What is science diplomacy?

We should all be paying closer attention

Earlier this month, Nature ran an editorial that advocated for the use of science diplomacy as a response to the current state of international affairs. At the outset, the title and subtitle call for advancing scientists at the center of international relations while requiring that politicians stay out of science:

The universal language of science allows nations to reach a mutual understanding of shared problems. But that requires politicians not to meddle in how science is done.

It’s more complicated than that.

Science studies scholar, Tim Flink, has written about the contrast between the ideals of ‘science diplomacy’ as invented by professional science societies and the realpolitik of science in/for foreign policy strategy.

Flink identifies science diplomacy as a “sensational” ideal which found resurgent interest in refuting contemporary populists’ dramatic approach to expertise:

The narrative of science diplomacy bears on the scenario of a world deteriorating by numerous grand challenges of planetary dimension which national governments are unwilling or unable to tackle. In this Dickensian portrait, science diplomacy promises to (re)install collaboration of actors and reason in international affairs. Amidst defective national egoistic policy-making, scientists and their advocates are portrayed as competent and altruistic saviours that help the world’s society solve its grand challenges and overcome its looming threats.

…

That large parts of the discourse on science diplomacy sensationally portrays scientists as unpolitical, cosmopolitan and truth-seeking collaborators, however, seems not naive but strategic. And yet, the question is whether such raised expectations, as provided by promoters of this discourse, are not greatly overdrawn — and what happens, if they get disappointed?

Science (and education especially higher education) has been an important aspect of the relationship among nations for a very, very long time.

Perhaps a good starting place for the use of science as an institutionalized mechanism of international relations is the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation created in 1922 as a component of the League of Nations. After World War II, the Committee was reinvented as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization).

“Science diplomacy” is a contemporary phrase, however.

The phrase is traced back to a 2007 essay in Science, the premier peer reviewed publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The authors call on scientists to capitalize on public perceptions of scientists as disinterested actors and become more involved in international affairs:

Yet, in an era where international skepticism about U.S. foreign policy abounds, government can only do so much. Ultimately civil society- including scientists and engineers- will need to join in this diplomacy of deeds in order for the new science diplomacy to succeed. The fact that science is, and should remain, outside the realm of politics only makes scientists better suited for this task.

…

It is time for the scientific community to increase its role in diplomacy- and maybe even take the lead. Nongovernmental scientific organizations are more credible, more nimble, and-as honest brokers-in many cases more respected than the U.S. government overseas

One cannot remain outside the realm of politics while also (covertly) taking the “lead” on a nation’s foreign policy.

The essay in Science was followed by the 2008 establishment of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy which “demonstrates how science can build bridges between societies where official relationships may be strained or severed…”.

This was then followed by the 2010 inaugural report between AAAS and Royal Society of London: New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy.

At that time, science diplomacy was identified as a vague concept more readily conceptualized in its application in three dimension:

1. informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice (science in diplomacy);

2. facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science);

3. using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy).

Flink notes that the three part conceptualization is self serving:

with the tripartite nature of the definition, actors can easily mark their relevance in a circular way

Authors of the AAAS-Royal Society report assert the value free ideal of science:

Scientific values of rationality, transparency and universality are the same the world over. They can help to underpin good governance and build trust between nations. Science provides a non-ideological environment for the participation and free exchange of ideas between people, regardless of cultural, national or religious backgrounds.

However, the quotes of various leaders throughout the report demonstrates the incompatibility of the (false) vision of a non-ideological environment with the inherent politics of diplomacy between nations:

• “That is why it is important that we create a new role for science in international policymaking and diplomacy . . . to place science at the heart of the progressive international agenda.” Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister

• “Science diplomacy and science and technology cooperation . . . is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations and creating real bridges between the United States and counterparts.” Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State

• “Environmental threats are adding to the complexity of international relations in an already turbulent world. The anticipated bottlenecks and constraints—in food, water, energy and other critical natural resources and infrastructure—are bringing new geophysical, political and economic challenges, and creating new and hard-to manage instabilities.” Bernice Lee, Chatham House

Collectively, these visions of science diplomacy assume that nations around the world have a shared understanding of global problems, the leading concern of which is environmental, and the appropriate response to these problems are in line with a progressive agenda.

It is at this point worth considering that the 2007 essay in Science opened by using the establishment of the IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis_ as a prime example of the use of science to create connection between adversarial nations namely, the former Society Union and America.

IIASA was established in 1972 and ultimately placed in Vienna as a means to get around the Iron Curtain. The original research agenda for IIASA was a fraught topic:

The issue of global modeling was very intense. Some people thought it was the main purpose of IIASA. Aurelio Peccei, who was president of the Club of Rome, was a strong advocate. So was the Canadian representative. But Lord Zuckerman insisted that there be nothing about global modeling in IIASA and he threatened to pull out The Royal Society. The enmity between Sir Solly and Peccei was very severe.

The compromise was that IIASA itself would not do any work on global modeling, but would host a series of conferences to review contributions to global modeling and document the results.

…

The USA insisted on a project on population. Gvishiani said, "It’s a terrific subject, but it’s going to cause trouble at home — it’s a capitalist problem, not a communist problem." So we stayed away from population.

Whether or not it was originally intended, IIASA came to be a premier institution for integrated modeling of social, environmental, and energy systems. Everyone who is anyone in that world has passed through the doors of IIASA.

However, there are current and legendary concerns about the politics embedded in IIASA’s modeled vision of environmental and energy futures. Today, there is strong relationship between IIASA and modeling hubs in other nations which have come to weigh heavily on how the future of climate change is depicted and the perceived necessary responses to it.

Thus, the neutrality of science is challenged as is the premise of its apolitical context for purposes of international diplomacy. It is particularly so in the realm of environmental modeling which has come to have significant ideological slants which, because of the intensive resource demands of modeling, each slant is also a type of national brand (that’s how I see it at least).

This has a feedback effect on national approaches to R&D and economic policies creating a rather potent form of soft power.

We might consider all this in context of the Horizon Europe program, and potentially, the evolving political landscape in Canada.

The recent EU Commission report presenting, A European Framework for Science Diplomacy quotes Ekaterina Zaharieva, EU Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation in asserting that science diplomacy must be used as “a soft and hard power simultaneously. Thankfully, through Horizon Europe, the EU has one of the world’s most powerful tools of science diplomacy.”

Horizon Europe is a EU pot of money committed to advancing research in specific areas. The current round of funding known as EU Missions orients research around 4 missions, four of which are oriented around the environment. In 2023, Canada joined the Horizon Europe program.

Earlier this month, reporting on a ‘leaked’ document explains that between 2025-2027 Horizon funding will continue its focus on climate change and biodiversity increase its focus on food systems and fisheries, and prepping for the expected EU Circular Economy Act in 2026.

The discussion is potentially relevant in light of Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney who pioneered the current state of sustainability reporting in finance and climate risk modeling for banking and investments. On the latter, the standards for central bank modeling were created using the same ideological leanings underscoring the work of IIASA and close modeling groups.

Now consider this background R&D policy context in light of a current wave of former government researchers looking for work:

As reported in Science|Business, a European “Network of universities, companies, and research and policy organisations” co-founded by a former editor of Nature, Various leadership are on the record noting the opportunity to reel in America scientists while keeping from appearing exploitive.

• Says the President of the European Research Council, “We should all avoid saying ‘God, they are having a bad time over there, now let’s go and snatch them all back.’ We do not want to benefit from our colleagues’ misery.”

• Director of the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, a network of European science academies notes that Europe has a responsibility to “provide a values-based safe haven for science as a global public good.”

Over on LinkedIn¹, at least some encourage American researchers to consider employment in Canada directing interested people to consider the provision in the USMCA (or CUSMA if you’re Canadian) that provides for easy to obtain visas in certain disciplines.

Overall, ‘science diplomacy’ and the longer story of science in international affairs is not all one thing: good/bad. It is a story that highlights the tremendous potential for science and scientists to foster good relations among nations, even adversarial ones. But it is also a cautionary tale of important geopolitical maneuvering deep in the details of technological process.

---

Other notes:

• AAAS doubled down on science diplomacy in February 2025 releasing a report: Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption

• Here is the Swedish vision of science in geopolitical maneuvering

• For further discussion of the three part conceptualization of Science Diplomacy see Gluckman et al 2017

• Here is UNESCO and the EU taking up the topic science diplomacy

• Here is commentary that it would behove everyone for Canada and the United States to maintain good diplomatic relations in regards to R&D. No kidding.

1. I removed the link to the post. It’s not about the one random person that happened to come up in my feed.