Diplomatic answer?

With science-based issues the most pressing of our time, is science diplomacy heralding a new day or is it merely a false dawn?

Many of the major issues facing the world today are those arising from science or those that can only be solved with science, says Professor Lloyd Spencer Davis.

This is why Davis, Director of the Centre for Science Communication, and Professor Robert Patman, Head of the Department of Politics, believe science diplomacy has been gaining momentum in the last 60 years.

Science diplomacy can be broadly defined as the use of scientific collaboration among nations to address common problems and to build constructive international partnershipsas part of the solution.

"In a world of globalisation, issues such as climate change, water quality and shortages, growing enough food and distributing it, and energy use, exist at a scale that can only be managed internationally," says Davis.

"It comes back to the issue – international policy challenges often require scientific advice," says Patman. "It could be argued that diplomats need to become more science minded. And governments need to mobilise the relevant talent within society, including scientists."

Davis and Patman are focusing on three key dimensions of science diplomacy that, though interrelated, can be defined as science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science and science for diplomacy.

"Science diplomacy is not a magic bullet … but it certainly can enlighten and improve the quality of international policy-making in a complex and increasingly interconnected world."

"Science in diplomacy is the process of informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice," says Patman. "For example, if President Obama is contemplating military strikes in Syria and is worried about the effects of targeting chemical weapons sites, he would need scientific input to help determine whether such actions were feasible. The risks of contamination cannot be weighed without specialised advice."

Davis and Patman define the second dimension, diplomacy for science, as the process of facilitating international science co-operation through diplomacy.

A symbolic example of this was the United States' and the Soviet Union's first link-up in space in 1975, says Patman. "Because there was a diplomatic thaw during the détente period, Soviet and US diplomats began talking in a new way and began to expand discussions beyond arms control. Both saw value in extending scientific co-operation in areas of common interest."

"Another more contemporary example would be Antarctica, where there are large-scale research programmes involving the co-operation of scientists from a number of countries," says Davis.

The third strand, science for diplomacy, is the process of using science co-operation to improve international relations.

"Historically, China and Japan have had poor relations. There are groups in both countries that hope burgeoning economic links and increased scientific collaboration, in particular, will help diminish antagonisms of the past," says Patman.

Davis and Patman are editing a book titled Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn? that evolved from the 46th University of Otago Foreign Policy School in 2011. The book will include contributions from a 14-strong team of international specialists and academics on topics such as the emergence of science diplomacy, climate change and science diplomacy, and the role of science communication in modern diplomacy.

It also poses the question, if foreign policy and international relations increasingly encompass scientific issues, does this mean we are moving towards a new type of diplomacy? And if so, will this new science diplomacy of the 21st century prove more effective than the diplomacy of the past?

"Is science diplomacy a flash in the pan or is something deeper happening?" asks Patman.

Their provisional finding is that science diplomacy or collaboration has its limitations and is no substitute for diplomacy that tackles very real political tensions between countries.

For example, if two countries are at loggerheads over a border dispute, science diplomacy might improve the atmosphere, but it will not necessarily remove or lessen the demands by the parties to the dispute.

"Another example would be the proposed protection of the Ross Sea area of Antarctica, which is widely recognised as the most untouched and near pristine ocean in the world (often called 'the last ocean'), yet the attempts to negotiate protection of the area based upon the scientific arguments and evidence fell down," says Davis.
"Science diplomacy is not a magic bullet," adds Patman.

"It won't result in world peace, but it certainly can enlighten and improve the quality of international policy-making in a complex and increasingly interconnected world."