Search

The posting of science attachés to diplomatic representations abroad is a tool particularly suited to the implementation of a science diplomacy strategy. The European Commission embarked on this practice by the end of the last century and today there are twelve science counselors stationed in European Union (EU) delegations. All of them were interviewed, and filled out a short survey, for this study. This article documents the particular profile and missions of the EU’s science counselors, to which no study has been devoted as such to date. The survey revealed their essential cross-cutting missions: promoting the research framework programs, and enhancing coordination with Member States’ science attachés. This article draws on interviewees’ statements and the existing literature in order to analyze and critically discuss the contribution of science counselors to the implementation of the EU’s science diplomacy and public diplomacy.

This case study appears in: Mays C, Laborie L, Griset P (eds) (2022) Inventing a shared science diplomacy for Europe: Interdisciplinary case studies to think with history. The posting of science attachés to diplomatic representations abroad is a tool particularly suited to the implementation of a science diplomacy strategy. The European Commission embarked on this practice by the end of the last century and today the European External Action Service (EEAS) has stationed twelve science counselors in European Union (EU) delegations worldwide. All of them were interviewed in Spring 2020 for this study, the first to date devoted to the particular profile and missions of the EU’s science counselors. Our investigation revealed their essential cross-cutting missions: promoting the European framework research programs, and coordinating enhanced foreign-facing initiatives with Member States’ own science attachés. This case study examines and discusses the science counselors’ contribution to the implementation of European-level science diplomacy., You are consulting the updated and definitive version of this short publication. The latest version can always be accessed through: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6600928

International audience

International audience

Science diplomacy and the practices it covers have existed for a long time, but the related vocabulary emerged only recently. It is only in the last fifteen years or so that there has been a discourse on science diplomacy, in which the practitioner-driven literature dominates. This article is based on a careful examination of some of its key writings. It aims at reflecting on the construction of the concept of science diplomacy, as it is penned by practitioners. Mainstream narratives magnify the practices of international scientific cooperation and generally under-represent the use of science in foreign policy for competitive purposes. In order to explain the gap that exists between the discourse and the reality of practices, this article puts forward a hypothesis, that of a cultural bias originating from the profile of the leading authors, who are both scientists and actors of science diplomacy.

International audience

Geometric Deep Learning has recently made striking progress with the advent of continuous Deep Implicit Fields. They allow for detailed modeling of watertight surfaces of arbitrary topology while not relying on a 3D Euclidean grid, resulting in a learnable parameterization that is not limited in resolution. Unfortunately, these methods are often not suitable for applications that require an explicit mesh-based surface representation because converting an implicit field to such a representation relies on the Marching Cubes algorithm, which cannot be differentiated with respect to the underlying implicit field. In this work, we remove this limitation and introduce a differentiable way to produce explicit surface mesh representations from Deep Signed Distance Functions. Our key insight is that by reasoning on how implicit field perturbations impact local surface geometry, one can ultimately differentiate the 3D location of surface samples with respect to the underlying deep implicit field. We exploit this to define MeshSDF, an end-to-end differentiable mesh representation which can vary its topology. We use two different applications to validate our theoretical insight: Single-View Reconstruction via Differentiable Rendering and Physically-Driven Shape Optimization. In both cases our differentiable parameterization gives us an edge over state-of-the-art algorithms., 22 pages, 16 figures, Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020)

Science diplomacy emerged in the early years of the 21st century as a new vocabulary and a new concept in international relations, although the practice of science diplomacy has deep historical roots and various forms that were not labeled as such before. Science diplomacy refers to professional practices at the intersection of the world of science and that of diplomacy. It is also a subject of study that gives rise to a scholarly literature. Basically, the rationale of science diplomacy is twofold: advancing a country’s national interest and addressing global challenges. Science diplomacy encompasses a great range of activities to promote and secure a state’s foreign policy objectives and of activities to secure global public good at the transnational level, such as using scientific advice and expertise, enabling international scientific cooperation, bringing scientists on board of diplomatic negotiations, or appointing science attachés to embassies. International scientific cooperation is sometimes confused in the discourse with science diplomacy. However, if scientific cooperation is possible only with diplomatic assistance, serves a nation-state’s foreign policy objectives, promotes national interests, or aims to address global issues, then it is science diplomacy. Otherwise, it is not. Science diplomacy is also closely related to a state’s political system and beliefs because the effective use of science diplomacy contributes a great deal to a state’s power and influence in world politics and in international relations, and it helps to generate soft power of attraction and cooperation. A few notable institutions are active in science diplomacy, promote international dialogue on global issues, disseminate practices, and take part in the debate of the science diplomacy concept. They include the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), and the Science Diplomacy Center of Tufts University, and multilateral scientific organizations, such as the International Institute for Applied System Analysis, the International Science Council, and the Science Diplomacy Thematic Network at the University of the Arctic. National and international academies of sciences sometimes intervene in this debate. Professional literature on science diplomacy is abundant and academic literature is growing as well, which has not led, however, so far to the emergence of a genuine theory of science diplomacy. This article aims to guide readers in their comprehension of science diplomacy and of the related debates through a selection of sources that shed light on science diplomacy both in theory and in practice from various viewpoints.

International audience

International audience

Summary From an attentive reading of the practitioner-driven literature, this essay questions the reasons why the dominant discourse on science diplomacy highlights practices based on international co-operation and the pursuit of shared interests but pays little attention to practices which are inspired by a spirit of competition. It advances hypotheses related to the professional profiles of those who built the definitions and shaped this discourse, and who are scientists. It underlines the need to provide a broader definition of science diplomacy, by recognising its double nature, both collaborative and competitive.

International audience

In this article, we address the climate change issue through the lens of science diplomacy. We contribute to analyzing the mechanisms by which, in the international climate regime, the issues of science intermingle with those of diplomacy. We use the term ‘nexus’ to designate the interactions between the dynamics of science itself and the dynamics of diplomacy. We focus on the critical role played by the IPCC in the formation of this nexus. We argue that the extent to which diplomats understand and use scientific knowledge as well as that the clashing of national interests during major negotiations can jeopardize science diplomacy effectiveness. We thus explain why the large consensus that exists among scientists about the origins and long‐term risks of climate change does not translate into a consensus among diplomats over an appropriate course of action. These findings illustrate the limits of ‘science in diplomacy’.