The contemporary challenge for ethical research involving the knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities and afro-descendants and other marginalized, minority, or minoritized groups.

Abstract

The publication of ethnobiological data raises crucial ethical questions regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) and Afro-descendants and other Marginalized, Minority, or Minoritized Communities (AMMC). While ethnobiology as a discipline is rooted in ethical principles that emphasize respect and appreciation for these communities, the question remains: Is publishing ethnobiological data always respectful of knowledge holders' rights? This article argues that the answer is contingent on how research is conducted, how consent is obtained, and how data is handled and disseminated. We emphasize the need for a nuanced approach that goes beyond compliance with ethical guidelines and embraces the principles of epistemic justice, equitable benefit-sharing, and genuine co-production of knowledge. By distinguishing between raw traditional knowledge and ethnobiological data systematized within scientific paradigms, we highlight the potential risks of knowledge misappropriation and the epistemological implications of translating diverse knowledge systems into western scientific frameworks. We also discuss the limitations of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a safeguard and propose alternative strategies for ensuring IPLC and AMMC autonomy in the knowledge production process. Finally, we advocate for hybrid co-production of knowledge as a transformative approach to fostering equitable collaborations between researchers and communities. By embedding ethical considerations at every stage of the research process, we argue that ethnobiology can evolve into a discipline that actively contributes to social justice, sustainability, and the recognition of diverse epistemologies.