Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J5
- Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey2
- Daniels, Lori D2
- DeRosa, Maria C2
- Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah2
- Dufour-Beauséjour, Sophie2
- Hoffman, Kira M2
- Loring, Philip A2
- Mauro, Nicholas2
- Murray, Stuart J2
- Adamson, S1
- Ahenakew, Cash1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Ali, Abdullahi H1
- Allen, Isabelle1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anagnostou, Michelle1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Andrew, Melissa1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Axelson, Jodi1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bailey, Jane1
- Ballegooyen, Kate1
Access Type
1 - 20of26
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSHuman well-being depends on the health of ecosystems, but can human well-being also be an indicator of ecosystem health, and perhaps even sustainability? Research shows that ecosystem health and human well-being are often mutually reinforcing, whether in the direction of wellness and sustainability or poverty and degradation. However, while well-being is increasingly recognized as an important consideration when managing ecosystems, human needs and activities are often still thought of only in terms of their negative impacts on ecosystems. In this essay, we explore the proposition that there can be a mutually constitutive relationship between people’s well-being and the health of ecosystems, and discuss what such a relationship would mean for expanding the use of human well-being indicators in ecosystem-based management. Specifically, we discuss two areas of theory: ecosocial theory from social epidemiology and the marginalization–degradation thesis in political ecology; collectively, these provide a justification, in certain circumstances at least, for thinking of well-being as not just an add-on in natural resource management but as an indicator of ecosystem health and a prerequisite of social-ecological sustainability. We conclude with a discussion of future research needs to further explore how human well-being and ecosystem health interact.
- OPEN ACCESSPolicy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Gwyneth A. MacMillan,
- Marianne Falardeau,
- Catherine Girard,
- Sophie Dufour-Beauséjour,
- Justine Lacombe-Bergeron,
- Allyson K. Menzies, and
- Dominique A. Henri
For decades, Indigenous voices have called for more collaborative and inclusive research practices. Interest in community-collaborative research is consequently growing among university-based researchers in Canada. However, many researchers receive little formal training on how to collaboratively conduct research with Indigenous communities. This is particularly problematic for early-career researchers (ECRs) whose fieldwork often involves interacting with communities. To address this lack of training, two peer-led workshops for Canadian ECRs were organized in 2016 and 2017 with the following objectives: (i) to cultivate awareness about Indigenous cultures, histories, and languages; (ii) to promote sharing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing; and (iii) to foster approaches and explore tools for conducting community-collaborative research. Here we present these peer-led Intercultural Indigenous Workshops and discuss workshop outcomes according to five themes: scope and interdisciplinarity, Indigenous representation, workshop environment, skillful moderation, and workshop outcomes. Although workshops cannot replace the invaluable experience gained through working directly with Indigenous communities, we show that peer-led workshops can be an effective way for ECRs to develop key skills for conducting meaningful collaborative research. Peer-led workshops are therefore an important but insufficient step toward more inclusive research paradigms in Canada. - OPEN ACCESS
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Laura E. Coristine,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Chelsea M. Rochman,
- Brian L. Owens, and
- Steven J. Cooke
Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics. - OPEN ACCESSComputational methods, coding, and software are important tools for conducting research. In both academic and industry data analytics, open-source software (OSS) has gained massive popularity. Collaborative source code allows students to interact with researchers, code developers, and users from a variety of disciplines. Based on the authors’ experiences as graduate students and coding instructors, this paper provides a unique overview of the obstacles that graduate students face in obtaining the knowledge and skills required to complete their research and in transitioning from an OSS user to a contributor: psychological, practical, and cultural barriers and challenges specific to graduate students including cognitive load in graduate school, the importance of a knowledgeable mentor, seeking help from both the online and local communities, and the ongoing campaign to recognize software as research output in career and degree progression. Specific and practical steps are recommended to provide a foundation for graduate students, supervisors, administrators, and members of the OSS community to help overcome these obstacles. In conclusion, the objective of these recommendations is to describe a possible framework that individuals from across the scientific community can adapt to their needs and facilitate a sustainable feedback loop between graduate students and OSS.
- OPEN ACCESSInuit Nunangat, including Nunavik, is seeing an ever-increasing number of research projects. While mainstream approaches to research are colonial in nature and have historically contributed to the oppression of Indigenous peoples, a new paradigm is now emerging from Indigenous recommendations. Researchers are encouraged to collaborate with Inuit or Northern communities, organizations, and governments and to develop communication strategies to keep local populations informed. This paper focuses on outreach activities organized on several occasions throughout the Ice Monitoring project, in which we participated as PhD students. We share details on this periodic outreach program, which included a Facebook page, hosting an information table at the Co-op store, activities with high school classes, and participation in Raglan Mine’s Environmental Forum. We also discuss lessons learned and the transformation of our practice.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Eleanor Haine-Bennett,
- Hilary B. Bergsieker,
- Imogen R. Coe,
- Andrea Koch-Kraft,
- Eve Langelier,
- Suzanne Morrison,
- Katrin Nikoleyczik,
- Toni Schmader,
- Olga Trivailo,
- Sue Twine, and
- Jennifer E. Decker
Science and engineering research excellence can be maximized if the selection of researchers is made from 100% of the pool of human talent. This requires policies and approaches that encourage broad sections of society, including women and other underrepresented groups, to participate in research. Institutional policies, interpersonal interactions, and individuals’ attitudes are drivers of workplace culture. Here, some new evidence-based and systematic approaches with a focus on culture are proposed to foster women’s inclusion and success in science and engineering. - OPEN ACCESSThreshold concepts describe the core concepts that people must master if they are to effectively think from within a new discipline or paradigm. Here, I discuss threshold concepts relevant to the science and practice of sustainability, unpacking the persistent challenges and critiques that sustainability has faced over the decades. Sustainability is immensely popular, but also endlessly critiqued as being naïve, vague, and easy to co-opt. I argue that these challenges can be traced to sustainability’s status as a robust, alternative world view to the industrial, neoliberal paradigm. The threshold concepts discussed below are troublesome, and new learners face significant challenges when trying to learn them and move into the paradigm. Here, I review five threshold concepts that are widely discussed as important to sustainability: complexity, collaborative institutions, multiple ways of knowing, no panaceas, and adaptability. This list is not intended as comprehensive but exemplary of sustainability as a pluralistic paradigm. Recognizing the special status of these and other threshold concepts within sustainability, and the linkages and dependencies among them, is an important advance for sustainability education and practice. I also offer some suggestions on classroom activities that have proved effective in helping people through the process of learning these concepts.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESSBats are susceptible to rabies. Although bats may appear to be asymptomatic carriers of rabies for a few days, eventually they fall ill to the viral infection and die. Two of at least four bat-specific variants of rabies virus in Canada have killed humans. Rabies is usually transmitted by biting, but bats are small mammals so their bites may go unnoticed. People exposed to rabid animals should receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). With 60 known human deaths from 1950 to 2009, rabies is rare in Canada and the United States of America compared with India where it kills over 100 people annually. In Asia and Africa, most human rabies is acquired from dog bites. In Brazil, dog and bat bites together account for >80% of human rabies. In Canada, rabies is a disease primarily confined to wildlife (foxes, racoons, skunks, and bats). The public image of bats is negatively affected by their association with diseases. Too often bats are victimized by allegations of their role in deadly diseases such as rabies, Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In general, bats are not dangerous, but humans should seek treatment if they are bitten by one. (Graphical abstract shows a 4-g elegant myotis biting MBF’s finger—photo by Sherri and Brock Fenton.)
- OPEN ACCESSIn 2015, after documenting testimonies from Indigenous survivors of the residential school system in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released 94 Calls to Action to enable reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Without personal connections to Indigenous communities, many Canadians fail to grasp the depth of intergenerational impacts of residential schools and associated systemic racism. Consequently, reconciliation remains an elusive concept. Here we outline 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists to enable reconciliation in their work. We focus on natural scientists because a common connection to the land should tie the social license of natural scientists more closely to Indigenous communities than currently exists. We also focus on natural sciences because of the underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in this field. We draw on existing guidelines and our experiences in northern Canada. Our 10 Calls to Action are triggered by frustration. The authors have witnessed examples where natural scientists treat Indigenous communities with blatant disrespect or with ignorance of Indigenous rights. These 10 Calls to Action challenge the scientific community to recognize that reconciliation requires a new way of conducting natural science, one that includes and respects Indigenous communities, rights, and knowledge leading to better scientific and community outcomes.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Adam T. Ford,
- Abdullahi H. Ali,
- Sheila R. Colla,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Clayton T. Lamb,
- Jeremy Pittman,
- David S. Shiffman, and
- Navinder J. Singh
Conservation relies on cooperation among different interest groups and appropriate use of evidence to make decisions that benefit people and biodiversity. However, misplaced conservation occurs when cooperation and evidence are impeded by polarization and misinformation. This impedance influences actions that directly harm biodiversity, alienate partners and disrupt partnerships, waste resources, misinform the public, and (or) delegitimize evidence. As a result of these actions, misplaced conservation outcomes emerge, making it more difficult to have positive outcomes for biodiversity. Here we describe cases where a failed appreciation for cooperation, evidence, or both have eroded efforts to conserve biodiversity. Generally, these case studies illustrate that averting misplaced conservation requires greater adherence to processes that elevate the role of evidence in decision-making and that place collective, long-term benefits for biodiversity over the short-term gains of individuals or groups. Efforts to integrate human dimensions, cooperation, and evidence into conservation will increase the efficacy and success of efforts to conserve global biodiversity while benefiting humanity. - OPEN ACCESS
- M’sɨt No’kmaq,
- Albert Marshall,
- Karen F. Beazley,
- Jessica Hum,
- shalan joudry,
- Anastasia Papadopoulos,
- Sherry Pictou,
- Janet Rabesca,
- Lisa Young, and
- Melanie Zurba
Precipitous declines in biodiversity threaten planetary boundaries, requiring transformative changes to conservation. Colonial systems have decimated species and ecosystems and dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their rights, territories, and livelihoods. Despite these challenges, Indigenous-governed lands retain a large proportion of biodiversity-rich landscapes. Indigenous Peoples have stewarded the land in ways that support people and nature in respectful relationship. Biodiversity conservation and resurgence of Indigenous autonomies are mutually compatible aims. To work towards these aims requires significant transformation in conservation and re-Indigenization. Key to both are systems that value people and nature in all their diversity and relationships. This paper introduces Indigenous principles for re-Indigenizing conservation: (i) embracing Indigenous worldviews of ecologies and M’sɨt No’kmaq, (ii) learning from Indigenous languages of the land, (iii) Natural laws and Netukulimk, (iv) correct relationships, (v) total reflection and truth, (vi) Etuaptmumk—“two-eyed seeing,” and “strong like two people”, and (vii) “story-telling/story-listening”. Although the principles derive primarily from a Mi’kmaw worldview, many are common to diverse Indigenous ways of knowing. Achieving the massive effort required for biodiversity conservation in Canada will entail transformations in worldviews and ways of thinking and bold, proactive actions, not solely as means but as ongoing imperatives. - OPEN ACCESSThe demand the human population is placing on the environment has triggered accelerated rates of biodiversity change and created trade-offs among the ecosystem services we depend upon. Decisions designed to reverse these trends require the best possible information obtained by monitoring ecological and social dimensions of change. Here, we conceptualize a network framework to monitor change in social–ecological systems. We contextualize our framework within Ostrom’s social–ecological system framework and use it to discuss the challenges of monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem services across spatial and temporal scales. We propose that spatially explicit multilayer and multiscale monitoring can help estimate the range of variability seen in social–ecological systems with varying levels of human modification across the landscape. We illustrate our framework using a conceptual case study on the ecosystem service of maple syrup production. We argue for the use of analytical tools capable of integrating qualitative and quantitative knowledge of social–ecological systems to provide a causal understanding of change across a network. Altogether, our conceptual framework provides a foundation for establishing monitoring systems. Operationalizing our framework will allow for the detection of ecosystem service change and assessment of its drivers across several scales, informing the long-term sustainability of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- William Nikolakis,
- David A. Diabo,
- Robin McLeod,
- Herman J. Michell,
- Abdullah Al Mamun,
- Alex Zahara,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Joe Gilchrist,
- Russell Myers Ross, and
- Lori D. Daniels
Indigenous fire stewardship enhances ecosystem diversity, assists with the management of complex resources, and reduces wildfire risk by lessening fuel loads. Although Indigenous Peoples have maintained fire stewardship practices for millennia and continue to be keepers of fire knowledge, significant barriers exist for re-engaging in cultural burning. Indigenous communities in Canada have unique vulnerabilities to large and high-intensity wildfires as they are predominately located in remote, forested regions and lack financial support at federal and provincial levels to mitigate wildfire risk. Therefore, it is critical to uphold Indigenous expertise in leading effective and socially just fire stewardship. In this perspective, we demonstrate the benefits of cultural burning and identify five key barriers to advancing Indigenous fire stewardship in Canada. We also provide calls to action to assist with reducing preconceptions and misinformation and focus on creating space and respect for different knowledges and experiences. Despite growing concerns over wildfire risk and agency-stated intentions to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildfire management, power imbalances still exist. The future and coexistence with fire in Canada needs to be a shared responsibility and led by Indigenous Peoples within their territories. - OPEN ACCESS
- S.J. Cooke,
- N. Young,
- M.R. Donaldson,
- E.A. Nyboer,
- D.G. Roche,
- C.L. Madliger,
- R.J. Lennox,
- J.M. Chapman,
- Z. Faulkes, and
- J.R. Bennett
For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions. - OPEN ACCESSShortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.
- OPEN ACCESSThere is a global focus by governments on retrofitting buildings, as well as incorporating energy efficiency into new construction, as a means to address climate change. Initiatives to reduce energy use, source renewable electricity, and use low-carbon materials are aimed at leading by example, where governments attempt to showcase innovation through green building strategies. Greening government initiatives are promoted to reduce operating costs, improve energy system resilience, grow the “green” economy, support clean energy development, and encourage sustainable building practices. Here, we outline the benefits of greening government initiatives by examining Canada's Greening Government Strategy as a case study approach for transitioning to a low-carbon building portfolio. We focus our review on initiatives that outline how public institutions can transition buildings to reduce their carbon footprint by (1) pairing greening government mandates with adequate support structures for public agencies, (2) using an integrated energy management process for the planning and development of carbon-neutral portfolios, and (3) overcoming barriers to low-carbon project implementation with procurement standards, financial instruments, and staff training. These approaches are defined to offer leadership in the green building industry, strategically identify carbon reduction projects, and reduce barriers to a low-carbon building portfolio.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Linda Rabeneck,
- Chris McCabe,
- Mark Dobrow,
- Arlinda Ruco,
- Melissa Andrew,
- Sabrina Wong,
- Sharon Straus,
- Lawrence Paszat,
- Lisa Richardson,
- Chris Simpson, and
- Andrew Boozary
The purpose of this policy briefing is to examine our health care systems through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic and identify how we can strengthen health care in Canada post-pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided compelling evidence that substantive changes to our health care systems are needed. Specifically, the pandemic has emphasized structural inequities on a broad scale within Canadian society. These include systemic racial and socioeconomic inequities that must be addressed broadly, including in the delivery of health care. We make recommendations about what we can do to emerge stronger from the pandemic. While these recommendations are not novel, how they are framed and contextualized differs because of the problems in our health care system that have been highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic.The evidence is clear that socioeconomic circumstances, intergenerational trauma, adverse early life experiences, and educational opportunities are critical factors when it comes to health over the life course. Given the problems in the delivery of health care that the pandemic has revealed, we need a different approach. How health care was organized prior to the COVID-19 pandemic did not produce what people wanted and needed in terms of health care and outcomes. How do we emerge from COVID-19 with an effective, equitable, and resilient health care system for all Canadians?To address health inequities and emerge from the pandemic with strengthened health care in Canada, we must consider how Amartya Sen's capabilities framework on social well-being can be operationalized to achieve better health care and health outcomes. Specifically, we address the need to: strengthen primary care and improve access to primary care;utilize a community-embedded approach to care; andimplement better integration across the care continuum, including integration between primary care and public health.Coherent governance and leadership that are charged with realizing benefits through collaboration will maximize outcomes and promote sustainability. Only when we provide access to high-quality culturally competent care that is centered around the individual and their needs will we be able to make true headway in addressing these long-standing health inequities. - OPEN ACCESS
- Sharon Stein,
- Cash Ahenakew,
- Will Valley,
- Pasang Y. Sherpa,
- Eva Crowson,
- Tabitha Robin,
- Wilson Mendes, and
- Steve Evans
There is growing interest among Western-trained scientists in engaging with Indigenous sciences. This interest has arisen in response to social pressures to reckon with the colonial foundations of Western science and decentre Western ways of knowing, as well as recognition of the need to draw upon the gifts of multiple knowledge systems to address today's many complex social and ecological challenges. However, colonial patterns and power relations are often reproduced at the interface between Western and Indigenous sciences, including the reproduction of epistemic Eurocentrism and extractive modes of relationship between settlers and Indigenous Peoples. This paper seeks to support Western-trained scientists to recognize and interrupt these patterns in order to create the conditions for more ethical, respectful, and reciprocal engagements with Indigenous sciences. We also offer a map of the different ways that Western sciences have thus far engaged Indigenous sciences. We particularly highlight the emergent possibilities offered by a reparative approach to engagement that emphasizes the responsibility of Western science to enact material and relational repair for historical and ongoing harm, including by supporting Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty in science and beyond.