A new academic year is upon us. With that, new faculty and graduate students will be delving into research applications, especially through the largest higher education funder of scientific research: the National Science Foundation (NSF).
This year, those applying for research funds will have to consider whether their projects “may impact tribal resources or interests,” according to the new NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that came out in May 2024. If research plans “impact” one of the 574 federally recognized tribes, then researchers must obtain permission from the tribe—or tribes, if more than one tribe is impacted—to receive funding from the NSF, as stated in the guidelines:
Proposals that may impact the resources or interests of a federally recognized American Indian or Alaska Native Tribal Nation (Tribal Nation) will not be awarded by NSF without prior written approval from the official(s) designated by the relevant Tribal Nation(s).
Research conducted on tribal lands—whether research on the plants or animals—falls under this category. But, beyond the obvious connection with tribal lands, what may impact tribal interests is difficult to ascertain.
In a recent information session by NSF’s Directorate for Biological Science, mention of research on tribal language would also fall into this category. If volunteer subjects belong to a federally recognized tribe, then the research may also require tribal permission, especially if there is any mention of the tribe in the research.
In short, the session’s guidance is that if the tribe’s name is mentioned, then it likely interests the tribe.
The NSF argues further that because tribes are “sovereign nations,” like France, they should be able to determine the story told about them. In tribal parlance, “nothing about us, without us.” But surely, academics can research France-related topics without seeking permission from France’s President Emmanuel Macron, right?
The real reason for tribal permission is that tribal governments want to avoid damaging information from being published. As stated by Jermelina Tupas, the deputy division director of the Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM at NSF:
[T]hey want to protect their reputation, whatever it is, they want to make sure that what you say about them is really within [w]hat they believe is true or not, you know. So that’s the reason that they would want to see how you’re gonna use their names.
Thus, this shift is driven by post-modern identity politics, where the weight of victims’ narratives outweighs the accuracy of the information. For instance, at the information session, Tupas said:
This is again a historical part of their historical trauma, when they have always been depicted negatively. They don’t want that to happen again, so they want to make sure that if you’re going to involve us, it better be something that we are willing to give to you.
The NSF, is no longer interested in the accuracy of scientific findings. Rather, it is helping tribal governments by playing gatekeepers to preserve tribal public image. Tribes may wish to keep “noble savage” myths, such as that they are the “original stewards of the land,” alive. They may want to keep information about genetic differences that make them prone to schizophrenia and drug addiction hidden, as in the genetic research on the Havasupai that was censored; they would rather blame it on colonization than get to a real solution.
Furthermore, research affecting Native American interests is likely to increase as their financial stakes in these matters grow. According to Respectful Research, whose mission “is to bridge the gap between academia and Indigenous communities, fostering collaboration, understanding, and sustainable outcomes,” regarding the new NSF guidelines:
Tribal Nations can require fees related to the review and approval process. These fees can be requested each year of the proposed research activities in order to determine continued approval status.
Tribes can even be bought off with gifts, as mentioned by those who help researchers work with tribes. For instance, in their “Top Ten Considerations When Engaging with American Indian Tribes,” Cultural Heritage Partners wrote in “Thoughtful gifts can go a long way:”
One of the ways to connect is to learn the culture of the Tribes with whom you are dealing, and find something unique about them to fashion into a gift for a first visit that shows consideration and respect. Or, learn about the tribal representatives you are meeting with and find something unique pertaining to their interest(s).
If a researcher reveals a negative aspect of tribal culture or history, then the tribe can revoke permission at any time!
But, even if all goes smoothly, the tribe may prevent publications. During the misconceptions section of the NSF information session mentioned above, Tupas stated that even if you followed the approval protocol, you cannot necessarily publish the materials when and where you want, because the tribes “want to make sure that what is being published is representative of their tribal nation” and the NSF wants to protect the tribes from researchers who want to extract knowledge from them. Caroline Blanco, an assistant general counsel for NSF, added that the data “is their intellectual property, and it is for them to decide what happens to it.”
For all these reasons, coupled with the extra time it takes to “build relationships” and NSF’s decision to allow tribal governments to determine the timeline for obtaining approval, it seems clear that this is just another example of how the U.S. government has embraced post-modern identity politics to hijack science. The NSF shouldn’t be in the tribal public relations business; it should be supporting science.
Image by Scorpions and Centaurs — Native American artifacts at Manitou Cliff Dwellings — Colorado Springs, Colorado — Flickr
“The NSF argues further that because tribes are “sovereign nations,” like France, they should be able to determine the story told about them.”
Bullbleep!
They are no more sovereign than Texas is, and they are subject to Federal (not state) authority the same way that Texas is.
But let’s put this in the perspective it belongs — while Saudi Arabia doesn’t have to let you into its country (and well may not), you have the right to write anything you wish about, say, the way they treat women. And it’s well known that Turkey isn’t happy about research into the Armenian genocide.
“Tribal Nations can require fees related to the review and approval process. These fees can be requested each year of the proposed research activities in order to determine continued approval status.”
18 USC 201 (bribery) drfines a public official as including: “an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government,”
This would include tribal authorities “operating under the authority of” the NIH and hence anyone paying them is looking at 2 years Federal time. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 And then there is the false claim act.
When Donald Trump talks about eliminating civil service and firing mid-level bureaucrats, this is the type of people he wants to fire.
One of the early drafts of the Obamacare bills included a measure that would cut off AHRQ funding to an institution if one of its researchers, funded by the agency or not, published research results that the agency did not like.