Science has, undoubtedly, made our lives better. Science has delivered significant improvements in wellbeing. Approaches that have helped to feed the world and, in many areas, led to improved environmental quality. It has delivered us the digital age. One of the greatest recent examples of the power of science was, of course, the incredible turnaround to develop COVID-19 vaccines in record time.
But that progress, which has significantly reduced poverty and created wealth, has been based on a linear economic model. Based on an extractive economy. And yes, based on an unequal economy. Between and within countries. This model of growth and development has also driven us to our current environmental situation – a situation that we at UNEP refer to as the triple planetary crisis. The climate crisis. The biodiversity loss and nature crisis. And the pollution and waste crisis. Indeed, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are altering the entire climate system. Nature and biodiversity loss is undermining ecosystems’ abilities to function effectively and efficiently. And pollution and waste are poisoning our planet.
So, on one hand, science has helped to improve well-being, health and societies. On the other, scientific discoveries – new chemicals, new energy sources, new materials and new innovations – have caused harm to the health of the planet and its people.
And even when science has informed us of such harms, the economic, political and societal system within which science works, has at times resisted, and still resists, addressing this harm in view of prevailing interest and power relations. And that delay, in turn has caused damage to the health of the planet.
Even so, science is the canary in the gold mine. Without science, we would not know how and why our planet is changing. We would not have the solutions we need to steer towards a healthy planet and healthy people. And without science we would not know that these solutions can provide hundreds of millions of green jobs.
It is, therefore, to these solutions that we will be looking when the world gathers for the Stockholm+50 conference. A conference that must add new impetus to our efforts to build a sustainable future.
Friends,
Science has given a lot. But science has more to give. The science community can learn from what has come before and shape science to deliver more of the good, and less of the bad. Today, I would like to run through four action areas that can help the science community deliver the changes we need to address the triple planetary crisis and deliver a healthy planet for healthy people.
The first area is to decode science. To make it transparent, understandable, actionable and accessible.
Right now, science is being outpaced by misinformation and disinformation – which is usually presented in a short video or social media message, in everyday language. If we want to engage with a wider audience and combat misinformation, we must show that science is for everyone by making it easily understandable.
This is not about dumbing down. This is about communicating effectively and putting the information in the hands of the many, as opposed to the hands of the few.. We are obviously never going to convince everybody. Confirmation bias is real. The goal is to arm all sides with basic scientific knowledge. To create a conversation based on facts, not prejudice or political, economic and power interests.
In addition to making science easier to understand, we must make it more accessible. Some 70 per cent of scientific publications are behind paywalls. So, the question I ask is whether paywalls are blocking scientific progress. Business of Scholarship told us that the largest academic publisher, Elsevier, regularly has a profit margin between 35-40 per cent, which is larger than Google and Apple. Good for them, but not so good for getting the science out there. I realize that scientific authors need to live and have their work published. But publishing behind heavy paywalls is not the way to go.
There is a payoff to well-communicated science. When the world discovered the impact of lead on children’s health and communicated it, everyone listened. And, through a hard and long fight against the powers of economic and commercial interests, we now have no leaded fuel. This prevents 1.2 million premature deaths and saves USD 2.45 trillion a year.
The second area is to understand and reaffirm the social contract with science. Essentially, we need to go back to basics as to why we work on science.
Science should be about discovery, so that we can understand the world and make it better. Not discovery for the sake of ego or reputation. Unfortunately, there is a perception – true in some cases, not in others – that the scientific community sometimes cares more about funding or a name on a paper than knowledge and wisdom for societal progress.
Academia and national science academies have a huge role to play here. By promoting open science. By reforming publishing. By greater collaboration, across disciplines and communities. If we have cooperative science rather than competition, where academics compete for dollars, we would have better outcomes and less duplication.
Here, we have a unique moment to reflect if we are equipping our young graduates with the right training, the right knowledge, and the right skills and motivation. Looking at the triple planetary crisis, there is an urgent need to embed environmental sustainability – some basic level of understanding of climate change, the earth sciences – into all degrees, academics and post-secondary curricula. Because our future depends on it.
The third area is to use technology wisely.
Technology and innovation are crucial to human development. The digital revolution is obviously a great accelerator. If we use digital tools well, we find more solutions, we communicate and engage better, and we get those solutions out there in a way that is real and relevant.
The data revolution, advanced analytics and AI have helped scientists better understand the impacts of climate change. Green technological advances make it more feasible for policymakers and the public to imagine shifting transportation and energy systems.
In many parts of the world, science has helped reduce emissions: new cars are 99 per cent cleaner than 50 years ago, for example. Renewable resources can provide more than 3,000 times the current global energy demand. Emerging technology and innovations have given us cleaner and safer water.
And, of course, technology is crucial to the entrepreneurship and innovation that we need to address youth unemployment and generate green jobs. In the next decade, millions of new “green” jobs will be created in new-wave industries, leveraging innovation and tech.
But we must be better at thinking about the long-term downsides of new technology – as the state of the natural world today testifies. Technology is a tool, like any other. Pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers and neonicotinoids can increase our harvests. But at what cost? They can pollute our waterways and cause eutrophication in our lakes and dead zones in our oceans. Neonicotinoids can impact bee, earthworm and other insect populations – with potentially serious implications for nature and food security.
Indeed, a hammer can be put to many uses: from knocking in a nail to a weapon of great harm. And sometimes the best thing you can do with a hammer is leave it in the toolbox. We must apply technology with a clear understanding of any long-term negative impacts – and this understanding will only come if it is taught.
We should also start thinking of nature as a key solution, rather than always looking for the newer, snazzier way of getting the job dob. Nature cools, filters, protects against storms and so much more – all things we do try to do with technology. We don’t need to reinvent the tree, but we keep on trying.
If we don’t start backing nature, we will be in bigger trouble than we are now. USD 10 trillion in global GDP could be lost by 2050 if ecosystem services continue to decline. On the other hand, restoring just 15 per cent of converted land could avoid 60 per cent of expected species extinctions.
The fourth area is to improve the science policy interface – and here I mean how science informs policy so that we see science-informed shifts much more rapidly.
We need to consider what societal implications the science highlights. And then we need to work across disciplines to accelerate how science drives effective policy change, regulatory change or law-based changes.
And we need to understand that at times the road between science and policy is not a straight line. Sometimes it meanders. This is often where vested interest is built in, which will resist acquired rights and interests from a previous policy regime. So, a nimbler and more inclusive science-policy interface will accelerate effective policies and action.
So, how do we improve the science-policy interface?
First, we need to streamline knowledge production so that we narrow the time lag between science and action. This time lag is simply too long. Rachel Carson’s seminal work ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962 warned of the dangers to natural systems from the misuse of chemical pesticides such as DDT but the United States banned DDT in 1972. Similarly, lead was confirmed to be a serious menace to human health in 1924, but it took until 2021, and a twenty-year campaign by UNEP to phase out leaded petrol. By providing open, accessible and real-time information on threats and solutions, we can speed things up. We can put solutions, rather than problem definition, at the forefront of research.
Science must also be more proactive, which is a key focus of UNEP’s work. Early warning, foresight, scenario-building, predictive analytics and a new generation of integrated assessment models will be key to UNEP’s future science-policy interface.
Science should also be more inclusive. A researcher who parachutes into an unfamiliar landscape with an academic eye and the pastoralist whose ancestors roamed those lands will see two very different things. Both perspectives can have value, but we place far too much weight on the opinion of the outsider – even though, time and again, indigenous peoples and local communities have shown that they are better stewards of nature.
There is strength in diversity. It allows us to meld ideas and deliver solutions that work with nature, not against it. We must use every piece of knowledge – from respected scientists to indigenous women to bright young youth.
So, those are four broad areas in which we can work – at a time of great opportunity to reinvent how we produce and use science.
Decode and make science transparent and accessible.
Renew the social contract with science and go back to basics as to why we work on science.
Use technology wisely.
And overhaul the science policy interface
Get these right, and science will become clearer, more accessible, more trusted and more democratic. Decision makers will have a wider range of solutions upon which to act. The whole of society will be involved in producing and acting on science. We will increase the chances of ending the triple planetary crisis and making the world a healthier place for everyone.
Academia, national academies and national funding bodies are the people and institutions that fund research and shape new minds. You can bring huge influence to bear on reforming science and delivering on this brighter future. And now, more than ever, is the time to use it.
Thank you.
