It has been argued that science diplomacy (SD) helps avoid or mitigate conflicts among stakeholders in the Arctic. Yet underlying some of these well-intended and sometimes successful initiatives is a one-sided understanding of SD. The most recent literature takes a more differentiated approach towards the means and ends of SD. It shows that international scientific interaction is shaped by the twofold logic of competition and collaboration. Instruments of SD can be meant to serve national interests, collective regional goals or global agendas. The present paper disentangles these confounding discourses of collaboration and competition based on a conceptually enhanced SD framework. It analyses Arctic strategies and two cases of Arctic SD, the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation and research activities on Svalbard, to reveal the mechanisms of collaboration and competition in the sphere of international science in relation to security, environment and economy. By pointing out where and how science is currently being used in the Arctic, this article provides (a) a systematic overview of the state of SD in the region and (b) a tool for policy-makers and scientists to assess what impact different facets of SD have in Arctic politics.
Summary
The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the British Royal Society’s science diplomacy taxonomy has received much criticism. Some argue that there is a lack of empirical evidence to underpin the taxonomy’s three science diplomacy dimensions. This particularly applies to the third dimension, science for diplomacy, and its effectiveness. Others criticise the taxonomy for painting the picture of compliant scientists who would discard their academic ideals to support foreign policy objectives. Against the backdrop of these two points of criticism, this study investigates if scientists are willing to support political objectives through science collaborations. It also examines under which conditions science for diplomacy is effective. Using the epistemic community approach, expert interviews and a case study, the study argues that science for diplomacy is effective if it is promoted by a close-knit epistemic community and shows that scientists oppose the instrumentalisation of scientific collaboration for political purposes.
Many Big Science projects and networks experience conflict. A plethora of disciplines have examined conflict causes in science collaboration and Big Science, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of why conflicts emerge. Yet, so far, there is no theoretical model that explains which mechanisms connect conflict cause and outbreak in Big Science. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature on science collaboration and Big Science as well as on scholarship on strategic action fields (SAFs), I address this blind spot by proposing a model that outlines which mechanisms induce and fuel conflict in Big Science projects and networks. Five interlinked mechanisms – attribution of threat or opportunity, mobilization of resources, coalition-building, boundary deactivation and innovative action – are central to it. Tracing these mechanisms in conflictual episodes which emerged in three typical, yet most-different, Big Science cases – the International Experimental Thermonuclear Reactor (ITER), the Human Brain Project (HBP) and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) – this study also provides a proof of concept for the model.
Hosting a big science project, a research facility that is anchored around large and complex instruments in the billion-dollar class, presents both an opportunity and a challenge for countries from the Global South. On the one hand, big science projects may foster a host country’s local and national capacities in science and technology (S&T). On the other hand, contenders need solid S&T capacities to bid for a big science facility. In the Global South, and in particular on the African continent, few countries currently have such capacities. With the exception of South Africa, which is host to the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), a billion-euro radio astronomy facility, no African country hosts a big science project. This essay outlines how South Africa, which initially lacked human capital and infrastructure in radio astronomy, succeeded in building capacity for SKA. In addition, it draws two lessons from South Africa’s capacity-building efforts. These lessons could prove useful for countries from the Global South that are keen to strengthen their S&T capacities for big science.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.