New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy RS Policy Document 01/10 Issued: January 2010 RS1619

Home , Diplomacy, Science diplomacy, Science policy

The Royal Society For further information

The Royal Society is a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding The Royal Society individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and Science Policy Centre medicine, who form a global scientifi c network of the highest 6–9 Carlton House Terrace New frontiers in calibre. The Fellowship is supported by over 130 permanent staff London SW1Y 5AG with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Society T +44 (0)20 7451 2500 and its activities. The Society encourages public debate on key F +44 (0)20 7451 2692 issues involving science, engineering and medicine, and the use of E [email protected] high quality scientifi c advice in policy-making. We are committed to science diplomacy W royalsociety.org delivering the best independent expert advice, drawing upon the experience of the Society’s Fellows and Foreign Members, the Navigating the changing balance of power wider scientifi c community and relevant stakeholders. In our 350th anniversary year and beyond we are working to January 2010 achieve fi ve strategic priorities:

• Invest in future scientiﬁ c leaders and in innovation

• Inﬂ uence policymaking with the best scientiﬁ c advice

• Invigorate science and mathematics education

• Increase access to the best science internationally

• Inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and excitement of scientiﬁ c discovery

ISBN 978-0-85403-811-4

ISBN: 978-0-85403-811-4 Issued: January 2010 Report 01/10 RS1619 Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK, dedicated to promoting excellence in science 9 780854 038114 Registered Charity No 207043

Price £10 The cover image is a figure of a dipping needle from ‘Directions for observations and experiments to be made by masters of ships, pilots and other fit persons in their sea-voyages’ by Sir Robert Moray FRS and Robert Hooke FRS, which appeared in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1666. The world’s oldest scientific journal in continuous publication, Philosophical Transactions was first published in 1665 to inform and connect the Fellows of the Society and other natural philosophers all over the world to new frontiers in scientific knowledge. New frontiers in science diplomacy RS Policy document 01/10 Issued: January 2010 RS1619

ISBN: 978-0-85403-811-4 © The Royal Society, 2010

Requests to reproduce all or part of this document should be submitted to: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre 6–9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Tel +44 (0)20 7451 2500 Email [email protected] Web royalsociety.org

Design by Franziska Hinz, Royal Society, London Copyedited and Typeset by Techset Composition Limited New frontiers in science diplomacy

Contents

Summary v

1 The changing role of science in foreign policy 1 1.1 A brief history of science diplomacy 1 1.2 A renewed interest in science diplomacy 2

2 Science in diplomacy 5 2.1 Building capacity to give and receive scientiﬁ c advice 6

3 Diplomacy for science 9

4 Science for diplomacy 11 4.1 New dimensions of international security 12

5 Conclusions 15 5.1 The three dimensions of science diplomacy 15 5.2 Science and universal values 15 5.3 The soft power of science 15 5.4 Motivations for science diplomacy 15 5.5 Avoiding politicisation 16 5.6 Practical barriers to scientiﬁ c exchange 16 5.7 Widening the circle of science diplomacy 17 5.8 Fostering science diplomats 17 5.9 Priorities for science diplomacy 17

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I iii Case study 1 Using science to strengthen relations with the Islamic world 19

Case study 2 The governance of international spaces 23

References 26

Acknowledgements 29

Appendix 1 Discussion meeting programme 30

iv I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Summary

‘Many of the challenges we face today are The potential contribution of science to international and—whether it’s tackling foreign policy is attracting more attention climate change or fi ghting disease—these in several countries. In the UK, the Prime global problems require global solutions . . . Minister Gordon Brown recently called for That is why it is important that we create a a ‘new role for science in international new role for science in international policy- policymaking and diplomacy’ (Brown making and diplomacy . . . to place science 2009). This report attempts to defi ne this at the heart of the progressive international role, and to demonstrate how scientists, agenda.’ diplomats and other policymakers can make it work in practice. Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister The report is based on the evidence Science diplomacy is not new, but it has gathered at a two-day meeting on ‘New never been more important. Many of the frontiers in science diplomacy’, which was defi ning challenges of the 21st century— hosted by the Royal Society from 1_2 June from climate change and food security, to 2009, in partnership with the American poverty reduction and nuclear Association for the Advancement of disarmament—have scientifi c dimensions. Science (AAAS). The meeting was No one country will be able to solve these attended by almost 200 delegates from problems on its own. The tools, techniques twenty countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and tactics of foreign policy need to adapt the Middle East, North and South America. to a world of increasing scientifi c and Attendees included government ministers, technical complexity. scientists, diplomats, policymakers, There are strong foundations on which to business leaders and journalists (see renew momentum for science diplomacy. Appendix 1 for the meeting agenda). Advances in science have long relied on international fl ows of people and ideas. To give an example close to home, the post Three dimensions of science of Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society diplomacy was instituted in 1723, nearly 60 years Drawing on historical and contemporary before the British Government appointed examples, the meeting explored how its fi rst Secretary of State for Foreign science can contribute to foreign policy Affairs. Throughout the Cold War, objectives. Key points to emerge from the scientifi c organisations were an important discussion include: conduit for informal discussion of nuclear • ‘Science diplomacy’ is still a fl uid issues between the United States and the concept, but can usefully be applied Soviet Union. Today, science offers to the role of science, technology alternative channels of engagement with and innovation in three dimensions countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and of policy: Pakistan.

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I v ᭺ informing foreign policy objectives • Science diplomacy seeks to strengthen with scientifi c advice (science in the symbiosis between the interests diplomacy); and motivations of the scientifi c and foreign policy communities. For the ᭺ facilitating international science former, international cooperation is cooperation (diplomacy for often driven by a desire to access the science); best people, research facilities or new ᭺ using science cooperation to sources of funding. For the latter, improve international relations science offers potentially useful between countries (science for networks and channels of communi- diplomacy). cation that can be used to support wider policy goals. But it is important • Scientifi c values of rationality, that scientifi c and diplomatic goals transparency and universality are remain clearly defi ned, to avoid the the same the world over. They can undue politicisation of science. help to underpin good governance and build trust between nations. • Foreign ministries should place greater Science provides a non-ideological emphasis on science within their environment for the participation strategies, and draw more extensively and free exchange of ideas between on scientifi c advice in the formation people, regardless of cultural, and delivery of policy objectives. In the national or religious backgrounds. UK, the appointment of Professor David Clary FRS as the Chief Scientifi c • Science is a source of what Joseph Adviser at the Foreign and Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy Commonwealth Offi ce creates an School of Government at Harvard important opportunity to integrate University, terms ‘soft power’ (Nye science across FCO priorities, and 2004). The scientifi c community often develop stronger linkages with works beyond national boundaries on science-related policies in other problems of common interest, so is government departments. well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non- • Regulatory barriers, such as visa traditional alliances of nations, sectors restrictions and security controls, can and non-governmental organisations. also be a practical constraint to If aligned with wider foreign policy science diplomacy. Immediately goals, these channels of scientifi c after September 11 2001, the exchange can contribute to coalition- imposition of stringent travel and visa building and confl ict resolution. regimes in countries like the US and Cooperation on the scientifi c aspects the UK severely limited opportunities of sensitive issues—such as nuclear for visiting scientists and scholars, non-proliferation—can sometimes particularly from Islamic countries. provide an effective route to other Whilst the strictest controls have since forms of political dialogue. been lifted, the value of scientifi c vi I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society partnerships means that further • Three immediate areas of opportunity reforms may be needed. for science diplomacy were highlighted at the meeting: • Scientifi c organisations, including national academies, also have an ᭺ New scientifi c partnerships with the important role to play in science Middle East and wider Islamic world diplomacy, particularly when formal A new initiative to support these political relationships are weak or efforts, ‘The Atlas of Islamic-World strained. The scientifi c community may Science and Innovation’, was be able to broker new or different announced at the meeting, with types of partnerships. The range of partners including the Royal Society, actors involved in these efforts should Organisation of Islamic Conference, expand to include non-governmental Nature, the British Council and the organisations, multilateral agencies International Development Research and other informal networks. Centre (see Case study 1).

• There need to be more effective ᭺ Confi dence building and nuclear mechanisms and spaces for dialogue disarmament between policymakers, academics and With the Review Conference of the researchers working in the foreign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty policy and scientifi c communities, (NPT) taking place in May 2010, to identify projects and processes it is timely to consider how that can further the interests of cooperation on the scientifi c both communities. Foreign policy aspects of nuclear disarmament institutions and think tanks can offer could support the wider diplomatic leadership here, by devoting intellectual process. resources to science as an important ᭺ Governance of international component of modern day diplomacy. spaces • Science diplomacy needs support and International spaces beyond encouragement at all levels of the national jurisdictions – including science community. Younger scientists Antarctica, the high seas, the deep need opportunities and career sea and outer space – cannot be incentives to engage with policy managed through conventional debates from the earliest stage of models of governance and their careers. There is much to learn diplomacy, and will require fl exible from related debates over science approaches to international communication and public cooperation, informed by scientifi c engagement by scientists, where there evidence and underpinned by has been a culture change within practical scientifi c partnerships science over the past ten years. (see Case study 2).

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I vii viii I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society 1 The changing role of science in foreign policy 1.1 A brief history of science Central Scientifi c Offi ce in Washington in diplomacy 1941. His role was to collaborate with US Scientists and diplomats are not obvious research bodies, and facilitate the bedfellows. While science is in the exchange of scientifi c information. business of establishing truth, Sir Henry Shortly afterwards, from 1942 to 1946, Wotton, the 17th century diplomat, Joseph Needham FRS was appointed head famously defi ned an ambassador as ‘an of the British Scientifi c Mission in China, honest man sent to lie abroad for the good from where he started work on the of his country’. But despite differing monumental multi-volume ‘Science and motivations, there is a long history of Civilisation in China’, which occupied the scientists supporting international remaining forty years of his life. He was cooperation. Philip Zollman became active in promoting an ‘International Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society in Science Co-operation Service’, and his 1723. His role was to maintain regular lobbying led to the incorporation of natural correspondence with scientists overseas to sciences within the mandate of the United ensure that the Society’s Fellows remained Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural up-to-date with the latest ideas and Organisation (UNESCO). research fi ndings. However, it was only after World War II, ‘The Royal Society has a long history of and the devastating use of the atomic using science to rise above military confl ict bomb, that scientists became increasingly and political and cultural differences. My proactive in efforts to reduce confl ict. On 9 post was instituted in 1723, nearly 60 July 1955, Bertrand Russell FRS and Albert years before the British Government Einstein FRS published a manifesto calling appointed its fi rst Secretary of State for on scientists of all political persuasions to Foreign Affairs’ address the threat posed by the advent of Professor Lorna Casselton FRS, Foreign nuclear weapons. A few days later, the Secretary, The Royal Society philanthropist Cyrus S. Eaton offered to sponsor a conference on this theme in Prior to the Second World War, details of Pugwash, Nova Scotia. scientifi c developments abroad were conveyed to London by military, Through the efforts of a wider group of agricultural or commercial attachés. The scientists, including Sir Joseph Rotblat UK’s fi rst accredited scientifi c FRS (the only physicist to leave the representative abroad, Sir Charles Galton Manhattan Project on the grounds of Darwin FRS (the grandson of Charles conscience), this meeting eventually took Darwin), was appointed Director of the place in July 1957, as the fi rst Pugwash

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 1 Conference on Science and World Affairs. UK and Japan. In Washington DC, the Today Pugwash forums remain an post of Science and Technology Adviser important strand of international to the US Secretary of State was created discussions on issues of peace, nuclear in 2000. Dr Nina Federoff, who currently non-proliferation and security. Participants performs this role, sees her priorities as at Pugwash meetings attend as individuals, strengthening partnerships across rather than as representatives of international scientifi c communities; institutions, so are able to ‘explore building science capacity within the alternative approaches to arms control and Department of State; and horizon scanning tension reduction with a combination of for scientifi c developments that could candor, continuity, and fl exibility seldom impact on US national interests. attained in offi cial East-West and North- ‘Science diplomacy is the use of scientifi c South discussions and negotiations.’1 The interactions among nations to address the Pugwash movement was recognised with common problems facing humanity and to a Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. build constructive, knowledge based Other organisations which have been international partnerships.’ instrumental in the history of science Dr Nina Federoff, Science and Technology diplomacy include the North Atlantic Treaty Adviser to US Secretary of State Organisation (NATO), which in 1957 set up a science programme, and the US National The UK government set up a Science and Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Soviet Innovation Network (SIN) in 2001, with the Academy of Science (ASUSSR), which aim of linking science more directly to its throughout the 1980s ran parallel foreign policy priorities. Over eight years, Committees on International Security and SIN has expanded to include around Arms Control (CISAC). Ongoing ninety staff (a mix of UK expatriates and communication between scientists on locally engaged experts) in forty cities in these committees was credited with laying twenty-fi ve countries. These are typically the groundwork for eventual dialogue located in UK embassies, high between Presidents Reagan and commissions or consulates, and work Gorbachev. alongside other diplomats and representatives of bodies such as UK Trade and Investment. While the network 1.2 A renewed interest in science does not provide its own research diplomacy funding, it facilitates collaboration After a perceptible lull at the end of the between UK and international research Cold War, recent years have seen a fresh partners across a wide variety of policy surge of interest in science diplomacy, and scientifi c agendas, including energy, most noticeably in the United States, the climate change and innovation. SIN offi cers develop an in-depth understanding of the policies, people and

1 http://www.pugwash.org/about.htm priorities of their host countries, and

2 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society identify opportunities for UK scientists, Interest in science diplomacy is growing at universities and high-tech fi rms. The place a time when international relations are of science in UK foreign policy was further changing. Alongside national governments strengthened in summer 2009 by the and multilateral institutions, a more appointment of Professor David Clary FRS complicated and disaggregated diplomatic as the fi rst Chief Scientifi c Adviser to the system is taking shape, consisting of Foreign and Commonwealth Offi ce—a networks of regulators, lawyers, non- direct counterpart to Dr Nina Federoff in governmental organisations, the media the United States. and scientifi c bodies. To take one recent example, the Copenhagen COP-15 climate But science diplomacy is of more than change conference, which ran from 7–18 purely transatlantic interest. In London, December 2009, was primarily designed to there are science attachés posted to enable negotiations between the national the embassies of Brazil, Canada, China, delegations from 192 countries, including Russia and several European countries. 100 world leaders. But up to 18,000 The same is true in Beijing, Washington delegates, drawn from a vast array of non- and New Delhi. Another country active governmental, business, regulatory, in this area is Japan, which has had a scientifi c and media groups, attended all formal policy on science diplomacy but the fi nal stages of the summit, and since 2007. This identifi es four contributed in numerous ways to its objectives: negotiating the participation outcomes. of Japanese scientists in international research programmes; providing Foreign policy analysts, such as Anne- scientifi c advice to international Marie Slaughter, have described this as policymaking; helping to build science a shift towards a ‘disaggregated world capacity in developing countries; and order . . . latticed by countless government using science to project power on the networks . . . for collecting and sharing international stage, in ways that increase information of all kinds, for policy Japan’s prestige and attract inward coordination, for enforcement cooperation, investment. This last area is motivated, in for technical assistance and training, part, by Japan’s recognition that its perhaps ultimately for rule making. They scientifi c and technological strengths are a would be bilateral, plurilateral, regional, or source of strategic and economic value global. Taken together, they would provide (Japanese Council for Science and the skeleton or infrastructure for global Technology Policy 2008). Jun Yanagi from governance’ (Slaughter 2004). It seems Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who likely that breakthroughs in global spoke at the Royal Society/AAAS meeting, governance will increasingly occur through suggested that by promoting Japanese fora that support interaction between science ‘we could expect to see inward government and civil society actors, movement of R&D money, brains, human including the scientifi c community resources and ideas into Japan’ (Royal (UNCTAD 2003). But efforts to defi ne and Society/AAAS 2009). strengthen the role of scientists within this

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 3 shifting architecture of governance and centre’s director, describes how its diplomacy are still at an early stage. Some work aims to strengthen the initial efforts include: intellectual foundations for science diplomacy, while also providing • The UN Conference on Trade and practical demonstrations of ‘the Development (UNCTAD) agreed in connecting power of science 2001 to set up a science diplomacy cooperation’ (AAAS 2009).3 initiative to improve ‘the provision of science and technology advice to • The Royal Society has placed multilateral negotiations and the diplomacy at the core of its new implementation of the results of such Science Policy Centre. This centre negotiations at the national level’ supports the efforts of Royal Society (UNCTAD 2003). Its focus has been on Fellows and other experts to engage building the capacity of scientists and policymakers in each of the three diplomats from developing countries to dimensions of science diplomacy participate in international described in this report: strengthening negotiations.2 the contribution of science to foreign policy objectives (science in • In 2008, the AAAS established its diplomacy); facilitating international Centre for Science Diplomacy to bring science cooperation (diplomacy for together science, foreign policy and science); and using science public policy communities to identify cooperation to improve relations areas where science cooperation can between countries (science for help build trust and foster intercultural diplomacy).4 understanding. Vaughan Turekian, the

3 http://diplomacy.aaas.org/ 2 http://stdev.unctad.org/capacity/diplomacy.html 4 http://royalsociety.org/policy/

4 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society 2 Science in diplomacy

‘Environmental threats are adding to the Change (IPCC). This was established in complexity of international relations in an 1988 by the World Meteorological already turbulent world. The anticipated Organization (WMO) and the United bottlenecks and constraints—in food, Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), water, energy and other critical natural to provide the world with a clear scientifi c resources and infrastructure—are bringing view on the current state of climate new geophysical, political and economic change and its potential environmental challenges, and creating new and hard-to- and socio-economic consequences. The manage instabilities.’ IPCC does not carry out its own original research, but reviews and produces Bernice Lee, Chatham House periodic assessments of recent scientifi c, Over the next thirty years, foreign policy technical and socio-economic research. will be increasingly shaped by the linked Thousands of scientists from all over the challenges of global sustainability (Lee world contribute to its work on a voluntary 2009). Professor John Beddington FRS, basis. Review is an essential part of the the UK Government’s Chief Scientifi c IPCC process, and differing viewpoints Adviser, has warned of a ‘perfect storm’ of within the scientifi c community are food shortages, scarce water and refl ected in the IPCC reports. In December insuffi cient energy resources, which 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel threaten to unleash public unrest, cross- Peace Prize (jointly with former U S Vice- border confl icts and mass migration President Al Gore) ‘for their efforts to build (Beddington 2009). up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to Science will be critical to addressing these lay the foundations for the measures that challenges, and the priority of science in are needed to counteract such change’.5 diplomacy should be to ensure the effective uptake of high quality scientifi c National academies and learned societies advice by policymakers (NAS 2002). The are also an important source of scientifi c community must inform independent scientifi c advice to policymakers with up-to-date information international policymakers. For example, on the dynamics of the Earth’s natural and since 2005, the national academies of socio-economic systems. Scientists must science of the G8 + 5 countries have met also identify where uncertainties exist, or annually to produce joint statements where the evidence base is inadequate relating to the themes of the G8 (Royal Society 2005). Presidency. Similarly, the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), which Probably the best known example of a represents over 100 of the world’s national mechanism for informing policymaking with scientifi c advice is the 5 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate laureates/2007/

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 5 academies of science, has published capacity: in the US, efforts to increase the statements in 2009 on ocean acidifi cation number of scientists serving in the foreign and deforestation, as a contribution to the policy community include the Jefferson United Nations climate change Science Fellowships, administered by the negotiations.6 National Academies of Science, and the Science Diplomacy Fellowships offered by Even on sensitive issues of national security, the AAAS. collaboration between scientists can help to facilitate political negotiations. The Chinese Establishing and nurturing links between Scientists Group on Arms Control and the the scientifi c and foreign policy US National Academy of Sciences communities informs scientists and Committee on International Security and policymakers alike: the former about the Arms Control (CISAC) recently collaborated realities of policymaking; and the latter on the fi rst Chinese-English glossary of about the role and limits of science in nuclear security terms ‘to remove barriers policy. Improving the scientifi c capacity of to progress in exchanges and diplomatic, delegations from developing countries is cooperative, or other activities where particularly important, especially for unambiguous understandings is essential’ international negotiations on health and (NAS 2008). And in the Arctic, a climate policy. For example, health collaborative project led by the Geological campaigners argue that offi cials from Survey of Canada and involving researchers developing countries may lack the from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia necessary expertise to negotiate technical and the United States recently published aspects of the international patent system. the fi rst comprehensive atlas of Arctic The same problem can apply in complex geology, which has implications for areas of climate change policy. contentious sovereignty claims (Natural Scientifi c bodies can help to address these Resources Canada 2009). problems; a recent example being the partnership between the InterAcademy 2.1 Building capacity to give and Panel and the European Climate receive scientifi c advice Foundation, which convened workshops in The effective use of scientifi c advice in Africa, Asia and Latin America to prepare diplomacy requires international offi cials from countries in these regions in policymakers to have a minimum level of the run up to the 2009 COP-15 scientifi c literacy, or at least access to Copenhagen climate change negotiations. others who have it. It also requires In the UK, the Royal Society’s MP-Scientist scientists to communicate their work in an Pairing Scheme has been running since accessible and intelligible way, which is 2001. Scientists and policymakers in sensitive to its wider policy context. Uganda are now trialing a similar scheme Scientifi c bodies can help to build this (with the support of the Royal Society and the UK Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technology) to try and improve the quality

6 http://www.interacademies.net/ of scientiﬁ c advice within Uganda’s

6 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society parliament. And initiatives led by the US academies to provide independent, National Academy of Sciences, the Royal evidence-based scientiﬁ c advice to their Society and the Network of African Science governments, as part of a growing Academies (NASAC) are also working to recognition of the role of science in improve the capacity of African science sustainable economic development.

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 7 8 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society 3 Diplomacy for science

‘International scientifi c and engineering This creates an opportunity for the foreign collaboration is imperative to meet global policy community. Science can be a bridge challenges. Models of international to communities where political ties are scientifi c collaboration can lead the way weaker, but to develop relationships in for international diplomacy and policy.’ these areas, scientists may require diplomatic assistance, whether in contract Professor John Beddington FRS, Chief negotiations, intellectual property Scientifi c Adviser to the UK Government agreements or dealing with visa The second dimension of science regulations. diplomacy—diplomacy for science—seeks Many countries conduct bilateral summits to facilitate international cooperation, specifi cally on science issues, in order to whether in pursuit of top-down strategic establish government-level agreements on priorities for research or bottom-up joint funding and facilitation of research. collaboration between individual scientists The UK, for example, has regular high-level and researchers. meetings on science and innovation with Flagship international projects, such as the Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa International Thermonuclear Experimental and South Korea. These are not only Reactor (ITER) and the Large Hadron symbolic of cordial relations, but they Collider (LHC) are one approach. These provide an overarching framework within projects carry enormous costs and risks, which scientists can work together. For the but are increasingly vital in areas of science UK, these processes have resulted in a which require large upfront investments in number of successful funding initiatives, infrastructure, beyond the budget of any including the UK-India Education and one country. However, such projects are the Research Initiative and the Science Bridges visible tip of a large iceberg of everyday, schemes with China, India and the US. bottom-up collaboration that takes place Research Councils UK (RCUK) has also between individual scientists and opened offi ces in Beijing, Brussels, New institutions. The stereotype of the scientist Delhi and Washington DC as part of the as a lone genius no longer holds true. The UK’s efforts to drive bilateral research with scientifi c enterprise is now premised on the strategic countries. need to collaborate and connect. Globally Global policy challenges must be there is ‘an invisible college of researchers addressed in a holistic way, drawing not who collaborate not because they are told only on science and technology, but also to but because they want to ... because on economic, social, political and they can offer each other complementary behavioural sciences. Interdisciplinary insight, knowledge or skills’ (Wagner 2008). collaboration will be crucial, as illustrated Collaborations are no longer based purely by the recent consultation by the on historical, institutional or cultural links. International Council on Science (ICSU) on

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 9 the future of earth system research, which defensive, national strategies gather highlighted ‘the complex inter-relationships momentum, or whether the countervailing between biological, geochemical, climate impulse towards global collaboration will and social systems’ and suggested that prove stronger. Efforts to strengthen ‘natural science should no longer dictate national science and innovation systems the Earth system research agenda; social remain vital, but must increasingly be science will be at least as important in its accompanied by more creative and better- next phase’ (Reid et al. 2009). resourced mechanisms for orchestrating research across international networks in Competition hasn’t gone away: the pursuit of shared goals—such as tackling growing scientiﬁ c capabilities of China, climate change, food and energy security. India, Brazil and others will challenge The Large Hadron Collider is an excellent Europe and the US in some areas. But it is example of what countries can achieve by short sighted to view these developments working together: a scale of scientiﬁ c primarily as a threat. As science and investment and ambition that no one innovation capabilities grow worldwide, country could manage alone. a central question is whether more

10 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society 4 Science for diplomacy

‘Science diplomacy and science and universal activity that transcends national technology cooperation . . . is one of our interests. most effective ways of inﬂ uencing and The soft power of science interacts with assisting other nations and creating real international relations in several ways, bridges between the United States and ranging from cultural diplomacy to more counterparts.’ traditional forms of negotiation and Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State mediation (see Figure 1).

A third dimension of science diplomacy is Types of science for diplomacy include: science for diplomacy. Joseph Nye, former • Science cooperation agreements, dean of the Kennedy School of which have long been used to Government at Harvard University symbolise improving political relations, famously distinguished between ‘hard for example between the US, USSR power’, which uses military and economic and China in the 1970s and 1980s. A means to coerce the behaviour of other scientifi c agreement was the fi rst nations, and ‘soft power’, which builds on bilateral treaty to be agreed between common interests and values to attract, the US and Libya in 2004, after Libya persuade and infl uence (Nye 2004). gave up its biological, chemical and Science has always played a role in the nuclear weapons programmes. development of hard power capabilities, such as military technologies. But science • New institutions can be created to for diplomacy primarily draws on the ‘soft refl ect the goals of science for power’ of science: its attractiveness and diplomacy. Perhaps the best example is infl uence both as a national asset, and as a the European Organisation for Nuclear

Figure 1. The soft power of science.

Disengagement Open up Networking Identify Inﬂuencing Negotiation Cooperation and channels of common mediation communication interests and values

The soft power of science interacts Traditional diplomacy with all levels of diplomacy

Public diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 11 Research (CERN), which was founded universality of science, and common after World War II to help rebuild cultural interests. China, India, Iran and bridges between nations. CERN other Islamic countries are particularly enabled some of the fi rst post-war proud of their contributions to the contacts between German and Israeli history of science (see Case study 1). scientists, and kept open scientifi c relations with Russia and other Eastern bloc countries during the Cold War. 4.1 New dimensions of • Educational scholarships are a well- international security Cooperation on the scientifi c aspects of established mechanism for network- sensitive issues may sometimes be the building and encouraging partnerships. only way to initiate a wider political For example, the Royal Society runs dialogue. The soft power of science, and the Newton International Fellowships the universality of scientifi c methods, can scheme, in partnership with the Royal be used to diffuse tensions even in ‘hard Academy of Engineering and British power’ scenarios, such as those relating to Academy, to select the best early stage traditional military threats. For example, post-doctoral researchers from around technologies to verify nuclear arms control the world, and offer them long-term agreements were a rare focus of joint support to sustain relations with working between the US and USSR during institutions in the UK.7 the Cold War. • ‘Track two’ diplomacy can be used to involve those working outside an Lessons from the Cold War are once again offi cial negotiation or mediation highly pertinent. In the run-up to the May process, including scientists and other 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear academics. To be effective, it requires Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear outside participants who remain disarmament is fi rmly back on the credible and infl uential. Offi cial ‘track international agenda. However, the one’ processes must also recognise timescale for disarmament is long, as the role of track two efforts. For illustrated by the history of negotiations example, it was openly acknowledged over the Chemical Weapons Convention. during the Cold War meetings After the Geneva Convention banned the between national academies that both use of chemical weapons in 1925, sides would report back to their negotiations for a treaty banning their political leaders. production and stockpiling did not start until the 1980s, and the convention • Science festivals and exhibitions, entered into force only in 1997. Even now, particularly linked to the history of stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US science, can be an effective platform and Russia have yet to be destroyed. from which to emphasise the So focusing in 2010 on the challenges of the fi nal stages of a nuclear disarmament 7 http://www.newtonfellowships.org/

12 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society process may be premature. A more reductions are taking place. The recent practical next step could be to establish initiative between the UK and Norwegian the scientifi c requirements for the governments on disarmament verifi cation verifi cation regime necessary to support sets a precedent here, and could be future stages of negotiation (Pregenzer expanded to include additional States 2008). In 2008, the Norwegian Minister of (VERTIC 2009). Foreign Affairs suggested that a high-level However, security threats now extend Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear beyond the military domain, with Disarmament could be established (based environmental security attracting particular on the model of the Intergovernmental attention (Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S Panel on Climate Change). This panel could 2007). Essential resources, such as begin by identifying the scientifi c and freshwater, cultivable land, crop yields and technical aspects of disarmament, and fi sh stocks, are likely to become scarcer in then set out a research agenda necessary many parts of the world, increasing the to achieve them. International cooperation risk of competition over resources within would be essential, both between nuclear and between states (UNEP 2009). This and non-nuclear weapon states, as all could intensify as previously inaccessible would need to have confi dence that

Figure 2. Multiple stress zones.

Multiple stress zone Hunger Water stress Coastal risk Demographic stress Recent history of Crop decline conﬂict

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 13 regions, such as the Arctic Ocean, open up declining agricultural capacity. Many of the as a consequence of climate change and regions that are vulnerable to the impacts ice melt. Substantial parts of the world also of these multiple stresses are already the risk being left uninhabitable by rising sea locus of existing instability and conﬂ ict levels, reduced freshwater availability or (see Figure 2).

14 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society 5 Conclusions

The main conclusions to emerge from the scientifi c community often works beyond discussions at the Royal Society/AAAS national boundaries on problems of meeting were as follows: common interest, so is well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non-traditional alliances of nations, 5.1 The three dimensions of sectors and non-governmental science diplomacy organisations. If aligned with wider foreign The concept of science diplomacy is policy goals, these channels of scientifi c gaining increasing currency in the US, UK, exchange can contribute to coalition- Japan and elsewhere. It is still a fl uid building and confl ict resolution. concept, but can usefully be applied to the Cooperation on the scientifi c aspects of role of science, technology and innovation sensitive issues—such as nuclear in three related areas: nonproliferation—can sometimes provide an effective route to other forms of political • informing foreign policy objectives dialogue. Similarly the potential of science with scientifi c advice (science in as an arena for building trust and diplomacy); understanding between countries is • facilitating international science gaining traction, particularly in the Middle cooperation (diplomacy for science); East and wider Islamic world (see Case study 1). • using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy). 5.4 Motivations for science diplomacy Science diplomacy seeks to strengthen the 5.2 Science and universal values symbiosis between the interests and Scientifi c values of rationality, transparency motivations of the scientifi c and foreign and universality are the same the world policy communities. For the former, over. They can help to underpin good international cooperation is often driven by governance and build trust between a desire to access the best people, nations. Science provides a non-ideological research facilities or new sources of environment for the participation and free funding. For the latter, science offers exchange of ideas between people, useful networks and channels of regardless of cultural, national or religious communication that can be used to backgrounds. support wider policy goals. Foreign ministries should place greater emphasis on science within their strategies, and 5.3 The soft power of science draw more extensively on scientifi c advice Science is a source of what Joseph Nye in the formation and delivery of policy terms ‘soft power’ (Nye 2004). The objectives. In the UK, the appointment of

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 15 Professor David Clary FRS as the Chief Beddington FRS, the UK’s Chief Scientifi c Scientifi c Adviser at the Foreign and Adviser, agreed that scientifi c collaboration Commonwealth Offi ce creates an could provide a ‘blueprint for international important opportunity to integrate science diplomacy’, but warned of possible across FCO priorities, and develop stronger dangers for ‘scientists who wish to engage linkages with science-related policies in in the diplomatic game’ if this means that other government departments. science ends up being used for political ends. Similarly, Chris Whitty, the Chief Mechanisms to help achieve this could Scientifi c Adviser at the Department for include: International Development (DfID), • ensuring messages about the value of endorsed scientifi c collaboration with science are promulgated throughout developing countries if the goal is ‘to foreign ministries and embassies, transform the lives of the poor’. But he including to all Heads of Mission; questioned whether using science to support social stability or deliver broader • incorporating science policy training political goals would prove effective (Royal into induction courses and training for Society/AAAS 2009). Some governments foreign ministry staff, and specialist have strict guidelines for how scientifi c diplomatic training for dedicated advice is used in national policymaking, science offi cers; which can also be applied to the • involving more scientists in foreign international arena (Government Offi ce for ministries to advise at senior and Science 2005). strategic levels; • encouraging the recruitment of science graduates as part of the general intake 5.6 Practical barriers to scientifi c to the foreign service; exchange The constraints to science diplomacy • encouraging secondments and pairing include regulatory barriers, such as visa between diplomats and scientists; restrictions and security controls. • encouraging independent scientifi c Immediately after September 11 2001, bodies to provide science policy more stringent travel and visa regimes in briefi ngs for foreign ministry and countries like the US and the UK severely embassy staff. limited the opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Although efforts have 5.5 Avoiding politicisation been made to unpick some of these strict In all forms of science diplomacy, it is controls, there are still signifi cant problems important to be clear when science ends with the free mobility of scientists from and politics begins. At the Royal Society/ certain countries. Such policies shut out AAAS meeting, Professor John talented scientists and hinder opportunities

16 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society to build scientifi c relations between important component of modern day countries. Security controls can also diplomacy. prevent collaboration on certain scientifi c subjects, such as nuclear physics and microbiology. Although these policies are 5.8 Fostering science diplomats based on legitimate concerns over the dual Science diplomacy needs support and use potential of some scientifi c knowledge, encouragement at all levels of the science they should also take into consideration community. Younger scientists need to the diplomatic value of scientifi c have opportunities and career incentives to partnerships in sensitive areas to help engage with policy processes from the rebuild trust between nations. earliest stage of their careers. How to achieve this is the subject of debate (see, for example, the recent consultation on 5.7 Widening the circle of science the UK’s Research Excellence Framework). diplomacy But there is much that could be learnt and Scientifi c organisations, including national applied from related debates over science academies, also have an important role to communication and public engagement by play in science diplomacy, particularly scientists, where there has been a culture when formal political relationships are change within science over the past ten weak or strained. The scientifi c community years (DIUS 2008). Science diplomacy also may be able to broker new or different provides scientists with an opportunity to types of partnerships. The range of actors become ambassadors on behalf of their involved in these efforts should expand to national scientifi c community (Lord and include non-governmental organisations, Turekian 2007). multilateral agencies and other informal networks. A nation’s scientifi c diaspora is also strategically important, as scientists 5.9 Priorities for science based overseas are often keen to retain diplomacy a close involvement with their country Three immediate areas of opportunity for of birth. science diplomacy were highlighted at the Royal Society/AAAS meeting: There need to be more effective mechanisms and spaces for dialogue • New scientifi c partnerships with the between policymakers, academics and Middle East and wider Islamic world researchers working in the foreign policy A new initiative to support these and scientifi c communities, to identify efforts, ‘The Atlas of Islamic-World projects and processes that can further Science and Innovation’, was the interests of both communities. Foreign announced at the meeting, with policy institutions and think tanks can partners including the Royal Society, offer leadership here, by devoting Organisation of Islamic Conference, intellectual resources to science as an Nature, the British Council and the

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 17 International Development Research • Governance of international spaces Centre (see Case study 1). International spaces beyond national jurisdictions—including Antarctica, • Confi dence building and nuclear the high seas, the deep sea and outer disarmament space—cannot be managed through With the Review Conference of the conventional models of governance Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and diplomacy, and will require taking place in May 2010, it is timely to fl exible approaches to international consider how cooperation on the cooperation, informed by scientifi c scientifi c aspects of nuclear evidence and underpinned by disarmament could support the wider practical scientifi c partnerships diplomatic process. (see Case study 2).

18 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Case study 1 Using science to strengthen relations with the Islamic world

‘On science and technology, we will launch meaningfully in joint research. While a new fund to support technological Islamic scholars and thinkers are rightly development in Muslim-majority countries, credited with infl uencing the direction of and to help transfer ideas to the modern science in the 10th and 11th marketplace so they can create jobs. We centuries, more recent history has revealed will open centres of scientifi c excellence in a steep and protracted decline in scientifi c Africa, the Middle East and south-east excellence. In 2005, the 17 countries of Asia, and appoint new science envoys to the Arab world together produced 13,444 collaborate on programmes that develop scientifi c publications, fewer than the new sources of energy, create green jobs, 15,455 achieved by Harvard University digitise records, clean water and grow new alone. crops.’ Fortunately, there are now promising signs President Barack Obama of renewed science ambition and investment. With gas-rich Qatar aiming to President Obama’s speech at Cairo’s Al- spend 2.8% of its GDP on research; the Azhar University in June 2009 marked a United Arab Emirates set to create the fresh start in US relations with the Islamic world’s fi rst sustainable city; and Nigeria world. It also highlighted science as a key pouring US$5 billion into research and tool with which to strengthen education; the scientifi c potential of relationships. With announcements of countries in the Middle East and wider educational exchanges, scholarships and Islamic-World merits closer analysis. And investments in research collaboration, the at a pan-Islamic world level, the 57 speech refl ected a growing recognition of member-state Organisation of the Islamic the potential of science to help rebuild Conference (OIC) has prioritised building trust and foster understanding with the science capacity and promoting exchange Islamic world at a time when this is between its members. urgently needed. In the autumn of 2009, the eyes of the However, the desire of countries such as world’s scientifi c community turned to the UK and US to improve political Saudi Arabia for the opening of the King relations is only half of the science Abdullah University of Science and diplomacy equation. It also requires Technology (KAUST). With an endowment partners in Islamic countries that are not of between US$10 and $20 billion, this only supportive of such collaborations, but graduate university aims to attract are also scientifi cally qualifi ed to engage students and leading researchers from

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 19 across the world, and eventually rival the until 2012, SESAME is already bringing California Institute of Technology for together scientists from its partner prestige. In a country where women’s countries for training and discussion rights are restricted, the campus is meetings. It is hoped that SESAME will uniquely co-educational. It has also been create research career opportunities that successful in wooing leading international limit brain drain from the region, and serve universities in Europe and the US as as a model for other areas of scientifi c partners. Saudi offi cials talk confi dently of collaboration. KAUST having the potential to usher in a fresh period of scientifi c leadership in the Middle East, not seen since the golden age The Atlas of Islamic-World of Islamic science centuries ago. Science and Innovation Alongside fl agship projects like SESAME, Such initiatives create a timely opportunity more effort is required to strengthen for Europe and the US to reach out to partnerships by traditional means. Islamic countries, using the soft power of Collaborative research between Islamic science to facilitate cooperation, countries and the rest of the world is particularly around common interests, hindered by a lack of knowledge about such as low carbon innovation. The hope is potential partners for cooperation, limited that research communities in Europe, the support for fellowships and exchanges US and Islamic countries could help to (compared to, for example, China), and repair fractious relationships, and inspire a regulatory barriers such as visa controls. next generation of leaders in research, Political tensions, or concerns over the government, academia and industry. potential dual use of certain technologies, One promising initiative is the can also restrict more innovative Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science partnerships with Islamic countries. and Applications in the Middle East How to map the changing landscape for (SESAME), which is under construction in science in the Islamic world, and identify Jordan. Modelled on CERN in Europe, practical opportunities for collaboration, is SESAME is a partnership between Bahrain, the focus of a new initiative—The Atlas of Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Islamic-World Science and Innovation—that Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and the Royal Society has helped to set up, in Turkey. Iraq is also considering joining. partnership with the OIC, Nature, the Synchrotrons are large and expensive British Council, Qatar Foundation and the facilities and are usually only found in International Development Research wealthy countries. Few exist in developing Centre. This project aims to monitor trends countries and there are none in the Middle in science and innovation across the East. By pooling regional resources, Islamic world, and support new policies SESAME has the potential to build and mechanisms for scientifi c scientifi c capacity within the region. partnerships. Although it will not be fully operational

20 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Such platforms for ongoing dialogue and Tensions fuelled by the Israeli-Palestinian collaboration are vital, especially at conﬂ ict, the politics of oil, and moments of tension. For example, after fundamentalist movements like the Taliban Iran’s elections in June 2009, Iranian and al-Qaeda, mean that relations between scientists called on the international Islamic countries, and with the wider research community to ‘do everything world, remain fraught with complexities. possible to promote continued contacts In isolation, there is little that science with colleagues in Iran, if only to promote diplomacy can do to build peace and détente between Iran and the West when stability in the Middle East. But as one relations are bellicose’ (Nature 2009). small piece in the jigsaw of geopolitical Scientists, both within and outside of Iran, relations, science can make a contribution. have a part to play in promoting a society President Obama’s announcement in Cairo that is more open to rational, critical of scientiﬁ c envoys to promote thinking. collaboration with Africa, the Middle East It would be naive, however, to exaggerate and South-East Asia is a symbolic step, the contribution that science can play in and more must be done if science overcoming the deep and long-term diplomacy is to realise its potential. foreign policy challenges in this region.

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 21 22 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Case study 2 The governance of international spaces

‘The [Antarctic] Treaty is a blueprint for the neither was preparing to attack. The USSR kind of international cooperation that will rejected this proposal. But both nations be needed more and more to address the and their allies agreed to participate in the challenges of the 21st century ... International Geophysical Year (IGY), which Governments coming together around a ran from July 1957 to December 1958, as common interest and citizens, scientists, the joint activities that this enabled in and institutions from different countries pursuit of upper atmospheric science, joined in scientifi c collaboration to advance using rockets and satellite launches, peace and understanding.’ provided a public and non-confrontational demonstration of technological Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State capabilities. (Clinton 2009b) By 1958, following successful satellite 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the launches by the US and USSR, the Antarctic Treaty. So it is timely to revisit the pressure grew for control of ballistic governance of the global commons—the missiles and the testing of nuclear ‘international spaces’ that exist beyond weapons in outer space. But these issues national jurisdictions, including Antarctica, were too sensitive to tackle directly. the high seas, the deep sea and outer Antarctica, as a neutral space, therefore space. The governance of Antarctica sets a assumed strategic importance, as it precedent for how the soft power of allowed nations to carry out a surrogate science can help to strike a balance dialogue about military controls and the between national and common interests, inspection regimes necessary to verify and could offer lessons for the peaceful them. It was anticipated from the outset governance of other international spaces that the Antarctic Treaty could set an and transnational resources. institutional precedent for the peaceful The Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in governance of other international spaces. 1959 and came into force in 1961, By ‘not asserting, supporting or denying a represents a milestone in global claim to territorial sovereignty’ signatories environmental governance, and was to the Antarctic Treaty transformed it into underpinned by science cooperation. A an international space, beyond national key military threat after World War II was jurisdictions (Conference on Antarctica the potential use of rockets to deliver 1959). However, questions remained about nuclear weapons. In 1955, President how Antarctica should be governed. In the Eisenhower proposed that the US and spirit of the International Geophysical Year, USSR conduct surveillance fl ights over it was agreed that the answer was each other’s territory for reassurance that scientifi c cooperation. The most important

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 23 common interest articulated in the Treaty Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Svalbard was the freedom of scientiﬁ c research, (Norway), Russia and the United States are including the exchange of data and sovereign territories. The Arctic Ocean is people. This was crucial to inform governed by national and international management strategies to protect the legal regimes, most notably the United Antarctic environment and ensure the Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sustainable use of its resources. The Treaty (UNCLOS). Common interests in the region also forbids military activities, and by are coordinated by the Arctic Council, but prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons its membership is limited to the coastal and disposal of radioactive wastes in Arctic States, which do not believe a new Antarctica, it became the ﬁ rst nuclear legal regime is required. Other countries arms control agreement. with interests in the region are excluded from this body.

One option would be to focus on the The future governance of centre of the Arctic Ocean, which is now the Arctic covered by frozen ice. Whilst much of the The latest International Polar Year (IPY) ran sea fl oor may come under national from 2007–2009, and the hope is that this jurisdictions, the overlying water column could have a similar legacy in the Arctic as and sea surface at the centre of the Arctic IGY had in the Antarctic. The Arctic Ocean Ocean is legally distinct, and the UNCLOS is currently crossing an environmental already recognises it as undisputed threshold, from a perpetually ice-covered international space. The centre of the region to a seasonally ice-free one. This is Arctic Ocean therefore provides a starting altering the geo-strategic dynamics of the point for governance discussions, which Arctic, and awakening national interests in do not threaten the national jurisdictions of energy, fi shing, shipping and tourism by the Arctic coastal states, or require an Arctic States, China and the European entirely new legal regime. Union. There are growing calls for a new, integrated governance regime for the Science cooperation provides a useful Arctic Ocean, including proposals for an basis for these discussions (Berkman and Arctic Treaty, similar to that in the Young 2009). Ongoing research into Arctic Antarctic. Ocean systems will be essential to inform management strategies for when the ice The existing patchwork of legal regimes for thaws and makes this international space the region has the potential to fragment. more accessible. More research is required Whereas Antarctica is an isolated into sea-level rises; loss of sea ice; melting continent surrounded by ocean, the Arctic permafrost and feedback mechanisms; the consists of continental land masses semi- location and availability of resources; and enclosing the Arctic Ocean. There is no the impacts of long-range pollutants. single regulatory regime covering the Much of this research will require entire region. Instead, the surrounding international collaboration, especially when land masses of the fi ve coastal states of

24 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society the harsh conditions of the Arctic Environmental security discussions necessitate the sharing of costs, logistics, focused on this international space could facilities and other capabilities. provide a cooperative framework through which to address military risks. For There is an even greater need to prevent example, energy development, fi shing, confl ict as the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean shipping and tourism in the Arctic all starts to disappear. The Arctic States have require coordinated search and rescue identifi ed the socio-economic development missions for stranded vessels. The thawing of the region’s natural resources and the of the Arctic Ocean also increases the risk protection of its ecosystems as their of accidents and the need for emergency common interests. However peace is yet responses to ecological disasters. Given to be identifi ed as an explicit common that militaries are trained in providing interest, so the Arctic Council is not disaster relief and search and rescue, mandated to discuss military and related clarifying their role in this context could security risks. increase transparency and maintain a Again, a possible solution is provided by dialogue that could eventually allow more the centre of the Arctic Ocean. sensitive issues to be addressed.

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 25 References

Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S (2007) Clinton H (2009b) Remarks at the Joint Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Session of the Antarctic Treaty Threats to Our World. Random House: Consultative Meeting and the Arctic London. council. Washington, DC, 6 April 2009. Available online at: www.state.gov/ American Association for the secretary/rm/2009a/04/121314.htm. Advancement of Science (2009) Centre for Science Diplomacy: inaugural year in Conference on Antarctica (1959) The review. AAAS: Washington, DC. Available Antarctic Treaty signed 1 December 1959 online at: www.diplomacy.aaas.org/ﬁ les/ Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. CFD_YIR_Web.pdf. Available online at: www.ats.aq/ documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf. Beddington J (2009) ‘Food, Energy, Water and the Climate: A Perfect Storm of Global D’Arcy M and Levi M (2005) Untapped Events?’ Speech at Sustainable. Potential: US Science and Technology Development UK 09, 19 March 2009. Cooperation with the Islamic World. Available online at http://www.dius.gov.uk/ Brookings Institution: Washington, DC. news_and_speeches/speeches/john_ Available online at www.brookings.edu/~/ beddington/perfect-storm.aspx. media/Files/rc/papers/2005/ 04islamicworld_levi/darcy20050419.pdf. Berkman P and Young O (2009) Governance and Environmental Change in DIUS (2008) A Vision for Science and the Arctic Ocean. Science, 324:339–340. Society: a consultation on developing a new Available online at: www.bren.ucsb.edu/ strategy for the UK. DIUS: London. news/documents/Berkman_Young_ Fedoroff N (2009) Science Diplomacy in Science.pdf. the 21st Century. Cell, Volume 136, Issue Berkman P (2002) Science into Policy: 1, Pages 9–11. Available online at: Global Lessons from Antarctica. Academic www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ Press: London. S009286740801636X.

Brown G (2009) Romanes Lecture in International Council for Science (2008) Oxford. Oxford, 27 February 2009. Freedom, Responsibility and Universality of Available online at: www.number10.gov. Science. ICSU: Paris. Available online at: uk/Page18472. www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_ DOWNLOAD/2205_DD_FILE_Freedom_ Clinton H (2009a) Statement before the Responsibility_Universality_of_Science_ Senate Foreign Relations Committee booklet.pdf. Washington, DC, 13 January 2009. Available online at: http://www.state.gov/ Japanese Council for Science and secretary/rm/2009a/01/115196.htm. Technology Policy (2008) Toward the reinforcement of science and technology

26 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society diplomacy. Cabinet Ofﬁ ce: Tokyo. National Academy of Sciences (2002) Available online at: www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ Knowledge and diplomacy: science advice english/doc/s_and_t_diplomacy/20080519_ in the United Nations System. The National tow_the_reinforcement_of.pdf. Academies Press: Washington, DC. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog. Lee B. (2009) Managing the interlocking php?record_id=10577. climate and resource challenges. International Affairs 85: 6 (2009) 1101– Nature (2009), We are all Iranians 1116. Blackwell: Oxford. (editorial). Nature 460: 7251. Available online at: www.nature.com/nature/journal/ Lord K and Turekian V (2007) Time for a v460/n7251/pdf/460011a.pdf. new era of science diplomacy. Science 315:769. Available online at: New Partnership for Africa’s Development www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ (2007) Governing science, technology and summary/315/5813/769. innovation in Africa: building national and regional capacities to develop and Ministry of Defence (2007) DCDC Global implement strategies and policies. NEPAD: Strategic Trends Programme 2007–2036. Johannesburg. Available online at: Development Concepts and Doctrine www.nepadst.org/doclibrary/pdfs/gstia_ Centre: Swindon. Available online at: june2007.pdf. www.dcdc-strategictrends.org.uk/viewdoc. aspx?doc=1. Nye J (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs: National Academy of Sciences (2009) New York. Global Security Engagement: A New Model for Cooperative Threat Reduction. The Obama B (2009) Remarks by the President National Academies Press: Washington, on a new beginning. Cairo, 4 June 2009. DC. Available online at: www.nap.edu/ Available online at: www.whitehouse.gov/ catalog/12583.html. the_press_ofﬁ ce/Remarks-by-the- President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/. National Academy of Sciences (2008) English-Chinese/Chinese-English Nuclear Pregenzer A (2008) Advancing the goals of Security Glossary. The National Academies NPT Article VI. The Nonproliferation Press: Washington, DC. Available online at: Review, 15:3, 529–538. Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~co id=12186. ntent=a903543908~db=all~order=page.

National Academy of Sciences (2004) Reid W, Brechignac C & Lee Y (2009) Earth Scientists, engineers and Track Two systems research priorities. Science 325: Diplomacy: a half century of US-Russian 245. Available online at: www.sciencemag. Interacademy cooperation. The National org/cgi/content/summary/325/5938/245. Academies Press: Washington, DC. Royal Society/AAAS (2009) Unpublished Available online at: www.nap.edu/catalog. transcript and proceedings of the ‘New php?record_id=10888.

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 27 Frontiers in Science Diplomacy’ meeting, United Nations Environment Programme 1–2 June 2009, Royal Society: London. (2009) From confl ict to peacebuilding: the role of natural resources and the Royal Society (2005) Royal Society environment. UNEP: Nairobi. Available response to Chief Scientifi c Advisor’s online at: www.unep.org/pdf/pcdmb_ consultation on guidelines on scientifi c policy_01.pdf. analysis in policy making. Royal Society: London. Available online at: www. Verifi cation Research, Training and royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc. Information Centre (2009) Verifi able asp?id=16945. Multilateral Disarmament. VERTIC: London. Available online at: www.vertic.org/assets/ Slaughter A (2004) A New World Order. nim_docs/tools/NIM%20Tools%20 Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. (Factsheets)/FS9_UKNI_EN.pdf. United Nations Conference on Trade and Wagner C (2008) The New Invisible Development (2003) Science and College: Science for Development. technology diplomacy: concepts and Brookings Institution Press: Washington, elements of a work programme. UNCTAD: DC. Geneva. Available online at: www.unctad. org/en/docs//itetebmisc5_en.pdf.

28 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Acknowledgements

The Royal Society and AAAS would like to Polar Research Institute, Cambridge thank the Advisory Group that designed University, UK the agenda for the Discussion Meeting and • Dr Arian Pregenzer, Senior Scientist, reviewed this report prior to publication: Cooperative Monitoring Centre, Sandia • Professor Lorna Casselton FRS, Foreign National Laboratories, USA Secretary, Royal Society, UK (Chair) This report was drafted by Ben Koppelman, • Professor Anthony Cheetham FRS, Natalie Day, Dr Neil Davison, Dr Tracey Department of Materials Science, Elliott and Dr James Wilsdon in the Royal University of Cambridge, UK Society’s Science Policy Centre. • Professor Mohamed Hassan, Further information President, Academy of Sciences for Information and resources on science the Developing World, diplomacy are available online at:

• Dr Ragunath Mashelkar FRS, President, Royal Society Science Policy Centre Global Research Alliance, India www.royalsociety.org/policy

• Dr Jim McQuaid FREng, Former AAAS Centre for Science Diplomacy Chairman, Environmental Security diplomacy.aaas.org Panel, NATO Science for Peace and Security Committee, UK Contact Ben Koppelman • Dr Vaughan Turekian, Director, Centre Senior Policy Adviser for Science Diplomacy, AAAS, USA Royal Society Science Policy Centre We would also like to thank the following tel: +44 (0)20 7451 2532 for their comments on this report: [email protected]

• Professor Paul Berkman, Head, Arctic Ocean Geopolitics Programme, Scott

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 29 Appendix 1 Discussion meeting programme

Day 1: Monday 1 June 2009 Europe’s international science cooperation Welcome and opening remarks Ms Sigi Gruber, Directorate for Lord Martin Rees, President, The Royal International Cooperation, Directorate Society General Science, Research and Session 1 Current and future directions Development, European Commission, for science diplomacy Belgium Chair: Professor Lorna Casselton FRS, Session 3 Perspectives on science Foreign Secretary, The Royal Society diplomacy II Security challenges in the 21st century Chair: Professor Mohamed Hassan, Professor John Beddington FRS, Chief Executive Director, Third World Academy Scientiﬁ c Adviser to the UK Government, of Sciences, Italy UK Science diplomacy and ever changing Science diplomacy for the 21st century India Dr Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Dr Raghunath Mashelkar FRS, President, Adviser to the Secretary of State, US Global Research Alliance, India Department of State, USA Brazil and science diplomacy Session 2 Perspectives on science Professor Luis Davidovich, Director, diplomacy I Brazilian Academy of Sciences Chair: Dr Alan Leshner, Chief Executive, Science diplomacy: a view from industry American Association for the Mr James Smith, Chairman, Shell UK Advancement of Science, USA Session 4 New partnerships with the China’s international science and Islamic world technology cooperation Chair: Mr Ehsan Masood, Chief Mr CHEN Futao, Minister Counsellor for Commissioning Editor, Nature, UK Science and Technology, Chinese Embassy, UK The Atlas of Islamic-World science and innovation Science and technology diplomacy; Dr Razley Mohd Nordin, Director General Japanese perspectives and approaches of Science and Technology, Organisation Mr Jun Yanagi, Director, International of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan Science Cooperation Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan

30 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Building Trust by Empowering Societies Engaging tomorrow’s leaders Through Knowledge Mr Martin Davidson, Chief Executive, Mr Naser Faruqui, Director, Innovation, British Council, UK Policy and Science (IPS), International Universities, skills and scientiﬁ c Development Research Centre, Canada exchange: beyond the ivory tower Synchrotron-light for Experimental Professor Stephen Hillier, Vice-Principal Science and Applications in the Middle (International) and Director of Postgraduate East (SESAME): fostering science, Studies and International Relations, building bridges Edinburgh University, UK Professor Chris Llewellyn Smith FRS, Capacity building and networks President, Synchrotron-light for Professor Mohamed Hassan, Executive Experimental Science and its Applications Director, Third World Academy of in the Middle East Sciences, Italy Day 2: Tuesday 2 June 2009 Science, technology and innovation in Session 5 Science for development: State building humanitarian, ethical or political Professor Atta-ur Rahman FRS, investment? Coordinator General, Committee on Chair: Dr Andree Carter, Director, UK Scientiﬁ c and Technology Cooperation, Collaborative on Development Sciences, Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UK Pakistan

Science and new approaches to Session 7 Environmental security: poles international development apart? Professor Chris Whitty, Head (Research), Chair: Dr Jim McQuaid FREng, Former Policy and Research Division, Department Chairman, Environmental Security Panel, for International Development, UK Science for Peace and Security Committee, NATO Science, technology and innovation capacity building partnerships for Arctic science: international science sustainable development partnerships to nurture and reinforce Mr Alfred Watkins, Coordinator for diplomacy Science, Technology and Innovation, Professor Howard Alper, Chair, Science, World Bank, USA Technology and Innovation Council, Canada Session 6 Building capacity for science diplomacy Governing the Arctic: policymaking based Chair: Dr Yusaf Samiullah, Deputy Director on national or common interests? and Head of Profession and Infrastructure, Ms Diana Wallis MEP, Vice President, Policy and Research Division, Department European Parliament, Belgium for International Development, UK

The Royal Society New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I 31 Governing international spaces: Session 9 New frontiers in science negotiating the Antarctic Treaty and the diplomacy future of the Arctic Chair: Dr James Wilsdon, Director, Science Professor Paul Berkman, Head, Arctic Policy Centre, The Royal Society Oceans Geopolitics Programme, Scott Emerging countries as ambassadors for Polar Research Institute, Cambridge science diplomacy University, UK Professor Romain Murenzi, Minister of Session 8 Back to the future: the role of State for Science and Technology, Rwanda science and scientists in nuclear Panel diplomacy Chair: Dr Anne Harrington, Director, • Mr Gavin Costigan, Head, International Committee on International Security and Science and Innovation Unit, Arms Control, National Academies of Department for Innovation, Universities Science, USA and Skills, UK Ensuring the impact of technical • Professor David Kerr, Chief Research cooperation Advisor, Sidra Medical and Research Dr Arian Pregenzer, Senior Scientist, Centre, Qatar Cooperative Monitoring Centre, Sandia • Dr Norman Neureiter, Senior Adviser to National Laboratories, USA Centre for Science Diplomacy, The contribution of the science American Association for the community in treaty implementation and Advancement of Science, USA veriﬁ cation Ambassador Tibor Tóth, Executive Secretary, Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation, Austria

32 I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society The cover image is a figure of a dipping needle from ‘Directions for observations and experiments to be made by masters of ships, pilots and other fit persons in their sea-voyages’ by Sir Robert Moray FRS and Robert Hooke FRS, which appeared in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1666. The world’s oldest scientific journal in continuous publication, Philosophical Transactions was first published in 1665 to inform and connect the Fellows of the Society and other natural philosophers all over the world to new frontiers in scientific knowledge. The Royal Society For further information