GESDA's 'anticipatory science diplomacy': New operating system or more of an upgrade?
GESDA's ambitious framework for proactive science governance raises questions about how far science diplomacy can go before it is too far removed from reality.
For those navigating the intricate intersection of science and global policy, a new report from the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA) is certainly worth a closer look. Released on Monday from a London event co-hosted with the Wellcome Trust (a key financial backer of GESDA's global curriculum initiative), the 36-page report, "Anticipatory Science Diplomacy: A New Global Framework for Action," proposes a significant recalibration of how we approach global governance in an era of accelerating scientific advancement.
GESDA's core premise isn't entirely new: traditional diplomatic systems are often reactive, struggling to keep pace with the exponential growth in scientific and technological capabilities. Their proposed solution is "anticipatory science diplomacy" – a proactive integration of scientific foresight into international relations, aiming to shape future trajectories rather than merely respond to them. The ambition is clear, but for those of us familiar with the realities of multilateral processes, the practicalities of consistently achieving such foresight and coordinated action in a fractured geopolitical landscape immediately raise questions.
The report's assertion that "the accelerating pace and increasing complexity of contemporary scientific transformations necessitate a revised diplomatic approach" resonates deeply. The argument that a reactive stance is no longer sufficient for global stability is compelling. Yet, the challenge lies in moving from this widely accepted diagnosis to a truly effective, implementable framework.
GESDA's framework builds on the established tenets of science diplomacy, as articulated by the AAAS and the Royal Society. We're all familiar with the "science in diplomacy," "diplomacy for science," and "science for diplomacy" trichotomy. GESDA's distinction, however, lies in its explicit emphasis on anticipation and the proactive shaping of future impacts across defined time horizons (five, 10, and 25 years), driven by tools like their trademarked "Science Breakthrough Radar." This forward-looking dimension is where the rubber meets the road, and where the inherent uncertainties of long-range forecasting, particularly in disruptive fields, pose a persistent and often understated challenge.
Indeed, while "anticipatory thinking" in science isn't a novel concept – scientific foresight has been a policy instrument for decades – GESDA's contribution is its attempt to hardwire this capacity directly into the diplomatic domain. The goal is to elevate it to a core diplomatic competency, actively guiding scientific advancements for societal benefit. The fundamental question for our field, then, becomes: can the often-deliberate, interest-driven, and consensus-heavy world of traditional diplomacy genuinely adapt to the agile, evidence-based, and inherently uncertain demands of scientific anticipation? This remains a significant, perhaps existential, hurdle.
GESDA's framework is structured around four core principles, each with its own set of practical challenges:
Science Anticipation: This pillar involves systematically identifying emerging trends and projecting their ethical, social, economic, and political ramifications. The report itself inadvertently highlights the difficulty here: GESDA did not anticipate the rapid, widespread adoption of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. This serves as a stark reminder of the inherent, perhaps fundamental, limitations in predicting truly complex, unforeseen interactions, even for dedicated foresight organizations.
Honest Brokering: This principle focuses on facilitating impartial dialogue among diverse stakeholders—scientists, diplomats, industry representatives, and civil society—within "Anticipatory Situation Rooms." The ideal of impartiality is appealing, but achieving genuine consensus and truly "honest" brokering when significant national, economic, or corporate interests are at stake is notoriously complex and frequently proves elusive in real-world negotiations.
Global Action: This component emphasizes developing early multilateral solutions and frameworks. The transition from successful prototypes to widespread, binding international adoption is a well-documented, and often insurmountable, hurdle in global governance, especially when geopolitical will is limited or actively opposed.
Capacity Building: This involves equipping a new generation of leaders—diplomats, scientists, and policymakers—with the skills to understand, leverage, and govern emerging science. The report notes the substantial scale and speed required for such a global transformation in leadership capabilities. This transformation, however, appears more aspirational than readily achievable, demanding a systemic shift in educational and professional development paradigms that is far from guaranteed.
The report argues that this forward-looking strategy is vital for addressing critical global challenges: climate change, future pandemics, the ethical development of AI, and responsible biotechnology. It rightly points out that intensifying geopolitical rivalries and the increasing influence of non-state actors further complicate the traditional diplomatic landscape. This underscores both the urgency of the proposed approach and, paradoxically, the overwhelming complexities that will impede its full implementation.
GESDA also advocates for the development of "anticipatory leaders." This leadership model, informed by the scientific method, emphasizes scientific literacy, openness, collaboration, and continuous adaptation. Training includes simulations like the "Quantum Diplomacy Game." Yet, the effectiveness of such training in truly preparing individuals for the unpredictable pressures, raw power dynamics, and often irrational decisions inherent in real-world international negotiations remains an open question for practitioners.
As a practical illustration, the report references GESDA's role in establishing the Open Quantum Institute (OQI) at CERN. The OQI functions as an instrument of anticipatory science diplomacy for quantum computing, facilitating early discussions on its humanitarian potential—such as accelerating antibiotic discovery—prior to widespread deployment. This "learning by doing" approach aims to build trust and prototype solutions that could theoretically be scaled by the multilateral system. However, the long-term success and replicability of such initiatives across more contentious scientific domains, where national interests clash directly, will serve as the ultimate, and perhaps most challenging, indicators of the framework's broader efficacy.
Ultimately, GESDA’s report provides a comprehensive blueprint. It's a call to integrate anticipatory thinking into policy-making, aiming to enhance our collective ability to face future challenges. It's an inspiring vision, undoubtedly. But its full realization will demand overcoming deeply ingrained diplomatic inertia, the inherent limitations of foresight itself, and the profound, often resistant, complexities of a rapidly changing global order.