“Nature” Article Demands Replacing DEI in Science With Decolonization, Indigenous Knowledge

“Nature” Article Demands Replacing DEI in Science With Decolonization, Indigenous Knowledge

Few innovations have shaped our world as profoundly as the scientific method. This systematic approach to inquiry, grounded in observation, experimentation, and evidence, has propelled humanity from a life of subsistence and uncertainty to an era of innovative medicine, material abundance, space travel, and numerous other feats of discovery and development.

The scientific method’s essence lies in its self-correcting nature. Ideas are tested against reality through rigorous experimentation, and only those backed by reproducible evidence are allowed to stand. This is an objective process, free from reliance on tradition or “indigenous ways of thinking”, which has allowed us to replace superstition with understanding and harness the laws of nature to the benefit of all mankind.

At its core, science is built on the pursuit of knowledge through evidence, evaluation, and testing, not on the identity of its contributors. When discoveries are ignored due to the origin or background of the scientist, valuable insights and innovations are lost, slowing our advancement and adversely impacting everyone…regardless of race, creed, or ethnic heritage.

Somehow, 8 “scientists” and the editors of Nature forgot the value of the scientific method as well as the importance of not being racist. Last week, it published a disturbing diatribe entitled “Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them.”

The article argues that “decolonizing” scientific institutions requires going beyond diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to fundamentally shift power, practice, and recognition away from the very Western methods of science that have led to such progress. The authors, who claim to be indigenous scientists from “settler-colonial countries”, have the temerity to offer eight 8 measures they think will actually help scientific progress.

The paper reads like a list of social justice grievances learned in modern ethnic studies classes, as well as a lengthy argument for favoritism based on race and ethnicity. As a sample, here is a snippet on the section discussing funding…and complaining about the name of a funding source because of how it was named:

Indigenous scientists are chronically underfunded internationally: they often receive fewer academic fellowships and research grants than their white colleagues do4. For example, in the United States, between 1996 and 2019, white principal investigators were consistently funded by the National Science Foundation at higher rates than were principal investigators of colour. In 2021, Māori were under-represented in both decision-making panels and in successful applications for the Endeavour Fund — one of New Zealand’s largest research funds, named after Cook’s ship.

This under-representation, combined with the fact that Indigenous people occupy few research positions (statistics from settler-colonial countries such as Australia suggest that less than 1% of all PhD holders globally are Indigenous) means that these scientists are often locked out of opportunities to do meaningful research.

Ideally, funding should be private. So perhaps the authors should begin making their case to private financiers and venture capitalists for their “indigenous knowing” projects. Please, be my guest, and let me know how it goes for you.  There are plenty of philanthropist billionaires who might jump at the chance.

But government funding should not be doled out strictly on the basis of ethnicity or race.

Another thing I noticed about this article is that the word “decolonization” does some very heavy lifting.

For thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples have accumulated and developed place-based knowledge about our local environments, through systems built on each community’s philosophies, methodologies, criteria and world view. Indigenous Knowledge is increasingly being sought in both basic and applied sciences, particularly in fields such as fire management, sustainability and conservation. But the superficial inclusion of some fragments of Indigenous Knowledge in science is not decolonization.

So, are those who practice fire science supposed to throw out the rules regarding the “fire triangle” because German chemist Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner discovered it? Or should we jettison the soil conservation work of Hugh Hammond Bennett because he was a white, male American scientist?

And the “indigenous way” is not always best.  For example, fire response during the Maui disaster was hampered because a state water official delayed the release of water that landowners wanted to help protect their property from fires, as water is considered a precious resource.

Now I would like to shine some light on the authors of this inanity, as they are the products of the current system of science academia.

• • Leilani A. Walker: Based at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Walker is a behavioral ecologist specializing in animal behavior, particularly spiders and terrestrial invertebrates. Her research supposedly blends Western science and Maori knowledge. Her profile page contains a Maori poem.
  • Niiyokamigaabaw Deondre Smiles: An Ojibwe geographer, an adjunct faculty member at the University of British Columbia and Bemidji State University, who works with Indigenous education initiatives. The best part – his pronouns are “he/them“.
  • Lydia Jennings: A soil microbiologist who holds a PhD from the University of Arizona and engages in initiatives supporting Indigenous geoscientists. She’s big on “indigenous data governance”.
  • Sereana Naepi: Naepi is a sociologist at the University of Auckland and focuses on “equity approach to learning in schools…to increase indigenous student achievement”.
  • Brittany Kamai: A Native Hawaiian astrophysicist and racial justice activist.
  • Kat Milligan-McClellan: Assistant Professor at the University of Connecticut, her work focuses on health disparities among Indigenous peoples and adapting research to meet community needs.
  • Bradley Moggridge: An Indigenous water scientist and hydrogeologist who advocates for Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in science is an Associate Professor and the current President of the Australian Freshwater Science Society.
  • Tara G. McAllister: A New Zealand Māori freshwater ecology academic active in addressing racial and gender bias in academia and is associated with the University of Auckland.

In conclusion, based on the scientific method and the data collected, Professor William Jacobson’s Theory of Current Academia is correct:

That does it, I'm up to 15 million: "For the 15 millionth time, academia (particularly in the humanities and social sciences) is completely broken, it has been taken over by radicals more extreme than you can imagine, it cannot be reformed internally." https://t.co/QKHVt6rJsH pic.twitter.com/WNmRP4PA1y

— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) August 10, 2025

Image by perplexity.ai

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.