|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 25
2
Science for Diplomacy—
Diplomacy for Science
Science diplomacy is not new, even though it has recently seen a sig -
nificant surge of interest. For many years, governments and individuals
have realized, and acted on, the value of science in furthering relation -
ships, although these actions have often not been identified as science
diplomacy.
Science diplomacy is a term now used to describe a variety of activi-
ties and often implies different things to different people; discussants
suggested that this lack of clarity can sometimes be a disadvantage. Most
workshop participants acknowledged that while science diplomacy is
closely related to the topic of global science cooperation, addressed in
the first part of the workshop and of this report, the two terms are not
identical and should not be used interchangeably. They stressed the
importance of clarity and transparency with regard to the motivations
for various activities that have been described by the term science diplo-
macy, and simultaneously acknowledged the difficulties in arriving at a
single definition of the term and in defining boundaries that should be
drawn between science cooperation and science diplomacy.
DEFINITION OF SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
Lama Youssef of Syria pointed out that according to Webster’s
Dictionary, diplomacy is defined as “the art and practice of conducting
negotiations between nations” and also as “a skill in handling affairs
without arousing hostility.” Those two are quite different definitions
with different implications. Since a primary meaning of diplomacy is as
an instrument of governments, some understand science diplomacy as a
way to pursue a national agenda, or otherwise stated, a component of
25
OCR for page 26
26 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
“soft power.” Youssef noted that one of the international science com -
munity’s main objectives, trust building, is not compatible with the
idea of soft power. According to her, even though science diplomacy
promises to rise above conflict,
the term raises serious ideological
Clarity and transparency are
questions and practical challenges.
important. The kinds of things
many of us are doing can help Such challenges are apparent in the
in improving people’s lives.
Middle East, where U.S. policies
But it is not always clear that
evoke doubts about true intentions.
it is a good idea to label it
John Boright, executive director
“diplomacy.”
for international affairs for the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
John Boright, Executive Director, Inter-
national Affairs, U.S. NAS
(NAS), cautioned against implying
that potentially divisive national
agendas are being pursued when using the term “science diplomacy,”
in cases where the motivation is simply advancing science, address -
ing common problems, and building personal relationships. Scientific
cooperation and exchanges between the United States and Iran were
cited as an example of cases in which the label science diplomacy could
affect scientific counterparts negatively.
Diplomacy is also seen as the science or art of avoiding difficulties
and successfully engaging in a dialogue with others; thus, it is not sur-
prising that many workshop participants regarded science diplomacy as
a useful means of global engagement. As Vaughan Turekian stated, sci -
ence is a good way to engage with people from other countries, because
it provides a common language, is collaborative, addresses major soci -
etal challenges, and is based on common methods (peer review, for
example). But participants noted that, at the same time, global scientific
engagement, if called diplomacy, can be problematic for many U.S.
governmental agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF),
which have mandates to advance science—but not foreign policy. There-
fore, there are advantages to using the simple, and accurate, label of
advancing science through international cooperation.
Norman Neureiter, first science and technology advisor to the U.S.
secretary of state, warned against defining science diplomacy exclusively
by the words science and diplomacy together. Instead, it is a more com-
plex concept and can be understood better by considering examples.
Several examples from Neureiter’s and others’ extensive experience in
international engagement are mentioned in the section “What Has Been
Done with Science Diplomacy?” in this chapter.
OCR for page 27
27
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
Hernan Chaimovich from Brazil voiced concern about the defini -
tion of science diplomacy used in the United States because it implies
the existence of a conflict. This, he observed, can result in less focus
on scientific exchanges with regions such as Latin America and South
America, where engagement is highly desirable.
Several times during the workshop, participants referred to the
Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Sci -
ence (AAAS) report New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy (2010)1, which
presents a proposed set of three roles related to science diplomacy:
1. Informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice (science in
diplomacy)
Science can be used to inform diplomatic decisions or agreements,
which can be called science in diplomacy. In this case, a science study
can set out the relevant evidence to help solve a disagreement between
two countries.
2. Facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science)
This role often refers to flagship international projects in which
nations come together to collaborate on high-cost, high-risk scientific
projects that otherwise could not be conducted. But it also refers to the
set of policies, such as those governing international travel, that facilitate
international science cooperation.
3. Using science cooperation to improve international relations between
countries (science for diplomacy)
This role refers to the use of science as a means to improve strained
relations between different countries. Science cooperation agreements
and joint commissions between the United States and the Soviet Union
(USSR) or China during the cold war are examples of the role science
and scientists can play in diplomacy.
ACTORS IN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
Participants suggested that a way to frame science diplomacy is to
identify possible actors. Several felt that when discussing science diplo -
macy, one generally emphasizes the important role of the government.
James Herrington praised the efforts in the 1960s by Congressman John
Fogarty, who pushed for a global agenda in medical research and public
1The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. London: The Royal
Society.
OCR for page 28
28 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
health. Herrington deplored the scarcity of people with Fogarty’s vision
today. Jason Rao, senior policy advisor at the White House Office of Sci-
ence and Technology Policy, also recognized government’s essential role.
He noted that much of the government policy framework is still stuck
in the cold war, which makes actions on the ground difficult. However,
at the same time, there is recognition at the highest level of the U.S.
administration that the challenges mentioned in this discussion are the
grand challenges of today.
Hernan Chaimovich also suggested that science diplomacy is done
by the state, and while science can be a tool for diplomacy, it is part of
a government’s policy. According to him, the problem we are facing
today is the relationship between a government’s policy and the agen-
cies that are effectively engaged with scientific cooperation, including
the private sector. As an example, he referred to the stagnant budget of
NSF’s international division over the past few years, which appears to
be mainly due to policy issues.
Several participants underlined the importance of funding. Daniel
Goroff of the Sloan Foundation stated that science and scientific knowl-
edge are a public good, which by definition is nonexcludable and non -
rival, meaning that no one can be excluded from using it, and its “con -
sumption” by one individual does not reduce its availability to another
individual. Most people expect it to be free, but in fact, it does have a
cost. Therefore, it takes collective will and organization to make science
happen.
Another question was about whether the corporate world was doing
science. Vaughan Turekian stated that “governments and metascience
organizations (academies, associations, and so on) do science diplo-
macy, scientists do science, and businesses do business.” One comment
was that a science component in governmental diplomacy is valuable,
but science must still be real science; it must be true to the scientific
method, for example, not using selected evidence to reach a desired
conclusion. Susan Gardner of the U.S. Department of State observed
that although businesses do indeed focus on business, their activity can
influence relationships and interstate diplomatic outcomes positively or
negatively. This and several other examples and comments emphasized
the scale, effect, and importance of science and technology efforts out -
side of government.
Participants offered examples where science diplomacy was valuable
and where interactions among scientists, whether in the government,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or the private sector, contrib -
OCR for page 29
29
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
uted to building bridges and addressing common problems. Several
participants suggested implementation principles, including clarity and
transparency of goals; focusing on clear, common interests; sustained
cooperative relationships with individuals and institutions; and the
importance of involving young participants.
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH SCIENCE DIPLOMACY?
Workshop participants provided many examples illustrating the role
that science can play in building bridges between nations. U.S.–USSR,
U.S.–Japan, and U.S.–China cooperation was mentioned by several as a
means of moving away from hostile relationships.
Norman Neureiter recalled that in 1961, as the nuclear arsenals were
building up, scientists from the United States and Russia met privately to
discuss how to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. In the same year, Edwin
O. Reischauer, appointed as the U.S. ambassador to Japan by President
Kennedy, helped initiate scientific exchanges through the U.S.–Japan Joint
Committee on Scientific Cooperation at a moment of “broken dialogue”
between the two intellectual communities. This joint committee is still
operating today and is a classic example of successful science diplomacy.
Neureiter also reviewed President Nixon’s historic 1972 diplomatic
visit to China, noting its contribution to the normalization of rela-
tions between the two countries and stressing that science played an
important role in that achievement. Neureiter, who was at that time
the assistant for international affairs for President Nixon’s science advi -
sor, worked with the National Academy of Sciences on a previously
established Committee on Scholarly Communications with China and
produced several initiatives for science cooperation that were part of the
diplomatic package discussed with the Chinese government.
Another example is the 1972 Moscow summit with President
Nixon and Russian President Brezhnev, which led to the creation of a
joint committee on science cooperation that resulted in seven science
agreements. Unfortunately, U.S.–USSR science cooperation was cut off
under President Jimmy Carter after Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan. As
Norman Neureiter noted, science was the driver in these programs, but
results were achieved both at the scientific and at the diplomatic levels.
This can still be done today, with the United States continuing to face
many challenges in engaging the world.
David Hamburg, president emeritus of the Carnegie Corporation of
New York, added to the historical perspectives on the important role
OCR for page 30
30 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
of dialogue among scientists in reducing the threat posed by superpower
confrontation. He noted that at times the science community was ahead
of foreign policy leaders in demonstrating that value. For example,
Hamburg was involved in discussions related to the Cuban missile
crisis and consideration of communication steps aimed at prevention
of a nuclear catastrophe. He recalled numerous discussions between
scientists and policy makers and the important role they played in ana-
lyzing the crisis at that moment and setting approaches and practices for
minimizing the risks of future confrontations. The scientific community
remained closely involved in bridging the gap created during the cold
war and was particularly helpful during Gorbachev’s presidency as he
was attempting to change Soviet policies. During Hamburg’s presi -
dency of the Carnegie Corporation, he participated in the creation of
Carnegie commissions such as the Commission on Science, Technology,
and Government in 1988 and the Commission on Preventing Deadly
Conflict in 1994, subsequent to the deadly war in the former Yugoslavia.
After the end of the cold war, he said, the science aspect of U.S.
diplomacy was considerably less dramatic. But in recent years, it is
once again becoming increasingly clear that science is a valuable way to
engage more actively with nations that have strained or complex rela-
tions with the United States, such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and
Myanmar. Science is once again being used as a bridge-building strategy.
This is also true when science diplomacy is applied to bridging the
societal domain (governance, economy, and values) and the natural
domain (ecosystem, water quality, and water quantity) said Shafiqul
Islam of Tufts University. He underlined the importance of building
interdisciplinary teams and cited the program in water and diplomacy
at Tufts University as a successful model, mainly because it created a
network of complementary teams from different parts of the world.
Emerging nations such as Rwanda can act as ambassadors for sci-
ence and play an active role in promoting it nationally and internation -
ally, suggested Romain Murenzi, former minister of science, technology,
and scientific research for Rwanda. Rwanda’s government has a strong
belief in the important role of science, technology, and information and
communication technologies (ICT) in transforming the country from
an agriculture-based economy to a knowledge-based economy. Murenzi
highlighted the personal commitment of Rwanda’s president, His Excel-
lency Paul Kagame, who gave keynote addresses at meetings of the Royal
Society, AAAS, and the U.S. Department of State and pointed toward
the Rwandan Integrated ICT-led Socio-Economic Development Policy
OCR for page 31
31
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
and Plan and the work of the Kigali Institute of Science and Technol-
ogy. Murenzi then reiterated the role of the private sector and corporate
partnerships in building science and technology capabilities.
BARRIERS TO PROGRESS IN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
Workshop presentations and discussions on barriers to progress and
best practices for advancing science in the global context and for science
diplomacy were very similar. Participants suggested several barriers to
progress that are also encountered in science diplomacy.
Unclear Motivations and Restrictions on Mobility
The U.S. government has been actively undertaking science diplo -
macy efforts in the last few years. Some participants stated that these
efforts are most important when there are difficult governmental rela -
tionships, which can lead to sensitivity as to the motivation behind
these efforts. They noted that the limitations on U.S. use of science in
diplomacy are often long-standing policies and laws that were motivated
originally and primarily by a concern for control of technology, whereas
now what seems most needed is engagement and the embrace of compe-
tition. This is particularly salient in unnecessarily cumbersome mobility
controls, that is, visas and travel restrictions.
Foreign professionals were described as often being of two minds:
They value collaborating with U.S. counterparts, yet many are also
apprehensive about attending conferences within the United States
because of visa uncertainties and difficulties, and security controls. Sci -
ence envoy Gebisa Ejeta noted that implementation of controls in the
United States since September 11, 2001, has been very discouraging
and has stifled its global engagement capacities. Several workshop par-
ticipants also noted that U.S. policies ought to recognize that effective
competition raises the bar for everyone and serves as a major source of
future opportunities.
Weak Public–Private Partnerships
Many participants emphasized the importance of the private sector
in global science and technology engagement. As Eric Bone of the
U.S. Department of State observed, partnerships with the private sec -
tor are essential, and science diplomacy should not be restricted to a
OCR for page 32
32 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
government-to-government exercise. Unfortunately, capacity for this
type of partnership is weak in the developing world, noted Gebisa
Ejeta. A related impediment, he said, is that existing policy and regula-
tory frameworks have been perceived by some as biased towards the
developed world. This is particularly relevant to intellectual property
rights, such as the ones generated by the 1985 Utility Patent Act for
biological agents and products. This act encouraged the heavy infusion
of financial resources to private-sector research in the field of molecular
biology. It also resulted inadvertently in a significant reduction in public
research spending in both developed and developing countries. These
new investments in the private sector triggered a rush of patenting, in
some cases fueling misunderstandings among poor and rich nations.
Ejeta added that public–private partnerships in the developed world
also need to be revisited. For example, increases of private investments
in agricultural biotechnology are associated generally with decreased
public spending, thus creating an unhealthy imbalance.
Inflexibility in U.S. Government Programs
Despite the many efforts put forward by the U.S. government, the
discussion identified difficulties for foreign organizations in engaging
U.S. governmental science agencies. Discussion leader Michael Clegg
pointed to the diversity and the structural complexity of the U.S. science
agencies and the lack of mechanisms for coordinating and integrating
diplomatic activities undertaken by the government, businesses, and
NGOs. Existing bureaucratic diversity and inflexibility, he said, often
makes communication with U.S. agencies difficult and inhibits science
diplomacy endeavors. Eric Bone also noted the disconnect between the
form that science diplomacy is taking today and the current organiza-
tional structure.
Volker ter Meulen, of University of Würzburg and former president
of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, underlined the common
inflexibility in decision-making processes and described a political culture
of “short-termism” among policy makers, where science is expected to
provide easy answers quickly and contribute on short notice to single
issues. Instead, he suggested building longer-term relationships between
scientific and political communities based on trust and mutual confidence.
He also noted the importance of creating and maintaining flexibility in
political decision making and of being “prepared for the unexpected” to
be able to deal with future developments and a changing evidence base.
OCR for page 33
33
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
Lack of Incentives
Another barrier that was identified by several workshop partici -
pants is the lack of incentives in both the U.S. government and aca-
demia for the participation of U.S.
professionals in international sci-
We need more people from
ence. Gebisa Ejeta observed that the science community to work
scientific achievements enabled by within the Department of State.
global collaborations are often not
credited appropriately, and for most Eric Bone, Senior Scientist and Policy
Advisor, U.S. Department of State
academic leaders, engagement in
international development is under-
taken at the expense of their domestic responsibilities. Several workshop
participants also highlighted the importance of engaging scientists in
diplomatic conversations. They emphasized the need for more science
attachés in U.S. embassies and suggested implementing a better struc -
ture within the State Department to make it easy, attractive, and useful
for people from the science community to serve as science attachés.
Lack of Human Capital and Infrastructure in
Partner Developing Countries
A serious lack of human capital, coherent national science and tech -
nology strategies, and research infrastructures in potentially partnering
countries was identified by some workshop participants as an important
barrier to more effective international engagement. Gebisa Ejeta and
others stated that weak human capacity, in part owing to brain drain,
and the lack of adequate research infrastructure in developing countries
has too often derailed promising science-based developments or worse,
prevented their successful exploitation.
Ejeta also underlined the differences in goals and aspirations between
institutions in the United States and those in developing countries that
often create an awkward dialogue about the objectives of collaborative
partnerships. Most of the advanced research institutions in the devel -
oped world aim at creating a global public good; in contrast, research
centers in most developing countries focus on the development of locally
needed products and services. Nevertheless, he believed that the two
goals are mutually supportive, and if the parties communicate and work
together, a win-win scenario often can be reached. He also noted an
overreliance in developing countries on external funding to capitalize on
OCR for page 34
34 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
science diplomacy and global science cooperation opportunities, which
is, of course, largely because of insufficient local resource commitment
to science. There is a shortage of functional research centers and sci-
ence support architecture such as science and technology commissions,
merit-based funding mechanisms, or science academies in the develop -
ing world.2 Several participants identified building such structures as an
important goal of science diplomacy.
Lack of a Unified Voice Within the Science Community
Many workshop participants underlined the failure of scientists to
effectively engage policy makers and the public in understanding the
role of science and its potential value in diplomacy and in development.
According to Volker ter Meulen, the main challenges are the lack of
a unified voice to speak on behalf of science and the lack of experience
within the political institutions to
use science and effectively commu-
The scientific community
nicate with the science community.
needs to understand the
This challenge is often compounded
dynamics of the increasingly
complex diplomatic system and by the multiplicity of other voices in
make sure that the science
a crowded world. In a very compli-
voice is heard.
cated diplomatic system, involving
NGOs, intergovernmental organi-
Volker ter Meulen, former President,
zations, media, and new commu-
German Academy of Sciences
Leopoldina
nication modes and networks, the
scientific community must learn
how to inform and engage more effectively with all these groups and gov-
ernments. Furthermore, several participants underscored the importance
of recognizing that many of the major policy challenges require science
in diplomacy across a broad front. For example, tackling the Millennium
Development Goals requires understanding and action on food, health,
and the environment, which involves multiple government departments
2While not every country has a science academy, the number is growing. The Academy of Sci -
ences for the Developing World (TWAS) is an autonomous international organization whose
principal aim is to promote scientific capacity and excellence for sustainable development in the
South ( http://twas.ictp.it/).
There is also the Inter-Academy Panel (IAP), a global network of the world’s science academies
launched in 1993. Its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens
and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues.” (http://www.interacademies.
net/)
OCR for page 35
35
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
and requires a coherent and integrated policy. Unfortunately, noted one
discussant, there are often organizational barriers within and between
governments, in addition to the low public understanding and support
for such policies.
Broken Promises
Some workshop participants felt that another challenge to effective
science diplomacy is the failure of governments to implement commit -
ments made in bilateral, summit, and other meetings, thus undermining
the credibility of the science diplomacy process. As observed by Michael
Clegg, the United States and other advanced nations make commit-
ments that they do not always honor. For example, unmet expectations
of U.S. agency participation in joint
projects of the U.S.–Mexico Foun-
New is not always better; we
dation for Science, created by good may want to do more of what
intentions, have led to an awkward we have always done well.
situation between the two partners.
Larry Weber of NSF noted a similar Gebisa Ejeta, Distinguished Professor
of Agronomy, Purdue University, and
situation after the U.S. government U.S. Science Envoy
put forward a broad Middle East-
ern agenda, fueling large expecta-
tions in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Considerable efforts and progress
have been made, yet financial support was insufficient to meet high
expectations created by publicly announced agendas.
There may be too much of a tendency to assume that new initiatives
are needed, noted Gebisa Ejeta. In many cases there are already existing
programs and agencies for international cooperation that have impor-
tant goals and have built capabilities but do not have enough resources,
and it may be effective to provide the programs already in place with
needed resources.
BETTER APPLICATIONS OF SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
Workshop participants suggested a variety of ways to improve cur-
rent and future science diplomacy efforts, some of which are described
below. These suggestions came from individual participants and do not
represent a consensus of the workshop attendees or the committee.
OCR for page 36
36 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
Better Partnership Between Government, Private Sector, and NGOs
Several participants believed that there is a need for better part-
nerships between the government, the private sector, universities, and
NGOs, in both the developed and the developing world. C. D. Mote Jr.
and others promoted revisiting the government-university partnership
articulated in Vannevar Bush’s Science: The Endless Frontier, in light of
the global challenges we are facing in the twenty-first century, the large
private-sector role in technology transfer, and the global nature of con -
temporary scientific inquiry.
For developing countries, Abdul Hamid Zakri, science advisor to the
prime minister of Malaysia, noted the increasing number of U.S. compa-
nies with branches and operations and many technical employees in the
developing world. These companies could collaborate easily with local
universities and thus further capacity building in developing countries.
Involvement of Young People
Many participants underscored the role of young people, describing
existing and potential ways to involve them in science diplomacy efforts.
Marvadeen Singh-Wilmot of Jamaica told of the creation of a Young
Scientist Ambassador Program (YSAP, see Box 1-1) in 2010, aimed
at bridging the international scientific gap by facilitating cultural and
scientific interactions through the ambassadorship of young scientists.
The YSAP itself grew out of the InterAcademy Panel program that
involves young scientists in the World Economic Forum Summer Davos
Program. The U.S. NAS Kavli Frontiers of Science symposia for leading
young U.S. and foreign scientists was given as another example. Some of
the early career workshop participants also noted that it is important to
recognize and make efficient use of the increasing role of social media
as a communication tool, especially among younger generations. For
example, through the Young Scientist Volunteer Program (YSVP), early
career scientists use social media forums (such as Facebook) to share
scientific papers or analytical data among each other. One reason given
for the importance of such programs is the huge demographic bulge of
youth in many countries.
Enhancement of Scientific Capability in the Foreign Service
Abdul Hamid Zakri and other participants emphasized the value
of greater scientific expertise within the Foreign Service and the State
OCR for page 37
37
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
Department. They encouraged the appointment of science attachés to
U.S. embassies and suggested making this effort symmetrical in order to
build sustainable relationships, thus encouraging developing countries
to appoint science attachés in their embassies as well. It is important
to make this career choice attractive and professionally relevant for
scientists. As Rita Colwell pointed out, working on very good and real
problems “might not get you the Nobel science prize, but [it could get
you] the Nobel peace prize.” She also suggested that, given modern
communications capabilities, in some cases the most effective way of
strengthening the science and technology capacity at U.S. embassies is
by a series of short-term visits from U.S. technical agency representa-
tives, instead of a multiyear assignment of one science officer.
Enhancement of Agencies’ Ability to Operate
Many participants recognized that the U.S. science agency architec-
ture is very complex and diverse. U.S. agencies have to operate within
constraints, such as restrictions on spending outside of the United States,
and overall flat or decreasing funding, making innovative international
collaboration difficult. “Form has to follow function,” said Cutberto
Garza, which means that these constraints need to be addressed so that
we can move forward and make it more straightforward for our partners
to collaborate with U.S. agencies.
Encouragement of Competition
In several cases, participants noted specific global challenges, such
as creating food security, meeting energy needs, adjusting to climate
change, and controlling infectious disease, that require collective action.
Khotso Mokhele noted various ways
in which the U.S. policy and sci-
We are in a different world;
ence system could gain significantly let us embrace it as a positive
from embracing the emergence of development for humankind.
new major centers of research in
other parts of the world and the Khotso Mokhele, former President
of South Africa’s National Research
consequent healthy scientific com- Foundation
petition. He suggested that instead
of remaining hobbled by outdated
restrictions reflecting circumstances and security concerns of past
decades, the U.S. system should rise to the challenge by becoming
OCR for page 38
38 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
more attractive; this includes reducing mobility constraints on incoming
students, visitors, and scholars and revising the current visa system, per-
haps requiring new Congressional action, as suggested by Rita Colwell.
Emphasis on Educational and Professional Development
Azamat Abdymomunov, former vice minister of education and sci-
ence of the Republic of Kazakhstan, underlined the need for a stronger
emphasis on science and technology in higher education and profes-
sional development. He added that meeting this need is crucial to eco-
nomic development and other important goals of science diplomacy.
Unfortunately, in some developing countries, higher education is sepa -
rated from research and, instead of providing opportunities to develop
relevant skills for the modern workplace, or even more for innovation
and job creation, higher education is limited to being a buffer zone
between high school and labor-force entry. As a result, many young
people seek to enter the labor force without the necessary professional
skills or experiences. And, as observed by Abdymomunov, “a young
frustrated, unemployed person can be as dangerous as a nuclear physi -
cist or a bioweapons engineer.”
Cutberto Garza noted that in the United States there is a need for
better preparation for the globalized world, including science diplo -
macy opportunities. Despite English being the language of science,
there should be more emphasis on making Americans more cultur-
ally and linguistically aware and globally skilled to both engage effec-
tively and compete effectively in the twenty-first century. There is also
a need to develop new communication tools, so that scientists and
science programs can reach out to non-anglophone communities, said
Mohamed Behnassi of Morocco.
Effective Involvement of Politicians and the Public
Several workshop participants noted that scientists need to develop
appropriate communication skills and experiences to engage domestic
and international politicians and the public more effectively. One partic -
ipant suggested publishing science diplomacy-related articles in foreign
affairs journals instead of scientific journals, to expose politicians and
the public to the importance of science in international affairs, and to
the significance of what is currently being done. Furthermore, Hernan
Chaimovich stated that science diplomacy and leadership can help con -
OCR for page 39
39
SCIENCE FOR DIPLOMACY—DIPLOMACY FOR SCIENCE
vey that science literacy is a vital part of general education in globalized,
knowledge-driven economies, and key to national success and cultural
independence.
Participants from some We need outstanding scientists
developing countries noted that from the United States to come
there often is an unmet need to to our countries and bombard
the people and the children
strengthen a science culture and
with science. Let them know
help position science appropriately
that science has answers.
within civil society. “In my part of
the world, science and scientists Marvadeeen Singh-Wilmot, Professor
have no status,” said Marvadeeen of Chemistry, University of the West
Indies, Jamaica
Singh-Wilmot. She asked outstand-
ing U.S. scientists to visit develop-
ing countries and bring the importance of science to public attention.
In many developing countries, sustained cooperative activities and
frequent exchanges will be needed to maintain momentum and finally
build a science culture.
Emphasis on the Interface of Science and Policy
Abdul Hamid Zakri and other participants called for the creation
of centers of excellence that would focus on the interface of science and
policy. Lama Youssef added that the discourse on science diplomacy
should not only be based on emotions but be based mainly on research
to see whether it is efficient.
Importance of Transparency and Clarity
Many participants reiterated the importance of clarity, transparency,
and directness in the science diplomacy process: We need to be selective
in choosing clear terms to explain what we are doing and why. Azamat
Abdymomunov suggested clearly defining and communicating national
interests to partners, to avoid future misunderstandings and contribute
to building mutual trust.
During the last session, participants reflected on issues that were
raised during the two days of the workshop. They noted that there was
a substantial overlap between the applications of global science and
science diplomacy, while recognizing the importance of distinguishing
between the two types of endeavors and clearly communicating the
motivations behind each.
OCR for page 40
