Competing interests: digital health and indigenous data sovereignty.

Digital health is increasingly promoting open health data. Although this open approach promises a number of benefits, it also leads to tensions with Indigenous data sovereignty movements led by Indigenous peoples around the world who are asserting control over the use of health data as a part of self-determination. Digital health has a role in improving access to services and delivering improved health outcomes for Indigenous communities.

Identifying Māori perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Māori perspectives on gene technologies are evolving, and traditional cultural constructs continue to inform a wide diversity of views. Here we summarise a series of research activities aimed at identifying evolving Māori perspectives on gene editing and how these inform engagement at the co-innovation interface.

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.

The founding charter of the Omic Biodiversity Observation Network (Omic BON).

Omic BON is a thematic Biodiversity Observation Network under the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), focused on coordinating the observation of biomolecules in organisms and the environment. Our founding partners include representatives from national, regional, and global observing systems; standards organizations; and data and sample management infrastructures. By coordinating observing strategies, methods, and data flows, Omic BON will facilitate the co-creation of a global omics meta-observatory to generate actionable knowledge.

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.

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.

Two-eyed seeing: Embracing the power of Indigenous knowledge for a healthy and sustainable Ocean.

Indigenous knowledge is often disregarded and opportunities for positive change are lost. To protect the Ocean, a "two-eyed seeing" approach combining Indigenous and western knowledge systems can create advancements while empowering coastal Indigenous Peoples.

Benefit sharing: Why inclusive provenance metadata matter.

Fair and equitable benefit sharing of genetic resources is an expectation of the Nagoya Protocol. Although the Nagoya Protocol does not yet formally apply to Digital Sequence Information ("DSI"), discussions are currently underway regarding to include such data through ongoing Convention on Biological Diversity ("CBD") negotiations. While Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities ("IPLC") expect the value generated from genomic data to be subject to benefit sharing arrangements, a range of views are currently being expressed by Nation States, IPLC and other stakeholders.

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.

Empowering Equitable Data Use Partnerships and Indigenous Data Sovereignties Amid Pandemic Genomics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inequitably impacted Indigenous communities in the United States. In this emergency state that highlighted existing inadequacies in US government and tribal public health infrastructures, many tribal nations contracted with commercial entities and other organization types to conduct rapid diagnostic and antibody testing, often based on proprietary technologies specific to the novel pathogen. They also partnered with public-private enterprises on clinical trials to further the development of vaccines.

Considerations for Cardiovascular Genetic and Genomic Research With Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups and Indigenous Peoples: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples are burdened by significant health inequities that are compounded by their underrepresentation in genetic and genomic research. Of all genome-wide association study participants, ≈79% are of European descent, despite this group constituting only 16% of the global population. For underrepresented populations, polygenic risk scores derived from these studies are less accurate in predicting disease phenotypes, novel population-specific genetic variations may be misclassified as potentially pathogenic, and there is a lack of understanding of how different populations metabolize drugs.

Creating space for Indigenous perspectives on access and benefit-sharing: Encouraging researcher use of the Local Contexts Notices.

A recent Molecular Ecology editorial made a proactive statement of support for the "Nagoya Protocol" and the principle of benefit-sharing by requiring authors to provide a "Data Accessibility and Benefit-Sharing Statement" in their articles. Here, we encourage another step that enables Indigenous communities to provide their own definitions and aspirations for access and benefit-sharing alongside the author's "Statement". We invite the Molecular Ecology research community to use Biocultural-, Traditional Knowledge-, and Cultural Institution Notices to help Indigenous communities gain visibility within our research structures.

Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures.

As big data, open data, and open science advance to increase access to complex and large datasets for innovation, discovery, and decision-making, Indigenous Peoples’ rights to control and access their data within these data environments remain limited. Operationalizing the FAIR Principles for scientific data with the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance enhances machine actionability and brings people and purpose to the fore to resolve Indigenous Peoples’ rights to and interests in their data across the data lifecycle.

Barriers and Considerations for Diagnosing Rare Diseases in Indigenous Populations.

Advances in omics and specifically genomic technologies are increasingly transforming rare disease diagnosis. However, the benefits of these advances are disproportionately experienced within and between populations, with Indigenous populations frequently experiencing diagnostic and therapeutic inequities. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium (IRDiRC) multi-stakeholder partnership has been advancing toward the vision of all people living with a rare disease receiving an accurate diagnosis, care, and available therapy within 1 year of coming to medical attention.

Including Digital Sequence Data in the Nagoya Protocol Can Promote Data Sharing.

The Nagoya Protocol (NP), a legal framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), formalises fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biological diversity. It encompasses biological samples and associated indigenous knowledge, with equitable return of benefits to those providing samples. Recent proposals that the use of digital sequence information (DSI) derived from samples should also require benefit-sharing under the NP have raised concerns that this might hamper research progress.

Indigenous Genomic Databases: Pragmatic Considerations and Cultural Contexts.

The potential to grow genomic knowledge and harness the subsequent clinical benefits has escalated the building of background variant databases (BVDs) for genetic diagnosis across the globe. Alongside the upsurge of this precision medicine, potential benefits have been highlighted for both rare genetic conditions and other diagnoses. However, with the ever-present "genomic divide," Indigenous peoples globally have valid concerns as they endure comparatively greater health disparities but stand to benefit the least from these novel scientific discoveries and progress in healthcare.

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.

Correction to: Native Hawaiian Views on Biobanking.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The name of "Maile Taualii" is now corrected in the author group of this article.

Mapping a route to Indigenous engagement in cancer genomic research.

Precision oncology guided by genomic research has an increasingly important role in the care of people with cancer. However, substantial inequities remain in cancer outcomes of Indigenous peoples, including Indigenous Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand (New Zealand). These inequities will be perpetuated unless deliberate steps are taken to include Indigenous peoples in all parts of cancer research-as research participants, in research leadership, and in research governance.