Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to share some important observations I have made over the years through my experience weaving indigenous knowledge and science with western science.
My name is Lindsay Heller and my Cree name is Nikamowin Maskiki. I'm a member of the Michel First Nation in Treaty No. 6 territory. I spent 10 years as a pharmaceutical research scientist at the Centre for Drug Research and Development. I'm now in my fourth year as a fellow at SFU's Centre for Dialogue, where my focus is on weaving indigenous science and western science in both of these educational settings and informing policy for a variety of levels of government.
The many wise witnesses who have come before me have spoken about the importance of establishing respectful and reciprocal relationships with indigenous knowledge-keepers when collaborating on projects and policies that involve weaving indigenous knowledge with western science. I agree that this is a critical first step. Doing your homework is as well. Prior to reaching out to indigenous knowledge-keepers, learn what has already been done, where there have been errors and issues and what the community is facing, which may come into play when attempting to collaborate and weave indigenous knowledge and western science.
As somebody who worked for many years in a lab focused on a western science approach, I want to take the little time I have today to ensure you understand that the often-perceived hierarchy of western science over indigenous science is not correct. This assumption often leads to errors, risks, repeating of harms and the failures of projects and policies that attempt to weave indigenous science and western science together.
I have often heard western scientists and government officials justify their belief in the supremacy of western science based on the value of the scientific method. They infer that indigenous people do not utilize the scientific method, which they consider the pinnacle of western thought. The scientific method follows a fairly linear path: observation, formulating a question, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, conclusion, peer review and results sharing. Western scientific experiments follow this formula and results are published in scientific journals. This publication of results establishes a hierarchy where published scientific data is best and anything else is inferior.
I always counter this argument by stating that indigenous people, too, follow a scientific method. The consequences of failure go far beyond a failed experiment or exclusion from a journal. Experimentation by indigenous people is built on observations and interpretations of the natural world, which allow us to predict how parts of the world work. These experiments are repeatable and reliable, have rigour, are accurate and follow a peer-review process. If indigenous people didn't have a sound and reliable scientific method, the results could be much more devastating than one typically imagines.
If our observations about the sea ice in the north or our predictions, experimentation, data collection, peer review and results sharing are incorrect, it can mean falling through the ice and perishing. If our observations and results are incorrect with regard to traditional plant medicines, it could mean poisoning our families and not passing on our genes to the next generation. If our observations and results sharing about the movement and distribution of a caribou herd are incorrect, it could mean our community has no meat for the winter. While this kind of experimentation may take more time than it would in a laboratory setting, the rigour, accuracy and replicability are sound. Is this not also the scientific method? When the consequence of not using this indigenous scientific method could be death, would you not rely on this data and view it as valuable, intelligent and reliable?
I share these observations so that when governments establish programs and policies to work with indigenous knowledge-keepers to weave indigenous knowledge and western science together, they do so from a place of respect and understand that our methods are sound and deserve careful consideration and inclusion. Whether you're looking at the Species at Risk Act or creating policies that involve curriculum development or any number of programs that would benefit from the inclusion of indigenous knowledge, it is critical to do so from a place of respect, without an assumption that the western scientific way is more important or trustworthy.
You must consider reciprocity. What is the community or individual gaining from collaborating with you? You need a deep knowledge of what that community is facing. Do they have clean drinking water and adequate housing? If they don't, perhaps their priority isn't the same as yours.
You must also understand that there may be an inherent distrust of government due to decades of theft, disenfranchisement, violence and broken promises. The process of healing and reconciliation must be at the forefront of these kinds of projects and policies. After all, it isn't an indigenous world view that has gotten our world into this mess of climate change, mass extinction, resource extraction disasters and food insecurity. It is a western world view that did this. By working together and weaving our indigenous knowledge systems, approaches and values together, I believe we stand a chance of getting ourselves out of this mess.
Thank you.