Why science diplomacy must evolve or perish
By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
The world’s most intractable problems—a warming planet, the next pandemic, the fragility of our food and energy systems—are rooted in scientific challenges. The logic therefore follows that, the solutions must be cultivated in science. And if we tend that science together, across borders, we might just grow a more peaceful world. This is the ethos of science diplomacy. It is a beautiful theory. But as an operational reality, it is a sleeping giant. In an era defined by geopolitical fragmentation, resurgent nationalism, and a burgeoning distrust of expertise, science diplomacy risks becoming a quaint relic rather than the powerful tool for peace and progress it aspires to be. To make it work—to truly leverage science as a bridge rather than a battlefield—we must radically overhaul its practice. We must move from polite, peripheral collaboration to deeply integrated, high-stakes cooperation.
For decades, scientific collaboration has been the “third strand” of foreign policy, trailing behind security and economics. It was the track of cultural exchanges and polar research stations—important, but rarely urgent. That mindset is a luxury we can no longer afford. When a virus leaps from a bat to a human in one corner of the globe and grounds flights worldwide within weeks, the line between “scientific cooperation” and “national security” evaporates.
To make science diplomacy more effective, we must embed it directly into the core of national security councils and foreign ministries. It cannot be an afterthought, handled by a small office of science advisers. It needs a seat at the table where crisis responses are drafted and sanctions are debated. When we discuss energy independence, we must simultaneously discuss the physics of grid-scale batteries and the geopolitics of lithium. When we negotiate trade deals, we must pre-negotiate the protocols for sharing genomic data of future pathogens. Science is not a component of these issues; it is the issue.
Science diplomacy often manifests as high-level declarations—the Paris Agreement, for instance. These are vital, but they are the roof of a house that lacks walls and a foundation. The real work of science diplomacy happens in the plumbing: the shared databases, the interoperable research standards, the jointly funded laboratories, and the visa lanes that allow young researchers from rival nations to study together.
If we want science to be a tool for peace, we must invest in the infrastructure that forces interaction. Consider CERN, the European particle physics laboratory. Born in the ashes of World War II, its founding principle was to bring scientists from former enemy nations together to work on a project so large no single country could afford it. That is the model. We need a CERN for climate modeling in the Sahel. We need a CERN for synthetic biology in Southeast Asia. We need physical, funded, permanent spaces where scientists from the U.S., China, Russia, and the Global South are not just talking, but building together. When your collaborator in a rival nation becomes a friend, it becomes much harder to dehumanize their entire population.
Historically, science diplomacy has been a game for the wealthy. The Global North sets the agenda, funds the research, and invites the Global South to participate. This dynamic breeds resentment and skepticism. If we want true global cooperation on climate or health, we must treat lower-income nations as equal partners, not just data points. This means investing in their scientific infrastructure, respecting their indigenous knowledge, and ensuring they share in the economic benefits of the solutions we develop together. A vaccine developed in the West but inaccessible to Africa is not a diplomatic triumph; it is a recruitment tool for anti-science, anti-Western sentiment. Science diplomacy must be a mechanism for equity. When a developing nation sees that its partnership leads to tangible benefits—a more resilient crop, access to clean energy, a trained cohort of PhDs—then science becomes a powerful argument for internationalism itself.
Science diplomacy must actively champion the scientific method as a universal value—not a Western one, but a human one. It must defend the researchers whose work is inconvenient to political powers. An attack on a climate scientist in Brazil or a virologist in China is an attack on the entire global scientific enterprise. Diplomats must treat these incidents with the same gravity as a violation of a trade agreement. The tools are in our hands. The problems are undeniable. Science can provide the blueprints for a livable future, but it cannot build that future alone. It requires a diplomatic corps with the courage to elevate science from a talking point to a central strategy. It is time for ASEAN to create one!
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my.