Science leadership fails. It’s too politicized.

Roger Pielke Jr., “The Politicization of Science Diplomacy,” American Enterprise Institute, 02-29-2024, https://www.aei.org/articles/the-politicization-of-science-diplomacy/

Rarely do we discuss the pathological politicization of science diplomacy.1 All of the perils found where science meets politics are present where science meets diplomacy — after all, diplomacy is just a special kind of politics.

At AAAS I highlighted some of these perils:

Compromising scientific integrity to serve diplomatic ends;

The creation of “policy-based evidence;”

Loss of independence of expert advisory mechanisms;

Stealth issue advocacy among experts.

Notably, governments and the scientific community beyond governments have both proven incapable of investigating the origins of COVID-19, which also raises serious doubts about our collective capability to govern and regulate risky research on pathogens. The failure to properly investigate origins is a clear indication that science advisory mechanisms for global public health are simply not fit for purpose. The generic language in the proposed Pandemic Agreement for a new science advisory committee won’t address this shortfall, and may make matters worse by creating a body that is susceptible to becoming deeply politicized.

Last year, based on our EScAPE research project on science advice in COVID-19, I offered some suggestions for the creation of stronger institutions where science meets politics in global public health. Crucially, we need to treat science advice with the same degree of importance and fragility as we do diplomacy itself.

Without stronger institutions, on highly political subjects, rather than bringing science to diplomacy, we will find that science and science advice become just another setting for the conduct of international geopolitics — putting both science and policy at risk.