**Science Diplomacy**

Module – Science Diplomacy

The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration that solve for relations and other environmental impactsPastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. 08(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322 no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade

limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

Ext – Embargo Solves

The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration that solve for relations and other environmental impactsPastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. 08(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322 no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this

hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

Lifting the embargo is key to science diplomacy – similar to the fall of the Berlin WallCuba Headlines 9(“Science at the leading edge versus embargo”, http://www.cubaheadlines.com/2009/11/13/18622/science_leading_edge_versus_embargo.html, Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)

Cuba already has normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other nations but with the USA. ¶ Those of you who were too young to experience the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may soon witness the metaphorical crumbling of another diplomatic wall: the U.S. embargo on Cuba. This time science may be at the leading edge.¶ As Elisabeth Pain and Kate Travis described last week in Science Careers, the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago opened up many opportunities for scientists in Eastern Europe to travel to the West for study and research. In Cuba, the United States is playing catch-up, since Cuba already has normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other nations. But right now there's a delegation of American scientists and policy experts visiting Cuba, as reported last night by our colleagues at Science Insider. The goal of the U.S. delegation, says a news release from AAAS (publisher of Science Careers) is "to explore research issues and multilateral science venues that might be conducive to U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation."¶ While many such delegations are long on rhetoric and short on action, this group of visitors may benefit from something of a tropical thaw. ¶ Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and one of the delegation members, says in a Washington Note blog post that the atmospherics between the U.S. Interests Section in Havana -- the U.S. does not have an official Embassy there -- and the Cuban government have improved tangibly. "There is a marked, highly noticeable change in the attitude and 'posture' of the Cuban government towards US State Department and other US officials assigned to ¶ the embassy-lite operation in Havana," he says. "Cuban authorities, apparently, are engaging the U.S. government personnel constructively -- and this just didn't happen before" This is one of several indicators Clemons found pointing toward more bi-lateral cooperation.¶ Clemons separately highlights Cuba's use of its medical schools and staff as diplomatic tools, which he feels could serve as a template for exchanges between Cuba and the United States. ¶ As a result of those early contacts, Pakistan has since established diplomatic relations with Cuba. Today, Pakistani students attend the Latin American School of Medicine in Havana.¶ Cuba in recent years sent teams of its doctors to help local populations recover from natural disasters in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Impact – Laundry List

Science diplomacy is good – key to solve disease spread and agriculture shortagesFederoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08. (Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)The Department of State has S&T diplomatic strategies related to a number of international issues, including water management, energy, agriculture, natural resource management, infectious diseases and biodiversity. It also promotes international scientific cooperation through bilateral and multilateral science and technology agreements to ``promote the precepts of sustainable development, enhancement of the role of women in science and society, science-based decision-making, good governance, and global security more broadly.''

Impact – Relations

Science diplomacy solves relations – creates cultural exchanges that spill over Federoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08. (Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. diplomacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan-all started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy. For instance, polls indicate that people in the Middle East generally view American S&T more favorably than other aspects of our society. This approving attitude provides for favorable forums to explain other aspects of American policies and actions. Our nation's citizens also benefit directly from S&T cooperation, as it provides our scientists and engineers with greater access to cutting-edge research and allows us to work across geographical boundaries to solve global problems. In addition, globalization has amplified the worldwide competition for ideas, science and engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turning new knowledge into real-world applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and development, education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic growth. To continue being a global leader in S&T, we must ensure that we have access to discoveries being made in every corner of the world. The National Science Foundation understands the global nature of scientific discovery, and the international character of knowledge creation and research activities are stressed in NSF's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's Future. For more than 55 years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in academic organizations, industry and informal science institutions, both nationally and internationally, to leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the Nation's collaborative advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by developing innovative collaborations across all S&E disciplines.

Science Diplomacy Good—Relations and Econ Prove Sutcu, Author for the Journal of Social Sciences, ’12. (Guliz, 1/14/12, http://sbd.ogu.edu.tr/makaleler/13_2_Makale_1.pdf, Accessed 6/26/13, ARH)The second dimension of science diplomacy, diplomacy for science, serves for establishing international scientific and technological cooperation through a much easier way. This dimension of science diplomacy provides researchers with many opportunities to establish new partnerships and to carry out projects with high budget and developed infrastructure. It allows for the creation of new networks among foreign researchers and research institutions. In order to create new partnerships, scientific community is in the need of working communication channels and diplo- macy facilitates their getting into interaction with each other through several instruments, such as contract negotiations or bilateral and multilateral

S&T agreements for joint research projects In addition to the benefits of diplomacy for science for the scientific community, states get various advantages from the execution of diplomacy for science as well. Partnerships established through science diplomacy efforts enable states having access to “researchers, research findings and research facilities, natural resources, and capital”. This contributes to the development of their science and technology since they get the opportunity of following international research and development activities, learning about new technologies, having access to new markets, and attracting new brains. Moreover, establishing scientific relationships with different nations allows states to ameliorate their image due to their success in science and technology. As the states promote their achievements in research and development, they become centers of attraction for international scientific community and it leads to new incen- tives among states to cooperate. With the awareness of the abundance of their gains through having access to others’ research and development capabilities and through promoting a positive image based on its level of development in science and technology, states get motivated to estab- lish scientific and technological relationships

Increasing science diplomacy is key to international non-proliferation efforts – solves escalating nuclear warsDickson, Director of SciDev.Net, 10 (David, Director, SciDev.Net, 7 May 2010, “Nuclear disarmament is top priority for science diplomacy”, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/nuclear-disarmament-is-top-priority-for-science-diplomacy.html, 7/28/10, 6-31-13)

The political climate is ripe for a new push to eliminate nuclear weapons; scientists can boost its chance of success. Earlier this year, US satellites detected the first plume of steam from a nuclear reactor in Pakistan that has been built to produce fuel for nuclear bombs, confirming the country's desire to strengthen its status as a nuclear power. The observation — coming shortly before this month's review conference in New York of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — is further evidence that the unregulated spread of nuclear technology remains closely linked to the dangers of nuclear conflict. The good news is that US President Barack Obama seems determined to make eliminating nuclear weapons a top priority. Indeed, last month he invited 47 heads of state to an unprecedented summit in Washington to promote disarmament and agree strategies to prevent nuclear terrorism and safeguard nuclear material. But the news from Pakistan, together with continued disagreement on how best to tackle other emerging nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea, illustrates how far there is to go — and the political hurdles that must still be scaled — before this goal is achieved. New hope Still, there is a sense of optimism for this year's review conference that was missing from the last meeting in 2005. Then, the aggressive stance taken by the Bush administration — describing North Korea as part of an "axis of evil", for example — doomed the discussions to stalemate. This time round, the prospects for agreement are significantly higher. Not only has Obama adopted a more moderate attitude towards international affairs in general, but he has already made significant achievements on the nuclear front. Last month, for example, Russia and the United States announced an arms control agreement under which both will significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals. And since then, Obama has revised his nuclear policy to state, for the first time, that non-nuclear states that have signed the NPT will never be targets of US nuclear weapons. Both agreements could have gone further. Some in Obama's administration wanted him to take the further step of banning the use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear threat or attack. And despite the new cuts, both Russia and the United States will still own enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life many times over. But the recent moves have nonetheless created a political climate in which significant agreement, at least between nuclear weapons states, looks more realistic than it did five years ago. There are even signs that the United States could eventually ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the next major step towards global nuclear disarmament. Need for vigilance The reasons for optimism are not restricted to the shift in the US position. Equally influential has been a growing awareness within the developed and developing worlds of the threats of nuclear terrorism and the

need to improve protection of nuclear materials. Eighteen months ago, for example, an armed group was caught breaking into a nuclear facility in South Africa in an apparent attempt to steal weapons-grade uranium that has been stored at the site since the early 1990s, under international supervision. The incident provides a stark reminder of the need for continued and effective vigilance. This need will increase as more developing countries turn towards nuclear power as a source of affordable energy — a trend that will be reinforced by international efforts to promote renewable energy as a strategy for tackling climate change. But the danger is that US-led initiatives will, with some justification, be seen as little more than attempts to defend American interests, influenced as much by political relationships as by a genuine desire for nuclear disarmament. For example, the nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India that entered force in 2008 has been cited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as an example of putting diplomatic and commercial interests ahead of non-proliferation responsibilities and was criticised for exacerbating nuclear tensions in South Asia. Scientists, diplomats or both? The only solution is for the developing world to accept that international nuclear non-proliferation is in its own interests — the only way to prevent regional conflicts escalating into nuclear exchanges. The scientific community has an important role to play in this process by explaining the threat posed by even relatively small nuclear weapons , and advising on how to develop safeguards without overly restricting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Scientists have already shown their worth when they kept communication channels open between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were instrumental to such 'science diplomacy' and it can be no coincidence that the approach is rapidly gaining favour in Washington, where John Holdren, who once headed Pugwash, is Obama's science and technology advisor. If such diplomacy, on the control of nuclear weapons or other scientific issues, is driven by the political and commercial interests of the developed world, it will remain suspect and doomed to fail. But if it can be truly international, the chances of success are much higher. Reaching a global agreement on the steps needed to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world would be a good place to start.

**Biotech**