So, do you think that 'science diplomacy' is an inherently flawed/misguided endeavour, which rather than contribute to tackling global/international problems, is more likely to exacerbate other problems? OR do you see any specific changes to the way 'science diplomacy' is presented to the public and practiced behind closed doors that could make it more fit for purpose?
Thanks for asking this, it is a really good question!
I probably should have spent a moment in my post reflecting on the Gluckman et al writing who seek to provide a "pragmatic" take on the three part conception of science diplomacy: 1) Actions designed to advance a country's national needs, 2) Actions designed to address cross-border interests, and 3) actions designed to meet global needs and challenges. The writers focus on efforts channeled through a nation's ministries/departments.
A problem I see is that the call for scientists to engage more in 'science diplomacy' does not limit those engagements to those led by national offices. How diplomacy is defined really starts to matter, then.
Commonly defined, "diplomacy" is an activity of negotiation. So, the call for scientists to engage in science diplomacy through any means, is a call to more actively engage scientists in international politics while they are free to self-define their interests, national or otherwise.
On the surface, it sounds like a call for people to be respectful ambassadors of their nations (e.g. demonstrate that not all Americans behave like its leaders). But underneath it all, science diplomacy appears to be a call for scientists to more actively engage in international politics- in any way- while invoking authority derived from mythical ideals about science.
Best to call a spade a spade. No matter how it is sliced- science diplomacy is about power and geopolitical positioning. If scientists are not acting under the direction of a national office then they are acting for themselves or whatever organization that seeks global influence.
I think this is separate (though perhaps related) to ideals of collegiality and a free and open exchange of knowledge and ideas around the world.
Let's do a thought experiment about substituting "engineering" diplomacy for "science" diplomacy. It would call forward the concept of using different nations' expertise to do useful projects for the betterment of people in the nations around the world. More pragmatic diplomacy and less vague and abstract. What is "science" after all? Which disciplines and to what international ends?
As I customarily point out in these discussions, when people use the term "science" in these kinds of contexts, they don't mean plant breeders or wildlife biologists. Do they mean economists? Doubtful. So it would be helpful to de-reify "science". Because each discipline has its own values and scientists are never neutral value-wise, except for agreeing on increased budgets for their discipline.
It's an appalling and obviously corrupt recasting of science. True science works only when it is free of emotion and bias. Modern science is littered with both. Look no further than the utter corruption of major science journals, the AMA, NHS, NAP and every other mainstream scientific organization by leftist bong water hypotheses and promulgation to see how this can only ever end in tears. Show me a "science diplomat" and I'll show you a shill for poorly constructed systems of thought.
My problem with this is not that scientists may be more left or right, but that they have a massive blind spot to the fact that they are making political judgements while convincing themselves they are just “applying science.”
History is littered with highly educated people doing terrible things while convinced that they are doing good.
Well this all sounds like the sick joke of 'promoting democracy' has worn thin with most of the world so we need to move on to something else to promote the 'rules-based international order'.
Presumably being able to conduct diplomacy is a prerequisite for being able to conduct 'science diplomacy. There is precious little evidence that the West is currently capable of this. To the extent that Science diplomacy happens I imagine that the Chinese government will run with the ball and be better at it.
Good piece. The paradox is that science's political capital is all the highest as its pretension of neutrality from politics s taken seriously. It is a two way bargain, where both politicians and scientists gain.
Your encapsulation of the recent history of "scientific diplomacy" and general aggregation of scientific involvement in politics is thorough and appreciated. For my part I do not see bright lights and hoisting glasses as big 'S' science having an outsize place at the global political table. The entire endeavor strikes me as an extraordinarily bad idea. Scientists across the globe have collaborated for decades on research into every area of science and unfortunately well beyond. A cabal of science people whose aim it is to drive decisions across continents has the enormous dangerous power that always comes from soft power insidiously taking over institutions. It's hard to find historical examples of a more pernicious nature than the current absurdity demonstrated by climatism and sexual identity. Both areas of study have been hollowed out from the inside by ideologues who wouldn't know good science if it but then on the face. These are not well meaning, independent thinkers, they are the worst kind of intellectuals who, in the thinking of Tim Sowell, have no skin in the game when their theories fail spectacularly. In the 1970's we had a global ice age at our doorstep and the existential threat to young girls of anorexia. Forty years on and it's trans-or-die by suicide and global.boiling. Every bit of this is scientism and frantic social engineering and I want no part of it.
Donald.Trumo is the greatest single threat to a misinformation an authoritarian complex of progressives and illiberal jackasses bent on destroying the Western World. Long live the skeptics. We'll have no loyal.subjects here!
So, do you think that 'science diplomacy' is an inherently flawed/misguided endeavour, which rather than contribute to tackling global/international problems, is more likely to exacerbate other problems? OR do you see any specific changes to the way 'science diplomacy' is presented to the public and practiced behind closed doors that could make it more fit for purpose?
Thanks for asking this, it is a really good question!
I probably should have spent a moment in my post reflecting on the Gluckman et al writing who seek to provide a "pragmatic" take on the three part conception of science diplomacy: 1) Actions designed to advance a country's national needs, 2) Actions designed to address cross-border interests, and 3) actions designed to meet global needs and challenges. The writers focus on efforts channeled through a nation's ministries/departments.
A problem I see is that the call for scientists to engage more in 'science diplomacy' does not limit those engagements to those led by national offices. How diplomacy is defined really starts to matter, then.
Commonly defined, "diplomacy" is an activity of negotiation. So, the call for scientists to engage in science diplomacy through any means, is a call to more actively engage scientists in international politics while they are free to self-define their interests, national or otherwise.
On the surface, it sounds like a call for people to be respectful ambassadors of their nations (e.g. demonstrate that not all Americans behave like its leaders). But underneath it all, science diplomacy appears to be a call for scientists to more actively engage in international politics- in any way- while invoking authority derived from mythical ideals about science.
Best to call a spade a spade. No matter how it is sliced- science diplomacy is about power and geopolitical positioning. If scientists are not acting under the direction of a national office then they are acting for themselves or whatever organization that seeks global influence.
I think this is separate (though perhaps related) to ideals of collegiality and a free and open exchange of knowledge and ideas around the world.
Let's do a thought experiment about substituting "engineering" diplomacy for "science" diplomacy. It would call forward the concept of using different nations' expertise to do useful projects for the betterment of people in the nations around the world. More pragmatic diplomacy and less vague and abstract. What is "science" after all? Which disciplines and to what international ends?
As I customarily point out in these discussions, when people use the term "science" in these kinds of contexts, they don't mean plant breeders or wildlife biologists. Do they mean economists? Doubtful. So it would be helpful to de-reify "science". Because each discipline has its own values and scientists are never neutral value-wise, except for agreeing on increased budgets for their discipline.
"Aurelio Peccei, who was president of the Club of Rome"
That statement is all that is needed to know that everything that would come out of the IIASA would ultimately be corrupt garbage.
It's somewhat naive to think that scientists, most of whom lean to the left, can have much of a diplomatic role.
It's an appalling and obviously corrupt recasting of science. True science works only when it is free of emotion and bias. Modern science is littered with both. Look no further than the utter corruption of major science journals, the AMA, NHS, NAP and every other mainstream scientific organization by leftist bong water hypotheses and promulgation to see how this can only ever end in tears. Show me a "science diplomat" and I'll show you a shill for poorly constructed systems of thought.
My problem with this is not that scientists may be more left or right, but that they have a massive blind spot to the fact that they are making political judgements while convincing themselves they are just “applying science.”
History is littered with highly educated people doing terrible things while convinced that they are doing good.
Well this all sounds like the sick joke of 'promoting democracy' has worn thin with most of the world so we need to move on to something else to promote the 'rules-based international order'.
Presumably being able to conduct diplomacy is a prerequisite for being able to conduct 'science diplomacy. There is precious little evidence that the West is currently capable of this. To the extent that Science diplomacy happens I imagine that the Chinese government will run with the ball and be better at it.
Good piece. The paradox is that science's political capital is all the highest as its pretension of neutrality from politics s taken seriously. It is a two way bargain, where both politicians and scientists gain.
Your encapsulation of the recent history of "scientific diplomacy" and general aggregation of scientific involvement in politics is thorough and appreciated. For my part I do not see bright lights and hoisting glasses as big 'S' science having an outsize place at the global political table. The entire endeavor strikes me as an extraordinarily bad idea. Scientists across the globe have collaborated for decades on research into every area of science and unfortunately well beyond. A cabal of science people whose aim it is to drive decisions across continents has the enormous dangerous power that always comes from soft power insidiously taking over institutions. It's hard to find historical examples of a more pernicious nature than the current absurdity demonstrated by climatism and sexual identity. Both areas of study have been hollowed out from the inside by ideologues who wouldn't know good science if it but then on the face. These are not well meaning, independent thinkers, they are the worst kind of intellectuals who, in the thinking of Tim Sowell, have no skin in the game when their theories fail spectacularly. In the 1970's we had a global ice age at our doorstep and the existential threat to young girls of anorexia. Forty years on and it's trans-or-die by suicide and global.boiling. Every bit of this is scientism and frantic social engineering and I want no part of it.
Donald.Trumo is the greatest single threat to a misinformation an authoritarian complex of progressives and illiberal jackasses bent on destroying the Western World. Long live the skeptics. We'll have no loyal.subjects here!