Thank you for your invitation.
This is probably the first time a committee like yours has addressed science and research. The impact of incorporating traditional knowledge into science-based government policies rests on a proper understanding of what ultimately amounts to the philosophy of science and epistemology. One must not, as is all too often the case, think that epistemology is philosophy disconnected from politics.
I am going to try to demonstrate that the problem before you is poorly designed and incorrectly named. As the writer Albert Camus said, incorrectly naming something adds to the world's adversity. The goal is for all government science-based policies to be built on as much openness and consultation as possible. However, "consulting", is not the same thing as "accepting".
What we are hearing at the moment is confused because we are jumping from one word to the next without defining terms and without making distinctions between them. If we are talking about a chair, it should not be called "a table". It's important to use the right words.
In my brief address, I am therefore going to remind you of the key words that run through our entire discussion.
To begin with, there is the word "belief". People can have beliefs, but a belief is something held by someone who believes in something. Someone can have an opinion, which amounts to a hypothesis, but actual knowledge is also possible.
So what is knowledge? It's a statement about the world that has been theoretically validated by generally accepted methods that are accessible to any reasonable person with appropriate training. So if I suggest that there are bears in a given location, I need to verify it for it to become knowledge. Once it has been determined that there really are bears in a specific location, it becomes universal knowledge.
Then there is the word "science". Knowledge is not the same thing as science. I can know that 2 + 2 = 4, or that a2 + b2 = c2. That's knowledge, but it doesn't mean that I can demonstrate what it is. In epistemology, science is defined solely by the fact of explaining phenomena in terms of natural causes. That's what science has been since the 17th century.
We have a lot of knowledge, and others are also aware of the science underpinning this knowledge. We can know, for example, that the Thuja occidentalis, which the Iroquois call annedda, is a tree whose leaves can cure scurvy. This discovery was made by the local Iroquois in the 16th century, and later attributed in the 17th century to Jacques Cartier. However, it is just knowledge. It was only in the 19th century or later that it became science. It was discovered that it cured scurvy because it contains vitamin C. We no longer need to gather leaves from Thuja occidentalis trees because we can produce vitamin C. That's the science that explains why this tree has these properties that we already knew about.
So it's important to distinguish between "belief", "knowledge" and "science". I'm not about to give a history lecture here, but you all know that science is potentially universal. There is no western science, eastern science or indigenous science. These do not exist. There are individuals who made discoveries. The Iroquois knew how to cure scurvy. It's not because of yin and yang that the Chinese have been able to land on the moon, but rather because of their universal knowledge of Newton's laws. Even though Newton was British, it's not British science. The electromagnetic waves that were discovered as a result of the work of James Clerk Maxwell, a Scotsman, doesn't make it Scottish science. A German by the name of Hertz used Maxwell's equations and discovered electromagnetic waves.
Knowledge is therefore potentially universal. Otherwise, it's belief. If I were to tell you that I know God exists, you will no doubt tell me that what I have is a belief, because no accepted approach or methodology available to everyone can demonstrate the existence of God. But people can personally believe that God exists.
In short, I'm telling you right off the bat that there is confusion. If you mix up all kinds of words, you will not achieve anything.
Before describing something as "knowledge", you have to be able to say that it has indeed been verified independently just about everywhere.
In the Middle Ages, the Arab world contributed to science. That doesn't make it Arabic science, but rather algebra, which everyone uses. And yet, algebra is an Arabic word.
Potentially universal science is what scientists in every country work at. Terms should not be mixed up.
Thank you.