Composed by Olivia GEYMOND (France)
The Asia-Europe Science & & Diplomacy Initiative attaches academics, diplomats, experts, and students taken part in international partnerships associated with science, technology, and development across Asia and Europe. In 2024, ASEF conducted research for the Asia-Europe Scientific Research & & Modern Technology Diplomacy Report, intending to map out participant countries strategies, priorities, plan tools, and efficiency in the Science and Innovation area. For this, ASEF enlisted the help of scientists to perform the study in their individual countries and summarise their findings in a Country Report. Olivia GEYMOND (France) took part as a Country Source (researcher) for France. In this post, she writes about her experience at the World Science Forum 2024 in Budapest, Hungary, as an ASEFEdu delegate and agent for the Report.
As 2024 came to a close, I discovered myself at the World Science Forum (WSF) in Budapest. The online forum conveys decision-makers in the global scientific research and modern technology room, to explore how scientific research can fix significant challenges. Arranged by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the November 2024 version concentrated on” The Science and Policy Interface at a Time of Worldwide Improvements
I was there to offer my study on science diplomacy for the Asia-Europe Scientific Research & & Technology Diplomacy Record , an Asia-Europe Structure (ASEF)-led project helping its participant mentions harness the possibility of scientific research diplomacy to achieve usual objectives. Science diplomacy has immense capacity to unify countries in dealing with common challenges like climate adjustment, and promoting tranquility where typical diplomacy falters. Yet, many countries do not have a systematic approach to take advantage of this possibility.
Below are my 3 key takeaways from the Discussion forum:
1 There is growing worldwide investment in science diplomacy, and local organisations in Europe and Asia can form the method ahead
Scientific research diplomacy may feel like a luxury for resource-strapped nations handling pushing domestic needs, yet the majority of governments identify its advantages and invest sources appropriately. Inspirations differ: major scientific powers pursue geopolitical impact and societal effect, while medium powers are primarily attracted to financial competitiveness gains and expertise transfer.
What struck me is the essential possibility that regional and multilateral bodies like the European Union (EU), the Asia-Europe Satisfying (ASEM), and the Association of Southeast Eastern Countries (ASEAN) have to stimulate, guide, and coordinate diverse nationwide efforts. In the EU, as an example, science is a common expertise, requiring a bottom-up approach driven by participant states. The European Payment’s Directorate-General for Research study and Innovation (DG RTD) is presently establishing a scientific research diplomacy framework [1] , eagerly prepared for by member states looking for advice to create or fine-tune their own techniques. East Asian countries are carefully observing these initiatives, keen to draw ideas from Europe’s strategy. This highlights a considerable opportunity for entities such as ASEF, ASEM, and ASEAN to match such efforts by offering recommendations and fundamental assistance tailored to Asian contexts.
Regional organisations additionally have an essential duty to play in bringing coherence to currently fragmented national initiatives. While scientific research diplomacy is sensitive and carefully tied to nationwide protection and passions, its full potential to attend to worldwide challenges can just be attained with coordination. Although substantial reciprocal teamwork is currently taking place, what is doing not have is an extra consistent structure and specialized forum to boost partnership and foster peer discovering. Agreeing on common objectives and consistently enhancing collaboration within and between Europe and Asia is necessary to harness scientific research diplomacy for meaningful collective action.
2 There is an urgent demand to re-balance North-South scientific research diplomacy
Lots of North-South collaborations operate in an one-sided manner, restricting the capacity of creating countries to harness science as a vehicle driver of economic development. Current partnerships often prioritise North passions, with research study schedules misaligned to the demands of the Global South. As an example, health collaborations often tend to concentrate on sophisticated clinical study, such as precision medicine, over basic health care infrastructure or injections for tropical conditions. Similarly, climate initiatives emphasise mitigation strategies, such as reducing carbon emissions through sophisticated modern technologies, over even more urgent adaptation required in the South, like flood durability. To really benefit all, partnerships must shift from extractive to equitable. This requires organisations from the Global North to share power and resources, fostering capability structure and allowing bottom-up partnership in the South. Here once more, I believe regional and multilateral bodies like the EU, ASEAN, and ASEM have an essential duty to play in facilitating this change.
3 The changing characteristics of innovation ask for a revised governance
Advancements are significantly driven by the economic sector, as seen with innovations in AI-powered language designs. In the United States, this change is especially striking: while public and personal Research & & Growth(R&D) funding were about equivalent in the very early 1980 s, the balance has currently shifted to an 80– 20 ratio. [2] The EU mirrors this trend, with two-thirds of R&D now funded by organizations. [3] Although the image is less regular in Asia, there is also a visible boost in privately moneyed R&D [4]
This change needs higher assimilation of the economic sector into the administration of technology. While some suggest that the state ought to transition from a leading role to a facilitating or partner role, specifically in huge framework tasks, I am not encouraged this is the right technique. The equilibrium in between public and private leadership in advancement is an intricate inquiry, and an ongoing dispute that needs additional representation. On top of that, present study metrics, which frequently award incremental and repetitive researches over transformative innovations, must be rethought. Rewarding research study based on societal impact, not just academic benefit, is essential to promoting purposeful progression. Without adaptations, the present system risks impeding as opposed to advancing beneficial clinical progress.
As Lidia BRITO, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences, suggests, we have to reassess the social contract with scientific research. Historically, culture given scientific research funding and freedom, expecting public benefit. Today, there is an expanding call for aligning study activities and societal demands more closely to reconstruct trust fund [5] Science diplomacy likewise needs a social agreement that ensures societal benefits and resident participation. As a researcher and evaluator, I think liability is vital to examining the influence of scientific research diplomacy– without it, trust and assistance can deteriorate.
The Forum left me confident yet realistic concerning the difficulties in advance. Science diplomacy can improve our collective future, but just if led by justness and accountability. Regional and multilateral entities like the EU, ASEAN, ASEM, and ASEF have an important function to play in specifying core principles, showcasing excellent practices and promoting peer finding out for fair and efficient science diplomacy. This is why I am so happy to have actually been able to contribute to the Asia-Europe Science & & Technology Diplomacy Campaign and figure in beforehand this vision.
Citations:
[1] European Commission. (n.d.). Science diplomacy. Fetched from https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/science-diplomacy_en
[2] Timothy Taylor, “A Surge in US R&D Spending,” Conversable Economist, October 17, 2024 Offered at: https://conversableeconomist.com/ 2024/ 10/ 17/ a-surge-in-us-rd-spending
[3] Eurostat, “R&D expenditure by source of funds,” European Commission. Offered at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid= 551418
[4] UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2020 Global Investments in R&D: Truth Sheet № 59 Available at: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs 59 -global-investments-rd- 2020 -en.pdf (see page 6 for information on R&D funding by resources in Asia).
[5] On this subject, please see this intriguing write-up from Michael Gibbons. Michael Gibbons, “Rethinking the Social Agreement with Scientific Research,” Science and Public Policy, 1999 Complete article accessible at: https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_ 5100/ Gibbons _ 1999 pdf
Olivia Geymond is a researcher specialised in governance and global growth. She makes use of mixed-methods research study and analysis to increase the impact of plans and programmes on people’s lives. She has worked with a variety of federal governments bodies like the Independent Payment for Help Effect, UN agencies, the European Union, and international NGOs and structures. She has substantial fieldwork experience in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In her extra time, she chairs the Board of Trustees for a prize-winning international charity, directing it towards an evidence-based strategy to boosting young people incomes. Olivia is an alumna of the ASEF Young Leaders Summit program.
NOTE:
The views and opinions revealed in this article are entirely by the author(s) and do not stand for that of the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF).
Copyright © 2025