Indigenous data sovereignties and data sharing in biological anthropology.

In their commentary on data sharing in biological anthropology, Turner and Mulligan (2019) lay out guiding principles and best practices resulting from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) ad hoc committee on data access and data sharing workshop. Their commentary has invited a crucial conversation on data practices in the field and has produced numerous comments and responses on the topic (Boyer, 2020; Leigh, 2020; McDade, 2020; Wagner, 2020). This conversation has made multiple points regarding the inclusivity of the workshop and moving toward a shared set of data management principles in the field. However, we note that the current conversation lacks engagement with Indigenous data sovereignties, which can offer additional models of data governance and further inform the ways that biological anthropologists approach questions of data access and data sharing. Here, Indigenous data sovereignties are defined as the “rights and interests of Indigenous peoples relating to the collection, ownership, and application of data about their people, lifeways, and territories” (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). The lack of conversation regarding Indigenous data sovereignties is concerning given that Indigenous and allied thinkers have often intervened in questions of data governance and advocated powerfully for greater attention to Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty. Yet, the concerns of Indigenous peoples regarding data access and data sharing have often been overlooked or have been significantly compromised by non-Indigenous researchers. Given this, our goals in this letter are twofold. First, we seek to engage with a number of key issues, assumptions, and gaps in the existing commentaries and letters on this topic. Second, we aim to redress the current lack of attention to Indigenous data sovereignties by bringing these critically necessary insights into the ongoing conversation that has been unfolding in the pages of the AJPA over the last year. Importantly, our intent in raising these concerns does not come from a position that is antiscientific or anti open data, but rather pro-sovereignty, with the goal of heightening attention to the power relations that pervade data practices in relation to Indigenous peoples. Given that the institutions of biological anthropology, including this journal and the professional association, were made possible in no small measure by exploitations of Indigenous bodies by Aleš Hrdlička and many others (Colwell, 2017; Pérez, 2019), it is essential that questions of Indigenous sovereignty be part of how biological anthropologists envision and develop data practices moving forward. Among the current letters and comments, there is little acknowledgement of ongoing colonialisms, the power hierarchies that have historically shaped this field in relation to Indigenous peoples, and how these problems can be perpetuated in contemporary data practices. In instances where issues of power have arisen, the focus has largely been directed at the vulnerabilities of researchers themselves and the possible impediments to the academic career pipeline (Leigh, 2020). Other commentaries have framed vulnerability in terms of unscrupulous data repositories and the risks that they pose for both researchers and participants (Wagner, 2020) as well as the risks of deductive disclosures (McDade, 2020). These are all valid points of concern. Nonetheless, an Indigenous data sovereignty perspective can greatly enrich this conversation by bringing more attention to the power dynamics of researcher–participant relationships in the context of marginalized communities, as well as the relationships between Indigenous researchers and the field of anthropology itself. Biological sampling and data practices that seemingly bolster scientific progress have often come at the expense of Indigenous peoples, who have seldomly benefited from research conducted within and about their communities (Claw et al., 2018; Garrison, 2013). Questions regarding the power hierarchies and benefit structures of research must therefore be central to data access and data sharing practices, with the recognition that conditions of power and vulnerability shift over time and across communities. In recent exchanges on the topic of data access and data sharing in AJPA, there appears to be a consensus that principles and practices of open data are necessary to produce good science. Increasing data access in the field has even been framed in decolonial terms, as a set of practices that redress problems of colonialism by democratizing science and promoting scientific progress (Boyer, 2020; Leigh, 2020). The appeal to scientific advancement is concerning given that discourses of progress, including assumptions about “primitive/ advanced” societies have been central to violence against Indigenous peoples within and beyond the field of biological anthropology. It is therefore a mistake to think about modern scientific advancements (including the bioethical and data sharing policies that regulate them) and colonialism as distinct entities, or as mutually exclusive possibilities, when they have long been one and the same (Mann & Daly, 2018). Therefore, the presumed decoloniality of increasing data access and data sharing is neither self-evident nor universal. Nevertheless, the assumption that open data practices are implicitly decolonial has persisted even after the conclusion of landmark settlements between research institutions and Indigenous communities following unconsented re-analyses of study samples and the generation of new data (Garrison, 2013). At stake here is ensuring that Indigenous peoples have control over and benefit from information Received: 15 October 2020 Accepted: 4 November 2020