The Academic System Is Not Exempt from Imperatives to Transition to Climate Sustainability

A new ALLEA report delves into academia’s impact on the climate through its own operations from the perspective of various stakeholders that play a key role in shaping the academic system. The report goes on to make a series of tailored recommendations to mitigate detrimental effects.

In a new report published today, ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, examines the academic system’s negative impact on the climate through its own activities. The report takes a comprehensive outlook on the operations of various stakeholders and suggests that significant changes are necessary for the academic system to reach climate sustainability.

The report, prepared by ALLEA’s Working Group Climate Sustainability in the Academic System, stresses that in order for the academic system to transition to climate sustainability, “a change in culture is required, where individuals and institutions become aware of their climate impact and act to reduce it.

The authors evaluate the operations of different actors that jointly set the standards and framework conditions of the academic system, namely Universities; Research Institutes; Students; Individual Academics; Funding Organisations; Conference Organisers; Ranking Agencies; Policy Makers; and Academies, Learned Societies and Professional Bodies.

By analysing available data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the report shows that air travel is one of the major GHG contributors within academia, and therefore virtual interactions will be critical for the academic system to become more sustainable.

We envision in-person, hybrid, hub-based and fully virtual events to coexist in the future, with a careful choice of format depending on the goals and participants of a given event,” the authors conclude.

The report also emphasises that other sources, such as supercomputing, buildings, electricity, and supply-chain emissions, may be equally or sometimes even more important emission sources than air travel, depending on the sector.

Finally, the report provides a series of best-practice examples and concrete recommendations that could lead to a significant reduction in the levels of GHG emissions that the academic system produces every year.

The report will be presented and discussed at the ALLEA General Assembly on 12 May 2022 in Brussels. Registration for onsite or online attendance is still open.

 

Download the report here

 

About this Report

This report has been prepared by ALLEA’s Working Group Climate Sustainability in the Academic System. Led by its member Die Junge Akademie (German Young Academy), the project lays out a proposal for a sustainable transformation of academia that is deliberated, balanced and accounts for all relevant perspectives such as to meet the challenge of a climate sustainable academia without leaving excellence in research behind and without diminishing international exchange and collaboration in academia.

Through its Working and Expert Groups, ALLEA provides input on behalf of European academies to pressing societal, scientific and science-policy debates and their underlying legislations. With its work, ALLEA seeks to ensure that science and research in Europe can excel and serve the interests of society.

Science with Society: The SCISO Project

While some studies report that people tend to have a largely positive outlook on science and scientists in a general sense, public opinion appears increasingly polarised on some specific issues that tend to be more global in nature, ranging from public health to climate change. Misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news play a key role in deepening the gap between science and society, and their ability to spread is intensified thanks to the widespread use of social media.

What measures can scientists take to make their work more trustworthy? What tools are available to increase and improve the dialogue between science and society? These are the type of questions that the SCISO Project seeks to answer. Launched by the Global Young Academy’s Working Group Trust in (Young) Scientists, the ‘Science with Society’ or ‘SCISO’ Project aims at improving the relationship between science and society through a series of freely available video tutorials that intend to “enable scientists to reflect about the role of science in society, and to communicate with broader audiences.” The project provides two sets of video tutorials (and quite a bit of bonus material!): Ethics and Scientific Integrity, and Science Communication, for which the GYA partnered with the German National Institute for Science Communication (NaWik).

In this interview, Professor Lisa Herzog, co-lead of the Trust in (Young) Scientists Working Group, explains the vision and mission of the SCISO Project.

 

“Our first impulse was to ask: ‘What can we do to increase trust in science?’, but this quickly led us to the question: ‘How can science be trustworthy?'”

 

Question: Why is the SCISO Project necessary in our current social context?

Lisa Herzog: Our starting point was the fact that in certain areas, there’s quite some public distrust in science. Vaccine hesitancy and climate change scepticism are the most prominent examples. In our working group at the Global Young Academy we realised that you find versions of this phenomenon in almost all countries from which our members come. At the same time, being early-career researchers, we were all very much aware that the institutional contexts of science have a logic of their own. That’s of course necessary, up to a point, but it can also make science a kind of “black box” for outsiders.

Our first impulse was to ask: “What can we do to increase trust in science?”, but this quickly led us to the question: “How can science be trustworthy, what does that take?” When we started looking for answers, we realized that there’s a lot of research being done on these topics, for example by sociologists or philosophers of science, but researchers in other fields such as engineering are hardly exposed to it.

SCISO – Introduction to the project

 

Q.: One of the aims of the SCISO Project is to address the “perceived gap between science and society.” How does this gap manifest itself in practical terms, and why is it so detrimental?

L.H.: Well, take vaccine hesitancy: It can literally cost people their lives! But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The more general question is this: Is science organised in ways that allow it to make its contributions to society? Oftentimes the answer is yes, but sometimes, due to a lack of communication, this fact does not become clear to the public.

Indeed, sometimes there are vested interest groups that actually work to maintain this gap between science and society. Here we can think of the historical example of the tobacco industry working to obscure the facts that their products were either addictive or potentially detrimental to one’s health.  A more current example is when the fossil fuel industry tries to obscure or muddle the messages of climate scientists to create uncertainty around the issue.

Let me add, however, that this is not meant as a call for doing only “applied” research with an immediate payoff. Citizens are also interested in many questions of fundamental research, e.g., in astronomy or history. And of course, the history of science has shown time and again that fundamental research can generate new insights that turn out to be hugely impactful. But that is also something that needs to be explained to a broader public; we cannot simply assume, as scientists, that everyone is as enthusiastic about research as we are!

 

“..if more young scientists communicate about their work, it also offers a counterweight to the stereotype of scientists as old white men in lab coats.”

 

Q.: How do you think young scientists in particular can contribute to narrowing the gap between science and society?

L.H.: We think that young scientists are in a very good position for communicating with non-scientists, for a number of reasons. First, being relatively new to science means that you still remember what it was like to not know certain things, and how you had your first moments of insight and understanding – and that can be quite useful for talking to people outside your own field.

Second, many young researchers are familiar with social media and can use these tools to communicate their research. And last but not least, if more young scientists communicate about their work, it also offers a counterweight to the stereotype of scientists as old white men in lab coats; science is in fact much more diverse (even though it could and should become even more diverse) and this should also be visible to society overall.

 

Q.: The SCISO Project focuses on two sets of tutorials: Ethics and Scientific Integrity, and Science Communication. Why these two?

L.H.: The first set offers tools and arguments for reflecting about the role of science in society, and also about some of the problematic practices within science that we have recently seen and that scientists need to be aware of – without ethical awareness, how can you tell others that they should trust you? The second set is more practical: it’s about concrete strategies for science communication that you can start using immediately. We also have a third set of tutorials in the making that we’re currently finalising: interviews with people who work at the interface of science and society, e.g. in policy advice, and who have agreed to share some of their insights and experiences.

 

Q.: The SCISO Project kicked off before Covid-19 became a global health crisis, but the ongoing pandemic undoubtedly increased the need to strengthen the links between science and society. Has the pandemic redirected the aims/course of the project in any significant way?

L.H.: It has made even clearer to us how important the topics of the project are!

Of course, during the pandemic the spotlight was very much on the need for science communication and science-policy-advice. But take the topic we cover in tutorial 8, which explores the relation between scientific and other forms of knowledge. This is something that researchers in science-and-technology studies have pointed out for a long time: that scientific knowledge, important as it is, is not the only form of knowledge. There is also experiential knowledge, and indigenous knowledge, and many other forms.

What you saw in the pandemic, at least in the first phase, was a very strong focus on just one type of knowledge: medical knowledge from virologists and epidemiologists. But to make decisions about policy measures, you need different forms of knowledge as well, e.g. about the living conditions of families and how this affects both parents and children forced into home-schooling situations. We hope that by raising awareness about the need for taking multiple perspectives into account, we can also contribute, in the long run, towards better decision-making.

 

“..sometimes simply saying: ‘That’s a good question, thanks for it. I don’t know the answer now, but I’ll look into it’, is much more important and leads to much better conversations.”

 

Q.: A topic covered in one of the SCISO tutorials is on improving the relationship between experts and “lay people” and moving away from the so-called “deficit model”, taking into account that we are all lay people in most fields of research. With this in mind, what attitudinal changes are necessary from both experts and lay people to reach more fruitful interactions?

L.H.: What we emphasise in this video is the need for a certain attitude: one that takes seriously that all forms of knowledge are limited, and that, as you say, we’re all lay people in most areas.

I can confirm from my own experience that you don’t have to pretend you know everything; sometimes simply saying: “That’s a good question, thanks for it. I don’t know the answer now, but I’ll look into it,” is much more important and leads to much better conversations with others.

But for many of us, doing outreach work is still something we do as a kind of hobby, in addition to all the other tasks we have. The dialogue with non-scientists needs to be institutionalised, there need to be established formats, which also allow for longer-term collaborations between scientists, citizens, and policy-makers. Of course, these will have to look differently, and include different sets of people, for different fields of knowledge; we can learn from the formats that already exist, e.g. between medical researchers and patient advocacy groups, and see what works for other fields.

SCISO – Interacting with “lay people”

 

Q.: The Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year has highlighted a conflict from a quite different nature to Covid-19 that can equally disrupt the relationship between science and society. How is this relationship specifically affected in times of war, and how does the SCISO Project see the role of science in the face of such conflicts?

L.H.: Well, some of our GYA colleagues had to flee Ukraine under quite dramatic circumstances. What was noteworthy, though, was that the feelings of outrage and dismay about this war by many GYA members in Western countries (and I’m including myself here) were much stronger than about other conflicts in other parts of the world.

It almost seemed as if people realised for the first time that scientists can be victims of war or political suppression – but this is of course not true, this is a much older problem – look at the situations in Yemen or Afghanistan. Science is a global endeavour and flourishes on peaceful, constructive collaboration. Many Ukrainian scientists now see it as their responsibility to try to help their country, e.g., by putting their medical knowledge into the service of medical institutions. As scientists and scholars in other countries, we should try to support them, but we should of course try to do the same for scientists all over the world.

 

Watch all the SCISO tutorials

Visit the SCISO Project webpage

 

About Lisa Herzog

Professor Lisa Herzog, co-lead of the ‘Trust in Young Scientists’ Working Group at the Global Young Academy © Sylvia Germes

Lisa Herzog is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Center for Philosophy, Politics and Economics of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. She studied philosophy, economics, political science and modern history at the universities of Munich (LMU) and Oxford.

Lisa works at the intersection of political philosophy and economics, focusing on the history of political and economic ideas, normative questions around markets, ethics in organizations, and political epistemology. She also writes for a broader public and participates in public debates about the ethics of finance, social justice, and workplace democracy. Since 2019 she has worked at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Center for Philosophy, Politics and Economics of the University of Groningen.

Lisa has been a member of the Global Young Academy since 2017 and she has served as co-lead of the ‘Trust in Young Scientists’ Working Group since 2018.

ALLEA Open Science Task Force to Be Represented in Upcoming Events

ALLEA’s Open Science Task Force has been invited to participate in several upcoming events to present their latest work and vision on Open Science practises. The task force will be represented in these events by its chair and ALLEA Vice President, Professor Luke Drury, from the Royal Irish Academy. 

The upcoming events include:

 

Meeting of the US National Institute of Health Biomedical Informatics Coordinating Committee (BMIC)

20 April 2022

Following his participation at the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science, Prof Luke Drury has been invited to join the NIH Biomedical Informatics Coordinating Committee (BMIC) internal meeting on ‘Open Science, Integrity and Innovation’ as a guest speaker on 20 April to introduce ALLEA’s latest work on Open Science.  

The BMIC was established in 2007 to improve communication and coordination of issues related to clinical- and bioinformatics at US National Institute of Health (NIH). It is a forum where cross-cutting issues related to biomedical informatics, data science, and open science are communicated, discussed, and coordinated. 

 

AESIS seminar on Open Science & Societal Impact

20 April 2022

The international network for Advancing and Evaluating the Societal Impact of Science (AESIS) will be hosting an online seminar on ‘Open Science & Societal Impact’ on 20 April in partnership with the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. Prof Luke Drury has been invited to chair the plenary opening panel titled ‘Open Science for Societal Good’ (9:40 – 11:50 EEST / 8:40- 10:50 CEST). 

Main topics to be discussed in the event include incentivisation strategies and policies to stimulate Open Science; safe spaces to facilitate open scientific discourse in academia; examining geopolitical implications of global policies for access to research data; Open Science policies and practices to foster public trust and understanding in science, among others. More information and registration are available here. 

 

Virtual Panel Discussion: Building Structural Equity and Inclusion in Open Scholarship

6 May 2022

The United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library (main organizer of the annual UN Open Science Conference) will host the virtual panel discussion ‘Building Structural Equity and Inclusion in Open Scholarship’ on 6 May (7:30 EST / 13:30 CEST) as part of the 2-day global forum 7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals. 

Prof Luke Drury will join as a guest panellist to discuss, among others, recommendations from ALLEA’s recent statement on ‘Equity in Open Access’ as well as ALLEA’s contributions to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. More information and registration are available here. 

  

Learn more about ALLEA’s Open Science Task Force

 

Patent System Needs Adjustment to Harmonize with Open Science Objectives, European Academies say

A new ALLEA statement examines the current patent system in the context of the ideals and objectives of open science and recommends, among others, the introduction of grace periods in patent applications to make knowledge open as early as possible.

In a new statement published today, ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, advocates for the harmonisation of the patent system with open science. The academies urge policymakers to introduce a grace period of at least one year to ensure rapid open publication of research findings.

In addition, the authors conclude that patent income must not be seen as a substitute for public funding and patent activity should be used with great caution as an evaluation metric in assessing the performance of research institutions, projects, and individuals.

The statement, prepared jointly by ALLEA’s Open Science Task Force (OSTF) and the Permanent Working Group Intellectual Property Rights (PWGIPR), analyses the current debate on the possible synergies and perceived tensions between open science and patent protections.

The publication explores these two apparently contradictory views on research policy. On the one hand, a utilitarian view underlines the value of research as a key pillar of innovation in modern societies, wherein patents are considered important tools to valorise research findings. At the same time, an increasingly vocal open science movement advocates for knowledge generated through research to be considered as a global common good to be shared as openly and as rapidly as possible.

The authors consider that “there is no fundamental opposition between open science and protection of IPR; ideas can be freely shared even if their commercial use is subject to restrictions, and indeed this is only possible because of patent law. However, there are clearly operational problems with the way the patent system is currently structured.”

With the right adaptations to existing patent law, knowledge valorisation does not need to prevent early sharing of research findings. On the contrary, “a reformed patent system is essential to the widespread adoption of open science, and could even incentivise it”, states Luke Drury, Chair of the ALLEA Open Science Task Force.

In its conclusions, the statement recommends:

  1. The introduction of a carefully formulated grace period of at least one year in patent applications to allow open publication prior to obtaining protection.
  2. The existing research and experimentation exceptions should be strengthened and broadly interpreted to underpin the free non-commercial use by researchers of knowledge disclosed in patents.

In addition, it notes that:

  1. While patent income and license fees may play a useful role in supplementing the budgets of public research bodies and the salaries of some individuals, this must not be seen as a substitute for public funding.
  2. Patent activity should be used with great caution as an evaluation metric in assessing the performance of research systems, bodies, and individuals. Incentivising the accumulation of non-performing patents is counterproductive and a waste of resources.
  3. The value of curiosity-driven open research in publicly funded research and education bodies needs to be better acknowledged as the bedrock on which innovation and entrepreneurial activity is built, even if it is hard to quantify and valorise.
  4. Related to the last point, the role of distributed communities and teams of researchers needs to be better recognised. The emphasis in patent law on individual inventors is unhelpful in this regard and does not properly reflect how science operates.

Read the full statement

ALLEA Working Group European Research Area meets in Stockholm

On Wednesday 6 April, the ALLEA Working Group European Research Area (ERA) met in Stockholm for its first in-person meeting. Representatives of European Academies gathered at the premises of the Royal Swedish Academy as well as remotely to discuss the most pressing issues regarding a new ERA for Research and Innovation”.

The meeting was opened with a warm welcome and introduction by the Working Group Chair, Professor Kerstin Sahlin (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences & Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities). This was followed by a statement from Professor Volodymyr Radchenko, member of the Working Group who joined the meeting remotely from Kiev on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In his statement, Professor Radchenko thanked the European Academies for their ongoing support to Ukrainian researchers fleeing the war and lauded them for taking a clear stance in condemning the Russian invasion, while also calling for more support of researchers and research infrastructures within Ukraine*.

After Professor Radchenko’s moving intervention, ALLEA Board Member Maarten Prak (KNAW) stressed how academic cooperation has always been crucial in the creation of a shared (European) culture and identity, yet he also highlighted that the current war clearly shows that there is still a long way to go in overcoming major obstacles and challenges. This proves how important it is to further build and strengthen a European Research Area which works to promote peace, research integrity, academic freedom, and equal opportunities for all.

ALLEA participates in the ongoing ERA Forum Experts Group meetings as a stakeholder representing the European Academies of Sciences and Humanities. The ERA Forum is co-chaired by the European Commission and EU Member States. Associated countries and representatives of seven types of stakeholders are invited to join the meetings. The Forum has been established to implement and coordinate the objectives of the ERA, particularly by implementing the jointly developed ERA Policy Agenda.

The group generally welcomed the initiative for a stronger ERA and expressed their appreciation that the research community is actively involved in the process of drafting and commenting new policies. Among others, they stressed the importance to focus on excellence, young researchersmobility and career development, stopping the brain drain in some central and eastern European countries, international cooperation beyond Europe, research assessment and evaluation, and the opportunities for open science and its potentially dangerous impact on young researchers, the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, as well as research integrity.

In the months to come, the outcomes of this meeting will further inform ALLEA’s feedback to the European Commission. The results of this process are expected towards the end of the year.

Members of the ALLEA Working Group European Research Area gathered in Stockholm on 6 April 2022.

ALLEA is very grateful to the Working Group members for their active participation, and we also wish to thank the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Royal Swedish Academy for Letters, History and Antiquities for hosting this meeting and the following dinner. Everyone expressed their excitement of meeting in person again and look forward to shaping the development of a new ERA for Research and Innovation on behalf of the European Academies.  

For more information visit the webpage of ALLEA’s Working Group European Research Area (ERA)

 

*See ALLEA’s European Fund for Displaced Scientists and the response by the scientific community in support of Ukraine for more information on how Ukrainian research and researchers are being supported in and outside Ukraine.

 

“We Have to Be Ready to Support Ukrainian Researchers as Long as Necessary”

Professor Paweł Rowiński. Photo: Jakub Ostalowski

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine shocked the world on 24 February 2022, and the humanitarian crisis that hence unfolded, more than 10 million people have been forced to flee their homes, with an estimated 6.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine, and an estimated 4 million fleeing to neighbouring countries, including Poland, Romania, Moldova and Hungary.

Of these neighbouring countries who have received Ukrainian refugees, Poland has received the largest amount, currently estimated at 2.3 million people. Thousands of them are scientists and researchers who have been forced to seek for a safe environment to continue their academic work. The international scientific community has mobilised fast to provide them with immediate assistance. Among them, the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), an ALLEA Member Academy, has set up a support programme with research stays specifically designed for scientists who have been displaced by the war.

“We do feel that systemic solutions are needed at this stage,” says Professor Paweł Rowiński, Vice President of the Polish Academy of Sciences and member of the ALLEA Board. He shares the current experience of the PAS in providing support to displaced scholars.

 

“The involvement of the civil society, non-governmental organisations and local governments over the last weeks has been impressive.”

 

Question: Almost 2.3 million refugees have crossed the Ukrainian-Polish border in the last weeks. How would you describe the general situation in Poland in relation to the arrival of Ukrainian refugees?

Paweł Rowiński: The current migration crisis poses a great challenge for Poland. However, the involvement of the civil society, non-governmental organisations and local governments over the last weeks has been impressive. In order to cope with this humanitarian crisis regular citizens have opened up their homes and invited guests from Ukraine to their spare bedrooms or living rooms. In the first weeks of war, when Polish border with Ukraine has been crossed by over 100.000 people daily, many Poles have been serving as ad hoc volunteers, preparing sandwiches or serving home-made soups on railway stations. Now, after over a month of war, the support is becoming more and more professional; however, many activities are still performed by regular citizens on a voluntary basis. We do feel that systemic solutions are needed at this stage.

 

Q.: Can you share the steps taken by the Polish Academy of Sciences to provide assistance to displaced Ukrainian scholars? 

P.R.: On March 1st the Polish Academy of Sciences has signed a new MoU with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. On the same day, within the framework of this agreement, we have launched a call for proposals to support 3 to 6 month stays of Ukrainian scholars at the Institutes of the PAS. Note that under the umbrella of the PAS operate 70 research institutes. The funding was available to all researchers after their PhD regardless of their nationality, provided that before the war they had been employed at a Ukrainian scientific institution. Our budget allowed us to fund 50 scholars and it ran out within 4 days. We have therefore reached out to all international organisations the PAS is a member of to ask for additional support. We have received positive feedback from many organisations which either made a donation to our programme or waived our membership fees for 2022, allowing us to allocate our contributions to Ukrainian scholars at risk.

Thanks to the support of various institutions (see list below) we were able to support additional 20 scholars. All donations have been used in their entirety to support Ukrainian scholars. Simultaneously, many academies around the world reached out to us with their offers of help. We are truly grateful to our friends and partners around the world for their initiatives supporting Ukrainian scholars at risk. Thanks to our partnership with the National Academies of Sciences from the U.S. we are now able to continue the support scheme for displaced Ukrainian scholars at the PAS.

I need to also emphasize other ways of support. For example, the PAS Conference Centre in Jablonna offered free meals for more than 100 refugees from Ukraine. Our botanical garden and museums offered free access to all Ukrainian citizens. Most of our institutes proposed their own ways of support. Many of them prepared free accommodation for numerous researchers, and some researchers were also offered various kinds of contracts. One of our institutes – the Institute of Low Temperature and Structural Research in Wrocław – is in the process of transferring all the resources of three Ukrainian institutes to its own server in Poland. It will allow B.Verkin Institute for Low Temperature Physics and Engineering of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kharkov, O.Ya. Usikov Institute for Radiophysics and Electronics and Institute of Radio Astronomy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine to continue their operation. Moreover, two serious Ukrainian journals: Journal of Mathematical Physics, Analysis, Geometry and Fizika Nizkikh Temperatur – Low Temperature Physics are continuously issued by that institute in Wroclaw. Plenty of alike initiatives are born in other PAS institutes.

 

“Right now we need financial support to provide basic living conditions for scholars who have fled Ukraine.”

 

Q.: Has the PAS received any support from EU-level institutions? Which other scientific organisations have you been collaborating with and how?

P.R.: We did not receive any support from EU-Level institutions. We hope that the EU will follow soon with providing support to all Ukrainian scholars at risk. Many academies set up different support schemes. For example Academia Sinica from Taiwan invited students and scholars from Ukraine for up to 6 month stays in Taiwan while the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has provided additional budget for scholars hosted in the Institutes of the PAS. Thanks to the partnership with our friends from the US. the support scheme launched in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is again operational. We are also promised to receive additional funds from the Polish government but it is yet to materialise and for now we need to wait.

 

Q.: What type of help is most needed right now, and what would be the best way for the international scientific community to support the actions being taken by the Polish Academy of Sciences?

P.R.: Right now we need financial support to provide basic living conditions for scholars who have fled Ukraine. We have to remember however that many scholars, including male scholars aged between 18-60 years old, cannot leave the country. So we need to find a way to support their work in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian science institutions advocate for remote/online opportunities for their students and staff – open training courses, virtual labs, mentoring programmes, etc.

 

Q.: Given the current state of affairs, how much longer do you foresee that the PAS will be able to provide this support to scholars displaced by the war?

P.R.: The budget from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences allows to fund ca. 150 stipends for 3 months, or fewer stipends but for longer periods. At this moment in time we are not able to predict when Russia will stop the attack on Ukrainian civilians, schools, universities, hospitals, etc. We have to be ready to support Ukrainian researchers as long as necessary. Not to mention the investments that will have to be made to restore Ukrainian science base after the war.

 

Q.: What recommendations can you provide from the experience of the PAS to other scientific institutions setting up support schemes for displaced scholars?

P.R.: Stay in touch with the community under threat. Build your programmes in cooperation with the institutions affected by war. Act fast. Focus on people but don’t forget about the infrastructure.

 

About Paweł Rowiński

Professor Paweł Rowiński holds a degree in mathematics by the University of Warsaw, and doctoral and habilitation degrees in earth sciences with a specialisation in geophysics by the Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences.

Professor Rowiński has published more than 170 refereed scientific publications. He serves as Associate Editor for several prominent scientific journals and publications. In 2018 he was elected the Vice Chair of the Europe Division Leadership Team of the International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research IAHR. Since May 2015, he serves as Vice-President of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

 

The following institutions have provided support for the Polish Academy of Sciences to continue assisting scholars in need:

  • International Astronomical Union
  • International Centre for Mechanical Sciences
  • International Geographical Union
  • Nuclear Physics European Collaboration Committees
  • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  • International Committee of Historical Sciences
  • International Union of Forest Research Organization
  • International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
  • International Astronautical Federation
  • International Association of Byzantine Studies
  • The Alloy Phase Diagram International Commission
  • Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
  • International Federation for Structural Concrete
  • Permanent International Committee of Linguists
  • International Institute of Noise Control Engineering
  • International Numismatic Council
  • International Union of Nutritional Sciences
  • International Commission of Military History
  • International Union of History and Philosophy of Science

 

ALLEA has partnered with the Breakthrough Prize Foundation to support scholars and scientific institutions impacted by the war in Ukraine, learn more about this initiative here. You can also read about other support schemes by European academies and ALLEA partners on our portal Support for Ukraine.

 

Breakthrough Prize Foundation Partners with ALLEA To Support Scientists Forced to Leave Ukraine

Foundation Dedicates $1.5 Million from a $3 Million Pledge for Impacted Scientists to ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, for Distribution Via European Academic Institutions

The Breakthrough Prize Foundation announced that it is extending its existing partnership with ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, with a donation of funds to support scientists and scientific institutions impacted by the war in Ukraine.

As part of a $3 million fund pledged to this cause, the Foundation will dedicate $1.5 million to ALLEA, who will encourage academic institutions in Europe to apply for funding support to host scientists forced to flee from their homes. ALLEA will also assist affected Ukrainian universities, academies and research institutes in maintaining their operations and rebuilding Ukrainian scientific facilities and research collaborations in a safe, free and independent post-war Ukraine.

The millions of civilians displaced by the conflict already include many scientists, and a number of research centres, including the well-known Kharkiv Physics and Technology Institute, that have also suffered damage.

 

The programme

The programme, which is set to launch this spring, has two main aims. The first is to provide immediate assistance for scholars who have already left or will soon leave the country, so that they can continue their research in a safe environment. The second aim is to facilitate support to Ukrainian institutions to continue their operations, rebuild their research networks, and foster the return of scientists to Ukraine after the war.

Academic institutions from Council of Europe member states that are accepting Ukrainian refugees will be able to apply for up to one year’s funding support. This will be used to finance new or existing positions for postdoctoral researchers, as well as assistant, associate, or full professors affiliated with Ukrainian institutions. ALLEA will launch a Europe-wide call for these applications and work with its more than 50 member academies to widely disseminate it throughout the European research community.

The program will be spearheaded by an independent selection committee composed of senior officials from science organisations across Europe. This committee will cooperate with the hosting institutions to conduct the selection of applicants and supervise funding decisions to support Ukrainian research institutions.

While assisting scientists displaced outside Ukraine is an urgent task, it is also crucial that relief efforts avoid exacerbating “brain drain” from the country. To this end, the programme will encourage hosting institutions to prepare measures that continue to support their academic guests when it becomes realistic for them to return to their home institutions in Ukraine. To add to these efforts, ALLEA will reserve 20% of the overall programme funds to support actions that help maintain and rebuild Ukrainian scientific facilities after the war, as well as initiatives that foster reintegration of researchers after their return home.

“We are pleased to be working with ALLEA to expedite vital humanitarian relief to scientists displaced by the war in Ukraine,” said Dr. Pete Worden, Executive Chairman of the Breakthrough Prize Foundation.  “Science is an international endeavor, and we hope that by working together we can make a real difference to our colleagues who have been forced to leave Ukraine.”

“We are very thankful for the generous funding of the Breakthrough Prize Foundation and will work closely with them and European academies to set up a Europe-wide fellowship programme that we hope will motivate more colleagues to take action and help. Science is a community of reason, collaboration, and perseverance. In these dark times, we have the responsibility to join forces and find safe workspaces for scholars fleeing from Ukraine and support them to thrive and continue their research without harm and fear,” said Professor Antonio Loprieno, President of ALLEA.

Further details about the funding will be soon available at:

https://allea.org/european-fund-for-displaced-scientists/

 

An Ongoing Partnership

The $1.5 million donation to support this programme is a new initiative in the ongoing partnership between the Breakthrough Prize and ALLEA which pursues their shared goal of promoting science. Each year, ALLEA helps to facilitate nominations for the annual Breakthrough Prize among its members.

 

# # #

 

About the Breakthrough Prize Foundation

The Breakthrough Prize Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to recognizing the world’s great scientists, advancing cutting-edge scientific research, and helping to create a knowledge culture in which everybody, especially the next generation, can be inspired by the big questions of science.

The Breakthrough Prize recognizes the world’s top scientists in the fields of Life Sciences, Fundamental Physics and Mathematics. Each prize is $3 million. The Breakthrough Junior Challenge is an annual global video competition for students to inspire creative thinking about science.

More information can be found at:

https://breakthroughprize.org/

https://www.breakthroughjuniorchallenge.org/

 

About ALLEA

ALLEA is the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, representing more than 50 academies from over 40 countries in Europe. Since its foundation in 1994, ALLEA speaks out on behalf of its members on the European and international stages, promotes science as a global public good, and facilitates scientific collaboration across borders and disciplines. Jointly with its Member Academies, ALLEA works towards improving the conditions for research, providing the best independent and interdisciplinary science advice, and strengthening the role of science in society. In doing so, it channels the intellectual excellence and experience of European academies for the benefit of the research community, decision-makers and the public.

 

More information can be found at:

www.allea.org

For media inquiries about the Breakthrough Prize:

media@breakthroughprize.org

OR

Rubenstein Communications, Inc.

New York, New York

Janet Wootten

jwootten@rubenstein.com / +1-212 -843-8024

Kristen Bothwell

kbothwell@rubenstein.com / +1-212-843-9227

 

For media inquiries about ALLEA:

Susana Irles

irles@allea.org

Tel: +49 (0)30 206 066-507

ALLEA Joins InsSciDE Conference on Science Diplomacy

ALLEA was invited to join InsSciDE’s third open conference, held on 22-24 March at the premises of the Lisbon Academy of Sciences and the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. This year’s InsSciDE’s conference focused on the Global South and explored crucial themes in Europe’s relationships to the many emergent poles of scientific expertise and influence. Different perspectives were prompted on how a new vision and practice of science diplomacy may be critical to bridging the Global North and South interests and contribute to finding common, albeit diverse, solutions. 

On day 1, the focus of the conference was on the role of Academies of Science in science diplomacy to delineate the role of such academies as science diplomacy organisations, particularly concerning their international involvement and role in asserting science diplomacy. The four sessions throughout the day engaged a diverse group of scholars and professionals to chart Academies’ international action in the present and as far back as the 18th century.

Daniel Kaiser presents a brief introduction of ALLEA and its involvement in Science Diplomacy at the Lisbon Academy of Sciences.

ALLEA’s Scientific Policy Officer Daniel Kaiser joined session 3 as a moderator and session 4 as a panelist, where he delivered a brief presentation on the history of ALLEA and its work on science diplomacy throughout the years. In his presentation, Daniel Kaiser emphasised that ALLEA “strives to advance the role of Science Diplomacy in Europe, promote a global approach to science and research, and provide an international structure for enhanced cooperation on global challenges as well as high-quality independent science advice for policy.”

On day 2 of the conference, diverse stakeholders came together to discuss the entanglements between science diplomacy and four topics that the conference deemed as central to future action: Open Science, Anthropocene, Technoscience and Innovation Diplomacy, New Actors and a New Definition of Science Diplomacy. ALLEA was represented by its President, Professor Antonio Loprieno, who joined the morning roundtable on Open Science. He briefly presented the work of ALLEA’s Open Science Task Force and introduced ALLEA’s involvement with the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

President Antonio Loprieno virtually joined InsSciDE to introduce ALLEA’s activities on Open Science.

Speaking on the changes needed for succesful Open Science, Professor Loprieno remarked that “the move to full open access must be accompanied by concurrent reforms of the systems for research evaluation and career progression; it will thus require a fundamental re-evaluation of the responsibilities of all the different actors in the research system. Particular attention must be paid to the impact on early-stage researchers, those from disadvantaged institutions and communities, and those working in specialist disciplines.”

On the third and final day of the conference, the focus of discussion was on InsSciDE’s historical case studies from the forthcoming book of Harmonized Case Studies. In this session, case study authors, invited experts and public attendees engaged with the research to identify cross-cutting themes and present-day applications for teaching, training and everyday practice.

You can read the full programme of the three-day conference here or visit the conference’s website here.

“Science Communication Is How Society Talks About Science”

Professor Massimiano Bucchi

The increasing amount and spreading capacity of online disinformation related to critical sociopolitical issues, such as vaccines or climate change, coupled with the ongoing global health crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic have all made it painfully clear that we need to become more adept at communicating science within society. Seeking to dissect the importance of increasing and improving communication channels between science and society, we talked with Massimiano Bucchi, Professor of Sociology of Science and Communication, Science and Technology at the University of Trento and one of the leading European scholars on the science of science communication.

Professor Bucchi, together with his colleague Brian Trench, defines Science Communication as “the social conversation(s) around science” and he explains in more detail what this definition encompasses. While he certainly believes that organisations should devote more resources training experts in science communication, he also believes that there should be an increased focus on “developing communication and engagement activities that are grounded on the  theoretical and empirical literature about science communication.”

 

Unfortunately, a representation of the public as hostile, sceptical and ignorant is still widespread among policy makers and experts, supporting a paternalistic and authoritarian vision of science communication and of science in society.

 

Question: You have been working in the field of science communication for many years, and you are now the Director of the International Master programme SCICOMM at the University of Trento. Where did your interest in the field of science communication originate from?

Massimiano Bucchi: As a sociologist, I think it is not possible to understand contemporary societies without taking into account the increasingly relevant role of science and technology. I am interested in science communication as one of the keys to study science in society dynamics and their transformations.

 

Q.: In a recently published essay you co-authored with Brian Trench, you define science communication as “the social conversation(s) around science.” Can you briefly elaborate on this definition?

M.B.: Science communication as social conversation is a broad, inclusive definition: science communication is “how society talks about science”, including everyday stories about science on radio programmes, in social networks, in artists’ studios, in cafés and bars. Add to that the novels, pop and rock songs, theatre and comedy performances that give presence to science in public and popular culture and in everyday life.

This view emphasizes a mode of interactive communication that is set in contrast with dissemination or other hierarchical modes, and a concept that embraces all that is being said on a certain matter in society. Our inclusive definition of science communication not only validates activities such as science cafés and science comedy that are oriented to pleasure, but also recognises as part of the wider practice of science communication the ‘spontaneous’ use in popular culture of images and ideas from and related to science.

 

“In many cases, communication by scientific experts (and sometimes even by research institutions) has been guided mostly by personal goodwill and inclination, without much consideration given to the extensive literature available on this topic, to data on public perception and audience intelligence .”

 

Q.: Why do we need experts specialising in science communication?

M.B.: We certainly need resources trained in science communication, particularly for research organisations. The point is not so much teaching practical science communication skills, or training science journalists (for whom, unfortunately, there are very few jobs) but developing communication and engagement activities that are grounded on the now vast and profound theoretical and empirical literature about science communication, its actors, processes and audiences.

 

Q.: In a 2010 commentary piece, you argued that science communication “is not (yet) established as an academic discipline but that [it] could emerge as a discipline with strong interdisciplinary characteristics.” Do you think this has changed over the last decade?

M.B.: Yes, the field has become more structured and established. But the importance of high quality science communication, which cannot be improvised or left to the individual talent or good will of natural scientists or general staff has still to be understood in many research and policy organisations.

 

I am not sure misinformation is the main challenge, at least in the narrow way in which it is usually defined through terms like “fake news”. The broader, central challenge is the quality of science communication: how to improve it, how to reward it, how to distinguish it.”

 

Q.: What do you think the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated about what is done right, and what still needs to improve in the way we communicate science? What would you say is the main impact that the pandemic has had in the field of science communication?

M.B.: We have been through the most spectacular science communication experiment in human history. Several international studies found citizens to be in general attentive to communication about the pandemic provided by health institutions and mostly sceptical of social media, with trust in institutions playing a key role. 

The unprecedented exposure of expert sources across the media has found many institutions unprepared to deal with such responsibility. In many cases, communication by scientific experts (and sometimes even by research institutions) has been guided mostly by personal goodwill and inclination, without much consideration given to the extensive literature available on this topic, to data on public perception and audience intelligence 

 

Q.: What are effective ways in which science communicators can contribute to the fight against scientific disinformation (i.e. on topics like anti vaccination or climate change denialism)? 

M.B.: I am not sure misinformation is the main challenge, at least in the narrow way in which it is usually defined through terms like “fake news”. The broader, central challenge is the quality of science communication: how to improve it, how to reward it, how to distinguish it from low quality, improvised science communication with unclear aims and limited intelligence of the context. Another long-term, educational challenge is building awareness for the quality of information and its value and cost (not just about science) among citizens.

Unfortunately, a representation of the public as hostile, sceptical and ignorant is still widespread among policy makers and experts, supporting a paternalistic and ultimately authoritarian vision of science communication and of science in society. As the literature from the past two decades clearly shows, this representation largely reflects unfounded prejudices.

 

Q.: What advice do you have for experts that wish to go in the science communication field? 

M.B.: Study and read broadly: history of science, sociology, psychology, literature.
 

Q.: Many creative formats, such as Nerd Nite, Pint of Science, or Long Night of Museums have been established to communicate science in a fun and innovative way, mixing knowledge with entertainment. What is your opinion of such formats? 

M.B.: The idea that the format shapes or guarantees the quality of the content today is very popular but probably misleading. Some of the content hosted within such formats may be more interesting or fun. However, we should look at the long-term consequences of such formats in terms of audience perception. Do they convey an idea that science – and science communication – can be easily and quickly improvised? This may not be a very constructive message, particularly for younger generations. 

 

Professor Massimiano Bucchi will be one of the panelists at this year’s Future of Science Communication Conference 2.0, organised by Wissenschaft im Dialog in partnership with ALLEA. The conference will take place in Brussels on 26 April 2022.

 

About Massimiano Bucchi

Massimiano Bucchi (Ph.D. Social and Political Science, European University Institute, 1997) is Full Professor of Science and Technology and Society and Communication, Science and Technology at the University of Trento and Director of the International Master  programme SCICOMM.

He has been visiting professor in Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania. Since 2018, he is director of the Master in Communication of Science and Innovation. He is the author of  several books (published in more than twenty countries) and papers in journals such as Nature, Science, PLOS ONE. Among his books in English: Science and the Media (Routledge, 1998); Science in Society (Routledge, 2004); Beyond Technocracy (Springer, 2009); Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2 eds. 2008, 2014, with B. Trench, Routledge) and the 4 vols. anthology The Public Communication of Science (Routledge, 2016). He has been the editor of the international peer reviewed journal Public Understanding of Science (Sage, 2016-2019) and regularly contributes to newspapers and TV programmes.

Recently published articles by Massimiano Bucchi

To boost vaccination rates, invest in trust

Rethinking science communication as the social conversation around science

Public Perception of COVID-19 Vaccination in Italy: The Role of Trust and Experts’ Communication

 

Czech Translation of ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’ is Now Available

ALLEA publishes the Czech version of Discussion Paper #5 ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’.

In March 2022, ALLEA published the Czech translation of its Discussion Paper ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’, which was translated in partnership with the Czech Academy of Sciences. The Discussion Paper was first published in May 2021.

ALLEA Discussion Paper ‘Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’

The paper describes and discusses the problems and the consequences of science disinformation in three areas of concern, namely climate change, vaccines and pandemics, and what we can do to increase awareness and minimise harm caused by the spread of disinformation. It does so by highlighting the societal value of the scientific method, research integrity, open science communication and the resulting trust in science. The underlying question is how to protect the pillars of science from the severe consequences of disinformation while maintaining openness and democratic principles. The paper identifies underlying cognitive, social and economic mechanisms that amplify the spread of disinformation and evaluates potential solutions, such as inoculation, debunking, recommender systems, fact-checking, raising awareness, media literacy, and innovations in science communication and public engagement.

You can read the Czech translation here.