Science diplomacy: from utopia to pragmatism

While the current conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and elsewhere are the acute focus of geostrategic and diplomatic attention, substantive changes in the ways nations see each other and how they interact have developed over some time.  The multilateral system has proven increasingly unable to address existential issues such as conflict or to progress issues of the global commons. Pragmatic use of science diplomacy will be increasingly valuable in forging a path forward. 

Traditional diplomacy and enthusiasm for global projects have to some extent been replaced by a sharp and transactional focus on national interests in a much more fractured world. The post-World War Two rules-based frameworks for international relationships and interactions have been weakening. There are divergent views as to what may follow.  

At the same time, however, there has been a growing interest in the potential of science diplomacy (a concept with different meanings and emphases for different actors). The European Commission and member states of the European Union, global south countries, and many academic centres are giving science diplomacy much greater profile.  

Science and diplomacy have long co-existed in the international sphere. But there are perceptional tensions between science and diplomacy, many of which were discussed at recent meetings in Delhi as part of or in association with the Raisina Dialogue, 

Science and diplomacy come from two very different cultures. Science is primarily in the business of resolving disagreements through analysis of data and robust evidence; diplomacy is primarily about protecting nations’ interests though peaceful means including negotiations and dialogue. Inevitably the interface is complex and nuanced.  

The recent discussions in Delhi sought to address very real issues at the interface between science and diplomacy. Scientists hope diplomats can assist them in various ways, most notably in international collaborations. But diplomats largely do not see that as diplomacy in action unless at the same time it is advancing their nations’ interests.   

Science is a universal language – but in a fractured world, its practice is increasingly entangled with security, economic and geostrategic interests.

Science is effectively a universal language. However, as science, technology, economic, security and geostrategic interests have become more intertwined, some scientists’ relatively naïve approach to international realities has become more apparent. The reality is that much of the modern scientific enterprise is driven by the state’s interests in either security and/or economic outcomes. But that reality becoming stark does not make it new – science has always had its patrons – whether from the state, philanthropy or industry. 

Science itself is facing its challenges, particularly ensuring international collaborations in many areas of critical environmental and social importance.  Given the very saturated information environment, science’s traditional positioning as a source of reality is frequently dismissed or intentionally confused. In the democratic world, polarization and populism have both been fuelled by, and in turn driven, a loss of trust in institutions including science. Science has in this context become a political touchpoint, especially when it confronts powerful interests. For example, science tries to address the realities encapsulated in the broad sustainability agenda. But as this agenda is perceived to conflict with short-term economic interests, it can impede needed progress in areas such as climate change.  

In parallel, formal and traditional diplomacy appears increasingly sidelined. Long-term relationships are being replaced by transactional short-term interactions. Science cannot be insulated from such tensions; the challenge for science is how to ensure it advances as a global public good in current less harmonious times.  

Science, diplomacy and national interests are intimately linked – the world needs to capitalise on the synergies between them.

Just a decade ago in 2015, the Paris Accords, Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, all signalled that international science and global interests seemed to be in sync. But over the following years much has changed, affecting both science and diplomacy. This does not mean that we should be defeatist. Rather we should recognise that science, diplomacy and national interests are intimately linked. What the world needs is to capitalise on the synergies between them. This requires people skilled at moving across cultures and their distinctive intellectual framings.   

Progress on the SDGs has been disappointing. Yet as we approach 2030 the need to build momentum to address issues of global or regional common interest remains urgent. Given this agenda needs diplomatic agreement, the challenge remains one of persuading national governments that it is in their self-interest to work together.  

The range of such issues of common and mutual interest has grown since 2015. In particular, the raft of technologies such as communication, AI, quantum and synthetic biologies form a new set of global commons issues.  Many of these technologies or their use are not practically regulatable within national boundaries.  Addressing their use is  complicated by both divergent technopoles and the role of mega-companies with their own interests.  

There are many reasons why the world needs to reconstruct a multilateral collaborative space. Conflict, climate change, pandemics, and the impact of societally disruptive technologies are but the most obvious examples where the interests of the scientific and diplomatic communities overlap. The need for a synergistic approach is apparent. Nevertheless, the ability to achieve that, considering geopolitics, financial concerns, and the fractured politics within many countries, is extremely problematic.   

The role of non-governmental organisations in science diplomacy cannot be ignored.

In this context the role of non-governmental organisations such as the International Science Council cannot be ignored. Provided they approach issues where they have a legitimacy to be involved with a pragmatic framing, recognising the very difficult context in which change is needed, they can make important contributions.  Beyond the obvious efforts to create a neutral space for transnational conversations or to support science on global commons issues, they can create an environment or amass an evidence base on which it is easier for national and international discussion to be built.  

For example, ahead of the appointment of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, can the global scientific community frame the path ahead that avoids the challenges imbedded within the SDGs? Can we explain better to citizens why longer-tern thinking is needed? Can we explain that a joined-up international approach need not undermine national interests? Can we create a framing for collaborative action that is seen as less ideological and more pragmatic both in its goals and implementation?  

Can scientists and diplomats be greater allies? The reality is that the world is full of diverse interests and that is reflected both within and between the nearly 200 nations on the planet. Science and diplomacy are both used to dealing with complexity in their own ways. But in the end science diplomacy must in general start with a focus on national interests, even if it has regional or global goals, otherwise it will likely fail. 

A long-term goal of science diplomacy must be to use science to assist in reducing tensions in a fast changing and unstable world. A starting point must be a greater mutual understanding of how science and diplomacy can help each other. At a minimum every foreign ministry needs a defined and overt presence of science diplomacy expertise. It needs to be more than tokenistic. Outside Europe this remains sadly so only in a minority of countries. 

Sir Peter Gluckman is Director of Koi Tū; Centre for Informed Futures, Auckland, New Zealand and President of the International Science Council^. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the International Science Council.