Complex Contributions of Methylglyoxal to Pain, Axon Degeneration, and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

For as long as Indigenous Peoples have resisted extractive and exploitative research practices characteristic of some modern sciences, so too have we/they had investments in governing the ethical conditions regulating scientific knowledge production. Research ethics are suffused with questions of governance, including how we regulate knowledge production and how we might analyze and disrupt their coloniality. In the case of scientific fields, including biological anthropology, the advancement of ethics governing research practices has been closely linked with notions of goodness. Here, our interest is in the coloniality of goodness as it operates through research ethics and data sharing. While this discourse is evident across multiple fields, here we engage with the ramifications of goodness in the history of biological anthropology and genetics research in relation to Indigenous Peoples. We evaluate the ways that research ethics operate as regulatory mechanisms animated by possessive logics of colonizing power in the production of knowledge about Indigenous Peoples, lands, and relations. We begin by drawing on critical Indigenous studies and specifically the works of Moreton‐Robinson (, ) and Million () to analyze the colonial production and possessive logics of virtue, goodness, and ethics. We then provide a brief genealogy analyzing the relational production of science, anthropology, goodness, and colonialism in the context of the Americas. Next, we draw on Moreton‐Robinson and Million's theorizations of goodness to analyze the development and deployment of institutionalized research ethics in biological anthropology and genetics. Specifically, we return to the landmark case of geneticist James Neel, his research among the Yanomami, and the scandal and ethical inquiry into his work that was sparked ahead of the publication of Patrick Tierney's (Tierney ). Finally, we briefly turn to the development of open data principles in biological anthropology, with specific reference to correspondence in the (AJBA) since 2020. Taken together, we aim to analyze the ways that the production of good science in biological anthropology is bound up in and maintains colonial power dynamics in relation to Indigenous Peoples. When research with, about, and affecting Indigenous Peoples is approached through liberal frameworks of goodness, inclusion, representation, and reconciliation, research ethics can obscure the colonial power dynamics shaping a given project (Kolopenuk ). We argue that institutional research ethics alone cannot account for or upend the coloniality of research even as adherence to institutional research ethics facilitates the appearance of research praxis. Instead, the coloniality of research ethics operates precisely through benevolence and good intentions. Here we offer a critical intervention into the coloniality of research ethics. Crucially, this analysis should not be misunderstood or oversimplified as a call to abandon obligations to existing ethical principles in research. While research ethics cannot be separated from the colonial systems through which they were formed, neither should they be ignored. National and international ethical principles governing research grew out of, and in response to, multiple histories of scientific violence as mechanisms intended to reduce some forms of harm. As such, contemporary research ethics represent a deeply compromised yet nonetheless minimum responsibility of scientists to redress the ongoing violences embedded within the histories of their fields. Yet, this reality should not prevent our creative capacities to analyze and disturb the coloniality of goodness in research and the ways it maintains some forms of harm even as it reduces others. We therefore seek to analyze the normativities of research ethics and unmask the dis/possessing functions of their goodness—even as we live, think, and work within and through them. Here we excavate a regulatory mechanism of colonial power whereby possessive logics and virtue are deployed as strategic devices (Moreton‐Robinson ) in the production of scientific knowledge.