 All right, I'll go ahead and kick us off. Greetings everyone and thank you very much for attending this month's science seminar presented by the NSS National Ecological Observatory Network which is operated by Battelle. Our goal with this monthly series of talks is to build community among researchers at the intersection of Ecology, Environmental Science and NEON. We are super excited to have Stephanie Carroll and Lydia Jennings here to present to us today. And before we turn it over to our speakers, I would like to go through a few logistics. So first, we have enabled optional automated closed captioning for today's talk. If you would like to use it, please find the closed caption button in your Zoom menu bar. Our webinar today will consist of a presentation followed by a Q&A. As you think of questions, please do add them to the Q&A box. We will facilitate discussion at the end of the talk and there will also be, there should be an opportunity to ask some questions over audio. NEON welcomes contributions from everyone who shares our values of unity, creativity, collaboration, excellence and appreciation. This is outlined in our code of conduct, well, what you can find on our science webinars webpage. And of course, please review this code of contact which applies to everyone participating in NEON events. This talk will be recorded and made available for later viewing on the science seminars webpage. Down here are the links to all the previous talks. So we will get the link to the YouTube video up after the seminar concludes. And then to compliment our monthly science seminar series, we host related data skills webinars on how to access and use NEON data. Registration for those is available on the same science seminars webpage. If we keep moving down to the bottom of the screen, there's some information about the webinars and links to register. And lastly, we're soliciting nominations for the 2023-2024 round of speakers for the seminars series. So please nominate yourself or a colleague today by filling in the form which is located up here, nominate a seminar speaker. All right, with that, I would love to turn it over to Dr. Katie Jones to introduce today's speakers. Hi, my name is Katie Jones and I am a staff scientist here at NEON. And I'm calling in today from Lions, Colorado, which is a traditional homelands of the Neuch, the Hinonawe, Arapaho, and Sistitas Cheyenne peoples. I'm honored to introduce our speakers for today's seminar series, Doctors Stephanie Carroll and Lydia Jennings. Dr. Stephanie Carroll is a citizen of the native village of Putlika in Alaska and of Sicilian descent. At the University of Arizona, she is assistant professor of public health, associate director for the Native Nations Institute and acting director, assistant research professor at the Udall Center. Her research group, the Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance develops research policy practice innovations for indigenous data sovereignty. Her research teaching and engagement seek to transform institutional governance and ethics for indigenous control of indigenous data, particularly within open science, open data and big data context. Stephanie co-edited the book, Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy and led the publication of the care principles for indigenous data governance. Stephanie co-founded the US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network and co-founded and chairs the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group at the Research Data Alliance and the Indigenous Data Working Group for the IEEE P2890 recommended practice for Provenance of Indigenous People's Data. Stephanie is a founding board member of the Copper River Tribal College in Chitima, Alaska. She received her A.B. from Cornell University and her master's and doctorate in public health from the University of Arizona. And Dr. Lydia Jennings, who is also joining us is an environmental soil scientist and postdoctoral fellow at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Lydia is a citizen of the Pasco-Yaki tribe. She completed her PhD at the University of Arizona in the Department of Environmental Sciences with a minor in American Indian Policy. Her research interests are in soil health, environmental remediation and environmental data stewardship. Lydia is a 2014 University of Arizona and IEHS Superfund Program trainee, a 2015 recipient of National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowship Program, a 2019 American Geophysical Union Voices for Science Fellow, a 2020 Native Nations Institute Indigenous Data Sovereignty doctoral scholar. Outside of her scholarship, Lydia is passionate about connecting to the land through running and outdoor recreation. So please welcome, please join me in welcoming Dr. Stephanie Carroll and Lydia Jennings for their presentation, implementing the care principles in open data repositories. Welcome, everybody. And thank you, Katie. Siddharth Atna-Kasthan, Siddharth Stephanie Carroll, to Siddharth Atna-Kasthan, Siddharth Atna-Kasthan, hi, I'm Stephanie as Katie has told you, I'm Atna from the native village of Kludivka along the Copper River in Alaska and I'm also of Sicilian descent. So today I join you from Jackson now known as Tucson, Arizona, which is the land and territories which are home to the Atam and Yaqui peoples. And I am really excited to co-present with my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Lydia Jennings. Lydia? I'm Loa Sinchenyevo and I'm Lydia. And hi, everyone. I'm Lydia, I'm a citizen of Pascoe Yaqui and I'm currently a scholar at Duke University, which is the traditional lands of the Tutelo, Seponi and Okanikji tribes. I'm still learning them out here. And so I'm excited to be with Stephanie here today and talk about influencing the care principles into open data repositories. I think this is something I've been, I've been thinking throughout my PhD work and Stephanie has been a really great mentor in this scholarship. So to jump right into things, this map I'm sure looks familiar to everyone at Neon but for those who aren't familiar, this is a photo of the sites that Neon is currently collecting samples on. And so I think that's important as we begin this presentation today to recognize that Neon is collecting samples both on reservation lands. I think Katie mentioned in another project that there's about five on reservation lands but also in many lands today are federal lands that indigenous peoples continue to hold enduring relationships with the lands, waters, air and our non-human relations. And so I think as we talk about this work and the many incredible scholarship that Neon scientists are thinking about, it's really also important to think beyond just these colonial notions of what is land but also thinking about what are the relationships to that land and to the data that we are generating and how are indigenous governance and stewardship recognized within the scholarship that so many Neon scientists engage with. So moving into this in the US, there are 574 tribes that the federal government recognizes as sovereign nations through government to government relationships. In many cases, those tribes had to give up land or other resources to prove through data that they're ongoing relations to the land in order to earn such recognition. States recognize another 60 or so tribes with which they share a geography. And native Hawaiians are yet to be recognized as a sovereign by the federal government. In addition, there are a number of other tribes that have yet to be recognized in the US. And some of these operate as sovereigns governing their own peoples, providing resources and services, et cetera. And so today when we talk about indigenous peoples and nations globally, I mean all of these political collectives recognized by nation state governments or not. Today we'll speak broadly about indigenous peoples but we'll use some examples from our experience here in the United States. So it's really vital to recognize how indigenous land stewardship is vital to biodiversity. No doubt some of you have seen these papers before coming in from nature, looking at where the highest propensity of biodiversity in terms of vertebrate species richness and less deforestation, paper by Garnett, and ill in those on all continents, indigenous peoples have the most biodiverse lands. It's been recognized by the UN, the indigenous lands, though indigenous people occupy less than a quarter of the Earth's land base, 80% of global biodiversity exists within those lands. And again, higher rare species richness but less deforestation. So we recognize indigenous peoples land stewardship and relationships to our land bases are really vital for everyone's collective understanding of biodiversity measurements. But where are indigenous peoples values being represented in the science? And that is a question that our colleague, Dominique David Chavez worked on in her dissertation. And as part of this dissertation research, she really developed this scale of levels of indigenous community engagement in the research to assess for how researchers access indigenous knowledge systems and how they engage with the communities and community members who maintain those knowledge systems. This was adopted from participatory agricultural research frameworks and is based on who holds authority and governance in the research process, ranging from no engagement down here, which really represents extractive research practices of community engagement to self-determined indigenous-led research practices. And so she applied this to a global systemic review analyzing 20 years of climate studies that included indigenous knowledge in their research. And she found that 80% of climate studies really were engaged in extractive research practices, representing the colonial legacies of our contemporary science. However, there were a handful of studies as well as numerous grassroots community efforts that live on in self-determined end of the scale. So it's really this sets of important groundwork of thinking about how can researchers, repositories, funders, and other institutions support the shift to self-determined community-engaged science that might make our science much stronger because it's informed by the local expertise. And one important way of doing this is through changing our data relationships. So I'm gonna add a couple of dimensions to what Lydia has been talking about, particularly around policy. And so from a policy perspective in the US, research and data have specifications for research with human subjects, as we know, but not a lot of specifications for research with biological materials and specimens and the non-human relations that we have. And so in an international effort led by Dr. Nanaba Garrison, we updated a review of how nation-state policies address indigenous concerns, in this case, for genomics research, but it applies broadly, not only to human subjects research, but to this context of research with all of our relations. And I say that from an indigenous perspective in terms of speaking about humans, but also lands, airs, waters, so forth. So our publication details specifically how the US Common Rule regulating human subjects research, which really sets the bar for how research is regulated in the US, fails to protect tribal collective rights and interests. So Lydia, if you click through, what we found are in this gray area that you see highlighted here in the red is that there are no requirements to engage with communities for community approval for secondary use of data and specimens, for community approval of research findings before release. And the Common Rule does not provide sanctions for the misuse of samples or data. So from an indigenous perspective, and I argue from all of our perspectives, while this may be disappointing, we know that the Common Rule, which was recently updated, will unlikely change anytime soon, which really demands action in other sectors, such as for repositories, federal funders, research institutions, such as universities, and tribes to begin to implement policies that promote the ethical and responsible use and reuse of indigenous people's data. Next slide, please. So one of the other policy arenas that we're working in is specifically around policy for indigenous people's data. And so the indigenous data sovereignty movement, which we'll talk about more in depth, has really been in earnest working for about seven or eight years now. And we've seen policy uptake across the globe, specifically in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And what we do see, and here, this is actually a slide from Dr. Dominique David Chavez, whom Lydia mentioned before, is that the U.S. has this, if you click, Lydia, highlighted in red, none. We have no federal policy, no state policies around indigenous data sovereignty. And so the U.S. remains lagging in terms of national policy and standards, addressing reconciliation of the colonial impacts and indigenous rights and ethics in research and data governance in relation to these other nations with similar settled colonial legacies. Next slide. Indigenous knowledge systems are informed by longitudinal inquiry lasting generations. Indigenous communities form, test, adapt, and refine their knowledge systems based upon careful observations. Many indigenous cultures utilize a variety of oral and physical mechanisms for transmitting knowledge and information. Here are different tools for storing and conveying information and data in North America, starting from the left clockwise, a totem pole, then the Lakota winter count on a hide, the Otham calendar stick, and a wampum belt. However, by and large, this settler colonial experience has been comprised of various efforts to kill, suppress, or co-op indigenous knowledge systems. Today, indigenous peoples' data include data, information, and knowledge in any format, generated by indigenous peoples on and about indigenous peoples and their territories. Indigenous peoples' data comprise information, specimens, and knowledge about the environment, lands, skies, resources, and non-humans with which they have relations. Information about indigenous peoples as individuals, such as administrative, senses, health, social, commercial, and corporate information, and information and knowledge about indigenous peoples on collectives, including traditional and cultural information, our oral histories, our ancestral and clan knowledges, our cultural sites, our stories, and our sense, our belonging. So indigenous data sovereignty emerges from a context of mainstream data sovereignty and data governance. And it's important to understand that from a mainstream perspective, data sovereignty has been the concept that information which has been converted and stored in binary digital form is subject to the laws of the country in which it's located. And at the same time, data governance, we need to recognize largely has come from a corporate ownership of data perspective. And so these values that are inherent in corporate law as well as corporate ownership in terms of nation-state perspectives have been the overriding values for data stewardship and data governance for a number of years. Next slide, Lydia. And so indigenous data sovereignty as a term emerged in 2015 and it underscores the right of indigenous peoples to govern their data from collection and storage to use and reuse. So it really finds its foundations in indigenous peoples own inherent sovereignty and only indigenous peoples and nations as rights holders can exercise indigenous data sovereignty. Indigenous data sovereignty is the responsibility and expression of the ways traditions and roles that communities have for the care and use of their knowledge. It leverages a human rights framework as well as nation-state policies and tools including laws and agreements as well as the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous data sovereignty underscores that knowledge belongs to the collective and is fundamental to who we are as indigenous peoples. So when we reflect back on mainstream definitions of data sovereignty and perspectives around data governance, indigenous data sovereignty expands beyond digital information. You heard that Lydia describes indigenous data and nation-state geographies to allow persistent relationships with data specimens, information and knowledges across time and space. And it then pushes back against mainstream corporate or even nation-state values in the roots of data governance to change these two at the same time benefit indigenous peoples and allow them to govern their data on their own terms. Next slide, Lydia. So data are critical to the exercise of tribal sovereignty. So indigenous peoples require data for governance and self-determined decision making. And when activating indigenous data sovereignty native nations and other data agents replace these external non-tribal norms and priorities with tribal systems that define data, control how it's collected and influence how it's used. It results in findings both derived from external data collected on indigenous peoples and from internal data produced by native nations that really reflect the understandings of those peoples. But at the same time indigenous nations like many other governments and institutions are creating and enacting data policies and practices that align with their values and knowledge systems. So indigenous data governance becomes a means to implementing greater indigenous data sovereignty. And what we see now is that indigenous nations rebuild their governance systems. They're also reclaiming their data systems. Next slide, Lydia. So sorry, indigenous nations have various levels of control or possessions of their data just like we do as individuals with high levels of control over their tribal enrollment data and very little control over, for instance, social and corporate data. So data work for indigenous nations as rights holders really requires relationships with other data stakeholders and actors both for expertise in collecting, accessing and using these data for governance as well as through relationships where external data stewards manage indigenous data by indigenous standards. So this occurs by implementing indigenous data governance. So next slide, Lydia. The important question then becomes how do we embed indigenous peoples' rights, interests and expectations and responsibilities into the creation of information and knowledge infrastructures to enhance access to and indigenous governance of such data? The overarching goal is to translate the ways that communities have for the care and use of their knowledge into the digital environment. And so that there's a variety of roles that this applies to, data repositories like NEON, publishers, researchers, other governments, granting agencies and universities. All of these have really important roles in recognizing indigenous data sovereignty as a concept and working with tribal nations to enhance the data governance process. Over the past seven years, there's been scholarship, the indigenous data sovereignty book and the follow-up book on indigenous data sovereignty and policy really engaging with these concepts and giving case study examples. One of the things that's occurred as indigenous data sovereignty has really taken place and moved forward in our practice as researchers and scientists is that what we hear from elders and from tribal leaders and from tribal communities a lot of times is that what we're doing here is really making what's old new again. And so we think back to Lydia's first slide around how indigenous peoples have always been data experts and me talking about indigenous data sovereignty, reflecting the roles and responsibilities we have in communities. And so what we're really trying to do is transform and translate those community held values and roles and responsibilities into the digital environment. And so what we've seen come out since the indigenous data sovereignty movement has started and even before that in a couple of contexts are a set of principles at various levels that underscore the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and data. So we've seen at the international level we have the care principles which are very broad and that Lydia and I will talk about that point down to more regional principles such as OCAP which are put out by the First Nations in Canada that I believe are about 25 years old now and the Maori data sovereignty principles which came out in 2016. And then those then point down to governance policies and protocols that indigenous nations have themselves within their communities that guide the stewardship of indigenous data more broadly. Next slide please. So I'm gonna speak about the care principles and we're gonna go into detail how you operationalize the care principles within repository settings. So in response really to the increased generation and use of data in open data, big data, open science and research environments and the concurrent limited opportunities for indigenous control use and benefit of data. A network of indigenous scholars led the development of the care principles for indigenous data governance through the global indigenous data alliance. So what the care principles set out to do were to put forth critical considerations for non-tribal data creators, stewards and users to guide the inclusion of indigenous peoples in data governance and increase their access to and benefit from data. So the care principles really work to shift the focus of data governance from consultation to values-based relationships, consent and have been widely recognized as thus enriching the discussion of collective rights to data for other populations as well. Next slide Lydia. And so I wanted to underscore that when the care principles were first drafted and vetted and had community feedback and input, one of the things that we did from a research perspective was look at what other data principles were out there at the moment in time. And so this was in 2018. And so we looked at both indigenous data principles from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US as well as mainstream data principles including the fair principles. And so what you see here is that this gray area where there's a lot of gray in the mainstream principles are principles that are data oriented. And so there are things about being findable, about being actionable, being exchangeable. And then in the indigenous principles what you see a lot of is particularly the white which are people oriented principles around indigenous knowledges, around authority, around obligations and reciprocity. And then a few purpose oriented principles which you also I'll note see in the open data charter which are around data governance, around intergenerational collective well-being and collective benefit. And so when we created the care principles they were specifically created to be in relationship to and compliment the fair principles because indigenous people need fair data but they also need their data to be applied in careful ways. Next slide please. So the care principles include four principles and three sub-principles for each principle. So they are collective benefit which details that a data ecosystem shall be designed and function in ways that enable indigenous peoples as collectives to benefit from data. Authority to control emphasizes the need for those working with data to uphold indigenous people's rights and support their interests in data. Responsibility reminds us as those working with indigenous data must center indigenous people's self-determination and collective benefit in data relationships. And finally ethics focuses on using indigenous peoples own ethics to guide decisions on harm, benefits, justice and future use. So these high level care principles do not set uniform standards to aspire to. Rather they set the minimum expectations and direct those interacting with indigenous data towards community specific guidance for the care of knowledge. A one size fits all policy at scale that does not attend to individual indigenous peoples rights, interests and responsibilities won't work. Next slide. So the care principles bring a people and purpose orientation to data governance which complements the data-centric nature of the popular fair principles which are findable, accessible, interpretable and reusable. The fair principles really seek to increase data sharing and implementation of the care principles with the fair principles together should be seen as necessary to allow indigenous peoples to govern, access and use their data and to share it on their own terms. And while today we are targeting primarily indigenous peoples it's been well widely accepted and acknowledged that this has many benefits to other minoritized groups as well. Currently the vast majority of indigenous data ranging from ethnographic material to biological materials to earth observations and so on are neither fair nor care. Indigenous collections and data can be hard to find. They can be buried in a larger collection and data sets and repositories or researcher possessions. Indigenous data are often mislabeled. Do not indicate that indigenous peoples who they're related to those data are not searchable. So therefore indigenous peoples largely are not the legal rights holders of their data. Thus indigenous collections and data are not fair and do not perpetrate indigenous provenance protocols for use in sharing or permissions. The care was created to be complimentary of fair data and have a continuing relationships with data. Implementation of fair and care go together. Stephanie. So the application of the care principles of cries across a broad spectrum of activities. So it is just not an ethical perspective per se. We need to practice care in data collection but also in the creation of data infrastructure. We need to engage care in data stewardship by using appropriate governance models and by making data fair. We need to implement care in the data community by educating and also creating tools for transparency, integrity and provenance. And finally using fair with care and data applications to increase fairness, accountability, transparency and assess equity about how data movements are occurring. Next slide, please. So we are concerned about implementing fair and care on already existing data as well as instituting policies and practices to operationalize fair and care and the ongoing creation of new data that incorporates indigenous knowledge. So some of the tools to make this a reality include using indigenous peoples own laws, policies and practices and investing in indigenous data systems. Updating other governments and institutions policies and practices is another necessary step towards ethical inclusion of indigenous knowledges in external data systems. And so what you see here is that some of these tools and practices for instance by enriching metadata which the tab there that says labels applies to and utilizing and changing institutional guidelines and data access protocols for instance cover a number of different care principles. So there's not just one activity for each principle that you need to do. There are activities that you can do that cover a broad range of these principles. Next slide, Lydia. So the goal of our work and the care principles is really to create law, policy, ethics, infrastructures that support indigenous rights to indigenous data throughout the data lifecycle and across the data ecosystem. This is a fantastic figure created by some of our collaborators from the local context hub that recognize these tools which we'll be discussing later on can exist in everywhere along the data's life cycle. And that is really our goal today to discuss this. We also wanna strengthen such rights by making changes even minimal at first across data actors such as research institutions, repositories, publishers, funders and more. And right now admittedly, none of us really know what we're doing researchers, repositories, tribes which ultimately means that we have an opportunity to do it magnificently, aligned with the plethora of rights, interests and expectations that exist. So we're gonna focus the second part of our presentation now in terms of actions that repositories and others can take moving forward to implement the care principles but also to uphold and support those rights moving forward through a framework called, Lydia if you can go to the next slide, the five A's which A is for appropriate action. So we're gonna talk about authority, access, authorship, attribution and acknowledgement. Next slide, please, there you go. So authority really is thinking about and applying how do you center indigenous peoples and people in leadership and scholarship? It is appropriately accessing and paying for indigenous leadership and participation in work. So not just constantly, for instance, asking indigenous scholars to comment or to look at your data management plan but actually to have them be a active part of your team and also to get paid. It is using existing tribal expectations to set policy and I put this out there particularly because as we see issues around indigenous knowledges, around indigenous people's data become more and more present across different funding streams and across different data actors. What we have are a number of different entities going to tribes at the same time. You have them coming from, I don't know a bunch of different federal agencies. You have a lot of different researchers coming to tribes and wanting to create data management plans or data use agreements or just wanting to set out how those relationships occur. And tribes have a lot to be dealing with besides data management and data rights. And so we need to realize that tribes have already set out some expectations about those rights that do not need to be informed by one-on-one communication but can be informed by accessing on your own what these expectations are. And then by supporting the growth of tribal policies and practices through funding of different tribal entities. So next slide please, Lydia. One of the things I wanted to highlight is that one of our colleagues, Professor Ibrahim Garba has been leading an effort to look at tribal research codes. So these are the codes, policies and procedures that tribes have for managing research with their humans and non-human relations. And so through a process of reviewing 30 publicly available processes across 13 themes, these documents include 22 tribal research institutional review board codes, five tribal college research IRB codes that review on behalf of tribes and three regional organizations, IRBs that also review on behalf of tribes. And so we're looking across these themes here that you see detailed and have actually issued a couple of papers so far that look at collective benefit and how these codes reflect and tell you as researchers and institutions what the expectations are around care principles. So next slide. This is just one of those papers that using indigenous standards to implement the care principles. And you see specifically here how the Karak tribe has said that they have appropriate and owners as well as restrictions on access to knowledge during certain chronological periods. And that this is out there. And that they're stating that this is something that has to be followed. And so you don't need to ask that. It's already stated. Next slide. One of the other things that in terms of supporting indigenous development of data science and data capability and capacity, just noting the native bio data consortium which is an indigenous led genetics and genomics research entity that's advancing bio baking and digital tools for indigenous data governance. And so this is an indigenous led biological data report repository, so a bio bank within tribal jurisdiction. They're a nonprofit corporation organized both under tribal law and federal law that is governed by a board of tribal citizens and other indigenous peoples. And so they've been doing research since 2009 but really this bio banking effort since 2018. Next slide. And so one of the things that happened when we issued the care principles in 2019 was immediately this thinking about what are the implications for provenance and other metadata needs? And how do these relate to access and attribution? So there are clear needs to enrich the metadata that are associated with indigenous people's data for some of the reasons that Lydia mentioned. And to think through how do we record provenance, permissions, attribution and protocols within this? And so it is an important first step to make indigenous data fair by acknowledging the amount of an indigenous knowledge that is ensured within platforms and trying to rectify the impoverished metadata that are there around that. And so next slide please. One of, I'll mention a couple of efforts here that are undergoing to improve that situation. So one of them is there is an effort to create a recommended practice for the provenance of indigenous people's data. This effort has been ongoing at the IEEE, which is an international standard sending entity. They have a very specific process to go through. We're at the point of having an official draft of the recommended practice by March. And instead of going directly into the IEEE process for vetting of that draft, we'll first have and many months, if not year long process of community engagement through our indigenous caucus. And so we're approaching this much like the United Nations does when indigenous people's interests are vetted through there. And so this will be out, like I said, about March and just sets these details, the rules by which the provenance of indigenous people's data should be described and recorded. We'll outline the core parameters for providing and digitally embedding provenance information for indigenous people's data and supports proper and appropriate disclosure of originating data information in order to ensure long-term identification of indigenous people's data for future use by connecting data to people in place and when appropriate supporting future benefit sharing options. Next slide. So one of the tools that we're suggesting in really asserting indigenous data sovereignty and the care principles into your data practices is by enriching the metadata. And one way of enriching the metadata can be put into action is to the use of the local context hubs, traditional knowledge labels, biocultural labels and notices. The local context labels and notices were developed in partnership with indigenous communities globally to enhance indigenous data governance and to establish the conditions for the sharing and reuse of indigenous knowledges and intellectual property in digital spaces. Now, one example of an organization that is already using these knowledge labels is the Genome Atlas, the European Research Genome Atlas of biodiversity. This is an example of their sample manifest. And you can see in the metadata itself it has places for traditional knowledge and biocultural labels that recognizing indigenous rights, ethics permits if those are required or not. And so I think it's really important as this is a way that research portals and collections of repositories with different metadata brokers are using these tools. And so ERGA partnered the local context hub to implement these traditional knowledge and biocultural labels and ensure that they translate across data ecosystems and create requirements for disclosing indigenous rights and interest in biodiversity data as the users upload metadata. In addition to the notices and labels, this ERGA manifest include a variety of fields and these categories can continue to stay with the data as it is transferred and compiled or reused in other data collections. So a really powerful tool. Another example of enhancing the metadata is the University of Maine. They also use a local context hub and they use their open to collaborate notice for environmental DNA samples. It's a first step in a process of building and honoring relationships between projects and Maine's indigenous peoples and communities. But these notices indicate the program's commitment to new modes of collaboration, engagement and partnerships with indigenous peoples for the care and stewardship of past and future heritage collections. The Tribal Historic Preservation Officers in Maine will actually receive notifications about EU DNA samples collected from their tribal lands and can apply specific labels to samples, enabling them to do more to more effectively monitor the research activities and future applications of the data in addition to recognizing data provenance and ensuring data users abide by tribal protocols and permissions. Another related and important piece of promoting indigenous status governance is related to attribution and authorship. Often individual researchers and groups from outside the community are the ones credited for and cited in relation to indigenous or local knowledges since their names are associated with the datasets, publications and research findings. These groups often do not have the same responsibilities to the communities. It may not have to be accountable to knowledge holders when sharing the data with third parties. At the same time, it's also important to acknowledge that different communities may have different needs and perspectives related to authorship. Some may want to restrict community level identifiers which would include authorship in some cases and others may want to be acknowledged for their contributions in which case authorship is an important consideration. This is exactly why it's not apply all process, it's an individual nation process but recognizing the contributions of indigenous knowledge holders and expertise is a vital part of this. So an example of this movement is that some academic journals are including relevant statements that ultimately affect whether a publication is considered or not. So similar statements could be made for datasets and whether or not those are included in repositories. So for instance, here at our research data repository at the University of Arizona, we have to show permission for depositing of indigenous data within our read data repository. But the authorship is an important concept that Lydia has brought up and what we've seen coming out of a set of rural health journals is the concept of the indigenous cultural identities of research author's standard. And so this is standards for not only the citation of research but who is part and parcel of the research publication process. And so here you see that there's a movement to include indigenous affiliations in research citations and there's also a movement to make sure that we're acknowledging indigenous lands, both of where the data come from as well as where authors are when they are performing the work that they're moving forward. I've seen other journals commit to the statement about declaring nothing about indigenous peoples without indigenous peoples. So for instance, the Codeata Data Science Journal has stated that they are going to move towards that process of making sure that there is community consent and acknowledgement as well as appropriate authorship. They've not set out their standards for doing that but as we said, this is all a work in process. None of us are experts on this in any way. We're just creating to make sure that we're aligning with the needs of researchers and scientists while adhering to indigenous rights and interests. Next slide. So you heard me talk about the protection of human subjects through institutional review boards, mandated by and regulated by the common rule here in the US. And so really this has been focused on the individual level and the focus is embedded in Western colonial values centered around individualism and really fails to account for indigenous collective rights, values and community centered perspectives. So to the importance of reducing harm, improving justice and respect should extend to the collective level when engaging indigenous people is to maximize benefit and prevent harmful uses of data. And so a sole focus for instance on personally identifying information as sensitive information then fails to fully identify the potential risks and harms of research and data and embedding indigenous knowledge in data repositories that have collective sensitivity. So we need to move towards having not only policy and practice, but laws that protect collective privacy and confidentiality and adhere to these collective rights of indigenous peoples. So in closing, we're gonna wrap up a little bit about what's been going on with Gita and the care principles and where things are going to implement them. So the care principles have been socialized since 2019. There was the release of the care principles, they've been translated into some indigenous languages as well as some other relevant languages. And there's been educated education and workshop through trainings such as this, but we begin to see as we noted inclusion and formal law policies and guidelines. And so as we move the care principles forward, the next steps become how do we acknowledge and implement and discuss indigenous peoples' rights and data and so we'll have a paper coming out in the next few months that talk about 12 rights that indigenous peoples have expressed around data and those rights fall into those categories around data for governance and governance of data. We also are working through assessing implementation of care by coming up with care implementation criteria much like the fair data maturity model or other models for assessing how fair has been implemented. And we're also really strongly looking at university research and repository settings for how care is being implemented. And so next slide, Lydia. We'll just talk through quickly the indigenous peoples' rights and data will have already been put out by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance just talking about next slide, Lydia. These 12 rights and how these rights align and have been exercised by indigenous peoples and we'll have that academic paper out briefly or shortly to talk about those rights and really kind of the impact because we recognize that not all institutions and all researchers are gonna be able to adhere to an advanced specific rights in their work but we all need to access and be able to understand what rights impact the work that we do. Next slide. So the Care Indicators Project is really looking at how do we really set forth what each of these principles mean? So here you see a template slide for creating the standards for implementing the collective benefits sub-principle number one which is for inclusive development and innovation. Next slide, Lydia, please. And this slide shows for responsibility sub-principal number one for positive relationships kind of the process that we're going through. And so what we're doing kind of like we did with the creation of the prayer care principles is looking how others have implemented these rights and interests in their processes. So at tribes in research projects and in these kind of regional level policies and frameworks. So here you see four positive relationships to uphold and respect the dignity of indigenous collectivities. The collection use and interpretation of data shall uphold the dignity of indigenous communities, groups and individuals. And this is drawn from the Maori data sovereignty principles. Next slide. So this is a slide, an important slide I think of recognizing the recognition of indigenous data sovereignty. And so you see there is a much more emphasis on happening globally, but as well as sub-movement in the United States. And so I think what's important here is while we rush for science to hurry up or to attend to the climate crisis that so many of us work on, we must remember to also slow down and work with intention. The indigenous data sovereignty movement and the resulting indigenous data governance is not only about ethics, it's about developing just and equitable laws and policies that affect and shape infrastructure development. So this is just a starter list of global and national policies where indigenous data sovereignty and the care principles have been formalized. Of note, even though this list is curated, almost all are global and in other nation states. We have much work to do here in the United States. I might also recognize that these tribal and community advances are doing incredible work. We mentioned already the native bio data consortium and that research and institutional advances such as the NSF have been active and now they have an active committee working on this topic. And so the call for caring different research grant calls is emerging as well as these institutional policies on tribal consultation. Those are emerging and I think we'll continue to be at the forefront as federally we're seeing more push for tribal consultation. I also wanted to provide an example of the Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Tory Strait Islander Research. And it's an Australian government statutory authority that is indigenous led and serving. Last year it released a mandatory code for research with Aboriginal and Tory Strait Islanders that details indigenous rights to data and the need for ongoing ownership and access to data and the application of the fair and care in research data relationships. It's been alive now for over a year and is effectively used to approve or disapprove of projects dealing with Aboriginal and Tory Strait Island communities. So in closing, we need to recognize that tribal nations and other ways of knowing as resilient entities who scientific contributions have been peer reviewed across the ultimate peer review process, generations and generations but have been historically gone unrecognized. And we hope by sharing a little bit about this scholarship many of you can think about how you can possibly apply this work and these frameworks to the neon repository. And with that, we will take your questions. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for that presentation. We do have a couple of questions. So please feel free to drop your questions into the Q&A box and we will read them aloud or raise your hand and we will unmute and invite you to ask your questions to Stephanie and Lydia. So I'll kick us off with this first question. It says, this is from Betsy. Thank you for the wonderful talk. Given how much information and data are out there or how much data is out there for the care and fair principles, what recommendations would you give to researchers who are interested in working with me on data that has been collected on Indigenous lands in terms of where to start? I'll field this one first and Lydia, you can pop in. So I always like to say that there's no wrong place to start and to give an example of that in our international work around the care principles and within different nation states you see different activities happening. And so for instance, there's been a lot of work within Canadian First Nations communities to advance First Nations data capabilities and capacities. And that was because of what the opportunities were in Canada, where on the other side of the Pacific we see in New Zealand that the Maori have gone forth with co-production of federal policy because there was opportunity within the federal government to invest in those types of activities. And so the main point here is to reflect on what leverage and power do you have as a researcher or as somebody who's responsible within an institution to make change. What's the type of change you can make? And so one of the things that could be done in terms of using data from a neon repository is thinking about how do you enrich the metadata associated with that? How do you create community and relationships to the people who are related to those data so that their relationship with those data is likewise enriched? Yeah, I actually look at a shout out that we have a paper that's kind of coming out on this topic of not necessarily neon data, but largely in biodiversity data and how researchers can think more deeply about the care protocols and have more ethical research practices. So look at that on your horizon. But I think some of the most basic part is thinking about where are you collecting your samples? What are the tribal nations that are near there? How is their land stewardship practices influenced the landscapes that you're working engaging with? How are you teaching the students that you're working with or the collaborators? How are you even talking about those pieces? I think that as researchers we do such a great job about researching our field sites and planning, but even doing a little bit of stuff further of thinking about the traditional homelands that we have. What are the perceptions of peoples who live there who are actively stewing not from the past but continuing the present and the future? Is a really important part of that. I'm making sure that we're training students to think about this because though many of us scientists have not been trained to think about the human capacity or part of our scholarship, it's inherently part of it. And then I think, as Stephanie hit on enriching the metadata that already exists, talking with the protocols that you're engaging and thinking about with that data is an important piece. I'm working on a project out here at Duke where we're really thinking about how do we get consent from the community for environmental samples? That's not something we've seen done before. And so I think, you know, again, we talk about these care protocols as being the baseline and it's continuing to think about how we advocate for that one step further. I hope that answered that question. Thank you. And from the NEON perspective, I will also add that Stephanie and Lydia are both co-peias on the Earth Data Relations project that we are engaged in to explore specific actions that repositories like NEON and other data repositories can take to implement care principles in our data publication and data collection stuffs. And I'm sure you will hear more about that down the road. Next, we have another question and this one is from Malia. She says, Malia says, thank you for an informative presentation. Any suggestions for Indigenous researchers to get pushback from non-Indigenous colleagues on implementing these equitable processes? Stephanie, do you wanna take that one? You go first and then I can respond. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a twofold process, right? So I definitely know I got that of we don't need to engage with tribes we're hitting all the protocol where it's required. And part of that I think is that we as Indigenous researchers are accountable to community in a way that external researchers are not. If you are not acting an ethical protocol like your elders are gonna call you out and not wanna work with you. So I think it was important for me to make sure that I found Indigenous mentors to help guide me through that process, but also of recognizing and unfortunately you have to kind of educate those peers. This is the process of how you do research in this community. So I think that's one part of it, but I think continuing to communicate about these challenges and these ethical considerations are really important. And there's a lot of scholarship that's coming up from, I would say recent graduates and early career faculty that are really highlighting these points that the way of science in the past is not gonna be able to continue to having the partnerships and extractive means that they've been. That is the larger direction shift I would say. And I think so many of us have been advocating and working with funding agencies to really change those protocols. But maybe I have the optimistic piece because I'm early in the process. And I think Stephanie also has been a guiding light for me and we'll also have some really good feedback on this. I don't have any more really important wisdom to share other than making sure that you're networked and that you give yourself grace. So sometimes it's important to step back and realize that you're not gonna be able to make change right away. And that sometimes change happens slowly and that's okay. I was just telling Lydia yesterday how one of my greatest frustrations here at an institution that has been acknowledging and working towards some of these efforts for a lot of years. I had months of frustration around something and yesterday I went to a meeting and they were like, okay, we're ready to do it. And I was just like, all right, sometimes it just takes stepping back in time and also making sure that you take care of yourself because this can be really spiritually and emotionally and also scholarly harmful to us as indigenous scholars. And so being able to take care of ourselves is really important. I do wanna recognize that we're at time but Eric has a question here and it's important metadata that so our policies and practices. Yeah, I just also wanna shout out, I know Patrick Freeland in the comments mentioned the process of the time it takes to build relationships and I think that's a really important one. And if you're an early career researcher working with indigenous peoples, having a PI who has good relations already existing before you start that process is really important. I just wanted to note that, thank you. Yeah, so unfortunately we are out of time. Thank you everyone for your questions and comments and thank you so much to the speakers for a wonderful presentation. We really appreciate all this amazing content. This talk will be recorded and made available on the Science Seminars webpage. We have a data skills workshop coming up in two weeks, another talk on permafrost and freeze law in a month. So please join us for more events soon. Have a wonderful day, happy Valentine's Day and thank you everybody. Bye bye.