Learning about Indigenous and Lakota science from Yvette Running Horse Collin

Collaboration is more challenging than it looks

I’m out with a column today in Science about Indigenous science and what it takes to make real collaboration between Western and Indigenous scientists work. It sounds great, but it’s not easy. For sure, there are lots of things about nature that are known by Indigenous scientists that have defied reductionist Western science. By merging the two, new discoveries can be made. But getting there requires Western scientists to trust Indigenous traditions in ways that many have had difficulty with. Recently, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Math (NASEM) had to cancel a $2 million study because these bridges couldn’t be crossed. More about that in the column.

I have been talking with Yvette Running Horse Collin, who is a Lakota scientist and co-author on a paper about the history of horses in North America that received our Newcomb-Cleveland prize for the best paper of the year (see cover). I talked with her for the column and did a long interview that appears below. Anyone interested in truly understanding how Western and Indigenous science can interact should study closely.

Holden Thorp: What is Lakota science? Is it the same as all of Indigenous science?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: Indigenous science is a generalized construct. It’s like saying all fish or all birds are the same. It’s a way to put pre-Abrahamic dated peoples under one construct. And it’s quite sweeping, so it’s very appropriate culturally for you to ask me, “What is Lakota science?” That’s something that I am authorized to speak about. Lakota science is the science of sustainability between life forms. I would venture to say that there is a commonality between Indigenous sciences—they are premised on the inherent balance of life forms in their respective environments.

Holden Thorp: Explain a little more why it’s important that you’re speaking for Lakota science, not all Indigenous science.

Yvette Running Horse Collin: In our culture, we speak about that which we have been trained in and experienced as participant observers. This is done, in large part, to eliminate harm caused by uninformed interpretation and it underpins our peer review system. I have been honored to receive training from many of our traditional Lakota scientists and elders for decades now. As Lakota scientists, we’re always learning—we are lifelong learners. Life is in constant motion and always changing. As a Lakota scientist, you participate in that system of constant growth and change.

Holden Thorp: Tell me how the peer review that you do differs from the Western ideas of peer review.

Yvette Running Horse Collin: Our scientific knowledge is purposefully segmented and restricted. Individual scientists must first establish to the elder knowledge keepers that they have mastered a level of understanding before being given access to the next level. This mastery includes accountability within our scientific ethical construct. It’s very much character- and proof-based. Our scientists often experience additional ceremonial training throughout their lifetimes. The community and elder scientific knowledge keepers observe their conduct and character during these personal trials, societal tests, and trainings. If they do not meet the standard, they cannot advance in their scientific training. Can the scientist step outside of themselves as an individual and think about the whole of life? Can they step into the science of sustainability and understand the interconnectedness and relationality between life forms?

If you think about life solely from the perspective of an individual, which is often the construct that the Western scientific world lives in today, that would be the opposite of what our scientists are trained to do. At any time in a Lakota scientist’s practice, if they fail to follow the ethical constructs within which we operate all of our scientific knowledge systems, then our peers sanction us and we are no longer authorized to participate in a meaningful way. As a Lakota scientist, there’s great responsibility in that. As one of my colleagues said to me in Europe, “Wow, Yvette, being a Lakota scientist, that’s heavy. It’s a lot of responsibility.” And I said, “I suppose it is, but we don’t think about it as a negative.” Part of our training brings us out of that, where we understand that constant, respectful peer review and accountability for our process and the application of our outcomes can lead us to become better scientists. You’re more precise and more aware of what’s coming out of you and how it’s affecting life around you, how it’s affecting your lab, how it’s affecting your experiment. Because everything you do and how you do it matters and it makes a difference and there’s a measurable effect.

Holden Thorp: In Western science, we should be more compassionate about those kinds of things. We’re always working hard to impress on people that things such as grit and determination and working long hours are what it takes to be a scientist. So, what does it take to be a Lakota scientist? How do you nurture the people who have made that choice?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: All of our science is purpose-driven. Our traditionally trained scientists are selected for their capacity and determination to live our sciences and practice them. It is not a vocation, it is a way of life. This approach is self-selecting in some respects, as it takes a special kind of person to wish to engage in this discipline as a way of life. Our scientific knowledge keepers are supportive of their engagement, but those receiving training need to follow the processes for scientific instruction that I described earlier. Discipline is necessary because life itself is at stake in our scientific processes and outcomes.

What is life? Western science has definitions for what constitutes life. Lakota sciences have much broader definitions. It’s okay to have a definition, but if you’re not open to adjusting when research shows you something different, then as scientists, you’re not serving your community or the public. As scientists, we serve life, the public, and the community. If things are changing, it’s up to us to come together and try to understand why and find a new way forward that will allow us to protect the sustainability that we all need as life forms.

If the air is not clean, you and I suffer. If the water is not drinkable, you and I suffer. If the soil is contaminated, you and I suffer. In each of these cases, from a Lakota scientific perspective, we equally would consider all other life forms impacted. There is no life form that receives a higher or lower value in our research and experimentation. We are not separate from the air and the water and the soil. These are not just intellectual ideas or theories. Our training involves experiencing it, really trying to understand it, and applying this understanding in real time.

We also know that we don’t know everything. We’re very comfortable with that reality. In Western science, you want to present yourself as if you’ve got it all covered. People want to hear that and see your confidence in that way. This is why reductionism is often the most favored approach, as it allows for the appearance of certainty. As a Lakota scientist, we’re very confident in the fact that life is always in motion and always changing and we know that a measurement and outcome in one moment is necessarily different in the next depending upon how you frame the research question and experiment. We are always learning and growing and it’s not possible for us to know absolutely everything, nor do we strive to. But we do understand how to help create balance between life forms for long-term sustainability. That’s been our focus for thousands of years. That’s something the world really wants to understand more.

Holden Thorp: I write a lot about the fact that one of Western science’s biggest problems is failing to say there’s still a lot more that we don’t know.

Yvette Running Horse Collin: And that’s a lot of pressure. We have a lot of compassion for that, because it puts people in a difficult place, and it puts scientists in a difficult place and it’s something for funders to think about as well. They want to fund a certain presentation, “Oh, we know this and this, and this is where we’re going with it.” That puts a lot of pressure on scientists, many of whom know that they don’t know or that maybe they’re missing a couple of key pieces, yet they must publish within tight deadlines and frameworks. In our system, the reality that it is not possible to know everything is a great thing to stand in, because it’s honest and authentic. From that place, we stretch.

We stretch to see who might have something to contribute. What partnership can we build? What collaboration can we create to help fill in that gap and make sure we’re asking the right questions and are communicating effectively? Because remember, we serve life. That’s our mandate and responsibility. So to have to present in a way that’s not authentic is a disservice to our scientific community at large and it’s directly against the Lakota scientific method.

Our scientific systems—Western and Indigenous—developed separately over thousands of years. We had different pressures. For thousands of years, we didn’t have the same constraints, the same experiences, that Europe had, for example. As Lakota, we didn’t have the concept of open warfare. We also didn’t have an organized institutionalized religion that was overseeing the development of our scientific systems. Those are very serious pressures that we didn’t share. Overall, our scientific systems developed differently and they focused on different things as a result.

Holden Thorp: That brings me to another question. What are some specific words that have different meanings in Western and Lakota science?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: Lakota is not directly translatable into English. We’ve had our best linguists on this, and many of our key Lakota concepts are not translatable into English or other languages. We stretch to find words that could work, and this effort falls short. But some words in English mean something different to us. Take the word “sustainability.” From a Lakota scientific construct, we’re talking about sustainability between life forms, what system best allows each life form to do what it’s here to do, together. We all play a role. It isn’t that animals are here to serve humans. That’s a very simplistic way of seeing things and does not reflect the interconnectedness and interdependent nature of life forms.

If you have spent thousands of years studying sustainability between life forms, you’ll see something very different and quite exciting. What life forms work together to create the balance that we benefit from—healthy grass, healthy water, clean air? A lot goes into this. We have applied complete focus on understanding how different life forms interdepend and interrelate and what they require to function optimally.

Holden Thorp: What about conservation?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: Conservation is a big one. When Lakota scientists speak about conservation, it’s not just about survival of an individual life form or 10 white rhinos. That isn’t what conservation means to us. Conservation is not just about helping some individuals survive. It’s about ensuring that they have what they need to thrive. Remember, they have a role to play. They’re here for many reasons and just because we do not presently know all of them, it does not diminish their importance to the health of the global ecosystem. Reductionism, here, has not historically served conservation. Living creatures need to do what they’re here to do the way they were designed to do it. We commend the conservation movement. It is trying to make a difference by making sure a particular creature doesn’t go away. But we are not giving the movement what it needs to make sure that those life forms can thrive. What type of environment can we provide for these various creatures? What could we do together to ensure that they’re able to do what they need to do, that they’re able to move where they need to move to preserve balance?

This is something that we can really offer the world of conservation. Many times, the conservation movement finds that it will work to preserve a creature, but then, those creatures don’t procreate successfully. We know a lot about why and what can be adjusted to correct this. We would love to begin this conversation, because there are things we can do now together to make sure that the outcome is very different, that there is a place for these life forms where they can do what they’re created to do in the global ecosystem. That’s something that we’re very committed to and that we want to see happen.

Holden Thorp: That’s an exciting idea. So, what are things that are known to Lakota science that Western science hasn’t figured out yet?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: There are many of them that we want to tell you about and introduce you to. One thing that we have learned is that it’s very important to communicate in a way that people can hear, which is why we entered into this process with our work on the horses with Science. This is a space. Science is a space where your scientists go to learn about things and to speak about things they have discovered. They trust you for that. There’s so much that we want to not just say, but to put into motion for action, together. It’s one of the reasons that our elder scientific knowledge keepers decided it was time. Life is dying right now at a very fast rate.

Our ancestors strove to bring many of these things forward at various times since our first contact with colonial powers. Today, the world is beginning to recognize that Indigenous knowledge systems have value in addressing the implications of climate change. The reality is that if we as Lakota, and other Indigenous scientists, don’t step forward and communicate these concepts and work together on them with Western science, and apply them, then this trajectory will continue at a rate that’s too fast for the natural system to recover from. So, we are here and we are engaged. As Lakota scientists, we’re always engaged, but because of the challenges inherent within colonial policies, we weren’t able to safely come forward and even have this discussion. But the world’s decided it’s going to be different now and make a place for this. It is a callout to us and we accept that callout.

In doing so, we want to make sure that we are respectful in the delivery system. If Western science wants to bring new scientific information forward in a particular format, that’s fine. There are times when that format may not fit our scientific protocols. In those cases, we’re going to suggest that a new path forward be jointly developed that will allow for our protocols to be followed with regard to the transmission of scientific knowledge.

We do a lot of our work on the front end of any scientific endeavor. So once all of our ethical constructs are cleared, we are free to proceed. Remember, we have to protect the sustainability of life so it’s very serious for us and we cannot cause harm within our scientific system. Then, we conduct a seven generations analysis at the end to make sure: “How are the results of this going to affect life for at least the next seven generations?” We’re not omniscient, but “to the best to our knowledge, how will this affect life?”

We look forward very much to continuing to bring some of these concepts and understandings from our scientific systems forward. And we want to ensure that we do it in a way that is respectful of the current process of how people are used to learning and receiving information. That’s really important, because Indigenous people have been talking, but the rest of the world hasn’t heard us very well yet. We want to be a part of making sure that necessary change occurs quickly and in a good way that’s respectful of people’s teaching and learning system. In answer to your question, yes, for the sustainability of life, we have certain scientific concepts and systems that would be excellent to bring forward. As long as they are done within our protocol structure, we are committed to doing that for the life forms that we know we’re here to protect, including human beings. It’s not to protect one over another. We don’t have that concept. Life is life, and it’s not for us to decide that something shouldn’t be here. We never understood it that way.

Holden Thorp: Is there anything else you want to add?

Yvette Running Horse Collin: On behalf of the Lakota and greater Indigenous scientific community with whom I work and am responsible to, I just want to thank you and Science and AAAS and the readership for understanding that this is a good time for this. We think it’s very responsible. It’s positive to decide that strong partnerships are in order. If you understand you’re responsible to the community, to the public you serve, to life, the only harm is in not stretching. The only harm is in not reaching, because then, at least under our definition, you are not doing everything you can do as a scientist. Our job is to study, to become immersed in, to understand as much as possible, and then, from within a Lakota scientific construct, create a reaction that benefits relationality and interconnectedness. So every day as a scientist, you can effectuate positive change.

I know that many Western-trained scientists with whom I’ve worked feel like they’re not able to do enough, that they can run their experiment and produce data and then it gets merged into the already established narrative and there’s no directional change, even though life is shifting rapidly all around us. We need a new framework that will allow us all to work together and be responsive in an applied fashion. Simply utilizing the current framework and plugging in data or information is not creating the change that we can all see is necessary right now. I would like, and we would like, to end on a really positive note which is, together, with this new way that we jointly develop, we can specifically focus on science for the sustainability of life.

If Science and science are committed to opening up a pathway where we can engage in mutual exchange at a high scientific level, we welcome it and we’re excited about it. The life forms we protect and that we are all interdependent upon are calling for it.