My comment earlier was that there's a long-term monitoring program that involves or is led by the Inuvialuit communities. Over 40 years of data has been collected about mercury, among other things.
That program began or was designed around answering key questions that were important to communities. Beluga is so fundamental to food security in the region, to the culture and livelihood of the communities, so the kind of science that's being done is science to answer critical questions about human health, about food, about culture and livelihood, and I think that's different from many science-driven programs.
The other key difference is that the other kinds of indicators, the other kinds of knowledge that are being collected at the same time are much more holistic than many other monitoring programs that are science-driven and that have a much more narrow focus.
Finally, there's the extent to which the monitoring work itself, the research work itself, is embedded in culturally valued processes like harvesting, in which the process of research, the process of doing science, building knowledge, co-producing knowledge is one that is ingrained and valuable to the communities, including youth.