Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Ideas Don’t Need Passports: A New Model of Diplomacy for Developing Countries Katie Garner Wed, 06/04/2025 - 09:45 In the Field 06/05/2025 I have been working at the intersection of science, diplomacy, and innovation since 2018, when the Embassy of Chile in the United States invited me to lead a new and ambitious initiative, the Chile Massachusetts Alliance (ChileMass). At the time, ChileMass was just taking shape: a nonprofit organization based in the Boston Metropolitan area, with a bold vision to connect Chile with Massachusetts, one of the world’s most advanced innovation ecosystems.What I did not fully realize then was how much this small organization would teach me — not just about science diplomacy, but also about what it takes for countries like mine to participate in the knowledge economy on their own terms.The knowledge economy is redefining global development. Today, a country’s ability to thrive is no longer determined solely by natural resources or manufacturing capacity, but by how well it cultivates talent, technology, and trust. Those that invest in science, innovation, and strategic partnerships will accelerate forward. Those that do not will fall behind, as the gap between knowledge-rich and knowledge-poor nations continues to widen.Today, a country’s ability to thrive is no longer determined solely by natural resources or manufacturing capacity, but by how well it cultivates talent, technology, and trust.But here is the good news, and the reason I believe so strongly in science and technology diplomacy: developing countries are not condemned to remain on the margins of global innovation. With smart, focused, and collaborative strategies — even without vast financial resources — governments can build meaningful connections to the places where knowledge is created. These bridges not only make knowledge transfer possible, but ensure it happens on more equal terms, creating new sources of wealth and prosperity. In the twenty-first century, this is the key to leveling the playing field and expanding opportunities for all.This is precisely what we have tried to do through ChileMass. What We Do — And Why It WorksFrom the start, ChileMass was designed to be different. It was not a trade office, a science attaché, or a traditional diplomatic outpost. ChileMass’ board envisioned a flexible, mission-driven nonprofit that could act as a bridge, connecting Chilean institutions, corporations, startups, universities, and public agencies with their counterparts across Massachusetts.This initiative began with a single person located in the ideal spot: the Cambridge Innovation Center, a global hub just steps from some of the world’s leading universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University, and surrounded by digital giants like Microsoft and Google as well as top-tier biotech, robotics, and cleantech firms.After eight years, we have grown into a team of seven people managing a diversified portfolio of projects, supported by volunteers and partner organizations. We have facilitated collaborations with top-tier academic institutions; brought in more than 60 Chilean teachers to train in one of the most robust public education systems in the United States; and created startup acceleration initiatives that have connected more than 200 Chilean entrepreneurs to U.S. market opportunities. We have also hosted high-level events, including the ChileMass Innovation Day at MIT Sloan on four occasions, which brought together over 300 participants from Latin America and the U.S. each year to explore shared challenges in science and technology. These events have catalyzed projects such as the establishment of the first City Science Lab from MIT in southern Chile. In addition, we have organized numerous delegations of Chilean business leaders, supporting them in discovering new technologies, forging partnerships, and envisioning innovative paths forward.But what makes ChileMass unique is not just what we do—it is how we do it.We operate like a startup: lean, agile, and impact-focused. Our small team can move quickly, test new ideas, and adapt to the evolving needs of both the Chilean and U.S. ecosystems. We work across sectors — public and private, academic and entrepreneurial — and we build trust through concrete action, not just formal declarations. We like to call ChileMass an “action tank” rather than a think tank. Our core mission is to generate ideas and implement them through real-world partnerships, programs, and innovation-driven collaboration.Over time, I have come to understand that what we practice is not traditional diplomacy — it is knowledge diplomacy: collaborative, bottom-up, and aligned with the aspirations of countries like Chile to grow through ideas, not just exports. Lessons Learned: Innovation Does not Require a Big Budget — Just Big VisionLeading ChileMass has taught me that meaningful science diplomacy does not require a massive budget. It needs a clear mission, trusted relationships, and a deep understanding of how knowledge flows — and how to insert your country into that flow.ChileMass operates through a hybrid funding model: support from the Chilean government, corporate partnerships, grants, donations, and income from our services. This diversity has given us both independence and flexi... PubDate: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:45:50 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: An Interview with Minister Yoo, South Korea’s Minister of Science and ICT Katie Garner Mon, 05/19/2025 - 12:00 Conversation 05/19/2025 Minister Yoo Sang-im has been the Minister of Science and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) of the Republic of Korea since 2024. Previously, Minister Yoo was President of the Korean Ceramic Society and a Member of the National Academy of Engineering of Korea. He has also served as President of the Korean Society of Superconductivity and Cryogenics. At Seoul National University, he was the Director of the Research Institute of Advanced Materials, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the SNU R&DB Foundation, and Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the College of Engineering.Minister Yoo spoke with Kim Montgomery, Director of International Affairs and Science Diplomacy at AAAS and Editor-in-Chief of Science & Diplomacy about climate action, international exchanges, and much more.Montgomery (interviewer): As the Minister of Science and ICT of Korea, could you discuss some of your priorities for Korea’s science and technology (S&T) ecosystem'Minister Yoo: Science and technology have always played a crucial role in the development of Korea. Korea continues to invest at the world’s top level in research and development (R&D), which in return gives us exceptional scientific and technological capabilities. The government has increased its R&D investment in national strategic technologies such as semiconductors and AI by 30% compared to last year (KRW 6.4 trillion / USD 4.5 billion). We are also planning to create a private fund of KRW 1 trillion (USD 700 million) to invest in innovation-driven companies and startups in national strategic technology fields.To ensure that R&D outcomes can be converted into actual industrial achievements, we are consolidating the capabilities of relevant ministries and developing the National R&D Technology Commercialization Strategy. We aim to implement this through a technology commercialization innovation committee, where the public and private sectors will collaborate.Since I took office as the Minister of Science and ICT last year, the area I have been focusing on the most is AI. Last September, we launched the Presidential Committee on AI, chaired by the President, as a central hub to consolidate the AI capabilities of both the public and private sectors. Korea may not have big tech firms like those in the United States, but we do have top-tier software capabilities with over 4,000 generative AI patents and more than 10 proprietary AI-based models. We also aim to leverage our strengths in the semiconductor field to develop artificially intelligent semiconductors as our next major source of growth in the global AI competition.In January of this year, we became the second country in the world to enact legislation around AI that protects people’s rights, strengthens our competitiveness internationally, and provides guidelines for the development of AI, through the AI Basic Act. In February, we announced the AI Computing Infrastructure Expansion Plan to Strengthen National AI Capabilities, which includes the establishment of the National AI Computing Center and the expansion of large-scale AI computing infrastructure such as GPU resources, as well as the cultivation of an elite national AI team.Korea is also making efforts in global cooperation around AI. In May of last year, we hosted the AI Seoul Summit, following the UK, strengthening collaboration and solidarity with countries from around the world. Also, in September of last year, we established the Global AI Frontier Lab with New York University to promote joint AI research between Korean and U.S. researchers. Together with the U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), we also aligned our two countries’ frameworks to ensure that our AI tools are trustworthy and assure a high level of interoperability.Montgomery: How have these priorities been influenced by some of your previous roles, including at the National Academy of Engineering of Korea, the Korean Ceramic Society, and the Korean Society of Superconductivity and Cryogenics'Minister Yoo: As the president of major associations and academic societies, I represented the scientific and technological community and actively communicated with various stakeholders from industry, academia, and research institutes. These experiences laid a strong foundation for my work as a minister and for setting policy priorities for creating a national ecosystem for technology commercialization.Academic societies are crucial communication channels for gathering the opinions of experts in specific technological and academic fields. Each society houses an extensive network of domestic and international experts, making them key partners in policy development and implementation by the Ministry of Science and ICT. Recognizing this, I have held multiple meetings with major academic societies since last year, where I sought their understanding of government policies and listened to their opinions regarding the direction of innovation in Korea’s R&D system. I plan to create more opportunities to communicate with academic societies and establish a system in which academic societies can actively participate in R&D planning and evaluation processes.Montgomery: In a... PubDate: Mon, 19 May 2025 16:00:32 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Foundations at the Forefront of Innovation: A Conversation with Jens Nielsen, CEO of the BioInnovation Institute Katie Garner Thu, 05/15/2025 - 09:14 Conversation 05/15/2025 Jens Nielsen serves as the CEO of the BioInnovation Institute, a non-profit enterprise foundation based in Denmark focused on life sciences and funding mission-focused startups that have potential to address societal challenges. He is also a professor at the Chalmers University of Technology and an adjunct professor at the Technical University of Denmark, with a strong background in life-science research.Kim Montgomery, Director of International Affairs and Science Diplomacy at AAAS and Editor-in-Chief of Science & Diplomacy, spoke with Nielsen earlier this month in the first of a new conversation series for the Science & Diplomacy, featuring innovation leaders from private and non-profit sectors.Kim Montgomery (interviewer): This is our first conversation with a leader of a foundation focused on research, development, and innovation. As many of our readers may not be familiar with the BioInnovation Institute (BII), can you provide a brief introduction to the foundation and its objectives'Nielsen: The BioInnovation Institute, or BII, was founded and is funded currently by the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark. The Novo Nordisk Foundation has an objective to build a strong life sciences research ecosystem in Denmark. A few years back, they decided they also wanted to use their platform to build up the innovation system, after observing that much of the science conducted at Danish universities was not being translated into startup companies that could put research into practice and benefit people and society. This was why they created BII as a separate institution, predominantly funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation but still independent.When we started out, BII was very focused on supporting innovation in areas where Denmark already has very strong science, which is to say the life sciences broadly. Today, we view our activities in three areas: human health, planetary health, and societal resilience. We try to align our mission with geopolitical developments, and harness the strength of Danish science toward building a Danish economy that will stand strong going forward. Even though we are most focused on Denmark, we have a very international perspective, working with international researchers and other collaborators, like our recent work with AAAS, Science, and now also Science Translational Medicine. The goal of our partnerships is to set the agenda and broadly promote the value of science, demonstrating how it can develop innovative solutions that make the planet a better place.Montgomery: Last year, Science & Diplomacy had the privilege of speaking with Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen, Denmark’s Ambassador to the United States.1 During the conversation, the Ambassador pointed out a strong public-private partnership in Denmark’s science & technology ecosystem, as well as generally strong public support for innovation. In what ways is the BII engaging with government and the Danish public, and what are the benefits of your organization being based in Denmark'Nielsen: We benefit from being a small country of only 6 million people. On top of that, we are home to some very large philanthropic organizations, with the Novo Nordisk Foundation being the biggest. Philanthropy is a strong tradition here, with private foundations being set up in perpetuity to ensure the stability of the companies and at the same time to drive an agenda for research, art, or whatever the foundation’s focus may be.A decade or so back, these foundations very much lived their own lives. Today, however, the Danish government is increasing their collaboration with these foundations on setting agendas in a variety of areas, from the arts to the green transition. Along these lines, BII is working very closely with the Danish government, and we have established a program funded by the Danish government—actually initiated through NATO—focused on companies that rely on quantum technologies for dual use, meaning use both for civilians as well as defense and security. This has put us in close contact with the Danish government to explore other initiatives as well; they have seen our successes in life sciences and we are all curious if we can use our platform to expand into other areas.I think this all ties back to Denmark being a small country, so there is less distance between us and, in this case, the Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs. It also means there is more flexibility: a life sciences foundation in the United States likely could not expand into areas like quantum technology, but with the platform BII has in Denmark, we are able to expand into other areas when asked.Montgomery: BII supports early-stage life science startups in Denmark. However, research and innovation crosses borders, and the companies you are working with plan to market their products across the world. What is the role for international cooperation in innovation and do BII programs support those endeavors'Nielsen: The objective of setting up BII was to help build a strong ecosystem for innovation in Denmark, par... PubDate: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:14:48 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: The United States Needs Science for a National Science Diplomacy Strategy Katie Garner Wed, 05/07/2025 - 15:37 Editorial 05/08/2025 Last November, I recommended in an editorial for Canadian Science Policy Magazine that the United States should develop a national science diplomacy strategy focused on international scientific activities that specifically affect U.S. bilateral relations, are in the U.S. national interests, and advance broad U.S. diplomatic objectives.1 I outlined a structure for that national science diplomacy strategy around the three pillars of the science diplomacy framework in the New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy report that the AAAS and the Royal Society published in 2010.2Since November, much has changed.In February, the AAAS and the Royal Society published Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption, a report that outlines a new science diplomacy framework with two pillars of science diplomacy: “science impacting diplomacy” and “diplomacy impacting science.”3 This practical framework explicitly describes science diplomacy as a tool used to achieve diplomatic objectives in the national interest. The report also discusses the growing role of a small number of “supranational” companies and “tech titans” who are pursuing their own forms of statecraft, which may be at odds with the national interest of the countries where they are headquartered.In January, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States. Since then, there have been seismic shifts in U.S. federal policy and drastic changes to the U.S. federal workforce. The Trump administration has cancelled or frozen billions of dollars of research funding to universities; thousands of U.S. federal scientists have been fired; and thousands more federal research grants have been terminated, with all of those numbers continuing to climb. Trump’s 2026 budget proposes significant cuts for key science agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), that if enacted would mean a significant decline of U.S. leadership in science. Concerns have been raised by many, including Dr. Sudip Parikh, the CEO of AAAS and Executive Publisher of the Science family of journals, in his testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 30.4There have been broader attacks on the U.S. university system, including revoking the visas of thousands of international students, and threatening students with deportation. The reasons given for these actions are that they are protecting students against antisemitic discrimination, especially from international students who “endorse or espouse terrorist activity.”5 Such claims, however, are questionable. Legal challenges are underway, on the grounds that these actions violate free speech and due process. While some of these actions have been reversed, they have created serious disruption for the students involved and signaled that international students are not welcome in the United States.Now, both domestic and international science talent are questioning whether they should stay in the United States. Indeed, it may already be too late to stop the loss of scientific talent. Several countries and regions are in the process of setting up – or have set up – programs to attract international scientists.6,7 If they go, they will take with them their ideas and future discoveries, which could cure Alzheimer’s disease or develop cutting-edge technologies. Breakthroughs like these would not only improve quality of life for everyone but also would provide significant economic gains to the nation where they are made.Finally, many longstanding diplomatic positions have been reversed and new policies enacted. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers foreign aid, has nearly been dismantled; the NIH has announced it is halting foreign subawards, a mechanism to share grant money with foreign collaborators;8 and the U.S. State Department has eliminated key offices, including the Science and Technology Cooperation (STC) office that negotiated and oversaw bilateral science and technology agreements.9 Together, these actions have harmed relationships with foreign countries, frayed trust with our allies, and left many to wonder whether the multilateral system that has been in place since World War II is over.Together, these changes weaken our scientific ecosystem and could end the U.S.’s decades-long leadership position in science, which means losing the economic benefits linked to scientific discoveries and no longer setting and/or significantly influencing international standards, norms, and ethics for science.Since the election, I have been asked whether I still think that the United States should develop a national science diplomacy strategy.My answer is yes, I still do.The Trump administration should define a vision and direction for U.S. science diplomacy. They should lay out the policies and procedures for how science could impact diplomacy and diplomacy could impact science. They should outline how those policies can adv... PubDate: Wed, 07 May 2025 19:37:01 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Finding a Path for U.S.-Cuba Environmental Conservation through Dialogue: An Interview with Daniel Whittle, Valerie Miller, and Eduardo Boné Morón Katie Garner Wed, 04/16/2025 - 15:25 Conversation 04/17/2025 Daniel Whittle is the co-founder of Environmental Defense Fund’s Cuba program and director of the Resilient Caribbean initiative. Valerie Miller is the director of EDF’s Cuba program since 2020, and Eduardo Boné Morón, who joined EDF in 2016, plays a leading role in many of the program’s efforts. They received the 2025 AAAS David and Betty Hamburg Award for Science Diplomacy for their work fostering environmental and scientific cooperation between the United States and Cuba.Estefania Ortiz Calva, Senior Program Associate at AAAS and Executive Editor of Science & Diplomacy, spoke with the three of them about their work during the 2025 AAAS Annual Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts.Ortiz Calva (interviewer): Congratulations on receiving the 2025 David and Betty Hamburg Award for Science Diplomacy for long and sustained success in fostering environmental and scientific cooperation between the United States and Cuba, to protect both countries' fragile, shared marine ecosystems. Could you dive a little deeper into the work that led to this achievement'Whittle: We started our work in Cuba not because of the conflict between our governments, but despite it. It was imperative to understand what Cuba was doing to protect natural resources and the environment, and ensure it was compatible with what was being done in Florida and all around the Gulf of Mexico, because it is all connected. We began with some basic information exchange and dialogues, which then turned into collaboration in protecting the countries’ shared marine resources.Initially, we wanted to address overfishing and habitat protection. Our activities evolved because both sides had something to offer: we at EDF had resources, scientific expertise, and connections to a larger international community that Cubans had been cut off from. Meanwhile, they had this incredible biodiversity, natural heritage, and strong science to share. It was like looking into a time capsule and seeing what these ecosystems used to look like throughout the Gulf. In the early 2000s, we helped sponsor several workshops in Cuba to identify different critical habitats along the coast, which led to Cuba protecting 25% of its coastal waters through a network of protected areas. From this, we started finding other things to do together.Miller: Our team wasn’t trained in diplomacy, but we took on a facilitator role that helped to set up exchanges between experts in the United States and Cuba and to create bilateral agreements that had never happened before between the two countries. At the same time, EDF was involved in scientific projects on the ground, on shared questions around climate change, overfishing, pollution, and sustainable development. Somewhere along the way, it evolved into us becoming scientific diplomats.Boné Morón: For science diplomacy to become real, you need two to actually dance that dance. We were glad that the Cubans were receptive.Ortiz Calva: Over more than two decades, you have worked closely with decision-makers and scientists in the United States and Cuba towards long-term protection of marine and coastal ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. What is the impact of these scientific efforts on the diplomatic goals of both countries'Whittle: Diplomatic goals shift frequently—and are doing so as we speak—so we focus on the interests of our two countries, rather than specific diplomatic goals. We stay focused on the science and conservation that benefit the people of both countries. Sometimes policy may not favor constructive engagement or dialogue, but our principle is that dialogue is the only path to more peaceful relations. It is not only about the environment; dialogues on the environment can serve as a bridge to better relations and create space for dialogue on more difficult issues. That said, we stay mindful of governmental agendas and have open conversations with U.S. government officials about what could advance the interests of both countries. NGOs have broader latitude to facilitate conversations, not just between governments, but between other stakeholders, including fishermen, oil companies, and so on.Sometimes policy may not favor constructive engagement or dialogue, but our principle is that dialogue is the only path to more peaceful relations. -D.W.Miller: A good example of that is the work that EDF did around oil spill prevention and response following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the United States in 2010. The incident led to a recognition of our connectivity with Cuba. At that time, industry, governments, NGOs, and coastal communities in both countries understood that there was a real need to engage, despite there being no such diplomatic goal. EDF initiated discussions and workshops; relationship building went on for many years, and a few years later, when diplomatic goals in the United States had changed to further engage and normalize relations with Cuba, it was possible to achieve a Memorandum of Understanding on oil spill response and prevention.Ortiz Calva: In 2007, E... PubDate: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:25:28 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Transatlantic Science Diplomacy: Building Bridges for Innovation Katie Garner Thu, 03/27/2025 - 12:33 In the Field 03/27/2025 In the face of rapid technological change and transboundary issues such as climate change and pandemics, international science and innovation collaborations demand collective attention. Science diplomacy in this environment must grapple with challenges from outside the realm of science as well as systemic uncertainty. Indeed, if channeled intentionally, science diplomacy serves as a bridge between nations, fostering trust among sub-national actors, promising to improve evidence-based policymaking, and acting in support of sustainable solutions. The German Center for Research and Innovation (DWIH) New York plays a role in these efforts, advancing transatlantic collaboration in research and innovation and by creating a connective tissue between actors and institutions.Science diplomacy is a core mechanism for addressing transnational issues. As Head of Programs at DWIH NY, I witness firsthand how the intersection of research, policy, and industry drives international cooperation. Funded by the Federal Foreign Office and coordinated by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the DWIH network operates centers in the United States, Brazil, India, and Japan. We principally support the large and diverse German research and innovation ecosystem in their internationalization efforts. Our work underscores a central tenet of science diplomacy today: meeting the geopolitical headwinds that threaten the establishment of resilient scientific collaborations requires the balancing of values with interest-driven realism. Science Diplomacy in PracticeDWIH NY engages with stakeholders across academia, government, and the private sector to facilitate activities on scientific breakthroughs, emerging technologies, sustainability, and research security. Our initiatives reveal how science diplomacy straddles realities of regional differences and the essential need to promote knowledge exchange at a time of increasing competition, science skepticism, and tectonic technological shifts. The following initiatives illustrate this approach as well as DWIH NY’s role as a convener of critical dialogues, translating research into policy recommendations and fostering evidence-based decision-making1:The most recent edition of our flagship event, “FUTURE FORUM: Science Diplomacy in an Era of Technological Disruption,” was organized in partnership with the Johns Hopkins Science Diplomacy Hub and hosted in Washington, DC, in the fall of 2024. It brought together global leaders to explore the impact of disruptive technologies in science diplomacy.2 Discussions focused on ethical considerations, regulatory frameworks, and the role of science diplomacy in ensuring responsible innovation.Another event, “Building Bridges through Science Diplomacy,” held together with the International Science Council and UN Global Compact during the United Nations Summit of the Future Action Days, highlighted best practices in leveraging science for global governance.3 With contributions from diplomats, scientists, and policymakers, speakers emphasized how interdisciplinary collaboration supports the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).Finally, research security has emerged as a key concern for the DWIH. The increasing complexity of global research ecosystems, combined with geopolitical tensions, requires a careful balance between openness and risk mitigation. In recent years, there has been a shared concern on this issue across Germany and the United States, as demonstrated in Germany’s 2023 National Security Strategy, for instance, and U.S. policies and laws passed over the last four years. All seek to strengthen protecting national intellectual assets while maintaining an open environment for international scientific cooperation. In other words, they offer a framework for harmonizing transatlantic research security.DWIH NY contributes to this effort through the Academic Security & Counter Exploitation (ASCE) Conference, at Texas A&M University. Our plenary session for the 2024 edition, organized along colleagues from Helmholtz Association and U15—a consortium of R1 universities—examined Germany’s approach to research security, highlighting best practices at various institutional levels for mitigating risks while sustaining international collaboration with autocratic countries such as China.4 Fostering dialogue on these issues reinforces our commitment to safeguarding academic freedoms and maintaining trust in scientific cooperation amongst partners.The development of the global DWIH network into a vehicle for strategic science diplomacy mirrors broader shifts in international research collaboration. Initially designed to showcase Germany’s research ecosystem, our work has evolved into activities that actively facilitate transatlantic and multilateral partnerships by offering advice and expertise. These shifts reflect changes in U.S. and German foreign science policy, driven by the need for resilient international networks in an increasingly uncertain, multipolar world. At the same time, these shifts are due to the DWIH network itself maturing since its inception some fifteen years ago, with a more consolidated focus and mi... PubDate: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:33:38 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Unleashing Brazil’s Potential: A Conversation with Luciana Santos, Brazil’s Minister for Science, Technology, and Innovation Katie Garner Wed, 02/26/2025 - 10:33 Conversation 02/26/2025 Luciana Barbosa de Oliveira Santos has served as Brazil’s Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation since January 2023 and is the first woman to hold the position. Santos is an electrical engineer with a degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. Previously, she was the president of the Institute of Weights and Measures of Pernambuco (IPEM); mayor of Olinda; state secretary of Science, Technology and Environment; representative to the National Congress; and vice governor of Pernambuco, among other leadership roles.Science & Diplomacy staff spoke with Minister Santos. This conversation is the first edition of the AAAS-IAI Minister Conversation Series, a collaboration between the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy — publisher of Science & Diplomacy — and the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research’s Science Diplomacy Center.Q: Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) includes the National Council for Scientific and Technology Development (CNPq), the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), the National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA), the National Institute of Technology (INT), and the National Centre for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters (CEMADEN). You have been the MCTI Minister since the start of 2023. What are your priorities for the Ministry and how are they connected to Brazil’s broader international agenda'Minister Santos: The timing of this question is very appropriate since Brazil is launching its National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation early this year. The strategy is for 2025 to 2035 and is built on four pillars: (1) recovery, expansion, and consolidation of the national science, technology, and innovation (STI) system; (2) reindustrialization on novel bases and support for innovation in companies; (3) STI for national strategic programs and projects; and (4) STI for social development. The strategy proposes a collaborative approach between universities, companies, and different levels of government, collectively known as the National Science, Technology and Innovation System, to advance Brazil’s competitiveness. The strategy also will provide institutional alignment for the agencies and units within the Ministry with programs that leverage the country’s economic and social development. Finally, it is worth mentioning that international cooperation cuts across the four pillars.Along with the strategy, the current administration has used the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FNDCT) in ten structural programs focused on innovative and sustainable reindustrialization, and resources for international actions.1 I would also like to highlight Brazil’s New Industry Program, which aims to boost national industry by making it more competitive, generating jobs, and promoting innovation. The program’s six missions relate to aiming for more autonomy in the production of critical technologies, decarbonization and energy transition, and modernizing the Brazilian industrial base.2Q: In our recent conversation with Ambassador Viotti, Brazil’s Ambassador to the United States,3 she discussed the Brazil-U.S. S&T Agreement and Brazilian initiatives like the Alcantara Launch Centre, which require close coordination between MCTI, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE), and other parts of Brazil’s federal government. Can you share with us how your Ministry promotes Brazil as an international player in STI' How does the Ministry collaborate with Brazil’s Embassies and International Missions'Minister Santos: MCTI is the Brazilian body responsible for national STI policies and internal coordination.4 MCTI hosts activities related to international cooperation, and establishes and implements international STI agreements.The interface with other countries and international organizations is carried out jointly with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE), which has a specific department (Department of Science and Technology) to promote dialogue on STI with Brazilian embassies and missions in international organizations. One of MRE’s main initiatives is the Innovation Diplomacy Program, which is designed to showcase Brazil’s strengths in innovation, to build connections between Brazilian and international partners, and to support the internationalization of Brazil’s innovation players. As Ambassador Viotti mentioned in her conversation with you, the MRE relies on an extensive network of STI sections (SECTECs) to identify opportunities for cooperation around the world.The MCTI is the MRE’s main partner in implementing the Innovation Diplomacy Program, providing critical insights into Brazil’s cutting-edge developments in STI to ensure that the MRE is well equipped to showcase Brazil’s strengths and identifying opportunities for strategic international collaboration. Through these efforts, we ensure not only the promotion of STI but also the strengt... PubDate: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:33:42 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: A Pairing Model to Bring Scientists and Decisionmakers Closer Together Katie Garner Tue, 12/10/2024 - 14:21 Article 12/16/2024 Global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and the dangers of artificial intelligence exist against a changing and complex geopolitical framework. In such an environment, it is increasingly important for scientists and diplomats to work together. Nevertheless, this can be challenging as they have different skills, they work along different timelines, and may even have stereotypical notions of one another.To build stronger connections and deepen understanding between scientific and diplomatic communities, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), a programme unit of UNESCO, implemented a pairing model for their annual science diplomacy course. This innovative model has proven successful in connecting the scientific and diplomatic communities while at the same time illustrating challenges and opportunities in building connections and driving collaboration between the two communities. BackgroundSince 2014, AAAS and TWAS have jointly organized a week-long course at TWAS headquarters in Trieste, Italy, to introduce science diplomacy as a concept and to explore key international policy issues relating to science, technology, environment, and health. The immersive course includes high-level keynote speakers, panel discussions, and role-playing exercises. It is intended for early-career scientists and decisionmakers globally, with special focus on those from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Organizers intend that participants will become science diplomacy practitioners and advocates, who can act as “agents of change” in their institutions, countries, and regions—fostering collaboration between the scientific and diplomatic communities and thus changing the way problems are looked at and solutions crafted. To date, 391 alumni from 89 countries have participated.1Several other organizations offer science diplomacy courses and training.2 Indeed, there are existing analyses of the landscape of science diplomacy offerings,3 including assessments of individual offerings regarding the challenges faced.4 With the AAAS-TWAS course now a decade old, lessons learned from designing and executing a scientist-decisionmaker pairing model can serve as a useful addition to this body of research. The pairing modelInitially, the AAAS-TWAS courses focused on building awareness and understanding of the concepts and practices of science diplomacy among young scientists. Over time, and given the opportunity provided by the COVID-19 pandemic to experiment online, the organizers considered ways to bring the scientific and diplomatic communities closer together from the onset of the training, with the aim of increasing its long-term impact.In 2021, AAAS and TWAS began implementing a “pairing” model for the course.5 This change was informed in part by feedback from a 2020 event at which alumni joined the organizers in reviewing and assessing the impact of the previous seven courses. Participants stressed the need for early career scientists, their home institutions, and decisionmakers (including diplomats) to work alongside one another.Under the pairing model, applications are accepted only from “participant pairs,”6 and not from individuals. One of the participants must be an early-career scientist from any scientific discipline whose research and wider engagement has international policymaking implications or applications. The other participant must be a decisionmaker in a non-academic role, working on the design and implementation of policies and initiatives related to science, technology, and innovation.7 Since 2021, 73 participant pairs from 50 countries have attended four courses, with the vast majority coming from LMICs (91%).8Throughout each course, AAAS and TWAS aim to plant the seeds for long-term collaborations on science diplomacy-related initiatives in the participant pairs’ countries. They foster this collaboration through a variety of activities, in which participant pairs act in simulation exercises as stakeholders with complementary roles, create a joint reflection on a session or topic discussed during the course, and draft a joint statement of future collaboration that outlines ways they will implement what they have learned when returning to their countries.9 PubDate: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:21:15 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: Strengthening Partnerships in Science: A Conversation with Ambassador Birgitta Tazelaar, Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United States Katie Garner Tue, 11/12/2024 - 14:02 Conversation 11/12/2024 Ambassador Birgitta Tazelaar was appointed as Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United States of America and the non-resident Ambassador to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas in 2023. She is a career diplomat with over 30 years of experience, serving as Deputy Director-General for International Cooperation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately prior to her appointment as Ambassador. She has also held positions in the Middle East, southern Africa, and the United Kingdom.Estefania Ortiz Calva, Senior Program Associate for International Affairs and Science Diplomacy at AAAS and Editorial Manager of Science & Diplomacy, met with Ambassador Tazelaar at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington, D.C., to discuss the Netherlands-U.S. scientific cooperation, scientific innovation, and the power of diaspora networks.Estefania Ortiz Calva (interviewer): Diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States date back to 1782, making it one of the oldest continuous bilateral relationships between countries. Given your position as Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United States, and your experience in the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what do you currently view as the most significant shared priorities between the two countries, in particular those relating to science and technology (S&T)'Ambassador Tazelaar: The Netherlands was one of the first countries to recognize the United States, and the first one to house a U.S. Embassy, with John Adams as the Ambassador. Our informal relationship goes back even further, with the Dutch establishing New Amsterdam in 1624, which later became New York City. So, it is no surprise that we work together on many topics.To simplify, I’ll divide this into three pillars of cooperation, pertaining to foreign policy, economic cooperation, and cultural ties. On the foreign policy side, we are working together in strategic areas such as Ukraine, China and the Pacific, and the Middle East. On the economic side, the Netherlands is an important trading and investment partner to the United States—we are the third largest investor in the United States after the United Kingdom and Japan. Finally, our countries have strong cultural ties, which include collaboration in the arts, but also, in a more difficult sense, there are shared elements of our pasts that both nations are trying to reconcile with—such as slavery and treatment of Indigenous peoples—where there is a lot to learn from each other. In terms of our cooperation in science and technology, we are strong partners in quantum and cyber technologies, the semiconductor industry, space, and climate.Ortiz Calva: The Dutch government also has different instruments to stimulate this bilateral cooperation. Among these are a counselor for education and science since 2022, and the establishment of a Science Diplomacy Fund,1 including the Embassy Science Fellowship.2 How do these instruments extend your foreign policy toolkit, particularly as global challenges are increasingly scientific in nature'Ambassador Tazelaar: The education and science counselor is a recent position in our Embassy, having been put in place only two years ago, but we can already see the advantage. For example, in research security: both of our countries are a little ahead of the curve, and we can share experience with this point of contact, especially on how we ensure that our research does not fall into the wrong hands.We also hope that this position will be useful in signing a science and technology agreement between the Netherlands and the United States to intensify our cooperation in areas like research security, academic freedom, open science, and innovation cooperation. We have chosen these areas because our ecosystems on high-tech topics such as quantum and semiconductors are very strong, and we already have universities, knowledge institutions, and companies working together. For example, in June 2024, during a mission of the King and Queen of the Netherlands to the United States,3 the Netherlands and New York State signed a Memorandum of Understanding to increase cooperation in the semiconductor industry, as New York is investing a lot in this sector. A renewed bilateral science and technology agreement will be a good umbrella for all of these different initiatives.Ortiz Calva: This links to my next question: the Netherlands plays a key role in global semiconductor supply chains and ranks on top globally for emerging technologies like quantum technology, integrated photonics, and clean tech. What can other countries learn from your country’s approach to these issues, and are there opportunities for the Netherlands and the United States to further partnerships in these areas'Ambassador Tazelaar: The secret to our success is that we have strong collaboration between government, knowledge institutions, and the private sector. The area of Eindhoven, which we call the “Brain... PubDate: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:02:15 +000
Authors:Katie Garner Abstract: The Special Issue: Science Diplomacy — 15 Years On Katie Garner Thu, 10/17/2024 - 11:30 Editorial 10/17/2024 It has been 15 years since the publication of the joint AAAS-Royal Society report New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy.1 To mark that anniversary, our two organizations are revisiting our report, aiming to publish an update to it in early 2025. Over the past year, we have consulted stakeholders widely, aiming to gather a diverse range of views and input for that update. This special issue for Science & Diplomacy is a key part of that work, reflecting on the past 15 years and looking ahead to the role of science diplomacy in a rapidly evolving geopolitical context.We were delighted by the response to our open call and wish that we could have published work by everyone who submitted a proposal, as they offered important contributions. We hope to publish some of those perspectives in future issues of Science & Diplomacy.This special issue has 21 contributions, with at least one from every continent (even Antarctica is covered in Wood-Donnelly and Gehrke’s article on science diplomacy at the poles), and we hope, a wide range of diverse voices and views. And we should stress, these are the authors’ views. Nothing in this special issue represents the view of the Royal Society or AAAS, and some perspectives here do not align with our own opinions on science diplomacy. What they do show, however, is the breadth and depth of interest in science diplomacy.Since the New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy report was published, there has been ongoing debate over how it framed the three pillars of science diplomacy: science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy, and diplomacy for science (for example, Gluckman et al.2 and Turekian and Gluckman3). We agree the 2010 framework was, of course, a product of its time, and welcome the perspectives in this issue that make a case for how the framework might evolve to reflect the changing nature of international relations and science diplomacy (Müller, Tyler et al., and Goveas & Sinha).Another criticism of the 2010 report is its perceived bias toward the Global North. We are delighted, therefore, that this special issue contains a wider range of voices addressing the use and misuse of science diplomacy in the Global South (Morokong et al., Huete-Pérez & Hildebrand, Carrero-Martínez et al., and Mas-Bermejo et al.). And since our 2010 report did not focus on the role of industry and technology can play in science diplomacy, we are pleased to include a perspective from PubDate: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:30:00 +000
Free journal
