Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
for the World conference was held in Tucson, Arizona, from February 22 to
24, 2017. Experts on the implications of advances in s cience and technol-
ogy for domestic and international policy decisions from around the world
gathered to share their knowledge and visions for the importance of Sci-
ence Diplomacy in the twenty-first century. The goal of the conference was
to discuss how and why scientific knowledge and policy is critical to deal
effectively with the challenges and opportunities that our planet faces. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the sponsors.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
HASSAN A. VAFAI
KEVIN E. LANSEY
Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World, Volume I: The Role of Science in Diplomacy
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
KEYWORDS
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xvii
Conference Program xxi
PART 1 AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND
SCIENCE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 1
Introductory Remarks 3
Introduction to Thomas Pickering 4
Science as an “Energizer of the World” 5
Introduction to Peter Agre 9
Science Diplomacy: Global Health 10
Introduction to Norman Neureiter 20
Cross Cultural Communication:
Science Diplomacy 21
PART 2 ROLES WITHIN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY 33
Introduction to Roles within Science
Diplomacy 35
Science Diplomacy in the Twenty-First Century:
A Call to Understand the Global Dynamics
of Science, Technology, and Innovation 37
Introduction to the Role of International
Organizations and Governments in Science
Diplomacy 52
The Internationalization of Science through
UNESCO 53
x • Contents
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on the Americas c onference
was held at the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, Arizona, from
February 22 to 24, 2017. These proceedings are a description of the activ-
ities at the meeting, including question and answer discussions. This work
collects the presentations made by prominent figures from the disciplines
of science, engineering, technology, and diplomacy. The talks cover their
perspectives on potential solutions to opportunities—such as the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals—improving diplomatic rela-
tionships through scientific engagement and enhancing economic growth
through scientific achievement.
During conference planning and development, several questions arose:
1. What is Science Diplomacy and Policy (SDP), and why host a con-
ference on SD?
2. Why organize the meeting at a university?
3. Why host the meeting at the University of Arizona?
The answers to these questions provide context for the conference and
its goals.
1
N. Fedoroff. 2009. “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Cell 136, no. 1, pp. 9–11.
2
The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy (London, UK:
The Royal Society).
xii • Preface
3
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National Academies U.S.
and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy: Report of a
Workshop (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press), p. 60, ISBN 978-0-309-22438-3.
Preface • xiii
Figure 3. Water sustainability and climate change sessions in the SDP
conference—University of Arizona, February 2017
BIBLIOGRAPHY
We are grateful to the persons and institutions that have made the Science
Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas conference and the pub-
lication of these proceedings possible. Many University of Arizona (UA)
entities on campus provided financial and in-kind support for the con-
ference: College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, the University of Arizona Foundation, College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Office of Global initiatives, Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy, Institute of Environment, and Agnese
Nelms Haury Program in Environmental and Social Justice. In addition,
the Lloyd’s Register Foundation also provided support. Dr. Jeff Goldberg,
Dean of the College of Engineering, who recognizes the value of science
and engineering diplomacy, played a pivotal financial and intellectual role
in advancing the conference forward.
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas confer-
ence, convened at the University of Arizona, was an exceptional event.
However, it would not have been realized without the dedication and com-
mitment of the Honorary Conference Chairman, Dr. E. William Colglazier,
and we thank him for his support. As described in the preface, the opening
session and first conference day provided a comprehensive perspective
on the contributions, as well as value and future of SDP. As a recognized
leader in the field with a comprehensive awareness of current activities
and trends and historical context, Dr. Colglazier was instrumental in
establishing the program and assembling the eminent group of speakers to
achieve that goal. He spent many hours with us in conversations on confer-
ence content and structure as well as connecting with potential speakers.
The second group that guided the intellectual direction of the confer-
ence was the UA organizing committee that consisted of UA faculty and
administrators: James Buizer, Randy Burd, Andrea Gerlak, John Hildebrand,
David Pietz, Juan Valdes, and Robert Varady. This team refined the confer-
ence objectives and directions and identified and invited the diverse mix of
speakers, particularly for the second conference day.
xviii • Acknowledgments
At the Crossroads of
Diplomacy and Science:
Where Do We Go
from Here?
Introductory Remarks
E. William Colglazier
Honorary Chairman of the Conference
Good day to you all, and by one of the miracles of modern science, I am
appearing before you while I have to spend time here in Washington.
I apologize for not having the chance to join you in what looks like both
a fascinating and a very stimulating conference to look at science and
diplomacy.
many ways been a marriage of the knowledge of how science and tech-
nology could provide innovative ways to understand what was going on
in a foreign environment on very sensitive questions with diplomatic
answers. The task was in a balanced and reciprocal fashion the accep-
tance by each side of the kinds of obligations that were necessary to
assure that their commitments to reduce weapons or stop testing were
being carried out.
In this sense, the 2015 Iran nuclear arrangement is one of the
latest innovative efforts to make effective this marriage of science
and diplomacy in serving our national and world interests. For exam-
ple, in that particular agreement a wide number of new technologies
were implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to ensure real-time photographic and technical monitoring in a way
that allowed the IAEA to know and understand what was happening
on a regular basis—and to be the driver of regular visits to sites to
assure 24/7 knowledge of what was going on in the Iranian nuclear
program.
In the Iran Agreement, we had for the first time an opportunity to look
at centrifuge production as a way to assure that the Iranians were abid-
ing by the agreement, including the limitations they had accepted on
their use and development of centrifuges. Additionally, the fact that the
agreement included “cradle-to-grave” monitoring of uranium, from the
mine to the disposition of the spent fuel, was very important in ensur-
ing here a solid basis for knowing and understanding precisely what the
Iranians are continuing to do with the enrichment of uranium. This in
itself was subject to strict limitations, the importance of which we all
understand.
Other innovative arrangements are also built on scientific basis.
These innovations and, indeed, these restrictions on uranium enrichment
and similar arrangements with respect to plutonium production give us a
new opportunity to begin to think about how and in what way we should
make the agreement the “international gold standard” so that all countries
enriching and using plutonium will have the opportunity to develop these
particular facets of important activity for the future, and do so in ways
that are transparent and keep us assured that they are not going to take
off into military programs. This can help close a loophole in the Nuclear
Science as an “Energizer of the World” • 7
There are large questions regarding international health and how and in
what ways science and medicine—a long and collaborative effort over
generations—can help prepare the world to deal with man-made threats
such as biological warfare, as well as evolving problems such as world-
wide epidemics. Our recent experiences with Ebola and Zika have edu-
cated us on the need to move early and in a cogent and coordinated way.
In contexts where the local health infrastructure is weak, we must move
internationally to help reinforce the kinds of steps such as treatments to
stop the spread, and ultimately bring an end to the impact, of epidemics.
Of high interest to me is international agriculture, which has success-
fully been promoted by a network of research institutions begun 30 or
40 years ago with the help of American foundations—for example, the
development of new varieties of rice at the International Rice Research
Institute in the Philippines, which led to the Green Revolution. I hope that
we can expect this continuing contribution, which could bring us to a new
level of revolution in agriculture. It would be useful to take a look at world
health research and see if the same level of coordination and diversity
achieved in agricultural research could be applied to the world health—
especially in anticipating and delivering rapidly in the face of new viruses
and epidemics that might affect mankind around the world.
Building the science and technology capacity of developing countries
is extremely important. I had the experience of serving as an American
ambassador in Central America in the midst of a very difficult time. But
it is very clear to me that particularly in areas of high overpopulation,
the basic need for education and the need to turn education toward the
knowledge-based economy are ways in which these countries have a great
opportunity of bootstrapping themselves ahead. We need to think about
the ways in which they can make a contribution on the employment side.
I had the opportunity after I retired from government to spend some time
at a major U.S. company manufacturing aircraft. That experience taught
8 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
me a great deal about how and in what way scientific research can be
applied to modern technological innovation in a creative and useful way.
On the one hand, that is important not only in terms of a major company
maintaining a high level of technical excellence, but how in a very serious
way it draws on international capacities. Boeing has supply chains around
the world, many of which are devoted to technological research that could
be useful in creating and building future products. It has the ability to draw
upon the knowledge base of the rest of the world that was important in
helping to promote the creation of new jobs in the United States and over-
seas. Incidentally, it was not an inhibition in selling airplanes: Countries
that participated in the construction of Boeing’s airplanes were interested
in how and in what way they were going to play a role as potential cus-
tomers for these airplanes. These are some of the significant questions
and innovative issues that suggest how widely cooperative research as a
technique can be applied internationally.
There are many other issues that we pay attention to and that we see in
terms of the challenges. Science has helped us in places as different as
Iran, Russia, and China. The United States’ capacity to maintain the excel-
lence of its science base is clearly supported by the fact that as a country
we have continuously welcomed individuals, including scientists, of merit.
Some estimate that up to 30 percent of our recent innovations are contrib-
uted by recent arrivals in the United States, who have come because they
admire what we do and the opportunity to work here. They have made
tremendous contributions to the development of a new knowledge base
and new capacities for this country. Our future as a country depends upon
the strength of our science.
I want to say I appreciate very much the opportunity to be with you
and to touch on these few subjects, but to tell you how much I look forward
to seeing the results of your conference and to thank you very much for
the opportunity to say these few words in the early stages of your meeting.
Introduction
to Peter Agre
E. William Colglazier
Honorary Chairman of the Conference
ABSTRACT
“Weiji,” the Chinese word for crisis, is composed of two characters: the
first, signifying “danger,” and the second, “opportunity.”1 From press-
ing public health crises to climate concerns, numerous threats of nature
challenge the stability of international relations. Coupled with man-made
A century ago, the spread of malaria was not restricted to tropical and
sub-Saharan regions, encompassing the Low Countries of Europe and
North America as far north as the Great Lakes.3 Through medical research
and pharmaceutical development, malaria has been eliminated in the West
and in first-world countries around the globe; however, malaria is endemic
in many parts of the developing world, such as the part of the African
continent found to the south of the Sahara, affecting over 40 percent of the
global population.4
With the era of African independencies in the 1960s, the colony
of Rhodesia was split into two countries.5 The country occupying the
northernmost land of the former colony, the Republic of Zambia, emerged
2
S. Mirsky. 2011. “Nobel Laureate Peter Agre: From Aquaporins to Lutefisk.” www
.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/nobel-laureate-peter-agre-from-aqua-11-07-20,
(accessed July 20, 2011).
3
P. Reiter. 2000. “From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age.”
Emerging Infectious Disease 6, p. 1.
4
M. Bouzid. 2017. Examining the Role of Environmental Change on Emerging Infectious
Diseases and Pandemics. (Hershey, PA: Advances in Human Services and Public Health
Book Series), p. 206.
5
T.G. Jakobsen. 2012. “The Fall of Rhodesia.” www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/19/
the-fall-of-rhodesia, (accessed October 19, 2012).
12 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
6
N. Simutanyi. 2010. “The State of Zambian Democracy: Left Organizations and Their Role
in Political Struggles.” Paper presented at the SACP Democracy Conference on “The Left’s
Experience of Participatory Democracy in Africa: Tasks and Challenges,” Johannesburg,
South Africa, August 19, 2010. www.alnef.org.za/conf/2010/presentantions/zambia.pdf
7
G. York. 2015. “Declining Copper Prices: A Large Factor in Zambia’s Economic Tumble.”
www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/african-and-mideast-
business/declining-copper-prices-send-zambia-into-economic-crisis/article26995466,
(accessed October 26, 2015).
8
G. Macola. 2008. One Zambia, Many Histories: Towards a History of Post-Colonial Zambia
(The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV), p. 115.
9
J.J. Ngoma. 2010. “World Bank President Praises Reforms in Zambia, Underscores Need
for Continued Improvements in Policy and Governance.” www.worldbank.org/en/news/
press-release/2010/12/18/world-bank-president-praises-reforms-zambia-underscores-need-
continued-improvements-policy-governance, (accessed December 18, 2010).
10
World Health Organization. 2016. “Zambia.” www.who.int/malaria/publications/country-
profiles/profile_zmb_en.pdf
11
A. Jack. “Battle to Save 400,000 Lives from Malaria.” www.ft.com/content/e40dc13c-155
d-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76?mhq5j=e3, (accessed April 27, 2017).
Science Diplomacy: Global Health • 13
young children, work for roughly one dollar per day.12 When malaria
emerges, the work must stop, forcing economic development to halt.
Through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the
International Centers for Malaria Research compose a worldwide con-
sortium of research facilities funded to disseminate the knowledge and
protocols for preventing and treating malaria outbreaks. Funded by U.S.
taxpayers, these centers, such as the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research
Institute directed by Agre, solicit immunology collaborations and facilitate
multinational delegations composed of American, African, Zambian, and
Zimbabwean scientists.13 Through these successful collaborations, the prev-
alence of malaria has decreased each year over the past 15 years; however,
if the work ceases or is no longer funded, the efforts to contain malaria will
decrease, resulting in the spread of the disease.14 Therefore, it is imperative
that such research efforts continue to be funded and approached from an
interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective to guarantee the effective-
ness of malaria containment and subsequent eradication efforts.
In the northwest of Zambia, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), additional political challenges complicate the containment and
treatment of malaria in the region. The people of DRC have been subject
to a series of difficult governing situations, beginning with the assassina-
tion of Patrice Lumumba, the country’s first legally elected prime minister,
in 1961.15 Following the subsequent upheaval of 1961, the dictatorship of
Mobutu Sese Seko isolated the Congo (then named Zaire) from efforts to
aid the developing world.16 Now, President Joseph Kabila has stated that,
although his elected term was slated to expire in December 2016, the elec-
tion would be postponed until 2018.17 Thus, the political climate in DRC
has been largely inhospitable to economic growth and international col-
laborations; however, it is the work of individuals in both DRC and abroad
that keep the malaria containment efforts alive in spite of ever-increasing
political tension between DRC and the global community.
12
A. Banerjee. 2007. “The Economics Lives of the Poor.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
21, p. 141.
13
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2017. “International Centers of
Excellence for Malaria Research.” www.niaid.nih.gov/research/excellence-malaria-research,
(accessed May 12, 2017).
14
S. Desmon. 2017. “Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute Awards $10 million Grant.”
https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/04/24/malaria-research-institute-awarded-10-million, (accessed
April 24, 2017).
15
L. de Witte. 2001. The Assassination of Lumumba (New York, NY: Verso), p. 74.
16
A.T. Imoh, and N. Ansell. 2014. Children’s Lives in an Era of Children’s Rights (New York,
NY: Routledge), p. 73.
17
J.M. Mbaku. “The Postponed DRC Elections: The Major Players for 2018.” www.brookings
.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2016/12/02/the-postponed-drc-elections-the-major-players-
for-2018, (accessed December 2, 2016).
14 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
18
M.D. Gershman, E.S. Jentes, R.J. Stoney, K.R. Tan, P.M. Arguin, S.F. Steele. 2016. Yellow
Fever and Malaria Information, by Country (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 2.
19
“President’s Malaria Initiative.” PMI.gov. www.pmi.gov
20
IRIN. 2014. “Zimbabwe’s health system in crisis.” IRINnews.com. www.irinnews.org/
news/2014/08/11/zimbabwes-health-system-crisis, (accessed August 11, 2014).
Science Diplomacy: Global Health • 15
21
M.C. Crosby. 2006. The American Plague: The Untold Story of Yellow Fever, the Epidemic
That Shaped Our History (New York, NY: Berkeley Books), p. 96.
22
D. Starr. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” www.wired.com/2004/12/cuba, (accessed
December 1, 2004).
16 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
United States since U.S. science is free.23 One example of the intersection
of science diplomacy and higher education is the Pyongyang University
of Science and Technology (PUST), the only English-language university
in North Korea. This university was founded by economics professor Kim
Chin Kyung, who was born in South Korea and holds a U.S. passport, in
an effort to build bridges between United States and North Korea through
science and the introduction of English courses at PUST.
CONCLUSION
23
I. Jeffries. 2006. North Korea: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments (New York,
NY: Routledge), p. 74.
18 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Last but certainly not least is Norman Neureiter. Norm was the first
Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State in the modern
era. It was a position that was recommended by a report from the N ational
Academies of Science and Engineering. Norm has had a career that has
included government service, including time in Eastern Europe, and serv-
ing with U.S. corporations overseas. He is currently a senior scholar at
AAAS and has received the highest honor of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the Public Welfare Medal. He, like Peter Agre, has traipsed around
the world, interacting with many countries.
Cross Cultural
Communication: Science
Diplomacy
Norman Neureiter
Former Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State
ABSTRACT
“Maybe I should not return to the chemistry lab,” Norman Neureiter thought
after completing his Fulbright Fellowship in Germany. “Maybe I should
find positions that will help me contribute to making a better and more
peaceful world without throwing away my science education and back-
ground.” Through his experiences in doing scientific research and cultural
exchange during the rebuilding of post-World War II Europe, Norman
Neureiter, a chemistry doctoral student at the time, returned to the United
States with a new career goal: to utilize science to push the future in a
nobler direction, saved from man-made destruction, pointless deaths, and
decimated nations.
When Neureiter started college at the age of 16, his father had one
piece of advice for him: Learn Russian, as it will be useful someday. A
few years later, during the summer of 1959, the United States Informa-
tion Agency (USIA) hosted an exhibition, the American National Exhi-
bition, in Sokolniki Park, Moscow. This showcase event, which emerged
from a mutual agreement between President Eisenhower and Soviet
premier Khrushchev, was designed to compare and contrast the capital-
ist American economy with the socialist system of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). Khrushchev firmly believed that the USSR
was developing on top of a solid foundation of principles, including the
control of information; however, the results of the exhibition would chal-
lenge that notion.1
The situation in the USSR was similar to the political climate in China
under Mao Tse-tung and the USSR under Stalin. Those leaders understood
that to control people they must be isolated from the world and their infor-
mation controlled. Accordingly, during the Khrushchev era, there was no
free exchange of students from the USSR to the United States or vice
versa. However, Khrushchev, who believed in his system, was willing to
be a bit more open to outside influences and was willing to have the U.S.
exhibition in Moscow, after the United States accepted a Soviet exhibition
in New York.
The Soviet exhibition focused on conveying their technological prow-
ess, showcasing their sputnik satellite, machine tools, and industrial equip-
ment. However, the U.S. exhibits focused on consumer goods, such as
dishwashers, color television, and other modern life products. Essentially,
1
M. Novak. “The All-American Expo That Invaded Cold War Russia.” http://paleofuture
.gizmodo.com/the-all-american-expo-that-invaded-cold-war-russia-550628823, (accessed
July 24, 2014).
Cross Cultural Communication: Science Diplomacy • 23
the display revealed the divergence between the former allied nations of
the United States and the USSR, with the United States highlighting the
American way of life and the USSR presenting heavy industrial technol-
ogy. One specific scene from the event was a debate between the then Vice
President Nixon and Khrushchev over whether Russian workers could
live in a home with facilities like those displayed by the Americans.2 The
debate also produced an iconic picture that would become a campaign
staple in the 1960 presidential election in which Nixon pointed a finger at
the Soviet premier, figuratively reprimanding the USSR and its policies.3
2
P.R. Yannella. 2011. American Literature in Context after 1929 (Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell), p. 55.
3
B. Kovarik. 2011. Revolutions in Communication: Media History from Gutenberg to the
Digital Age (London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing Group), p. 322.
4
W.R. Freudenberg, and R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and
the Battle over Offshore Drilling (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press), p. 16.
24 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
5
I. Olovsson. 2016. Snow, Ice and Other Wonders of Water (Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific), p. 9.
6
W.A Blanpied. 2007. “A Brief History of the National Science Foundation’s Tokyo R
egional
Office.” www.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/history.jsp, (accessed December 2007).
26 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
from the White House. The International Affairs Assistant at the White
House Office of Science and Technology (OST) informed Neureiter that
he was retiring from his post and offered him the position. Three months
later, Neureiter moved into the Executive Office of the President, serving
in the OST for four exciting years. In his role, Neureiter reported directly
to the President’s science adviser, assisting him with the research and strat-
egy behind the science and technology cooperation initiatives launched
from 1972 to 1973 between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the
People’s Republic of China.
One of the most important science diplomacy initiatives Neureiter
played a role in shaping was the Nixon initiative with China, a program he
personally dubbed the Nixon-Kissinger breakthrough. Neureiter’s role was
assigned in secret, being told to develop a list of plausible science-specific
areas of collaboration between the United States and China. Neureiter,
with some trusted science colleagues, devised total 40 initiatives that
were carried off to Beijing. When the report of the 1972 Beijing meeting
between Nixon and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was released, the com-
munique read that one of the collaboration areas in which China would
cooperate with the United States would be in science. Six years later, the
NSF resumed cooperation efforts with China’s Ministry of Science and
Technology.7 The outcome of this groundbreaking step toward expand-
ing international research collaborations is self-evident today, with the
U.S.-China research relationship ranking among the most significant in
terms of impact and number of collaborations in the world.
CONCLUSION
7
National Research Council. 2011. Building the 21st Century: U.S.-China Cooperation
on Science, Technology, and Innovation (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press), p. 38.
8
S. Zhang. 2016. “How British Scientists Got Inside North Korea to Study a Volcano.” www
.wired.com/2016/04/north-korea-opens-arms-volcano-western-scientists, (accessed March
15, 2016).
Cross Cultural Communication: Science Diplomacy • 27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blanpied, W.A. December, 2007. “A Brief History of the National Science Foun-
dation’s Tokyo Regional Office.” National Science Foundation. https://www
.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/history.jsp
Freudenberg, W.R., and R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions,
Politics, and the Battle Over Offshore Drilling. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Kovarik, B. 2011. Revolutions in Communication: Media History from Gutenberg
to the Digital Age. London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing
Group.
National Research Council. 2011. Building the 21st Century: U.S.–China Cooper-
ation on Science, Technology, and Innovation. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
Novak, M. July 24, 2014. “The All-American Expo that Invaded Cold War Russia.”
Paleofuture. http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-all-american-expo-that-
invaded-cold-war-russia-550628823
Olovsson, I. 2016. Snow, Ice and Other Wonders of Water. Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific.
Yannella, P.R. 2011. American Literature in Context after 1929. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Zhang, S. 2016. “How British Scientists Got Inside North Korea to Study a Volcano.”
WIRED. March 15, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/north-korea-opens-
arms-volcano-western-scientists
28 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
E. William Colglazier: I think you can see why I consider these three
individuals to be role models. I think they illustrate to all of us how you
can be a great science diplomat, not only for the benefit of the United
States but also for all people. If anyone has any questions, if you could
introduce yourself and ask away. While you are preparing, I will ask a
question to my esteemed colleagues first.
Peter Agre: I get that question from students, and I am sympathetic, but
I have to say I am a bit of a hardliner. My first question is, “How is it going
on the thesis project?”, because I think science diplomacy follows once
you are a credible scientist. It is not something that doors will magically
open. You have to have some entry. I think to get the best possible train-
ing in science is a powerful entry, but it does not happen automatically.
Certainly, the training that we get in the life sciences—and, I am sure, in
the physical sciences as well—is a great international event. As a medical
student working in a lab, I was introduced to dozens of different countries,
and we have remained friends decades later. I think the kinds of activities
that Norm was discussed, like the work we have done at Hopkins, will
come at a later stage in our career, but we certainly bring students along in
a lot of our activities in Africa, and they love it. I think they have to look
for opportunities. They are there.
Norman Neureiter: I think it is critical what the individual really wants
to do. You want to be good at what you are doing. And, when you’re good,
people notice you. Then, you have a chance to broaden out in a wide num-
ber of ways. I think if you do a good job at your science, then there will
be opportunities to extend it to the broad world. But can you go major in
science diplomacy? I guess so. You can write articles or something. But,
you are not really going to do science diplomacy; you are not going to be a
big hit. You have to have some establishment in your profession, and then
you build onto that. I think we see eye-to-eye exactly on that issue, Peter.
Peter Agre: My dad was a small college professor in Minnesota, and
he would teach in India in the summers in some NSF-organized program.
He found it tremendously enlightening for his own experience, so there are
activities, and they are not always at the highest level. It is the colleagues
AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND SCIENCE • 29
that really count. I think when scientists work together they have a com-
mon bond, a very strong bond, that forms. I think that is something very
special, and I think it has been really good for the United States.
Norman Neureiter: I did not plan to have the chance of interpreting for
Nixon and Krushcev together, but that in fact happened one day. Not for
long but it lasted.
E. William Colglazier: The only counterpart I would make is that in the
3 years I spent in the State Department visiting a large number of countries,
the thing that was most inspiring was meeting with all of the young people
who really do want to change the world. And, they were the same in almost
every country that I went to, the young scientists and engineers. It’s true;
it is good advice that you really have to build your career, build your com-
petency, show you are an expert at something, but I also think we have to
find a way to tap that enthusiasm of youth and how they can contribute. In
the case of both of the individuals here, and you heard it with Norm when
he was a young person being a translator with Khrushchev and Nixon, you
can find ways to get involved. In fact, there is a great interest right now
in a number of universities to at least create some courses that bridge this
world of science and diplomacy. So students that are becoming scientists
and engineers as well as those who are in international relations, or in other
fields, can actually learn from each other. I still think it is important to tap
into the enthusiasm of young people to use what they are learning to bene-
fit the world in general.
Norman Neureiter: I used to call this international cooperation in sci-
ence. I think we owe it to Vaughan Turekian, who in his 8 years or so at
AAAS really focused on making us call “science diplomacy.” He even
created a small journal that comes out quarterly, which is very interesting,
and you can contribute, if you have something to contribute, and get it
printed. I think that has really made this phenomenon blossom as science
diplomacy. I pretty much said we cooperate with other people in science,
and we think it does good in the world. But he has given it a name, and
the name is spreading, and that is really why we are having this meeting.
E. William Colglazier: For those of you who are interested, tomorrow,
Vaughan Turekian , who is the current Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State, both under John Kerry and now under Secretary
Tillerson . . . if you are interested, come hear Vaughan tomorrow morning.
Question: Do you feel that the scientific community will be either hampered
or advanced by the current political atmosphere in the United States today?
what the budget will be forthcoming in the next years. We are apprehen-
sive from fiscal level. I am sure I am in agreement with most here that
the level of enthusiasm in science among the scientists and the students is
terrifically high. The administration will serve for a few years, and then
another administration will be there, but the science goes on. Anthony
Fauci, who has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Disease for about 25 years, has gone through multiple admin-
istrations, and he takes a somewhat isolated view of his job: It is to do the
science and not worry about what the leadership is articulating. I think
the leadership in the White House now is concerned with so many other
things, some of them pretty crazy, but science has not been on the agenda
that much. But, we’re worried.
Norman Neureiter: For the science community in general, we just fin-
ished the AAAS General Meeting, and it was a big issue at that meeting.
What is the future of science in the United States? How will budgets hold
up? And, is there to be a different paradigm for how science and scientific
research are funded in the future? I think there is a lot to be done on that
issue, but there are reasons for concern as well.
Peter Agre: I think getting the visas for young people is an immediate
concern. About half of the trainees at Johns Hopkins, and I am sure about
half of the postdoc students at the University of Arizona, come from all
over the world. If they are detained or prevented from coming, they won’t
have the experience and we won’t have the talent, so science could be
markedly reduced because of that. I think it is a cause of concern.
Norman Neureiter: There were 225 people initiated as fellows of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science at the annual meet-
ing. To look at the catalog of those names, you just know they did not all
come from the United States. And, that is so important to recognize the
value of bringing these people to the United States, many of whom fled
unpleasant circumstances in their own countries, and that ought to be a
message to all of us. We ought to stand up and fight for it.
Question: What are your ideas on getting science to lead policy instead
of policy leading science?
Peter Agre: I think science is not an ideology. We all know that. Science
is how we pursue the truth; it’s how we understand the natural world. Bad
policies have been formulated over the years, and they never stand—not
forever. I think, basically, when truth is uncovered, intelligent people
respond intelligently and share it with others. I think, by and large, science
drives policy to some extent, not literally all the time.
AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND SCIENCE • 31
Norman Neureiter: I should have worn my badge that was given out at
the AAAS meeting that reads, “Ask for the evidence.” Eventually, evi-
dence does triumph. In general, ask for the evidence, and the evidence
will define the future of science, but don’t give up that scientific search
and research while worrying about the evidence. You need to accumulate
the evidence which will then define, hopefully, the truth.
Question: There is a gap between science and policy. Some institutions and
groups are more effective at communicating science and raising awareness
than others. Is it possible to carve out within our own system a method of
managing both science and policy without having institutional bias?
A Clegg, Michael, 82
AAAS. See American Association Climate change, 68
for the Advancement of Collective planning, 58
Science Communication, cross cultural,
Academies role in science 40. See also Cross cultural
diplomacy, 81–82 communication
Academy of Sciences of Cuba, Comrie, Andrew, 3
96, 98 Congo, 13
Academy-government Costa Rica
partnership, 84 conservation in, 68–69
African independencies, 11–12 economic development,
Agre, Peter, 9, 15–16 66–67
Agriculture, 7 education, 67
international cooperation in, 7 leadership, 68
Alberts, Bruce, 36 leverages, 67–68
American Association for the national parks in, 69
Advancement of Science primary exports, 67
(AAAS), 15–16, 36, 66, 99 research as primary economic
forums, 59 engine, 67–68
American Foreign Service, 5 research collaborations,
Atkinson, George, 35 69–70
scientific diaspora of, 70
B scientific success, 67
Bolivar, Simon, 85 Cross cultural
Boright, John, 3 communication, 86
Bush, George W., 36 science as a means of diplomacy,
23–24
C science as diplomacy,
Canada, 86 22–23
Castro, Fidel, 15–16, 98 serving America through
Chile, 86 science, 25–26
Citizen scientists as unanticipated access in foreign
diplomats, 84–85 affairs, 24–25
120 • Index
Cuba G
funding and education, 97 Global citizenship, 56
national scientific research, 97 Global innovation, 40–41
research and development in, Global projects, 40–41
98–99 Global science enterprise, 43
research excellence in, 99
science achievements in, 98 H
science as an economic force in, Health care, 62–63
99–100 Health security, 63
scientific community and Hildebrand, John, 81–82
national independence, 96 Holt, Rush, 66
Cuban Academy of Sciences, Huxley, Julian, 56
96–98
Cuban Revolution, 15 I
IAEA. See International Atomic
D Energy Agency
Deforestation, 68 IANAS. See Inter-American
Democratic People’s Republic of Network of Academies of
Korea (DPRK), 16–17 Science
Diplomacy, 3, 56 IAP. See Inter-Academy Panel;
private sector in, 7–8 Inter-Academy Partnership
science and. see Science, and ICSU. See International Council
diplomacy for Science
Domestic policy objectives, 40 ICSU’s Regional Office for Latin
DPRK. See Democratic People’s America and the Caribbean
Republic of Korea (ICSU-ROLAC), 91
Imperatives, 35
E Individual leaders, relationships
Ebola, 7 and negotiations between, 84
Economic development, 54 Inter-Academy Panel (IAP), 85
Education, 62–63 Inter-Academy Partnership (IAP), 41
Einstein, Albert, 63, 85, 96 Inter-American Network of
European Organization for Nuclear Academies of Science
Research (CERN), 57 (IANAS), 85, 86
Evidence-based decision Intergovernmental Panel on
making, 42 Climate Change (IPCC), 85
International academy
F partnerships, creation of, 85
Food security, 63, 86 International agriculture, 7
Foreign affairs, 24–25, 40 International Association of
Foreign languages, 23–24 Academies, 96
Foreign Ministers Science International Atomic Energy
Technology Advisers Network Agency (IAEA), 6
(FMSTAN), 42 International collaborations, 54
Foreign policy objectives, 40 in Mexico, 91–92
INDEX • 121
International community, 36 M
International Council for Science Macaya, Roman, 66
(ICSU), 81–82, 85 Malaria, 11–17
International Council of Scientific Manhattan Project, 85
Unions, 96 Mexican Academy of Sciences,
International engagements, 63–64 86–87
International gold standard, 6 Mexican National Council for
International health, 7 Science, 90–91
International relations, 3 Mexican science diplomacy, 93
stability of, 10–11 activities of Mexican Academy
International Rice Research of Sciences, 90–91
Institute in the Philippines, 7 establishing, 89–90
International science cooperation, international collaboration in,
58, 98 91–92
International scientific research funding roadblocks,
collaborations, 66 92–93
International scientific research Mexico
collaborations, 90 diplomacy in, 93
International security, 41 nuclear technologies, 93
International Union for partner countries with, 90
Conversation of Nature science and technology, 92
(IUCN), 57 scientific publication
Internationalization of statistics, 92
science, 56 scientists, 93
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Mugabe, Robert, 14
Panel on Climate Change Myanmar, 15
Iran nuclear agreement, 6–7
IRAN nuclear agreement and N
development of nuclear NACSEX program. See North
energy for peaceful American-Cuban Scientific
purposes, 6–7 Exchange program
IUCN. See International Union for National Academy of Sciences, 39
Conversation of Nature National Autonomous University
of Mexico (UNAM), 92
J National defense, 84
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research National Science Foundation
Institute, 13 (NSF), 63, 85
National security, 41
K Network, building and
Kabila, Joseph, 13 implementation, 38–39
Kennedy, John, 35–36 Neureiter, Norman, 20, 22, 25, 35
NGOs. See Nongovernmental
L organizations
Latin America, science in, 85 Nongovernmental organizations
Leshner, Alan, 66 (NGOs), 14
122 • INDEX
O S
Office of Science and Technology Science
Policy (OSTP), 66 academies, 85
OSTP. See Office of Science and and diplomacy, 12, 35–36, 56,
Technology Policy 64, 84, 93
activities of Mexican Academy
P of Sciences, 90–91
Paris Agreement, 56 addressing international chal-
Partnerships for Enhanced lenges through, 8
Engagement in Research current initiatives, 41–42
(PEER) Program, 63 establishing, 89–90
Pastrana, Sergio, 82 evolution of, 5–6
PEER Program. See Partnerships international collaboration in,
for Enhanced Engagement in 91–92
Research Program international cooperation
Pickering, Thomas, 3 in public health and
as diplomats, 4 agriculture, 7
Plutonium, 6 Iran nuclear agreement and
Poland, 25–26 development of nuclear
Poverty, 12–13 energy for peaceful
crisis, 62 purposes, 6–7
Private sector in science, life-changing impact of,
technology, and diplomacy, 42–43
7–8 network building and
Problem-solving, 54–56 implementation, 38–39
Public health, 7 opportunity in solving global
international cooperation in, 7 crises, 10–11, 11–17
policy and policy makers, 39–40
Q research funding roadblocks,
Queen Isabella II of Spain, 96 92–93
role of private sector in science,
R technology, and diplomacy,
RAND report, 99 7–8
INDEX • 123
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
years.