After two years of the pandemic, we are now facing the unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine with global implications as well. If society has learned anything, it is that science is an essential instrument not only to overcome global obstacles, but also to combat disinformation campaigns and, collaterally, strengthen our democracies. However, it is possible that many people are unaware of the role of the scientific community in international relations in times of conflict. There are some consubstantial aspects of scientific activity that are illustrative in this sense. For example, the “scientific culture” is characterized by having a series of shared values that include a common formal language, the belief in the universality of truth, and a certain “organized skepticism”. This notion of inter-subjective validity and the desire to cooperate professionally enables scientists to overcome the most severe political constraints. During the Cold War, scientists from both blocs suggested the innovative concept of “arms control” and had a decisive influence on the negotiations that gave rise to the pioneering nuclear test limitation treaty in 1962 and later to the SALT agreements, the treaty anti-ballistic missiles and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. All this based on a basic principle: precise and demonstrable verification, thanks to a shared and unambiguous scientific language. Nuclear physicists from Brazil and Argentina favored the establishment of a common nuclear control agreement – together with the International Atomic Energy Organization – signed by both presidents in 1991, despite significant opposition from public opinion in their respective countries. countries embarked on a military nuclear race. There are many more examples, from the Oslo Accords to the Antarctic Treaty, in which discreet contacts in academia, without representing official positions, allowed for a preliminary and uncompromising exploration of the problems, greatly facilitating the basis for a subsequent official negotiation.
The invasion of Ukraine has triggered a wave of condemnation from scientists and research organizations around the world. Hours after the start of the war, the German government suspended all scientific collaboration with Russia, interrupting the financing of all research programs and pressuring the European Commission to proceed in a similar way, as happened on March 4 with the Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 programs. On March 2, the Danish government required its universities to indefinitely suspend all higher education and research cooperation with Belarus and Russia, while the Dutch government directly compelled it on March 4. Similar actions have been taken in the rest of the world, with the notable exception of India and China. On March 10, the Ministry of Science and Innovation together with the Ministry of Universities announced the suspension of relations with Belarus and Russia, although they allow universities within the scope of the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities a margin of autonomy. These actions have spread to the world of scientific publications, albeit with little echo, with the prohibition of accepting articles signed by Russian scientists working in Russia. The only precedent was after World War I for German scientists, and it was soon abandoned as impractical. Not even in the worst times of the Cold War were Soviet scientists restricted in publishing their research, and contacts were even maintained in the field of scientific cooperation. The scientific community has always maintained a tradition of non-discrimination of authors based on their nationality or political position in relation to the dissemination of research results.
The situation is complex and to a certain extent understandable, but it is necessary to be able to differentiate between Russian institutions under the control of the central government and that support the invasion, from that of those scientists and organizations that have spoken out against it. Economic sanctions against Russia are fully justified, a widespread boycott of scientific cooperation is more questionable. Especially when Europe continues to acquire millions of euros of Russian gas on a daily basis, which contradicts the words of the German MEP and main rapporteur for the European Commission’s research macro-program Horizon Europe, Christian Ehler, who in defense of the boycott expressed “that gas must be used all available means, including the last resources available to the European Union”. Christian Ehler, who is not a scientist, is perhaps sending the wrong message to a community that we must strategically take care of, if we do not want it to look towards China. Perhaps the Putin administration itself would be more interested in this turn than in maintaining scientific collaboration relations with Europe. It must be remembered that since March 2, more than 8,000 Russian scientists have signed an open letter – with the possible consequences that this may entail – condemning the invasion of Ukraine and blaming Russia exclusively for its initiation. Given these actions, the Putin administration eliminated on March 24 some key elements for the evaluation of research projects, such as the publication of scientific articles in recognized journals. All of this represents a perfect storm that could wipe out the nascent improvement in Russian science after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The resolution of international conflicts is not a scientific activity, nor are scientists crucial when it comes to mitigating them, but experience shows us that they are willing to overcome important difficulties and that they have favored satisfactory solutions on many occasions, are we doing the smartest thing? ? Of course, the ease of communication between scientists is not always a guarantee of cooperation, let alone solidarity. On this occasion, fortunately, the response of support and solidarity to the Ukrainian scientific community has been enormous. When the time comes to rebuild, if we maintain bridges of scientific cooperation, many obstacles will not be insurmountable.
David Well He is principal investigator at the Andalusian Center for Molecular Biology and Regenerative Medicine (CABIMER) and professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Seville. He co-organized the latest FOSE meeting in Europe with the US Academy of Sciences, the Palestinian Academy of Science and Technology and the Israel Academy of Sciences.
You can follow MATTER on Facebook, Twitter and Instagramor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
#Russian #invasion #Ukraine #science #diplomacy