Session Report: Engaging Researchers and Researcher Associations in Science Advice, Diplomacy and Science for Peace

ICoRSA WSF
by Sal
on November 19, 2024

World Science Forum, November 18: Side event: Engaging Researchers and Researcher Associations in Science Advice, Diplomacy and Science for Peace

Organised by: European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (EURODOC), International Consortium of Research Staff Associations (ICORSA), Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA), Young Academy of Europe (YAE)

Venue: Reading Room, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Moderator:

Keynote lecture:

Speakers:

Rapporteurs:

Mostafa Moonir Shawrav – Executive Director, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)

“I represent several initiatives that support early-career researchers and science diplomacy efforts across Europe. These include:

  1. The European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers, a grassroots association representing early-career researchers in Europe.
  2. The Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA), an international network of researchers who have received the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions grant over the past 25 years.
  3. The Austrian Young Academy of Europe, a bottom-up initiative of young researchers aimed at fostering networking, scientific exchange, and science communication, even extending to support in sports.

Today’s session is part of an ongoing discussion about how research associations, communities, and, most importantly, science advice can contribute to science diplomacy. These two powerful tools—science advice and diplomacy—can serve as instruments for fostering peace.

Science Diplomacy: Background and Significance

For those unfamiliar, let me take you back to 2009, when a famous paper by the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) introduced the term science diplomacy in their publication, New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. Recently, we celebrated the 15th anniversary of that seminal paper, and I highly recommend exploring the related journal produced by the International Relations Society (IRS). It’s filled with engaging stories from around the globe.

Now, while there isn’t a universally agreed definition of science diplomacy, most experts identify its three key dimensions:

  1. Diplomacy for Science: Facilitating international scientific cooperation.
  2. Science for Diplomacy: Using scientific collaboration to enhance international relations.
  3. Science in Diplomacy: Informing foreign policy objectives through scientific advice.

In today’s interconnected world, especially in Europe and its neighboring regions, the importance of science diplomacy in policymaking has never been more apparent. Whether it’s elections or international relations, the role of science diplomacy in shaping informed policies is critical. 

Current Developments in Europe

In Europe, the European Science Diplomacy Alliance is a cornerstone initiative, which our keynote speaker will elaborate on shortly. As part of the alliance, we conducted a survey asking members: What does science diplomacy mean to you? The responses highlighted key themes such as foreign policy, scientific cooperation, and international collaboration. This survey also provided valuable insights, which we will share in upcoming reports.

Furthermore, the European Commission has emphasized the importance of science diplomacy in its 2021 Global Approach to the EU. This document identifies three core objectives for European science diplomacy:

  1. Safeguarding and promoting European principles and values in research.
  2. Strengthening scientific cooperation with Europe’s neighbors.
  3. Mobilizing science and diplomacy to address global challenges.

Tomorrow, there will be a side event at 1:00–1:45 PM where member states and the European Commission will outline a new framework for science diplomacy. I encourage everyone to attend for a sneak peek into these developments.

 

Introducing Speakers

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished speakers for today:

Speaker: Stella Reschke, Scientific Advisor, DLR Project Management Agency

“Thank you, most of all, for this wonderful introduction. Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to ask you to please share my slides. Thank you very much.

Today, I want to start with a story. It was May 2022, and I was at the European External Action Service in Brussels. I was invited to speak about science diplomacy to a group of around 40 young diplomats from across Europe. Imagine a full room—around 40 individuals, all slightly tired from a long day of training but eager to learn more about science. For them, diplomacy and science together was as much a buzzword as terms like ‘climate diplomacy’ or ‘water diplomacy.’

I asked them a question: Has science or the international science system been part of your training?
There was silence. I continued, Who among you works daily with scientists to inform your policy decisions?

After overcoming their initial surprise, we had an engaging discussion about the role of science in their daily work. So now I extend the same question to the scientists in the room: How often are you involved in policymaking processes? Do you feel you possess the necessary skills to convey scientific findings effectively to decision-makers?

 

Personal Journey in Science Diplomacy

I would like to share three stories and three recommendations for practicing science diplomacy.

Story 1:
Spring 2018. I was working in the European Parliament, an institution where decisions are not always based on robust scientific evidence. I managed the Parliament’s Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Development. One day, we were approached by a Horizon project about sponges—remarkable ocean creatures that filter water and mitigate climate change impacts. Sponges have immense potential, yet they are threatened by fisheries and climate change.

We organized a session to inform Parliament about sponges and their importance. It was a busy day, and we attracted around 30 participants. However, as soon as the keynote scientific presentation ended, people began leaving the room. I panicked because I was responsible for the event.

What went wrong? We later realized we had failed to connect the topic to a current policy agenda. We did not make it relevant to the policymakers in attendance. That day, we failed to bring science to policy effectively. The lesson? Next time, we needed to do better.

A few months later, we received another opportunity with a Horizon 2020 project. This project utilized next-generation satellites to monitor ecosystem changes and biodiversity loss. This time, we linked our event to the EU Biodiversity Strategy and invited key parliamentary members involved in these discussions. The outcome was vastly different. The recommendations of the project were eventually incorporated into the Parliament’s resolution for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP. That day, I experienced the power of science diplomacy.

Recommendation 1:
To integrate science into policymaking, we must understand the constraints of political processes and their timelines.

 

Story 2:
In my current role at the German Aerospace Center, we recently held a training for COST Action Chairs. During the training, we asked participants two questions:

  1. How familiar are you with science-policy interactions? Most responses were around 1–3 on a scale of 10.
  2. How present is international cooperation in R&D in your work? Most answers were between 8 and 10.

This revealed that while implicit science diplomacy is often practiced, it is rarely recognized or labeled as such.

We have developed tools like a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) under the EU-funded S4D4C Competency Framework project. However, our experience shows that targeted trainings and collaborative interfaces work best. For instance, I envision pairing diplomats and early-career researchers in shared workshops to co-create solutions, fostering mutual understanding.

Recommendation 2:
Let’s develop our own understanding of science diplomacy and build our skills through targeted training and collaborative projects.

 

Story 3:
In 2021, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, several EU-funded science diplomacy projects concluded, leaving rich but potentially underutilized results. To sustain momentum, 15 member organizations came together and founded the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance.

Today, the alliance includes 37 members, with five more organizations eager to join. Our network spans research institutions, training organizations, and global partners, operating within and beyond the EU. This collaborative effort is built on voluntary commitment and shared passion for science diplomacy.

Our alliance is now a trusted advisor to the European Commission, providing input on new frameworks and fostering policy discussions. Since 2023, the alliance’s secretariat has been co-funded by the Commission. We conduct policy debates, publish briefs, and build capacity through training programs and collaborations.

Recommendation 3:
Foster interaction between diplomatic and scientific communities. Build alliances, network, and create impact by bridging these two worlds.

 

Closing Thoughts

Let’s reflect:

  • As researchers, where do we interact with diplomacy?
  • How can we expand these connections?
  • What skills do we lack, and how can we improve?

For those interested in science diplomacy, I encourage you to explore resources like the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance’s policy briefs and training programs. Follow us on LinkedIn, subscribe to our newsletter, and join our events. Together, we can strengthen the bridges between science and diplomacy.

Insights on Science Diplomacy and Research Security

Speaker: Mostafa Moonir Shawrav, Executive Director, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)

We recently discussed research security and its implications in the context of global scientific collaboration. There seems to be a common understanding among members that science diplomacy can sometimes act as a barrier to research security. This raises an important question: how do we balance openness in science with the need for security?

It’s clear that researchers need support and tools to navigate these challenges. They must know how to engage in collaborations, understand potential risks, and take the necessary measures to safeguard their work. Leaving researchers to face these issues alone is not an option. There must be a balance—openness in science must coexist with security measures.

The Role of Early-Career Researchers in Science Diplomacy

Speaker: Hannah Schoch, Secretary and Board Member, The European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers

Thank you, Mostafa. Your presentation touched on critical points, and I’d like to expand on them with a focus on early-career researchers.

Early-career researchers bring a unique perspective to the table, often driven by a strong desire to engage with policymaking and take on a political responsibility for the broader world. They often possess specific expertise in their research fields, making them valuable contributors to discussions about science diplomacy. In many cases, they are the specialists within their research groups, even more so than their principal investigators (PIs).

This generation of researchers is actively building networks that transcend disciplines and geographic boundaries. These networks enable a broader understanding of how higher education systems operate globally, beyond specific research topics like fish populations in climate change. This holistic perspective is vital for addressing complex challenges.

Additionally, early-career researchers are key to the circulation of knowledge. Their mobility—from country to country, project to project—makes them symbols of science diplomacy in action. To support them, capacity building is essential. Providing researchers with tools, knowledge, and insights ensures they can excel in their work while fostering trust in science.

Doctoral education plays a crucial role here. It’s not just about research; it’s about instilling a broad understanding of the responsibilities of higher education and research. European universities, in particular, have a democratic mission that must connect research, teaching, and societal values.

We need clear frameworks and best practices to guide science diplomacy efforts. Researchers must understand how to align their work with human rights, fundamental values, and ethical principles. These values shouldn’t just be theoretical—they should be concretely integrated into their work to anchor and guide their contributions effectively.

 

Sustaining Science Diplomacy in Times of Conflict

Speaker: Mostafa Moonir Shawrav, Executive Director, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)

Thank you, Hannah. Your points about capacity building and the political responsibilities of researchers are very insightful.

As Stella mentioned earlier, there are numerous examples of individuals and organizations contributing to science diplomacy without even realizing it. A striking example is Europe’s response to the situation in Ukraine. Here, science diplomacy played a critical role in sustaining collaboration and support amidst conflict.

These examples highlight the importance of training researchers to navigate such scenarios. Political responsibility often falls on researchers, and they must be equipped to handle it effectively. While there are good practices worldwide, we must continue to build on these efforts and address emerging challenges.

Scott Bremer, Chair, Young Academy of Europe

“The Young Academy of Europe is actively engaging in implicit science diplomacy. As a group of prominent young scientists who have begun leading their respective fields, we take on roles of independence and leadership while remaining outspoken on science policy. Science diplomacy forms the core of our mission, particularly focusing on the social role of science beyond just international relations.

For example, through programs like the EU Framework Program and Erasmus, we witness how science and education foster connections within Europe and between Europe and its neighbors. Similarly, our task force on climate and environment has engaged with intergovernmental organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), emphasizing science’s role as a mediating force in global decision-making.

In today’s globalized world, where national boundaries hold less meaning, our focus extends to science-policy relations within and across countries. Through initiatives like the Young Academy Science Bus structure, which is part of the Science Advice Mechanism, we contribute by recommending experts for committees advising the Council of Ministers on Europe’s critical challenges.

Beyond policy, we’re also concerned with rebuilding trust in science amid the current societal trust crisis. One of our innovative approaches is integrating science with art, such as an upcoming initiative by Catherine from our Academy in Rød. Moreover, we reflect on science’s role in bridging generational and institutional divides. As the organization of science evolves, we strive to recalibrate institutions to align better with modern science production and policymaking needs.”

Irene Castellano Pellicena, Board Member, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)

“The Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA) is a global network of researchers supported by European funding, such as Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions grants. This diversity of backgrounds and sectors forms the strength of our association.

MCAA is a prime example of how global networks contribute to science diplomacy, even when unrecognized. These networks bridge the gap between science and policymaking, addressing societal challenges like misinformation and the erosion of trust. We provide neutral platforms for international scientific cooperation, best practice sharing, and grassroots initiatives like the Latin American biennial conference and the Balkan Western chapter.

For example, in Latin America, MCAA has grown from two to five national chapters and established a regional chapter. These networks not only connect researchers globally but also engage with national policymakers, creating platforms for collaboration and knowledge exchange.

MCAA actively participates in global initiatives, including advising the European Commission and engaging with the Science Diplomacy Alliance. By fostering these connections, we aim to shape science and research landscapes for the benefit of our members and society as a whole.”

Rosarii Griffin, Secretary and Director of ICORSA, International Consortium of Research Staff Associations (ICORSA) and University College Cork (UCC) Ireland

“Researcher staff associations like ICORSA are essential for bringing researchers together and giving them a voice at local, national, and international levels. Researchers often feel isolated due to short-term contracts, and associations like ours provide a sense of community and representation.

In a world rife with misinformation, ICORSA is committed to promoting evidence-based science and countering false narratives. We work globally, collaborating with organizations like China to maintain cross-border scientific cooperation despite political tensions. These collaborations often serve as soft diplomatic tools to maintain relationships during conflicts.

Our projects focus on critical global issues like climate change and energy, while our core mission remains supporting researchers everywhere. For example, we’ve engaged in initiatives like the Coalition to Advance Research Assessment (COARA) and Science Diplomacy Alliance.

ICORSA also advocates for systemic changes, such as unified pension systems for researchers, addressing the precarious conditions many face. Additionally, we’ve championed asylum sanctuary universities, providing safe havens for researchers fleeing conflicts or persecution.

Capacity building and continuous professional development remain central to our mission. By ensuring that researchers can effectively communicate evidence-based solutions to policymakers, we bridge the gap between science, policy, and society, contributing to global peace and progress.”

Panel Discussion on Science Diplomacy and Capacity Building

Speakers:

  • Mostafa Moonir Shawrav, Executive Director, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)
  • Hannah Schoch, Secretary and Board Member, The European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers
  • Scott Bremer, Chair, Young Academy of Europe
  • Irene Castellano Pellicena, Board Member, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)
  • Rosarii Griffin, Secretary and Director of ICORSA, International Consortium of Research Staff Associations

 

Mostafa Moonir Shawrav:
“It is clear that capacity building is one of the most crucial topics in science diplomacy. During a session with the President of International Sciences, we discussed how a science diplomat needs to speak the language of both scientists and diplomats. The first step is providing capacity-building training for early-career researchers.

There are two dimensions to this:

  1. Training those directly involved in science diplomacy.
  2. Enabling organizations like MCAA, ICORSA, and others to engage researchers in science diplomacy within their current roles.

However, Europe faces a lack of adequate training opportunities. While initiatives like the European Science Diplomacy Alliance and MCAA provide some training, it’s not enough. Implementation is another gap; practical experience is vital. For instance, in the United States, a fellowship program trains researchers through theoretical learning and then places them in federal government roles where they gain real-world experience. Some even transition to policymaking roles.

Spain offers a similar, albeit smaller, initiative where researchers spend time in Spanish embassies worldwide. But we need a more structured framework to ensure such training opportunities exist across Europe. This requires action at both national and European levels.”

One promising development is the upcoming framework for science diplomacy, set to launch in January. It includes concrete examples, actions, and recommendations. But these ideas need to be implemented in practice.

A valuable approach is training participants in pairs, for example, pairing someone from the research ministry with someone from foreign affairs. This creates a sustainable model for joint training, ensuring participants can apply what they learn in their daily work.

 

Scott Bremer:
“Science diplomacy and capacity building require us to acknowledge the diversity of competencies researchers must possess. Researchers are expected to excel in their fields, secure funding, disseminate their work, and teach. However, not everyone can do everything, nor should they.

For transferable skills, PhD programs often fall short. For instance, at the University of Birmingham, the sole transferable skills course focuses on how to conduct a literature review—a missed opportunity to offer a broader repertoire of essential skills.

We need to do more to prepare PhDs for roles beyond academia. Science diplomacy offers a pathway, but researchers need to be equipped with skills to engage in science-policy interfaces and science communication effectively.”

 

Hannah Schoch:
“I agree that transferable skills are key. However, we also need to recognize the skills researchers already bring to the table and how they apply them in various domains. Capacity-building efforts should focus on connecting science communication, science diplomacy, and policymaking.

These areas are interconnected, but current training often separates them into silos. Researchers need the tools to communicate across disciplinary and societal boundaries effectively, ensuring their work is relevant and impactful. This holistic approach can prevent skills training from becoming an overwhelming ‘pile-on’ of responsibilities.”

 

Irene Castellano Pellicena:
“At MCAA, we recognize the growing interest among young researchers in alternative career paths, including science diplomacy. But science diplomacy isn’t merely an alternative—it’s about embedding skills that allow scientists to engage effectively in diplomacy or policymaking.

Clear expectations must be set during training. Researchers need to understand that science diplomacy and science-policy interfaces can be complementary to their scientific roles, not replacements.

One of MCAA’s key focuses is communication. We train our researchers to tailor their messaging to policymakers and diplomats. Communication is a cornerstone of policy advice and science diplomacy. Through our communication working group, we ensure younger generations and future leaders of our organization are equipped to excel in this space.”

 

Rosarii Griffin:
“Communication is vital. In MCAA, ICORSA, and similar organizations, we emphasize the importance of clear, effective communication for science diplomacy. Researchers must learn to engage diverse stakeholders from various geographies and understandings.

Training programs should teach researchers how to present evidence-based solutions to policymakers and diplomats in a way that resonates with their needs. This not only enhances science diplomacy but also strengthens the researcher’s ability to make meaningful contributions to society.”

Summary of Q&A Session: Science Diplomacy, Capacity Building, and Global Networks

Moderator: Mostafa Moonir Shawrav, Executive Director, Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA)

Opening the discussion, Mostafa emphasized the importance of capacity-building training for researchers and staff, particularly in science diplomacy. He invited the panelists and audience to reflect on their roles and shared practices.

Rosarii Griffin, Secretary and Director of ICORSA, International Consortium of Research Staff Associations

Rosarii highlighted the dual role of ICORSA in advocacy and training. She explained how ICORSA surveys researchers and staff associations to identify their needs and contributes these findings to policy consultations at local, national, and international levels. ICORSA also facilitates capacity-building workshops in areas like science communication but focuses primarily on making recommendations and advocacy.

Audience Question and Comments

Question 1: Expanding Science Diplomacy Beyond Europe
Hannah Schoch pointed out a critical limitation in European science diplomacy: it often excludes researchers from non-European nationalities. She emphasized the importance of involving global perspectives, as researchers from outside Europe bring unique insights and experiences.

Hannah also noted the challenges PhD students face when transitioning into roles like science diplomacy. While PhD researchers may have expertise in their fields, they often lack the broader skills needed for advocacy and diplomacy. She urged for the development of researchers with both scientific and diplomatic talents.

Response by Mostafa and Stella
Mostafa clarified that European science diplomacy frameworks are open to international researchers residing in Europe, though constraints exist when opportunities are tied to EU Commission rules. Stella encouraged audience members to raise such concerns directly with policymakers, noting that inclusivity should remain a priority.

Scott Bremer, Chair, Young Academy of Europe

Scott reflected on the skills gap between researchers and policymakers, recounting his early experience as a policy planner in New Zealand. He noted how scientists often struggle to integrate their work into policy processes. Scott advocated for creating roles that bridge this gap, enabling researchers to take their scientific knowledge into government, industry, or local organizations.

Hannah expanded on Scott’s point, stressing the need for more roles like science-policy brokers. These individuals, equipped with both research expertise and policy understanding, are vital for effective science diplomacy.

Reda Cimmperman – Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures of Lithuania Advisory Board” (Audience Member, Lithuania)

Reda Cimmperman shared Lithuania’s successful pilot project, where each ministry now includes a science advisor. These advisors help translate scientific insights into policy documents that align with governmental procedures. The initiative has improved communication between scientists and policymakers and has been positively received by both government and the European Commission.

Rosarii praised this initiative, emphasizing how vital it is to have individuals who understand both research and policy contexts to bridge the gap effectively.

Grace (Audience Member, Australia)

Grace highlighted the communication and cultural gaps between scientists and policymakers. She pointed out differences in priorities, timeframes, and language, suggesting a critical need for improved communication strategies. Grace also raised an important question: How do we measure the impact of science diplomacy?

Responses from Hannah and Scott
Hannah acknowledged that measuring impact in science diplomacy is challenging, as outcomes often result from collaborative processes rather than individual efforts. She cited examples, like integrating Ukrainian higher education into the European system, as tangible successes.

Scott added that qualitative methods, such as self-appraisals by stakeholders, can help assess the effectiveness of science-policy initiatives. He shared an example from Norway, where local governments and scientists collaborate through climate hackathons, providing a practical model for engagement.

Final Reflections from the Panel

  • Rosarii Griffin: Not everyone is suited for roles like science communication or diplomacy. Capacity-building programs should identify individuals with the right skills and interests while providing broad training opportunities.
  • Hannah Schoch: Science diplomacy should prioritize both the empowerment and protection of researchers, especially those engaging in politically sensitive work.
  • Scott Bremer: Timing is a critical competency in science-policy integration. Knowing when to intervene in decision-making processes is as important as the content itself.
  • Hannah Schoch: Hannah concluded by emphasizing the importance of global networks in science diplomacy. She encouraged small, local actions as starting points for larger impacts and urged researchers to share inspirational stories, like Lithuania’s initiative, to foster collaboration and progress in challenging times.

The panel highlighted the critical need for capacity building, emphasizing the importance of structured frameworks, practical training, and the integration of transferable skills. Effective communication remains at the heart of science diplomacy, enabling researchers to bridge the gap between science, policy, and society.

 

 

 

Categories:

ICoRSA Events