Scientific diplomacy can help cure world rifles – if research is respected

We are at a time of disturbance. The geopolitical context is increasingly contradictory, power is more widely distributed and the relations between the leading powers have become more competitive. »»

These are the first lines of Scientific diplomacy at a time of disturbanceA report published last month by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, based in Washington DC, and the Royal Society of London. Organizations are clearly a doubt about the reason why the report is necessary, adding: “Scientific values ​​have thought that Universal is now re -examined. Confidence in science and the use of evidence in the development of policies are subject to a renewed attack around the world. »»

The United States is retreating from the standard Gold scientific climate sign

Scientific diplomacy is the use of science to improve international cooperation, according to a definition. The document updates a report that the two organizations published in 2010A different time, in fact more optimistic, for international cooperation – talks about the United Nations sustainable development objectives, for example, involving nearly 200 countries, Start the following year. Today, on the other hand, the United States, Europe and China restrict their areas of cooperation and strengthening competition. It is also different that industry is a more visible presence in scientific diplomacy than in the past, and companies have resources that go beyond many governments to promote their interests. “We need a framework on the practice of scientific diplomacy which recognizes the world for what it is,” notes the updated report.

The question he does not fully answer is how to do scientific diplomacy when the integrity of science itself is attacked by national actors, including the elected government of the United States, global scientific superpowers of recent decades. How, when the legitimacy of global scientific institutions is increasingly questioned, can science be deployed in diplomacy – for example, to resolve disagreements on global challenges such as environmental or public health protection? Events even since the publication of the report suggests more challenges than any new approach to scientific diplomacy must be fully encountered.

Drill, baby drill? Trump policies will harm the climate – But the American green transition is underway

Take the situation with the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). As NatureThe news team reported that the United States, an important IPCC supporter, seems to be on the path of Withdraw from the underlying scientific infrastructure of world climate policy. For the first time in the history of the IPCC, the United States did not send a delegation to attend a key meeting in the panel, in China, where the themes of the next global assessment report have been decided. This follows executive decrees of the White House: one canceled the American financing of the United Nations Climate Convention; The other ordered an examination of the US members of international organizations.

Since the IPCC Foundation in 1988, governments representing all systems of political thought have invited scientists to review literature on climate change. The results of this knowledge have given talks to achieve legally binding agreements, such as the 2015 Paris climate agreement, or the 1997 Kyoto protocol. IPCC meetings are often argumentative affairs for all kinds of reasons. However, and above all, politicians do not indicate to researchers on which articles to read or what to write in their criticisms. GIEC managers who have passed and present were supported by their donors to Follow the evidence consensus When you arrive at a conclusion. The IPCC has experienced many constraints and strains over the years, but the government system protecting the integrity of the examination process has been held. Now, it seems, at least one of the sponsoring governments of the panel is no longer ready to play this role.

Even if it is deprived of American contributions, the IPCC must continue to publish its authority. But a potential American withdrawal poses a direct challenge to scientific diplomacy, with a key member of the international community refusing to recognize that science has a role in the resolution of disagreements on climate action.

An alternative approach

An approach to the protection of diplomacy sciences is described in a distinct report from the European Union, also published last month. Titled A European framework for scientific diplomacyHe recommends that science is close to the center of the development of EU policies. “There is practically no (geo) political development not affected by the production of research and innovation,” he says. The science of Europe, and therefore its scientists, must “become more visible and be at the heart rather than on the margins” of “foreign and security policy as well as research and innovation policy”, he says.

Such a change will not be easy for researchers. They lack incentives to participate in political work, as Nature Last year showed (Nature 63626-30; 2024). The researchers who participate are more used to providing advisory evidence, while remaining at a distance from real political decisions. This distance ensures that the responsibility for decisions is the responsibility of politicians and not to their expert advisers, and it has mainly served research in “peacetime”.

Science could solve some of the biggest problems in the world. Why don’t governments use it?

But now that science itself is challenged, there are persuasive arguments to explain why researchers must be in the room when major decisions are taken on subjects such as climate change, pandemic preparation or artificial intelligence regulations.

If researchers accept the invitation to join the EU’s high table in the development of the EU, their presence could also provide them with a means of protecting “science” in scientific diplomacy if there are calls for budget cuts or attempted interference currently seen in the United States.

One of the weaknesses of the EU report is that it assumes a shared understanding on the part of diplomats and political decision -makers that researchers must be able to operate without direct interference. The experience of the United States tells us that it cannot be supposed.

If the recommendations of the EU report must be implemented, a necessary step, but not sufficient, must be to write the ability of researchers to be independently is already in some countries, although imperfectly.

Scientific diplomacy is more necessary now than in any time in history, given the extent of the challenges the world is confronted. Research is often described as a form of diplomacy of “soft power”, a means for nations to advance their national interests without using military means. The first step towards the protection of scientific diplomacy must be to protect science itself.