The Biden administration’s program for using “Indigenous Knowledge”

On November 20, 2022, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a “Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies” designed to guide those agencies in interacting with indigenous people of the U.S. as well as in meldiong their “indigenous knowledge” with modern science in useful scientific and practical endeavors. There’s a long draft proposal (see below) as well as a shorter description of the origin and aims of the project here.

Having read the 46-page draft proposal as well as the ancillary documents, I’ll give my impressions of the project in this post.  My general take is that the document is far more concerned with bringing indigenous people into scientific endeavors than it is with improving projects by incorporating indigenous knowledge. Further, it seems more concerned with helping indigenous people’s lives (growing crops, getting better healthcare) than with ferreting out their knowledge. The latter is still a worthy endeavor: Lord knows that Native Americans have been treated horribly by “colonists”, and this project can be seen as a form of reparations. But let us not pretend that the main aim of the project are the ones the government gave below:

• Understanding Indigenous Knowledge
• Growing and maintaining the mutually beneficial relationships with Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples needed to appropriately include Indigenous Knowledge
• Considering, including, and applying Indigenous Knowledge in Federal research, policies, management, and decision making

Of all of these, the second is the one that occupies the most space in the paper: how to collaborate with indigenous people and, especially, how to interact with them in a polite and non-offensive manner.  But the aim isn’t really “mutually beneficial” in the sense that modern scientific projects will be enhanced by collaboration with Tribal Nations. Rather, the project is a way of drawing Native Americans into empirical research, even though the number of projects seems limited and the use of “indigenous knowledge” (always ill defined) unclear. I prefer to think of this as a huge DEI project, one designed to achieve some kind of equity in scientific research, but one that’s better than the usual DEI projects because it aims to actually improve the lives of Native Americans. If it does that by masquerading as a way to achieve “knowledge equity”, however, at least we must know of the masquerade, because the presumed equivalence of “indigenous knowledge” with “scientific knowledge” is a growing trope, and we need to understand it. Undue respect for “indigenous ways of knowledge” has substantially degraded science education in New Zealand, and we shouldn’t let that happen here.

Click below to see (or download) the big fat memo:

First, what is indigenous knowledge? Here are two definitions, based largely on the OED, that I gave in a recent post:

knowledge: “The apprehension of fact or truth with the mind; clear and certain perception of fact or truth; the state or condition of knowing fact or truth.” I interpret this to mean “the public acceptance of facts”, so that “knowledge” becomes an apprehension, as Steve Gould argued, that would be held by any person who is not perverse.

way of knowing: A system or group of procedures used to produce knowledge. (This is my definition since it’s not in the OED.)

These don’t comport exactly with the BA’s definitions (below), but the sense is the same: knowledge is the widespread apprehension of what is true. It is the way that knowledge is produced thatdiffers between scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge.  The latter includes sources that some may see as numinous or nonscientific, such as “spiritual” and “cultural grounding”, as well as “lessons passed from generation to generation”. In this way North American indigenous knowledge resembles New Zealand’s indigenous knowledge, or “Mātauranga Māori.” It is a mixture of real empirical observation with myth, legend, and cultural practices.

Here are two definitions of indigenous knowledge given by the Biden administration, the first from the big document and the second from a related page:

Note in part A the connection between “knowledge” and “social, spiritual, and natural systems”.  Ideally, knowledge should be free from such considerations, or it isn’t really knowledge in the scientific or empirical sense.

And this government page:

Indigenous Knowledge is a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, innovations, practices, and beliefs developed by Tribes and Indigenous Peoples through interaction and experience with the environment. The Biden-Harris Administration has formally recognized Indigenous Knowledge as one of the many important bodies of knowledge that contributes to the scientific, technical, social, and economic advancements of the United States and our collective understanding of the natural world.

Henceforth we’ll use the abbreviation “BA” for “Biden Administration,” “IK” for indigenous knowledge, and “SK” for scientific knowledge (the stuff that science accepts today as provisional truth).  One important difference between IK and SK is that the latter can be kept secret if the tribes with that knowledge so wish it. So, on p. 31 of the document, and elsewhere, you can find this:

Funded by the National Science Foundation, ELOKA responds to twin imperatives: The Federal mandate to make data collected with Federal dollars public and broadly accessible, and the right of Tribes and Indigenous Peoples to control their own knowledge.

This means that if Native Americans wish to keep their indigenous knowledge to themselves rather than making it public, they have the right to do so. If that’s the case, it violates the ethos of science, which is to make all knowledge (at least knowledge resulting in publication) available to everyone.  Knowledge kept private isn’t really “knowledge,” as it can’t be tested by others to see if it’s true.  Leaving that aside, let’s move on.

The report is divided into several parts, but the two main ones are parts 2-6 (pp. 4-21), which lay out ways to interact with Native Americans when collaborating with them on projects using IK, and Appendix A, “Examples of indigenous knowledge application and collaboration between the federal government and tribes and indigenous peoples,” which occupies pages 22-33. (There are a few more appendices with references and the like.) It’s this second part that most interests me, but I’ll say a few words about the first bit.

Part I not only explicitly brings up the historically abysmal treatment of Native Americans, but also blames science for part of this. All of it is to the end of how to deal with Native Americans, and I have little objection to most of it:

Acknowledge Historical Context and Past Injustice. Understanding the different experiences of Tribal and Indigenous Peoples is critical for Agencies to work with them and engage effectively with Indigenous Knowledge. Agencies should acknowledge the history of the department or agency they represent, and the Federal Government broadly, when working with Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. Recognizing past injustice, while upholding Tribal treaty and reserved rights, and respecting Tribal and Indigenous communities, cultures, and values will assist Agencies in developing collaborative processes that are more equitable and inclusive of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems. The genocide and ethnocide of Indigenous Peoples in the United States is well documented.39 Historically, Federal policies have resulted in the separation (both physically and intellectually). of Indigenous Peoples from the places they are connected to, severing relationships with lands, waters, and social systems, which are all critical elements of Indigenous Knowledge. 40 These policies systematically served to assimilate and displace Native people and eradicate Native cultures.41

Historically, Federal policies have resulted in the separation (both physically and intellectually) of Indigenous Peoples from the places they are connected to, severing relationships with lands, waters, and social systems, which are all critical elements of Indigenous Knowledge. These policies systematically served to assimilate and displace Native people and eradicate Native cultures.

But then we get to the inevitable criticisms of “science” as being oppressive:

. . . At times, Western science has been used as a tool to oppress Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples in the United States have experienced significant unethical health research abuses, including the use of genetic data and health records without their knowledge or consent.

I wouldn’t say that “Western science’—again, a term I abhor since science has become worldwide—oppressed Tribal Nations, but rather unethical or uncaring scientists did. It’s not a dictum of “science” to “use data from people without their consent” .  This is a way of doing down science itself as an oppressor—something we see in New Zealand as well. But here’s one more example of how to collaborate with Native Americans

Include Indigenous Knowledge into Federal Decision Making and Research. Agencies should obtain consent from Tribal Nations and Indigenous Peoples prior to including Indigenous Knowledge in Federal policy, research, or decision making. After securing consent to access Indigenous Knowledge, Agencies should ensure that Indigenous Knowledge is appropriately included in the Federal action. Inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge in Federal decision making and research starts with the recognition that Indigenous practices and methodologies underlie Indigenous Knowledge. Accordingly, Indigenous Knowledge should guide metrics and evaluation; Agencies do not need to judge, validate, or evaluate Indigenous Knowledge using other forms of knowledge in order to include Indigenous Knowledge in Federal policy, research, or decision making.

I’m not sure I agree with the last two sentences, but then again I’m not sure what they mean. If they mean that indigenous knowledge should not be tested against modern scientific knowledge, I disagree.

Here’s a note about the co-equality of Indigenous and modern science (bolding is mine):

When [Federal] funding is awarded, especially through competitive grant processes, Agencies should ensure that the methods, people, and grant assessment process are not biased against proposals that include Indigenous Knowledge. To guard against such biases, Agencies can ensure that Indigenous Knowledge holders are included in funding allocation decisions, and can ensure that merit-based funding decisions involve scoring rubrics that value Indigenous Knowledge on par with other forms of evidence and methods of inquiry. Agencies should also develop evaluation criteria that includes Indigenous methodologies and approaches to ensure that Indigenous Knowledge is not inappropriately disadvantaged in the review process.

I would say that valuing indigenous knowledge in comparison to scientific knowledge would depend on how that indigenous knowledge is generated. If it’s through tradition and word of mouth, for example, you might cast a cold eye on it.  To ensure that indigenous knowledge is comparable to modern scientific knowledge, of course, it has to be judged by the standards of modern scientific knowledge, not by the standards of indigenous knowledge.

Part II deals with specific projects that are said to involve indigenous knowledge, and the document gives a fair number of examples. The problem is that with many of these examples, it’s not clear either what the relevant indigenous knowledge is or how it’s supposed to be used. Here’s one example of that:

ACHP Advances Indigenous Knowledge in Policy on Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) strives to ensure Agencies implement their work in harmony with the National Historic Preservation Act. The ACHP is incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into its updated Policy Statement on Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects82 to elevate consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in Federal historic preservation decisions. Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into the policy statement will help Indigenous People elevate their concerns during the Section 106 process, which requires Agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund, on historic properties throughout the country.

Elizabeth Weiss has emphasized that this is problematic in two ways. First, it is really indigenous claims that are taken as knowledge. If a skull or a funerary object is found on land once occupied by a given tribe, it’s taken for granted that the remains and funerary objects revert to that tribe. No DNA analysis is necessary, though it should be when possible. Second, this section has been expanded to mean that all Native American objects found must be given custodial care under the direction of Native Americans who claim them, regardless of the strength of their claim. If an object is deemed “sacred” or “powerful,” it might be taken off exhibit completely, or given back to a tribe. This is bowing not to indigenous knowledge but to indigenous religion, since such objects are deemed “sacred”.

But there are examples where indigenous knowledge can contribute to conservation. I’ll just give two.

Sweetgrass Shared Governance in Acadia National Park

In Acadia National Park, the National Park Service is working with citizens of Wabanaki Tribes—the Aroostook Band of Mi’kmaq, the Houlton Band of Maliseets (Wolastogiyik), the Passamaquoddy (Peskotomuhkati) Tribe at Sipayik, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, and the Penobscot Indian Nation—on shared governance and research on sweetgrass harvesting.80 Wabanaki people have harvested sweetgrass for generations. Research in Acadia, guided by Indigenous methodologies, reinforces what Wabanaki people have always known: that harvesting sweetgrass through a Wabanaki philosophy enhances sweetgrass abundance. Wabanaki knowledge, and the gatherers who generate this knowledge, are leading National Park Service research and management strategies that will enable restoration of Wabanaki harvesting within Acadia National Park.

Here the knowledge of harvesting and cultivating sweetgrass is likely to be useful for keeping this plant going. What I object to here is how “Wabanaki philosophy enhances sweetgrass abundance.” And what the philosophy might be is, of course, not given. To see if it really works, you’d have to test it—but with modern science.

One more example before I pass on. Eulachon is a kind of smelt:

Tribal-led Research and Conservation of Eulachon

Coastal Indian Tribes, including the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, have fished and traded for eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in tributaries of the Columbia River since time immemorial. NOAA and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe— who initiated the project—applied Tribal oral histories to reconstruct historic distributions of the eulachon.96 The Cowlitz Tribal oral histories aided in identifying key spawning habitat, timing of eulachon runs, and run differences between tributaries, and directly informed NOAA’s decision to list a population segment as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.97 The project facilitated joint efforts to identify and protect critical habitat, increase abundance of the species, and promote species recovery.

Here we have some indigenous knowledge that, in combination with scientific conservation, may indeed allow assessments that can help with species conservation. There are a few other examples like this, but also others where the relevant “knowledge”  isn’t specified. Here it’s clear: knowledge about habitats, timing, and subjective judgments of species numbers. Sadly, even this kind of knowledge is missing from most of the examples given.

Overall, I have to say that I wasn’t much impressed with this document. I can’t disagree that indigenous knowledge, which is invariably practical knowledge about foods or plants useful to Native Americans, can be useful—mostly for Native Americans themselves but sometimes for overall conservation. But the article doesn’t make a persuasive case that “indigenous knowledge” is either coequal to modern scientific knowledge or constitutes a “different way of knowing”. To paraphrase Mike Aus, “There is knowing and there is not knowing, and that’s all there is in this world.”  Of course we have to realize that many claims of indigenous knowledge (like the provenance of found human remains) should be tested using modern scientific knowledge as well.

The reason I highlight this is simply to acquaint you with the nature of this program, since if you’re American you’re paying for it. Also, the “indigenous knowledge is sacred” trope has hopped the pond from New Zealand to here and is now invading America piggybacking on wokeness, ergo it must be carefully and critically inspected. Knowledge can’t be immune from modern scientific scrutiny simply because it comes from indigenous people—always people who lack much of the modern toolkit of modern science (hypothesis testing, publication, pervasive doubt, replication, and so on).

In my view implementing this project as a better-than-usual DEI endeavor—a way to bring indigenous people into modern science—is better done in the long run simply by giving Native Americans the opportunities to study, engage in, and ultimately practice modern science as professionals. I know we’re a long way from that, but this is the solution for all problems of equity. In this case, “indigenous knowledge” automatically becomes fused with modern science. But of course if you want to do something now, this bloated document doesn’t convince me that the BA program is a great one.