A science that knows no country: Pandemic preparedness, global risk, sovereign science (original) (raw)
Related papers
Bioinformational diplomacy: Global health emergencies, data sharing and sequential life
European Journal of International Relations, 2021
Global health emergencies – like COVID-19 – pose major and recurring threats in the 21st century. Now societies can be better protected against such harrowing outbreaks by analysing the detailed genetic sequence data of new pathogens. Why, then, is this valuable epistemic resource frequently withheld by stakeholders – hamstringing the international response and potentially putting lives at risk? This article initiates the social scientific study of bioinformational diplomacy, that is, the emerging field of tensions, sensitivities, practices and enabling instruments surrounding the timely international exchange of bioinformation about global health emergencies. The article genealogically locates this nascent field at the intersection of molecularised life, informationalised biology and securitised health. It investigates the deeper political, economic and scientific problematisations that are engendering this burgeoning field. It finally analyses the emergent international instruments developed by governments, scientists and industry to facilitate more rapid global sharing of bioinformation through novel practices of data passporting. Overall, the in-depth study of bioinformational diplomacy reveals just how deeply, and even constitutively, international relations are entangled with the life sciences – by carefully tracing how laboratory practices of sequencing life at molecular scale also end up recontouring the play of sovereignty, power and security in international relations.
Science Diplomacy Review, 2022
The COVID pandemic underlined the importance of science diplomacy in combating global health inequality and in promoting transnational solidarity in coordinated response to the virus. Yet it also accentuated an epistemological struggle in global politics. This is to say, while the pandemic seems to have re-affirmed the efficiency and necessity of top-down socio-political enforcement of public health measures (e.g. mask wearing, vaccination and restriction of movement), it also made visible the social skepticism and resistance towards a hegemonic global technology of control. Recognising the post-colonial public sentiment towards technological support is important. Through a historical examination of how science for diplomacy is practiced and a contemporary analysis of China’s and the US’ vaccine diplomacy, this paper argues that, for science diplomacy to be effective in a post-colonial world, a corresponding paradigm shift of science diplomacy is needed. More specifically, this paper points out that to overcome the embedded ‘hegemonic paradox’ in traditional science diplomacy, one needs to shift from the conventional (or hegemonic) mindset of ‘prescribing solutions’. Instead, we need a de-colonial approach which builds on, rather than negates, the agency of local communities. Relatedly, this would underline the importance of going beyond state-led initiatives and bringing ‘Track II diplomacy’ from the background to the foreground.
Political Epistemology of Pandemic Management
MeFiSto, 2021
Today, claims about the contiguity of health management and societal organization bring biopolitical concerns to the forefront. This essay offers historical-political insights on the covid-19 pandemic, which are particularly urgent, as both the temporal and the cultural-political dimensions have been insufficiently considered in current debates. After introducing our specific political-epistemological approach, we delve into the entanglements of medical expertise, economic interests, surveillance politics, and diplomatic relations in the past in order to shed light on the present. Additionally, we address the limitations of Italian theory's biopolitica, namely its idle radicalization of critical views on medical politics inspired by French épistémologie historique. We conclude with a call to scientists' responsibility in consideration of the societal embedment of their activity. Yet, the task of an emancipated science is not only in their hands but depends on our collective capacity to organically connect their work to the renewal of the body politics at large.
Policy and Science for Global Health Security: Shaping the Course of International Health
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
The global burden of infectious diseases and the increased attention to natural, accidental, and deliberate biological threats has resulted in significant investment in infectious disease research. Translating the results of these studies to inform prevention, detection, and response efforts often can be challenging, especially if prior relationships and communications have not been established with decision-makers. Whatever scientific information is shared with decision-makers before, during, and after public health emergencies is highly dependent on the individuals or organizations who are communicating with policy-makers. This article briefly describes the landscape of stakeholders involved in information-sharing before and during emergencies. We identify critical gaps in translation of scientific expertise and results, and biosafety and biosecurity measures to public health policy and practice with a focus on One Health and zoonotic diseases. Finally, we conclude by exploring wa...
Speaking Truth to Power and Power to Truth: Reflections from the Pandemic
The complex relationship between science and politics has been a perennial issue in public administration. In this debate it is important to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' politics, and between 'good' and 'bad' science. The Covid-19 pandemic has valorised the importance of science in shaping governmental responses, and has tended to contrast politics negatively with science. However, technocratic approaches to policymaking downplay the importance of politics in policymaking. Two case studies, of countries where there have been markedly different pandemic outcomes are used to illustrate the relationship between science and politics during this public health crisis-New Zealand and Brazil. In New Zealand there has been a positive and effective, if technocratic, relationship between science and politics, while in Brazil the relationship between the two domains has been fraught. Keywords Science • Politics • Policymaking • Technocracy • New Zealand • Brazil 'The tools of scientific thinking are powerful and of great value. The point is not to abandon them but to integrate the knowledge they provide into a broader, richer conversation about what we human beings are doing and should be doing, and why.'- .
Science and Politics: a new alliance?
Social Europe, 2020
The Covid-19 pandemic demands we reconsider the role of scientific expertise and the relationship between knowledge and policy-making, giving new life to an otherwise heavily polarised public debate on this theme. The struggle against the coronavirus represents an occasion of contestation for science and politics, on a large scale in a globalised world. These are two fundamental human enterprises, but their coexistence has historically been complex and problematic: while science aims at an objective understanding of the world that is testable and verifiable (or, in Popper’s view, falsifiable), political activity focuses on making decisions concerning people and societies (from Greek politiká, or ‘the affairs of the city’). The sudden centrality assumed by knowledge and technical expertise in the last few months is already having direct and far-reaching political consequences, within and among states.
The role of science in a crisis: Talks by political leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic
Plos ONE, 2023
During the COVID-19 pandemic, science has been prominently featured in institutional communication and political agendas as never before. Governments substantially relied on scientific experts to analyze pandemic trends, develop anti-COVID-19 vaccines and adopt containment strategies. In this paper, we analyze speeches by three political leaders–Boris Johnson (Prime Minister, UK), Sergio Mattarella (President of the Republic, Italy), and Ursula von der Leyen (President, European Commission)–between February 20, 2020, and February 20, 2022, to identify how science was addressed and framed. The results of the quantitative and qualitative exploration of the speeches highlight three main ways in which political leaders view science: a national pride narrative–i.e., science as an instrument and indicator of national pride and international standing of the country; an ethical narrative–i.e., science as an agent of social growth; an integration narrative–i.e., science as a driving force of both European integration and stronger collaboration between knowledge production and industry. The predominant narrative varies in relation to the political leaders’ different institutional contexts and roles.
Health Economics, Policy and Law
This comparison of institutions of science advice during COVID-19 between the Westminster systems of England/UK and Ontario/Canada focuses on the role of science in informing public policy in two central components of the response to the pandemic: the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the procuring of vaccines. It compares and contrasts established and purpose-built bodies with varying degrees of independence from the political executive, and shows how each attempted to manage the tensions between scientific and governmental logics of accountability as they negotiated the boundary between science and policy. It uses the comparison to suggest potential lessons about the relative merits and drawbacks of different institutional arrangements for science advice to governments in an emergency.