Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science

This is the author's accepted manuscript, made available with the permission of the publisher.The proceedings of the National Science Foundation supported WIS2DOM workshop state that sustainability scientists must respect the “protocols” of practitioners of Indigenous sciences if the practitioners of the two knowledge systems are to learn from each other. Indigenous persons at the workshop described protocols as referring to attitudes about how to approach the world that are inseparable from how people approach scientific inquiry; they used the terms caretaking and stewardship to characterize protocols in their Indigenous communities and nations. Yet sustainability scientists may be rather mystified by the idea of protocols as a necessary dimension of scientific inquiry. Moreover, the terms stewardship and caretaking are seldom used in sustainability science. In this case report, the authors seek to elaborate on some possible meanings of protocols for sustainability scientists who may be unaccustomed to talking about stewardship and caretaking in relation to scientific inquiry. To do so, the authors describe cases of Indigenous protocols in action in relation to scientific inquiry in two Indigenous-led sustainability initiatives in the Great Lakes/Midwest North American region. We claim that each case expresses concepts of stewardship and caretaking to describe protocols in which humans approach the world with the attitude of respectful partners in genealogical relationships of interconnected humans, non-human beings, entities and collectives who have reciprocal responsibilities to one another. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of Indigenous protocols for future dialog between practitioners of sustainability and Indigenous sciences.National Science Foundatio

Toward Alaska Native research and data sovereignty: Observations and experiences from the Yukon Flats

Indigenous Peoples research and data sovereignty is of paramount importance to a healthy relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the research enterprise. The development of Indigenous methods and methodologies lends itself to the hot discussion of research and data or, as we posit, knowledge born from Alaska Native communities’ experiences and observations since time immemorial. Within the context of climate change, Alaska Native communities in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (Flats) are experiencing research fatigue. There are an extraordinary number of researchers applying constant pressure on Alaska Native communities on the Yukon Flats to engage with research ideas and pursuits that are not of their own needs. In concert with large and frequent grant dollars that are promoting research with Alaska Native Peoples and demand grant proposals have components of coproduction of knowledge intertwined with the research. With so much research directed at, not with, Alaska Native communities on the Yukon Flats, never has it been more important to shape research and data sovereignty with Alaska Native communities based on their needs and their worldviews. This article works to demonstrate how established Indigenous methods in collaboration with Alaska Native and Allies scholarship alongside Alaska Native communities inform the future of Alaska Native research and data sovereignty

Life and times of data access: Regarding Native Lands

It is challenging to understand the full and detailed story of Native People’s lands in the United States. In this article, we contend that reliable and accessible data regarding Native People’s lands complicate and perpetuate those challenges. Stemming from the implications of colonial ideologies, such as the General Allotment Act of 1887, Native Peoples’ land-based data are difficult to access for Tribal Nations and researchers. Land data have been and continue to be obscured by U.S. federal processes and are dependent on unreliable systems of outdated and exclusive practices that consistently marginalize Native Peoples. Therefore, those data do not adequately inform Tribal land planning initiatives. In this article we recommend new processes that strengthen Tribal data sovereignty as the fundamental underpinnings to an inclusive and protected data in the future

Indigenous research sovereignties: Sparking the deeper conversations we need

This article is part of the Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice special issue on ‘Indigenous Research Sovereignty’, edited by Jay T. Johnson, Joseph P. Brewer II., Melissa K. Nelson, Mark H. Palmer, and Renee Pualani Louis.This article seeks to spark a conversation and further debate through the 15 papers and 3 commentaries comprising this special issue entitled “Indigenous Research Sovereignty.” By inviting the authors to publish in this special edition and address Indigenous Research Sovereignty from a variety of viewpoints, we have brought together a collection that inspires, transforms, and expands on the ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers are engaging with Indigenous communities to address the research agendas of communities across the globe. Through our work together over the past 8 years, the editorial team have identified eight themes within this broad concept of Indigenous Research Sovereignty. This article provides an introduction to those eight themes in the broadest strokes, while the papers and commentaries explore and refine them with significant depth. We seek to spark a conversation, we do not intend to provide answers to any of the dilemma facing Indigenous communities as they engage, or choose not to engage, in research. Our primary goal is to express an all-encompassing concern for the protection of Indigenous Communities’ inherent rights and knowledges.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The guest editors acknowledge financial support for the FIRST Network by the United States National Science Foundation through grant number 1417767

Iron Behaving Badly: Inappropriate Iron Chelation as a Major Contributor to the Aetiology of Vascular and Other Progressive Inflammatory and Degenerative Diseases

The production of peroxide and superoxide is an inevitable consequence of aerobic metabolism, and while these particular "reactive oxygen species" (ROSs) can exhibit a number of biological effects, they are not of themselves excessively reactive and thus they are not especially damaging at physiological concentrations. However, their reactions with poorly liganded iron species can lead to the catalytic production of the very reactive and dangerous hydroxyl radical, which is exceptionally damaging, and a major cause of chronic inflammation. We review the considerable and wide-ranging evidence for the involvement of this combination of (su)peroxide and poorly liganded iron in a large number of physiological and indeed pathological processes and inflammatory disorders, especially those involving the progressive degradation of cellular and organismal performance. These diseases share a great many similarities and thus might be considered to have a common cause (i.e. iron-catalysed free radical and especially hydroxyl radical generation). The studies reviewed include those focused on a series of cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological diseases, where iron can be found at the sites of plaques and lesions, as well as studies showing the significance of iron to aging and longevity. The effective chelation of iron by natural or synthetic ligands is thus of major physiological (and potentially therapeutic) importance. As systems properties, we need to recognise that physiological observables have multiple molecular causes, and studying them in isolation leads to inconsistent patterns of apparent causality when it is the simultaneous combination of multiple factors that is responsible. This explains, for instance, the decidedly mixed effects of antioxidants that have been observed, etc...Comment: 159 pages, including 9 Figs and 2184 reference

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Beyond Extension: Strengthening the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program (FRTEP)

Most agricultural activities on Indian lands have been under the control of non-Indian managers since the reservation era began in the 1800s. Despite federal trust obligations dating back to the late 1700s, there has been little involvement by U.S. Cooperative Extension. Federally funded programs created to enhance tribal farming and ranching operations continue to be marginalized and severely underfunded. The Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program (FRTEP) is tasked with supporting American Indians through scientific, economic, agricultural, and traditional information to solve local problems. FRTEP serves 19 reservation communities with an annual fluctuating budget of approximately US$3 million, which is nationally competitive. Recent litigation offers an opportunity for FRTEP to grow, serve as a catalyst for change, and energize economic stimulation. FRTEP also offers a potential model for community-based agricultural and food programs nationwide

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons