Advancing science as a global public good: An International Science Council meeting of European members 

Katie Jones is Policy and Communications Officer at The Geological Society, working to communicate the research, knowledge and skills that geoscience and geoscientists can offer to society. Katie has a master’s degree in Climate Change: Environment, Science and Policy from King’s College London and a particular interest in connecting science and society through policymaking. 

On the 13^th October 2022, the International Science Council (ISC) held its meeting of the European members, co-hosted by the Royal Society and British Academy. The ISC was created to act as a global voice for science, articulating scientific knowledge within the public sphere and for the benefit of evidence-informed decision making. 

Challenging misinformation and distrust  

Climate-related challenges and the presence of Covid-19 has placed a spotlight on the scientific evidence, data and research used in decision-making. Naturally, this has raised important questions surrounding data transparency, methodology and uncertainty amongst scientists and members of the public alike. It has created conversations surrounding misinformation and bad practice – and the importance of trustworthy sources. Importantly, it has highlighted that scientific research is only as good as our current level of knowledge and that answers can and will change. The advancement of scientific rigour and the ability to freely (and responsibly) practice is a vital part of global development.  

The role of the International Science Council 

The ISC focuses on stimulating science-policy pathways that create mutual benefits: supporting international scientific research and incorporating this into major public issues. I was excited to hear first-hand of the challenges faced at this interface. Following an introduction by Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Earth Observation Science and the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Paul Monks, the first session covering science advice and sustainability, began. 

Building resilience in the face of change 

The first speaker, Marco Sacchi from Future Earth, highlighted the complexity of critical global issues and how challenges such as climate change and biodiversity are interlinked. Marco discussed the need for interdisciplinary research where knowledge is synthesised to build resilient, equitable systems across society. Marco believes the challenges to achieving this are rooted in the lack of sustainable funding and the dominance of short-term contracts, grants and salaries which can discourage long-term, sustainable objectives.

Paul Monks built on this point during panel discussions (pictured) emphasising that decision makers must accept that there is not always a simple solution to a complex problem. 

Anu Realo, Professor of Psychology from the University of Warwick, expanded on the broader social science perspective surrounding the climate crises. Anu discussed how the Covid-19 pandemic increased public concern surrounding green recovery policies, which has since decreased in the face of other immediate crises such as job loss or reduced income. Contextualising the climate crises amongst other societal challenges highlights its complexity as a global challenge and the importance of working holistically in our response.

I reflected on how we can expect people to retain focus on climate and sustainability amongst the increasingly heavy cognitive load of rising poverty – particularly as we move into the Winter months. The impacts of climate change will be felt most severely by those most vulnerable, making it vital that all groups of society are included in a Just transition to Net Zero – regardless of their own ability to dedicate time and concern towards it in an era of permanent crises. 

What’s next for science and policy? 

Mathieu Denis, ISC Acting CEO followed on from the important questions raised in Session 1 with reflections on: What do we need? How can we move forward? The recent pandemic provided a good moment for a global audit of scientific advisory mechanisms, drawing attention to the way science is communicated to policymakers and how scientific advice itself is never free of values. Scientific research across all sectors is created by people, with their own positionalities, cultures and histories and I believe it cannot be seen simply as ‘truth’. Criticism and evaluation encourage growth and improves best practice. This led to a discussion surrounding scientific trust and the line between scientific advice and activism. Scientists are human and can be influenced by money, career advancement and power – leading to the risk of reduced trust if you are perceived as being an advocate for a particular option.  

What are the implications for geoscience? 

Reflecting on this in relation to the geoscience-policy sphere such as sub-surface exploration and the government’s recent Net Zero and Critical Mineral strategy; how can policymakers ensure they are receiving independent advice? And how can the public hold policymakers accountable for the scientific advice they choose to listen to?  

As a learned and professional body, The Geological Society can provide inherent value in this space by providing geoscience updates to policymakers to support evidence-based policymaking. In addition, through communicating geoscience and its importance to society we can equip members of the public with the knowledge and tools to encourage informed debate and scrutiny of new policy. By embedding these tools within society, scientific discussion becomes more accessible and the dialogue open and inclusive. It can help to improve scientific literacy and the nuanced aspects of research, such as removing the stigma that commonly surrounds scientific uncertainty. 

Being uncertain does not mean that the research is wrong, and I found the group discussion surrounding this to be reassuringly candid. Uncertainty exists within geoscience research and shying away from this is not beneficial to policymakers or the public. Although perhaps idealistic in a world where discovery can mean profit, I believe that communicating what is known, what isn’t and where there are gaps can encourage interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration – all vital components required in the successful transition to Net Zero. 

The future of science, as described by Mathieu, should be independent, pluralistic and transparent. 

Thank you to the ISC, Royal Society and British Academy for having me!