This article argues that the genetic engineering technology known as gene drive must be evaluated in the context of the historic and ongoing impacts of settler colonialism and military experimentation on indigenous lands and peoples. After defining gene drive and previewing some of the key ethical issues related to its use, the author compares the language used to justify Cold War–era nuclear testing in the Pacific with contemporary scholarship framing islands as ideal test sites for gene drive–modified organisms. In both cases, perceptions of islands as remote and isolated are mobilized to warrant their treatment as sites of experimentation for emerging technologies. Though gene drive may offer valuable interventions into issues affecting island communities (e.g., vector-borne disease and invasive species management), proposals to conduct the first open trials of gene drive on islands are complicit in a long history of injustice that has treated islands (and their residents) as dispensable to the risks and unintended consequences associated with experimentation. This article contends that ethical gene drive research cannot be achieved without the inclusion of indigenous peoples as key stakeholders and provides three recommendations to guide community engagement involving indigenous communities: centering indigenous self-determination, replacing the deficit model of engagement with a truly participatory model, and integrating indigenous knowledge and values in the research and decision-making processes related to gene drive.

Multiple terms describe Indigenous peoples' creative expressions, including “Indigenous knowledge” (IK), “traditional ecological knowledge” (TEK), “traditional knowledge” (TK), and increasingly, “Indigenous data” (ID). Variation in terms contributes to disciplinary divides, challenges in organizing and finding prior studies about Indigenous peoples' creative expressions, and intellectually divergent chains of reference. The authors applied a decolonial, digital, feminist, ethics-of-care approach to citation analysis of records about Indigenous peoples knowledge and data, including network analyses of author-generated keywords and research areas, and content analysis of peer-reviewed studies about ID. Results reveal ambiguous uses of the term “Indigenous data”; the influence of ecology and environmental studies in research areas and topics associated with IK, TEK, and TK; and the influence of public administration and governance studies in research areas and topics associated with ID studies. Researchers of ID would benefit from applying a more nuanced and robust vocabulary, one informed by studies of IK, TEK, and TK. Researchers of TEK and TK would benefit from the more people-centered approaches of IK. Researchers and systems designers who work with data sets can practice relational accountability by centering the Indigenous peoples from whom observations are sourced, combining narrative methodologies with computational methods to sustain the holism favored by Indigenous science and the relationality of Indigenous peoples.

To date, some genetic studies offer medical benefits but lack a clear pathway to benefit for people from underrepresented backgrounds. Historically, Indigenous people, including the Diné (Navajo people), have raised concerns about the lack of benefits, misuse of DNA samples, lack of consultation, and ignoring of cultural and traditional ways of knowing. Shortly after the Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board was established in 1996, the Navajo Nation recognized growing concerns about genetic research, and in 2002 they established a moratorium on human genetic research studies. The moratorium effectively has protected their citizens from potential genetic research harms. Despite the placement of the moratorium, some genetic research studies have continued using blood and DNA samples from Navajo people. To understand the history of genetic research involving Navajo people, the authors conducted a literature review of genetic or genetics-related research publications that involved Navajo people, identifying 79 articles from the years 1926 to 2018. To their knowledge, no known literature review has comprehensively examined the history of genetic research in the Navajo community. This review divides the genetic research articles into the following general classifications: bacteria or virus genetics, blood and human leukocyte antigens, complex diseases, forensics, hereditary diseases, and population genetics and migration. The authors evaluated the methods reported in each article, described the number of Navajo individuals reported, recorded the academic and tribal approval statements, and noted whether the study considered Diné cultural values. Several studies focused on severe combined immunodeficiency disease, population history, neuropathy, albinism, and eye and skin disorders that affect Navajo people. The authors contextualize Diné ways of knowing related to genetics and health with Western scientific concepts to acknowledge the complex philosophy and belief system that guides Diné people and recognizes Indigenous science. They also encourage researchers to consider cultural perspectives and traditional knowledge that has the potential to create stronger conclusions and better-informed, ethical, and respectful science.

American Indian health disparities have reached crisis levels, and there is a need to develop culturally congruent interventions through meaningful tribal involvement and ethical community-oriented approaches. Hence, it is imperative that researchers and university administrators better understand how research translation occurs for tribally driven health-equity research projects. Utilizing thematic analysis methods, the authors examined documents from a 12-year community-based participatory research partnership to elucidate factors that ignite momentum and support partnership longevity. The overarching finding was that trust and respect provide a foundation for momentum and longevity and are closely intertwined with other themes identified in analyses. Seven themes were extrapolated and classified into two domains: (1) investments, which are catalyzing factors that advance research, and (2) intermediate processes, which link investments to success. Investment themes include Indigenous scholar involvement, time and effort, establishing rapport, and clear and appropriate communication. Intermediate process themes include generative colearning, active participation, and recognition and celebration. Community-based participatory research principles were reflected in these findings. This study also upholds prior published work on Indigenous research methodologies, promotes the lived experiences of Indigenous people, and contributes to Indigenous theory building and science.

Indigenous individuals and communities have experienced historic and ongoing negative interactions with Western health care and biomedical research. To rebuild trust and mitigate power structures between researchers and Indigenous peoples, researchers can adopt Indigenous epistemologies in methodologies, such as nonhierarchical approaches to relationship. This article shares models developed to bridge Indigenous epistemologies with Western qualitative and quantitative research methods and demonstrates how these epistemologies can be used to guide the authors' development of a pilot study on traumatic spinal cord injury.