We interviewed Marga Gual from Mallorca, an expert in Scientific Diplomacy and advisor on the subject for the European Commission, who participated in the cycle of colloquiums of the CILAC Forum, Science in Motion, to present the report she prepared together with UNESCO that includes the good practices implemented by Latin American countries to develop science diplomacy between States in the region
Marga Gual always knew that she wanted to dedicate herself to science. Originally from Mallorca, she graduated in Barcelona and later completed her doctorate in molecular biology in Australia. Without wasting any time he began to work in a laboratory as he had always imagined, but something kept him awake. He stayed up late trying to discover how science could impact people more and better. How could it help society widely benefit from all scientific processes and advances.
The answer was found in scientific diplomacy. A specialization until now relatively little explored by the global scientific community, which aims to create a powerful synergy between a more humanitarian science and a more scientific humanity.
Gual has been recognized as Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. She is currently a senior advisor on science diplomacy and has specialized in building bridges between nations facing tensions. He helped design the science diplomacy strategies of many Latin American governments, as well as in Spain and the European Union. She is also the founder of SciDipGLOBAL, an international strategy, advisory and training consultancy that helps governments, scientists, NGOs and multilateral organizations strengthen the links between science, technology and international affairs to address common challenges and navigate global transformations. .
In November 2020, Gual participated in the colloquium on Scientific Diplomacy of the Science in Motion cycle, which drives the CILAC Forum in Latin America and the Caribbean. There he presented the report he prepared together with UNESCO, “Scientific Diplomacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Strategies, Mechanisms and Perspectives”, which includes the success stories of countries that have begun to develop this discipline in their government agendas. The work has been the first research of its kind that has been carried out in the region to date.
Why did you want to dedicate yourself to Scientific Diplomacy?
I realized that science was not reaching society in the way that I thought it could have more and better impact. I then decided to take a break in my scientific career and applied for an internship at the United Nations, at the UN headquarters in New York. There I discovered that very few people with scientific training were dedicated to working in those places of global decision-making. All my classmates had studied law, political science or international relations, perhaps economics, or traditional careers for people entering diplomacy. But very few people had professional training in the exact or natural sciences.
I was very surprised because, precisely, it was the time when the Sustainable Development Goals were being debated, and the role of science was fundamental to address any of the challenges that were discussed, for example: climate change, food security, waste management. the oceans. All of this has a scientific dimension, but more people trained in science were needed to support these processes.
There I saw that there was a huge opportunity to open paths so that more people with scientific training could enter the decision-making spaces, those diplomatic spaces and offer scientific input, based on evidence to make those decisions. I didn't go back to the lab again.
What specifically is Scientific Diplomacy?
It is everything that encompasses a link between scientific knowledge and international relations and diplomatic processes. For example, when the UN has to negotiate an agreement on climate change, there is an organization that provides scientific input for those negotiations. And this is super important because, generally, diplomats do not specialize in technical topics about science but, increasingly, the planet's challenges require that knowledge. There are a series of very technical and complex issues that decision makers, often coming from generalist backgrounds, do not have that level of specialty.
On the other hand, scientists tend to have a limited vision of science, which prevents us from understanding the consequences that certain advances can have on social life and public policy. For example, I am a molecular biologist and I can study a technology but not understand the ethical or human rights implications of using that technology in society. As scientists, we must learn much more about the risks and benefits of the technologies we develop, and this is still generally not taught in any university in the world. There are studies on these impacts but, normally, when one studies a degree in physics, biology or mathematics, you do not have subjects to understand the social or political dimensions of a research.
Scientific diplomacy, then, allows us to link these two worlds. That both governments and foreign ministries include this scientific knowledge in their work process and also develop networks with scientists and experts who can advise them, and vice versa: that researchers in academia also have that understanding of the implications of the new technologies.
What is the status of Latin America and the Caribbean in this matter, compared to the rest of the world?
There are great advances in the region. That is why we wanted to do this survey of good practices in cases and strategies in Latin America. It is the first time that a mapping of this type has been carried out in the region, which is very important because there are successful advances that must be made known so that other countries have these models to be inspired and advance in this matter.
There are only two countries in the region that have this science structure within diplomatic processes. For example, the “scientific attachés” in embassies is one of the indicators we analyze when we want to see the state of a country. We see if they have formalized the figure of “scientific attachés” because it is a demonstration that science is at the forefront of foreign policy. I can only mention that Brazil and Chile have formalized these figures in their embassies.
Another mechanism that we analyze is the presence of scientific advice within the chancellery or for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is no country that has formalized this figure. But we can also highlight that many countries have added science training to the academic training of diplomats. This includes Chile, Mexico, Argentina, among others.
I would say that Panama stood out from the rest of the countries for being the first that, in 2018, launched an official national-level Scientific Diplomacy strategy. Panama was a pioneer in this sense, until now no country had done it. Cuba also highlights that it has always had a very strong push for medical diplomacy. He sent medical support in the Ebola crisis in Africa, for example.
In the region there is also relevance at the subnational level, because some countries today think about diplomacy at the city level, that is, not only from the traditional approach of the foreign ministries. This is innovative for this decade: understanding that diplomacy is not something exclusive to conventional diplomatic organizations, but also involves many more actors, such as mayors, for example, who take on scientific cooperation at the level of their city. Here, Mexico City stands out, for example, which promotes a very powerful agenda for that location. The same with Sao Paulo in Brazil, which as a State concentrates most of that country's scientific productivity. This reflects the growing diversification of actors in diplomacy, not replacing it but complementing it.
What would be the challenges that the region must face?
There are plenty. Some are due to the fact that diplomacy was born conceptually in the North of the planet, it is very Anglo-Saxon. Examples come from the US, Europe, Japan and cooperation during the Cold War. This means that all the literature is in English and the examples derive from the global north, therefore there is a lot of work to contextualize scientific diplomacy for these latitudes, and it is difficult to define what this term means for this part of the world. We must analyze how this can be adapted to these societies: there is no model to replicate from one region to another, each country has a very specific reality, in terms of social, political, economic and scientific reality. In the report we collect several challenges, starting with the multiplicity of regional and subregional forums. There are many forums from different countries and each of them has a multilateral science and technology commission. There is redundancy and a lack of coordination among all these commissions, and one of the recommendations we make is precisely to try to build synergies between all these cooperation forums. Also the role that the scientist assumes once he finishes his doctorate. The breadth of job opportunities must be promoted much more.
Are Latin governments receptive to incorporating this approach?
Well yes and no. Institutional change costs a lot. The bureaucracy is very slow. There are many countries that do not even have a Ministry of Science. There are cooperation agencies but they work in very different ways. The cultural distance and the trajectory of the advisors are different. In the region there is still resistance to placing a person who comes from science on the government agenda. It generates a strong cultural shock. There is still a lot of resistance, although there are experiences that show a lot of will, such as Panama, Colombia, Costa Rica, which are very active when it comes to defining these advances in scientific diplomacy. There is still a long way to go, but in this report we have given a fairly wide range for countries to take as an example and use as a reference.
What benefits would a society obtain as a result of establishing solid scientific diplomacy networks?
It is very easy to see them. There is no challenge that we can address from one sector in isolation. We are seeing it with the pandemic. It's like a big live science diplomacy case study. No country will be able to defeat the virus by itself and at the same time, we will not be able to defeat it together if a country decides not to cooperate. As long as the virus exists in a country, it will continue to be a threat to all of humanity. The lack of link between science and diplomacy has led us to situations much more dramatic than they could have been.
Is new scientific leadership needed to make all this viable? How can we build it?
Yes, definitely. Scientists must be trained in a different way. We cannot afford to live locked in laboratories all our lives or to publish interviews that are inaccessible to the rest of the population. For this it is very important open science movement which UNESCO promotes very strongly in the region. Ethics in research, Artificial intelligence, technological convergence, understand the geopolitical implications. All of this is essential to train scientists, so that they know how to cover all these issues on their radar of action and can understand what science impacts society, and how it can and should benefit people, beyond scientific discovery. punctually, and beyond commercial applications, which end up in the hands of the private sector.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of UNESCO nor do they commit the Organization. The terms used and the presentation of the data that appear therein do not imply taking any position on the part of UNESCO regarding the legal status of countries, territories and cities or regions, nor regarding their authorities, borders or limits.