Global Science Should Not be a Target of the Politicians
Global science cannot be used as a pawn in international negotiations. In global politics, scientific research is being manipulated. That cannot become a roadblock in the way of nations collaborating on urgent issues like pandemic mitigation, biodiversity loss, and environmental issues.
The Utopian World of the International Scenario
We may be in the midst of a new era of scientific cooperation when we look by a few of this month’s highlights. The European Commission revealed this past week that a “science diplomacy” plan is being worked on and will be finished in 2019. In order to support Ukrainian researchers financially, the Polish Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Sciences have joined forces. Officials from the United States and other African nations promised to increase their collaboration in space science on December 13; the United States is also eager to make investments in the production of electric vehicle batteries in Africa.
During the historic trip that China’s president, Xi Jinping, made to Saudi Arabia in early December, collaboration in the fields of meteorological, nuclear energy, and space travel were also on the table. And just last week, in Montreal, Canada, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity (COP15) came to a conclusion with a new plan to slow down and finally stop the extinction of species. and the deterioration of habitats.
This all may seem like we are living in an ideal phase where everyone is cooperating. But this is untrue.
A mixed bag for 2022
Overall, collaboration toward shared global targets has been hit or miss over the last year. Although the agreement made at COP15 was a crowning achievement, the devils will be in the execution and the fine print. The key issue of damage and loss of funding flows from higher- to relatively low-income nations was somewhat resolved during the COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in November, but little more progress on carbon reduction was made.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to offer textbook instances of countries acting unilaterally. Governments of a relatively small number of wealthy nations had already purchased and stored vaccinations from European and American pharmaceutical companies (Nature 607, 211–212; 2022). Collectively, these nations resisted a global initiative that called for the sharing of medicines, treatments, and intellectual property and in which Nature was glad to have had a modest role. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, frequently emphasized that “no one is safe until everyone is safe,” and more people in low- and lower-middle-income countries might have received vaccinations more rapidly and with less loss of life.
Conclusion – What Is In Store For 2023?
With a continuing epidemic, warfare, climate dangers, and related economic disruption, the globe is undoubtedly experiencing what economist Pedro Conceiço refers to as “a new ambiguity complex.” As a result, we’re likely to witness more instances of states employing technology and research to further their foreign policy goals as well as more instances of governments putting up trade barriers and taking other steps to defend their industries.
Governments must acknowledge that they are accountable for maintaining the integrity of global collaboration on science-based policymaking.
