A Biocultural Ethics Approach 83
“Consenting meaningfully” (Ethics Circle, 2021, pp. 27–31) is an ongoing
and dynamic process of choosing to participate in an activity. The choice is based
on fully understanding the nature, purpose and consequences of all aspects of the
activity and its physical, emotional, mental and spiritual impacts on individuals,
communities and All Our Relations. To be given access to Indigenous knowledge as part of knowledge sharing requires valid and meaningful processes of
consenting by individual Indigenous knowledge holders who may extend their
responsibility for consent to All Our Relations, for example, by considering the
well-being and rights of plants, animals and the local ecology. It may additionally
require collective processes of consent by the community, as determined by the
Indigenous knowledge holders, community protocols and community governance structures. It must be an iterative and interactive process to maintain the
element of voluntariness, especially when the circumstances that were consented
to change or when new choices are faced, which requires that information relevant to ongoing consent is continuously communicated. Meaningfully consenting requires mechanisms to extend over long timeframes “when what is shared
and agreed to now has implications for future generations (e.g., recordings of
Elders)” (Ethics Circle, 2021, p. 31).
Meaningful consenting also extends to secondary use of information that is
in the public domain and requires careful consideration about what constitutes
ethical access for secondary use of documented Indigenous knowledge that was
published by others if “how the knowledge came to be in the public domain
is not known, consent is not evident and/or if there is insufficient attribution
to the Indigenous Knowledge Holders and Indigenous communities of origin”
(Ethics Circle, 2021, p. 31). It is further noted that “intentional secondary use
of Indigenous knowledge that was not published with due credit and attribution to the Indigenous community sources, and/or lacks evidence of consent
for the Indigenous knowledge to be made public is unethical” (Ethics Circle,
2021, p. 31).
In essence, according to this Ethical Guidance, “meaningfully consenting” is
not possible outside of relationships that recognize physical and spiritual responsibilities of care and accountability to past, present and future Ancestors and other
sentient beings through ongoing stewardship of lands, airways and waterways.
Envisioning Biocultural Rights and Responsibilities within
Relationships of Care and Accountability
From a biocultural ethics perspective, the biocultural rights of Indigenous
peoples are inextricably linked with responsibilities based in caring relationships and r elational accountability that extend across species and generations.
The intentional twinning of rights with responsibilities that are derived from
Indigenous worldviews and Indigenous articulations of natural law (Battiste,
2016; Borrows, 2002, 2010; Napoleon, 2013) points us toward right relationships
among humans, and between humans and the natural world. This approach can
“Consenting meaningfully” (Ethics Circle, 2021, pp. 27–31) is an ongoing
and dynamic process of choosing to participate in an activity. The choice is based
on fully understanding the nature, purpose and consequences of all aspects of the
activity and its physical, emotional, mental and spiritual impacts on individuals,
communities and All Our Relations. To be given access to Indigenous knowledge as part of knowledge sharing requires valid and meaningful processes of
consenting by individual Indigenous knowledge holders who may extend their
responsibility for consent to All Our Relations, for example, by considering the
well-being and rights of plants, animals and the local ecology. It may additionally
require collective processes of consent by the community, as determined by the
Indigenous knowledge holders, community protocols and community governance structures. It must be an iterative and interactive process to maintain the
element of voluntariness, especially when the circumstances that were consented
to change or when new choices are faced, which requires that information relevant to ongoing consent is continuously communicated. Meaningfully consenting requires mechanisms to extend over long timeframes “when what is shared
and agreed to now has implications for future generations (e.g., recordings of
Elders)” (Ethics Circle, 2021, p. 31).
Meaningful consenting also extends to secondary use of information that is
in the public domain and requires careful consideration about what constitutes
ethical access for secondary use of documented Indigenous knowledge that was
published by others if “how the knowledge came to be in the public domain
is not known, consent is not evident and/or if there is insufficient attribution
to the Indigenous Knowledge Holders and Indigenous communities of origin”
(Ethics Circle, 2021, p. 31). It is further noted that “intentional secondary use
of Indigenous knowledge that was not published with due credit and attribution to the Indigenous community sources, and/or lacks evidence of consent
for the Indigenous knowledge to be made public is unethical” (Ethics Circle,
2021, p. 31).
In essence, according to this Ethical Guidance, “meaningfully consenting” is
not possible outside of relationships that recognize physical and spiritual responsibilities of care and accountability to past, present and future Ancestors and other
sentient beings through ongoing stewardship of lands, airways and waterways.
Envisioning Biocultural Rights and Responsibilities within
Relationships of Care and Accountability
From a biocultural ethics perspective, the biocultural rights of Indigenous
peoples are inextricably linked with responsibilities based in caring relationships and r elational accountability that extend across species and generations.
The intentional twinning of rights with responsibilities that are derived from
Indigenous worldviews and Indigenous articulations of natural law (Battiste,
2016; Borrows, 2002, 2010; Napoleon, 2013) points us toward right relationships
among humans, and between humans and the natural world. This approach can