1 Ko wai mātou? (Who Are We?/Positionality)

Within numerous Indigenous cultures, introductions involve sharing about mountains, oceans, streams, lands, villages and family names important to the individuals or groups. This practice establishes the ‘ties that bind’, setting a foundation for collective intentions. The associate editors, in this spirit, introduce their shared interest in creating space for Indigenous Peoples within the sphere of molecular ecology.

Seafha Ramos (SCR) has primarily been engaged with Yurok culture throughout her life. In the Yurok community, she comes from the Frye family and the villages of ‘Ernerr’, Ahpah and Wechpues. The Yurok reservation and ancestral lands are located in what is now California in the United States of America. Seafha is an interdisciplinary wildlife ecologist, utilising Indigenous Research Methodologies and conventional Western science approaches, such as molecular scatology, to conduct culturally sensitive research with Indigenous communities. She is also a Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK, i.e., Indigenous Knowledge, IK) practitioner, bringing TEK through an Indigenous lens into her work, such as in her work with the Yurok language.

Andrew Kinziger (APK) is a professor specialising in the application of molecular methods to the conservation, management, ecology and evolution of fish. As an academic with a European American background, he recognises the contrast between his Western scientific approach and the deeply interconnected knowledge systems of Indigenous communities. He engages with Indigenous science with a commitment to listening and learning, aiming as an ally to support and highlight Indigenous wisdom. Mindful of the lasting impacts of colonialism on Indigenous Peoples and their scientific methods, he is dedicated to an ongoing process of reflection and education, actively seeking to unlearn and relearn, ensuring that his support is respectful, inclusive and informed by the principles of equity and justice.

Alana Alexander (AA) is a molecular ecologist/evolutionary biologist who generally focuses on conservation applications. She has whakapapa (genealogical links) to Te Hikutū, a Māori hapū (clan) within the broader confederation of Ngāpuhi, but also to tūpuna Pākehā (non-Māori ancestors) who hailed from Scotland, England, Ireland, France and Germany. She grew up in te ao Pākehā (the Pākehā world), somewhat disconnected from her taha Māori (Māori side), but has been reconnecting through learning te reo Māori (the Māori language) and working to help Māori communities use genomics for their own kaupapa (interests), although she acknowledges she has much to learn!

2 Hīkina te mānuka (Rising to the Challenge)

Indigenous Peoples possess a wealth of lived experiences on their lands, and intergenerationally transmitted place-based knowledge, including protocols and customs for interacting with the environment. Indigenous Peoples maintain biodiversity, produce and co-create knowledge, inform Western science and environmental assessments and monitor environmental change (Gadgil, Berkes, and Folke 1993; Gazing Wolf et al. 2023). In particular, the collaboration between varied knowledge systems, such as IK and molecular ecology, is essential to address the environmental and conservation challenges our planet faces (Claw et al. 2018).

Yet, at times, the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge of ecology and ecosystem management have been ignored and denied (Brondízio et al. 2021). Such oversight is a result of colonisation, which has also impacted Indigenous peoples through death by conflict and disease, the severing of place-based knowledge by dispossessing Indigenous Peoples from their lands, and active suppression of knowledge systems. Although the last few decades have seen increasing efforts globally to recognise Indigenous Peoples' rights and knowledge (Brondízio et al. 2021), the IK that has endured colonisation faces barriers to integration with Western scientific methods due to prevailing dismissive attitudes (Gazing Wolf et al. 2023; Hird et al. 2023; Parke and Hikuroa 2023).

Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples are significantly underrepresented in Western-based science contexts (Asai 2020; McAllister et al. 2019; Naepi et al. 2021; NSF 2019; Tseng et al. 2020; Universities Australia 2020). Barriers to inclusion of Indigenous individuals in the scientific community are multifaceted, including a lack of Indigenous role models and a lower overall sense of belonging (Lee et al. 2023; McAllister et al. 2022; Tseng et al. 2020). Additionally, there is a tendency to undervalue and discount the contributions of minority groups, including Indigenous Peoples, compared to equivalent work by majority groups (Hofstra et al. 2020; McAllister et al. 2022). Furthermore, tensions arise from the misappropriation and marginalisation of Indigenous language, culture and worldviews by the scientific establishment (Gazing Wolf et al. 2023; Price, Winter, and Jackson 2021).

SCR and APK, both experienced in collaborating with Indigenous communities and students, and aware of the marginalisation and underrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in science, initiated a special issue in Molecular Ecology Resources (MER) titled ‘Indigenous Contributions to Molecular Ecology Research’. AA was then brought on board to contribute an additional Indigenous perspective and expertise. However, we acknowledge the absence of many Indigenous perspectives in the editorial team and the submissions to this issue. The primary aim of this special issue is to showcase molecular ecology research conducted by or in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, providing examples of research processes and considerations that extend beyond the laboratory into landscapes and the people who have dwelled on them for millennia.

The special issue is guided by several objectives: 1) To elevate the work of Indigenous scientists in a prominent scientific journal, supporting career progression and addressing biases in the publication process. 2) To showcase Indigenous role models from diverse backgrounds and at various educational and career stages. 3) To contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in molecular ecology. 4) To acknowledge and value Indigenous Research Methodologies and IK/TEK as important to both Indigenous communities and researchers. 5) To emphasise the importance of Indigenous languages as integral to Indigenous knowledge systems. The following sections discuss the challenges, learnings and opportunities of this special issue, as well as the trailblazing research contributions of Indigenous authors within.

3 Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua (As People Disappear From Sight, the Land Remains)

Although Western science is increasingly cognizant of the relationships between humans and the environment via concepts such as ‘One Health’, ‘Ecohealth’ and ‘Planetary Health’, this research still often prioritises the environment's support of humans, rather than the environment having its own intrinsic value or mana (Krause 2023; LeClair 2021; Pollowitz 2023). These concepts therefore appear to be ‘light’ versions of Indigenous belief systems, which have persisted for millennia. Indigenous belief systems position humans in a web of relationships with other non-human aspects of the biosphere, which have innate relational value (Krause 2023; Pollowitz 2023). This ‘kincentric’ (LeClair 2021) view of the environment is reflected in many of the submissions but is particularly highlighted in Hutchins et al. (2023). Hutchins et al. (2023) operationalise an Indigenous Data Sovereignty framework applied to arthropod genomic data, utilised to investigate the impact of habitat and farming practices on Moku o Keawe (Hawai'i Island). The arthropods include native species variously regarded as ‘aumakua (guardians) through to agricultural pests, but remaining kin across all of these forms.

4 Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi (With Your Basket and My Basket, We Will Sustain Everyone)

Reciprocity, or giving back to communities who have supported research, is a significant aspect of this relational approach. Whilst benefit-sharing may include monetary compensation (Scholz et al. 2022), it often takes more nuanced forms. For instance, Hutchins et al. (2023) returned individualised arthropod data to farmers, aiding in conservation and management, whilst aggregated data addressed broader ecological questions. Da et al. (2023) provide numerous examples of reciprocal interchange between IK holders and genomic scientists, highlighting the SING consortium (Claw et al. 2018) for building Indigenous capacity in genomics.

Education and capacity building were emphasised in a number of other submissions. Forsdick et al. (2023) introduced the Biodiversity Genomics Data Management Hub as a living resource. Lewis et al. (2023) provided guidelines for engaging and building Indigenous-led research capacity in sedaDNA studies in Australia. However, the most significant focus on benefit-return via education is seen in Lee et al. (2023). By integrating Indigenous approaches into the curriculum, they fostered interest and confidence in scientific research by Indigenous undergraduates, preparing a diverse future workforce for molecular ecology and microbiome science. These highlighted papers illustrate the importance of relationship-building and benefit-sharing, but long-term relationships are celebrated throughout the special issue, as seen in the acknowledgements, positionality and benefit-sharing statements. We urge readers to explore these examples of how Indigenous Peoples frame these critical contributions to research, emphasising the privilege and responsibility of walking gently on all lands, but especially those where we do not have ancestral ties (Lewis et al. 2023).

5 Indigenous Knowledge, Data and Samples as a Taonga (Treasure)

Whilst open data and sample sharing are often held to be positive in science (Jenkins et al. 2023), it might surprise some that Indigenous perspectives often differ (Hudson et al. 2020; Kukutai and Black 2024). The reasons for these differing viewpoints are complex and include the potential for these practices to exacerbate a ‘rich getting richer’ phenomenon, due to inequitable access to technology that facilitates the reuse of open data, and the structural disadvantages many Indigenous communities face as a result of colonisation. There have also been previous interactions with Western-trained scientists where IK, data or samples have been re-used without proper consent. Additionally, there has been a lack of benefit-sharing to those with strong intergenerational relationships with the species in question (i.e., biopiracy), and ultimately, a loss of control over ensuring that data, including IK, is utilised in a manner consistent with the ethics of Indigenous communities (Carroll et al. 2021; Mc Cartney et al. 2022).

These differing perspectives also result from fundamental differences in the way non-Indigenous scientists and Indigenous Peoples¹ view samples and data derived from species considered to be sacred (Figure 1). Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the submissions to the special section highlighted ways to uphold IDS (Ruckstuhl 2022) within molecular ecology research. This includes promoting the CARE principles [collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics] alongside those of the FAIR principles [findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable] (Carroll et al. 2021; Jennings et al. 2023; Kukutai and Black 2024).

6 Ko taku reo taku ohooho, ko taku reo taku māpihi mauria (My Language is My Awakening, My Language is a Precious Treasure)

7 E koekoe te kōkō, e ketekete te kākā, e kūkū te kererū (The Tūī Chatters, the Parrot Gabbles, the Wood Pigeon Coos)

This whakataukī (proverb) expresses a sentiment similar to the English saying ‘variety is the spice of life’ but also emphasises that there is space for people with diverse skills and backgrounds in our world. Within the context of this special issue, there are many ways to be Indigenous molecular ecologists. Several submissions focused on quantitative analyses, demonstrating that despite the disproportionate barriers faced by Indigenous Peoples in their educational journeys (Lee et al. 2023), we can excel in ‘straight science’, including microbial genetics and best practices for testing associations between variables in molecular ecology (Byers et al. 2023; Quilodrán, Currat, and Montoya-Burgos 2023). However, even in these cases, research directions were often guided by long-term relationships with communities held by senior Indigenous authors (Byers et al. 2023), highlighting a key difference between conventional quantitative molecular ecology and that guided by Indigenous perspectives.

A particular strength of this special issue is how authors have utilised their Indigenous identity to form relationships that facilitate research (Phaka et al. 2023), provide a cultural lens to emerging technologies (Lewis et al. 2023; Te Aika et al. 2023; Wylie et al. 2023), offer input on specific methodological practices (Da et al. 2023; Forsdick et al. 2023; Hutchins et al. 2023), demonstrate specific examples of molecular ecology research (Hutchins et al. 2023; Ramos and Culver 2024) and train the next generation of Indigenous scientists (Lee et al. 2023). Indigenous researchers appeared as lead authors (Da et al. 2023; FiveCrows et al. 2023; Hutchins et al. 2023; Lee et al. 2023; Lewis et al. 2023; Phaka et al. 2023; Ramos and Culver 2024; Te Aika et al. 2023; Wylie et al. 2023), senior authors (Byers et al. 2023) and as valued team members, using their relational knowledge to support broader projects (FiveCrows et al. 2023; Forsdick et al. 2023; Lewis et al. 2023; Te Aika et al. 2023; Wylie et al. 2023).

It is also critical to note that every submission to this special issue includes co-authors with non-Indigenous ancestry, demonstrating the mahi (work) that allies contribute to this space. Although growing, the number of Indigenous molecular ecologists remains small, and there are many demands on their time. Collaborations with non-Indigenous colleagues, who have learned to appreciate insights from Indigenous cultures, including different ways of knowing, conducting research and prioritising relationships, are essential.

Allies play a crucial role in supporting Indigenous researchers by helping navigate institutional structures, securing funding, broadening networks and amplifying Indigenous voices within academic and scientific communities (Kovach 2009; Smith 2012). Interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaborations enrich scientific inquiry by integrating diverse perspectives and methodologies, leading to more culturally relevant and ethically sound research (Castleden, Morgan, and Lamb 2012). These collaborations can lead to more innovative and holistic understandings of ecological and molecular processes than can be achieved with non-diverse groups (Kimmerer 2013).

8 Kaua e mate wheke mate ururoa (Don't Die Like a Octopus, Die Like a Hammerhead Shark)

This whakataukī (proverb) emphasises the importance of perseverance and resilience. In an Indigenous context, this is particularly relevant because even being ‘Indigenous’ can be controversial. For example, whilst it is increasingly considered best practice to capitalise Indigenous, some of our participating authors, cognizant of geopolitical complexities and national legislation in their regions, opted for ‘indigenous’ with a lowercase ‘i’'.

The fight continued for some manuscripts after submission. Although the reviewers of MEC and MER are amongst our greatest taonga (treasures), some found it challenging to fully appreciate that merely attempting to integrate molecular ecology with Indigenous perspectives is groundbreaking. This reflects the broader struggle for IK to be recognised as distinct, valid, and precious. Science does not ‘lose’ by sitting alongside other knowledge systems; rather with the challenges facing the world, we need all the help we can get. These challenges further demonstrate the need for editors and reviewers with the cultural competencies to review such submissions. Following on from this, we are happy to report that both MEC and MER will continue to encourage the submission of research articles within the ongoing section ‘Indigenous perspectives/methodologies’ (Rieseberg et al. 2024). This will facilitate the selection of editors and reviewers with expertise in working with Indigenous communities, and broaden the space for respecting IK/sciences as valid knowledge systems. It will create pathways for tiaki (looking after) the manuscripts through Indigenous lenses, and provide a ‘home’ for such scholarship beyond this special issue. It also represents a starting point for addressing other related challenges, such as developing standards for denoting Indigenous cultural identity of authors on manuscripts, and expectations around the inclusion of Indigenous authors if the subject area involves IK (Lock et al. 2022).

Such spaces are critical to Indigenous scholars, as we face additional challenges beyond those experienced by other researchers in the field. This includes the increased time component to ‘do right’ by local Indigenous communities involved in the research, such as the prioritisation of relationships and sharing of benefits from research, as previously highlighted. An additional time pressure is the crushing service load held by Indigenous scholars, who whilst trying to progress their own research are also expected (and glad) to serve as role models for other Indigenous scholars but also as reservoirs of unpaid advice to their non-Indigenous colleagues, educating about engaging with Indigenous communities and IK (Haar and Martin 2022). Revitalization of Indigenous languages, and their inbuilt links to the ecosystems they describe, requires intentional and focused efforts, such as those demonstrated by Ramos and Culver (2024). However, learning materials and spaces often do not exist outside of Indigenous communities, necessitating geographic proximity to the community and significant time investment. To illustrate, SCR (Ramos and Culver 2024) dedicated over a decade to learning the Yurok language, including completion of a 5-year teacher candidate program through the Yurok Tribe Language Program, whilst conducting conventional wildlife research. Whilst this breadth of experience is valuable, it does not fit the current standard mould for permanent positions in the sciences. Further discussions and establishment of pathways in scientific journals and beyond for the inclusion of Indigenous language materials, especially for work in partnership with Indigenous communities, are needed.

9 Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu (Although it is Small, it is Precious)

This inaugural special issue consists of 12 papers with authors of submissions representing 16 Indigenous Peoples (Table 1). It is the editors' hope, alongside pioneering molecular ecology research in other journals, including Bowles et al. (2022); Collier-Robinson et al. (2019); Fraser et al. (2006); Henson et al. (2021, 2022); Hogg et al. (2024); Prescott et al. (2023); Polfus et al. (2016); Rayne et al. (2022); Reeves et al. (2023), Ross et al. (2018); and Service et al. (2020), that this special issue can serve as a benchmark to demonstrate how far molecular ecology moves as a field weaving in and centering Indigenous perspectives, building on the commitment from MEC/MER to acknowledge the importance of Indigenous perspectives (Rieseberg et al. 2024) and the need for equitable benefit sharing (Marden et al. 2021).

Articles in this special issue are ordered by topic area as described in this editorial and the objectives set forth for this special issue: Elevating the work of Indigenous scientists, Relationship between humans and taonga species, Use of Indigenous language, and Education/capacity building. Although some articles aligned with more than one of these themes, we aimed to place each under its most demonstrable or unique topic area.

The increased inclusion of Indigenous perspectives and practitioners will enrich molecular ecology. Multiple manuscripts in this issue (e.g., FiveCrows et al. 2023; Lewis et al. 2023) emphasise that Indigenous knowledge and the genealogical coalescent move in similar ways: transmitted from past to present, encoding rich and important data. Working together, Indigenous perspectives and molecular ecology can provide powerful insights. Research groups with greater diversity have greater productivity and problem-solving abilities, so continuing to dismantle the barriers to inclusion faced by Indigenous people can only benefit our field (Tseng et al. 2020). As we acknowledge the privileges and responsibilities that shape our work, we must recognise this as a collective responsibility (Asai 2020).

Indigenous Peoples specialised in ecology before the term even existed. Coupling Indigenous insights with the powerful new technical approaches utilised in molecular ecology can help our world, which faces unprecedented threats to biodiversity. It can also strengthen our scientific community by emphasising the gentle power of prioritising relationships in research. Our tūpuna (ancestors) will be watching and encouraging us to hīkina te mānuka, to rise to the challenge.

Author Contributions

The idea for the special issue on Indigenous Contributions to Molecular Ecology Research was conceived by S.C.R. The initial draft of the editorial was written by A.A., with subsequent input and revisions provided by all co-authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.