The IPU Science for Peace Schools
Topic 3 – Leveraging anticipatory science diplomacy for the SDGs
Speaker: Ms. Marieke Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator at GESDA)
What is GESDA?
Ms. M. Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator, Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA)) said that the aim of the present workshop was to present several approaches and perspectives in regard to anticipatory science and diplomacy. She would welcome feedback and questions to ensure the approaches put forward could adequately serve the goals of parliaments around the world. The IPU and GESDA had worked together for many years in shaping the vision of science and diplomacy, and crucially their combined interaction with both international organizations and parliaments. The workshop would provide an opportunity to showcase the partnership between the two organizations.
GESDA was an independent, non-for-profit organization that was established in September 2019 by the Government of Switzerland. The purpose was to develop a new diplomatic instrument that would provide greater and more effective anticipation of future scientific breakthroughs. GESDA had several key objectives. First, to leverage and optimize the benefits and opportunities of future technological developments. Second, to lay the groundwork for policymaking and multilateral governance in preparation for the implementation of such technological advancements. Third, to widen the circle of beneficiaries of advances in science and technology, which was rooted in the universal human right to benefit from the opportunities presented by science.
The methodology of GESDA :
GESDA’s methodology focused on a series of structured actions under a multi-stage umbrella approach entitled the Anticipatory Situation Room. The first step was to anticipate science through cutting-edge research in collaboration with scientists around the world. Scientific breakthroughs and discoveries were collated into an annual report and online platform entitled the GESDA Science Breakthrough Radar, which was a single point of entry to review such emerging topics. The aim of the Breakthrough Radar instrument was to become as comprehensive as possible. A group of approximately 1000 scientists mapped and categorized scientific developments into four separate domains: quantum revolution and advanced artificial intelligence, human augmentation, eco-regeneration and geoengineering, and science and diplomacy. Each domain also comprised multiple subdomains. Scientists were asked for their expectations and the associated positive developments and negative repercussions over a horizon of 5, 10 and 25 years. As an example, significant developments were expected in the area of brain monitoring and neurodegenerative conditions. Positive developments in this regard could help patients to manage various conditions, but there were risks in relation to the potential control that could be exercised over a person’s brain and any undermining of human rights. Ensuring a balance between leveraging opportunities and mitigating risks was essential.
The second part of the methodology was to raise awareness of scientific developments among the diplomatic community through GESDA’s diplomatic forum. The aim of the forum was to foster discussions and reflections on what actions and which domains should benefit from the attention and focus of the multilateral governance system, so as to shape applications for the benefit of humanity and adequately prepare for the future. Another way to raise awareness and activate conversations among the diplomatic community was the GESDA Summit, which was held every year in October. The aim of the Summit was to foster conversation, with a view to establishing collaborations on the governance of scientific breakthroughs in the future, and crucially to begin work on creating and designing initiatives together.
Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that one of the criticisms aimed at politicians was a perceived delay in their responses to technological developments and innovations. He asked how the information generated through GESDA could be applied in practical terms and what action could be taken in the immediate future.
Dr. G. Alabaster (Head of Geneva Office, UN-Habitat) said that there was a significant gulf between pure scientists and diplomacy. The role of an organization such as UN-Habitat was to distil highly complex scientific discoveries and innovations to a level that could be applied practically in the design of new programmes and approaches. Such support would enable governments to work out how best to embrace the best available solutions and bring them closer to their existing governance structures and system. Unsurprisingly, there were challenges that needed to be understood and addressed, notably because approaches to governance varied around the world. UN-Habitat provided such support and considered multiple perspectives in its discussions with partners, looking at what would be happening in the future and helping to determine some of the problems for scientists to investigate. There was also an active campaign of information gathering to understand the priorities of communities. Sometimes, development organizations did not put forward the best recommendations, and so required consistent feedback from communities via their elected representatives to shape and re-orientate the direction of travel.
Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that alongside GESDA’s efforts to map emerging developments, proper regulatory systems needed to be in place that facilitated such developments. In certain cases, however, current legislation could be a barrier for countries in regard to attracting researchers and being at the cutting edge of development. In the example of medical conditions in the brain, certain developments could offer an opportunity to treat such conditions, but research and data was hindered by national ethical and privacy laws. Such aspects needed to be addressed in advance of technologies and issues entering the mainstream, in particular at the parliamentary level. He asked how GESDA took the information and data on emerging issues and relayed it among parliamentarians.
Leveraging future breakthroughs for the SDGs :
Ms. M. Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator, GESDA) said that, in the context of quantum computing, GESDA’s mapping work had been presented to its diplomatic forum. The feedback received through the forum indicated that there would be significant implications and repercussions for such developments across almost all industries and domains. Another issue highlighted was that the richest nations and several large technology corporations seemingly exercised almost exclusive control and power over the technologies. Democratization and inclusivity in the development process were essential. The fact that quantum computers were not expected to be ready for another 10 years provided a significant time period to involve other partners and the Global South in development.
Funding was also an aspect for further development. There were potential applications for the technology that did not yet have business models in place or financial sponsors. It was also possible for the technology developments to be oriented towards achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, but no one was actively exploring or funding projects in this regard. It was important to remember the geopolitical ramifications of technological developments, even if the technologies were some time away. To mitigate pain points and propose applicable solutions, GESDA had set up a task force comprising leaders across industry, diplomacy and politics, as well as academic researchers. One of the outputs of the task force was the establishment of the Open Quantum Institute, which provided global and inclusive access to state-of-the-art quantum technology.
Discussion :
Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked Mr. Naughten, in his role as a parliamentarian, what information could be provided that would engage parliamentarians with a view to leveraging the most impact and ensuring that there was an evidence-based approach in methodologies.
Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that it was essential that the potential applications and the implications over a horizon of 10, 20 and 25 years needed to be clearly outlined to parliamentarians. Any barriers to implementation should also be communicated. In the context of medical conditions in the brain, domestic legislation was a barrier for such research in Ireland. Scientists would turn their attention to countries where there were fewer restrictions in place, and Ireland would consequently slip further down the list in terms of delivery of the potential opportunities. In the context of developments in artificial intelligence, currently, there was no regulatory regime in place around the world. Information relating to potential regulations could therefore be provided to parliamentarians. To comprehensively engage parliamentarians, it was essential to start with the end goal and work backwards to the current state of play to engage parliamentarians today.
Ms. M. Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator, GESDA) said that similar feedback on neurological research had been received through the GESDA task force. Industry partners and scientists who were particularly interested in carrying out research in the correct way were calling for regulatory frameworks. However, if there were too much regulation in one jurisdiction, less-conscientious parties would move their research to another. There was therefore a need for multilateral legislation to ensure a level playing field. The involvement of scientists and the equal representation of all geographies in developing legislation was essential. There could be no reliable assessment of the potential benefits and risks without their involvement.
Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that it was important to ensure that different perspectives in relation to ethics and regulation were represented. Universal access to information was fundamental. It should not necessarily be purely Western ethical perceptions that governed what activities took place, but rather a global ethical perspective. Global engagement in regard to ethical standards was crucial.
Mr. M. Omar (IPU) said that, over the last two decades, science had been driven by market forces. Financial returns were the indicator for the direction of travel in regard to research. It was important to bring science closer to humanity and society. Parliamentarians should consider regulation and ethical perspectives, but it was equally important to remain open to research. It should be remembered that in the past, research into the human body was significantly frowned upon by religious institutions, but research led to discoveries and understanding that were commonplace in today’s society. How science was perceived by society was ultimately how it would affect humanity.
Ms. M. Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator, GESDA) said linking science to society was ingrained into GESDA’s work. As an example, GESDA had developed a tool entitled the Pulse of Society, which monitored public debate using an algorithm that analysed conversations about emerging topics in the media and on social platforms in real time. The aim was to understand the sentiments and discussions and how they varied across the world and groups. Another similar tool analysed how civil society acted in relation to their advocacy programmes work and measured public contributions. It was difficult to interact with society at large, therefore parliamentarians were essential to GESDA’s work, in particular in relaying messages from civil society across different geographies.
Ms. A. Del Rosso (CERN) said that she was concerned about the use of the word ‘anticipator’. It was not possible to foresee the evolution of science, because science was about being surprised and seeing how things evolved. The process of asking scientists to select items that could have a potential impact on society in the future was unclear and provoked trepidation in relation to how items were selected, and the resulting impact it had on influencing parliamentarians and the direction of investments. Science demonstrated that all future impacts had the same probability of occurring. It was not possible to define what was going to be more important for society. The definition of science focused on the unknown. The democratization of quantum computing was similarly unclear. Opening up the technology to all countries so as to allow them to shape the technology to their own specification was flawed. The technology did not currently exist. The development of quantum computing had the same probability of occurring as any other potential future development.
Mr. M. Omar (IPU) said that there was a significant difference between hardcore science and a curiosity in the scientific domain. Scientists could anticipate what would be discovered, which was the beauty of fundamental science. In his view, GESDA did not represent hardcore science, but rather was the link between the future of science and how curiosity could be linked to society; it provided the possibility to anticipate and model the future of science.
Ms. M. Hood (Executive Director Impact Translator, GESDA), in response to the concerns raised, said that it was the scientists themselves who defined the subsegments used in the Radar. All topics and ideas were accepted and reviewed by consensus and on a peer-reviewed basis. She agreed that there would be the potential for mistakes to be made, however, a new version of the Radar was published every year, therefore it was continuously being adjusted. The intention was to provide a view of the scientific community that was as neutral and objective as possible, and reflected what the scientific community expected from their domain. In relation to the Quantum Research Institute, the aim was to offer scientists the opportunity to contribute to the development of the technology and allow the scientific community to steer the research. The Institute had no intention of conducting research, but rather wished to allow all countries to equally participate.