Advancing science diplomacy through the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development

Sir Peter Gluckman’s speech to the World Science Forum 2024 in Budapest.

20 November 2024

The world is not a happy place. There are more conflicts in the world than at any time since 1945, progress on climate change and the many other parts of the sustainability agenda is dismal, and trust in elite institutions, including science, is diminishing. From the heady days of the 1990s when globalisation progressed and agreement could be reached, on first the millennium and then the sustainability development goals, we now face a multipolar world where there is little agreement on the rules-based system that evolved after the Second World War.

Science diplomacy was given emphasis after 2009 when the Royal Society AAAS manifesto was published, but it had already shown its value years earlier in the Cold War with initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol, the Antarctic Treaty, and the formation of IIASA.

The question for today is how science diplomacy can play a useful role in addressing the challenges of the global commons as encompassed in the SDGs and which extend well beyond the narrow view of sustainability to issues of the human condition and, indeed, peace and stability. The assumption in the International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development is that it can but this will require effort and coordination.

Diplomacy is fundamentally the art of negotiation and while we usually think about it between nations, it also has a role within our scientific community. We need to find better ways of getting the disciplines of natural and social sciences to work together and in turn to work with communities, business and policy makers to ensure our knowledge turns into action.

But science is defined by principles that make it the only universal language. It is that that gives science its privilege in the discussion ahead. We need to recognise that virtually everyone in the world lives with multiple knowledge systems including religion and local and indigenous knowledge. Scientists need to understand and defend the principles that define science – science is based on observation and explanations based on logic, past observations and causal reality. It is never definitive but requires critical evaluation in an open way by its pers and ongoing revision. We must be honest about uncertainties and what we know and do not know. Too often we overclaim and that breeds skepticism. We must remember that decisions by societies and governments always include other considerations.

It is why the ISC has promoted a transdisciplinary mission led approach to ensure the science community does focus on production of actionable knowledge – knowledge that business, communities and governments can use. It is also why the ISC has reorientated to spend much effort working with the multilateral system including in New York and with UN agencies to present how sciences can assist. It is why it is essential that all countries think hard about how science interacts with policy and particularly with the foreign ministries who have key roles to play if we are to address the global commons effectively.

In this context science itself is under threat. Populism and disinformation have undermined trust in institutions, and science itself is an elite institution which gets caught in the general decline in trust in elites. Science must work hard both in producing trustworthy knowledge and generating the necessary new knowledge through discovery, in communicating better what we know and do not know in transparent and equitable ways and thinking hard about how we shift the dialogue to long-term thinking, acknowledging that complexity and systems thinking must replace simplistic claims of solutions. Tradeoffs will be needed, and science has a critical role to play in moving from its silos and ivory towers to assist societies to respond to the challenges.

But if we take a more traditional approach to nation-based science diplomacy, it is important to distinguish between international science cooperation, which helps build trust and knowledge from science diplomacy, where the intent is primarily diplomatic. In turn that can be to serve a nation’s direct interests or in the context of today’s discussion in getting countries to appreciate that it is in their critical self-interest to work collectively to address the challenges of the global commons.

In this context, science itself is under threat. And here we come to a useful distinction, formal diplomacy operates through governments and here science organisations must work with their own governments to get them appreciate the issues and solutions. Organisations like the ISC can assist the multilateral system’s agencies and structures in setting the agenda for multilateral dialogue, and indeed, we see that as ISC’s primary role.

Informal or track 2 science diplomacy was essential in the past and may be even more so now and in coming years. It cannot be entirely dislocated from formal diplomacy but in the past, as with IIASA’s formation, the cold war superpowers turned to science organisations to assist. The reverse also happened as with the Villach science conference which led directly to the formation of UNFCCC and IPCC and the WCRP.

So how do we move ahead.

First, we must get out of our scientific silos and promote inter- and trans-disciplinary. We must look to those elements of the science culture which impede progress. We must identify the core scientific breakthroughs that are needed, and this will increasingly involve the private sector which now undertakes about 30% of discovery research worldwide. AI may help but it also may threaten.

One of our real challenges is that science, technology, economic development and security are more intertwined than ever, and open science is increasingly threatened by statements such as “as open as possible and closed as necessary” although pragmatically that is an inevitable outcome of the tensions we now live with. We must support the growing diversity of participants and the emergence of important and relevant knowledge from the global south. Much change is needed within the science system itself if we are to be credible.

And we must build effective bridges between all the social sciences and natural sciences. AI, quantum, synthetic biology and much more all have important roles in an uncertain future and none of these technologies need passports to cross national boundaries. Society must find ways to both use and control these technologies appropriately. The ISC has released a framework for policymakers on how to get a better balance between innovation and precaution. The rise of wealthy non-state actors, especially the platform companies add to the challenge. We must engage with them.

But we also need social science and neuroscience to answer a core question – how to we get beyond our evolved psychology of thinking short term and transactionally. How do we get policy makers to think long term, to use foresight, and here I applaud the joint work of UNEP and the ISC that was recently released, how do we get policy makers and societies to understand the importance of risk assessment and action. Sadly, the recent COP in Baku shows the issues ahead.

Science often suffers from hubris and hubris leads to distrust. We do not have all the answers and certainly single experiments do not change the world. We will not make enormous progress on our own. It requires partnership with civil society and especially with governments and the multilateral system. Our hubris may have been our biggest problem.

International science cooperation, international scientific bodies and partnerships between the latter and UN agencies all have a role to play. In the 1980s science did effectively talk truth to power in bringing climate change to the fore, but have we lost the way to be constructive in relations with policymakers in some countries? Even in the UN system we have found difficulty in having a real voice.

Big issues lie ahead; for example, will we need solar radiation modification technologies, how would we decide whether and when to use them, what are the risks? Similarly with advanced technologies in both the digital and life sciences, I would argue similarly with the crisis in mental health, in migration, in growing inequality. Science will not achieve what it could without understanding how it fits into the larger societal ecosystem – that is the core of science diplomacy, irrespective of whether it is formal or informal.

The ISC, as the world’s primary scientific NGO, is shifting its focus to these issues for the simple reason that it must. It welcomes its partnership with UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP and the UN Secretary General’s office, amongst others. We have not done so for institutional egotistical purposes but simply because science is core to the many issues we confront from conflict to loss of social cohesion, from mental health to climate change, from inequality to biodiversity loss. The International Decade for Science for Sustainable Development led by UNESCO creates a framing under which we must all pull together. The risks are ahead real, but the opportunities for a better world informed by science are also real – let us use our scientific and diplomatic skills to make a difference.