Throughout human ecological history, we have played a variety of roles within ecosystems around the world. In this so-called Anthropocene era, genomic innovations have given us new and powerful ways to influence the environment and the countless species with whom we share the planet. In two new publications, a team of researchers is calling upon their scientific colleagues and society as a whole to approach the use of these tools with ethical deliberation, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and with the goal of holistically supporting ecosystems.
Both publications were collaborative efforts that carry forward the goals of the Center for Indigenous Science at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The first, published in Ethnobiology Letters, focused on strategic and ethical considerations of species "de-extinction" using genomic technologies. The second, appearing in Conservation Biology, explored broader concerns related to nonhuman genomic data use in conservation.
"The Center for Indigenous Science promotes ways to do science that extend beyond what has typically been seen in academic systems, specifically to Indigenous science systems," said Alida de Flamingh, a postdoctoral scholar within the CIS. "This research promotes Indigenous data sovereignty, as well as access and benefit sharing."
In the Conservation Biology publication, de Flamingh and her coauthors at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Oregon State University discussed the pressing importance of collaboration among Indigenous communities and conservation-focused research groups. They contrasted efforts to enact ethical guidelines for human genome research involving Indigenous communities, and the absence of any similar framework for nonhuman genome research.
"There's already a really phenomenal foundational set of work that has been done by Indigenous scholars and communities . . . that informs how to think about genomes in a culturally grounded way," de Flamingh said. "That's informed my own thinking and also represents a large aspect of the research that we do in CIS that uses ancient DNA research on nonhuman organisms."
The coauthors specifically consider biobanking, an emerging conservation genomics practice that involves collecting and storing biological samples or genomic data from a variety of organisms to allow their study and enable future restoration efforts. As technologies have emerged to rapidly sequence, analyze, and use DNA sequence from these beings, a societal consensus on how to most responsibly use these capabilities has not kept up.
To ground nonhuman biobanking practices, the researchers recommend extending to the principles of respecting Indigenous data sovereignty and ensuring access and benefit sharing that are being established for human genomic and ancestry research. For example, Indigenous groups hold valuable knowledge about species of cultural and ecological importance that could be prioritized for biobanking; the paper describes key roles played by Indigenous communities in restoration efforts for the Great Barrier Reef, as well as for bison populations in the United States.
"People aren't often considering what constitutes a culturally significant species, or thinking about organisms . . . as being part of this relational kind of system that we live in," de Flamingh said. "Relationality is a concept that we often talk about in the CIS and that also forms a part of Indigenous thinking about existence."
The importance of a more holistic view of ecosystems in conservation work was also emphasized in the Ethnobiology Letters article. Lead author August Hoffman and his colleagues in the CIS considered the specific example of last year's announcement by Colossal Biosciences that the biotechnology company had "resurrected" the extinct dire wolf species through the use of genomic data and CRISPR gene editing technology.
"Colossal is ostensibly doing some more grounded ethical work with critically endangered red wolves, but that has taken a backseat to this glitz and glamour" of the dire wolf project, Hoffman said. "I would just want people to think about: there's a distinct reason why they chose dire wolves. It was logistically pragmatic and expedient, but you're also going to get a very different public reaction from resurrecting the dodo versus the dire wolf."
Although the project was successful at capturing public attention, the researchers point out that it did not set a clear precedent for what an ecologically sound de-extinction effort might look like.
"We also aimed to bring attention to those individuals impacted by Colossal Biosciences's work, including Indigenous peoples who have been caretaking these ecosystems for millennia and the living, breathing animals who become caught up in project of 'de-extinction,'' said professor of anthropology and coauthor Amanda Cortez (CIS). "As biotech companies continue to develop these projects, we should forefront the individuals who are most impacted and continue moving toward collaboration with Indigenous communities that are heavily affected by ecological changes."
By making targeted edits to the genome of a gray wolf, the company succeeded in producing offspring with dire wolf traits, but the limited scope of the project could not encompass a consideration of the role dire wolves once played within the ecosystem or whether it could be possible for them to survive in the wild now.
"Even these definitions are very much in flux," Hoffman said. "We're all kind of getting our wires crossed by speaking past each other, instead of asking what do we mean by de-extinction, resurrection, and what does it mean to be a being in a larger ecosystem?"
Hoffman and his coauthors, including de Flamingh, propose that in order to be employed ethically and responsibly, conservation efforts based in genomic technologies should consider ecosystems in a more holistic manner, and the roles of the species within them; focus on currently endangered species; and center Indigenous communities and knowledge.
In each case, conceiving and drafting the article was a truly collaborative process that reflected the ethos of the Center, with important contributions from CIS members: Oregon State University anthropology professor Alyssa Bader; Nathan Alexander, postdoctoral scholar with the Illinois Natural History Survey; Illinois professors of anthropology Ripan S. Malhi and Katelyn Bishop; American Indian Studies professor Jenny L. Davis; and Joshua Diaz, a doctoral candidate in anthropology at Illinois.
"It was a really organic process," Hoffman said. "It also was in practice, a representation of what the ethics of Indigenous science can do."
