Academic freedom is a prerequisite for scientific advancement and innovation. It serves as the cornerstone of scientific inquiry, granting scholars the unfettered ability to explore, teach, and disseminate ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. More recently, academic freedom has faced mounting political, economic, and social pressures, bringing it back into the global spotlight. Safeguarding this freedom is essential for the continued pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of society. 

Participating last month at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, I had the pleasure of moderating  a discussion with some of the leading voices in climate science and innovation on a subject that couldn’t be more relevant given the setting and the stakes.

The topic of discussion was the underutilization of scientific knowledge in processes geared toward policy consensus and climate action. The question on the floor was: “[If] we possess so much scientific knowledge about the causes for the climate multi-crisis and about the solutions, why then does science not play a bigger role in breaking what seems like an endless cycle of deadlocked discussions?”

As the recent repeated climate-related tragedies in several countries (…) demonstrate, we are now observing what was predicted many years ago on the basis of scientific models. As William Ripple and colleagues have stressed, (…)  “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperilled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis. (…) Despite six IPCC reports, 28 COP meetings, hundreds of other reports, and tens of thousands of scientific papers, the world has made only very minor headway on climate change, in part because of stiff resistance from those benefiting financially from the current fossil-fuel based system” (1). Others have introduced the term of “polycrisis” to describe the occurrence and interaction of multiple threats to the planet (2). Though the effects of climate change are now easily visible, we may be underestimating other key aspects of the polycrisis. Primary prevention has failed for climate change so far, and might fail also for other components of the planetary boundaries. Here I will particularly focus on the impacts of biodiversity loss on health.  

We now live in a world that is struggling to evolve, especially with nations repeating the mistakes of the 20th century that led to two world wars, fomented by nationalism with industrial capacities and advanced technologies.  The complication with planetary-scale considerations on Earth – epitomized by climate and 8 billion humans –  is nations will always first and foremost look after their national interests, which is the biggest risk for the survival of humankind.

We live in a time of significant global challenges. The term polycrisis has emerged as we face wide-reaching and impactful issues such as the climate, war and conflict, and health.  To address these challenges, we will need political will, global collaboration, inter- multi- and transdisciplinary approaches, systems thinking and scientific breakthroughs at scale.  Science and scientists have an important role to play as societies tackle these challenges and lay foundations for actions that will direct the course of the future.   It is possible to argue that science that engages effectively with society will depend on the sharing, uptake and accessibility of scientific knowledge and insight, but also on the way that science is designed and co-designed in ways that reflect excellence and the aspirations and expectations of societies. 

In what may be termed a Post-Covid Ongoing Stress Era (POSE), the appeal to reason and scientific knowledge, as we’ve understood these, seems all but cancelled.   

Today's fast-changing society is faced with a variety of complex large-scale societal challenges. Simultaneously, people are losing trust in both science and those studying and researching these challenges. Still, we need those scientists from all fields and backgrounds more than ever to work in inter- and multidisciplinary ways, solving these challenges and having their insights assist politicians and decision-makers. It is apparent that the scientific community has to foster trust in science. But how do we ensure that efforts to build trust in science are sustainable and that trust in science remains integrated in the community for the next decades to come? More than ever we need to engage across the generations and particularly the younger generations. 

In the 21st Century, as humanity and the Earth face crises of survival and sustainability, we must fundamentally rethink the values that science and technology aspire to, their social roles and methods, and the norms of scientists. This rethinking will likely lead to significant changes in the 200-year history of modern science, which has been institutionalized since the early 19th Century. 

“Making sense” of a particular domain at the level of an individual or a group of individuals is an act that results from a dynamic interaction between related stakeholders, influenced by their socio-economic and political environment. As such, there is room for subjective judgement and differing interpretations, as well as the potential for change over time. 

Making sense of science today requires not only a grasp of fundamental principles but also the ability to critically navigate uncertainty and complexity. Today’s challenges introduces significant diversity across key dimensions of human existence, including history, culture, politics, societies and economics. Furthermore, there is considerable diversity among scientific sub-communities regarding how we know what we know and how to design actionable solutions. The social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and medical fields are acculturated into science in widely varying ways, often complicating communication and collaboration. Yet, most challenges we face inherently require collaboration. 

In many developing countries, the role of science in policy-making and public life is often argued, undervalued, or sidelined in favour of more immediate, pragmatic approaches. Faced with urgent challenges such as poverty, health crises, food security, and geopolitical issues, governments and communities frequently rely on diverse knowledge systems and prioritise solutions that offer quick, tangible benefits. In these contexts, science is just one of many sources of knowledge, and it is often not the most trusted or influential in shaping policy decisions. As a result, the conventional approaches to promoting trust in science and science’s societal impact need to be rethought from a perspective that acknowledges local realities and values. 

In the hyperbole about artificial intelligence, there have been claims about how AI, in the guise of large language models, can plausibly, confidently and succinctly summarise complex science, accompanied by warnings about its propensity for bias, factual inaccuracies and, most notoriously, to ‘hallucinate’ fake references. As was the case with the internet, this fabulous tool has to be used wisely if we are to get the most benefit. 

But there is a deeper problem with gazing at the world through an AI lens since, if anything, it can obscure the process of science.  

Modern society is one of fragmented logics. Business, finance, government, academia, all apply different logics in their operations. All of them make sense within their limited bubbles, all together create the conditions for self-extinction.  

Science is perceived by many as the activity allowing us to make sense of the rest, by unveiling the mysteries of how nature works and enabling human inventions changing, supposedly for good, our relationship to other humans, to nature, and to time. But science itself is a bubble operating with a partial logic. I am talking here of what makes scientists do what they do, investigate certain topics (and not others), and take decisions for their professional careers. Hyper-specialisation has become a useful tool to keep the dynamic of publication-grant-publication running, and that is what defines a good scientific career. Are we sure this logic is enough to serve societal purposes in the 21st century?  

In recent years, UNESCO has played a leadership role in promoting open science. The 2021 Declaration on Global Open Access to scientific publications is a prime example of this commitment. UNESCO has championed the notion of immediate and cost-free access to scientific literature, often referred to as the ‘Diamond model’, where neither the authors nor the readers bear any costs. The Diamond model is one among many with other examples of open access being developed in various parts of the world. Several nations and organizations have adopted open access policies using a diversity of models. Quebec’s Research Fund (FRQ) signed the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and actively supports Coalition S, advocating for free access to scientific publications in all languages independent of the open access model. While these efforts are laudable, they remain insufficient. We must move to the next phase: measuring compliance and understanding the impact of open access initiatives. Open access is still not secured and policy support to all and any open access model still needs to be implemented by many governments, funders, and institutions that still allow the use of public funds to pay for closed and paywalled science.

In June, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Frontiers unveiled the awaited Top 10 Emerging Technologies of 2024 report. Now in its 12th year, the report continues to spotlight groundbreaking technologies that are poised to influence society and address critical global challenges. This year's report is the culmination of extensive research and collaboration among leading experts and innovators, broadening the scope and deepening the analysis of the findings. It showcases technologies that are not only innovative but also have the potential to drive sustainable development and economic growth within the next three to five years. From revolutionizing connectivity to pioneering new applications of artificial intelligence (AI), the 2024 report offers a comprehensive overview of the technologies set to shape our future. 

The European Parliament, through its standing committee Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA), commissioned a study on monitoring academic freedom. The study “The state of play of academic freedom in the EU member states” has been led by Peter Maassen, a participant in this Frontiers’ webinar. This follows numerous European and global organizations and networks raising concerns, calling for action, and protection against threats to academic freedom (The European University Alliance (EUA), the League of European Research University (LERU), Scholars at Risk, etc.). Several recent ad hoc events and panels on the subject have also shown the importance and urgency in addressing the matter. Yet, there is still a lack of a permanent forum for factual and constructive dialogue among scholars, academic leaders, civil society groups, and policy makers.  

The human rights case can be made for Open Science – this has been made clear by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 25 on science and economic, social, and cultural rights. In this this much-awaited interpretation of the so-called right to science under Art. 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Committee made clear that Open Science forms part of the right to science in the digital era. Released during the Covid-19 pandemic, the timing could not have been better, for the pandemic not only illustrated in unprecedented ways the importance of science in today’s world, but also the advantages of open research practices in speeding up scientific discovery. Yet, does this legal development mean that access to scientific data and content can now be enforced before courts via the right to science? A closer look reveals that important hurdles in claiming Open Science via the right to science remain. In this short contribution, our aim is to highlight some selected challenges of implementing and adjudicating open research practices via the right to science.