Dragging health up the climate change agenda

The realities of climate change. Photo credit: Flickr / UN Photo-Evan Schneider

Those in the know about the draft agenda for the Copenhagen climate change meeting next month have bad news: health does not seem to be high on the agenda.

This may well change as the meeting draws closer, but panellists at a session yesterday on climate change and health equity suggested that the poor links between health researchers and environment experts may explain part of this disconnect.

Look through the pages of the BMJ, The Lancet and Nature and you’ll find most papers on links between climate change and health written by researchers who study the social determinants of health.

Their input is vital for explaining how alterations in living conditions or air quality will affect health, but climate science is complex and the technologies developed to study it are continuously being updated. Environmental scientists, meanwhile, publish their own papers separately.

BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, who chaired yesterday’s session, wants to see an end to this “silo mode of operation”. Forging stronger links between the disciplines should ensure that climate agreements cannot ignore health impacts.

Kumanan Rasanathan, a WHO technical officer on ethics, equity, trade and human rights, summed it up well: “It’s time that the rhetoric around intersectoral collaboration be put into practice,” he said.

Priya Shetty, www.scidev.net, priya4876@gmail.com

Who are the unsung heroes of developing country science?

A fascinating lecture by a South African astronomer provided food for thought this afternoon.

David Block from the University of the Witwatersrand made an impassioned and convincing argument that Edwin Hubble, the legendary astronomer, stole many of his iconic ideas from less famous colleagues.

Block’s research is published in Shrouds of the Night, a book about dark matter he co-authored with Ken Freeman last year.

For example, he says that the Hubble “tuning fork”—a way of classifying galaxies that was supposedly published by Hubble in 1926—was in fact invented in 1929 by a Sir James Jeans. Hubble, Block says, only used the tuning fork in a 1936 paper, without giving Jeans any credit.

According to Block, Hubble also stole another galaxy classification system and the “Hubble” luminosity profile—a way of modelling the light intensity emitted by a galaxy—from a mysterious “Mr Reynolds” who penned an article on it years before Hubble mentions it in his work.

Block believes this to be a J H Reynolds, an amateur astronomer living at the same time. Incidentally, his telescope eventually found its way to Egypt where it for a long while was the most powerful telescope to study the southern skies.

Figures like Reynolds and Jeans are the unsung heroes of science, Block said. Without a doubt, it should be the Jeans tuning fork, the Reynolds luminosity profile and the Reynolds galaxy classification system.

Why Reynolds or Jeans never spoke up about the blatant plagiarism of their ideas is a mystery. Reynolds and Hubble corresponded, and Block has unearthed strong evidence that Hubble borrowed ideas from Reynolds in old letters.

This begs another important question: Scientific collaborations between Northern and Southern scientists are not always equal. How many unsung scientific heroes from the developing world had their ideas nabbed by people who had the power and networks to claim them as their own?

Linda Nordling, SciDev.Net

Crossing enemy lines?

In one of today’s lunchtime sessions at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists, Chris Whitty, head of research at the UK Department for International Development (DfID), said the point of research was not doing the research itself, but putting its findings to use. He emphasised that the media has a key role in facilitating the transition from one to the other.

This reflects an idea presented yesterday by Ugandan journalist Patrick Luganda that science journalists, if they do their job right, can provide a platform for informed decision-making and debate.

But creating such a platform means that reporters and researchers have to be fully engaged with each other and committed to getting the science out there.

Yet, more often that not there is, according to Whitty, “mutual antagonism, more often indifference”.

Why? It seems it all boils down to two simple excuses — from both sides: don’t want to; don’t know how to.

Journalists are reluctant because they think science is boring, irrelevant or just too complicated, or because they don’t know who to talk to. Researchers, on the other hand, don’t talk to reporters because they don’t know any, because they worry that their research will be oversimplified or misrepresented, or because they just don’t see communication as part of their job.

The answer, according to two DfID-funded projects in Africa presented at today’s meeting, is to get the two sides round a table to talk the issues through. For example, a discussion on language in one project in Zambia quite quickly led to a set of terms and definitions that journalists felt comfortable using in their stories, but which researchers felt still retained scientific meaning.

More difficult is determining where researchers’ responsibility in communicating science ends and journalists’ begins, said Alex Hyde from the TARGETS Health Research Consortium.

Indeed, as pointed out by TVE Asia Pacific’s Nalaka Gunawardene, some researchers have started bypassing journalists altogether and feeding their findings to policymakers more directly, using the plethora of tools available through new media.

Does that mean we’ll all soon be out of a job? Let’s hope not.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

Science diplomacy in four dimensions

The paro seal: "soft power" Japanese style

For those new to – and perhaps baffled by – the term “science diplomacy”, a quick guide was offered to this week’s Royal Society meeting by Jun Yanagi, director of the International Science Cooperation Division of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Yanagi has closer familiarity with the term than most. Last year, the Japanese government passed a new initiative in “science and technology diplomacy” that embraces a range of activities. One of Yanagi’s tasks has been to put this new political commitment into effect.

This has given him experience of what he described as the “four dimensions of science diplomacy”, which he suggested as a useful approach to unpacking the ways that the term can be used.

“The first dimension is the use of science and technology for diplomatic purposes, which means looking on science and technology as diplomatic tools and assets,” Yanagi told the meeting.

As an example, he quoted Japanese collaboration with developing countries in addressing global issues such as climate change, or US efforts – backed by Japan – to find new tasks for nuclear scientists employed by the Soviet Union on weapons development programmes.

“Secondly, there is diplomacy for science and technology,” said Yanagi. Here he quoted the diplomacy needed both to set up bilateral projects and to engage in international “megascience” projects. (Although Yanagi did not mention it, some see this as a response to criticism in Japan of the government’s failure to win a bid to host the international fusion facility, ITER).

“Then there is diplomacy based on science“. Here he pointed to the growing amount of scientific input into making and implementing policy. “Science can increase the credibility and legitimacy of diplomatic policies,” said Yanagi, referring for example to the impact of the IPCC on climate change negotiations (but making no mention of the contested use of scientific arguments to defend Japan’s widely-criticised whaling policies).

Finally he quoted the use of the term to cover science and technology “as a source of soft power”. Here he described how Japan’s national image could benefit from its many scientific and technological achievements, from remote sensing satellites to the ‘paro’, an electronic toy for sick kids described as both ” the world’s most therapeutic robot” and being suitable for “those who love animals but hate pets”.

Japan’s increasing willingness to open up its scientific programmes to foreign partners, to collaborate in the construction of international research facilities (such as ITER) or projects aimed at global problems, and to sponsor genuinely collaborative partnerships with scientific teams in developing countries, have each been welcomed.

But however effective it may have been in generating political support in Tokyo, the value of putting all these together under the label of “science diplomacy” – given the reservations that others still attach to this term – has yet to be fully proven.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net

Treading a wary path

Fedoroff: Soft pedalling on"soft power"?

If there is an international cheerleader for the current drive to place “science diplomacy” on the international political agenda, it must surely be Nina Fedoroff, a plant geneticist who, in 2007, was appointed as the chief scientific adviser to the US Department of Science.

Speaking at the AAAS/Royal Society meeting on “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy” taking place this week in London, Fedoroff set out a broad ranging vision of how such diplomacy was vital to building “constructive knowledge-based international partnerships”.

Perhaps taken slightly aback by the vehemence with which the speaker who had preceded her — UK chief scientific adviser John Beddington– had highlighted dangers of mixing science and politics – Fedoroff started by differentiating between “science diplomacy” and “the use of science in diplomacy” [see previous posting].

The first, she suggested, represented legitimate efforts by scientists to put their skills, both individually and collectively, to tackle global problems, a characterisation that coincided with the description that Beddington had previously made.

“Science and scientific diplomacy at every level are enormously important in filling in the knowledge chasm dividing the rich and the poor,” she argued, a sentiment with which few in the room seemed to disagree.

Fedoroff placed less explicit emphasis on the idea that is helping to give the idea of science diplomacy traction in political circles in Washington, namely its value – which even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged — as “soft power” through which the US can pursue its foreign policy objectives.

For example, she described US support for moves to support Russian weapons scientists trained in nuclear and chemical weaponry who sought to move into civilian projects after the fall of communism. But she did not refer to one of the key motivations, namely to prevent such scientists selling their skills to “rogue states”, particularly in the Middle East.

But there was one telling slide in her presentation. Fedoroff was describing the scheme under which research scientists are seconded as fellows to the US State department to learn at first hand the challenges of combining science with foreign policy.

One such fellow is currently working in Iraq helping in a similar fashion to dismantle that country’s military technology capacities and direct its scientists towards peaceful projects. Fedoroff recited the clear pragmatic gains to be made from such an activity. But she did not highlight an additional goal listed at the bottom of the slide, namely “to undermine popular support for terrorism”.

After that it was little surprise to learn that one of the countries on which the United States is currently focussing its efforts at building strong scientific partnerships is Pakistan.

Legitimate enough in its own way. And certainly far from undesirable. But in such situations, the borderline between science and politics is perilously thin.

David Dickson. SciDev.Net

Politicians and scientists make uncomfortable bedfellows

John Beddington (NASA/Dominic Hart)

Any hopes for a quick consensus on either the meaning – or indeed the value – of “science diplomacy” were quickly dispelled by the first speaker on the platform this morning of the meeting that opened today at the Royal Society in London.

Introducing the two-day meeting the president of the society, Sir Martin Rees, had highlighted the long international traditions of the scientific community. He pointed out, for example, how the British and French scientific communities maintained close working relations during the Napoleonic Wars.

But John Beddington, chief scientific adviser to the British government, opened his address by reminding his audience in a deliberately provocative manner of the definition of a diplomat as “an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country”.

Beddington underlined the vital role of scientists in tackling the wide range of problems currently facing the world, from climate change to securing future supplies of food, energy and water.

All this, he emphasised, required greater international collaboration, and he applauded the extent to which “science diplomacy” could be usefully engaged in helping to achieve this. “International scientific and engineering collaboration must be used to meet these challenges and to provide a blueprint for international diplomacy,” he said.

But putting science to political use – another sense in which the terms is often used – “creates a problem for scientists who wish to engage in the diplomatic game”, Beddington added. Particularly given that diplomacy was a field in which “economy with the truth occasionally occurs”.

The danger, he said, lies in attempting to use science for diplomatic purposes “in ways that can distort reality”. Equally dangerous was the use of the uncertainties that occur in science for political aims, particularly when addressing situations, ranging from social values to the regional impacts of climate change, that were themselves uncertain.

Beddington did not provide any easy answers. Indeed he acknowledged that even asking for more collaboration and less competition between scientists created a problem, since “scientists are competitive people”.

His broader questions about the dangers – as well as the values – of close contact between scientists and politicians seem destined to surface frequently over the next two days.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net

Science diplomacy: a timely idea or a fashionable myth?

At the height of the Cold War, the scientific community became an important channel of communication between East and West on issues such as nuclear weapons control. The idea was simple. The internationalism — and apparent political neutrality — of science provided a useful cover for messages to be passed between leaders of both sides that would have been impossible to convey by more conventional means.

Does science have a similar role in helping to meet the political challenges of today? The new US administration of President Barack Obama thinks it does. Enhanced scientific relations lie at the heart of its strategy of using “soft power” to rebuild political bridges with countries across the world, particularly in the Middle East.

How far this commitment is shared by other countries will be debated over the next two days at a meeting in London jointly organised by the Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Under the title “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy“, the meeting is bringing together eminent speakers from across the developed and developing world to look in detail at the role of science in foreign policy.

Of course, there is much more to the issue than merely repolishing a tarnished international image (understandably the top US priority, following two successful terms of an isolationist administration which seemed to care little about this image). Other countries care more, for example, about ways in which science can help build a global consensus about the need to tackle problems such as climate change.

And lurking in the background is the fact even soft power is still power. If the key purpose of a country’s foreign policy is to extend its influence over the policy of others, there is certainly a debate to be had over the extent to which science should tie itself to this strategy (even accepting the clear economic self-interest in doing so).

The issue is particular acute when it comes to offering science as a form of aid to the developing world. Countries in former European colonies in particular remain highly suspicious of political leverage arriving in their aid packages – even those designed to boost their scientific capacities.

So there will be plenty to talk about over the next two days. Watch this space for more details.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net