2  

     

Leveraging  science  diplomacy  and  science  policy-­‐advise  for  public  goods1  

       

Abdeslam  Badre,  Ph.D.  Global  Young  Academy  

   

       "Science  knows  no  country,  because  knowledge  belongs  to  humanity,  and  is  the  torch  which  illuminates  the  world".  

Louis  Pasteur,  19th  C  Chemist   Introduction     In the mid 20th century, American scientists were involved in the international politics of atomic weapons, when veterans of the Manhattan Project, led by the physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, attempted to convince the U.S. government that the world security depended on the international control of fissile materials2. More recently, the April 2015 framework nuclear deal between the P5+1 countries and Iran historicized another turning-point underscoring the crucial role science and technical experts can play in complex diplomatic negotiations for global peace-restoration. The technical negotiations between U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, (as well as involvement of other nuclear scientists) have been publicly described as key to achieving the framework agreement. These two cases assert that science diplomacy is not a new practice in the world stage; only the fast changing dynamics of powers have gained it more exposure and momentum. A token on the increasing exposure science diplomacy is gaining today is the growing number of European and American scientists who are being called upon to participate in major international negotiations around global issues such as climate change and borderless epidemics. This, in turn, has awakened various American and European academic and organizational bodies (The American                                                                                                                                        1  This  paper  was  presented  at   the   International  Conference  on   “Science  and  Society  =  Future?”   at   the  Montenegrin  Senior  Academy  of  Science,  Podgorica,  Montenegro,  15-­‐17  May  2016.  2.  Wolf,  Audra.  When  scientists  do  what  diplomats  can't.  The  Atlantic.  Sept.  25th  2015.  

3  

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) & the department of STEaPP at Witwatersrand University, among others) to consider how scientists were being prepared for their roles in shaping global affairs, and to design sophisticated and magisterial trainings on science diplomacy for high profile scientists. Accordingly, concepts such as “science in diplomacy”, “science for diplomacy” and “diplomacy for science”, have become widely used in the literature and marketed in the media. Science in diplomacy along with science for diplomacy and diplomacy for science promise to offer alternative solutions, specially in conflict-zone areas, over issues related to refugee crises, border managements, trans-boundary water decisions, bridging the East-West-North-South divides; networking across international science organizations, data-sharing and creating transnational research facilities, and reducing impacts of the spread of diseases, to name a few. Gordon Brown, a former British Prime Minister, once said: “many of the challenges we face today are international and require global solutions. That is why it is important that we create a new role for science in international policymaking and place science at the heart of the progressive international agenda.” The question that begs for an answer, especially in the context of Africa, is: How? In other words, 1) how can scientific engagement assist diplomacy, advance science and help deliver public goods in a better and faster pace? And 2) how can scientists help facilitate this engagement? Answering these questions necessitates an anchoring on three points: a) scrutinizing the challenges and interplays involved between the politicians and the scientists’ communication during the process of transforming evidence based-scientific knowledge into applicable policies that could have tangible impacts on the laymen’s lives; b) highlighting the areas both decision makers and scientists need to invest more ways and means into in order to create synchronized synergies, and to leverage tangible solutions to cross-cutting societal challenges; and c) analyzing the modes and functions of leadership in the science policy-making process and interaction between the two bodies, highlighting the case of South Africa as a model of science diplomacy in Africa. Prior to unpacking these points, it is important to embark on the concepts of “science diplomacy” and “science advice” in relation to public good. Science diplomacy and science advice for public good Whereas science is a human endeavor with universal language the mission of which is to find generalizable and duplicable solutions for crosscutting problems; diplomacy is one of the routes a country/ state pursues to manage and maintain its foreign affairs toward its neighbors and allies. If diplomats are motivated by their State’s objectives, scientists are motivated by more cosmopolitan and boundary-transcendent goals. Science diplomacy, accordingly, is a form of soft power used by nations to address common challenges and to build constructive international partnerships; thus, “science for diplomacy". Science advice, on the other hand, is a governmental practice of

4  

involving scientific perspectives and regulations in the decision-making process and policy formulations in the public management and societal livelihood of a community. Science for policy is often used interchangeably with science advice. Both imply the movement of information from the scientific to the policy domains, for the sake of forming and informing decisions for delivering public goods. Science advice is both an institution and a process. On the one hand, it is an institution with a formal structural agency, represented by established bodies the work of which is regulated by professional and ethical ethos and code of conducts that, supposedly, safeguard their integrity. On the other hand, it is a process in the sense that decision-making and policy development are long and complex endeavors that entail horizontal and vertical interactions between various governmental and civic partners. For example, in the context of the UN, interests in strengthening the role of science advice for sustainable development build on a tradition of informing international decision-making by virtue of the latest available scientific results. Codified in Article 99 of the UN Charter, the UN Secretary-General has the authority to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter, which in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” A key function of this mandate is to alert governments to emerging issues of relevance to international cooperation, including scientific issues. Over the year, the UN has accumulated a myriad of methods and channels for communicating science advice to (a) governing bodies of organizations such as conventions and treaties; (b) executive heads and managerial bodies; (c) program development agencies; (d) and governments. The institutions and structures of science advice vary from a country to another, depending on the distinctive cultures and traditions of decision-making of every country. In some countries, scientific advice is supposed to be made in a formal fashion, based on claims constructed, validated or challenged by scientists. Whereas in others, decision-makers prioritize individual relations and trust, seeking science advice in a rather informal way from individual scientists, known for their integrity and trust. Literature3 speaks of five main forms: ▪ Technical advice: scientists and experts are usually called upon by formal bodies to

provide technical advice on given subjects matters of national interest. There, usually, are protocols and agreement-frameworks that guide and protect the integrity of the advice as well as the safety of those experts.

▪ Regulatory advice: one of the most important sources of science advice for governments is science regulatory agency, providing essential science-based services of governance.

                                                                                                                                       3 .   Gluckman,   D.   Peter.   “Science   Advice   to   Governments,”   June   2016:   http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2016/science-advice-governments    

5  

▪ Deliberative advice: advice may be provided deliberately by scientific communities; unsolicited advice offered by an academy may either fail, however, to respond to government’s need-base questions, or be provided in a strictly academic jargon that may fail to meet the government’s needs.

▪ Informal advice: such advice could be presented in formal policy development settings or otherwise. Often, high level decision making bodies might resort to informal judgment and opinion of individual scientists known for their integrity. Hence, members of scientific advisory boards are expected to be known for their professional integrality and trust.

▪ Science advice in crises and emergencies: with the globalized threats of natural and environmental disasters, governments are increasingly heading toward internationally synchronized approaches and strategies for crisis managements and risk reductions.

Whether sought formally or informally through individual scientists or regulatory agencies, the roles and participations of scientific communities are becoming an incontestable part of many executive decision-making processes. This changing trend accounts for why governments’ spending on R&D is increasing, urging states’ actors to seek private industries and non-governmental corporations to partner up for cost-benefit sharing. Spending on knowledge production entails, however, more than just R&D. For instance, some of the new knowledge that goes into smartphones or intelligent houses surely comes from R&D. But the innovation in the iPhone is also about clever software, cool design and brilliant marketing. As it turns out, these expenditures typically dwarf R&D budgets. Given that governments invest both resources and efforts in the various phases of knowledge production, transfer and implementation, and given that a significant deal of those resources and efforts are catered for by tax payers’ money and from public funds, scientific knowledge is, and should be looked at as, a pure classic form of public good. Scientific knowledge is not only key for innovation but also a catalyst for economic growth. A previous WHO report (1996) argued that research and development expenditures in health were an important international public good. In the context of the UN’s 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), science diplomacy and transnational scientific dialogues are offering alternative pathways for trans-boundary challenges as well as maintaining diplomatic cooperation, even at times of political strain. Given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of international political issues, countries are encountering difficulties in identifying their interests and making appropriate policies, more than ever. These events are transforming traditional perceptions and applications of diplomacy into public diplomacy, ushering governments to invest more attention to the epistemic communities, which are the networks of knowledge-based experts.

6  

Peter M. Haas defines the epistemic community as a ‘network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’. According to Haas, to be accepted as an epistemic community member, the individual has to fulfill four conditions: 1) a shared set of normative and principled beliefs that provide the community members with a value-based rationale for their social actions, 2) shared causal beliefs that allow them to clarify various linkages between possible policy actions and expected outcomes, 3) shared notions of validity to identify a set of criteria for assessing and confirming knowledge in the specialized field, and 4) a common policy enterprise that matches a set of common practices with a set of problems based on the belief that applying those practices to given problems will boost human welfare. Based on these four characteristics, epistemic communities - scientist community in our case- have more power to influence today’s international relations in two different aspects: a) As long as they have ‘a sufficiently strong claim to a body of knowledge that is valued by

society’, they can acquire the authority to get involved in policymaking process. b) While their expertise in specific issues allow them to gain authority and power in the decision

making process, their common enterprise, that is getting accustomed to certain ways of behavior and having a vision, leads and allows them to infiltrate their ideas and beliefs to the policies they propose.

Interplay between epistemic community & science policy-makers Being a member of the epistemic community is a legitimate endeavor every scientist should pursue, but working with decision makers and getting them to devise policies based on scientific knowledge remains a big challenge, because while research input constitutes a key component in the development of effective international environmental regimes, scientific knowledge is not always readily available for policy-makers to apply in a particular policymaking context. While relevant, scientific knowledge usually does not explicitly address the particular problems policy-makers struggle with. Scientific knowledge is also produced within a context – within structures of knowledge and theories that constitute the basis for the knowledge generated– which implies that scientific knowledge is characterized by a certain context dependency. Also, it is provided in a technical form that is not applicable in policymaking. For scientific knowledge, therefore, to be applicable in policymaking, it needs to be interpreted into a form in which it may serve as a premise for policy choice. In this process, the competence of both scientists and policy-makers is needed to ensure that the knowledge base provided is representative of state-of-the-art knowledge within relevant fields and disciplines. Policy competence is needed to ensure its relevance and applicability to the particular policy problem for which the input is sought and developed. Thus, scientific knowledge for policymaking is generated in processes of science–policy interaction. The latter is difficult and demanding because

7  

of its immanent tension between impartiality and disinterestedness on the one hand, and strategic behavior and interest realization on the other. This tension is generated by the interaction between two distinctively different systems of behavior. While science is conceived of as a truth-seeking endeavor; politics constitutes a system for the generation of decisions, where behavior is directed towards the realization of rational interests in these decisions. In contrast to the ideal of impartiality of the scientific method, political behavior is characterized by strategic reasoning where the instrumental utilization of knowledge may constitute central elements in political strategies whereby individual interests are sought realized. Furthermore, the relationship between science and politics is still conceived as one of opposite poles, where science is everything politics is not. While both theoretical analyses and experience show that the relationship between science and politics by far is clear-cut, this representation has a strong position in the public mind as well as among practicing scientists and policy-makers themselves. Thus, any interactive dialogue between these two systems of behaviors takes place in the shadow of the public perceptions, which suggests that the interaction itself implies a risk of political “contamination” of the scientific process and a serious loss of legitimacy.

The processes of science–policy interaction thus give rise to at least two difficult challenges. On the one hand, the ideal of scientific knowledge as an objective entity implies that it is legitimate for policy arguments (Litfin, 1994). Policymakers may therefore engage in an effort to couch their policy arguments in scientific terms. In this manner, processes of science–policy interaction may veer toward a counterproductive dynamic of legitimization and de-legitimization (Litfin, 1994). This interplay can also be reinforced by political conflict. In short, the tension between impartiality and interest realization inherent in science–policy interaction may give rise to a dynamic whereby the well functioning and effectiveness of the process is at stake. On the other hand, the processes of science–policy interaction balance a thin edge between integrity and isolation and relevance and applicability in the perception of public opinion. The moment this “balance” leans on the direction of integrity or isolation, either the policy relevance and applicability of the knowledge base provided is threatened, or the scientific legitimacy and authority of the process is jeopardized. Additionally, one of the key challenges for diplomatic activity is the way in which states set their foreign policy objectives and the funding they make available for the associated activity. A change in government or shifting domestic priorities, by extension, impacts the international science diplomacy agenda. Before even being able to interact on a global level, science faces impediments from ‘strategic’ political goals and resource limitations on the domestic stage. A critical step for science diplomacy is the framing and contextualizing of science and technology priorities within domestic foreign policy. Practices and approaches to science differ greatly between states; domestic governments tend to define science objectives and its application

8  

according to national interests. A 2012 survey of science diplomacy across six countries by Tim Flink and Ulrich Schreiterer revealed a skew in underlying rationale of states to engage in science diplomacy. Expansion of political influence was a key-driving factor for the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA). In contrast, it was shown that Switzerland, France, Germany, and Japan primarily used science and technology as a way to access new markets and innovative developments in R&D, and to produce and promote their high-tech products, in the process, emphasizing higher education and research. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of science and technology, a disconnect still exists between science advancement and foreign policy. The disparity of political agendas and the lack of mechanisms to enable effective dialogue between scientists and policy makers at a domestic level impacts, and undermines, the ability of science to adequately inform foreign policy objectives. Overall, there are many factors, including policy disagreement between parties, which can result in science diplomacy being overlooked as a serious diplomatic tool.

Science diplomacy & institutional leadership modes in Africa Institutional designs as well as leadership modes and function can serve as alternatives that bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers. At one level, the extent to which and the manner in which institutional design may represent an instrument to overcome obstacles to science–policy interaction. The causal pathways through which institutional arrangements are assumed to affect the outcome of processes of science–policy interaction are identified as the capacity of the institutional apparatus to serve four main functions: to maintain the scientific autonomy and integrity of scientists participating in the process; to provide a sufficient level of integration between science and politics; to ensure the geographic representativeness of scientific bodies; and, to provide mechanisms for conflict resolution. At another level, leadership models adopted by both scientists and politicians could have tremendous impacts on the collaborative process the two parties eventually have to engage in. Modes of leadership, though, need to be looked at from two main bodies of knowledge: the role of leadership in negotiations and the role of scientific elites in the generation of new knowledge within scientific communities. Three modes of leadership are identified: leadership functions directed towards the development of knowledge base – particularly with regard to the scientific community’s evaluation of the adequacy by which state-of-the-art knowledge is represented; leadership functions directed towards the transformation of the knowledge base into premises for decision-making; and, boundary–role leadership directed towards the provision of communicative links between scientists and policymakers as well as the development of institutional arrangements. Leadership modes, in this regard, will affect the level of policy acceptance of the knowledge observed, based either on a function of the configuration of political interests of parties (governments) in the

9  

policy area; or, at the level of a function of the state of knowledge in this field of research. Scrutinizing these three modes of leadership within the context of Africa, a pressing question floats on the surface: is there any African country whose science leadership mode promises to perform a jump-start and be an inspiring, if not duplicable, model for other African nations, and maybe beyond Africa? Africa needs to define, not necessarily a unified but at least, a coherent and comprehensive policy for pursuing science diplomacy across the continent. Despite the existence of good will and intentions motivated by the bulk of a young and energetic generation of young African scientists inside Africa and in diaspora, efforts in this area remain fragmented, underfunded and thus less than the sum of the required parts. The assets of Africa in this regard are considerable, residing, for example, within Africa’s scientific Diasporas, departments of science and technologies, the African Union Leadership, Senior and Young Academies of Sciences, and the African Bank, among others. These organizations are assets of Africa and they need to be valorized, brought into concert, and be involved in the endeavor of uprising continental science and technology for global cooperation and peace. The focus of a better-integrated effort should be on improving education and fostering the scientific and technological infrastructure that will bring about genuine economic gains and social and political progress. One way to build human capital in science, for example, would be to support the establishment of centers of excellence in science and technology that can serve as educational hubs for talented students throughout the continent. Such centers would play a critical role in instilling continental pride and creating the institutional basis for forward-looking, knowledge-based economies. They would serve as tangible evidence of continental and intercontinental commitment to partnership and would help promote peace and stability throughout the world. A living model of excellence-building hub is the “Future Africa Project4” whose mission is to empower Africa’s human capital through inclusive enterprise and active citizenship. At national levels, South Africa might serve as the flagship model that should inspire many, if not all, African countries. Two years after completing its democratization process, the government mandated a paper that placed the role of science and technology as essential instruments not only for economic growth and competitiveness, but also for social development and poverty alleviation, in 1996. To put the spirit of the paper into life, a newly created national Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, which was succeeded in 2002 by a full-fledged Department of Science and Technology (DST), was entrusted the task. This move did not only speed up the country’s overcoming of the impact of the international isolation during the Apartheid years, but also helped it leverage international partnerships and investments in support of national programs and capacity building.                                                                                                                                        4  -­‐  Detailed  information  about  the  project  can  be  found  on  its  website:  http://www.thefutureafrica.com    

10  

Now, the department has three international offices, located at South Africa’s diplomatic missions in Tokyo, Moscow, and Brussels, dedicated to promoting cooperation with Japan, the Russian Federation, and the European Union (Pandor, March 2012). It also has seconded an official to the secretariat of the Southern African Development Community in Gaborone, Botswana, and has in the past seconded an official to the African Union Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Thanks to its determination and actions, the country is taking the leadership in R&D in Africa: international cooperation is a core component of major South African policy documents such as the Ten-Year Innovation Plan and the National Research and Development Strategy, providing local researchers with additional resources for national projects, and by ensuring that South Africa stays in touch with cutting-edge global developments, it is a powerful vehicle for developing, attracting, and retaining human capital. “The growing importance of the science content of critical foreign policy issues has necessitated that the South African government pursue a concerted science diplomacy strategy5,” says Naledi Pandor, S.A.’s Minister of Science and Tech. In short, the answer is YES; and South Africa has proved it! Conclusion Science diplomacy is not easy and by itself will not solve the world’s problems. But it is an important and underutilized resource that must be tapped on more energetically for the benefit of global prosperity. In today’s post-modern societies, terms such as “geographical borders”, “national sovereignty” and “resources self-sufficiency” have become void, if not misleading, because the peace and security of every society depend heavily on that of its neighbors’. Fruitful international relations, accordingly, become a must for advancing and diffusing scientific innovation, and vice versa. It is a must because; first, some fields of research cost so much that they flourish only with cooperation to build and manage shared international facilities, to coordinate decentralized research projects, and to conduct clinical trials. Certain fields also need access to sites, specimens, and patients around the world – arrangements that require governmental understanding and often approval. Second, the Internet and other technological innovations have sharply increased the ability and appetite for global scientific collaborations based on open access and cooperation. Third, and finally, leaders of research argue that success hinges on unobstructed international circulation of scientific information and scientists. Even in the absence of mechanisms to evaluate the impact of science diplomacy, future areas of vast potential for the application of science primarily lies in the governance of international zones and the spread of science through innovative solutions to

                                                                                                                                       5  -­‐‑  Naledi  Pandor,  “South  African  Science  Diplomacy:  Fostering  Global  Partnerships  and  Advancing  the  African  Agenda,”  Science  &  

Diplomacy,  Vol.  1,  No.  1  (March  2012).    http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/south-­‐‑african-­‐‑science-­‐‑diplomacy    

11  

Africa. This more strategic approach will allow science diplomacy approaches to maintain their relevance in a contemporary globalizing world while ensuring actions are targeted and effective. One more equally important point is that when the infrastructure for collaboration exists, there is always hope. Science diplomacy provides that infrastructure and points the course to sustainability. Whether it is furthering nonproliferation goals by encouraging civilian science and technology, fostering scientific collaboration between scientists of regions with historical tensions, or developing virtual science labs to bring under-privileged scientists into a global community, foreign policy is and should be designed by and for international science.

Bibliography

1. Colglazier, E. William, (November 9, 2015). “The Role of Science in Advancing Diplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges.” Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College.

2. Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy; National Research Council. (2012). “U.S. and international perspectives on global science policy and science diplomacy: Report of a Workshop.” The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu.

3. Murray, Stuart, (2013). “The renaissance of diplomatic theory.” Bond University ePublications@bond.

4. Pandor, Naledi, (2012). “South African Science Diplomacy: Fostering Global Partnerships and Advancing the African Agenda,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2012).

5. http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/south-african-science-diplomacy. 6. National Research Council of the National Academies, (2012). Knowledge & Diplomacy:

Science Advice in the United Nations System. The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu.

7. Sutcu, Guliz, (undated). “Evolution of diplomacy and the future of epistemic communities: scientists as the diplomats of 21st century.” European Scientific Journal November edition vol. 8, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431. Consulted on March 2016.

8. Zewail, Ahmed, (July 1, 2010). “The Soft Power of Science President Obama’s Science Envoy and a Nobel laureate in chemistry has an idea for restoring America’s image in the Middle East.” The American Interest. Volume 5, Number 6.