This workshop brought together ECRs interested in an open discussion and collaborative learning environment to take stock of genetic research in Aotearoa, the practice of molecular ecologists in Aotearoa, and most importantly, to define the priorities that need to be addressed for the future of molecular ecology in Aotearoa. The career stage of participants varied from Masters and PhD level, through to postdoctoral fellows, early lectureship, and professional scientific appointments within regional and national government departments and CRIs (representing 11 institutions). The group included ECRs who varied in gender, ethnicity, immigration status, and regional location within Aotearoa. The workshop was co-facilitated and supported by several mentors, both domestic and international, with expertise in Te Ao Māori, Indigenous data sovereignty, ethics, genomics, bioinformatics, spatial ecology, and conservation.

The intention was to invite the ECRs to think outside their current research or professional activity and think forward and laterally about the opportunities for the field of molecular ecology, with a specific focus on an Aotearoa context. Through optionally anonymous feedback, the ECRs expressed that they enjoyed learning about Te Ao Māori, the importance of recognising cultural values within their research practice, and mindfulness. The ECRs enjoyed the opportunity for extended discussion, the guided and collaborative tutorials in spatialising genetic data, and the potential application of those genetic data and their skills as molecular ecologists to other fields, such as conservation. The workshop enabled the ECRs to hear about the research of others, to meet ECRs from other research institutions, and to propose future collaborations.

There were several avenues left open for further exploration and discussion following the workshop. The participants wanted to stay in touch and to contribute to research outputs as a result of discussions and knowledge acquired. Recognising that together the ECR participants represent a considerable proportion of research institutions in Aotearoa and interests in genetic data and research, the group acknowledged their role as potential change-makers in the future research scene of Aotearoa. This ECR perspective on the future of molecular ecology in Aotearoa is one such contribution.

A. We will learn about Te Ao Māori (Māori worldviews) with respect to genetic research and collaborate with, and support, Māori.

There is unanimous positivity regarding the importance and value of engaging Māori perspectives and communities to inform molecular ecological research and ensure our research is relevant. To align with national strategies such as Vision Mātauranga (VM, Ministry of Research Science and Technology 2007; and several institutions have their own related strategies and policies), ECRs need resources and infrastructure to support their engagement with Māori, and to operationalise these relationships. Indigenous and Māori perspectives on modern genetics, and exchanges with researchers, have been fostered through programmes such as the Summer internship for INdigenous peoples in Genomics (SING). These opportunities provide Māori communities and ECRs (Māori and non-Māori) with valuable knowledge. However, many molecular ecology ECRs have little experience with Te Ao Māori and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and little understanding of Te Tiriti. To initiate a better understanding in this area, we have compiled some resources around the relevant cultural context of Aotearoa and Māori interests in genetic research (and ).

Researchers are eager to collaborate and engage with Māori communities without compromising the sincerity/integrity of the process. Communications with iwi (tribes) and hapū (subtribes) are often via DOC, the Māori engagement offices of research institutions, or iwi boards. Liaison facilitated by such groups has the advantages of streamlining the process and relieving the burden on all parties. However, a mediated relationship can fail to create and maintain mutual trust and understanding between researchers and iwi, hapū or other Māori entities (e.g. fisheries forums and kaitiaki rōpū [custodian groups]), and does not invite a pre-research design discussion regarding the shared interests and needs of Māori that would enable co-led and co-developed research (Wilcox et al. 2008; Collier-Robinson et al. 2019). Furthermore, differing perspectives and values exist within and among iwi and hapū, which cannot be adequately represented by a single mediating party. Several initiatives are underway to facilitate better relationship building among researchers and iwi or hapū. While VM normalises the consideration and promotes inclusion of Te Ao Māori and mātauranga Māori in all research, ECRs need to be included in ‘bottom-up’ approaches such as SING, and some of the co-developed research activities within Government-funded National Science Challenges and Endeavour Fund Research Programmes that offer valuable learning experiences. Outside of these high profile initiatives, transitioning to new ways of working will take time, but as a sign of support and commitment, institutions and research groups can use ‘Institution Notices’ developed by Local Contexts (https://localcontexts.org/; see and ) to signal that they are ‘Open to Collaborate’ with Indigenous Peoples.

Māori molecular ecologists are often burdened as cultural trainers for their non-Māori colleagues, owing to limited capacity within many research institutions (Haar and Martin 2021). Māori ECRs need opportunities to lead research at the interface of mātauranga Māori and molecular ecology. For instance, the Māori worldview of te orokohanga (creation), te ira tangata (the human element), and whakapapa (genealogy, lineage, descent) resonates with the concept of ‘genealogy’, core to molecular ecology. This rich knowledge base shared through whare wānanga (places of knowledge exchange), the toi (Māori arts), and pūrākau (oral narrations) can be interwoven with molecular ecological research (e.g. Rayne et al. 2020; Rayne et al. 2022 and references therein). One of the leading journals in molecular ecology has dedicated an upcoming special issue (‘Indigenous Contributions to Molecular Ecology’, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17550998/homepage/call_for_submissions_indigenouscontributions) to highlight and promote the work of Indigenous scientists, spotlight Indigenous role models, and ‘place explicit value on Indigenous research methodologies and traditional knowledge as important to Indigenous communities and scientists in the research process’. It is anticipated this special issue will showcase the research of Māori ECRs, providing a platform upon which they can connect with diverse researchers and international networks, affirming Indigenous-led research as world-leading. Similarly, in Aotearoa, the 2020 and 2022 MapNet conferences were themed ‘Mātauranga and Te Ao Māori to guide better genetics research: better outcomes for people and for science’, featuring only Indigenous speakers. It is hoped that such celebration of Indigenous scholarship and its importance to our collective scientific and societal gains opens pathways for our Māori early career molecular ecologists to excel, without them needing to forge their own.

B. We will acknowledge Māori and Indigenous contexts, rights, and interests in our research.

Indigenous rights and contexts can be acknowledged using existing research infrastructures. For instance, within journal articles researchers can often include te reo (Māori language) abstracts, use Māori names (including individual organism names; Carroll et al. 2020), and provide context regarding the cultural value of the study organisms, locations, and associated mātauranga Māori in the main text of publications (e.g. Short and Trnski 2021; Rayne et al. 2022). Co-authorship and acknowledgement of individuals, hapū, and iwi, including specific contributions in the authorship and acknowledgement sections, are quite typical. The taxonomic naming of some species has also included iwi as a naming authority (e.g. Heesch et al. 2021). However, we could additionally make use of the ‘Data accessibility’ section of publications to disclose how benefits have been shared with Indigenous Peoples (as suggested by Marden et al. 2021), and to provide text that acknowledges the role of Māori as kaitiaki (stewards) of biodiversity and related data resources (e.g. Hauser et al. 2022), including the implications this may have for future data re-use (Liggins et al. 2021a, and further described in statement C.; e.g. using the Local Contexts Hub, Wu et al. 2022; and using controlled access repositories as described in statement C., Dussex et al. 2021; McCartney et al. 2021).

As the provisioning of metadata alongside genetic data becomes common practice (described in statements C. and D.), there is the opportunity to routinely represent Te Ao Māori and provide information pertaining to the interests and aspirations of Māori involved with the research. For instance, using the infrastructure provided by the Genomic Observatories MetaDatabase (GEOME, Deck et al. 2017; Riginos et al. 2020; see statement E.), the Ira Moana Project (Liggins and Noble 2021b) has developed a custom metadata template for genetic studies of marine biodiversity in Aotearoa that provides several fields that could be used for this purpose. In collaboration with Local Contexts and GEOME, the Ira Moana Project has implemented a metadata field called the ‘Traditional Knowledge (TK) Notice’ (Anderson and Christen 2019). This TK Notice is applied by researchers, and signals that there are accompanying cultural rights and responsibilities that need further attention for any future sharing and use of the associated genetic data. The TK Notice may indicate that other more specific ‘TK Labels’ or ‘Biocultural (BC) Labels’ (Anderson and Hudson 2020) are in development by an Indigenous community. In lieu of specific Labels or Notices attached to individual items, collection holders may alternatively use the Institution Notice, ‘Attribution Incomplete’, to identify those collections which have incomplete, inaccurate, or missing attributions with regard to the local Indigenous Peoples and origin/s of the collection/s.

C. We will make genetic resources findable, accessible, and interoperable, but responsive to Māori data sovereignty.

Increasingly, institutional natural history collection holdings are becoming publicly available online, including details of tissue collections and genetic resources. Ongoing digitisation efforts will help reduce duplication of sampling effort, the associated costs, and impacts of collecting on biodiversity and those involved in permitting processes. Such resources would also help motivate research that may otherwise be deemed unfeasible or impossible. Several institutions of Aotearoa have publicly searchable holdings; however, making collections visible may take some time, largely because of resourcing issues (see Nelson et al. 2015) and the required consideration of Māori data sovereignty over collections and associated data (Wehi et al. 2020; Forsdick et al. 2021). Even so, we are not aware of a nationwide commitment to open online availability of our biological specimens or related genetic resources.

There are cross-institutional models for facilitating the sharing of tissues and genetic resources (e.g. INSDC for genetic data; GEOME for biological samples pertaining to genetic data; and Otlet for tissues, https://otlet.io/). However, in Aotearoa, Indigenous rights recognition including rangatiratanga (governance) over data accessibility is essential (Hudson et al. 2020; Carroll et al. 2021). These rights extend to archived material, such as museum specimens, tissue collections (Forsdick et al. 2021), and all derived genetic data (Hudson et al. 2020; Liggins et al. 2021a) and metadata. In cases where genetic data already exist in open access databases (e.g. INSDC), the Local Contexts Hub and metadatabases for genetic resources, such as GEOME, can help mediate controlled access through the use of additional metadata fields that maintain the interests of the relevant Indigenous Peoples regarding access, re-use, and attribution (e.g. via TK and BC Labels; see statement B.). Alternatively, some institution-specific repositories and the Aotearoa Genomic Data Repository (AGDR) provide the opportunity to store genetic data within Aotearoa, where access is controlled by the appropriate kaitiaki (e.g. kākāpo, Dussex et al. 2021; mānuka, Koot et al. 2022). In cases of controlled-access, provision of open metadata enables genetic resources to be findable and interoperable with data coming from other data sources, should access to the data be granted.

D. We will provide metadata associated with genetic data to ensure study reproducibility and data reusability.

While there has been a culture of providing open access to all genetic data produced toward a given study objective (owing to the JDAP), this has not necessarily ensured study reproducibility, or that the data are in a reusable form (Pope et al. 2015; Toczydlowski et al. 2021). Information about the genetic data, such as the location and year of collection, are often essential to reproduce the original study, and to enable any future re-use of the genetic data.

Internationally, groups such as the Biodiversity Information Standards Organization (TDWG, administering the Darwin Core Standard, Wieczorek et al. 2012) and the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC, Wooley et al. 2009) have defined appropriate vocabularies and metadata standards for genetic biodiversity studies (e.g. Field et al. 2008; Yilmaz et al. 2011 defining the ‘Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence’, MIxS standard). The retention and stewardship of these metadata have now been operationalised by GEOME, and some repositories of the INSDC. Provisioning these metadata for genetic data can help make sure our molecular ecological research is reproducible, future-proofed, and useful to the next generation of our nation (see statements G., H., J., K.). Taking precedent over such openness, however, is consideration of Māori data sovereignty. When collected for taonga (treasured) species, some metadata may also be considered taonga (Collier-Robinson et al. 2019), meaning that collaborating iwi and hapū may prefer to protect or redact certain metadata fields from the public domain. In Aotearoa, GEOME’s infrastructure has been used by the Ira Moana Project to provide Aotearoa’s molecular ecologists with a template to guide collation, upload, and on-going storage of metadata relevant to the nation’s interests, including a TDWG field ‘informationWithheld’ that can name metadata that exist, but are not shared, for reasons of sensitivity.

E. We are committed to generating interoperable and reproducible bioinformatic and analysis workflows.

With the commitment to open science, there is a growing need for transparent and reproducible bioinformatic workflows to derive and analyse genetic data from raw sequence reads. Making these workflows available through public repositories such as GitHub or GitLab not only ensures that genetic datasets and analyses are reproducible, it also helps promote interoperability with other existing and future tools. Additionally, although many of these workflows are tailored to tackle unique problems in the discipline, others are easily generalised for use across datasets. By increasing the availability of bioinformatic and analysis workflows, the need for individuals to re-develop their own approaches is reduced, and there is the opportunity to learn from, build on, and peer-review each other’s approaches.

Several researchers and organisations of Aotearoa are leaders in developing bioinformatic and analysis routines and share these in open-access repositories. For instance, Genomics Aotearoa has a Github repository used to guide and support workshops, and to develop best-practice workflows, providing opportunities to collaborate and raise the standard of analyses (https://github.com/GenomicsAotearoa). In addition, Genomics for Aotearoa New Zealand (GFANZ) has created an infrastructure to generate docker containers for workflows that contain all the software, dependencies, and descriptive metadata required, alleviating the initial hurdle of software installation, working across various software and coding languages (https://gitlab.com/gfanz/genomics-tools).

F. We are committed to progressing equity in access to infrastructure, software, computing and storage.

The large amounts of genetic data generated by modern sequencing technologies require significant computing power to analyse, handle, and store. Researchers employed by universities, Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), and other government agencies, and those associated with Genomics Aotearoa, may have access to New Zealand eScience Infrastructure (NeSI), or internal computing resources, but independent researchers may not. Without options to use private or national computing resources, public cloud computing resources provide an alternative to ECRs, albeit at (sometimes considerable) cost and providing less opportunity to maintain Māori data sovereignty. Additionally, ECRs who are moving between institutions or employed on a rolling contractual basis rarely have continuous access to computing services or data storage. To help serve these ECRs, GFANZ is developing an automated, reproducible, bioinformatics analysis cloud computing system (https://gitlab.com/gfanz/argo-workflow-development). This resource will be an open access, cost-effective, transparent, and version-controlled bioinformatics platform, for which GFANZ will provide training.

G. We will consolidate genetic data resources for the biodiversity of Aotearoa.

While new genomic approaches deliver a great abundance of data that can be safeguarded by uptake of best practices (see statements C. – E.), the genetic data that have been generated in the past are still of value and in some cases irreplaceable. Decades of molecular genetic research on the biodiversity of Aotearoa has created a substantial genetic data resource that can be used to monitor the genetic integrity of threatened native species (Hoban et al. 2021), the spread of invasive species (e.g. Goldstien et al. 2013), the potentially changing genetic composition of range extending and climate-adapting species (e.g. Jump and Penuelas 2005), or those translocated or affected by re-stocking efforts (e.g. pāua, Roberts et al. 2007; see also Rayne et al. 2020, 2022). Furthermore, these data could now be used to inform multispecies genetic diversity indices and biogeographic patterns at the genetic level across our land – and sea-scapes (Leigh et al. 2021; e.g. Arranz et al. 2022), informing spatial conservation and management planning (e.g. Beger et al. 2014; Nielsen et al. 2017). A quantitative synthesis, however, would require these data to be available in a standard, searchable, and easily accessible infrastructure.

Efforts are underway to upload metadata for existing genetic studies for marine biodiversity of Aotearoa into the Ira Moana Project in GEOME (similar to existing efforts elsewhere, e.g. Diversity of the Indo-Pacific Network, Crandall et al. 2019, www.diversityindopacific.net; and MacroPopGen, Lawrence et al. 2019). This resource will provide a baseline overview of available data that may be used to identify research gaps (taxonomically and spatially) and inform new research directions. Similar efforts for other biomes (e.g. forest, wetland, estuarine, alpine) could be undertaken using the infrastructure and approaches developed in the Ira Moana Project.

H. We will make genetic data for biodiversity of Aotearoa available alongside other biodiversity and environmental information.

We acknowledge that the format of genetic data may be more challenging to engage with, and measures derived from genetic data may be more difficult to comprehend, than in other biodiversity and environmental sciences (also see statement K.). Nonetheless, measures such as genetic diversity are globally acknowledged as important in conserving biodiversity (included in the CBD) and in sustainable development (e.g. SDG 2.5 stipulates ‘maintain genetic diversity’). There are cases where genetic data can provide unique insights that may influence our perception of biodiversity valuations based on species diversity and ecosystem features. For instance, changes in the genetic composition of populations are expected to precede species extinctions (Leroy et al. 2018) and ultimately, the genetic diversity of populations determines their potential to withstand and adapt to environmental changes (e.g. Jump et al. 2009). There is also the potential for environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches to enable more standardised, streamlined and automated monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem health (Ruppert et al. 2019).

It is the responsibility of molecular ecologists to present genetic information in a format that is easily understood alongside other forms of biodiversity and environmental data. Globally, in response to the biodiversity crisis and 2020 re-drafting of the CBD targets, several groups are working to ensure genetic data and genetic diversity information are considered alongside other biodiversity measures (e.g. Hoban et al. 2021). For instance, the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs, Pereira et al. 2013) concept has been proposed as a means to help collate, summarise, and interpret complex biodiversity data, including genetic data (Hoban et al. 2022), to make them more relevant to end-users (Navarro et al. 2017). Following the lead of other proactive nations (e.g. Hollingsworth et al. 2020; Posledovich et al. 2021), and if our genetic data resources for biodiversity are consolidated (see statement G.), Aotearoa may be well placed to implement the rapid use of these indices within existing initiatives such as the Eco-Index (Rout et al. 2021) or DOC’s New Zealand Threat Classification System.

I. We will use resources and infrastructure to enhance communication and collaboration among molecular ecologists.

Many molecular ecologists in Aotearoa work in small teams, or are the sole molecular ecologist in their institution, and, increasingly, molecular ecologists are employed within private research and consulting agencies outside universities and CRIs. Conducting research in isolation makes it more difficult to keep up with important innovations and to deliver the best research outcomes. Nonetheless, the molecular ecology and genetics communities within Aotearoa have a long legacy of cross-institutional collaboration (), which is important at various stages of the research process. For 13 years (until 2015), the Allan Wilson Centre (a Centre of Research Excellence) brought together molecular ecologists of Aotearoa, including ECRs. The collaborative sentiment built during this time persists. Currently, there are several inclusive organisations which support the molecular ecology research community, including: the New Zealand (NZ) Molecular Ecology Group, which has run ECR-oriented conferences over the past 20 years; GFANZ, a charitable society that has been building genomic research capacity; the annual MapNet meetings, which foster exchange between university, human health, and primary industry scientists; and Genomics Aotearoa, which is a Strategic Science Investment Funded Platform established to ensure that Aotearoa can continue to lead and participate in genomic and bioinformatic research internationally (). These organisations and their initiatives to bring scientists, industries, and applications of molecular ecology together are crucial to ensure ECRs of Aotearoa remain amongst the world’s best molecular ecologists. Increasingly, online workshops, webinars, and communication platforms (e.g. newsletters, blogs, and slack channels) enable greater ECR participation without the barriers of institutional affiliation, travel, and cost.

J. We will provide our molecular ecology skills, knowledge, and genetic data for use in cross-disciplinary collaboration.

We want to encourage broad uptake and use of genetic data in applied disciplines, including conservation and decision science (see statements H. and K.), epidemiology (e.g. Dellicour et al. 2020), and others we are yet to imagine. In these collaborations, we pledge to take an active role in representing and communicating the integrity (and limitations) of the data and approaches. Furthermore, we will seek the appropriate, complementary expertise and advice where necessary. For instance, although molecular ecological research outputs often suggest where taxonomic revision may be necessary within an organismal group, taxonomy is a specialist field. ‘Integrative taxonomy’ reduces erroneous taxonomic assignments and can expedite the resolution of diverse and/or poorly understood groups, but requires molecular, ecological, behavioural, and/or morphological lines of evidence. Moreover, place-based knowledge and mātauranga can further guide the characterisation of relationships among natural populations (e.g. Rayne et al. 2022). For these reasons, molecular ecologists are encouraged to actively collaborate with iwi and hapū, to undertake early consultation with taxonomic experts, and to retain viable tissue samples and voucher specimens to accession into a national natural history collection, where appropriate (i.e. according to the needs and aspirations of mana whenua [iwi and hapū with territorial rights over a given area]), to ensure reproducibility.

In parallel, as we gain greater volumes of data from modern sequencing technologies, we encourage further cross-disciplinary collaboration in fields such as data science (including spatial data science), machine-learning, and artificial intelligence, to foster new ways of understanding, visualising, and communicating about genetic data (relevant to statements G., H. and K.).

K. We are committed to ensuring that research is accessible and comprehensible to Treaty partners, end-users, and interested parties.

We acknowledge that improvements are needed to ensure that our research outputs have maximum impact and are valued and usable beyond the scientific community, be that government policy makers, resource managers, iwi and hapū, conservation practitioners, or other interested parties. For instance, molecular ecological research outputs are directly applicable to current and developing national government policies, and to long-term strategic research and management planning. Explicit references to genetic data, measures derived from genetic data, and genetic technologies are referred to in the aforementioned Te Mana o te Taiao (reviewed in Forsdick et al. 2021), the Primary Sector Science Roadmap Te Ao Tūroa (Ministry for Primary Industries 2017), and multiple review and strategy documents, for example regarding fisheries management (Mace et al. 2020), and marine conservation (e.g. the Conservation Services Programme Medium Term Research Plans for marine mammals, protected fishes, and corals, DOC 2021/2022). In addition, recent reports (2020–2021) from the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Kaitohutohu Mātanga Pūtaiao Matua ki te Pirimia, frequently reference genetic information, including reports reviewing commercial fishing, antimicrobial resistance, and multiple urgent COVID-19 papers (https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/what-we-do/publications/). However, despite being mutually beneficial for researchers and policy makers, the translation and integration of genetic data and research outputs into government policy development and decision-making is rare. This disconnect stems from molecular ecological research outputs largely being inaccessible to those outside research institutions, and their findings being incomprehensible for those without genetic or even scientific expertise (Taylor et al. 2017).

As a molecular ecology research community, we must commit to: disseminating our research outputs beyond our institutions and scientific journals; translating technical information for end-users (Forsdick et al. 2021); and understanding the broader environmental and societal (including cultural and political) context of our research, to hone our approach and the specific contributions we make (e.g. Inwood et al. 2020; see ). To aid decision-makers and molecular ecologists (and ECR molecular ecologists especially), more processes and platforms need to be initiated where information about relevant government work programmes and strategic directions and data applicability can be mutually exchanged (Garner et al. 2016). Furthermore, to increase science literacy and societal trust in science, we commit to engaging in citizen science (e.g. Martin-Sanchez et al. 2021), science communication and public education, in order to promote interactions between citizens, scientists, and policy makers (Fritz et al. 2019). Finally, to increase the impact of our research outputs, more trained molecular ecologists are required in data curation and translation roles (Huang et al. 2015), and in advisory roles in policy-making, legislation, Māori entities, and public education (also advocated by Forsdick et al. 2021), which ultimately will expand research and career pathways for future molecular ecologists.