Its curtains down for ESOF 2010 today. The conference saw a lively mix of reviews of research advances in various fields, as well as policy dialogues, several of which are discussed in developing countries too. And given the European Commission’s support for research in Africa, at least sessions looked at issues in Africa.

There have been other lively sessions – pizzas with profs for young scientists below 35 years who got a chance to interact with top Italian scientists over lunch (what else but pizza in Italy?). I gather this is a specialty of ESOFs – it was salmon with the scientists in Stockholm; and Tapas in Barcelona. I would strongly recommend a scientists and samosa or scientists and idli/vada at the next Indian science congress.

Scientists at ESOF 2010 in Turin have been speed-dating too. Now don’t get the wrong ideas. That was innovative speed-dating between scientists and business/industry to quickly acquaint each other of their fields of work and likely mutual interests. Cool.

Before I sign off, special thanks to the Robert Bosch Foundation whose fellowship helped cover the conference.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

Efforts by developing countries to tap renewable sources of energy run into two typical problems – finding cheap and widely usable technologies; and connecting renewable energy to the main electricity grid.

Europe is ahead on the (not necessarily cheap) technology front. But it too is grappling with the grid connectivity question, discussed at a session at ESOF 2010. The European Union (EU) plans to raise the share of its renewable energy sources in its total energy consumption to 20 per cent by 2020. This has implications for designing, operating and maintaining power transmission networks across and within countries.

Gianluca Fulli, from the European Commission’s Joint Research Council, suggests using high voltage direct current (HVDC) grids – electric systems that use direct current to transmit the bulk of the electricity. Traditionally Europe uses a high voltage alternating current (HVAC) system, but HVDC is preferred for long-distance transmission from large, off-shore plants to the grid inland with fewer losses, says Fulli.

A 'powerful' problem: connecting renewables to the grid

Scientists are addressing storage options for renewable energy. Maria Rosa Palacin, from the Materials Sciences Institute, Barcelona, points out that systems of energy production and transmission leave very little room for storage.

Storage systems are crucial, given the fluctuating nature of some of the renewables. For example, Spain’s moody winds can account for 30 per cent of the electricity on a good day and as little as 2 per cent on a bad day.

Palacin says potential storage options include batteries, or a ‘flywheel’ in which the energy is stored as kinetic energy that powers a motor that spins a rotating disc and releases the energy by slowing the wheel down.

Other storage options include a ‘hydro’ option where electricity pumps water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir and is released by pumping back to the lower reservoirs; and a compressed air energy storage system where the electricity is used to inject air at high pressure into an underground cave and is released through a gas turbine.

Any takers?

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

The motorcycle – a popular, affordable option for personal transport in many developing countries – found itself under a science scanner at ESOF 2010.

The motorbike is emerging as a fuel-saving option in these days of global warming caused by high consumption of fossil fuels. “With the threat of non renewable energy running out by 2025 and the escalating prices of petroleum, personal mobility is becoming prohibitively expensive. The Honda car needs twice as much, and a Hummer ten times as much energy as a motorbike,” Felipe Frago, from the Netherland’s TNO Science and Industry, said.

“Mobility is definitely an issue with two billion cars clogging up the roads today,” he adds.

But, according to the WHO 2008 global status report on safety, about half of the estimated 1.27 million people who die each year in road traffic accidents around the world are pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists.

European researchers are working on a project ‘Motorcycle and Motorcyclist Safety’ (MYMOSA) to provide insights into the reduction of motor cycle fatalities and injuries on European roads. They are trying to improve “powered two wheeler safety (PTW)” to minimise deaths due to accidents.

Motorcycles: save on fuel but kill on roads

MYMOSA also involves researchers from Asia and Latin America. Its scientific objectives include studying accident dynamics using computer-aided engineering to describe the rider-vehicle-environment interphases; integrated safety mechanisms; new protective gear; and biomechanics.

To improve safety, crash test dummies were used to study injury risks, including simulated virtual riders developed, explained Steffen Peldschus, from the Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.

Peldschus says it is a mistake to factor in only the head and the helmet, and not the rest of the body during risk assessment and while finding ways to reduce injuries. They are looking at warning strategies and devices to prevent accidents, and post-accident supportive interventions.

“We hope to see our results being inducted into everyday life to improve rider safety,” he adds.

Marianne de Nazareth , SciDev.Net contributor

Research stations set up in the Himalayas and Andes under collaboration with European research institutes will feed in crucial inputs on glacier melt due to climate change.

They are part of the World Meteorological Organization global atmospheric watch network (GAW) programme, which operates about 300 stations in 80 countries to monitor  changes in the atmosphere.

An upcoming research station, 5,320 meters high at Chacaltaya in the Bolivian Andes, will be the first to provide inputs from the soutehrn hemisphere, Angela Marioni, from Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate ( ISAC) at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), told ESOF 2010. The 18,000-year-old Chacaltaya glacier is shrinking at an alarming pace.

Research station to come up near Chacaltaya glacier

The Bolivian station is expected to provide inputs on changes in the atmospheric composition in “less than two years”.

In 2006, the United Nations Environment Programme helped set up a Nepal Climate Observatory, on an icy pyramid 5079 metres high in the Khumbhu valley in the Himalayas, to track pollution across Asia that was causing a brown haze called the atmospheric brown cloud.

The Nepal observatory measures changes in green house gases, ozone-destroying chemicals as well as tiny polluting particles in the air over the Himalayas and Karakorum mountain ranges in Asia. It will also study weather patterns, glaciers and rock changes in the Himalayas and Karakorum mountain ranges in Asia.

The two will add to data from Alps stations, such as the Jungfraujoch station and the Plateau Rosa, that measure solar radiation, levels of ozone-destroying chemicals as well as concentrations of greenhouse gases.

“A glacier is a perfect instrument that integrates all the signals from the atmosphere from the climate point of view and meteorological point of view,” says Claudio Smiraglia, professor of geography at the University of Milan.

His studies show the total surface area of Alps glaciers has reduced from 4,474 square kilometres in 1850 to 2,271 in 2000; while the number of glacier lakes has increased.

“We will have a constant struggle between retreating ice, between new water formations and new vegetation trying to come up,” warns Smiraglia.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

“In Italy we teach our children that mistakes are unacceptable. If you don’t know the right answer – don’t answer!”   Such an attitude hardly helps students turn to science, points out Michela Mayer, from the National Institute for the Evaluation of the Education System.  Teachers are the driving force towards increasing interest, she told an ESOF 2010 session on 4 July.

Students’  declining interest in science seems a common concern worldwide, in developed and developing countries alike. India and China are on a major drive to attract students to science.

Indeed, a separate session at ESOF addressed the question: “Why the hell should I become an academic scientist?” Despite Europe’s policies and initiatives to attract young people to science careers, replete with visions of fascinating and rewarding lives, many scientists feel that their experiences do not match up to expectations. By the time they have finished grappling with short-term contracts, long periods of mobility and fierce competition for academic positions, the fascination for science begins to wane.

How do we hook students to science?

European education experts are trying to woo students back to science. Joachim Dengg, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Germany, says a sense of adventure draws the attention of school children.

“There should be a cross-over from academia to the school level where researchers can show students that their work can be fun.”

Dengg took students out with ocean scientists for a project on how much the ocean churned when the ferry turned. “This attracts future students and fosters natural science in general,” he says.

Dengg says there is no way to map whether the students eventually opt for a science degree, but they like to broadcast their experiences on You Tube. His co-panelists agreed that Twitter and blogs are increasingly used by teachers, students and scientists alike to communicate with each other.

More young tweeting Einsteins in the making?

Marianne de Nazareth, SciDev.Net contributor

The question, which was the title of a session at ESOF 2010, has no easy answer:  had social media tools existed back then, would Einstein have blogged, tweeted or chatted about his theories on Facebook?

From the blackboard to Blackberry?

Social media tools have revolutionised how some scientists communicate about their work; how peer-reviewed journals now blog, tweet and hit Facebook and how science journalists tap them as sources of information. An overfull room on 4 July addressed the pros and cons of the new tools.

First came some sobering news from Barbara Diehl, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who says social media have not influenced the publication process for original research. BUT a number of journals are experimenting with these tools to engage with their readers and stimulate debate.

Some journals not only encourage but also oblige scientists to make their data publicly available; host a large number of blogs and social networks in which scientists exchange notes not only about their work but also about professional woes and challenges.

There are some advocates for using the web for peer review and publishing. They argue that this may help put holes in the ‘wall of consenus’ during peer review; address quality control mechanisms that sometimes slip up even in the best of journals and may open up scientific debate for people hitherto not on the radar of established science – ie. scientists from developing countries.

Those who oppose using the web for such purposes argue that it does not mean more efficient quality control and that patents will not be granted for results considered already ‘published’ on the web.

There are still others rooting for an ‘open notebook’ approach where the entire progress of a research project should be available online. The pros are more efficient research processes and less time lost in repetitive research. The cons are fears of data theft and a data tsunami.

Some believe that blogging scientists can replace us pesky science journalists. But I am relieved to hear Holger Wormer, professor of science journalism at Dortmund University in Germany, asserting we are irreplaceable.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

Can agricultural extension services, designed to bridge agricultural research outputs with farmers, offer a model for making science understandable to society at large?

A session at ESOF 2010 pondered over what works in agricultural extension and why.

Panelists concurred that agricultural extension helps farmers put scientific knowledge into contexts they are familiar with. Pierre Labarthe from the National Institute for Agricultural Research (NRA), France, explained that “agricultural extension services are linked to universities in various countries and are created as a bridge between science and practical inputs for farmers. Each country has varying capacities to access and use scientific knowledge, but all of them need a clear picture on scientific production and the actual limits of the validity of the research outcomes.”

Agri extension services: from research to use

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), for example, found the cost of fertilisers was hobbling farmers’ productivity in Africa. So extension services are geared to advise on the use of locally available organic fertilisers, says IFPRI scientist Kristin Davis.

Farmers need to know how they can work at optimum levels in changing climate conditions, and how to adhere to food safety standards, she adds.

Moussa N’Dienor, scientist at the Institute of Research for Development, Senegal, points out that farmers are additionally having to address land and water management issues, as well as coping with the high competition and stringent quality requirements of international markets.

The snag is that, unlike large international research structures, rural advisory services are suffering from declining national support; and lack direction regarding investment priorities and evidence-based policy recommendations. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, launched in January 2010, seeks to address some of these gaps.

The forum’s launch coincides with renewed interest in agricultural extension or advisory services that comes in the wake of rising food prices; renewed government and donor interest in agricultural and related advisory services; and a broad global commitment to restructure agriculture development institutions.

Marianne de Nazareth, SciDev.Net contributor

The word ‘nano’ has caught the world’s attention and we even have a car named the Nano,” David Guston from the Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes in the United States told a session on anticipatory governance of emerging technologies, at ESOF 2010 on 3 July. Anticipatory governance develops foresight, engagement and interaction with the public on their hopes, fears and expectations of nano and other new technologies, to help in more objective decision making.

Taking cues from developed countries, several developing countries too have joined the nano bandwagon, ignoring risks and regulatory aspects.

The ESOF session highlighted how nano-, and other emerging technologies, are challenging existing institutions of governance because they contribute to novel, unpredictable, yet potentially revolutionary innovations. Ultimately, public attitudes could influence their development, and it would be a good idea if, while scientists and engineers continue with their research, social scientists start mapping human responses to emerging technologies.

Ulrike Felt , a social scientist from the University of Vienna, says it is important to “understand the dynamics of (the public’s) expectations”. Citizen engagement with nano fairs and workshops to educate, interact and debate is vital to sensible anticipatory governance, says Felt.

The United Kingdom, apparently, has a more dialogue-based approach. So says Matthew Kearnes from Durham University, who worked on building social intelligence into nano scale science and engineering research.

The project dealt with how policy makers could engage with the public with regard to emerging technologies; and involved verifying public understanding of science, dialogue and public engagement.

Europe seems increasingly focused on public engagement on critical issues. Parliamentarians met at ESOF on 4 July to figure out how ‘parliamentary technology assessment’ (PTA) could support them in anticipating and managing the impact of science and technology on future societies.

Given the rapid advances in science and technology and their impact on a country’s economy, environment and society, policy makers need to keep abreast of the latest knowledge to promote or regulate new technologies, they say.

Marianne de Nazareth, SciDev.Net contributor

Scientists would love it if the public and government accepted their word as the final one. Sadly, as Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), pointed out a session on ‘evidence-based policy and policy-biased evidence’ at ESOF 2010 on 3 July: “public and policy makers’ belief in science is tenuous. People are free to ignore, distort or deny science at will”.

Leshner cites examples from the United States: government efforts to re-introduce religion into schools where the theory of creationism is taught alongside evolution; policy on research on embryonic stem cells; and government policy on climate change, as cases where science is ignored or only a small portion is acknowledged.

European science has fared better in engaging the public and policy makers. But Roland Schenkel, director general of European Commission’s joint research council, says scientific evidence is still not totally independent of political, business and other influences.

One of Europe’s success stories is Sweden’s handling of its nuclear waste. From 2002-2007, the Swedish government did a feasibility study of two candidate sites for disposal of the waste; and ran a national competition for the public to decide on the final repository.

“Lack of engagement with the public has been the key mistake (of the nuclear industry) in the past ,” says Schenkel.

Similarly, European policy makers are willing to fund more research on biofuels to resolve scientific uncertainties about their contribution to climate change mitigation, thanks to close interaction with scientists.

“Government decisions are ultimately political and science is just one element under consideration,” says Schenkel. Scientists need to be more proactive in contributing to policy.

Leshner points out scientists’ limitations. Scientists naively believe ‘educating’ the public more about a scientific issue solves the problem. But often the public may be ‘educated’ about an issue but still not like it. India’s Bt brinjal seems a perfect case.

And politicians’ decision are influenced by public perceptions that are often shaped by media coverage. As Leshner sums up: “Politicians are elected, scientists are not”.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

The question was: are science journalists too tame to be watchdogs? The verdict was mixed.

Tame watchdogs? Mixed verdict from the panel.

There has been a ‘medialisaton’ of science, with many institutes engaged in public relations and bombarding journalists with well-crafted press releases (OK, that is unusual in the developing world). Plus scientists have now started blogging too.

Add to that the pressures of time, worsened by the demands online media makes of journalists, such as blogs and twitters. So, are science journalists just not digging deep into a story?

As Hans Peter Peters, a researcher at the Institute of Neurosciences and Medicine at the Helmholtz Association in Germany, and adjunct professor of science journalism at the Free University of Berlin, told a session at ESOF 2010, on 3 July, the main goal of science public relations is ‘legitimacy’ or gaining public support for (sometimes controversial) science, rather than to disseminate information.

The pros include helping journalists find information, and helping research organisations survive in a society in which being in the media helps boost a scientist’s career.

But the cons include over-emphasising the immediate practical utility of research, framing scientific advances as organisational output, and focusing on the competitive rather than cooperative nature of science.

Who us? Tame? Don't think so.

“Science press relations is both necessary and legitimate, but it must be counterbalanced by strong science journalism,” said Peters. “Strong science journalism will not only be beneficial to the science media and scientific audiences, but also to science itself.”.

Patrick Imhalsy, member of the board of the Swiss science writers association, says it is difficult for science journalists to be really snappish watchdogs, as they lack time.

“We need more time to read scientific papers and not press releases, to understand how science research grows and not just look at the end results, to leave one’s office and go to a laboratory, and above all, to write carefully.”

So what’s your verdict?

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net.

Can science centres – public facilities such as museums and exhibitions that explain and popularise science among the public – go beyond their technical role and take on more social and political roles?

Three case studies presented by Vincenzo Lipardi, director of Fondazione Idis-Citta della Scienza, at a session on advancing science in developing countries at ESOF 2010 on 3 July highlighted the expanding responsibilities of science centres.

A UNESCO project initiated in 2003 with Lipardi’s foundation and the University of Naples aimed to promote peace and dialogue in the conflict-torn Middle East, by setting up a science centre to promote collaboration in culture, education, research and technological innovation. The centre was set up in the campus of the Palestinian Al-Quds University and supported by the Bloomfield Science Museum and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Andreas and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.

In 2004, Lipardi’s team undertook an initiative to set up a science centre in war-torn Baghdad, to make science and technology more accessible to all Iraqis; support the country’s educational system, which was destroyed during the war; and inspire Iraqi youth to take an interest in science.

In 2009, the Nigerian city of Owerri hosted the country’s first festival of science, to promote a scientific culture among Nigerians. There were interactive exhibitions on four themes – electricity and magnetism; energy, light and colour; and sound. Five outdoor workshops showcased issues closely linked to local culture – energy, environment, music, nutrition and health, and chemistry. The project also aimed to bring together politicians and the church.

Lipardi said: “Science centres can work as instruments to bring together differences in terms of culture, religion and life style”.

Amen, as Melchor Sanchez, a fellow panelist from the Vatican, would agree. Sanchez, too, sees a role for science centres in explaining science to theologists.

So that’s a lot on the platter for science centres right now.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

Are humans always better than apes that are better than monkeys in all social cognition tests, as is widely believed by many who study the evolution of the brain? Not necessary, according to Julia Fischer, professor and head of cognitive ethology laboratory at the German Primates Research Centre. Fischer set up a field station in Senegal in 2007 to study Guinea baboons and West African vervet monkeys. She had earlier studied wild baboons in Botswana.

Julia Fischer compares smartness in apes, monkeys and children

Non-human primates, such as monkeys and apes, are quite good on ‘physical cognition’ tests that test their ability to understand numbers and distances. They can accurately discriminate between different sizes and quantities of, say, raisins and pebbles– although greed (for raisins) may interfere with their performance.

They are smart too in some social cognition tests. Monkeys can figure out who in their group is friends with whom, who outranks whom and who is currently courting whom, based on subtle social cues, just like humans.

So far, scientists believed humans are better off on other social cognition tests, such as he ability to understand others’ mental state as well as their intentions, because of their bigger brains, and more gray matter inside it ( as a ratio of body size)

In an address at the opening of ESOF 2010 on 2 July, Fischer explained how preliminary data suggests that when it comes to ‘gaze following’ or directing one’s attention towards something being looked at by others,  monkeys did the best compared to apes and children.

So many more studies are needed to completely understand the evolution of the brain. Fischer says that so far cognition tests looked at aspects that humans excelled in and then compared them with apes and monkeys. This, she says, is an ‘anthropocentric’ research programme. Instead, scientists should try the ‘ecological research programme’ which looks at aspects that animals excel in and see how humans fare comparatively. Fair enough.

T V Padma,  South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

Welcome to the fourth biennial EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) conference in Turin, Italy.

Over the next five days, veteran as well as budding scientists; business people; entrepreneurs and innovators; policy makers; and science and technology communicators will discuss the latest in science and technology and also ways to bridge the gap between science and society and stimulate new science policies.

Their discussions extend beyond European borders to the advancement of science in developing countries and an African observatory for sustainable development. The Academy of Sciences of the Developing World (TWAS), one of SciDev.Net’s key supporters, will hold a session on science in Africa.

There will be a mind-boggling range of issues — food security; biotechnology and biodiversity; how to communicate climate change or agricultural research results; how to address governance issues in emerging technologies such as nanotech; and the debate on evidence-based policy and policy-biased evidence.

But there are other science matters that are borderless and that we take for granted in life. Do you, for example, know the origins and mechanisms of humour, and what happens as we grin, giggle or cackle with mirth? Or the exact explanation for some of evolution’s best-known innovations – a giraffe’s neck, an elephant’s trunk or a bat’s wing?

While on borderless science, I am delighted to find keynote speaker Raghavendra Gadagkar, from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, who will explain war and peace among his subjects — bees, wasps and ants.

And watchdogs will be discussed too — specifically, whether science journalists remain watchdogs of society. Are they losing that ability to alert against the misdeeds of science. Woof? I hope and think not. But what is your opinion?

T.V. Padma
South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net

Nuclear weapons: a case for science diplomacy

There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective.

There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level.

Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science.

These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world.

The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it).

Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective.

Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries.

There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about.

Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat.

Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions.

Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike.

Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science.

Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER).

Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions.

The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict.

On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action.

But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking.

It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have.

Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey).

The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region.

But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated.  Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts.

Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities.

Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities.

“Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either.

“On tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones. With all the caution that even this formulation still requires.

David Dickson,
Director, SciDev.Net

A biofuel plant in Brazil

Is science diplomacy a self-contained field of diplomatic activity or should it be seen as a sub-set of a broader field of international activity that might be described as “innovation diplomacy”?

This was the issue raised by Ademar Seabra da Cruz, head of science and technology in the ministry of foreign affairs of Brazil, speaking on the final day of the Wilton Park meeting on science diplomacy.

He pointed out how Brazil’s surging capacity in science and technology has provided a new channel for establishing relations with other countries, particularly emerging economies such as China and India, and those in other parts of the developing world.

“Science and innovation together have a role that can be used to promote global equality and sustainable development,” Seabra da Cruz said.

“The big challenge to us and other emerging economies is to find ways of using scientific knowledge to enhance our competitiveness and create a new international division of labour. Without linking scientific knowledge to innovation policy, it is impossible to have sustainable development.”

As an example of innovation diplomacy in action, he pointed to how technical knowledge can be exchanged between countries about the best ways of using cheap, sustainable sources of energy – as Brazil is doing with its experience in biofuels — helping to improve relations between the providers of such knowledge and those that receive it.

“This is an example of where we can exchange information about best social and innovation practices – which are all likely to involve science to a greater or lesser degree – and also provide an immediate and relatively easy way of making innovation work for diplomacy.”

He admitted that, as with science diplomacy, innovation diplomacy presents a number of challenges. Diplomats need to be well informed on innovation-related issues, embassies need to develop “observatories ” that monitor the innovation landscape of the countries in which they are based, and ways need to be found to engage a country’s scientific and technological diaspora.

But, if all this can be achieved, “like science diplomacy, innovation diplomacy is a way of broadening the scope and functions of traditional diplomacy”.

David Dickson,
Director, SciDev.Net

Princess Sumaya of Jordan: "The Muslim world must learn to cooperate better"

A key element of the new interest in science diplomacy has been the effort, particularly by the US administration, to improve relations with the countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

These efforts to use scientific agreements as a central strategy in so-called “soft diplomacy” were highlighted in a speech delivered in Cairo last year by newly elected President Barack Obama who promised a new era of cooperation with the region.

The optimism of that speech has since faded, partly because follow-up is still awaited. But many remain sympathetic to the idea that building a strong scientific and technological base in the region would not only increase the economic strength of Muslim countries, but also have broader cultural and political implications.

One of the strongest protagonists of this view is Pakistani-born Princess Sumaya of Jordan, who plays an highly active role as president of the country’s Royal Scientific Society based in Amman.

In an address to the Wilton Park meeting on science diplomacy that was both thoughtful and passionate, she presented a vision of how promoting science and technology — a task that she admitted benefitted from external support — could bring both peace and prosperity to the region.

Princess Sumaya used her speech to make vigorous criticism of the way, too often in the Muslim world, scientific leaders had a tendency to focus their efforts on building and controlling their own power bases, rather than seeing their role as part of a global scientific community.

“We Arabs have a demon within us who calls for the biggest and the brightest, a demon that appeals to us to build an edifice that will put the neighbours in the shade,” she said. “Unfortunately, we do little to work together.”

Multilateralism was not a great strength in the Arab world; indeed it was hardly a reality. But it was important for countries in the region to learn to collaborate on science and technology, just as European countries had done to boost their technological innovation.

“Our resource-rich countries must work with talent-rich, but resource-poor, economies for the benefit of all,” Princess Sumaya said. “Spreading opportunities across the Arab world will stem our debilitating brain-drain and help to create a sustainable and productive environment for all our populations.”

A similar plea had come on the previous day from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who described how the members of his organisation were committed to promoting science and technology to enhance the well-being of the Muslim world.

Keen to challenge the idea that the transfer of scientific knowledge was primarily a West-to-East affair, he pointed out that, in the seventeenth century, the English scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon had acknowledged that many key inventions – such as printing, gunpowder and the compass – had come from the Muslim world.

Ihsanoglu, a historian of science by profession, complained that Islamic contributions to science and knowledge were in danger of being overlooked as a result of campaigns of “Islamophobia” that sought to demonise the principles and values of Islamic culture.

At the same time he reminded participants that, although science diplomacy had proved to be useful in forging partnerships in fields such as education and agriculture, they should not forget that its ultimate aim – like that of more conventional forms of diplomacy – was to further a country’s interests and wider political goals.

Princess Sumaya issued a similar warning in slightly more colourful terms. “Soft power is a desirable tool for diplomacy, considering the other options available to all sides, but achieving one’s goals through co-option and attraction is only truly sustainable if we all want similar, sustainable outcomes.

“The design and exercise of soft power by the West is, to a large extent, predetermined by cultural values, political institutions and even the demands of the electoral cycle,” she stressed. “If clear, universal goals are not agreed upon, then soft power too can seem antagonistic, to be dismissed by opposing ideologues as the velvet glove of international relations.”

David Dickson,
Director, SciDev.Net

Bruce Alberts: US science envoy

When both countries and aid agencies are asked to talk about the “science for development” projects that they have supported, they frequently tend to focus on those that have been successful.

Bruce Alberts, editor of Science magazine and a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, wants to change this. He argues that there is often as much to learn from projects that have failed as from those that have succeeded.

“Let’s make a science out of sustainable development,” he told the second day of the science diplomacy meeting at Wilton House in Sussex, UK. “We must objectively learn from experiments in this area, and build up an evidence-based science of what works where – and why.”

Alberts spent much of his time at the academy promoting the need for more science in developing countries. He is now a special envoy to the US administration on scientific issues, putting him at the forefront of implementing the country’s science diplomacy strategy.

Alberts has recently been closely engaged, for example, in negotiating a set of agreements with the government of Indonesia on various aspects of scientific cooperation with the United States.

“Vision is important but we also need effective strategies,” he said.

“Nearly all projects [in applying science to development] claim to be successes, which means that the lessons learned from failure are thereby lost.”

It was understandable that governments and development agencies should be keen to demonstrate a good track record. But the result was that “we keep on making the same mistake over and over.”

Alberts admitted that some organisations, such as the World Bank, do evaluate projects that have failed. “But the reports disappear down a black hole and people never see them. It is a great waste.”

David Dickson,
Director, SciDev.Net

Traditional medicine: a space in the diplomacy debate?

Can science diplomacy be implemented from the bottom up as well as from the “top down”, as usually favoured by scientists and policymakers alike?

Yes, according to Melissa Leach, co-director of the Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability (STEPS) Centre at the University of Sussex’s Institute of Development Studies.

Leach outlined to the Wilton Park meeting a manifesto published by the STEPS centre last week that proposes a “new politics of innovation” based on a commitment to promoting “direction, distribution and diversity” in science and innovation policy — what the manifesto calls a “3D agenda”.

“We can redefine science as being about ways of knowing – including the knowledge that local people have in their own settings – and redefine diplomacy as being about establishing links between people,” she said.

Using these definitions led to a different – if somewhat unconventional – understanding of science diplomacy, she admitted.

But it was one that promised to lead to a more effective technique for bridging the gap between the world’s rich and its poor, as well as meeting the goals of sustainable development, achieving both in ways that current patterns of growth and innovation are failing to do.

“We want to create networks of networks that fit a world in which politics is about connections between actors forming around common agendas and visions for tackling global challenges,” said Leach.

Not all participants were eager to accept the way that she suggested combining a respect for traditional, indigenous knowledge with the more formal types of knowledge that make up contemporary science.

One participant, for example, called this a “deeply dangerous” idea that diplomats should avoid, on the grounds that it meant acknowledging concepts such  as the idea that eating the flesh of an animal could impart some of that animal’s qualities.

But Leach defended her position vigorously and claimed that such criticism was a “serious misreading” of her suggestion.

“We are not talking about folk wisdom that is incompatible with modern science. But we are talking about people’s science which is compatible with Western science, as well as knowledge that can challenge such science,” she said.

She pointed, for example, to areas of which she had direct experience such as forest dynamics and fire management.

But traditional knowledge should also be subject to scrutiny.

“There is scope for hybrids. The need for active deliberation and choice applies as much to traditional knowledge as it does to formal science.”

David Dickson, Director, SciDev.Net

The International Space Station: science diplomacy in action

Using science as a vehicle for international diplomacy has many clear attractions. Such is the case, for example, when it can be used to forge common approaches to international problems (such as climate change), or appears to offer a way around divisive political disagreements.

But, as rapidly become clear in the opening session of the three-day meeting on science diplomacy being held at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, putting the principle of such diplomacy into action presents many practical problems, some of which SciDev.Net aired last week (see Science diplomacy must be more ambitious).

As several participants pointed out, this is particularly the case at a time when science budgets are under pressure, and scientists are being asked to justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical contributions they make to national – rather than international – well-being.

The dilemma was highlighted by the very first speaker at the meeting, Peter Fletcher, chair of panel that seeks to co-ordinate the international activities of Britain’s research councils.

Fletcher outlined the many ways in which science can be effectively used as a diplomatic tool. He pointed out, for example, that scientific cooperation offered countries such as Britain an opportunity to establish good relations with the Muslim world in just the same way that it had helped them build bridges with China in the 1990s.

“Science is a way of building relationships, sometimes even before politicians have agreed to talk.” Fletcher said. “Researchers are used to working across national boundaries. They understand people who are thinking about the same things as they are, and are used to working together in ways in which other people are not.”

But he also pointed out that, with the UK having just announced a 25% reduction in its science budget, governments were increasingly requiring scientists to demonstrate the value of their work for those who paid for it. “How much are we prepared to commit to solving global challenges for mutual benefit [in this context]?” he asked.

Other challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington DC

Turekian pointed out that part of the attraction of using science for diplomatic purposes was its apolitical nature. In addition, the United States, for example, was well placed to exploit the fact that its science was held in much higher regard around the world that many of its other activities.

He quoted a recent visit to Syria by a US scientific delegation that had met with President Assad – an ophthalmologist – as an example of how science diplomacy could help promote political engagement in situations where official relations were limited.

“Science cooperation has provided a wonderful way to have a dialogue on issues of mutual interest,” Turekian said.

But he also pointed to some of the barriers that prevent science diplomacy from operating effectively, such as asymmetries in scientific capabilities, economic or security concerns over providing access to certain types of key technologies, and a general lack of funding.

In the discussion that followed, it became clear that these barriers are likely to become an important focus of attention over the next two days.

Several participants, for example, pointed to the obstacles to international scientific exchange presented by the increasing restrictions on entrance visas being placed by countries such as the United States.

“It becomes so difficult for someone to get into the US that once they are there, they cannot afford to go home, even for a short visit, because they have no idea whether they will be able to get back in,” was one typical comment.

Others pointed to the broader issue of an apparent conflict between the supposed goal of science to promote international interests, and the goal of diplomacy, namely  to advance the national interests of the country that the diplomat is serving.

There has been much talk of the need to find a way of achieving  a balance between these two tendencies. Reaching agreement on where that balance should lie is a major challenge. Achieving that balance will be even harder. Already it is clear from this meeting that science diplomacy is easier said than done.

David Dickson,
Director, SciDev.Net