This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) has transformed biodiversity monitoring by enabling noninvasive detection of species through genetic material collected from environmental substrates. However, the same sensitivity and scalability that make eDNA a powerful conservation tool also raise significant ethical, cultural, and governance concerns, particularly when research occurs on Indigenous lands. Here, we examine the historical, ethical, and methodological challenges associated with eDNA research in Indigenous contexts and argue that integrating Indigenous governance frameworks and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is essential for responsible molecular ecology. First, we situate eDNA within the broader history of genomic research involving Indigenous Peoples, highlighting documented cases of exploitative practices, including misuse of biological samples, lack of informed consent, and failures in data governance. We then examine emerging ethical concerns surrounding eDNA, including Indigenous data sovereignty, open‐access genomic repositories, and the unintended recovery of human genomic bycatch (HGB). Next, we explore how TEK and culturally grounded practices can strengthen eDNA study design, interpretation, and stewardship while supporting relational accountability and community‐defined conservation priorities. Finally, we propose a four‐step collaborative framework for ethical eDNA implementation that emphasizes early consultation, engagement with Indigenous leadership, review by Indigenous governance bodies, and sustained long‐term partnerships. We suggest that ethical eDNA research must move beyond extractive scientific models toward reciprocal, community‐centered collaborations that uphold Indigenous sovereignty while advancing biodiversity conservation. When grounded in relational accountability and Indigenous governance, eDNA can support both ecological stewardship and cultural continuity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alberts et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: