Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance.

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decision-making and control of data. Given that much data are generated from research, Indigenous research governance and Indigenous Data Governance overlap. In this paper, we broaden the concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty by using the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance to discuss how research legislation and policy adopted by Indigenous Peoples in the US set expectations around recognizing sovereign relationships, acknowledging rights and interests in data, and enabling Indigenous Peoples' participation in research governance.

Fine particulate matter composition in American Indian vs. Non-American Indian communities.

BACKGROUND: Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure is a known risk factor for numerous adverse health outcomes, with varying estimates of component-specific effects. Populations with compromised health conditions such as diabetes can be more sensitive to the health impacts of air pollution exposure. Recent trends in PM2.5 in primarily American Indian- (AI-) populated areas examined in previous work declined more gradually compared to the declines observed in the rest of the US. To further investigate components contributing to these findings, we compared trends in concentrations of six PM2.5 components in AI- vs. non-AI-populated counties over time (2000-2017) in the contiguous US. METHODS: We implemented component-specific linear mixed models to estimate differences in annual county-level concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic matter, black carbon, and mineral dust from well-validated surface PM2.5 models in AI- vs. non-AI-populated counties, using a multi-criteria approach to classify counties as AI- or non-AI-populated. Models adjusted for population density and median household income. We included interaction terms with calendar year to estimate whether concentration differences in AI- vs. non-AI-populated counties varied over time. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 3108 counties, with 199 (6.4%) classified as AI-populated. On average across the study period, adjusted concentrations of all six PM2.5 components in AI-populated counties were significantly lower than in non-AI-populated counties. However, component-specific levels in AI- vs. non-AI-populated counties varied over time: sulfate and ammonium levels were significantly lower in AI- vs. non-AI-populated counties before 2011 but higher after 2011 and nitrate levels were consistently lower in AI-populated counties. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates time trend differences of specific components by AI-populated county type. Notably, decreases in sulfate and ammonium may contribute to steeper declines in total PM2.5 in non-AI vs. AI-populated counties. These findings provide potential directives for additional monitoring and regulations of key emissions sources impacting tribal lands.

Behavioral determinants of arsenic-safe water use among Great Plains Indian Nation private well users: results from the Community-Led Strong Heart Water Study Arsenic Mitigation Program.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavioral determinants associated with exclusive use of arsenic-safe water in the community-led Strong Heart Water Study (SHWS) arsenic mitigation program. METHODS: The SHWS is a randomized controlled trial of a community-led arsenic mitigation program designed to reduce arsenic exposure among private well users in American Indian Great Plains communities. All households received point-of-use (POU) arsenic filters installed at baseline and were followed for 2 years. Behavioral determinants selected were those targeted during the development of the SHWS program, and were assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Among participants, exclusive use of arsenic-safe water for drinking and cooking at follow-up was associated with higher self-efficacy for accessing local resources to learn about arsenic (OR: 5.19, 95% CI: 1.48-18.21) and higher self-efficacy to resolve challenges related to arsenic in water using local resources (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.11-8.71). Higher commitment to use the POU arsenic filter faucet at baseline was also a significant predictor of exclusive arsenic-safe water use for drinking (OR: 32.57, 95% CI: 1.42-746.70) and cooking (OR: 15.90, 95% CI: 1.33-189.52) at follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, the SHWS program significantly increased perceived vulnerability to arsenic exposure, self-efficacy, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms. Changing one's arsenic filter cartridge after installation was associated with higher self-efficacy to obtain arsenic-safe water for drinking (OR: 6.22, 95% CI: 1.33-29.07) and cooking (OR: 10.65, 95% CI: 2.48-45.68) and higher perceived vulnerability of personal health effects (OR: 7.79, 95% CI: 1.17-51.98) from drinking arsenic-unsafe water. CONCLUSIONS: The community-led SHWS program conducted a theory-driven approach for intervention development and evaluation that allowed for behavioral determinants to be identified that were associated with the use of arsenic safe water and changing one's arsenic filter cartridge. These results demonstrate that theory-driven, context-specific formative research can influence behavior change interventions to reduce water arsenic exposure. The SHWS can serve as a model for the design of theory-driven intervention approaches that engage communities to reduce arsenic exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SHWS is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03725592).

Community partnerships are fundamental to ethical ancient DNA research.

The ethics of the scientific study of Ancestors has long been debated by archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and, more recently, ancient DNA (aDNA) researchers. This article responds to the article "Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines" published in 2021 in Nature by a large group of aDNA researchers and collaborators. We argue that these guidelines do not sufficiently consider the interests of community stakeholders, including descendant communities and communities with potential, but yet unestablished, ties to Ancestors. We focus on three main areas of concern with the guidelines. First is the false separation of "scientific" and "community" concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members. Second, the commitment of the guidelines' authors to open data ignores the principles and practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Further, the authors argue that involving community members in decisions about publication and data sharing is unethical. We argue that excluding community perspectives on "ethical" grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Third, we stress the risks of not consulting communities that have established or potential ties to Ancestors, using two recent examples from the literature. Ancient DNA researchers cannot focus on the lowest common denominator of research practice, the bare minimum that is legally necessary. Instead, they should be leading multidisciplinary efforts to create processes to ensure communities from all regions of the globe are identified and engaged in research that affects them. This will often present challenges, but we see these challenges as part of the research, rather than a distraction from the scientific endeavor. If a research team does not have the capacity to meaningfully engage communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research.

Evaluation of a water arsenic filter in a participatory intervention to reduce arsenic exposure in American Indian communities: The Strong Heart Water Study.

Many rural populations, including American Indian communities, that use private wells from groundwater for their source of drinking and cooking water are disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of arsenic. However, programs aimed at reducing arsenic in American Indian communities are limited. The Strong Heart Water Study (SHWS) is a randomized controlled trial aimed at reducing arsenic exposure among private well users in American Indian Northern Great Plains communities. The community-led SHWS program installed point-of-use (POU) arsenic filters in the kitchen sink of households, and health promoters delivered arsenic health communication programs. In this study we evaluated the efficacy of these POU arsenic filters in removing arsenic during the two-year installation period. Participants were randomized into two arms. In the first arm households received a POU arsenic filter, and 3 calls promoting filter use (SHWS mobile health (mHealth) & filter arm). The second arm received the same filter and phone calls, and 3 in-person home visits and 3 Facebook messages (SHWS intensive arm) for program delivery. Temporal variability in water arsenic concentrations from the main kitchen faucet was also evaluated. A total of 283 water samples were collected from 50 households with private wells from groundwater (139 filter and 144 kitchen faucet samples). Ninety-three percent of households followed after baseline had filter faucet water arsenic concentrations below the arsenic maximum contaminant level of 10 µg/L at the final visit during our 2 year study period with no difference between study arms (98 % in the intensive arm vs. 94 % in the mHealth & filter arm). No significant temporal variation in kitchen arsenic concentration was observed over the study period (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99). This study demonstrates that POU arsenic filters installed for the community participatory SHWS program were effective in reducing water arsenic concentration in study households in both arms, even with delivery of the POU arsenic filter and mHealth program only. Furthermore, we observed limited temporal variability of water arsenic concentrations from kitchen faucet samples collected over time from private wells in our study setting.

Values and Practices to Strengthen Genetic Research Partnerships with Indigenous Communities.

Genetic datasets lack diversity and include very few data from Indigenous populations. Research models based on equitable partnership have the potential to increase Indigenous participation and have led to successful collaborations. We report here on a meeting of participants in four Indigenous community-university partnerships pursuing research on precision medicine. The goal of the meeting was to define values and practices that strengthen opportunities for genetic research. The group accorded the highest priority to developing trusting relationships, ensuring respect for Indigenous community authority, and pursuing research that has the potential to lead to community benefit. Supporting priorities included incorporation of Indigenous expertise in research planning, transparent communication, and development of community capacity, including capacity to participate in formulating research questions, informing research methodology, and leading research projects. Participants also noted the importance of attention to social determinants of health so that genetic contributors to health are evaluated in the appropriate context.

Establishing a blockchain-enabled Indigenous data sovereignty framework for genomic data.

Technological advances have enabled the rapid generation of health and genomic data, though rarely do these technologies account for the values and priorities of marginalized communities. In this commentary, we conceptualize a blockchain genomics data framework built out of the concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

Air Pollution in American Indian Versus Non-American Indian Communities, 2000-2018.

Objectives. To compare fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations in American Indian (AI)-populated with those in non-AI-populated counties over time (2000-2018) in the contiguous United States. Methods. We used a multicriteria approach to classify counties as AI- or non--AI-populated. We ran linear mixed effects models to estimate the difference in countywide annual PM2.5 concentrations from well-validated prediction models and monitoring sites (modeled and measured PM2.5, respectively) in AI- versus non-AI-populated counties. Results. On average, adjusted modeled PM2.5 concentrations in AI-populated counties were 0.38 micrograms per cubic meter (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.23, 0.54) lower than in non-AI-populated counties. However, this difference was not constant over time: in 2000, modeled concentrations in AI-populated counties were 1.46 micrograms per cubic meter (95% CI = 1.25, 1.68) lower, and by 2018, they were 0.66 micrograms per cubic meter (95% CI = 0.45, 0.87) higher. Over the study period, adjusted modeled PM2.5 mean concentrations decreased by 2.13 micrograms per cubic meter in AI-populated counties versus 4.26 micrograms per cubic meter in non-AI-populated counties. Results were similar for measured PM2.5. Conclusions. This study highlights disparities in PM2.5 trends between AI- and non-AI-populated counties over time, underscoring the need to strengthen air pollution regulations and prevention implementation in tribal territories and areas where AI populations live. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(4): 615-623. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306650).

Spatial relationship between well water arsenic and uranium in Northern Plains native lands.

Arsenic and uranium in unregulated private wells affect many rural populations across the US. The distribution of these contaminants in the private wells of most American Indian communities is poorly characterized, and seldom studied together. Here, we evaluate the association between drinking water arsenic and uranium levels in wells (n = 441) from three tribal regions in North Dakota and South Dakota participating in the Strong Heart Water Study. Groundwater contamination was extensive; 29% and 7% of wells exceeded maximum contaminant levels for arsenic and uranium respectively. 81% of wells had both arsenic and uranium concentrations at one-tenth of their human-health benchmark (arsenic, 1 µg/L; uranium 3 µg/L). Well arsenic and uranium concentrations were uncorrelated (rs = 0.06); however, there appeared to be a spatial correlation of wells co-contaminated by arsenic and uranium associated with flow along a geologic contact. These findings indicate the importance of measuring multiple metals in well water, and to understand underlying hydrogeological conditions. The underlying mechanisms for the prevalence of arsenic and uranium across Northern Plains Tribal Lands in the US, and in particular the occurrence of both elevated arsenic and uranium in drinking water wells in this region, demands further study.

Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska Native People about the Ethics of Genomics: An Adapted Model of Deliberation Used with Three Tribal Communities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design, implementation, and process outcomes from three public deliberations held in three tribal communities. Although increasingly used around the globe to address collective challenges, our study is among the first to adapt public deliberation for use with exclusively Indigenous populations. In question was how to design deliberations for tribal communities and whether this adapted model would achieve key deliberative goals and be well received. METHODS: We adapted democratic deliberation, an approach to stakeholder engagement, for use with three tribal communities to respect tribal values and customs. Public deliberation convenes people from diverse backgrounds in reasoned reflection and dialogue in search of collective solutions. The deliberation planning process and design were informed by frameworks of enclave deliberation and community-based participatory research, which share key egalitarian values. The deliberations were collaboratively designed with tribal leadership and extensive partner input and involvement in the deliberations. Each deliberation posed different, locally relevant questions about genomic research, but used the same deliberation structure and measures to gauge the quality and experience of deliberation. RESULTS: A total of 52 individuals participated in the deliberations across all three sites. Deliberants were balanced in gender, spanned decades in age, and were diverse in educational attainment and exposure to health research. Overall, the deliberations were positively evaluated. Participant perceptions and external observer datasets depict three deliberations that offered intensive conversation experiences in which participants learned from one another, reported feeling respected and connected to one another, and endorsed this intensive form of engagement. CONCLUSION: The adapted deliberations achieved key deliberative goals and were generally well received. Limitations of the study are described.

Recent shifts in the genomic ancestry of Mexican Americans may alter the genetic architecture of biomedical traits.

People in the Americas represent a diverse continuum of populations with varying degrees of admixture among African, European, and Amerindigenous ancestries. In the United States, populations with non-European ancestry remain understudied, and thus little is known about the genetic architecture of phenotypic variation in these populations. Using genotype data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, we find that Amerindigenous ancestry increased by an average of ~20% spanning 1940s-1990s in Mexican Americans. These patterns result from complex interactions between several population and cultural factors which shaped patterns of genetic variation and influenced the genetic architecture of complex traits in Mexican Americans. We show for height how polygenic risk scores based on summary statistics from a European-based genome-wide association study perform poorly in Mexican Americans. Our findings reveal temporal changes in population structure within Hispanics/Latinos that may influence biomedical traits, demonstrating a need to improve our understanding of admixed populations.

Locus-Specific Differential DNA Methylation and Urinary Arsenic: An Epigenome-Wide Association Study in Blood among Adults with Low-to-Moderate Arsenic Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic exposure to arsenic (As), a human toxicant and carcinogen, remains a global public health problem. Health risks persist after As exposure has ended, suggesting epigenetic dysregulation as a mechanistic link between exposure and health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between total urinary As and locus-specific DNA methylation in the Strong Heart Study, a cohort of American Indian adults with low-to-moderate As exposure [total urinary As, mean (±SD) µg/g creatinine: 11.7 (10.6)]. METHODS: DNA methylation was measured in 2,325 participants using the Illumina MethylationEPIC array. We implemented linear models to test differentially methylated positions (DMPs) and the DMRcate method to identify regions (DMRs) and conducted gene ontology enrichment analysis. Models were adjusted for estimated cell type proportions, age, sex, body mass index, smoking, education, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and study center. Arsenic was measured in urine as the sum of inorganic and methylated species. RESULTS: In adjusted models, methylation at 20 CpGs was associated with urinary As after false discovery rate (FDR) correction (FDR< 0.05). After Bonferroni correction, 5 CpGs remained associated with total urinary As (pBonferroni<0.05), located in SLC7A11, ANKS3, LINGO3, CSNK1D, ADAMTSL4. We identified one DMR on chromosome 11 (chr11:2,322,050-2,323,247), annotated to C11orf2; TSPAN32 genes. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first epigenome-wide association studies to investigate As exposure and locus-specific DNA methylation using the Illumina MethylationEPIC array and the largest epigenome-wide study of As exposure. The top DMP was located in SLC7A11A, a gene involved in cystine/glutamate transport and the biosynthesis of glutathione, an antioxidant that may protect against As-induced oxidative stress. Additional DMPs were located in genes associated with tumor development and glucose metabolism. Further research is needed, including research in more diverse populations, to investigate whether As-related DNA methylation signatures are associated with gene expression or may serve as biomarkers of disease development. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6263.

Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data.

Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.

Power Sharing, Capacity Building, and Evolving Roles in ELSI: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.

Persistent, unresolved issues stemming from a legacy of scientific exploitation and bio-colonialism have kept many tribal nations from participating in genomic research. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) aims to model meaningful community engagement that moves toward more inclusive and equitable research practices related to genomics. This article reflects on key successes and challenges behind CEIGR's efforts to shape Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) research in ways that are informed by Indigenous perspectives, to locate community partnerships at the center of genomics research, and to conduct normative and empirical research with Indigenous communities that is grounded in the concepts of reciprocity, transparency and cultural competency. The structure of CEIGR represents an important shift away from a traditional model centered on a university-based principal investigators toward a partner-centered research approach that emphasizes equity and community control by distributing power and decision-making across all CEIGR partner sites. We discuss three features of CEIGR that have contributed to this shift towards an equitable, community-driven partnership: 1) balancing local priorities with collective goals; 2) distributing power in ways that promote equitable partnerships; and 3) capacity building and co-learning across partner sites. The discussion of these three areas in this article speaks to a particular strength of our Center: the interdependence among partners and collective willingness to maintain a plasticity of leadership that creates space for all of our partners to lead, support, exchange and strengthen ELSI research.

Fostering Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research in Tribal Communities: The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research.

Genomic research raises unique ethical concerns among Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) people and their communities. The Center for the Ethics of Indigenous Genomic Research (CEIGR) was created to foster research that takes these concerns into account while considering the sovereign status of AN/AI tribal nations. Relationships developed within CEIGR have allowed for effective, collaborative research among individuals who come from diverse cultures, political and historical backgrounds, and academic disciplines, and who work for organizations with varying resources, capacities, and expectations. The CEIGR framework may inform other groups seeking to conduct social science research related to genomic research with tribal people and their communities.

Genetic analysis of hsCRP in American Indians: The Strong Heart Family Study.

BACKGROUND: Increased serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), an important component of the innate immune response, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been identified which are associated with CRP levels, and Mendelian randomization studies have shown a positive association between SNPs increasing CRP expression and risk of colon cancer (but thus far not CVD). The effects of individual genetic variants often interact with the genetic background of a population and hence we sought to resolve the genetic determinants of serum CRP in a number of American Indian populations. METHODS: The Strong Heart Family Study (SHFS) has serum CRP measurements from 2428 tribal members, recruited as large families from three regions of the United States. Microsatellite markers and MetaboChip defined SNP genotypes were incorporated into variance components, decomposition-based linkage and association analyses. RESULTS: CRP levels exhibited significant heritability (h2 = 0.33 ± 0.05, p<1.3 X 10-20). A locus on chromosome (chr) 6, near marker D6S281 (approximately at 169.6 Mb, GRCh38/hg38) showed suggestive linkage (LOD = 1.9) to CRP levels. No individual SNPs were found associated with CRP levels after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing (threshold <7.77 x 10-7), however, we found nominal associations, many of which replicate previous findings at the CRP, HNF1A and 7 other loci. In addition, we report association of 46 SNPs located at 7 novel loci on chromosomes 2, 5, 6(2 loci), 9, 10 and 17, with an average of 15.3 Kb between SNPs and all with p-values less than 7.2 X 10-4. CONCLUSION: In agreement with evidence from other populations, these data show CRP serum levels are under considerable genetic influence; and include loci, such as near CRP and other genes, that replicate results from other ethnic groups. These findings also suggest possible novel loci on chr 6 and other chromosomes that warrant further investigation.