#EGU23 GDB3 - The science activist: should science get political?
Channel: European Geosciences Union
Date: 21/08/2023

Proponents of collaboration between scientific experts with advocacy and activist groups point towards the inextricable bonds between science and politics, where neither exist in a vacuum and silence only perpetuates the problems research seeks to resolve. Opponents cite the threat to integrity: scientists associated with or engaging in activism risk producing an image of science as a political group rather than a dispassionate process of knowledge generation. Such an image may erode public trust and risk political retaliation through funding cuts. Identifying the threshold between maintaining scientific integrity and motivating change is therefore critical, as it strikes the balance between preserving the academy and positioning science to have real impact. 

As many researchers are driven to science by their own passions, a considerable intersect exists between the desire to do science and to see beneficial, just change in real terms. This makes for a suitable debate where the lines scientists walk can be discussed, such as the balance between scientists actively engaging advocates and activists, and the scientist’s positions as a neutral broker of information. This Great Debate was directed by questions seeking to demarcate this boundary, asking: Is there an ethical imperative for geoscientists to engage with climate-advocacy groups? How can scientists best support advocates for evidence-based societal and environmental change? How political should science be, and is there a line which, when crossed, may threaten scientific integrity? Is there space for both knowledge brokers and science advocates when pursuing change? Should scientist look towards grass-root movements or engage with governmental institutions? What does scientific activism look like, and can it be implemented across a range of actions?

We are very excited to welcome the following contributors to this great debate: 

- Dr Katharine Hayhoe: Paul Whitfield Horn Distinguished Professor, Texas Tech University, and Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy
- Anna Maddrick, Legal Analyst, Stop Ecocide International
- Pratik Patil: Cooperation and Transformative Governance Research Group, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
- Laura Smillie: Policy Analyst, Science for Democracy and Evidence-Informed Policymaking, European Commission

As stated in the session description, audience members were informed that although questions from the audience form a significant part of this session, due to time pressure, these questions will be timed to ensure the greatest number can be presented.

Convener: Kirsten v. Elverfeldt
Co-conveners: Viktor J. Bruckman, Chloe Hill, Simon Clark, Christina West

EDITORS NOTE: All opinions, statements and questions are the speakers own and do not necessarily reflect the European Geosciences Union, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent and unedited discussion on this topic.

More information: https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU23/session/47437

Recorded at #EGU23 on Tuesday 25 April 2023.

Follow us: 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EuroGeosciences 
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eurogeosciences
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanGeosciencesUnion 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/2338760 
Website: https://www.egu.eu