Search for a command to run...
Indigenous sciences and biocultural approaches1 offer critical pathways forward for conservation, community resurgence, restoration, and scholarship. While exclusionary conservation models have caused historical harm, displaced millions of Indigenous people (IP),2 and failed to halt global biodiversity loss (Dowie, 2009), a growing body of evidence shows that conservation is more just and effective when led by IPs and Local Communities (LCs),3 whose enduring relationships with land and water embody generations of cultural, ecological, and spiritual knowledge (Zanjani et al., 2023).4 As an innovative, transdisciplinary network of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, educators, and practitioners, we call on academic institutions to recognize and support Indigenous sciences as central—not peripheral—to creating a sustainable future (Kimmerer & Artelle, 2024). Some of us work on biocultural approaches in our own territories, and others through long-term commitments in IP and LC territories in the Americas, Pacific Islands, Africa, and Asia. Many of us have seen that the creation and enforcement of robust ethical protocols for research on Indigenous lands and waters is far from universal and consistent. We believe that epistemic or knowledge justice, understood as the recognition of diverse ways of knowing, grows when institutions support Indigenous knowledge and biocultural conservation. This article presents a collective call for fundamental change: academia must transform the way it works if it is to meet the challenges and opportunities of biocultural conservation. We build on an initial effort led by the University of Florida to understand the domain of biocultural conservation in academia (Saavedra, 2023); incorporate lessons from long-term collaborative efforts with IPs and LCs partners (e.g., the University of Florida's Governance and Infrastructure in the Amazon project, giamazon.org, among many others from this group); and have engaged in intercultural dialogue on partnerships among academic and Indigenous organizations from Colombia, Australia, the United States, Canada, and Mexico at the “Weaving Knowledge for Biocultural Conservation” workshop at CBD COP16 in Cali, Colombia (Ungar et al., 2025). From this work, we have codeveloped a vision of how academic institutions can meaningfully support biocultural conservation by transforming epistemic imbalances that govern environmental and biodiversity knowledge production, research practices, and curriculum development. Codesign and co-implement—research, teaching, and outreach agendas with IPs and LCs, respecting community priorities and timelines. Braiding plural knowledge systems—producing and sharing knowledge that draws on academic and Indigenous worldviews. Prioritize outcomes that directly benefit IPs and LCs including territorial governance, strengthened relationships with lands, waters and more-than-human beings, capacity building, and long-term resilience. These strategies are urgently needed, ethical, and effective alternatives to conventional paradigms (Gavin et al., 2015). Academic institutions must recognize territories of life as knowledge centers and take practical steps to decolonize (McAllister et al., 2025). To do so, they must shift toward co-creative, reciprocal, and respectful engagement. As Indigenous scholars have called for, academia must be “on tap, not on top” (Moko-Painting et al., 2023). This entails rethinking and challenging dominant structures to treat Indigenous knowledge systems as essential in environmental assessments, biocultural conservation, and other global knowledge processes (Huambachano et al., 2025), as well as engagements with Artificial Intelligence. Frameworks such as “Two-Eyed Seeing” developed by Mik'maq Elder Albert Marshall,5 which call for viewing the world through both Western and Indigenous ways of knowing (Marshall et al., 2012), are more than metaphors—they are actionable models for reimagining research, education, and practice. These strategies cannot be implemented without transforming academic institutional structures and worldviews. Codesigning and co-implementing research and teaching involve re-centering actions to work with knowledge keepers and Elders under community-led initiatives to address their priorities. This work must also overcome power asymmetries between knowledge systems, where one system sets the standards and practices for data validation, use, ownership, and publication. Actions focused on strengthening academic institutions through strategies like “Indigenizing the Academy” (hiring and retaining Indigenous scholars and incorporating Indigenous knowledge into curricula) can have a role. Still, such actions may jeopardize community capacity to foster and transmit Indigenous knowledge if they are not centered on communities' needs and priorities. For US-based land-grant universities6 in particular, whose wealth derives from Indigenous lands (Geisler et al., 2022), the responsibility to strengthen communities as knowledge carriers and contributors is especially urgent. Ultimately, academia must move beyond inclusion toward transformation. Supporting Indigenous sciences means cocreating new frameworks, not merely adding diverse voices to existing ones. This entails rethinking how knowledge is constructed, validated, and applied, while engaging with fundamental ethical questions at the heart of conservation and education. In this light, for academia to genuinely contribute to a just and sustainable future, it must embrace Indigenous sciences not as complementary but as foundational to reimagining conservation, education, and development. Francisca Saavedra: Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Robert Buschbacher: Writing – review and editing. Gabriel R. Nemogá-Soto: Writing – review and editing. Diana Alvira: Writing – review and editing. Simone Athayde: Writing – review and editing. Jeremy M. Campbell: Writing – review and editing. Andrea B. Chavez Michaelsen: Writing – review and editing. Jeff Ganohalidoh Corntassel: Writing – review and editing. Joel E. Correia: Writing – review and editing. Rachel Dacks: Writing – review and editing. Christopher P. Dunn: Writing – review and editing. Sinomar Ferreira da Fonseca Junior: Writing – review and editing. Michael C. Gavin: Writing – review and editing. Bruce Hoffman: Writing – review and editing. Marianne Ignace: Writing – review and editing. Karim-Aly Kassam: Writing – review and editing. Bette Loiselle: Writing – review and editing. Luisa Maffi: Writing – review and editing. Faisal Moola: Writing – review and editing. Ana L. Porzecanski: Writing – review and editing. John Richard Stepp: Writing – review and editing. David Stringer: Writing – review and editing. Paula Ungar: Writing – review and editing. Kawika B. Winter: Writing – review and editing. David Zandvliet: Writing – review and editing. We thank Indigenous and local community leaders, practitioners, and local organizations in the Amazon for inspiring the search for a deeper understanding of the role of academia in biocultural conservation. We thank the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the University of Florida Office of Research, which provided funds for consultation with USA and Canadian biocultural conservation leaders. The ideas expressed in those conversations are the foundation for this letter. We thank four anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful feedback and insight helped improve this letter significantly. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.