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.

Genetic research within Indigenous communities: Engagement opportunities and pathways forward.

PURPOSE: Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research. METHODS: We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation. RESULTS: Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers.

Using environmental health dialogue in a Diné-centered approach for individualized results reporting in an environmental exposure study following the Gold King Mine Spill.

BACKGROUND: On August 5, 2015, the Gold King Mine Spill (GKMS) resulted in 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage spilling into the San Juan River impacting the Diné Bikeyah (traditional homelands of the Navajo people). The Gold King Mine Spill Diné Exposure Project was formed to understand the impacts of the GKMS on the Diné (Navajo). Reporting individualized household results in an exposure study is becoming more common; however, materials are often developed with limited community input with knowledge flowing in one direction - from researcher to participant. In this study we examined the development, dissemination, and evaluation of individualized results materials. METHODS: In August 2016, Navajo Nation Community Health Representatives (Navajo CHRs) sampled household water, dust, and soil, and resident blood and urine for lead and arsenic, respectively. From May-July 2017, iterative dialogue with a wide range of community partners and a community focus groups guided the development of a culturally-based dissemination process. In August 2017, Navajo CHRs reported individualized results and they surveyed the participants on the report-back process at that time. RESULTS: All of the 63 Diné adults (100%) who participated in the exposure study received their results by a CHR in person and 42 (67%) completed an evaluation. Most of those participants (83%) were satisfied with the result packets. Respondents ranked the individual and overall household results as the most important information they received (69% and 57%, respectively), while information on metals exposures and their health effects were the least helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Our project illustrates how a model of environmental health dialogue, defined by iterative, multidirectional communication among Indigenous community members, trusted Indigenous leaders, Indigenous researchers, non-Indigenous researchers, can improve reporting individualized study results. Findings can inform future research to encourage multi-directional environmental health dialogue to craft more culturally responsive and effective dissemination and communication materials.

Diné (Navajo) female perspectives on mother-daughter communication and cultural assets around the transition to womanhood: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of protective factors ("assets") are increasingly supported in developing culturally grounded interventions for American Indian (AI) populations. This study sought to explore AI women's cultural assets, perspectives, and teachings to inform the development of a culturally grounded, intergenerational intervention to prevent substance abuse and teenage pregnancy among AI females. METHODS: Adult self-identified AI women (N = 201) who reside on the Navajo Nation completed a cross-sectional survey between May and October 2018. The 21-question survey explored health communication around the transition to womanhood, cultural assets, perceptions of mother-daughter reproductive health communication, and intervention health topics. Univariate descriptive analyses, chi squared, and fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 82 years, with a mean age of 44 ± 15.5 years. Women self-identified as mothers (95; 48%), aunts (59; 30%), older sisters (55; 28%), grandmothers (37; 19%), and/or all of the aforementioned (50; 25%). 66% (N = 95) of women admired their mother/grandmother most during puberty; 29% (N = 58) of women were 10-11 years old when someone first spoke to them about menarche; and 86% (N=172) felt their culture was a source of strength. 70% (N = 139) would have liked to learn more about reproductive health when they were a teenager; 67% (N = 134) felt Diné mothers are able to provide reproductive health education; 51% (N = 101) reported having a rite of passage event, with younger women desiring an event significantly more than older women. Responses also indicate a disruption of cultural practices due to government assimilation policies, as well as the support of male relatives during puberty. CONCLUSIONS: Results informed intervention content and delivery, including target age group, expanded caregiver eligibility criteria, lesson delivery structure and format, and protective cultural teachings. Other implications include the development of a complementary fatherhood and/or family-based intervention to prevent Native girls' substance use and teen pregnancy.

Expanded Ethical Principles for Research Partnership and Transdisciplinary Natural Resource Management Science.

Natural resource researchers have long recognized the value of working closely with the managers and communities who depend on, steward, and impact ecosystems. These partnerships take various forms, including co-production and transdisciplinary research approaches, which integrate multiple knowledges in the design and implementation of research objectives, questions, methods, and desired outputs or outcomes. These collaborations raise important methodological and ethical challenges, because partnering with non-scientists can have real-world risks for people and ecosystems. The social sciences and biomedical research studies offer a suite of conceptual tools that enhance the quality, ethical outcomes, and effectiveness of research partnerships. For example, the ethical guidelines and regulations for human subjects research, following the Belmont Principles, help prevent harm and promote respectful treatment of research participants. However, science-management partnerships require an expanded set of ethical concepts to better capture the challenges of working with individuals, communities, organizations, and their associated ecosystems, as partners, rather than research subjects. We draw from our experiences in collaborative teams, and build upon the existing work of natural resources, environmental health, conservation and ecology, social science, and humanities scholars, to develop an expanded framework for ethical research partnership. This includes four principles: (1) appropriate representation, (2) self-determination, (3) reciprocity, and (4) deference, and two cross-cutting themes: (1) applications to humans and non-human actors, and (2) acquiring appropriate research skills. This framework is meant to stimulate important conversations about expanding ethics training and skills for researchers in all career-stages to improve partnerships and transdisciplinary natural resources research.

American Indian Reservations and COVID-19: Correlates of Early Infection Rates in the Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the household and community characteristics most closely associated with variation in COVID-19 incidence on American Indian reservations in the lower 48 states. DESIGN: Multivariate analysis with population weights. SETTING: Two hundred eighty-seven American Indian Reservations and tribal homelands (in Oklahoma) and, as of April 10, 2020, 861 COVID-19 cases on these reservation lands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between rate per 1000 individuals of publicly reported COVID-19 cases at the tribal reservation and/or community level and average household characteristics from the 2018 5-Year American Community Survey records. RESULTS: By April 10, 2020, in regression analysis, COVID-19 cases were more likely by the proportion of homes lacking indoor plumbing (10.83, P = .001) and were less likely according to the percentage of reservation households that were English-only (-2.43, P = .03). Household overcrowding measures were not statistically significant in this analysis (-6.40, P = .326). CONCLUSIONS: Failure to account for the lack of complete indoor plumbing and access to potable water in a pandemic may be an important determinant of the increased incidence of COVID-19 cases. Access to relevant information that is communicated in the language spoken by many reservation residents may play a key role in the spread of COVID-19 in some tribal communities. Household overcrowding does not appear to be associated with COVID-19 infections in our data at the current time. Previous studies have identified household plumbing and overcrowding, and language, as potential pandemic and disease infection risk factors. These risk factors persist. Funding investments in tribal public health and household infrastructure, as delineated in treaties and other agreements, are necessary to protect American Indian communities.

Genetic research with Indigenous Peoples: perspectives on governance and oversight in the US.

Introduction: Indigenous Peoples are increasingly exerting governance and oversight over genomic research with citizens of their nations, raising questions about how best to enforce research regulation between American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples and researchers. Methods: Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics research with Indigenous Peoples in the US. Results: We report findings related to (1) considerations for Indigenous governance, (2) institutional relationships upholding sovereignty, (3) expectations for research approvals, and (4) agreements enacting Indigenous governance. Participants described concerns about different ways of exerting oversight, relationships and agreements between Indigenous Peoples and researchers, and gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen existing governance of genomic data. Discussion: The results will ultimately guide policy-making and development of new strategies for Indigenous Peoples to enforce oversight in research to promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.

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.

Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Data: a contribution toward Indigenous Research Sovereignty.

Indigenous Peoples' right to sovereignty forms the foundation for advocacy and actions toward greater Indigenous self-determination and control across a range of domains that impact Indigenous Peoples' communities and cultures. Declarations for sovereignty are rising throughout Indigenous communities and across diverse fields, including Network Sovereignty, Food Sovereignty, Energy Sovereignty, and Data Sovereignty. Indigenous Research Sovereignty draws in the sovereignty discourse of these initiatives to consider their applications to the broader research ecosystem. Our exploration of Indigenous Research Sovereignty, or Indigenous self-determination in the context of research activities, has been focused on the relationship between Indigenous Data Sovereignty and efforts to describe Indigenous Peoples' Rights in data.

Using Indigenous Standards to Implement the CARE Principles: Setting Expectations through Tribal Research Codes.

Biomedical data are now organized in large-scale databases allowing researchers worldwide to access and utilize the data for new projects. As new technologies generate even larger amounts of data, data governance and data management are becoming pressing challenges. The FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) were developed to facilitate data sharing. However, the Indigenous Data Sovereignty movement advocates for greater Indigenous control and oversight in order to share data on Indigenous Peoples' terms. This is especially true in the context of genetic research where Indigenous Peoples historically have been unethically exploited in the name of science. This article outlines the relationship between sovereignty and ethics in the context of data to describe the collective rights that Indigenous Peoples assert to increase control over their biomedical data. Then drawing on the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics), we explore how standards already set by Native nations in the United States, such as tribal research codes, provide direction for implementation of the CARE Principles to complement FAIR. A broader approach to policy and procedure regarding tribal participation in biomedical research is required and we make recommendations for tribes, institutions, and ethical practice.

Extending the CARE Principles from tribal research policies to benefit sharing in genomic research.

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government's research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance.

Reclaiming Indigenous Health in the US: Moving beyond the Social Determinants of Health.

The lack of literature on Indigenous conceptions of health and the social determinants of health (SDH) for US Indigenous communities limits available information for Indigenous nations as they set policy and allocate resources to improve the health of their citizens. In 2015, eight scholars from tribal communities and mainstream educational institutions convened to examine: the limitations of applying the World Health Organization's (WHO) SDH framework in Indigenous communities; Indigenizing the WHO SDH framework; and Indigenous conceptions of a healthy community. Participants critiqued the assumptions within the WHO SDH framework that did not cohere with Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies and created a schematic for conceptualizing health and categorizing its determinants. As Indigenous nations pursue a policy role in health and seek to improve the health and wellness of their nations' citizens, definitions of Indigenous health and well-being should be community-driven and Indigenous-nation based. Policies and practices for Indigenous nations and Indigenous communities should reflect and arise from sovereignty and a comprehensive understanding of the nations and communities' conceptions of health and its determinants beyond the SDH.

Case Report: Indigenous Sovereignty in a Pandemic: Tribal Codes in the United States as Preparedness.

Indigenous Peoples globally and in the United States have combatted and continue to face disease, genocide, and erasure, often the systemic result of settler colonial policies that seek to eradicate Indigenous communities. Many Native nations in the United States have asserted their inherent sovereign authority to protect their citizens by passing tribal public health and emergency codes to support their public health infrastructures. While the current COVID-19 pandemic affects everyone, marginalized and Indigenous communities in the United States experience disproportionate burdens of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality as well as socioeconomic and environmental impacts. In this brief research report, we examine 41 publicly available tribal public health and emergency preparedness codes to gain a better understanding of the institutional public health capacity that exists during this time. Of the codes collected, only nine mention any data sharing provisions with local, state, and federal officials while 21 reference communicable diseases. The existence of these public health institutions is not directly tied to the outcomes in the current pandemic; however, it is plausible that having such codes in place makes responding to public health crises now and in the future less reactionary and more proactive in meeting community needs. These tribal institutions advance the public health outcomes that we all want to see in our communities.

The SEEDS of Indigenous population health data linkage.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, the ways that Indigenous data are collected, used, stored, shared, and analyzed are advancing through Indigenous data governance movements. However, these discussions do not always include the increasingly sensitive nature of linking Indigenous population health (IPH) data. During the International Population Data Linkage Network Conference in September of 2018, Indigenous people from three countries (Canada, New Zealand, and the United States) gathered and set the tone for discussions around Indigenous-driven IPH data linkage. OBJECTIVES: Centering IPH data linkage and research priorities at the conference led to budding discussions from diverse Indigenous populations to share and build on current IPH data linkage themes. This paper provides a braided summary of those discussions which resulted in the SEEDS principles for use when linking IPH data. METHODS: During the Conference, two sessions and a keynote were Indigenous-led and hosted by international collaborators that focused on regional perspectives on IPH data linkage. A retrospective document analysis of notes, discussions, and artistic contributions gathered from the conference resulted in a summary of shared common approaches to the linkage of IPH data. RESULTS: The SEEDS Principles emerge as collective report that outlines a living and expanding set of guiding principles that: 1) prioritizes Indigenous Peoples' right to Self-determination; 2) makes space for Indigenous Peoples to Exercise sovereignty; 3) adheres to Ethical protocols; 4) acknowledges and respects Data stewardship and governance, and; 5) works to Support reconciliation between Indigenous nations and settler states. CONCLUSION: Each of the elements of SEEDS need to be enacted together to create a positive data linkage environment. When implemented together, the SEEDS Principles can lead to more meaningful research and improved Indigenous data governance. The mindful implementation of SEEDS could lead to better measurements of health progress through linkages that are critical to enhancing health care policy and improving health and wellness outcomes for Indigenous nations.

Indigenous Peoples' Data During COVID-19: From External to Internal.

Global disease trackers quantifying the size, spread, and distribution of COVID-19 illustrate the power of data during the pandemic. Data are required for decision-making, planning, mitigation, surveillance, and monitoring the equity of responses. There are dual concerns about the availability and suppression of COVID-19 data; due to historic and ongoing racism and exclusion, publicly available data can be both beneficial and harmful. Systemic policies related to genocide and racism, and historic and ongoing marginalization, have led to limitations in quality, quantity, access, and use of Indigenous Peoples' COVID-19 data. Governments, non-profits, researchers, and other institutions must collaborate with Indigenous Peoples on their own terms to improve access to and use of data for effective public health responses to COVID-19.

Fostering global data sharing: highlighting the recommendations of the Research Data Alliance COVID-19 working group.

The systemic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic require cross-disciplinary collaboration in a global and timely fashion. Such collaboration needs open research practices and the sharing of research outputs, such as data and code, thereby facilitating research and research reproducibility and timely collaboration beyond borders. The Research Data Alliance COVID-19 Working Group recently published a set of recommendations and guidelines on data sharing and related best practices for COVID-19 research. These guidelines include recommendations for clinicians, researchers, policy- and decision-makers, funders, publishers, public health experts, disaster preparedness and response experts, infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations), and other potential users. These guidelines include recommendations for researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers and infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations). Several overarching themes have emerged from this document such as the need to balance the creation of data adherent to FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), with the need for quick data release; the use of trustworthy research data repositories; the use of well-annotated data with meaningful metadata; and practices of documenting methods and software. The resulting document marks an unprecedented cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-jurisdictional effort authored by over 160 experts from around the globe. This letter summarises key points of the Recommendations and Guidelines, highlights the relevant findings, shines a spotlight on the process, and suggests how these developments can be leveraged by the wider scientific community.

Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations.

Data have become the new global currency, and a powerful force in making decisions and wielding power. As the world engages with open data, big data reuse, and data linkage, what do data-driven futures look like for communities plagued by data inequities? Indigenous data stakeholders and non-Indigenous allies have explored this question over the last three years in a series of meetings through the Research Data Alliance (RDA). Drawing on RDA and other gatherings, and a systematic scan of literature and practice, we consider possible answers to this question in the context of Indigenous peoples vis-á-vis two emerging concepts: Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance. Specifically, we focus on the data challenges facing Native nations and the intersection of data, tribal sovereignty, and power. Indigenous data sovereignty is the right of each Native nation to govern the collection, ownership, and application of the tribe's data. Native nations exercise Indigenous data sovereignty through the interrelated processes of Indigenous data governance and decolonizing data. This paper explores the implications of Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance for Native nations and others. We argue for the repositioning of authority over Indigenous data back to Indigenous peoples. At the same time, we recognize that there are significant obstacles to rebuilding effective Indigenous data systems and the process will require resources, time, and partnerships among Native nations, other governments, and data agents.

Access and Management: Indigenous Perspectives on Genomic Data Sharing.

As genomic researchers are encouraged to engage in broad genomic data sharing, American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) leaders have raised questions about ownership of data and biospecimens and concerns over emerging challenges and potential threats to tribal sovereignty. Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics in AI/AN/NH communities. We report findings related to perspectives on genetic research, data sharing, and envisioning stronger oversight and management of data. In particular, participants voiced concerns about different models of data sharing, infrastructure and logistics for housing data, and who should have authority to grant access to data. The results will ultimately guide policy-making and the creation of guidelines and new strategies for tribes to drive the research agenda and promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.