Biden Administration’s Risky Shift: Embracing ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ over Science

Indigenous Knowledge: From Fringe Theory to Federal ​Policy

Just five days‌ before President Joe Biden entered the White House, ⁢his team handed the Washington Post an exclusive⁤ story:⁣ Biden ⁢would keep his campaign⁢ promise ‍of “following the ⁤science” by turning the White House⁣ Office of Science and Technology Policy into‍ a cabinet-level agency.

On Nov. 30, 2022, that office did something rather ⁢unscientific: It issued a memorandum directing more ⁤than two dozen federal agencies to apply “Indigenous Knowledge” to “research, ‍policies, ⁢and decision making.” The 42-page document encourages the agencies to⁤ speak ​with ​”spiritual leaders” and reject “methodological dogma” when crafting⁢ policy as a way to remedy injustices against Native peoples.

Federal regulators are to consider the​ folk wisdom of the Comanche Nation, ‍for instance, just as they consider lab results when trying​ to determine the pH level of rain. Long relegated to university campuses and fringe activist groups,‍ the idea that Native people have a privileged understanding of the physical and metaphysical world is now ​the official view of ​the United States government.

The Definition of Indigenous Knowledge

With nearly 600 federally recognized Native ⁤tribes in the United States alone, there is ‌no single definition of Indigenous Knowledge. Defenders and critics of the idea agree that, broadly speaking, it constitutes the traditions, ​stories, and religious rituals passed down orally through‍ generations ‍of Native Americans and aborigines in places like ⁣Australia.

This investigation is based on a Washington Free Beacon review⁢ of ‌previously unreported federal documents, hours of recorded lectures by federal officials, and interviews with nearly ⁢a dozen experts, many of whom declined to speak publicly due to fear of reprisal. Together, the materials show how a once-fringe theory made its way⁣ to the heart of the federal government and shine a light on the Democratic Party’s struggle to balance its commitment to ⁣”the science” with its commitment to “inclusivity.”

Controversies and Risks

The U.S.‍ government is not the first to embrace Indigenous Knowledge.​ Canada‌ began‌ incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into policymaking in the⁣ latter​ half of⁤ the 20th ⁢century, often with counterproductive results. A ⁤2006 Canadian academic assessment concluded that “the acceptance of spiritual beliefs as ‘knowledge’ by governments was dangerous‍ because it could ⁤be used⁣ to justify any activity, including actions that were environmentally destructive.”

Use⁤ of Indigenous ⁢Knowledge as evidence in Highly Influential Scientific Assessments poses serious risks, ⁢experts told the Free Beacon.

“This​ is extremely dangerous,” said Anna​ Krylov, a professor of science, engineering, and chemistry at the University of ⁢Southern California. “When I conduct experiments, I need to ‌follow the rules and procedures and⁤ think about safety. I have to keep track of what⁤ I’m doing.⁣ I’m not thinking about chants, or dancing.”

The Role of‍ Indigenous Knowledge in Federal Policymaking

In addition to the Office of⁤ Science and Technology Policy memo, the White House has released ​more than three dozen documents that favorably cite Indigenous Knowledge. Federal agencies have held ‌ dozens of seminars on the topic as well.

However, the use⁤ of Indigenous Knowledge ‌in federal policymaking has raised concerns. Critics argue that⁣ it lacks a clear definition and can be subjective. The potential risks of incorporating spiritual beliefs into ⁣scientific assessments have​ also been highlighted.

While some tribes support the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge,‌ others have ⁤sought to shield it from ‌public access and scrutiny.

As⁢ the debate continues, the role of Indigenous ‍Knowledge in shaping federal policies remains a contentious issue.