“The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could soon employ ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ in their research,” according to a document obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “The document is a proposed revision of scientific integrity guidelines for the Department of Health and Human Services, which encompasses the FDA, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health.” Under its rubric, “agency staff should employ ‘multiple forms of evidence, such as Indigenous Knowledge,'” when analyzing data, it states.
As the Free Beacon explains,
“Indigenous knowledge” posits that native peoples possess hidden wisdom about the workings of the universe and has been widely dismissed by experts as pseudoscience. The proposed guidelines point to other “non-traditional modes of science,” including “citizen science, community-engaged research, participatory science, and crowdsourcing.” Including these methods is part of the agency’s “support” for “equity, justice, and trust,” the document states.
“A strong culture of scientific integrity begins with ensuring a professional environment that is safe, equitable, and inclusive,” the report says. “Issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are an integral component of the entire scientific process.”
The proposed guidelines are on track to be finalized this year….The Biden administration’s “indigenous knowledge” push began in November 2022, when the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memo directing more than two-dozen federal agencies to apply folk wisdom to “research, policies, and decision making.”
That memo asks that federal officials speak with “spiritual leaders” and reject “methodological dogma” when considering policy directives. Federal agencies have since held dozens of meetings on the topic featuring “indigenous knowledge” consultants. These speakers have argued, among other things, that time is cyclical and that the federal government should pay tribal elders for their “indigenous knowledge.”…
One of the White House officials behind the “indigenous knowledge” memo is barred from publishing any papers through the National Academy of Sciences for five years after the organization found she committed numerous ethics violations. There is no evidence the White House disciplined the official, who did not dispute the allegations.
In response to the November 2022 guidelines about indigenous knowledge issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), this blog and the Bader Family Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the National Science Foundation and OSTP about the government’s use of indigenous knowledge and policies about it.
After being sued, the agencies began releasing records to us on a monthly basis. The National Science Foundation’s most recent release of records in January is at this link. The NSF conceals the identity of people shaping government policy by redacting the names and email addresses of senders and recipients of emails deliberating about or working on government policy.
For example, on pages 48-49 of its most recent release, the NSF redacts the names and email addresses of virtually all members of the NSTC Subcommittee on Indigenous Knowledge. It also concealed the names of people shaping government policy in the records it released in December.
OSTP’s most recent release of records in February is in three parts, at this link, this link, and this link. As you can see, the government has redacted most of these records citing FOIA’s exemption 5. These massive redactions defeat a purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, which is to inform citizens about “what their government is up to” through disclosure of agency records, and “to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” It is discretionary on the part of an agency whether to withhold information covered by Exemption 5, and they are supposed to segregate and release non-exempt information — such as facts rather than opinion — rather than withholding records virtually in their entirety, and even privileged material covered by Exemption 5 should not be withheld unless it would cause reasonably foreseeable harm to the agency.
The draft guidelines that officials were discussing in this release effectively watered down the objectivity and integrity requirements for the information used by the government, such as pages 36-37 of the Nov. 2022 Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge, which watered down the requirements of the federal Information Quality Act. I thought this watering down of data quality might be controversial with some government scientists, but the redactions leave me unable to gauge the extent to which that was the case, although I have so far seen no hints from unredacted portions of the records that this was the case, which suggests that internal pushback to the guidelines was limited at best. Often, agencies slip up and release bits of information about an internal debate, or they end up having to release internal communications because they were shared with somebody outside the government, such a consultant or outside scientist, an act of sharing that waives the agency’s right to withhold the information from FOIA requesters.
On pages 36 to 37 of the guidelines being discussed, “objectivity” entails considering whether the “information is understood and applied in a way that is respectful to and consistent with the cultural, spiritual, and environmental context of the Indigenous Peoples who own it.” This smacks of cultural relativism, and requiring deference to someone’s spiritual beliefs could lead to an Establishment Clause violation. Similarly, page 37 of the guidelines speak of the “valuation” of the knowledge reflecting the “lived experience” of the “knowledge holders,” which again smacks of cultural relativism rather than scientific objectivity. And on page 37 of the guidelines, dealing with “Integrity and Security,” it says “the author made clear how the information will be protected to prevent against unauthorized use, cultural misappropriation, or inadvertent disclosure, including how data and knowledge sovereignty and governance are being respected and not disclosed in contexts outside the assessment.” (boldface added).
This is a threat to government transparency, to mandate that data not be “disclosed outside the assessment” even when it would otherwise be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act. Disclosure of the data is also needed to demonstrate compliance with the Information Quality Act and with the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that agency action be supported by substantial evidence and not be arbitrary or capricious.
Some tribal governments have asked the Biden administration to provide federal subsidies for tribal review of federal projects and for access to indigenous knowledge. They have also asked the administration to curb access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. (See this record, for example).
Past records released by OSTP include records like this, a strange land acknowledgment, and this, a pronoun-sharing ritual.
In December, the NSF released 276 pages of records available at this link.
In pages 3-4 of its most recent installment of records, a National Science Foundation grant reviewer urges the National Science Foundation to restrict “helicopter science” in which non-Native researchers collect data or knowledge in an area inhabited by natives without native consent, arguing that “The taking of Indigenous knowledge by settler scientists is unethical, antithetical to the mission of the NSF, and cannot and should not happen any longer.” That NSF reviewer, Michelle LaRue of the University of Canterbury, writes,
I am writing to you as both an NSF grantee (awards #1744989 and #1543311) and also as a reviewer of NSF proposals to request greater oversight of proposal activities and award activities that ultimately result in “helicopter science” – the idea of western scientists traveling to a region, taking information, data, and analysing back in their home countries without including or acknowledging local communities or cultures….
As you are likely aware, there are substantial efforts worldwide to decolonize science….
The taking of Indigenous knowledge by settler scientists is unethical, antithetical to the mission of the NSF, and cannot and should not happen any longer. To this end, I am requesting that NSF take action by providing scrutiny to proposals and research activities that involve research on Indigenous lands, involving Indigenous communities, or about Indigenous cultures – in the same way other ethical considerations are made in the proposal process.
This letter was forwarded by NSF official Karla Heidelberg to other NSF staff for their consideration. If the NSF were to adopt LaRue’s proposal, it could restrict scientific collection of information in the vicinity of indigenous populations, stunting the free flow of information and reducing the stock of knowledge.
This information-restrictive mindset is echoed in a March 4, 2022 “Dear Tribal Leader” letter from the White House, which states, “The Administration recognizes that the Federal Government should engage with ITEK [indigenous traditional ecological knowledge] only through relationships with Tribal Nations and knowledge holders.” (see page 72 of the most recent OSTP release).
It is also echoed in a source cited in a federal guidance document for tribal consultation, which says in in footnote 43 that “For Native American communities, the public release of or access to specialized information or knowledge — gathered with and without informed consent — can cause irreparable harm. . .Each community will understand and use the term ‘culturally sensitive’ differently…” (See page 38 of the most recent OSTP release, citing Protocols for Native American Archival Materials). This language is also found in footnote 54 of the Biden administration guidance on the use of indigenous knowledge released in December.
Indigenous knowledge and beliefs can be useful, or they can be quackery or harmful superstition. Examples of harmful traditional beliefs include using cautery as a “remedy” for illnesses. Cautery “involves placing a heated metal object …. on the patient’s skin. The procedure is painful, burning the skin and leaving a permanent scar.” And it doesn’t cure the sick.
Despite the uneven quality of indigenous knowledge, the Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge issued by the Biden administration in December says that “Agencies should also include Indigenous Knowledge as an aspect of best available science,” and that “Indigenous Knowledge … may be used in HISA [Highly Influential Scientific Assessment] documents.”
Page 18 of the White House OSTP guidance says that “When funding is awarded….Agencies should ensure that the methods, people, and grant process are not biased against proposals that include Indigenous Knowledge.To guard against such biases, Agencies can ensure that Indigenous Knowledge holders are included in funding allocation decisions, and can ensure that merit-based funding decisions involve scoring rubrics that value Indigenous Knowledge on par with other forms of evidence and methods of inquiry.”
This part of the guidance is included in emails produced in the most recent release of records by OSTP, where accompanying redactions might include discussion of this part of the guidance. But if there was any internal pushback to this requirement, which effectively puts traditional folk wisdom “on par” with scientific evidence, it is not apparent from the released records, although this might be a function of the massive redactions made to them.
