Analysis: Reconciling FAIR and CARE Governance Frameworks
Proponents of open science often argue that scientific reproducibility and universal access depend on unrestricted data availability, which is codified in data-centric guidelines like the FAIR principles that make information findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. This perspective maintains that placing restrictions or community gatekeeping on research datasets impedes global discovery and slows collaborative problem-solving across borders. However, this open-by-default stance overlooks the systemic asymmetries and historical extraction experienced by Indigenous communities regarding their traditional knowledges and biological data. The CARE principles—centering Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics—were designed specifically to counter these structural vulnerabilities by asserting Indigenous rights to govern and benefit from their data (International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, 2020). As empirical assessments within broad science-policy initiatives demonstrate, the FAIR and CARE frameworks contain inherent contradictions where open access mandates directly clash with community self-determination (IPBES, 2026). When such irreconcilable tensions emerge between open sharing and sovereign governance, Indigenous Data Sovereignty must override universal access. Subordinating Indigenous governance to unconditional openness risks perpetuating digital extraction and secondary exploitation without reciprocal benefit sharing (International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, 2020). Recognizing the authority of Indigenous nations to control their data does not destroy scientific rigor; rather, it demands that researchers negotiate context-sensitive concessions and establish ethical, community-led stewardship protocols before data dissemination occurs (IPBES, 2026). Consequently, legitimate scientific collaboration must prioritize sovereign community oversight over unmediated openness.