2024 National Tribal Consultation on the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy

Summary

The Department of the Interior (DOI), through the U.S. Geological Survey, invited federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations, to consult on issues of concern pertaining to DOI’s adoption of Scientific Integrity Framework model policy of the National Science and Technology Council (NTSC) in its revision of the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy (referred to below as the Policy, which is codified at 305 DM 3). Three live consultation sessions were held by videoconference between April 22 and April 29, 2024, and written comments were received through May 31, 2024. We thank all participants for providing input. This page summarizes participants’ comments and explains how the Department has addressed those comments in the final version of the Policy.

Dear Tribal Leaders Letter for DOI Scientific Integrity Policy

Dear Alaska Native Corporation Leaders Letter for DOI Scientific Integrity Policy

Dear Native Hawaiian Organization Leaders Letter for DOI Scientific Integrity Policy

Response to Comments from the Tribal Consultations Pertaining to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Scientific Integrity Policy 305 DM 3

1. Commenters voiced concerns about how Tribal Nations are mentioned in the following passage in Section V.2 of the NTSC’s Scientific Integrity Framework’s model policy:

Promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the scientific workforce and to create safe workspaces that are free from harassment and discrimination. Support scientists and researchers including, but not limited to, Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQI+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality; and advance the equitable delivery of Federal programs.

While striving to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the scientific workforce, the Department recognizes and respects the commenters’ concerns that not all listed groups may agree with the fashion in which they are being represented. Therefore, in response, the Department inserted only the first sentence of the above passage into the Policy at 305 DM 3.6F(2). 

2. One commenter expressed concern that DOI may attempt to define Indigenous Knowledge (IK) in the context of its scientific integrity policy.

The Department was careful not to define IK in the context of this Policy and instead refers readers to the definition of IK found in 301 DM 7, which establishes the Department’s policies, responsibilities, and procedures to respect, and equitably promote the inclusion of, Indigenous Knowledge in the Department’s decision making, resource management, program implementation, policy development, scientific research, and other actions. 

3. Commenters requested that the Policy address the importance of Tribal sovereignty and Tribal data sovereignty. Commenters also shared concerns about the implications of the use of the term “transparency” in the Framework’s scientific integrity definition with respect to Tribal data sovereignty and the possibility of release of sensitive Tribal data to the public through reporting of scientific integrity violations.

The Department agrees, and the Policy both addresses the importance of Tribal sovereignty / data sovereignty and provides protections against unauthorized release of Tribal data through (a) required coordination where scientific integrity and Tribal Nations intersect; (b) providing procedures to investigate  allegations that Tribal data sovereignty may have been breached; and (c) stressing the importance of safeguarding evidence in scientific integrity investigations, including where sovereign Tribal data may be involved.

a) Required coordination where scientific integrity and Tribal Nations intersect. 

Scientific integrity complaints involving Tribal Nations, Tribal data, or IK require involvement with the DOI Office of the Solicitor “to determine which laws and regulations are relevant, appropriate procedures, and how to include the Tribal Nation in the complaint process” (305 DM 3.10J). Moreover, where applicable, “scientific integrity policies and procedures will adhere to policies and principles” of Tribal engagement, such as the Department Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (512 DM 4), “whenever there is a Departmental action with Tribal implications” (emphasized at 305 DM 3.6A(6)).  

b) Providing procedures for allegations that Tribal data sovereignty may have been breached.

The Policy provides a procedure by which anyone, including a Tribal Nation or Tribal member, may file a complaint alleging a scientific integrity violation. The types of activities that may constitute a violation include areas where there is a significant departure from standards related to Tribal data, which could include inadequate information security, nonadherence to law and policies related to the protection of cultural resources, and/or failing to protect IK consistent with DOI’s IK Policy.

• DOI requirements to adhere to scientific integrity requires adherence to “accepted standards” to help prevent intersection points such as plagiarism “inadequate procedural and information security” (305 DM 3.7A).
• The DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct is defined by the Policy as one such accepted standard (305 DM 3.7A). It requires Department employees, volunteers, and outside parties to “adhere to the laws and policies related to…the protection of…cultural resources” (305 DM 3.9).
• For IK, the Policy specifically states, “It may be considered a violation of the scientific integrity policy if one fails to protect Indigenous Knowledge consistent with Department Indigenous Knowledge policy (301 DM 7), including obtaining Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, and/or failing to communicate the Department’s abilities and limitations with protecting Indigenous Knowledge when such knowledge is appropriately provided” (305 DM 3.6D(3)).

c) Stressing the importance of safeguarding evidence in scientific integrity investigations, including where sovereign Tribal data may be involved.

For information related to scientific integrity investigations, the Department recognizes its treatment of Tribal data is governed in part under its obligations under Federal law, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Congressional subpoenas, and the requirement to report criminal activity, waste, fraud, and abuse to the Office of Inspector General. Regardless, the Policy stresses to DOI Scientific Integrity Officials the importance of safeguarding evidence and requires them to protect confidentiality to the extent allowed by law when conducting investigations. The Policy reinforces this several times in the both the Responsibilities section of the policy as well in the procedures for processing complaints (see 305 DM 3.8D(16), 8D(18), 8H(9), 8I(13), 10A(2)(a), 10C(1)(a), 10C(2)(a), 10D(2), 10D(3)(d)(i)).

4. Commenters voiced concern about the use of FOIA to obtain sensitive Tribal information and recommended that the Policy include language requiring or advising Department personnel consult with legal counsel regarding Department obligations under FOIA and other public disclosure laws. 

Although the Policy provides language to support protection of IK (see item 3b, above), statutory requirements, such as FOIA, take precedence over the Policy. Regardless, each DOI FOIA response that applies an exemption is required by regulation to be reviewed by an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor. 

5. One commenter recommended that DOI identify a meaningful and respectful Tribal process for review and input into the implementation plan for DOI scientific integrity policies and procedures.

This consultation was the starting point for including Tribes in the implementation of DOI scientific integrity policies and procedures, and input from Tribal Nations has led to meaningful improvement. Future revisions of the DOI scientific integrity policy will also incorporate comments from Tribal Nations through the Tribal consultation process. 

6. One commenter requested that the Department’s scientific integrity policy require Tribal consultation between the Department and Tribal Nations before scientific inquiry between tribes and members may commence.

Before engaging in scientific inquiry of any sort that may have substantial direct effect on one or more Tribes, the Department’s policy is to notify and invite the Tribe(s) to government-to-government consultation (see 512 DM 4). That policy would cover all aspects of scientific integrity, including the scientific integrity process. Even so, the Department has inserted the following passage into the scientific integrity policy at 305 DM 3.6A(6) to further emphasis the point:

As “it is the policy of the Department to recognize and fulfill its legal obligations to identify, protect, and conserve Tribal trust resources; carry out its trust relationship with Federally recognized Tribes and Tribal members; and invite Tribes to consult on a government-to-government basis whenever there is a Departmental Action with Tribal Implications” (Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (512 DM 4)), scientific integrity practices will adhere to these policies and principles where applicable.

7. One commenter recommended that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) be trained on Tribal sovereignty concerns and that there be Tribal Nation representation on OSTP and/or NSTC for purposes of ensuring IK issues and input is included.

The Department supports inclusion of Tribal Nations’ input on all federal policies pertaining to scientific integrity. As this Tribal consultation focused specifically on scientific integrity, we were not able to address this recommendation in the final version of the Policy. However, we have discussed these recommendations with OSTP.

8. Commenters voiced concern that the Framework does not reference consultation with Tribal Nations.

We have shared these comments with OSTP but note that the DOI Policy references Tribal consultation at 305 DM 3.6A(6). 

9. Commenters suggested education and training in tribal issues for Department personnel engaged in scientific activity that impacts the Tribal Nations.

The DOI Tribal consultation policy (512 DM 4) requires DOI bureaus to invite Tribes to consult on any activity that may have substantial direct effect on them, including scientific activity pertaining to a Tribe’s reservation/trust lands, ceded lands with reserved rights, or cultural resources. Moreover, President Biden has directed (in a November 2022 memorandum) the heads of federal agencies to require annual training regarding Tribal consultation for agency employees who work with Tribal Nations or on policies with Tribal implications. The content of that training is being developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in consultation with Tribes and may address the commentors’ concern. However, as the commenters’ concerns about Tribal engagement in general are beyond the scope of the Policy, which is focused narrowly on scientific integrity, we will pass this suggestion to the cognizant Departmental office.

10. Commenters requested that the Department provide funding and assistance to support scientific research conducted by Tribal Nations.

The Tribal consultation was narrowly scoped to scientific integrity issues and did not cover wider issues of funding and assistance to support scientific research. Therefore, we were not able to address this comment in the Policy.