Category: “ways of knowing”

Three Royal Societies abandon their mission to promote global and universalist science

December 1, 2025 • 10:15 am

A Kiwi who wishes to remain anonymous (of course) sent me this link to an announcement of a meeting of three Royal (Scientific) Societies: those of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. The screenshot below also links to two other short documents, a communiqué and a statement by the Presidents of all three Societies.

The object is severalfold: to eliminate “structural racism” and inequities in science, to tout “indigenous knowledge systems” as not only different and distinct from normal science, but as having contributed valuable knowledge to science in unique indigenous ways, and to assert that indigenous people have a right to “maintain, protect, and develop indigenous knowledge systems, intellectual property, and data.”

Click below (or above) to access the three statements.

The things I agree with are these:

a.) Members of ethnic minorities have surely been discriminated against in the past, and have had difficulty entering into modern (sometimes called “Western”) science

b.) There should be outreach, expanding opportunities for anyone who wants to do science to have a chance to participate

c.) “Indigenous knowledge”, insofar as it tells us something true about the universe, is indeed a part of modern science and should be considered thus

d.)  Any research done using the resources of indigenous people should be done with their permission, collaboration, and full participation

The things I question are these:

a.) Whether structural racism—meaning formalized practices or policies—are still in place preventing minorities in all three countries from doing science. Other words are “bias” or “bigotry”. In the U.S., universities are bending over backwards to recruit minorities, and I can’t think of an example of formalized bias, though of course some non-minority scientists will be bigoted (I’ve also not seen many of them).

b.)  The extent to which indigenous knowledge has contributed to modern science.  It’s telling that, as in nearly all such documents, these three tout this knowledge as invaluable, but don’t provide a single example of the kind of advances that indigenous knowledge have promoted.

And the things I take issue with are these:

a.) Indigenous knowledge is a form of “knowledge” separate and distinct from that produced by modern science. As I’ve argued repeatedly, many forms of indigenous knowledge involve things that are nonscientific in the modern sense.  For example, Mātauranga Māori (“MM”)from New Zeland is described by Wikipedia this way:

Mātauranga (literally Māori knowledge) is a modern term for the traditional knowledge of the Māori people of New Zealand Māori traditional knowledge is multi-disciplinary and holistic, and there is considerable overlap between concepts. It includes environmental stewardship and economic development, with the purpose of preserving Māori culture and improving the quality of life of the Māori people over time.

MM includes not only practical knowledge, like how to catch eels or harvest mussels, but also superstition, word of mouth, tradition, religion, and codes of behavior. Some of it is knowledge in the “justified true belief” sense, but a lot of it is not.  Those who know more about Australian and Canadian indigenous “ways of knowing” can weigh in here.  And none of this comports with modern science in terms of using pervasive doubt, hypothesis testing, experiments, statistics, and the whole armamentarium that is the toolkit of modern science, which stopped being “Western” a long time ago. Modern science is practiced pretty much the same way the world over.

b). While indigenous people can surely design experiments and publish their data, they do not have control over it in the sense of not allowing other people to use it, or refusing to give the primary data behind anything that’s published. While the present document doesn’t say this explicitly, it implies it, and other indigenous people in New Zealand have more explicitly that data are proprietary.

Here are a few quotes from the three documents linked above (direct quotes are indented; my own comments are flush left):

A description of the meeting:

Over 3 days of keynote speeches, wānanga, cultural activities, and panel discussions, top Māori and Pasifika thought-leaders engaged with First Nations experts from Canada and Australia, including Fellows from five of Australia’s learned academies.

Key themes included the need to dismantle academic barriers and inequities for Indigenous students and researchers, share decision-making about research practices and priorities, and shape research agendas to focus on Indigenous knowledges and address challenges that are important to Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders talked about their experiences in academia, and presented research ranging from the study of Indigenous histories, cultures, knowledges, and languages to environmental management and traditional legal systems.

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders have championed and led education and research by, with, and for Indigenous communities, and have revitalised interest and awareness in traditional knowledges through language, cultural activities, and creative arts. Their work has explored and built on Indigenous knowledge systems to generate new insights and innovations – such as research methodologies and ethical frameworks based on traditional worldviews and values.

The advances touted for indigenous knowledge (note the absence of examples and yet the assertion that indigenous knowledge systems are separate and distinct “ways of knowing”). Bolding is mine:

 The Taikura Summit has continued and built on those exchanges, and we have now learned of the achievements and experiences of hundreds of Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders. 

We have heard more about their journeys and achievements, and some of the myriad ways in which they are advancing understanding, particularly in the study of Indigenous histories, cultures, knowledges, and languages. These scholars and knowledge-holders have shown intellectual leadership by practising and advocating for research and education by, with, and for Indigenous communities. They have revitalised interest and awareness in Indigenous knowledge systems by connecting people through cultural activities, creative arts, and languages. 

Indigenous scholars and knowledge-holders have pioneered research practices, methodologies, and ethical frameworks, grounded in traditional worldviews and values, that uplift different ways of looking at challenges and have reshaped research practices across disciplines. Their work has shown that Indigenous knowledge systems are not simply historical artefacts, but living bodies of understanding that continue to evolve and to generate new insights. 

From the Communiqué (bolding mine):

 The Summit recognises that Indigenous Peoples are the rightful leaders, authorities, and stewards of research concerning their communities, territories, and knowledges. Indigenous research is grounded in distinct systems of knowledge, practice, and ethics that have sustained societies and ecosystems for millennia. These knowledge systems, sciences and artistic forms constitute rigorous and essential ways of knowing and understanding the world. They are not supplementary to other science methodologies. They have their own integrity and value. 

Note the clear statement that indigenous knowledge systems are “rigorous and essential ways of knowing and understanding the world” and “are not supplementary to other science methodologies.” This says that indigenous ways of knowing cannot simply fuse with science into a general understanding of the universe.  But indigenous ways of knowing, insofar as they incorporate anecdotal or observational evidence, are already fuse-able with modern science. It’s all part of understanding our universe.

Finally, also from the Commuiqué:

We acknowledge the enduring impacts of research practices that have marginalised, misrepresented, or appropriated Indigenous knowledge. Correcting these legacies requires fundamental transformation within institutes of higher learning and learned academies. This includes:

• addressing structural racism and inequities, including for Indigenous people with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities,

• affirming the sovereign right of Indigenous Peoples to determine their own research priorities, methodologies, and outcomes, and

• enabling Indigenous Peoples to maintain, protect, and develop Indigenous knowledge systems, intellectual property, and data.

This part involves questionable assertions, such as that about structural racism, as well as an implication—and I may be wrong here—that the products of indigenous science belong to the indigenous people.  But one thing is for sure, nobody can control the outcome of their “research methodologies”, for you don’t do research if you already have determined its outcome.

So Canada and Australia have bought into the “other ways of knowing” mentality that’s long pervaded New Zealand.

I’ll give a few quotes from my anonymous Kiwi correspondent:

I think these statements have thrown science under the bus in all three countries. If our RSTA [Royal Society of New Zealand] still retained any credibility it’s lost it now. How can you make a blanket statement about indigenous knowledge being as rigorous as other “ways of understanding” when it spans everything from empirically verifiable knowledge to superstition? This legitimises any form of quackery or snake oil provided it’s sold under a banner of cultural authority – there are no standards of universal evidence.
I’m hoping that this will lead to change in RSTA, but Canada and Australia now have the same problem! All three scientific associations have abandoned their statutory claim to leadership and  responsibility for global and universalist science.
. . . It is appalling. Probably the worst thing for me is that it says to indigenous people that they have to choose between their culture and science. That we’ve got here is because relativist ideology has been used as a Trojan Horse to smuggle non-science into science. I see no difference between this and the separation between religion and science. Religion is also culture, and biblical creationism can equally be portrayed as a “way of understanding”. What’s lost is the epistemological distinctiveness of science.
The point is not that indigenous knowledge is all myth and superstition. It’s not. But if the products of different “ways of understanding” are only legitimately viewed through their own “cultural” lens then everything devolves into a political battle – a Foucauldian universe. I think at its heart this is activist politics, and so-called science leaders have fallen for it.
Well, read above and judge for yourself. What science and scientists should ensure is that indigenous knowledge, if it’s to be considered a real “way of knowing,” has to comport with the knowledge produced by modern science. We cannot water down science by mixing it with legend, myth, unsupported assertions, or religion. When it comes to science, we cannot indulge in “the authority of the sacred victim.“

Māori council gets right of approval for releasing genetically modified native organisms in New Zealand

October 27, 2025 • 11:30 am

For the last thirty years, New Zealand has had strict regulations about the release of genetically modified organisms, including humans.  This means that gene therapy is strictly regulated (more so than in the U.S.) and release of genetically modified organisms, which has occurred in other places (mosquitoes, crops, etc.), or has great potential (e.g., golden rice) is not on in New Zealand. And gene therapy for diseases like Parkinson’s and hemophilia has great promise in our own species.

That changed last year when three New Zealand parties agreed to make it more possible to release genetically modified native species, and to use gene therapy in humans,.  Except for one thing, and you can guess what that might be.  The bill also allows for an advisory council of the indigenous Māori people to nix gene therapy based on more-or-less spiritual relationship with native organisms. There is no scientific basis for this save for the superstition embodied in Mātauranga Māori: the melange of superstition, indigenous knowledge, ideology, and code of conduct (tikanga) that is said to constitute another “way of knowing”.

Only Ceiling Cat knows why the bill was approved by parties that aren’t keen on the concept of “co-governance”.  Surely people should realize what is gong to happen: Māori, which supposedly have an advisory capacity only, but in reality can nix any release of GMOs in native species, can bargain with the supplicants, perhaps even getting money to give permission, as Graham Adams writes in this article on the N.Z. site Point of Order. I’ll give some excerpts from the article but do realize that I don’t know a great deal about the new bill save what the article says.

Click the headline to read the piece:

I’ll just give quotes, and perhaps a bit of commentary. I’ve bolded parts that I see as more significant. Note that the text is messed up, and I don’t know how to fix it.

In August 2024, the then-Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology, Judith Collins, announced legislation to end New Zealand’s nearly 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab. She described the move as “a major milestone in modernising gene technology laws.”

In her Beehive media release, she said, “The changes we’re announcing today will allow researchers and companies to further develop and commercialise their innovative products. Importantly, it will help New Zealanders to better access treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy, which has been clinically proven to effectively treat some cancers. It can also help our farmers and growers mitigate emissions and increase productivity, all of which benefits our economy.”

It sounded encouragingly far-sighted, but the Gene Technology Bill she introduced to Parliament last December — declaring it to be “a great day for science” that would bring New Zealand’s “regulations for gene technology into the 21st century” — included major elements that are decidedly unscientific and distinctly backward looking.

Alongside a Technical Advisory Committee staffed by scientists, the legislation sets up a Māori Advisory Committee whose members are required to have “knowledge of mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge), tikanga Māori (Māori protocol and culture), te ao Māori (the Māori world), and taonga species.”

Anyone who wants approval for work involving native species (or affecting relationships Māori claim to have with those species) must engage with the Māori Advisory Committee, which will advise on cultural, spiritual, historical, customary, and ecological values.

Somehow, the National-led government — in charge of a country that, by its own admission, is struggling to keep up with scientific advances in gene technology in the 21st century — is willing to appoint a bevy of spiritual and cultural advisers whose advice is to be officially assessed in a similar manner to that presented by scientists.

Opposition from the conservative (in the NZ sense) ACT party:

ACT’s “differing view” in the select committee report states this (ACT will not, however, oppose the bill):

“For gene technology to succeed and be trusted, it should be based on modern science, not cultural concepts that will make it difficult for the Regulator or applicants to navigate. The [Māori Advisory] committee is entirely reliant on the concept of ‘tikanga’… ACT does not believe it has a place in scientific legislation. Tikanga is not a fixed or universal concept; it varies between iwi and hapū and lacks consistent content or application, making it unsuitable as a legal standard… The inclusion of a Technical Advisory Committee ensures that the Regulator receives robust scientific and technical input… Adding a parallel cultural advisory process risks diluting this focus and undermining confidence in the regulatory regime’s neutrality and predictability.”

And the indigenous approval can apply not just to indigenous species, but to any species with which Māori have a special relationship that got to the island before 1769::

The bill grants the right to any iwi, hapū, Māori entity or Māori individual to assert they have “a kaitiaki [guardianship] relationship with an indigenous species that would be, or has been, used as a host organism.”

A kaitiaki relationship is defined as “the relationship that any kaitiaki has, or Māori in general have, as guardian, trustee, or caretaker of an indigenous species, in accordance with tikanga.”

The Health select committee report further recommends the bill should be expanded to include relationships with “non-indigenous species of significance” to Māori that are “believed to have been brought to New Zealand before 1769 [when Cook arrived] on waka migrating from other parts of the Pacific region.”

Now “native” species aren’t necessarily indigenous: they could have arrived in NZ a long time ago from elsewhere, and also be present in other places.  And remember, too, that both Māori and European descendents are both colonists of the islands, separated by about 600 years.  It’s not clear to me why the earlier immigrants have the right to nix genetic studies of native organisms, particularly when conservation of native species is a serious issue in New Zealand. It’s entirely possible that conservation of native species might some day involve genetic modification, and why should bogus claims of “spiritual connection” have any say in conservation decisions?

Mātauranga Māori strikes again

October 22, 2025 • 10:45 am

This article from the New Zealand Herald shows what we already know: that “indigenous ways of knowing” in New Zealand, or Mātauranga Māori (henceforth “MM”) are loudy touted as making substantial contributions to scientific knowledge—in this case to predictions of volcanic eruptions.  And while it’s possible that MM can make some contributions to predictions of the damage that could result from eruption, even those predictions are nebulous. As usual, the mixture of empirical knowledge, legend, superstition, ideology, and proper behavior that constitute MM are said to be crucial for an empirical endeavor, but no specifics are ever given. In the end, it seems again that MM is tacked on to science to pretend that it’s coequal in its value, but that no evidence is given to support coequality.

You can see an archived link by clicking the headline below.

The issue is how to predict when a now-dormant volcano, Mount Taranaki on New Zealand’s North Island, will erupt again. The article summarizes a five-year study of how to predict not just that but also how to assess the damage from an eruption. The researchers apparently used real science to get the dates of eruptions (radiometric dating for dates of past eruptions, which go back to 200,000 BCE, with the most recent being 1854), and research from Massey University to calculate possible damage. That damage could be severe because Mount Taranaki can have damaging eruptions involving collapse of the volcanic cone plus dangerous mudflows. The hazards are summarized by Wikipedia:

Much of the region is at risk from lahars [mudflows], which have reached the eastern coast.[25]: 466  A volcanic event is not necessary for a lahar: even earthquakes combined with heavy rain or snow could dislodge vast quantities of unstable layers resting on steep slopes. Many farmers live in the paths of such possible destructive events.

Although volcanic eruptions are notoriously chaotic in their frequency, some scientists warn that a large eruption is “overdue”. Research from Massey University indicates that significant seismic activity from the local faults is likely again in the next 50 years and such might be permissive to an eruption. What ever in the next 50 years, the probability of at least one eruption is between 33% and 42%.[25]: 473  Prevailing winds would probably blow ash east, covering much of the North Island, and disrupting air routes, power transmission lines and local water supplies.[35]

None of the references given in the Herald piece, including this one and this one—papers and articles that discuss the volcano’s geological history and possible damage—even mention MM, but it’s still touted as helping contribute to this five-year project. Some quotes from the NZ Herald article (I’ve put my translations of the Māori, taken from the Māori Dictionary, in brackets):

A Mt Taranaki eruption could bring the region to a standstill, knock out regional infrastructure and cause up to $16 billion worth of damage, a new study has found.

Researchers across New Zealand undertook a five-year study weaving together volcanic science, dynamic risk modelling, economic analysis and mātauranga ā iwi [knowledge from the tribes] to project what would happen if the volcano erupted.

University of Auckland Professor Shane Cronin said the programme began because researchers knew there was a 30-50% chance that Taranaki could erupt in the next 50 years.

“Our job was to listen to the mounga [mountain], study its past behaviour, and start to understand what signs it might give before erupting again.”

The rest of the article discuses the dates of previous eruptions (determined by direct observation by “Westerners” or via radiometric dating), as well as the possible damage that could occur, including this:

The research revealed how a disruption to the electricity system could cascade through the oil and gas industries, transport networks, and water systems, causing widespread impacts across the= region and nation.

“The risk modelling suggests a Taranaki eruption is a potential regional disaster, it’s a national energy security challenge, and a potential future economic crisis,” Wilson said.

“The ripple effects of an eruption go far beyond ash and lahars.

“Volcanic ash can short-circuit power lines, block roads, contaminate water sources, and clog water treatment plants, causing critical infrastructure systems to fail at the exact time they’re needed most.

“Lahars could also destroy bridges and cut off lifeline services, disrupting transport and access to basic needs like food and water, as well as limiting access to some communities.”

Economic modelling predicts losses from a future eruption of Taranaki mounga could be between $12b and $16b, depending on the type, scale, and duration of the event.

This appears to have come from empirical observation, with no explicit contribution from MM.  But then they put in the indigenous “ways of knowing” stuff, heavily larded with Māori words.

Weaving m ātauranga Māori and risk science.

The programme worked in partnership with Uri to weave together  [Note the reference to “Western science”, which should be “modern science”.]

Bilingual resources, interactive StoryMaps, and wānanga [tribal or traditional knowledge; could also mean an “indigenous sage”] created spaces for kōrero [conversations] about the mounga’s past and future.

“You can’t understand volcanic risk in Taranaki without understanding the whakapapa [genealogy or history] of the mountain, whenua [land] and awa [rivers], the kōrero tuku iho [oral tradition] and mātauranga [knowledge] held by whānau [family groups], hapū [kinship groups or tribes] and iwi [tribes] who hold ancestral connections to the mounga [mountain] and have done so for generations,” said Acushla Dee Sciascia of Mapuna Consultants.

This research provided a platform for Māori researchers to contribute their voices, leading to richer outputs including monographs, visual exhibitions, and new ways of telling the mounga’s story.

“Taranaki mounga [tribal groups near the mountain] provides us with so many learnings from its past and how our tūpuna [ancestors] navigated previous volcanic events, and it’s up to us now to prepare our whānau [land] for the future,” Sciascia said.

“This programme has laid a foundation. But the real mahi [effort] is in how we carry this forward, and how we embed mātauranga Māori into everyday planning, science, and response.”

What is missing here is how mātauranga Māori really is woven together with Western science in a productive way. Conspicuously absent is any mention about how MM really does help us assess volcanic risk, and mentioning “StoryMaps”, visual exhibitions, traditional knowledge, and so on doesn’t give us any insight about the two main aspects of the article: predicting future eruptions and assessing potential damage. Nor does seeing how earlier inhabitants coped with the damage give us much help in figuring out how to cope with the damage now. In the end, it seems that straight empirical observation and empirical-based prediction is what is needed here, and I can’t for the life of me find out how MM can help with that.

Nevertheless, I’ve tried to understand how it could, and, to be fair, it’s possible that Māori could contribute to the risk assessment by describing the ways that they would deal with an eruption, and what are their strengths and weaknesses in doing so.  Also—and this is PR more than science—mixing MM in with science could prompt the Maori to take the risks of living near the volcano more seriously. But this doesn’t show how mixing MM with “Western science” gives us any idea of when Mount Taranaki is going to blow (that will be from pure science) or how to deal with possible damage (which depends on the seriousness of the eruption, something we don’t know).  Once again we find that “traditional ways of knowing” don’t seem to help with understanding the real world, though catering to its proponents may create more amity between indigenous peoples and the descendants of Western colonists.

Here’s Mount Taranaki from the Wikipedia article. I think I saw it when I visited NZ, and it’s impressive.

Public domain

And a photo I took in April, 2017. It’s not labeled, but it sure looks like Mt. Taranaki! I would ask Heather Hastie, but she is no more.

University of Auckland set to make mandatory “indigeneity” courses optional, as students considered them a waste of time and money

October 7, 2025 • 11:30 am

As  I reported in September of last year, every entering student at New Zealand’s Auckland University was required to take an “indigeneity” course—and that includes prospective science majors. As I noted:

. . . . at the University of Auckland—New Zealand’s most prestigious university—every student has to take a mandatory course related to indigenous knowledge, a course ostensibly related to their their field of study. In reality, these courses are exercises in propaganda, created to indoctrinate students into sacralizing indigenous “ways of knowing”.  As an example, I gave this course (see screenshot below), which is required for all science majors. Click to access the course description, which I went through a while back (see the link above).

. . . . If you read the course description, you’ll see that it’s largely designed to inculcate students into the (1840) Treaty of Waitangi (in Māori: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”) as a way of showing that Māori ways of knowing, or Mātauranga Māori (MM), should be considered coequal to modern science.  This, in turn, is part of a push to insinuate indigenous ways of knowing into New Zealand science, as well as giving Māori increased power over what science is done and how it is done. (For my criticisms of this approach, see the many pieces I’ve written about it.) The general view of the indigenous people of New Zealand is that Māori have the sole power to use and control how indigenous knowledge is used. That’s in contrast to modern science, in which no ethnic group has any control about what projects are done or funded.

I gave some excerpts from the syllabus, which was designed to show students how sacred the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was, widely interpreted to deem all endeavors in New Zealand coequal between the “Crown” (Europeans) and the indigenous Māori.  This included science, so you could regard the course below, required for all science majors, as a way to propagandize them into thinking that indigenous “ways of knowing” were coequal to modern science.  But there was a similar required course for every major.

Unfortunately, this did not go down well: many of the students considered it a waste of time.  As one university member told me:

What we have been told is that the majority of students considered the courses below an acceptable standard, but it varied faculty by faculty. Remember that each faculty had its own WTR course. I know that in Engineering students overwhelmingly criticised their WTR course, but, ironically, this will continue as compulsory in 2026 as graduate competencies that are claimed to be covered by WTR are required for degree accreditation. I suspect however that the courses will be modified. We won’t know if WTR will be optional for the Faculty of Science in 2026, but most are assuming it will be, i.e. it won’t be compulsory next year.

For some reason, engineering and medicine students will still be required to take such a course, but, as a New Zealand Herald article (archived here) notes, the rest of these courses will be optional. Perhaps Māori students may take them, but the course offered was not a science course but a propaganda course, and why waste your time on such stuff when you can be learning science? (If you want to learn indigenous culture, anthropology or sociology courses are the proper venue.)

Dawn Freshwater, the Auckland Vice-Chancellor (i.e., “The Boss”) has been mentioned here before. She dissimulated several years ago, promising that there would be a full and fair debate on the relative merits and usefulness of modern science versus indigenous “ways of knowing”. But after four years, the debate still never took place. Freshwater clearly never had any intention of allowing it. And when I swallowed hard and emailed her about this, asking where the debate was, I got no answer. Fortunately for Auckland Uni, Freshwater has announced she’s leaving.

In the article below she backs off the program, recommending that the courses be optional instead of required. A faculty vote overwhelmingly supported this.

Click to read. (“Waipapa Taumata Rau” is Māori for “The University of Auckland,” recently given that indigenous name  (as my colleague said, “This was one of the problems with the whole thing: naming the course after the University indicated that the content reflected the views of the university.”)

Anyway, I’ll give a few excerpts:


Excerpts (go to the archived link to read full article):

The University of Auckland’s controversial Treaty of Waitangi and te ao Māori courses are unlikely to remain compulsory after negative feedback from staff and students, and criticism from politicians.

The university senate has recommended that Waipapa Taumata Rau (WTR) courses become an optional choice, rather than a core requirement.

The courses were made compulsory for all first-year students this year. The backdown comes after just one completed semester.

In March, Act leader David Seymour called on the university to scrap the compulsory courses, describing them as “a perversion of academic freedom” and “a form of indoctrination”.

“The university has been reviewing the feedback about the Waipapa Taumata Rau courses,” Auckland University Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater posted online on September 12.

Freshwater, as always, tried to put a good face on it, but the feedback was dire: students, even in engineering, considered the courses a waste of time.

“While students have found the courses valuable, they have also indicated where improvements could be made and told us they would like greater flexibility in how WTR fits within their programme of study,” she wrote.

English translation: “The reviews were lousy—so lousy that we have to make the courses optional so that students can take courses in their major lacking ideological propagandizing,”

“As we do with all courses, we aim to use staff and student feedback to strengthen how they are delivered.

“To that end, and in response to that feedback, a proposal will be discussed at Senate on 15 September recommending that WTR become an optional choice within General Education for most programmes, rather than a core requirement.

The faculty vote was very lopsided: make the courses optional.  Some student comments.

Comments online included: “From what I’m seeing, you either pay for this course or some other. You can debate whether another elective or transdisciplinary would be more useful than WTR.”

Another said: “This class is literally primary school-level content. I love the idea of a compulsory class on Te Tiriti, but obviously they failed at it. This class has been the biggest waste of my time, I learnt more in my Year 4 class.”

Some students said the course costs – between $900 and $1200 – were high and the courses had little relevance to their studies when compared to other general education courses.

The majority of comments were negative but not racist.

LOL. “Negative but not racist.”  That’s an escellent take on the “equal time” proposal. And those are the comments that Freshwater said “found the courses valuable.”  The woman doesn’t know how to give a straight answer.

Act’s tertiary education spokeswoman, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, said in March that international students were being forced to pay thousands of dollars for a course with little relevance to their future careers.

To sum up, the University’s efforts to shove the sacralization of indigenous people (and the treaty of Waitani) down the throats of students failed; the students want to learn stuff relevant to their interests, and are pretty clearly sick of the pervasive indigenization of New Zealand.  I find that good in the sense that while citizens of New Zealand Aoteoroa should know about their country’s history and culture, it should not be stuck everywhere in the curriculum.

Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps in New Zealand, but certainly not in Canada, where the sacralization of the indigenous people is only getting started. Expect to see the “two-eyed seeing” trope everywhere.

Finally, I bid Dr. Freshwater goodbye and good riddance.  Her tenure served only to damage education at New Zealand’s most prestigious university.

More unsubstantiated assertions of indigenous “science” in New Zealand

September 17, 2025 • 11:20 am

Predator Free NZ (“PFZ”, and “NZ” is New Zealand)  is apparently a science-oriented trust whose goal—a worthy one—is to keep non-native predators, such as the common brushtail possum, out of New Zealand, as they destroy native wildlife and have other bad effects on the ecosystem. (The possum, for example, destroys native New Zealand birds and carries bovine tuberculosis, and it’s a constant battle to destroy them).  But, like apparently all science in New Zealand, the organization is getting infiltrated with indigenous “ways of knowing” and “lived experience”, which in the case at hand appear, at they so often do, not to be based on real science at all. Real science means you use data to test a hypothesis, not simply adduce “lived experience”.

A Kiwi who apparently gets PFZ’s newsletter sent me a copy that started this way, already showing, by the profusion of Māori words, that there lies danger ahead. (Although there are some translations, they don’t mention that “Aotearoa” is the Māori term for “New Zealand”):

Kia ora NAME REDACTED,

It’s Te Wiki o te Reo Māori. For the 50th year, Aotearoa is coming together to celebrate te Reo Māori. Learn some kupu (words), set your tārore (traps) and keep protecting our manu (birds) and other taonga species.

Keep an eye on our instagram this week; we’re learning some sayings featuring native manu with Hēmi Kelly from Everyday Māori.

And this newsletter links to an article that touts trapping predators using the Māor lunar calendar, a method for which there’s no evidence at all. There are three links given at the end of this article, but they are not scientific references: they’re simply expositions of the Māori lunar calendar, with a few undocumented assertions about when to trap based on the moon. In other words, there’s no “science” as we conceive of “modern science.”

Click on the headline below to read the piece:

The article shows 30 phases of the Māori lunar calendar, and says that the author (Cam Speedy) knows that these phases are associated with hunting and fishing.  But experience is not science.  A quote from Mr. Speedy:

As a hunter, I have always recognised similar distinct patterns when night shooting. Sometimes, there is just nothing doing; other times, there are critters there, but they are very shy or just too fast. Sometimes, it’s simply all on – critters everywhere that hold in the light.

It is the same with fishing – fishing is more productive at ‘bite time’ – when the moon is directly above, especially when that happens at dawn (Tangaroa phase) or dusk (Tamatea phase).

Deer are also more active at ‘bite time’. With over 40 ‘deer roars’ under my belt, I now plan my roar trips to coincide with the end of the third lunar quarter (start of the Tangaroa phase) – when hind cycling and stag activity is much higher – and I make sure I’m looking over hot spots at ‘bite time’.

As I began applying maramataka [JAC: lunar calendar] principles to my predator trapping, my diary notes started to speak for themselves – for example, the serviced traps were fresh for the ‘Tangaroa’ moon phase (seven to 12 days after the full moon) and out-performed other traps.

. . .I have consistently found that traps serviced a day or two before the Tangaroa phase catch more pests.

If you also start to layer in weather influences (most critters stay home during cold, wet stormy periods to re-emerge once the weather fronts clear), take note of and follow wider seasonal patterns in animal behaviour (eg., mating, breeding and dispersal) and understand seasonal diet changes, you will transform your trapping success.

And indeed, Mr. Speedy might be right, but there are no data supporting his assertions. He calls this approach “holistic”—always a red flag in these type of articles.  As my correspondent emailed me:

As far as I can find with search engines, this is an article with no evidence base to it at all – even CHatGPT agress (below).  Given that many of the species we target (mustelids and, regrettably, hedgehogs) have not been in New Zealand for more than 150 years, and have been seen as an existential threat to wildlife for a far shorter time, it’s a bit rich to claim centuries of experiential learning!

And so my correspondent asked ChatGPT the question below, followed by the answer:

Does maramataka improve pest trapping?

The bot’s response (bolding in the last paragraph is mine):

Yes, maramataka, the Māori lunar calendar, can play a role in improving pest trapping, especially in agricultural or ecological contexts.

Maramataka is based on the phases of the moon and the positions of other celestial bodies, and it dictates the best times for planting, fishing, hunting, and other activities. Some people believe that certain phases of the moon, as well as specific days in the lunar cycle, can influence pest behavior. For instance:

  1. Feeding and Activity Cycles: Some pests may be more active or easier to trap during certain lunar phases. For example, it is believed that during the waxing moon (when the moon is growing in size), pests such as rats or insects might be more active, making them easier to catch or trap.
  2. Moon Phase and Tides: In some cases, particularly in coastal areas, the moon’s phases can affect the behavior of pests that are tied to tides or certain weather patterns. For example, high tide during a particular lunar phase might affect the movement of certain pests in coastal areas.
  3. Cultural Knowledge: In Māori culture, there’s a deep understanding of how animals and pests behave in relation to the moon’s phases. Traps or hunting methods are sometimes planned around the maramataka to align with times when pests are most vulnerable or more predictable.

In short, while there’s no definitive scientific proof for maramataka’s direct effect on pest trapping, the knowledge embedded in the lunar calendar could help guide better timing and more effective pest management practices based on natural patterns observed over centuries.

“It is believed,” “might”, “no definitive scientific proof”: all these are euphemisms for “this isn’t science but guesswork.” So not only has Kiwi science been infiltrated by the “sacralization of the oppressed,” but apparently so has ChatGPT, which hedges its answer into meaninglessness.

The journal Nature calls for “decolonization” of modern science

August 15, 2025 • 10:15 am

That Nature published this long comment, written by eight indigenous authors from five countries, is a sure sign of its surrender to “progressive” views that aim to change science from an endeavor finding truth about nature to an endeavor that’s a lever for social justice.  Surprisingly, though, Nature allowed the authors to use the “progressive” term of “decolonization,” arguing explicitly that the science is the result of colonization of knowledge by white men from the Global North—a situation that must be recitified, pronto.

The authors give eight ways to rectify the “colonization”, all of them involving sacrificing merit for ethnicity, replacing modern science with “other ways of knowing,” and demanding both professional, monetary, and territorial reparations, even from those who never oppressed anybody. There must be equity in everything, they say: all ethnic groups must be represented in science jobs and funding in exact proportion (indeed, sometimes in higher proportion) than their presence in the population.  Further, the authors demand that indigenous science be taken on intellectual par with modern science (or, as they say, “Western science”), despite the local nature of indigenous knowledge and its lack of tools used by modern science (hypothesis testing, controls, and so on) that severely limits the ambit and value of indigenous knowledge.

The article also suffers from severe distortion of claims (e.g., pervasive “structural racism” in science), from a lack of documentation of those claims, and most of all from the failure to disentangle prejudice from other causes of inequity (preference, differential qualifications, etc.). Finally, it suffers from a pervasive flaw in these kind of studies: the attempt to remedy inequities by adjusting the proportion of grants and professors once people have already gotten their Ph.Ds and jobs.  Such advice will only serve to infect science with the views of Ibram Kendi as expressed in his book How to Be an Antiracist:

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.

In other words, the article calls for pervasive and unapologetic discrimination in favor of indigenous people.  But the only fair and lasting remedy for inequities that doesn’t erode science itself, as well as of inequities in general, is to give every group equal opportunity from birth.  Yes, that’s a hard task, and will take years. In the meantimes, we should do outreach, see below, and also study to what extent present inequities may stem from past bigotry.

But it doesn’t help matters to claim, as the article does, that science is deeply imbued with structural racism: the claim that the whole system is rigged to keep indigenous people out of science. That is not true, as we can see from Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, in which universities are bending over backwards to favor indigenous people. This claim is based not on identifying things in the structure of science that are bigoted and discriminatory, but solely on the existence of inequities themselves. But as I and others have argued, unless you separate bigotry from other causes of inequities, you don’t have a case. Further, as I’ve written about in extenso, “indigenous knowledge” is never on par with modern science. Yes, indigenous people can contribute empirical truths to science, but indigenous “science” almost invariably consists of local knowledge helping people to live in their specific environment (in New Zealand, for example, it consists of stuff like knowing how to harvest mussels or where to catch eels), and isn’t generalizable to other places. It does not use the tools of modern science and, as in New Zealand, is often imbued with nonscientific aspects like ethics, morality, unsubstantiated lore, and supernatural trappings like teleology and myth. Yes, some aspects of indigenous “science” can and should be worked into science classes, but most of it should be taught in sociology or anthropology class. Attempts to create a parity between indigenous knowledge and modern science, as in New Zealand, have largely failed: mandatory courses in the former are disliked by students.

Click below to read the article, or find it archived here.

The eight authors on the paper are indigenous or partly indigenous: Tara and Leilani Walker are Māori. Niiyokamigaabaw, Deondre Smiles is a member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and an adjunct professor in Indigenous geographies and land relations at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Lydia Jennings is Wixárika, a citizen of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and an assistant professor in Indigenous soil ecologies and Indigenous data sovereignty, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA, Bradley Moggridge is Kamilaroi and a professor of science and associate dean (Indigenous Leadership and Engagement), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia, Sereana Naepi has ancestry from Nakida, Naitasiri, Fiji, and is an associate professor in sociology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand., Brittany Kamai is Kānaka Maoli is a lecturer in astrophysics and traditional voyaging, University of Hawai‘i , West O‘ahu, Kapolei, Hawaii, USA, and Kat Milligan-McClellan is Inupiaq and an assistant professor of microbiology and a student mentor, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.

The first author of the paper, Tara McAlister, has largely abandoned science for activism; to see her true colors, read this article: “50 reasons there are no Māori in your science department.“, or this one, “Why isn’t my professor Māori?” (see my post here, too). She specializes in posting lists of inequities and saying that this is prima facie evidence for ongoing bigotry and structural racism. She is not doing real “research”, but misguided activism. More on this later.

I’ll start simply by giving the first four paragraphs of the paper, which encapsulate the indictment of both “Western” science, seen as unfriendly to indigenous knowledge and rife with structural racism, and also of non-Indigenous scientists, seen as bigoted and sworn to prevent indigenous scientists from advancing:

Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives intend to support Black, Indigenous and other marginalized scholars — but the pace of change has remained slow.

Too often, Indigenous people continue to be objects of research; they must be allowed to become research leaders. For this to happen, extractive research that is taken from Indigenous people without their meaningful involvement, benefit or consent must stop. Indigenous communities must be in charge of whether or not they participate in research, and what happens with any data collected. This is how universities and scientific institutions should uphold key principles of Indigenous self-determination, and ensure data sovereignty in education and research. Institutional power and expertise must serve Indigenous causes, too, and the research community must nurture Indigenous scholars.

We are Indigenous scientists who work and live in the settler-colonial countries of Aotearoa (New Zealand), Canada, Australia and the United States, with expertise spanning microbiology, astrophysics, behavioural ecology, hydrogeology, water science, Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous geographies. Here, we outline eight steps that academic institutions can take to stop marginalizing Indigenous people.

Dominant science (sometimes referred to as Western science) is rooted in colonization, racism and white supremacy: it has been an active participant in the assimilation, marginalization and genocide of Indigenous people1,2. Black and Indigenous people have been exploited repeatedly by dominant science for monetary and educational gain3, and many institutions were funded by money acquired after stealing Indigenous lands.

Science has been an active participant in genocide? Really? Maybe “colonialists” have, but not science itself. And this sets the overheated and misguided tone for the paper.  I’ll list the eight reforms that the authors demand of science, give a quote from the paper for each one, and make my own comment. Quotes from the paper are indented.

1.) Recognize science’s colonial legacy

. . .Colonialism remains deeply embedded in many facets of dominant science, leading to inequitable health and social outcomes. For example, Indigenous people globally have lower life expectancies and higher rates of maternal and infant mortalities than other population groups. And facial-recognition algorithms are often based on white facial features, meaning their results have high false-positive rates for Black and Indigenous people.

These practices (past and present) have caused harm and a distrust of scientific research in Indigenous communities. To begin to dismantle these legacies, all scientists must understand how their disciplines have enabled colonialism. Universities must ensure that students learn the history of their field as part of the curriculum. For example, at Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand, the bachelor of science degree includes a mandatory course about the relationship between science and Indigenous knowledges (both Māori and Pacific) in Aotearoa.

What the authors are trying to say is that science is largely a product of European efforts. To some extent that’s true, but science is now an international endeavor.  And no, we don’t need to be propagandized about this. The bizarre course at the University of Auckland required for all first-year students in science has, I hear, gotten terrible reviews by students, because, as I’ve written, it’s largely a course meant to propagandize students.

2.) Fund Indigenous scientists

Indigenous scientists are chronically underfunded internationally: they often receive fewer academic fellowships and research grants than their white colleagues do4. For example, in the United States, between 1996 and 2019, white principal investigators were consistently funded by the National Science Foundation at higher rates than were principal investigators of colour4. In 2021, Māori were under-represented in both decision-making panels and in successful applications for the Endeavour Fund5 — one of New Zealand’s largest research funds, named after Cook’s ship. This under-representation, combined with the fact that Indigenous people occupy few research positions (statistics from settler-colonial countries such as Australia suggest that less than 1% of all PhD holders globally are Indigenous) means that these scientists are often locked out of opportunities to do meaningful research6.

For these changes to happen, the conventional metrics of research excellence must be expanded. Reports written for Indigenous communities should be considered equivalent to peer-reviewed manuscripts. The scientific community must acknowledge the value of research that is led by Indigenous communities, as well as research that centres Indigenous Knowledge systems.

Increasing Indigenous representation on decision-making panels would help to break the cycle of inequity in all these areas.

The first line of the second paragraph should be rewritten, “the conventional metrics of research excellence must be changed to include ethnicity as a mark of ‘excellence'”.  Here the authors mistake inequity in funding with bigotry, and although they do document inequity of funding (the only real documentation in the article), they don’t mention that there are other causes of inequities.

For example, in America we know that the National Institutes of Health funds grant proposals from black investigators at a lower rate than proposals from white investigators. But a multivariate analysis of funding showed that this was not due to rife bigotry among granting agencies or reviwers, but to two factors: black investigators tended to apply more often for funding in areas that dispensed less funding,  and, second, the qualifications of black investigators, as judged by their publication history (one of the most important metrics of investigator quality), were lower.

What the authors are asking for here is preferential funding based on ethnicity.  In America this is illegal, though I’m not sure about places like Canada and New Zealand. My impression is that Canada does preferentially give grants and jobs to certain identified minorities.

3.) Hire, retain, promote

In the past decade, we have noticed an increase in academic positions targeted towards Indigenous peoples, particularly in settler-colonial states that have made appreciable moves towards reconciliation, such as Australia, Aotearoa and Canada. But it is not enough to simply hire Indigenous scholars. Institutions must work to ensure that they can thrive in academia.

. . . . Universities have started to turn to cluster hiring, in which several people are recruited at the same time to improve racial or gender diversity. For Indigenous scholars, this approach can prevent the isolation both of the individual who is hired and of the Indigenous values, contributions and ways of knowing. Although hiring in cohorts is not sufficient by itself to change organizational culture or shift power, it is crucial to help build a critical mass of Indigenous scientists who will enable enduring change.

This is illegal in America, and the University of Chicago has its own provision to ensure that hiring and promotion is based solely on academic merit (scholarship and teaching) and contribution to the scholarly community: the Shils report of 1970. It would be a travesty here to argue that we should preferentially hire and promote people based on their ethnicity, even if done under the well-meaning but misguided attempt to correct past bigotry that may have led to inequities. But before you rectify inequities, you need to figure out what caused them. As the NIH-funding issue above shows, it may not be existing bigotry or structural racism.  Yes, if existing bigotry does discriminate against minorities, that has to be fixed. But I doubt that it does at present for hiring, promotion, or funding—especially given the Zeitgeist. This demand is one example of the Kendi-an dictum: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” The real remedy is equal opportunities beginning at birth.

4.) Dismantle institutional racism

Institutional factors such as racism, burnout, isolation, excess labour and inequitable funding, as well as unsafe and unwelcoming environments, all contribute to greater turnover of Black and Indigenous faculty members than of white colleagues7,8. Universities must work to dismantle the structures, practices, policies and processes that have led to this situation. They must facilitate connections, collaborations and mentorships among Indigenous academics.

Evaluation and promotion processes should be redesigned9 in consultation with key Indigenous people on and off campus. This consultation should not force Indigenous community members to make hasty decisions, but instead take into account the lived experiences of Indigenous academics as well as the community members they work with.

Both the references in the first paragraph are based on self-report, and the finding that those who self-reported feeling marginalized left universities more often.  But there is no evidence that the universities are “unwelcoming” or actually engage in “institutional racism.” We’ve also dealt with inequitable funding, which has many explanations that have to be untangled. And lack of funding can contribute to a higher dropout rate of some groups.

The remedy suggested in the paper is a bad one: ask indigenous people how to design evaluation and hiring processes to allow more of them to be retained.  That is self-aggrandizing and unwarranted favoritism. And you are not supposed to take for granted how people say they have been treated, as there is a tendency among all groups to assume a “victim” stance—a tendency that goes for every group I can think of. The questions that need to be asked are two: “Is there at present general discrimination against minorities in science?” and, if so, “What aspects of the university are structurally racist?” Of course there will be some bigots in any group, but the assertion involves its intensity and whether it affects academic performance.

5.) Recognize indigenous knowledge

For thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples have accumulated and developed place-based knowledge about our local environments, through systems built on each community’s philosophies, methodologies, criteria and world view. Indigenous Knowledge is increasingly being sought in both basic and applied sciences10, particularly in fields such as fire management, sustainability and conservation. But the superficial inclusion of some fragments of Indigenous Knowledge in science is not decolonization.

Notice that the knowledge is “place based” and not really based on systems beyond “do what is needed to ensure well being and survival”. I’ve discussed in detail the content of and problems with indigenous “ways of knowing.” Yes, there is scientific content to nearly all of them, but the reason that the inclusion might be “superficial” is not because of bigotry, but because indigenous knowledge—Māori ways of knowing are those I’m most familiar with— is local, limited to what enables a local tribe or group to survive in its environment, and are more or less anecdotal, without hypothesis testing or the toolkit of modern science that could allow indigenous “knowledge” to be applied more than in just one location. Indigenous knowledge in New Zealand, for example, doesn’t hold in Canada.

6.) Create safe spaces in science

Research institutions in the global north are often predominantly white, and at times hostile, places. Indigenous scientists need safe spiritual, physical and emotional spaces where we can be our full selves. For instance, a doctoral support programme for Māori and Indigenous scholars improved the well-being of students and academics by providing access to Indigenous mentors and a regular connection to other Indigenous people12.

Such spaces could include societies and conferences for Indigenous scholars. And in many cases, individual Indigenous scientists have created inclusive, safe and Indigenous-centred spaces in universities, such as the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) at the Memorial University of Newfoundland in St John’s, Canada. CLEAR involves Indigenous communities as active collaborators not only in all of its research, but also in how projects are shared with broader audiences.

This smacks of both discrimination, a victim complex, and the old (and largely discredited) call of college students to have “safe spaces” where they are free from intellectual challenge. These “safe spaces” are a recipe for divisiveness science; and they are a tactic that impedes minority scientists from integrating into the larger scientific community. Sure, if, Māori scientists want to organize their own conferences from which non-Māori are excluded (the only way this could work), by all means go ahead. But universities and scientific societies and institutions should not be in the business of organizing, funding, or touting such things.

7. ) Foster Indigenous sovereignty

Indigenous sovereignty is constantly contested in universities. Issues can range from failure to recognize the value of Indigenous Knowledge systems to undermining the right of Indigenous Peoples to control how our own data, artefacts and tissues are collected, accessed and used13.

The argument that the Indigenous right to oversight is a hindrance to science14 positions Indigenous Knowledge as not being as objective or rigorous as dominant science. But implying that Indigenous people cannot oversee research and knowledge production in our communities and lands is a paternalistic, outdated mentality. Including Indigenous community members and researchers early on in research projects can ensure that they are designed, implemented and reported with Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and well-being in mind.

This one I largely agree with: indigenous people should not be exploited by others, and if they participate in a study, it must be with full understanding and with their permission and, if warranted, authorship.  Two caveats, though. First, once data are published, anybody can do whatever they want with them scientifically. Publication means that your data can no longer be controlled and manipulated by only you.

Second, artifacts, bones, and so on, cannot be immune from study simply because indigenous people claim to have a tenuous connection with them. If they can prove that the artifacts really do come from their tribes, or the bones from their people, fine. But too often, as Elizabeth Weiss has documented, artifacts that could be of immense scientific value are rendered off limits to study by indigenous people who claim ownership. Such claims must be strongly documented, for they have the ability to prevent all of us from knowing about our history. And even so, I wish that indigenous people didn’t prevent scientists from studying their own artifacts. They can get them back, but they’d also learn something of their history.

8.) Move towards Land Back

In this demand, the authors want universities and other educational institutions to return “stolen” land to indigenous people, and give them other stuff, too, like money:

Universities in Aotearoa, Canada, Australia and the United States have started giving ‘land acknowledgements’ on their websites and in other material — but this is not enough.

The Land Back movement advocates instead for the transfer of power and resources back to Indigenous people. Land restitution is one way to do this. We also support giving free university tuition and research opportunities for Indigenous students at universities that are located on stolen lands (see also go.nature.com/3h8wdwj). Although this doesn’t entirely redress past wrongs, such a step can substantially increase the inclusion of Indigenous students and scholars.

While I’ve often said that universities that practice land acknowledgment should put their money where their mouths are, and give back university land to tribes, I knew they would never do it. And that’s for many reasons. The history of land transfer among groups is complex and often undocumented, and it’s nearly impossible to find the original occupants of land. Further, some indigenous people didn’t even have the concept of “owning” land, but roamed widely, and often occupied land after displacing other tribes.

In sum, the paper is deeply problematic, rife with undocumented claims, and deeply imbued with calls for discrimination among groups. That said, it’s absolutely true that present inequities do stem, at least in part, from historical discrimination and bigotry, even if those factors no longer operate. What can we do? I suggest three solutions:

a. As I’ve said before, create programs to give people of all groups opportunities to enter and make their way in academia. This is hard, but is the only true solution to inequities that stem from lack of opportunity.

b. Conduct studies to see what inequities are due to bigotry and racism as opposed to other factors, like those mentioned above for NIH grants. Only when we determine the cause of inequities can we address them properly.

c. We can begin this effort with greater outreach towards minority communities: letting young people know what careers there are out there and what opportunities to actually participate in science. While this is going on to some extent, we need a lot more of it.  This is not unfair discrimination, but an attempt to rectify the residuals of history without eroding science.  But in the end, this requires a wholesale restructuring of government to foster these opportunities, and that is something for the far distant future.  But I am in favor of it.

As one of my colleagues said after reading this paper, “The authors’ decolonization/indigenization ideology is not only antithetical to science, it’s also anti-Enlightenment, and as such challenges the whole idea of universities as places where ideas are tested on the basis of reason and evidence without the imposition of cultural authority.”

If you ever see the words “decolonize” and “science” in the same sentence, you know you’re in for some bad arguments.  And Nature should not be publishing this type of ideological propaganda and unwarranted accusations.

Another desperate but failed attempt to show that indigenous “science” improves modern science

July 23, 2025 • 11:00 am

This article at The Conversation, by a climatologist at the University of Wellington and a lecturer in design (?) at the University of Auckland, is a desperate attempt to buttress Māori “ways of knowing” by showing how they align with modern science conducted in Antarctica. It is purely performative, meant to sacralize Māori “science,” but in fact adds nothing to modern science. Its only aim is to show that if you twist Māori lore sufficiently, and squint hard enough, you can sort of see some similarities with modern science.

The article is embarrassing and should not have been published in The Conversation. Its appearance can be understood only as an attempt to make up for earlier oppression of indigenous people by overstating their contributions to modern science. This of course is one of the aims of New Zealand’s government, and the article and attendant trip for the authors to Antarctica were in fact paid for by several sources of government support, including the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden fund designed to

. . . drive world-class research in New Zealand by supporting and incentivising excellent researchers to work on their best and boldest ideas leading to new knowledge and skills with the potential for significant downstream impact for New Zealand.

Shoot me now!

UPDATE: I’ve learned that part of the Marsden Fund also supports “Vision Mātauranga” projects designed “to unlock the innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people to assist New Zealanders to create a better future.” I suspect that this is why Winton and Hoeta produced such a misguided paper, extolling Māori knowledge but not giving examples of how it’s informed modern science.

Have a look at the piece and see if excellent research with big potential is described (click on the headline below to read):

First, though authors and government support are shown below:

Now that we’ve determined that the NZ taxpayer is funding this palaver, let’s look at what it’s about. As the beginning shows, it’s merely an “exploration” of how one might comport Māori lore with modern science. There is nothing in the whole piece that shows how Māori lore can add to modern science. All the bolding below is mine:

Antarctica’s patterns of stark seasonal changes, with months of darkness followed by a summer of 24-hour daylight, prompted us to explore how a Māori lunar and environmental calendar (Maramataka) might apply to the continent and help us recognise changes as the climate continues to warm.

As if there aren’t better ways to measure the effects of global warming! Reducation of fixed ice and movement of animals, for example. But let’s proceed:

Maramataka represent an ancient knowledge system using environmental signs (tohu) to impart knowledge about lunar and environmental connections. It traces the mauri (energy flow) between the land (whenua), the ocean (moana) and the sky and atmosphere (rangi), and how people connect to the natural world.

Maramataka are regionally specific. For example, in Manukau, the arrival of godwits from the Arctic indicates seasonal changes that align with the migration of eels moving up the local Puhinui stream.

During matiti muramura, the third summer phase that aligns with the summer solstice, the environment offers tohu that guide seasonal activity. The flowering of pohutukawa is a land sign (tohu o te whenua), the rising of Rehua (Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius) is an atmospheric sign (tohu o te rangi), and sea urchins (kina) are a sea sign (tohu o te moana).

When these signs align, it signals balance in nature and the right time to gather food. But if they are out of sync (such as early flowering or small kina), it means something in the environment (te taiao) is out of balance.

These tohu remind us how deeply land, sea and sky are connected, and why careful observation matters. When they’re out of sync, they call us to pause, observe and adapt in ways that restore natural balance and uphold the mauri of te taiao.

Have a look at the last link to see if there are any practical implications of observing sea urchins and stars and birds. And remember, this is from Antarctica, but the implications are apparently for New Zealand. (Note also the plethora of Māori words, whose presence is irrelevant to nearly all readers but constitute a big sign of virtue for the authors.)

Why on Earth did they go to Antarctica to suss out things to do in New Zealand? No explanation is given, but note that the sentence in bold above denotes not a search for truth, but an “exploration” of how Māori lore might allow things in Antarctica to help people in New Zealand. The connection is still unclear to me.

A bit more “exploration.” Again, this exercise is not to find anything out, but merely to construct metaphors:

One of the key tohu we observed in Antarctica was the mass arrival of Weddell seals outside New Zealand’s Scott Base at the height of summer.

Guided by Maramataka authorities, we explored other local tohu using Hautuu Waka, an ancient framework of weaving and wayfinding to navigate a changing environment. Originally used for navigating vast oceans, wayfinding in this context becomes a metaphor for navigating the complexities of today’s environmental and social challenges.

That is not science, and it’s not even sociology. It’s simply storytelling. And it’s opaque.

Remember, the NZ government sent two researchers to Antarctica (not a cheap proposition) to produce stuff like this:

While the tohu in Antarctica were vastly different from those observed in Aotearoa [JAC: the Māori word for “New Zealand”, untranslated, of course], the energy phases of the Maramataka Moon cycles aligned with traditional stories (pūrākau) describing snow and ice.

We identified some of the 12 different forms of snow recorded by ethnographers, who described them as the “offspring of wind and rain”.

At Scott Base, we observed feather-like snow (hukapuhi) and floating snow (hukarangaranga). Further inland on the high-elevation polar plateau, we found “unseen” snow (hukakoropuku), which is not always visible to the naked eye but felt on the skin, and dust-like snow (hukapunehunehu), akin to diamond dust. The latter phenomenon occurs when air temperatures are cold enough for water vapour to condense directly out of the atmosphere and form tiny ice crystals, which sparkle like diamonds.

In te ao Māori, snow has a genealogy (whakapapa) that connects it to wider systems of life and knowledge. Snow is part of a continuum that begins in Ranginui (the sky father) and moves through the god (atua) of weather Tāwhirimātea, who shapes the form and movement of clouds, winds, rain and snow. Each type of snow carries its own name, qualities and behaviour, reflecting its journey through the skies and land.

Note the religious aspect of MM that worms its way into the “science” above.

And here’s the part where the authors implicitly claim that indigenous ways of knowing (Mātauranga Māori, or MM) supplement modern science. This is the basis for the government’s and educators’ attempts to teach MM alongside modern science as an alternative form of “knowing”.

Connecting Western science and mātauranga Māori

Our first observations of tohu in Antarctica mark the initial step towards intertwining the ancient knowledge system of mātauranga Māori with modern scientific exploration.

Observing snow through traditional practices provided insights into processes that cannot be fully understood through Western science methods alone. Mātauranga Māori recognises tohu through close sensory attention and relational awareness with the landscape.

Is there anything in the following actually contributed to science by MM, or anything new at all? Not that I see. The stuff about ice cores was figured out by modern science:

Drawing on our field observations and past and present knowledge of environmental calendars found in mātauranga Māori and palaeo-climate data such as ice cores, we can begin to connect different knowledge systems in Antarctica.

For example, just as the Maramataka contains information about the environment over time, so do Antarctic ice cores. Every snowflake carries a chemical signature of the environment that, day by day, builds up a record of the past. By measuring the chemistry of Antarctic ice, we gain proxy information about environmental and seasonal cycles such as temperature, winds, sea ice and marine phytoplankton.

The middle of summer in an ice core record is marked by peak levels in chemical signals from marine phytoplankton that bloom in the Ross Sea when sea ice melts, temperatures are warmer and light and nutrients are available. This biogenic aerosol is a summer tohu identified as a key environmental time marker in the Maramataka of the onset of the breading season and surge in biological activity.

I’m highly doubtful that the traditional Māori lunar calendar incorporates “biogenic aerosol signals from marine phytoplankton in the Ross Sea.” Or do they just mean that it’s getting warmer? The embarrassing piece ends this way (again, my bolding):

The knowledge of Maramataka has developed over millennia. Conceptualising this for Antarctica opens a way of using Māori methods and frameworks to glean new insights about the continent and ocean. Grounded in te ao Māori understanding that everything is connected, this approach invites us to see the polar environment not as a remote but a living system of interwoven tohu, rhythms and relationships.

Most of those who claim the importance of indigenous knowledge systems make the argument that those systems show that “things are connected.” But of course that’s nothing new to science! To make such a claim not only bespeaks desperation, but also adds nothing to modern science.  The sentence in bold above gives not one example of how MM can help us “glean new insights about the Antarctic continent and ocean. That also goes for the whole article. Weak parallels are not knowledge.

I conclude that the authors, especially Dr. Winton, should be embarrassed to have written this piece, that the attempt to beef up modern science with indigenous knowledge is a pretty futile effort, and, as always, that New Zealand should not be funding this kind of endeavor. If the indigenous people are still suffering from decades of oppression, well, fix that suffering. But don’t try it by mixing indigenous “knowledge” into modern science! That’s harmful to both Māori and the other inhabitants of New Zealand.

UPDATE: I learned that Dr. David Lillis has also analyzed the Winton and Hoeta paper in a piece at BreakingViews@Co.Nz called “Intertwining Knowledge Systems.”  I deliberately didn’t read it before I wrote the above, but now I have, and we come to the same conclusions.

Lillis takes The Conversation piece apart paragraph by paragraph. Here’s just one example. The first paragraph is a quote from the Winton and Hoeta paper, the second Lillis’s analysis:

“In te ao Māori, snow has a genealogy (whakapapa) that connects it to wider systems of life and knowledge. Snow is part of a continuum that begins in Ranginui (the sky father) and moves through the god (atua) of weather Tāwhirimātea, who shapes the form and movement of clouds, winds, rain and snow. Each type of snow carries its own name, qualities and behaviour, reflecting its journey through the skies and land.”

Here we have a charming allegory. Of course, we can teach it to children, along with similar allegories from other populations in New Zealand, but not literally nor as science. Of course, science also has names for various types of snow, each characterized by particular formation and texture. These types include powder snow, packed snow, corn snow, crud, slush and ice.

His long and devastating piece concludes that the pablum pushed by Winton and Hoeta is not science in the way it’s practiced now:

Let us preserve and value traditional beliefs but not confuse them with modern world science. We owe it to future generations to get this very critical matter right.

Amen! Sadly, they’re not getting it right in New Zealand.