Inform & Influence 49: Indigenous Peoples’ Day and the Future of U.S. Science & Technology Policy

Your practical guide to the victories and struggles in Science and Technology (S&T) policy and how to make a difference.

Today is Indigenous Peoples' Day. Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article that explains what its purpose:

"Three years after Joseph R. Biden Jr. became the first president to formally commemorate Indigenous Peoples’ Day, more than a dozen states and many cities recognize some version of the day either alongside or instead of the federal holiday Columbus Day.

Columbus Day was never removed as a federal holiday; Mr. Biden had declared that Indigenous Peoples’ Day should be celebrated alongside Columbus Day.

But Indigenous groups and other activists have urged Americans not to celebrate Christopher Columbus, the Italian navigator for whom the holiday is named. They say he brought genocide and colonization to communities that had been in the Americas for thousands of years.

President Trump has supported calling the holiday Columbus Day, posting on social media in April, “I am hereby reinstating Columbus Day under the same rules, dates and locations, as it has had for all of the many decades before.”

This year is unfolding under a federal climate where references to equity have been scaled back or removed. Agencies once tasked with integrating Indigenous knowledge or community consultation are now being restructured or stripped of those mandates. I think we all recognize those actions as not a good thing.

Let's set that aside for the moment, however, and talk instead about the good and bad of science and technology policy and S&T actions related to Indigenous people worldwide.

In sum, as a community, we need to recognize that we must improve our own actions. In particular, we need innovation in how we govern science, technology, and knowledge itself, particularly in relation to research and other S&T projects and programs concerning indigenous communities.

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, so feel free to provide your thoughts in the comments section.

My Personal Guilt?

My great-grandfather and his family were in the Oklahoma Land Rush in 1889. In addition, my family were some of the original settlers in Kansas.

This leads me to feel guilty every time I use the word "stakeholder" -- yet, it is very commonly used in the public policy world. So, now when I teach the topic of "stakeholder analysis," I'll always discuss the use of this term.

If you don't know why the term is no longer considered acceptable by many, here's a helpful overview by Mark Reed that explains why. Here's a brief excerpt:

"By tracing the etymology of the word from its use in betting to Freeman’s (1984) definition, it is possible to see that this was not explicitly linked to its use by colonialists to stake out and lay claim to Indigenous lands.

However, it is clear that the word should be avoided when working with Indigenous groups, and there is an argument for avoiding the word more generally as part of the wider decolonisation of research. Whether intended by Freeman (1984) or not, the concept of a stake is something that is owned, and that may be held, possessed or hoarded.

These are Western ways of being that are at odds with Indigenous concepts of sharing, and by using the word "stakeholder" to describe those who have an interest in an issue, we use a Western term that implicitly normalises Western ways of being as the norm in research."

Indigenous Peoples' Day and S&T Policy

In November 2024, the Biden Administration National Science Foundation (NSF) provided a useful overview of the topic entitled "Empowering Indigenous voices in STEM: Bridging knowledge, culture and innovation." Here are some highlights:

"When Indigenous voices are heard, the STEM field is enriched with innovative solutions to global challenges. . .

Diversity in STEM brings varied perspectives and approaches to complex problems. Indigenous knowledge systems, particularly in fields such as environmental science, sustainability and biodiversity, offer valuable insights that often align with and even enhance Western scientific methodologies.

For example, traditional ecological knowledge — knowledge derived from centuries of observing and interacting with the land — has been instrumental in developing sustainable practices and understanding ecosystems. Integrating these perspectives can lead to innovative and effective solutions that are not only scientifically sound but culturally harmonious."

From a STEM Education standpoint, NSF (at the time) notes:

"A key factor in the underrepresentation of Indigenous communities in the STEM workforce is a lack of access to quality STEM education. Schools in Indigenous communities often face limited resources, fewer STEM teachers and outdated technology.

Additionally, Indigenous students pursuing higher education in STEM may encounter socioeconomic challenges and limited representation among faculty, increasing the disparity for Indigenous students in advanced STEM education and making it harder for students to feel supported.

Addressing these disparities requires a commitment to providing resources and support systems to bridge the gap."

The good news is that science and technology policy in the United States is no longer controlled solely from Washington. The most important developments in Indigenous science and knowledge governance are now emerging from states, universities, Tribal governments, and research networks.

Below are some examples of innovative approaches that I'm sure could be modeled by others. With the current federal funding cuts, I'm not sure of the status of the projects today. Regardless, however, they are models of S&T policy innovation.

Tribal Research Co-Governance

Tribal-research co-governance involves a collaborative partnership between Tribal nations and government agencies on research projects, emphasizing shared decision-making authority and the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with Western science.

This approach is a manifestation of the nation-to-nation relationship, aiming to ensure research outcomes benefit the tribe and align with their priorities, such as resource management, climate change, and public health.

Key components include tribal sovereignty over research on their lands, mutual dependency, and the transfer of funds and knowledge.

For example, the goal of the Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network "is to develop a network comprised of Indigenous leaders, community practitioners, and scholars (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) who are focused on research and community capacity related to food sovereignty and Indigenous Knowledge."

Indigenous Science Leadership

The prime example here is the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, designated in 2024, the first to be managed in partnership with tribes and Indigenous groups in the area, who will advise the federal government. As described by the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation,

"For millennia, Indigenous Peoples have traversed these waters, forging a profound connection with their depths and the diverse marine life they harbor. The sanctuary will protect waters that are essential to the heritage of Chumash and Salinan Peoples who have been its stewards since the beginning of their creation.

Culture, values, cosmology, lifeways, epistemologies, and languages have emerged from the lands and waters of the sanctuary region and have continued to develop and change in relationship with them.

Some heritage sites, including evidence of astronomical observatories, are now submerged in these waters. In addition to these submerged cultural resources, there are also over 200 known historic ship and aircraft wrecks in the region.

Sanctuary designation will preserve these wrecks in perpetuity, allowing for study and interpretation of these distinctive national treasures."

And, by Violet Sage Walker, chairwoman of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, who led the campaign for the sanctuary, as reported by NPR:

"Being able to address climate change, use traditional ecological knowledge, and participate in co-management is Indigenous peoples' contribution to saving the planet."

Slow Science

In today's "Science Adviser," I found out about the Morombe Archaeological Project in Madagascar. I'll actually be there in about a month, so this story was particularly of interest to me.I particularly appreciated the concept of "slow science." Here's the introduction to the article, written by Christie Wilcox :

"Most of the people who grew up in the coastal fishing community of Andavadoake in the Velondriake area of southwestern Madagascar are Vezo, including George “Bic” Manahira, who was the first Malagasy person to be certified as a scuba diving instructor.

Though many people in this region can’t read or write, they have generations of knowledge about the local environment and ecology. “We depend on the sea. We live with it. Everything is from the sea, so we know all about the sea,” he explained.

So when archaeologist and 2025 MacArthur Fellow Kristina Douglass wanted to conduct research in the region, she reached out to the Vezo community as well as other local Indigenous groups."

"Approaching the work she wished to do ethically required she take things slow, she told me. “Practicing slow science means that you give time to building those relationships and building a platform where everybody’s voice can be included,” she explained. What resulted was the launching of the Morombe Archaeological Project (MAP) in 2011—a collaboration that has braided Western science and Indigenous science to reveal the region’s past, looking for clues as to how the people there now may adapt to a changing climate."

I think this concept of "slow science" is true not only for research in partnership with Indigenous science but also for community-engaged research related to all populations. We need to recognized that what we learn from "lived experiences" is just as important as quantitative data.

Working with communities means you need to take time to build those relationships, not just rush in and assume they want to be part of your research project. Sometimes this also means that, as a researcher, you have to live with the answer being "no."

The Real Policy Question of 2025

Indigenous Peoples’ Day raises a central question for anyone working in science or technology policy:

Can U.S. research systems evolve beyond “consultation”—toward shared authority with Indigenous Peoples' over knowledge, data, and land?

That means, actions like:

• Embedding Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) in university and state research policy
• Requiring Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in environmental and infrastructure projects—not optionally, but structurally
• Recognizing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) as longitudinal, place-based science, not cultural anecdote
• Funding Indigenous-Led Research. From the University of Calgary,

"Indigenous research methodologies describe a diversity of research approaches, processes, and protocols that are collectively grounded in relationality, holism, community accountability, deep connections to the land and all living beings, recognition of colonial histories and their impacts on Indigenous people, and respect for Indigenous knowledges, worldviews, cultures, languages, and people."

On this last point, the Tribal University Advisory Board Research and Cultural Preservation Subcommittee of Idaho State University, which developed the graphic above, identifies these categories of collaboration as part of its report, Planning Collaborative Research with Native American Communities:

My Final Thoughts

If federal infrastructure is receding, the future of responsible science and technology policy related to Indigenous people will depend on decentralized leadership—statehouses, research institutions, and Tribal nations.

Are we ready to give up research autonomy to those with lived experiences? The Biden Administration provided a good starting point, but given the preferences of the Trump and possibly future Administrations, are we willing to take the lead?

Thoughts anyone? Let me know what how you think in the comments

THANK YOU for reading!

I am Dr. Deborah D. Stine, the founder of the Science & Technology (S&T) Policy Academy, which offers workshops for organizations, “done for you” program evaluation and policy analysis, major proposal strategy development, as well as career, leadership, and new business coaching services.

I spent over 30 years in Washington DC, working for the Obama White House as executive director of the President’s Council on Science and Technology (PCAST), an S&T policy specialist at the Congressional Research Service (a think tank for Congress), and 18 years at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, directing studies on innumerable S&T policy topics.

If you like what you see here, please consider subscribing to my free LinkedIn S&T Policy Job Opportunities newsletter.

I also provide advice for those looking for S&T policy jobs in a "Dear Debbie" LinkedIn newsletter. Subscribe to it here.

To learn more about science and technology policy analysis, you might want to take a look at my 2024 book, From Expertise to Impact: A Practical Guide to Informing and Influencing Science and Technology Policy. If you have read even a page of the book or watched the videos, I'd appreciate a review here. That's the best way to thank an author.

I also offer a mini-workshop, Sci Tech Policy 101, featuring video overviews of each chapter from my book on LinkedIn and weekly lessons based on the 35 workshops I give in these core tracks:

You can connect with me on LinkedIn here. If you'd like to discuss any of the Science and Technology Policy Academy services, you can schedule a free discovery call here.

See you soon for yet more science and technology policy news and insights.

Debbie