Report on the Global Knowledge Dialogue for Asia and the Pacific

REPORT ON THE GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE DIALOGUE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Strengthening the voice of science in the Asia and Pacific region

6 OCTOBER 2023

KUALA LUMPUR CONVENTION CENTRE

Global Knowledge Dialogue: Asia-Pacific Region Full Report

© Academy of Sciences Malaysia 2023

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission in writing from the Academy of Sciences Malaysia.

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Level 20, West Wing, MATRADE Tower

Jalan Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah off Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim 50480 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

Tel: +6 (03) 6203 0633

Fax: +6 (03) 6203 0634

GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE DIALOGUE: ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

BACKGROUND

The Global Knowledge Dialogue (GKD) is an initiative orchestrated by the International Science Council (ISC) with the objective of fortifying the field of science in the Asia-Pacific region while furthering a worldwide agenda for the betterment of all. This series of events, hosted by the ISC, has been convened in various regions around the world, with its inception occurring in Cape Town, South Africa, on 7 December 2022.

The primary goal of the GKD series is to cultivate a robust global voice for science by engaging members of the ISC and nurturing international scientific collaboration across governments, scientists, research funders, the private sector, and civil society.

In 2023, GKD was conducted on 6 October at the

Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, coinciding with the 2023 International Greentech & Eco Products Exhibition & Conference (IGEM). With the theme “Mobilizing science to collaborate for global planetary health”, this event was jointly organised by the ISC Regional Focal Point for Asia and the Pacific, operating through the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) and the Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM). The dialogue drew participation from over 140 members representing 30 countries.

Figure 1 Delegates during the Global Knowledge Dialogue: Asia-Pacific

OPENING CEREMONY

Mdm Hazami Habib, Chief Executive Officer of ASM, moderated the opening ceremony of the GKD. During her session, she provided a brief overview of the GKD agenda and summarised the key goals of the GKD, namely:

To discuss the socioeconomic challenges they face within the Asia-Pacific region and how to address them using science, technology and innovation.

To provide a roadmap for the ISC regional focal point in the Asia-Pacific region and its upcoming initiatives.

In his welcoming remarks, the President of ASM, Academician Datuk Dr Tengku Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen FASc, provided background on ASM’s partnership with ISC when it was still formerly known as the International Council for Science Union (ICSU). In 2006, ASM hosted the ICSU Regional Office for the Asia Pacific. ASM president indicated his trust and expectation towards the Australian Academy of Science as the new host of the regional focal point in bringing new ideas for the benefit of the ISC members. The president referenced the Malaysian Prime Minister in invoking the term “post-normal times”. The president emphasised that we need to practice “post-normal science”, which includes new modes of thinking and new ways of addressing the threats and challenges we face today. Planetary health, the main theme of the GKD, provides a good illustration of post-normal science. As such, the president stressed the significance of cooperation and collaboration in open and inclusive dialogues, highlighting their role in shaping a collective vision for a more sustainable future.

Figure 2 Mdm Hazami moderating the opening ceremony of the GKD

Figure 3 YM Datuk Tengku President Shariffadeen giving his welcoming remarks during the GKD

In her speech, Professor Frances Separovic, Foreign Secretary of the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) who represented Professor Jagadish, President of AAS, conveyed apologies for the absence of the president and Honourable Industry and Science Minister, Ed Husic. As host of the new regional focal point of the Asia-Pacific, AAS looks forward to supporting the region’s voice and harnessing the regional collaborative efforts into the broader global agenda of the ISC.

Figure 4 Professor Frances Separovic in her speech on behalf of Professor Jagadish

Ministerial Address

Deputy Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation Malaysia, The Honourable Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup, who officiated the Global Knowledge Dialogue, underscored the importance of strategic alliances and collaborations in addressing global challenges such as food security and climate change. The National Planetary Health Action Plan (NPHAP) aims to mainstream planetary health in national planning and policies through the all-of-Malaysia approach to reflect Malaysia’s commitment and action towards ensuring balanced and sustainable development. He addressed the importance of empowering local communities to become citizen scientists by drawing upon their indigenous knowledge and sustainable practices. He emphasised that GKD provides a valuable platform for policymakers, scientists, and citizen scientists to engage in discussions about integrating science into a comprehensive action plan. In his ministerial address, the Honourable Deputy Minister also highlighted the 10-10 MySTIE Framework, National Artificial Intelligence Roadmap 2021-2025 and the “Digitalisation and IoT program for Biodiversity” pilot project.

The opening ceremony ended with a memento session between Professor Frances Separovic, Academician Datuk Dr Tengku Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen FASc, and Sir Peter Gluckman.

Figure 5 Arrival of Honourable Deputy Minister Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup

Figure 6 Keynote speech by Honourable Deputy Minister Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup

Figure 7 (From left) Exchange of gifts between Honourable Deputy Minister Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup, Professor Frances Separovic, Foreign Secretary of AAS, and Academician Datuk Dr Tengku Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen FASc, President of ASM

PART 1 – ISC ADVANCING PLANETARY HEALTH IN THE

MULTILATERAL

SPACE

Promoting Mission-based Science for Sustainability

Dr Salvatore Arico, CEO of the International Science Council, moderated Part 1 of the GKD. He introduced the Global Commission on Science Missions for Sustainability report by ISC titled “Flipping the Science Model: A Roadmap to Science Missions for Sustainability.” He then called upon the President of ISC, Sir Peter Gluckman, to provide some context for the report.

In his presentation, Sir Peter Gluckman gave a background on the ISC and its progress to date. He shared ISC priorities in 2023 and 2024, namely:

Building meaningful and sustained relationships with core components of the multilateral system

Promoting the use of evidence in policymaking & actionable knowledge

The Future of Science and Science Systems

Using science well to address the major challenges

Freedom, responsibility, and trust in science

Promoting scientific collaboration

Strengthening the organisation

ISC promotes evidence-based policymaking and generates actionable knowledge. ISC is particularly interested in the future of science, which focuses on transdisciplinary knowledge. The report “Flipping the Science Model: A Roadmap to Science Missions for Sustainability” addresses this by serving as a clarion call to all stakeholders to unite with the scientific community in a collective effort to harness the potential of science to drive transformative action towards a more sustainable world for all. The report was launched with the aim of getting a global fund established to promote actionable knowledge. In relation to this, Sir Peter Gluckman questioned on what needs to be done within and beyond the science systems, which was the basis of why the ISC introduced the Center of Science Futures.

In his presentation, Sir Peter Gluckman also emphasised the current issue of disinformation and how the scientific community can address this by building trust in science. ISC is in the midst of launching the report with WHO and the Undersecretary of Communications in the United Nations on what we need to do to understand the science of trust.

In the organisational structure of the ISC, Sir Peter Gluckman also indicated that ISC wishes to be more inclusive in its membership – in terms of age, geography, and gender - to ensure that “science doesn’t go back to the ivory tower”. With constitutional change and support from governments like Malaysia and Australia, ISC can be a critical weapon in the fight to protect their planet, culture, and society as a whole.

Figure 8 Sir Peter Gluckman presenting about ISC, its challenges, and the way forward

Panel Session – Interdisciplinary Planetary Health Points of View

For the next session, Dr Salvatore Arico excused The Honourable Deputy Minister Datuk Arthur Joseph Kurup, who will witness the MoU signing between ASM and the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA). The session continued with a panel session between Professor Emerita Datuk Dr Asma Ismail FASc, Professor Huadong Go, and Professor Anne McNaughton. Dr Salvatore Arico briefly introduced the panellists.

Professor

Emerita Datuk Dr Asma Ismail FASc

Dr Salvatore Arico started the session by asking Professor Emerita Datuk Dr Asma Ismail FASc to introduce to the floor on the National Planetary Health Action Plan (NPHAP) by ASM. She explained that what we do to the planet will eventually bounce back to affect our health. The economic impact has shown progress from 2000 to 2019, however, at the expense of the social and environmental aspects, which have regressed over the years. She referenced the Honourable Deputy Minister’s speech that the cost of doing nothing is in the billions in Malaysia. Hence, it is vital for us to properly conserve, preserve and manage our ecosystems, biodiversity, and human and animal health, as well as address climate change in an integrated manner. In essence, we need to take care of planetary health. The National Science Council chaired by the Prime Minister at its meeting held on 8 April 2022 agreed for MOSTI through ASM in collaboration with central agencies and relevant ministries to develop an integrated National Planetary Health Action Plan (NPHAP) that is humanity-centric, STI-enabled, nature-based, and values-driven. The development of the NPHAP is a mission-oriented and solutionbased plan that takes an all-of-Malaysia approach to ensure the health of our people, biodiversity

(flora & fauna), and the planet is taken care of. NPHAP will also serve to provide a framework for the development of an impact tracking system in due course to monitor outcomes from the implementation of the plan to ensure whether the plan is working or not. The NPHAP is still a work in progress, and Malaysia was given one year, from May 2023 to May 2024, to complete the plan.

NPHAP will translate into significant shifts in how government agencies work in collaboration with the quadruple helix, breaking silos and linking policies so that they protect humanity and the planetary ecosystem that we depend upon for our survival. Giving reference to the ministerial and presidential speeches, Professor Asma reiterated that Malaysia, like many ASEAN countries, is rich with indigenous knowledge due to its ethnic diversity. Through NPHAP, indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge can be integrated into local knowledge in various aspects like policy, infrastructure, and society to create nature-based solutions. The plan also wishes to highlight low-hanging fruits. This, in its entirety, explains the whole-of-nation approach of the NPHAP.

Figure 9 Professor Emerita Datuk Dr Asma Ismail FASc during her panel presentation of the NPHAP

Professor Asma then explained to the floor how ASM practised multistakeholder engagement in NPHAP by the working groups, which covers the areas of governance, environment and health, energy transition, sustainable food, research and education, communication behavioural change and cultural shift of society. These working groups are responsible for translating inputs comprehensible for policymakers. After presenting the concept and recommendations of NPHAP at the ASM Science, Technology, Innovation Policy Advisory Committee (STIPAC), these are scaled up to the ministerial level to obtain input and approval from Ministry and State government representatives before finally gaining approval at the national level through the National Science Council which is chaired by the Prime Minister and finally being adopted by the cabinet to be a policy for the country.

Professor Asma then introduced the tagal system, which is a type of indigenous knowledge being used as a tool for the conservation of rivers. This system empowers the community to use their indigenous knowledge, and the ministry is now facilitating this. This is an example of building inside to deploy outside and the emphasis on the return of value (ROV) rather than just focusing on return of investment (ROI). Professor Asma ended her presentation by sharing a video to explain the tagal system better.

Dr Salvatore asked Professor Asma an important question on how the government entrusts ASM for an ambitious project such as the NPHAP which implies a certain level of trust from the government towards the scientific community in ASM. In responding to this question, Professor Asma explained how all ASM policies and recommendations are based on multiple stakeholder engagement in the quadruple helix. Apart from that, all the recommendations are evidence-based and guided by the ASM 8i framework before they are scaled up to the ministerial and national level, as shared during her presentation. Professor Asma made a reference to the “Flipping the Science Model” report, which was previously shared by Sir Peter Gluckman, and how ASM has been practising what was being shared in the ISC report for the past six years and how this practice will emulate at least an 80% success rate in policy recommendation uptake.

Dr Huadong Go’s session

The session continues with a short presentation by Dr Huadong Go. He started off his presentation by acknowledging global issues such as climate change, but in his opinion, the real problem with the world today is the lack of data. In addressing this issue, the International Research Center of Big Data for SDG (CBAS) was established three years ago in which the primary goal is to use big data for sustainable development goal (SDG). Among the initiatives of the centre are the launching of the science satellite for SDG and the development of the SDG big data platform. This big data platform ensures that monitoring and evaluating of the SDGs

Figure 10 Dr Huadong Go during his presentation of the new International Research Centre of Big Data for SDGs (CBAS)

is made possible. Five reports on Big Earth Data in Support of SDGs were released from 2019 to 2023. To date, several United Nations leaders have visited CBAS to support its establishment and initiatives. Additionally, during the 78th United National General Assembly (UNGA78), a video on CBAS and its platform on big data for SDGs were displayed. This video was reshared during the GKD, in which it was demonstrated how scientists can monitor and address global challenges such as food security and energy security through big earth data.

Professor Anne Naughton

Dr Salvatore then moved on to the next session by inviting Professor Anne Naughton. He brought up the tension between economic growth and the concept of sustainability and how we can apply the considerations brought forward by the first two speakers in the context of multilateral agreements. Professor Naughton explained that some of the agreements are binding to the signatory states, and the states may be able to deliver the commitments that they have made. One of the important roles made by these agreements is the benchmark that they have set. Although they are not necessarily binding in legal terms, these agreements may have a strong imperative morally. In terms of sustainability, treaties involving labour standards and education for example, can provide a framework in which the signatory states can agree on. Professor Naughton acknowledge how Professor Asma’s presentation on NPHAP is a great example on what happens on the ground and how this can be implemented locally. Professor Naughton said that the main challenge is identifying how we can assist and how we can work with the people across the network in the quadruple helix.

Dr Salvatore asked Dr Huadong Go on how the platform on big data can be used to address local problems. Dr Huadong explained that the tool can not only be utilised globally, but it can also be used regionally (i.e. ASEAN) as well as at the national level. Dr Salvatore then confirmed with Dr Huadong Go that although it may not be CBAS’s main intention at the moment, it is a growing capability to bridge local needs with big data to support policymaking in relation to global goals.

Dr Salvatore summarised from Professor Anne’s brief presentation that the agreements and treaties will promote dialogues among countries, economic cooperations and cooperations in other areas, as well as provide some sort of framework on sustainability for the people by incorporating the concept of sustainability in these agreements. Professor Anne agreed with Dr Salvatore, adding that part of the challenge is to make this clearer at their respective levels (national, regional, or international). She also encouraged the participants to look at the reports by the Centre of Future Research; one in particular is the “Future of Transdisciplinary Research”.

Dr Salvatore asked Professor Anne Naughton how the planetary crisis affects law as a discipline and its evolution. Professor Anne answered his question by stating that there’s a rich scientific literature on environmental law and governance, but it will extend to the aspect of human rights and other areas such as economics. She then ended by reiterating that the main challenge is to tie the collaborators together because lawyers tend to be jurisdictive and work in silos.

Figure 11

Professor Anne Naughton sharing her expertise and experience as a lawyer

1. How does CBAS help in the interpretation of data in different sectors and different countries? (Pakistan Young Academy)

Prof Huadong Go: A global standard is necessary.

2. In reality, most people in the world are poorly paid, affecting their purchasing power and choices for better livelihoods and the environment. How do the panellists foresee the big data technology on AI and SDG? How can governments and science agencies transform the lives of the people as a start for more equity, diversity and inclusion, which in turn help these people play a part in sustainability? (Young Scientist Network)

Prof Asma: Before we take action on the data that we have received, we need to ensure that the data is credible. In order to do this, we need to go to the ground to investigate reality so that we can have a return on value (ROV), rather than just a return on investment (ROI)

Prof Anne: To critically look at agreements, frameworks, and treaties if there are existing tools that can be used by citizens to reengage with the system that seem to be distant from the voice or autonomy that presents themselves.

3. What did you do right to get into the partnership between ASM and the government, ensuring that projects such as NPHAP a reality? (National Academy of Bangladesh)

Prof Asma: First, you have to get into the inner circle. Secondly, you have to do good work. But even if we do good work without anybody listening - where can we go with this good work? The good work that we do is basically the “Flipping the science model” but at that time, we didn’t use that term. We have always done stakeholder engagement – that is ASM’s style. That’s how we get the buy-ins, and that’s how we see the gaps in all the ministries and that’s how we formulate the policies to the government. For instance, having the STI linked to the economy was not done before until recently when we developed the 10-10 MySTIE Framework. It’s a long process, but eventually we get the buy-in from the National Science Council, chaired by

the Prime Minister. We now have the inner circle to listen to what you have to say. We need to show how to do the how to the implementors and that’s an arduous process but if you do it right, the ministries will agree and that is how you get the buy-in all the way up – which is why we get 80% success rate.

4. There’s a storehouse of indigenous knowledge. Is ISC going to make an effort to integrate this knowledge into the policy?

(World Anthropological Union)

Intervention from ISC President, Sir Peter Gluckman: ISC encourages members to look into the ISC paper, ‘Future of Transdisciplinary Research’, that really looks into the limits and values of science and how science relates to other knowledge systems such as indigenous knowledge. It describes what ISC is thinking in the issues of how faith leaders entrusted in some societies can be employed in promoting the trust in science.

Figure 12 Dr Siti Hawa Ngalim, YSN-ASM member, asking her question to the panellists

Frontiers Planet Prize:

Living within Nine Planetary Boundaries

Gabriella Ivan, ISC Membership Development Officer, introduced Professor Bao Jing Gu, Frontiers Planet Prize laureate, to present his groundbreaking research in his fight against air pollution. In his presentation, Dr Bao Jing Gu shared that the top three reasons to reduce nitrogen pollution are to protect biodiversity, slow down climate change and reduce air pollution. Nitrogen pollution is the 3rd largest cause of biodiversity decline; for example, nitrogen runoff from agriculture causes toxic algal blooms. Secondly, nitrogen emissions in the air are a key contributor to climate change , which also contributes to particulate air pollution.

He shared that reducing ammonia is more costeffective than reducing nitrogen oxides. This is due to the fact that compared to nitrogen oxides, ammonia emissions make a larger contribution to PM2.5 which corresponds to a higher contribution to Years of Life Lost and a higher global health cost related to ammonia emissions. Additionally, he compared that the cost of reducing nitrogen oxide will be higher than the associated health benefit as compared to reducing ammonia in which the benefits outweigh the cost.

Some methods of reducing nitrogen waste include:

Eating less meat

Enhancing the efficiency of crop fertilisers by using better fertilisation methods

Improving the management of manure, such as using closed systems for manure storage and injecting liquid manure into soil instead of applying it to the surface

Dr Bao Jing Gu shared that Asia has a lot of nitrogen waste. Halving nitrogen waste could enhance global SDGs overall by 16%. He called upon the audience to work together in creating a greener future.

Frontiers Planet Prize: Living within Nine Planetary BoundariesQ&A Session

1. How to reduce ammonia from animal waste? (National Academy of Bangladesh)

Dr Bao Jing Gu: We do not have the shortage of methods to mitigate nitrogen pollution from croplands, but we are having a shortage of farmers implementing these methods. For instance, during the feeding stage, we can use low protein for animals. Additionally, for agriculture, an alternative method is to inject liquid manure into crops because nitrogen is usually lost by using conventional methods. He gave reference to one of the papers that he co-authored: Cost-effective mitigation of nitrogen pollution from global croplands. Nature, 2023, 613, 77-84

2. How do you scale your scientific work to policy work? Do you have any examples? (Institute of Global Environment Strategy)

Dr Bao Jing Gu: First of all, we need to identify which is the best method because different countries adopt different methods of nitrogen reduction. Secondly, we need to do costbenefit analysis and stakeholder analysis to understand who will pay the cost and who will benefit from the method chosen. Thirdly, we need an institutional or policy change that can link the cost and benefit, which is known as the economic incentive for the policy work to be implementable. The overall solution is to link natural sciences and social sciences to find a win-win strategy.

Figure 13

Professor Bao Jing Gu, Frontiers Planet Prize laureate, presenting his groundbreaking research on ammonia reduction

PART 2: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE 2030 AGENDA THROUGH SCIENTIFIC DIPLOMACY,

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Winning on the SDGs Through Science Advice and Diplomacy: Lessons and Opportunities for ISC Members in the Region

The next session is moderated by Alison Meston, ISC Communications Director. She briefly introduced Dr Vineeta Yadav, Dr Chan Siok Yee, Professor Abhi Veerakumarasivam and Dr Tiziana Bonapace to the stage for this session.

Keynote

Dr Vineeta Yadav, the 2023 Stein Rokkan Prize Winner, started her presentation by probing the question of how politicians make policy choices by focusing on their risk preferences. A survey carried out on the Asian disease experiment in three democracy-rich countries, Belgium, Canada, and Israel, found that policy choices made by politicians are mainly guided by how a policy is framed.

Conversely, framing effects were not obvious in a separate study done on India (i.e. stable democracy) and Pakistan (i.e. interrupted democracy). For both countries, inexperienced politicians tend to be more risk-averse compared to experienced politicians. However, in a subgroup study on Pakistan, politicians who had experience during the era of military dictatorship are significantly more risk-averse. To provide some context, Pakistan

has had four military dictatorships which the last dictatorship ended in 2008. Religiosity was also looked at between the two countries, in which the results were completely opposite in India and Pakistan, i.e. religious politicians in India are more risk-averse while in Pakistan, the more religious politicians tend to be more risk-taking compared to their less religious counterparts. For both India and Pakistan, politicians who are more risktaking tend to be party switchers. To sum up her presentation, Dr Vineeta probed the audience to consider the implications of how different countries make decisions on risky policy choices, e.g. climate change, pandemics, AI, academic freedom, investment in research, and how it affects human rights as a whole.

Alison Meston shared with the audience that there’s an article on Dr Vineeta’s study for the audience: https://council.science/current/blog/closing-thepolitical-sciences-gap-a-south-asian-perspective/ She then asked Dr Vineeta what message she would give to the national science academies and scientific unions interested in strengthening the scientific policy nexus, particularly in the sustainable development goal. In response, Dr Vineeta shared that she would like to see national academies be more involved in disseminating information about the networking and funding opportunities available. She also looks forward to more interdisciplinary fora, such as the Global Knowledge Dialogue, for more information-sharing opportunities for relevant stakeholders.

Address by Dr Vineeta Yadav

Figure 14 Dr Vineeta Yadav sharing her study on the risk preferences of politicians in different countries

Professor Abhi Veerakumarasivam

Alison moved on to ask Professor Abhi Veerakumarasivan what he makes of Dr Vineeta’s work in regard to the transposition of Western governance models into non-Western countries, especially when it comes to the way of communicating scientific evidence to policymakers. Professor Abhi acknowledged Dr Vineeta’s work and how important it is to bring her findings to platforms such as the GKD. He also mentioned the difference in interpreting data between natural scientists such as himself and social scientists like Dr Vineeta. He commented that there is an opportunity to understand individual differences across and within countries in terms of risk preferences and how this understanding can be applied in framing policies.

In response to Professor Abhi’s answer, Alison questions whether there is a gap in how policies were formulated and if we can win on the SDGs if it’s seen as a Western normative framework. Professor Abhi proceeded by referencing the president’s speech on post-normal times and Sir Peter Gluckman’s speech on the call for inclusivity. Majority of the world’s population view SDGs as a Western narrative, but looking at the work done for the past 8 years, the primary reason why we have not achieved the SDGs is not because of the antiwest sentiments. Dr Abhi brought up the issue of ethical dilemmas in the pursuit of social justice. He made reference to the community-centric naturebased solution by Professor Asma and how this is the way forward in identifying the root causes at the local level. He urged on how to move the SDGs from being human-centric to being more collective. In the context of SDG, too often we focus too much on common goals without looking at differentiated responsibilities i.e individuals and countries of privilege.

Figure 15 Professor Abhi sharing his insights on how to win over the SDG narrative

Alison brings Dr Chan Siok Yee to the discussion and asks Dr Chan how she can apply Dr Vineeta’s work at an indigenous level, both in regards to knowledge and leadership. In response, Dr Chan shared a brief background on how she came to work on her current research. She was previously attached to the Ministry of Health, where she looked at malnutrition among the indigenous people. In regard to her research, social scientists and the indigenous community themselves need to be engaged. She faced challenges in her research, primarily in receiving ethical approval because vulnerable populations were involved. Looking back at Vineeta’s work on risk preference, if Dr Chan’s work gets transformed into policy, she needs to consider the ethnic diversity in Malaysia, and the policy needs to be framed according to the indigenous perspective. Dr Chan also highlighted the 10-10 MySTIE Framework and how this could have guided her work better if it had been released earlier. She ended with a note by saying that she looks forward to the upcoming NPHAP in leading transdisciplinary work.

Alison commented that Professor Abhi and Dr Chan are involved in the International Network of Government Science Advice (INGSA). She then asked them about the importance of understanding individual politicians and their voting behaviours when it comes to science advice and knowledge brokerage. In responding to this, Professor Abhi emphasised individual relationships. He gave reference to Sir Peter Gluckman’s presentation on how science advice is not linear but intertwined with several relationships before coming up with a policy or science advice. Professor Abhi acknowledged the evolving nature of things and how, in today’s day and age, everyone’s opinion is augmented and how the narrative is continuously changing. He said that as scientists, we think we know the answers, but it is a humbling experience to realise that we have to meet the demands of the people. Ultimately, it is about building friendships and trust with one another.

Dr Chan added on Professor Abhi’s insights by commenting that currently, politicians are highly influenced by the reference points i.e. where do the voters go. These voters, in turn are influenced by the influencers during this era of social media and loaded information. She concluded by emphasising on the importance of working with social scientists.

Figure 16 Dr Chan Siok Yee sharing her research on malnutrition among indigenous community in two villages in Perak and how it relates to Dr Vineeta’s study

Ms Tiziana Bonapace

The session continues with Ms Tiziana Bonapace who is experienced in sustainable development policy issues, particularly in economic and technology aspects, as they apply to policy formulation for Asia-Pacific developing countries. Alison asked Ms Tiziana how the UN Economic and Social Commission in Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP) promote collaboration among Member States, taking into consideration the different models of governance and the risk attitudes of politicians and policymakers.

In response to this, Ms Tiziana shared her gratitude as a generalist to be invited to the GKD, which involves a pool of experts from the natural sciences. She added that this is an important example of a multidisciplinary approach to solving complex issues. She gave a brief background on ESCAP, which is an intergovernmental organisation comprising 53 members and 9 associate members of the Asia Pacific region. While bearing many similarities with the European Commission, ESCAP, by contrast, does not have the power to impose regional policy making. She commented that with the rising geopolitical tensions, the key principle of the work from ESCAP in decision-making is consensus-based decision-making. While voting may appear equitable, it comes back to what Dr Vineeta has shared that the pain of loss is greater than the pleasure of gain.

Alison brought Dr Vineeta back to the discussion to give her comments and views on the challenges and opportunities presented so far. Dr Vineeta brought up that there is ample opportunity to expand on academic studies with regards to diplomats and high-ranking officers in intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations and how their risk preferences may be influenced by their differentiated roles. In filling up some of these data gaps, Ms Tiziana suggested that Dr Vineeta approach some of the specialised tripartite agencies within the United Nations involving researchers, government and private sectors. This is because these agencies may be more willing to take a risk compared to ESCAP which is more consensusbased.

Part 2 Q&A session

1. Whereas in private sector, accountability is clear. Accountability is vague within public sector where risk can be ignored completely with no consequences. In a democracy, the only consequence is what the voters think two or three years from now. How do we encourage policymakers to listen to risk assessments since they are not accountable? (ISC President, Peter Gluckman)

Dr Vineeta: In terms of accountability, from a political perspective - you can talk about the risk of losing an election. What is the risk of a politician losing an election when making a certain policy decision? We really need to develop the tools to emulate certain scenarios in assessing risk. These scenarios are complex as they differ in matured democracies compared to countries struggling with governance issues. We have to capture these complex scenarios, but it has to come in the context and viewpoint of these developing countries if we are going to speak about the problems of these developing countries.

Figure 17 Ms Tiziana Bonapace sharing her expertise and experience in UNESCAP

The ISC’s Centre For Science Futures And The Transformation Of Science

Mathieu Denis discussed the establishment of the ISC Centre for Science Futures as one of the latest ISC initiatives, emphasising the need for the ISC to play a leadership role in reflecting on major transformations happening in global and national science systems.

Early on in the election and the work of the current board, there was a recognition that the ISC needs to take the lead in reflecting on the transformations taking place in science. To address this, they decided to establish a think tank, the ISC Centre for Science Futures, to explore how science and ISC Centre for Science Future are changing in the future. This think tank aims to provide evidence, gather data, shape conversations, and work at the beginning of the ISC’s value chain by convening discussions, exploring new areas of work, and establishing partnerships.

To assist in the centre’s journey, an advisory council and a group of research affiliates have been appointed. Several projects have been launched, focusing on topics like transdisciplinary research, research evaluation, and discussions surrounding research evaluation outside the Western world.

One crucial area of focus is artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on science and research ecosystems. The AI workshop, which was held as one of the preevents of GKD, brought together experts working to shape their countries’ national science ecosystems for AI, emphasising the ISC’s capacity for collaboration. The need for dedicated discussions on AI’s influence on science organisations was underscored, and participants recommended continuing these discussions.

In addressing the challenge of articulating global and local priorities, the ISC aims to understand the implications of global issues for individual countries and regions. Their primary focus is to understand the relevance of these issues in the specific contexts of ISC member countries.

Figure 18 Dr Mathieu Denis introducing the newly established ISC Centre for Science Futures

PART 3: THE ISC IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT: A DIALOGUE LOOKING AT KEY PRIORITIES AREAS FOR STRENGTHENING SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF AN ISC

REGIONAL FOCAL POINT

Dialogue On The Asia Pacific Voice For Global Science And The Pressuring Issues For Planetary Health, The Challenges And Opportunities

Figure 19 (From left) Dr Petra moderating the panel session with panellists Academician Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Zakri Abd Hamid FASc, Dr Remi Quirion, Dr Orakanoke Phanraksa and Dr Sujatha Raman

Dr Petra Lundgren, director of the International Science Council Regional Focal Point for Asia and the Pacific, moderated Part 3 of the GKD, which was conducted in a panel-styled format. During this afternoon session, the focus shifted to examining the ISC within a regional framework. Dr Petra began posing questions that were thought-provoking to the audience, such as “How do you make the voices of science heard where decisions are made?”, “How do you influence policymakers, and how do we ensure that science has a voice trusted by the people?”. The panellists, including Academician Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Zakri Abd Hamid FASc, Dr Orakanoke Phanraksa, Dr Rémi Quirion, and Dr Sujatha Raman, were tasked with sharing their perspectives on the primary routes to decisionmaking in the region and identifying those who actively participated in those processes.

Dr Petra began moderating the session by raising three points to be highlighted:

Identifying the key pathways for science to gain recognition in the region’s decision-making processes,

Addressing the current stakeholders and influential figures in policymaking,

Strategies required for science to establish itself as a significant contributor to policy-making conversations.

In alignment with the discussions held in the previous session regarding the willingness to take political risks, Tan Sri Zakri conveyed his frustration. He underscored the imperative for the scientific community to broaden its engagement beyond internal dialogues. It should encompass

policymakers, politicians, and various stakeholders, with the primary objective of cultivating trust and fostering collaborative relationships, all geared toward advancing planetary health.

Dr Rémi subsequently drew connections between the International Network for Governmental Science and Advice (INGSA), a collaborative platform facilitating policy exchange, capacity building, and research among various global science advisory organisations and national systems. He associated INGSA with Tan Sri Zakri’s viewpoint, emphasising the paramount importance of scientists involved in policymaking to cultivate trust and resilience. Dr Rémi highlighted trust and resilience as pivotal to attaining INGSA’s objectives.

Dr Orakanoke introduced her perspective by sharing her experiences of collaborating with young academies around the world, with a particular focus on the realm of science communication. Building on the themes articulated by Dr Rémi, she reiterated the significance of science resonating with younger generations and explored the strategies essential for establishing trust among senior academics and policymakers.

Dr Sujatha delved into the strategies for science to carve a niche in policy and amplify its influence in policy contexts. She underscored the importance of fostering a diverse constituency comprising scientists from various disciplines and academic institutions. This inclusive approach extends to engaging with grassroots movements, allowing science to have a substantial impact. Dr Sujatha went on to elaborate on the notion of addressing post-normal times and advocating for a bold, pragmatic response to contemporary challenges. She highlighted the need to remain closely

Figure 20 Dr Petra moderating Part 3 of the GKD by probing thought-provoking questions

Figure 21 Dr Rémi (left) sharing about INGSA

connected to the realities on the ground and to make scientific knowledge more accessible to policymakers through active public engagement.

Dr Petra continued the session by skilfully tailoring her questions to the panellists’ areas of expertise. In her introduction, she emphasised Academician Tan Sri Zakri’s profound knowledge of Planetary Health, which has been the focal point of his career. Organisations like the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) play a crucial role in collecting scientific data related to biodiversity loss, ecosystem health and climate change and, subsequently, transforming this knowledge into actionable policies. Dr Petra then turned her attention to Tan Sri Zakri, seeking insights into the challenges hindering the effective implementation of these policies.

Tan Sri Zakri shared insights as one of the original negotiators of the UN Biodiversity Treaty, acknowledging the incomplete objective of halting biodiversity loss. He highlighted the promising Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, emphasising the need for public awareness and education. Engaging political parties in the context of science, technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship (STIE) for job creation and prosperity, particularly for SDG targets, was stressed. He quoted James Gustave Speth, the former UNDP administrator and a professor at Yale, who had previously believed that the primary issues were climate change, biodiversity loss, or pollution. However, Gustave later recognised that the real challenges of our time lie in profound issues like widespread corruption and insincerity.

Dr Petra directed her next question to Dr Orakanoke, who actively engages at the national level in bridging the gap between science and policy. She inquired about the policy framework that enabled Dr Orakanoke’s establishment in Thailand, particularly regarding intellectual property (IP) law for academic institutions and sought insights into the key factors contributing to its success. Dr Petra was keen to understand how Dr Orakanoke managed to make this framework function effectively.

Dr Orakanoke emphasised the practical application of science, research, and innovation and highlighted the role of intermediaries in bridging the gap between science and society to drive the country’s prosperity. Dr Orakanoke leads a team dedicated to developing a national accreditation system for technology transfer practices. She believes that her experiences in Thailand and the broader RCN context will help identify the specific needs of Thailand and how the country can learn from the practices of neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and Singapore while also offering support to Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Dr Petra directed her next set of questions to Dr Rémi. She inquired whether the role of bridging the gap between science and policy lies with individual scientists or if it should be the responsibility of academic institutions, such as academies, to provide the necessary expertise. Dr Petra recognised the presence of individuals skilled in translating scientific knowledge. She further explored the role of organisations like INGSA in outlining the pathway and identifying the most effective approach for facilitating this translation process.

Figure 22 Tan Sri Zakri sharing his valuable insights and experience in tackling biodiversity issues at international organisations

Figure 23 Dr Orakanoke sharing her experience leading a team in the national accreditation system in Thailand

Dr Rémi responded by emphasising the vital role of human interaction in connecting science and policy, expressing his satisfaction with this focus, which contrasts with discussions about AI replacing Chief Scientist Advisors. He highlighted the roles of academia and individual scientists in enhancing the integration of science and policy. Dr Rémi also underlined the close collaboration between academia and INGSA, especially in organising global workshops, given the limited number of Chief Scientist positions globally. He emphasised the need for a functional advisory system, particularly evident during the pandemic. Dr Rémi recognised INGSA’s role in providing opportunities for scientists to engage in science advice and expand its influence on various levels, including government proximity, public engagement, and potential political impact.

Dr Petra continued the discussion by reflecting on Dr Rémi’s focus on trust, particularly in addressing global challenges from a local perspective and the importance of building trust in science and civil society. She then made several crucial statements: The need to establish connections with civil society and individuals at the grassroots level who are actively addressing these challenges is paramount. This naturally led to Dr Petra’s question for Dr Sujatha, recognising the contemporary challenge of trust in science at all levels. She acknowledged the rampant spread of misinformation, often driven by emotional narratives and influential groups, which can overshadow factual information. Dr Petra’s inquiry focused on how the collective scientific community can enhance communication to ensure that science maintains its status as a trusted and reliable source. Furthermore, she sought insights into strategies for safeguarding this trusted voice amid the cacophony of misinformation and empowering people to distinguish between truth, science, and misinformation.

Dr Sujatha responded to Dr Petra’s inquiries by addressing the challenge of public trust in the context of misinformation. She cautioned against the tempting notion of simplifying scientific communication to match the snappy and simplified messages often found in social media. Instead, Dr Sujatha stressed the importance of resisting this trend and embracing the complexity and nuance inherent in scientific claims. She highlighted the need to understand the real-world implications of scientific research conducted under controlled laboratory conditions and the importance of connecting scientific findings to local contexts.

Dr Sujatha acknowledged that pressures for simplification also stem from social and political forces, emphasising the necessity of preserving cultural diversity. She echoed the idea that protecting the planet and safeguarding cultural diversity are interconnected goals. To achieve this, she advocated for resisting oversimplification, acknowledging that while there may be occasions when a straightforward message is required, many complex issues demand a more nuanced approach.

Dr Petra provided an opportunity for the panellists to share their final comments following the discussion, granting each of them a minute to express any thoughts or reflections that may have emerged during the conversation.

Dr Rémi shared his final comments by emphasising one of the objectives of INGSA related to the region, expressing the organisation’s growing interest in establishing south-south networks on science advice. He clarified that this initiative is geared towards fostering connections among southern regions and promoting scientific cooperation. Dr Rémi also extended an invitation, informing the audience about the upcoming significant eventthe next INGSA meeting scheduled to take place in Kigali on 1 and 2 May in Rwanda. He welcomed all to attend, assuring that there would be extensive discussions regarding the establishment and development of south-south networks for science advice during the event.

Tan Sri Zakri shared his final comments by addressing Dr Sujatha’s earlier point about the complexity of science communication. He acknowledged that while science is inherently complex, it’s equally vital to ensure that the message is comprehensible to the intended audience. Tan Sri Zakri cautioned against making science overly complicated, as this might discourage people from engaging with it. He emphasised the need to strike a balance where the message retains its scientific integrity while remaining accessible and engaging for the broader audience.

Dr Orakanoke conveyed her final remarks with valuable insights for the young peers in the audience. She acknowledged the common desire to achieve quick and substantial outcomes in the scientific field, such as securing larger grants and gaining recognition from governments or senior academics. However, she emphasised the importance of understanding that progress in

these areas often takes time. Dr Orakanoke shared her experience, illustrating that building the IP professions in her country required two decades of dedicated effort. When communicating with her government, she demonstrated the substantial work that had been accomplished, reinforcing the significance of trust in the process. In summary, her advice was to maintain belief in one’s work and maintain a strong commitment to driving it forward, even when the results may not be immediate.

Dr Sujatha concluded with her final comments, addressing the challenge of effectively communicating complex truths to the public. She agreed with the need to engage the audience while presenting intricate scientific concepts. Dr Sujatha highlighted that progress is already being made in the transdisciplinary sustainability sciences. She noted a growing effort to combine extensive research on social issues like inequality, social cohesion, and environmental change with research on biophysical changes and global environmental shifts. This approach involves recognising the interdependence of these processes, where inequality isn’t merely a side effect of environmental change but can also be a driving force behind it. Dr Sujatha emphasised the power of this complex truth and the ongoing efforts to communicate it through various mediums, including visual representation. She also encouraged greater collaboration across humanities, arts, music, and visuals to enhance science communication.

Figure 24 Dr Sujatha raising the importance of effective science communication to the public

1. Up to this point, our discussions have largely centred around the cooperative and collaborative aspects of science and technology. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that, on a global scale, nations often find themselves in competition, particularly in strategic and emerging technology fields like quantum tech or space tech. How can science advice and science diplomacy facilitate the establishment of consensus, whether on a multilateral or bilateral level, in these technological domains? (India Young Academy of Sciences)

Dr Rémi: In terms of public-private partnerships and aligning consensus within the public sector, we’re not quite there yet. However, I’ve been in discussions with Sir Peter Gluckman and other colleagues, and there is an ongoing global effort to establish a consensus on AI’s definition and how to advance the field for the benefit of society. Naturally, AI presents its own set of challenges. Ultimately, the key focus should be on benefiting society. To achieve this, collaborative efforts are necessary, but we likely need a central authority to coordinate these initiatives, possibly through entities like the United Nations or the ISC. It’s important to understand that individual nations, like my own, Canada, cannot accomplish much on their own. Therefore, we need a robust and interconnected network. This concept applies not only to AI but also to other disruptive technologies, such as quantum computing. To summarise, maintaining scientific collaboration during times of geopolitical competition, as seen during the Cold War from 1948 to 1991 between the Soviet Union and the US, is an excellent example of science diplomacy’s potential. It played a crucial role in averting potential nuclear conflicts. Even today, there are many instances demonstrating the positive impact of scientists staying above the political fray.

2. In the context of mission-oriented science, how can we create additional avenues and involve young researchers in shaping and steering the objectives of early career researchers within this framework? Furthermore, what are your thoughts on integrating young individuals into engagement efforts, whether at a local level or through international organisations? Considering the policies currently in effect, it’s the younger generation that will experience the consequences for years to come, and they may have their unique perspectives on the approach taken. (International Association of Physics Students)

Dr Sujatha: In my field of research, there’s a compelling concept that comes to mind, which I might not express perfectly, but it revolves around the idea of making room for early career voices and indigenous perspectives. It’s about creating space and being willing to step back. There’s a certain allure in wanting to remain the primary voice in discussions related to interdisciplinary, progressive, or diverse knowledge systems. To address this, I believe it’s crucial to foster and exemplify a style of research leadership that facilitates these dynamics. The focus should not solely be on one’s own benefits but on the growth of those I mentor. It’s not about them working for my benefit; they should have the opportunity to develop their own ideas. Thus, this aspect holds great significance. Senior researchers can contribute by establishing this room for others, recognising when it’s time to take a step back and allow emerging voices to take centre stage.

Figure 25 Participants asking the panellists questions during the Q&A session of Part 3

Breakout Session

Dr Petra streamlined the proceedings by announcing the end of the panel sessions in the interest of time. The participants were directed to engage in an online discussion using a set of provided questions. Delegates will share summaries from this breakout session to set the scene for Part 4.

Questions Asked during Breakout Sessions

1. How do we raise the voice of science in the region? Do we need to, for example:

Strengthen science systems?

Support capacity building in science communication and science to policy translation?

Generate scientific knowledge that is specific and relevant to our region?

Improve coordination of scientific input into multilateral bodies (IPCC, UN etc)

Others?

2. Please list some resource, capacity, or systems gaps that need to be addressed to make sure science is accessible, trusted, heard, inclusive and relevant in Asia and the Pacific.

How can the ISC RFP-AP support and facilitate this?

What role is there for the ISC HQ?

3. What are the top three science missions that this region, or some of our sub-regions, should tackle?

How should those missions be coordinated and funded?

Figure 26 GKD delegates actively participating during the breakout session

PART 4: NEXT STEPS FOR THE REGIONAL FOCAL POINT OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC –TURNING DIALOGUE INTO ACTION

Moderated Dialogue: “What are our opportunities and challenges and what is the role of the ISC and the ISC RFP-AP in progressing and addressing these?”

Dr Anna-Maria provided an extensive summary of responses from the breakout sessions. Delegates discussed ways to elevate the role of science in the region, highlighting the importance of amplifying scientists’ voices in policy and media, involving science journalists, advancing science diplomacy, and suggesting the creation of a science diplomacy programme by the ISC. Inclusivity and representation were emphasised, with proposals for an annual Science Day and a more comprehensive definition of science. Community engagement and regionally relevant knowledge were central themes. The ISC’s role in Australia’s regional focal point was acknowledged, urging greater awareness and a holistic approach to reviewing scientific output indicators. Policy influence, interconnection, capacity building, research translation, and data gathering were all identified as essential elements. The importance of extensive data gathering in low and middle-income countries for better policies and strategic investments was stressed, aligning with regional priorities. The prevailing message highlighted the significance of grassroots, community-focused initiatives in Asia-Pacific.

Dr Anna-Maria addressed the second question, focusing on resources, capacity, and system gaps. She highlighted five key points from the responses, each accompanied by practical solutions. The first point emphasised the importance of local involvement and collaboration, urging local universities and scientific institutes to actively engage in provincial and national science policy. This approach underlined the value of locally tailored scientific solutions and the need for multi-stakeholder engagement. The second point centred on capacity building and empowerment, emphasising support for scientists in communicating research to policymakers through specialised training. It highlighted the importance of adapting capacity-building efforts to regional needs and leveraging role models. The third point identified gap pertained to digital inclusion and open science, emphasising the importance of bridging the digital divide and enhancing access to computing capabilities. This would be essential for facilitating participation in science and reaping its benefits, particularly in the context of emerging technologies. While acknowledging existing efforts, there was a call for additional action, including the importance of chief science advisors, especially in countries lacking them. It was also recommended to use platforms like newsletters, conferences, and workshops to enhance visibility and understanding of ISC’s roles. The final point highlighted the promotion of diversity and inclusion in science, focusing on incorporating local and indigenous communities into research and decision-making processes. It emphasised sharing adaptable best practices and proposed hosting targeted workshops to address regional barriers, providing practical recommendations for consideration.

Figure 27 Dr Anna-Maria moderating the breakout session

Dr Anna Maria provided a concise overview of the responses to the last question involving the top three science missions. She highlighted ten key themes that emerged from the delegates:

A strong call for efficient open-access initiatives in scientific publishing, with an emphasis on actionable regional roadmaps led by the ISC,

Support for early career researchers through funded science capacity-building programmes like postdoctoral fellowships was highlighted,

A regional focus on SDGs was recommended, driven by regional consultations among science academies facilitated by the ISC focal point,

The need for a common language for science communication across countries was emphasised,

Environmental concerns, including climate change and planetary health, were deemed crucial, with particular attention to issues affecting the Pacific Islands,

Addressing mental well-being, noncommunicable diseases, and understanding human behaviour through psychology were seen as vital,

Responsible use of technology and AI, considering cultural and language differences, was noted as a priority,

Engaging and empowering communities in science, including integrating indigenous knowledge and building trust, was highlighted,

Key challenges and priorities such as climate change, poverty eradication, and addressing inequalities were reiterated,

Foundational issues like promoting science education and literacy, ensuring scientific freedom, and enhancing science communication were underlined.

1. The first question raised by a delegate was more of a suggestion. The suggestion was to publish the final outcomes of each conference or meeting. Additionally, it was proposed that the achievements accomplished since the previous conference should be showcased before the next event. This approach was seen as a way to provide a vision for all stakeholders, including the council and organisation, regarding the progress made, thus guiding the next steps for the upcoming event (India Young Academy of Sciences).

Dr Anna-Maria: It’s a fantastic practice to ensure accountability, and I’m aware that the ISC regularly compiles conference proceedings. I’ve noticed that we frequently receive updates on specific actions, not only during subsequent gatherings but also throughout the year. These updates seem to be available for at least a year, which is particularly valuable given the diverse time zones involved. I’m truly appreciative of the consideration for time zones, as it’s much more manageable to have a 5PM meeting rather than a 3AM one in Australia. So, the practice of providing updates, especially in the context of specific actions, is highly commendable.

2. The second question raised the issue of open access in scientific publishing, specifically focusing on the author pays model. A concern was expressed regarding the implementation of open access through this model, which was perceived as creating barriers and potentially leading to rising costs. The delegate highlighted that the ISC had previously recognised this issue in their report “Opening

Figure 27 One of the participants sharing his feedback during the summary of responses

the Record of Science.” It was suggested that sustainable open access should not rely on authors to cover costs. The criticism extended to author-based open access, including concerns about perverse incentives for publishers. The delegate emphasised the need to address the shift in the publishing industry, which has adopted a pro-open access stance, and called for a recovery of ownership in scientific and academic publishing.

(National Young Academy of Bangladesh)

Sir Peter Gluckman: In the coming weeks, ISC will release a discussion paper to its members addressing the complex issue of open access and related matters. This topic poses a challenge, as approximately 60% of ISC members derive income from publishing, and some are entirely dependent on it. The ISC Board along with a dedicated working group have been investing substantial time and effort to navigate this complexity. They aspire to take a brave and ambitious approach to the issue. However, the initial step involves collaboration with their members due to the significant reliance on current publishing mechanisms within the ISC community. The ISC aims to establish general principles that can guide them through this process, but their ultimate success hinges on gaining the support and cooperation of their members.

Sir Peter Gluckman then elaborated on his response with the following points. He emphasised the importance of recognising the UNESCO definition of science, which the ISC board recently re-affirmed as the official definition. He encouraged everyone to familiarise themselves with this comprehensive UNESCO definition. He highlighted the upcoming deadline in 2025 for member states to review their commitment to the Declaration on Science and the use of scientific knowledge. Member states, including those present at the meeting, are obligated to report their progress in alignment with the declaration, addressing various aspects covered in it. These reports will be prepared in the next 12 months, marking the first comprehensive review of the declaration since its adoption in 2017. It serves as a powerful tool for promoting progress in multiple areas discussed during the meeting.

Sir Peter Gluckman also elaborated that the ISC’s role is to operate globally and support its members in facilitating local actions. ISC aims

to enhance and empower academies and local scientific organisations, but it refrains from direct involvement in local affairs, as it would be inappropriate for an organisation based in Paris to interfere in domestic matters. Strengthening the role of academies and local bodies is essential for effective local engagement. Finally, Sir Peter addressed the financial constraints faced by the ISC, revealing that its annual budget is just $5 million, which needs to be considered in light of the organisation’s extensive goals and aspirations. To address this limitation, the ISC is in the process of establishing a charitable trust to secure additional funding from major donors, as a substantial budget increase, perhaps three to four times the current amount, is required to meet their objectives.

3. The question raised pertains to the regional role in promoting science and the intricacies of science communication. It underscores the diverse dimensions of science communication, involving interactions with policymakers and the general public. Within the context of the region, encompassing countries with varying economic statuses, there is a notable demand for enhanced capacity-building initiatives in science communication. The suggestion emphasises the significance of proper training in science communication, citing personal experiences with certifications from JCOM and Duke University, which proved instrumental in effectively engaging both policymakers and communities. The need for improved communication in science becomes evident, given the faster spread of misinformation compared to accurate scientific knowledge in cases such as polio and COVID vaccines. Consequently, the proposal advocates for the implementation of regional science communication programmes, particularly targeting young researchers to improve their communication skills. Additionally, it highlights the potential for a science leadership programme, similar to a successful initiative in Africa, to be introduced at the regional level. These programmes aim to enhance researchers’ capacity, foster collaboration, and promote effective science communication, diplomacy, and project management. The suggestion identifies Australia as a potential leader in launching science communication and leadership programmes within the next five years.

(Pakistan Academy of Sciences)

Dr Anna-Maria: I’d like to express my gratitude for your valuable insights, especially in acknowledging the differences in communication styles when dealing with policymakers and the media. INGSA’s remarkable efforts in enhancing science communication capabilities, particularly with science policymakers in the Asia-Pacific region, are highly commendable. We anticipate close collaboration with them as a regional focal point to explore mutually beneficial opportunities. It’s worth noting that a global network of science media centres is emerging, with many countries sharing their expertise and resources. For example, the Australian Science Media Centre provides science communication training to scholars not only in Australia but across the Pacific, supported by the Australian government. They’ve even extended their media training beyond their borders. Similar initiatives are taking place in Japan and New Zealand, and these centres operate globally, facilitating immediate access to science journalists and other media professionals. It’s crucial to expand such training opportunities, and if your country doesn’t have a Science Media Centre, please reach out to us, and we can connect you with the closest resources in your region. These centres are always willing to share their expertise, and your emphasis on the importance of accessible training resonates strongly with us.

4. The delegate acknowledges the prevailing preference for in-person meetings, even though recent discussions have emphasised the need to change scientific practices to meet future challenges. She highlights the postpandemic return to in-person gatherings, which involve substantial greenhouse gas emissions from travel while stressing the significance of diversity and inclusion in science participation. She then underscores the equalising effect of online education for people with disabilities during the pandemic, sharing their own experience as someone with an invisible disability. She proceeds to encourage a re-evaluation of how scientists convene in the future, advocating for greater equity and the amplification of the voices of scientists with disabilities. The plea is to embrace technological advancements to ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities, remote participants, and those from developing nations in the scientific community.

(Member of Early and Mid-Career Research Forum of the Australian Academy of Science)

Dr Anna-Maria: I extend my heartfelt appreciation to you for not only challenging us but also for your presence and for serving as a voice for those unable to join us. Your point is incredibly significant. While we have all cherished the return of face-to-face interactions after a prolonged absence, it’s crucial to strike a balance. We don’t need to exclusively rely on in-person meetings, nor do we have to adopt a hybrid approach for everything. There is a need for more concerted efforts in incorporating these practices into our regular routines, especially in our region, which is characterised by geographic diversity and a rich tapestry of cultures. Inclusivity, extending to all individuals within our region, remains a top priority.

Summing Up The Day By ISC Board Members And Newly Appointed Members Of The Regional Focal Point Council

Dr Anna-Maria took over as the moderator for the concluding session, indicating that the day was coming to a close. She framed the session as an opportunity to gather insights and reflections on the discussions and dialogues that had taken place throughout the day, providing some concluding remarks.

Mdm Hazami Habib

Mdm Hazami Habib, CEO of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, in her closing remarks, expressed gratitude for the fruitful event and the strong attendance throughout the day. On behalf of ASM, she thanked all participants and noted the successful sessions. She emphasised the importance of co-learning and co-creating to tailor solutions to specific needs and strengths. The role of science, technology, and innovation in providing humanity-centric, nature-based, and values-driven solutions and the ISC’s new ISC Centre for Science Futures were highlighted. She summarised the day’s discussions, including scientific diplomacy, strengthening science systems, and the role of ISC’s regional focal point. She expressed a desire to turn the dialogue into actionable initiatives. She acknowledged the hard work of the teams involved and the significant participant turnout. She concluded with warm wishes for the participants’ satisfaction and enjoyment of Malaysian hospitality during the Global Knowledge Dialogue for the AsiaPacific hosted by Malaysia.

Figure 30 Mdm Hazami Habib expressing her gratitude to the GKD delegates for the fruitful event

Figure 29 Dr Anna-Maria moderating the concluding session of the dialogue

Professor Frances Separovic

Moving on, Professor Frances Separovic, as Foreign Secretary of Australian Academy of Science, shared her reflections on the day’s highlights. She expressed appreciation for the Deputy Minister’s speech, which highlighted the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change on Malaysia. She emphasised the role of the science model in promoting sustainable research, especially in the context of the Malaysian planetary health action plan. Professor Frances highlighted the importance of accessible data in building trust in science, promoting open data sharing, and fostering productive debates. She found the Frontier Prize lecture inspiring and encouraged a broader perspective, such as exploring “kangaroo culture.” The discussion also touched on the concept of risk, both in political decision-making and scientific grant funding. Professor Frances stressed the need for improved communication between scientists, policymakers, and politicians to enhance the impact of scientific endeavours. She took the opportunity to promote the Australian Academy of Science’s newsletter on science diplomacy and international affairs, emphasising its potential for promoting the ISC and regional focal point. She also mentioned the inclusive nature of their national committees, providing access to individuals from diverse disciplines and industries, which can be leveraged for collaborations and connections within the region.

Dr Motoko Katani, Vice President of Science and Society at ISC, reflected on the fruitful and informative discussions during the long day, acknowledging the valuable networking opportunities that extended beyond the formal sessions. She highlighted the importance of these interactions and credited the ISC, under the leadership of Sir Peter Gluckman, for creating a platform to facilitate communication and collaboration among members and affiliated bodies. She shared her experience attending global knowledge dialogues in South Africa, emphasising the energy, passion, and friendship she encountered among participants, all working together to build trust in science. In the post-COVID-19 world, the perception of science has shifted from something distant to a vital part of people’s lives, leading to both expectations and concerns, particularly with emerging technologies like AI, quantum technology, and bioengineering. Dr Motoko stressed that shaping the future of society with these technologies depends on human wisdom and wellbeing. Scientists need to engage in discussions and identify region-specific challenges to meet societal expectations. She expressed gratitude to the Australian Academy of Science for hosting the focal points and providing these essential opportunities.

Figure 25 Dr Motoko Katani emphasizing the importance of platforms such as Global Knowledge Dialogue in building trust in science

Figure 31 Professor Frances Separavoic sharing AAS’s vision as the new regional focal point

Professor Mei-Hung Chui

Professor Mei-Hung, as a Governing Board Member, began her final remarks by highlighting the first key point, which centres on involving young scientists, highlighted in the recent roundtable led by Alison and Gabriela. This initiative aims to foster collaboration between senior and junior scientists, building a united community for global progress. The second aspect dovetails with the first, focusing on science education, particularly for young scientists, to ensure a prosperous future and equal research opportunities in a supportive environment. The third point addresses global issues, like climate change and mental health, with an emphasis on transitioning from global strategies to regional implementation, considering cultural diversity, and ultimately adapting these strategies to local contexts. Cultural sensitivity is crucial, the speaker places high expectations on the audience to work collaboratively to make a meaningful impact.

Dr Salvatore Arico

Dr Salvatore Arico, the CEO of ISC, expressed his excitement about GKD, seeing it as a demonstration of a revitalised International Science Council and a fresh, creative approach to science. He highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of the discussions and the increasing involvement of multiple stakeholders, underscoring its global relevance despite regional focuses. He also mentioned plans for the third GKD in Latin America and the Caribbean, with potential dates around March or April. He then praised the collaborative efforts between the Academy of Science Malaysia and the Australian Academy of Sciences and recognised the contributions of the local organising committee and colleagues in Paris, particularly Alison Meston and Gabriella Ivan, in making the event successful.

Figure 33 Professor Mei-Hung emphasises the importance of youth involvement in global scientific progress

Figure 34 Dr Salvatore Arico announcing the next Global Knowledge Dialogue in Latin America

Sir Peter Gluckman

Sir Peter Gluckman concluded his remarks by expressing his delight at returning to Kuala Lumpur after several years and reuniting with many old friends. He emphasised the enthusiasm and commitment of younger scientists in the region and his efforts to integrate young scientist organisations as equal partners in the global scientific community. He highlighted the alignment of the vision that the world requires a strong, effective voice for science at all levels. He emphasised the need for humility, recognising that not all problems can be solved by science alone and that society can provide answers through other means. He stressed the importance of earning and maintaining trust in science by producing reliable knowledge with humility. He acknowledged the crisis of trust in institutions, including science, and the need for science to continue earning trust. He called for scientific engagement, particularly in vulnerable regions, and urged scientific leaders to involve all disciplines and generations in the process of change.

Dr Anna Maria concluded by announcing the establishment of the Advisory Council for the Regional Focal Point for Asia and the Pacific, highlighting that its members are drawn from the audience and serve as essential regional figures. Chosen for their vast experience both within and beyond academia, as well as their extensive networks in the region, these members represent various sub-regions. Dr Anna Maria encouraged active engagement and communication with these Advisory Council members, underlining their role as additional points of contact. She emphasised the importance of staying in touch with both the council and the organisation.

Figure 35 Sir Peter Gluckman emphasising the importance of building trust through credible science in his concluding remarks

Figure 36 (From left) Dr Anna-Maria introducing the regional focal point council members, Dr Felix Bast, Dr Himiyama, Dr Gisela Concepcion and Dr Petra, who were present during the Global Knowledge Dialogue

Dr Anna Maria concluded by announcing the establishment of the Advisory Council for the Regional Focal Point for Asia and the Pacific, highlighting that its members are drawn from the audience and serve as essential regional figures. Chosen for their vast experience both within and beyond academia, as well as their extensive networks in the region, these members represent various sub-regions. Dr Anna Maria encouraged active engagement and communication with these Advisory Council members, underlining their role as additional points of contact. She emphasised the importance of staying in touch with both the council and the organisation.

Figure 37 (From left) Exchange of gifts between Mdm Hazami, Dr Anna-Maria, and Dr Salvatore Arico