Title: Protecting Indigenous Biodiversity Through DNA, Data, and AI
Resource URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hszmzwIXTqk
Publication Date: 2025-06-11
Format Type: Video
Reading Time: 67 minutes
Contributors: Dave Thau;Krystal Tsosie;
Source: AI for Good (YouTube)
Keywords: [Data Sovereignty, Federated Learning, Biodiversity Genomics, Indigenous Stewardship, Benefit Sharing]
Job Profiles: Data Scientist;Policy Advisor;Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO);Chief Information Officer (CIO);Data Governance Manager;
Synopsis: In this video, Arizona State University Assistant Professor Krystal Tsosie and Global Lead Scientist at WWF Dave Thau examine how indigenous data sovereignty, equitable AI models, and ethical biogenomic practices are crucial to protecting biodiversity and reversing extractive scientific traditions.
Takeaways: [Indigenous knowledge systems, rooted in relational worldviews, offer foundational insights for rethinking human-nature relationships in conservation and technology., Ethical AI development must start by addressing historical and structural injustices in data access, control, and benefit sharing before deploying technical solutions., Technologies like blockchain and federated AI are only transformative when embedded within Indigenous governance systems and aligned with community-defined values., Indigenous sovereignty over biodiversity data challenges prevailing notions of innovation by centering collective rights over individual or institutional claims., Viewing data as kin rather than as property reframes its stewardship as a relational responsibility, not a commercial asset, disrupting extractive scientific norms.]
Summary: Krystal Tsosie begins by challenging Western philosophical hierarchies that place humans at the center of creation, contrasting them with indigenous epistemologies that regard all beings—animate and inanimate—as relations with intrinsic value. She underscores the importance of indigenous data sovereignty: the right of communities to govern data derived from their lands, cultures, and knowledge systems. This principle is both an ethical imperative and a matter of justice and sustainability, as indigenous peoples have long served as stewards of biodiversity.

Tsosie recounts historical patterns of biopiracy, from European researchers patenting antimalarial compounds without prior consent, to the mass commercial harvesting of white sage from former tribal lands. She highlights the inequity inherent in current benefit-sharing arrangements, noting that indigenous providers rarely reap the first rewards of their own genetic or ethnobotanical knowledge. While the Nagoya Protocol enshrines equitable sharing in international law, major powers have often refused to ratify it, perpetuating biocolonial practices.

To address these imbalances, Tsosie advocates for embedding indigenous partners at every phase of the data life cycle—from collection and storage to dissemination and secondary use. She describes successful initiatives, such as the Native Biodata Consortium, which builds tribal bio-repositories under tribal law, and federated learning architectures that employ blockchain and cryptographic metadata labels to grant communities granular control over data sharing. By training indigenous data leaders in high-throughput sequencing, federated systems, and digital tool development, these efforts foster long-term capacity and self-determination.

Tsosie warns against superficial “ethics washing” and urges technologists to engage in genuine co-planning, legal negotiation of ownership rules, and continuous dialogue under tribal governance. She calls on non-indigenous allies to speak up, challenge default ownership assumptions, and support social justice measures alongside technological innovation. Ultimately, she envisions a future of indigenous digital sovereignty—where biodata economies are governed by the very communities that have protected biodiversity for millennia.
Content: ## Introduction

This presentation, hosted by WWF’s Global Lead Scientist for Data and Technology, frames the central ethical challenge in biodiversity science: as we harness DNA sequencing, artificial intelligence, and vast data repositories to confront environmental crises, who governs the data, who benefits, and how might these practices perpetuate past injustices?

## Indigenous Epistemologies and the Ethics of Data

Western philosophical traditions have long posited humans as the supreme bearers of consciousness and knowledge, relegating animals and plants to mechanistic roles. In contrast, many indigenous worldviews—such as those of the Blackfoot—recognize “all my relations,” attributing spirit and agency to every element of creation. Knowledge in these traditions emerges through reciprocal relationships with land, waters, and nonhuman kin.

When we recast data as relational rather than proprietary, stewardship replaces ownership. This shift is critical to addressing the extractive tendencies of modern science, in which cultural and biological know­ledges are published in open repositories—only to be mined, patented, or commercialized by outside entities.

## Historical Context of Biocolonial Practices

The tendency to ignore prior consent and equitable benefit sharing dates to colonial expeditions that claimed indigenous medicinal plant knowledge as “discoveries.” Iconic exhibits, such as the gilded botanical friezes of the Natural History Museum in London, honor Western scientists while effacing the millennia of indigenous stewardship behind those plant chemistries.

Numerous case studies demonstrate these inequities. In 2016, European researchers isolated an antimalarial compound from a community’s traditional knowledge, secured patents, and initially failed to credit or compensate the original knowledge holders. Similarly, the explosive consumer demand for white sage has spawned large-scale uprooting of wild populations—often from former tribal lands—benefiting “white shamans” and commercial retailers rather than the communities that have long protected this sacred plant.

## Legal Frameworks: Nagoya Protocol and Benefit Sharing

The Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity formalizes two requisites for equitable benefit sharing: prior informed consent before granting access to genetic resources, and a binding agreement on compensation. Yet many global powers have not ratified the protocol, leaving its language unenforced in key sourcing regions.

Where these conditions are unmet, Tsosie labels the practice “biopiracy.” Intellectual property regimes often privilege universities and corporations, while indigenous providers—whose ancestral lands may not even be recognized by settler states—remain disadvantaged by foreign patent offices and corporate legal structures.

## Building Indigenous Data Infrastructure and Sovereignty

To counter systemic imbalances, communities must lead research and governance. The Native Biodata Consortium, established as a tribal non­profit, creates on-reservation bio­repositories under tribal law. High-throughput sequencing facilities, data servers, and blockchain-enabled metadata schemas enable indigenous nations to control who may access, analyze, or share genetic data linked to their biodiversity and cultural resources.

Tsosie’s team has piloted federated approaches that maintain datasets across multiple nodes—each governed by tribal authorities—while permitting encrypted, consented AI model training on specific genomic regions. Such architectures reconcile logistical constraints, respect differentiated data risk levels, and prevent nonconsensual secondary use.

## Principles of Just Data Governance

International calls for “FAIR” data—findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable—often misinterpret these criteria as mandates for openness. Likewise, loosely applied ethical guidelines can slip into “ethics washing” or tokenistic “engagement washing,” preserving power imbalances under a veneer of good intentions.

The CARE principles—collective Benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics—offer an indigenous-led complement, centering community priorities and reinforcing data sovereignty. Yet Tsosie warns that neither FAIR nor CARE alone fully mitigate genomic reidentification risks or ensure accountability for misuse.

## Capacity Building and AI Sovereignty

True autonomy requires training the next generation of indigenous data scientists, policy experts, and legal practitioners who understand the interplay of genomics, tribal law, and intellectual property. Summer workshops and on-reservation laboratories have demonstrated how portable sequencing devices, room-temperature DNA storage, and tribal-steered AI tools can transform local natural resource management—from monitoring invasive species through environmental DNA to engineering disease-resistant crop varieties.

Emerging conversations around AI sovereignty parallel those in data governance. As language-preservation models and biodiversity AI applications proliferate, communities must negotiate default ownership rules, articulate consent protocols for model training, and deploy federated learning and blockchain techniques to uphold indigenous authority.

## Moving Forward: Actionable Steps

Prioritize revising default data sharing and ownership agreements before deploying new AI or sequencing platforms. Engage in genuine co-planning with indigenous nations at every stage of the data life cycle, rather than limiting consultation to initial consent.

Support non-indigenous allies in amplifying community critiques of extractive practices, and invest in legal and technical capacity that unites expertise in tribal law, genomics, and digital infrastructure. By coupling social justice with technological innovation, stakeholders can foster an indigenous digital sovereignty that sustains biodata economies and honors millennia of ecological stewardship.