gap in attaining literacy in mathematics and science in grade school between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students across Canada. For example, only forty-four percent of First Nation students in Grade seven in Yukon met numeracy expectations compared with seventy-seven percent of non-First Nations students in twenty seventeen to twenty eighteen. Similarly, attainment of grade twelve standardized math was fifty-four percent for Indigenous students versus seventy percent of non-Indigenous students in Manitoba in twenty thirteen to twenty fourteen. In British Columbia, only forty-six percent of Indigenous students in Grade ten science do better than C plus, in contrast to seventy percent of non-Indigenous students in twenty fifteen to twenty sixteen. Natural scientists can play an influential role in addressing the gap in scientific literacy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

We were motivated by the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to translate the general intent of relevant Calls to Action into tangible outcomes and approaches that can be employed by natural scientists. We drew on existing guidelines on ethical conduct for research involving humans, cultural resources, and data ownership. These include: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, First Nation principles of OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access and Possession), National Inuit Strategy on Research, Principles for Ethical Métis Research, guidelines for conducting research in northern Canada, TCSP two, and perspectives on reconciliation from social scientists and other initiatives.

We also draw upon our experiences from working on the ground with natural scientists. The authors of this paper include: (i) MJJ, an Elder from Kluane First Nation who has worked for decades documenting Indigenous cultural resources for Kluane First Nation and the federal government; (ii) LI, a policy analyst who is Anishinaabe and worked for The Assembly of First Nations on species at risk and Indigenous Knowledge; (iii) HS, a professor at University of Waterloo specializing in freshwater toxicology who has worked across northern Canada; (iv) KB, the Resource Manager for Kluane First Nation; and (v) CW, the ecologist for Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon. Three of the authors review applications for research permits in Yukon and Kluane National Park and Reserve, which is cooperatively managed by Parks Canada, Kluane First Nation, and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.

These Calls to Action are triggered by frustration. The authors have all witnessed examples where natural scientists treat Indigenous communities with blatant disrespect or with profound ignorance of Indigenous rights without realizing how much research can benefit from an Indigenous perspective. Although our experiences are primarily limited to Yukon, colleagues in other jurisdictions in Canada have shared incidents similar to what we describe in this paper. First Nation and Inuit organizations and governments in the northern territories are ahead of most other areas of Canada in terms of asserting self-determination over research. In Yukon, Final Agreements are in place for eleven of the fourteen First Nations with traditional territories covering most of the land area. If you are conducting natural science research in Yukon, you will more than likely be dealing with a First Nation government with constitutionally protected rights and law-making over their lands and interests. Furthermore, Inuit Nunangat covers approximately thirty-five percent of Canada's land mass, and there are six hundred thirty-four First Nation communities and over five hundred eighty-seven thousand Métis found across Canada. As a result, the reality of conducting research on land somewhere of interest to Indigenous peoples is almost guaranteed in Canada.

Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada Call one: We call on natural scientists to understand the socio-political landscape around their research sites.

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination as per Article three of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We all have a moral obligation to understand how Indigenous peoples are manifesting or attempting to express these rights in our everyday lives and activities. This includes the arena of research. Over the last several hundred years, Indigenous peoples have continued to push for the type of relationship and moral space they wish to attain within the Canadian context. Now, there are constitutionally recognized rights, titles, treaties, and land claim agreements across Canada. These are clear expressions of Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination. Engaging with Indigenous peoples in all types of research will support Indigenous peoples' self-determination and their attempts to restructure the relationship within Canada.

Indigenous peoples also have the right to determine priorities and strategies for the use or development of their lands. Article thirty-two point two goes further to state that "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources". Although Article thirty-two point two is directed at governments, individual researchers, especially those receiving public funds, should consider their obligation to consult and cooperate with Indigenous communities to obtain their consent. Direct application of the intent of these United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Articles to research can be found in the National Inuit Strategy on Research.

The first step to better understand how proposed research initiatives may impact Indigenous peoples is to determine which Indigenous government or community has jurisdiction over or interests in the research site. Many Indigenous communities have their own ethics guidelines for research and (or) process for research permitting. Natural scientists should be aware of local requirements. The next step is to determine who to talk to and to genuinely engage with them on what is being proposed and how the proposal meets the interest and priorities of Indigenous communities. This is often complicated as there can be multiple overlapping traditional territories and complex authority structures within an Indigenous government or community. It takes time and effort to understand the socio-political landscape around a research site.

The consequences of not understanding the socio-political landscape can result in the obstruction of research from proceeding. For example, in twenty thirteen, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations invoked a stop-work order with the Yukon Supreme Court on archaeological research in ice patches that had been permitted by Yukon government, despite the First Nations opposing the original permit application. The research eventually proceeded in partnership with Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.

Call two: We call on natural scientists to recognize that generating knowledge about the land is a goal shared with Indigenous peoples and to seek meaningful relationships and possible collaboration for better outcomes for all involved.

The common ground between Indigenous communities and scientists might be an understanding that we are all part of something greater than our differences and that complex problems can benefit from multiple ways of knowing. Indigenous peoples inhabiting areas since time immemorial have developed an exceptional understanding of the environment needed for their survival. From their communal memory, Indigenous peoples are capable of observing trends or variations in their lands that no other sensor can replicate. Because Indigenous peoples have deep understanding of the land and continue to require new information to adapt to impacts from climate change, early engagement with Indigenous communities can determine shared questions with scientists and explore where the two different knowledge systems (Indigenous and Western) may complement each other or can be bridged. Early dialogue can result in a stronger framework of hypotheses to test.

Reconciliation requires exploring opportunities for reciprocity such that both the Indigenous community and the natural scientist benefit from publicly funded research. While relationships and collaborations with Indigenous communities will vary depending on the nature and length of the work and community capacity, they must always be built on a strong foundation of respect for Indigenous rights, guidelines, protocols, customs, and respect for the land on which the work is occurring. Researchers will be better received when they present themselves to communities as people first and recognize that professional credentials are often not valued as much as humility, honesty, and a willingness to listen, adapt, and respond. Awareness of previous experiences (both positive and negative) that a community has had with previous researchers is often instrumental in the development of new relationships. While community questions and scientific questions may not align, there are multiple ways scientists can facilitate reciprocity without impacting academic freedom, e.g., offering technical expertise to address the community's research needs or offering field positions as educational and economic opportunities. Provision of employment and training opportunities should be developed in collaboration with the community and extend beyond permitting requirements whenever possible. One common example in the Arctic is to hire Bear Monitors whose job is to monitor polar bears to provide safety during field work.

In our experience, when scientists engage communities early enough, the quality of scientific and community outcomes is higher, the process is less likely to become adversarial, and the researcher is more likely to generate creative solutions to concerns raised. Early dialogue allows researchers to constructively consider and integrate community priorities into applications for funding and permits, and results in refinement of research questions, methods, outcomes, and deliverables such that the community is better served and respected. When a call for proposals occurs on very tight timelines, as is increasingly the case, the researcher should anticipate that achieving meaningful community engagement may not be possible and efforts may have to be redirected to the next funding cycle.

Developing relationships with Indigenous communities can be very daunting to young scientists and (or) those who are not trained or experienced with working in cross-cultural environments. Engaging a mentor who has an established track record of successful partnerships with Indigenous communities, consulting other scientists who have worked in the community or region, and following other advice can help facilitate a positive outcome and experience for all. In some communities, liaisons can be hired to ensure researchers enter into dialogue and undertake their work with appropriate context. Liaisons can also facilitate ongoing effective communication-this can be especially helpful in remote communities-and can assist with administration of local employment opportunities associated with the research. Although it is difficult to overstate the value of face-to-face meetings in fostering relationships, sensitivity to available capacity and technology is appreciated; we suggest that researchers ask for feedback on how often and what means of communication are preferred.