Published 26 June 2025 by Benjamin Skuse
Science Diplomacy: Cross-border Collaboration and Exchange in an Angry World
Although science as a discipline is often quoted as emerging slowly during the 16th and 17th centuries, there are two events in 1761 and 1769 that capture the essence of modern scientific practice: the transits of Venus.
In 1716, English astronomer and mathematician Edmund Halley documented a method to make a truly cosmic measurement: the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Halley reasoned that if lots of people separated by large and known distances across the globe measured the apparent position of Venus as it transited in front of the Sun, and how long the transit took, those measurements could be used to calculate the Sun’s distance. Since relative distances between the Sun and planets were already known, this single yardstick would unlock the dimensions of the entire Solar System. Sadly for Halley, Venus transits are rare, and he never got to see his method put to use.
The next transit after Halley’s death occurred in 1761. That year, England and France, alongside their various allies, were fighting the Seven Years War that stretched across vast swathes of the globe. Yet despite the international hostility, hundreds of astronomers set out, to remote and sometimes dangerous locations, even across enemy territory, to observe the Venus transit. This included the likes of French aristocrat Jean-Baptiste Chappe d’Auteroche who observed the transit from Siberia, protected by armed Cossacks, and English Astronomer Royal Nevil Maskelyne, whose observations from Saint Helena were ruined by cloud. In total, 176 scientists from at least 10 countries were observing the sky on transit day.
Although the data were collated from across the globe, these observations did not lead to an accurate distance measurement for the Sun due to various unexpected circumstances and effects. Fortunately, astronomers only had to wait until 1769 for another bite at the cherry. With the war over and lessons learned from the 1761 expeditions, not only more observations were made but more accurate ones, including by the likes of US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, and English explorer Captain James Cook, whose stop in Tahiti to observe the transit was a prelude to his discovery of New Zealand. Combining the data from these expeditions delivered a distance to the Sun incredibly close to today’s accepted average distance of 149,597,871 kilometres.
An Evolving Role
These Transit of Venus expeditions capture the effort, enthusiasm, and sheer dogged determination required to make scientific progress, often against the odds. But much more than that, they reveal the role collaborative international scientific research can play as a diplomatic tool; in this case, acting as both a bridge between opposing empires and as an alternative arena for rivalry and competition.
Today, science is still applied in diplomatic settings in these ways, with the exploration of space being the most overt example where attitudes have oscillated over the decades between open and closed science, bridging divides between political powers or making them wider.
But science’s role has grown in the geopolitical context since the Transit of Venus expeditions. It is now more central to diplomacy than ever before, with scientific advice informing foreign policy and many other areas within the political sphere, including defence, trade, law and intelligence. At the same time, diplomacy impacts science considerably today, with cooperation between nations and joint funding critical to international scientific infrastructure programmes like CERN, big science experiments such as ITER and LIGO/Virgo, and the free movement of talented scholars and young researchers.
Discord and Division
Recently, however, a shift has been felt by scientists, moving from conducting their work in a relatively calm and friendly international political context, to an increasingly angry and polarized one. Mirroring 1761, today major military conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere divide the globe. But these conflicts are being conducted in the context of extreme global challenges that affect nations in different ways, including climate change, pollution, disease, and demographic shifts, significantly deepening these divisions.
Other modern sowers of division and discord are uncontrolled and unaccountable global technology companies, which wield more power and financial clout than many nations. These companies hold the keys to influence and communicate through social media and AI, while pursuing their own opaque agendas. Meanwhile, populism has leveraged the communication tools these global technology companies have developed to redefine truth itself, in the process undermining trust in institutions and the very pillars of civil authority and governance that undergird society.
The atmosphere of confusion, distrust, and hostility that this multitude of factors creates makes it hard to see a path forward, let alone find a role for science in shaping a calmer and safer future. Yet scientists must play a role, and an important one, in maintaining their own scientific funding, integrity and freedom, and providing clear and unbiased evidence to policymakers and the public.
A Changing Climate
Where this need is perhaps most keenly felt is in climate change. Human-induced climate change is unique in having its very existence questioned by powerful political figures and at the same time representing an existential threat to humanity for the vast majority of the scientific community, and indeed society. Since the early 2000s, there has been near-unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activities. Furthermore, a 2021 meta-review of 88,125 climate-related studies found that more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans. Science does not get much more certain than that.
Yet nearly a quarter of the US Congress are climate change deniers, not to mention the US President himself. Climate change denial is not uniquely American either: significant numbers of politicians and members of the public across the globe still believe climate change is not caused by human activities. Why has the scientific community’s message not cut through? Why has scientific diplomacy so far failed?
The reason is summed up by the highlighted words above. Science does not deal in absolutes. It is an ever-improving body of ideas and knowledge based on the best evidence possible. It is always open to change. It is fallible. At a time when the loudest, not necessarily the most informed, voices are amplified, and mis- and disinformation spread like wildfire, this is a weakness that can be exploited by those with political agendas.
Yet it is also science’s main weapon against bad actors. Scientists are uniquely qualified to present clear and unbiased evidence, and robust assessments, clearly stating what is known, unknown and uncertain about a given topic. Essentially, science’s empirical character means it is always seeking truth from the best available evidence, making arguments based on scientific evidence difficult to refute. Moreover, its innately collaborative nature makes sharing expertise, resources, and innovations simply part of the process, lending itself to bridge building and developing consensus, particularly on problems like climate change that cannot be solved by a single nation.
Scientists Speaking Up
With these powers, science can be a beacon of truth in a blurry and dark world of mis- and disinformation. But to do so, scientists must cut through the noise. Nobel Laureates are already playing their part, both individually and as a collective, with 76 Laureates signing the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change calling for “the nations of the world… to take decisive action to limit future global emissions”. A similar Declaration was signed by 30 Laureates in 2024, calling on all nations to commit to “ensuring that nuclear weapons never be used again”. Established scientific institutions including the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) are similarly using their platforms to steer science and scientific diplomacy down the right path.
Scientists without this collective clout can also be a part of building a calmer and safer future. Joining internationally respected scientific institutions like those above that are standing up for science is one way. Getting involved with newer organisations and movements furthering the cause, such as Sense about Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists, is another. In addition to these routes, young scientists can take the reins themselves and develop capabilities beyond their specific scientific expertise to lead scientific diplomacy efforts. One shining example of this is #LINO23 Alumnus Gustavo Rosa Gameiro, who brought together international science institutions and other scientists to discuss and solve topics related to health and science at the 2024 G20 Rio mid-term Summit.
Countless other scientists are similarly juggling research and scientific diplomacy: making scientific progress with potential significant impact on the global challenges society faces while also participating in myriad activities large and small to ensure science has a loud and strong voice in the societal and political narrative during these turbulent times.
As will no doubt be discussed during the Panel Discussion ‘Global Challenges, Global Solutions: The Role of Science Diplomacy’, bringing together more than 30 Nobel Laureates and around 600 of the most talented Young Scientists from around the world at the 74th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting is an ideal opportunity to enhance and amplify these scientific diplomacy efforts. And who knows? The connections fostered during the Meeting might even catalyse new initiatives that transform scientific evidence into dialogue, cooperation and ultimately positive action.
