International Scientific Collaboration: Trust Building and Problem Solving

Published on January 14th, 2026

Historically, international scientific collaboration has been a bright spot amidst geopolitical tensions (e.g., Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the International Space Station, and the Arctic Council). Emerging technologies call out for such collaboration from both the supply side where collaboration provides an opportunity for trust-building among geopolitical rivals, the Global North and South, and scientists and society – and the demand side – where extensive and sustained research will be required to assess the benefits and risks of such technologies.

In what follows, I focus on the trust-building and problem-solving potential of international scientific collaboration by exploring the example of the emerging technology, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Given that climate change is a global problem and SAI will have global effects, I argue that international scientific collaboration on SAI is ethical, just, and strategic.  After defining “trust” in this context, I turn to the Antarctic Treaty, which I argue can serve as a model for international scientific collaboration regarding SAI.

Trust is a foundational element in the realm of international politics, facilitating cooperation and stability among countries within a complex and competitive global landscape. In this context, trust is not born from altruism but from a shared recognition that cooperation aligns with self-interested goals. Countries engage in collaborative ventures because they perceive benefits that enhance their own standing, security, or prosperity. This type of trust is strategic, involving a calculated belief that others also have compelling reasons to cooperate. International agreements provide frameworks within which countries can engage in mutually beneficial interactions, often referred to as win-win situations, and help ensure these outcomes are durable. Agreements offer the structure and predictability necessary for countries to navigate power dynamics and changing geopolitical landscapes. They allow for flexibility, enabling stakeholders to adapt agreements as new information (including scientific information) arises or circumstances change without undermining the underlying cooperative intent. In this way, international agreements build trust.  Similarly, trust is essential in the realm of science, particularly in the context of challenge-based research. Here, trust manifests in two distinct but interrelated forms: trust in scientific results and trust in scientists involved in public policy. The former involves confidence in the methods and rigor of scientific inquiry, while the latter can blur the lines between science and politics. Today, both realms require trust-building, and international scientific collaboration can help supply it.

The Antarctic Treaty is a pioneering example of the potential of scientific cooperation to overcome geopolitical obstacles. The treaty was conceived at a time marked by Cold War superpower rivalry as well as overlapping and disputed territorial claims. The 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (IGY) laid the groundwork for the treaty, showcasing the benefits of scientific cooperation on an international stage. Sixty scientific bases were established on the continent with territorial claimants hosting bases in their claimed sectors, while the United States and the Soviet Union operated across the continent.  Critically, there was an informal understanding among the participants that scientific endeavors would not serve as a basis for territorial claims. The IGY was such a success that in 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C. by the twelve participating states. International scientific cooperation is prominently featured in the preamble as well as in Articles II and III. From their very first meeting, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties made clear the fundamental role scientific research would play in the governance of what has since become the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This focus on open, collaborative scientific research transformed Antarctica into a zone of peace and cooperation, leading to important discoveries like the ozone hole and the recovery of data on historical climate patterns. Critical to this mission is the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), an interdisciplinary body established in 1958 under the International Science Council. SCAR initiates, develops, and coordinates high-quality international scientific research and provides objective and independent scientific guidance to the treaty parties.

SAI research represents a new frontier akin to the Antarctic Treaty in its ability to foster international scientific collaboration. In 1959, treaty parties had the foresight to forego the use of the continent for military purposes, disposal of nuclear waste, and effectively mineral exploitation. In that sense, SAI is an easier case given it cannot be weaponized and the positive spillovers from R&D are unlikely to pose sovereignty costs. But because some believe SAI research will inevitably lead to deployment, SAI poses a harder case given deployment would have global implications and no country could be excluded. Hence one important task for the international scientific community is to formally articulate that research is distinct from implementation and does not necessarily indicate support for it.  Establishing exit strategies and identifying failure points can go a long way to reassuring the global public.  More challenging is the current lack of government involvement. Tackling climate change is a public good, but non-state actors with various agendas dominate the conversation, with many advocating against any public funding for SAI research. Thus, a necessary first step is an agreement among governments to support transparent research, guided by established governance principles.

Which brings us to the topic of the trust gap between the Global North and South and science and society.  Scientific collaboration must integrate voices from the Global South and engage a diverse set of researchers. This demographic diversity allows scientists to forge inroads with skeptical communities. Moreover, consensus among a diverse set of researchers enhances confidence in the robustness of scientific results. With around twenty climate modeling groups, GeoMIP stands as a model of how scientific collaboration can transcend national borders to address planet-wide concerns like climate change. GeoMIP not only facilitates the sharing of insights; it also builds capacity in the Global South by empowering local scientists and engineers, underscoring the critical role of inclusive collaboration in addressing global challenges. In fact, evidence from sociology and public choice theory indicates that extensive and cooperative research fosters prosocial norms and minimizes bias compared to a scenario where research is limited to a few influential players. As Táíwò and Talati state:  “…it is presumptuous and self-contradictory to categorically declare that either inclusive research or governance of [SAI] is impossible, and doubly so to have declared this unilaterally, without the input of the vulnerable communities who are supposedly served by this genre of argument.” As Morgan states, “creating opportunities for scientists and our communities to be courageous in asking the big questions, the difficult questions, the different questions” is essential for creating knowledge critical to the contract between science and society.

Just as important, these results must be communicated in ways that resonate across cultures and regions, thus highlighting the importance of using trusted local leaders as vehicles. Citing Giddens regarding the “faceless commitments” to abstract systems of experts key to the functioning of modern societies, Mills and St. Clair reiterate the importance of interactions between experts and nonexperts, as in a patient seeing their local doctor. This process builds trust between abstract systems and individuals, especially for the segment of the public not directly engaged with expert institutions.

Finally, we must address issues of trust in scientists involved in public policy. Circling back to the Antarctic case, in a compelling evidence-based analysis that examines SCAR’s decision-making structure, funding, and output, Chown et al. (2024) demonstrate that SCAR has always prioritized science over politics and serves as a key knowledge intermediary, providing unbiased and scientifically backed advice essential for the development and implementation of ATS agreements. SCAR should be emulated with respect to SAI, but a worrisome trend is emerging: At the 6th United Nations Environment Assembly, most countries leaned towards using multilateral political forums rather than technical, science-based ones for SAI discussions. Putting energy into some of the trust building measures outlined here could help reverse this trend and help rebuild trust between science and society.

The challenges posed by climate change could serve as a catalyst for renewed international collaboration, especially as the attainment of the Paris Agreement goals becomes increasingly unlikely. The BIG challenge we are facing could provide the BIG solution to the “trust” problem that motivated our AAAS panel.

Copyright: © 2025 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. 

Please join the conversation and share your perspective.