Igniting climate action through transformational open science: Key takeaways from COP28 (Part 2)

This year’s COP28 was a pivotal moment for the world to unite around tangible climate action and deliver realistic solutions.  

Frontiers and the Frontiers Research Foundation organized several complementary panel sessions around open science and pathways towards innovative, sustainable solutions and actions featuring prominent experts and decision makers from policy, academia, and industry. The first set of sessions discussed the role of open science and radical collaboration in addressing the climate emergency. A second set of panels at COP28 continued with this theme and introduced transformation as a corresponding theme. The first of these panels, Open Science for Inclusive and Transformative Climate and Sustainability Innovation, explored the advantages of open science as an accelerator of inclusive and sustainable climate innovation. It also corresponded with the official launch of the Open Science Charter to support mandatory open access to all publicly funded scientific knowledge by 2030. Henry Markram, Co-founder of Frontiers and professor of neuroscience at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), moderated the panel. 

The second session, Pathways to a Sustainable Earth: Unlocking Solutions through Transformational Science, examined the key obstacles and challenges that must be addressed to fully harness the potential of transformational science as the basis for policy discourse. The panel was moderated by Wendy Broadgate, Global Hub Director of Future Earth. 

Below, we offer a summary of the expertise showcased during the two sessions. This includes a look at the importance of making scientific results openly available and the role of different stakeholders to bridge the gaps that exist in translating science into action. 

Open Science for Inclusive and Transformative Climate and Sustainability Innovation 

“We need to ignite the collaboration so that this becomes a collective brain that starts working at a top speed.”  

Open science is needed for both generating new science and applying existing science. Henry Markram emphasized the significant untapped potential that open science contains for why it should be at top of our agenda. By making our collective knowledge fully accessible, researchers can build upon the latest discoveries faster and society will benefit from the continual innovation cycle that draws from this information and deploys it worldwide. It is also a way to accelerate progress across all fields and sectors, a particularly important factor in the face of the climate crisis. Blocking the flow of data and information and locking science behind paywalls only harms us. Instead, we need to ignite the scientific machinery with fully open science. 

To unlock the power of open science, Markram announced the official launch of the Open Science Charter, an initiative by the Frontiers Research Foundation, which urges governments, research institutions, and funders, as well as industry leaders and citizens of the world to commit and act in four main areas:  

1. Unrestricted access to scientific knowledge by 2030: Commit to transitioning all published research articles from subscription to fully open-access models before the end of this decade.  

2. Uphold peer-review quality: Preserve and champion the core values of scientific publishing, including registration, validation, certification, and perpetual conservation of scientific findings.  

3. Transparent pricing linked to quality: Adopt transparent financial models that directly correlate the price of publication with the quality of services offered.  

4. Strengthen trust in science: Make the knowledge available to the public who helped pay for it and who will benefit from its accessibility.  

“Now the time has come to use the power of the United Nations, use the recommendations of UNESCO to open the science and make the science help us solve all the problems.”  

The world’s decision-making system is not capitalizing on science as much as it could or should, for various reasons, be it a lack of priority, guidance, resources, or access. There is quality science being carried out around the world, offering insights and solutions to some of our biggest challenges, including climate change. However, there is a disconnect between what is being produced and what is being used. Vladimir Ryabinin referred to humans’ tendency to go to the edge and how society has reached the edge of a cliff in terms of climate change. We need transformative climate action more than ever to be able to step back from that cliff and save the planet. Ryabinin remains hopeful, sharing how language and topics of inclusion have evolved in a positive direction since the signing of the Paris Agreement. Now, we need more progress in this direction. Decision makers can help by coming together in support of open science to resolve the access issue, which will be the first step in overcoming the other concerns to make sure science is being used to its fullest potential.  

“Firstly, look at non-Western science and traditional knowledge, especially when speaking about Earth sciences. Secondly, look at the political economy of science to see how it's funded, legitimized, and the issue of power and the relationship of justice, equality, and democratizing of science. Thirdly, look at the pedagogy of science and how to make sure diplomats, policymakers, and decisionmakers are more aware of the science. We need to do some science literacy to these stakeholders.” 

Science is not given enough priority to influence the change we need to keep the earth systems within the safe planetary boundaries. Maria Espinosa identified several areas in which to improve. The first is to redefine science. This means moving towards more interdisciplinary science that reflects the interconnectedness of the different earth systems and moving away from the more conventional Western approach of siloed research. It also means acknowledging traditional knowledge and its valuable contributions to our collective knowledge. The second way is to address the politics and economics of science funding and how science often becomes a commodity, where success is tied to the number of patents secured and intellectual property rights. Democratizing science requires addressing access to knowledge and including knowledge and science from the Global South, where equally as cutting-edge science is happening, as well as empowering marginalized groups, like women in STEM. The third area for improvement Espinosa shared was one made more evident during COP28: the gap between science policy, diplomacy, and politics. She observed how scientists and science itself were underrepresented in negotiations and how more science literacy can help increase awareness and understanding of what the latest research says to better guide the decisions and policies being made. 

“The challenges we have are in the deployment and the focus on the solutions to solve the problem, rather than an increasingly detailed and scary depiction of all the impacts of climate change.” 

There are two sides of the open science discussion according to Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum. The one is an optimistic view of all the possibilities that come from making the latest scientific discoveries freely available to the public. The other is more discouraging, particularly when witnessing the disconnect between science and its application. Campbell-Lendrum pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of this dichotomy, where the world got an ‘A’ in science for quickly developing a vaccine, but an ‘F’ in ethics for not being able to deploy the interventions ethically worldwide. The demand for new and ongoing scientific research is constant, but simply having the right solutions will not solve the climate crisis. Science is the ultimate reference, and it must be translated into actionable steps and followed through on in an ethical manner. What’s needed to achieve this is governance systems that direct the world to solving the problems and dealing the political, economic, and communication barriers to do so. This way we can embrace the optimistic view and fully unlock the power of open science.  

“AI is really changing how science works in the economic and policy angles. I would say increasingly anyone who is staying out of the open science game is going to have a competitive disadvantage. To not collaborate scientifically is going to mean you are losing out on the best technologies and the best resources and that will be an increasingly dangerous thing to do. So, something worth thinking about is the benefits to yourself of being part of the open science game.”  

The private sector has been simultaneously celebrated and criticized for its response, or lack thereof, to the climate crisis. Its ability to move quickly is widely recognized as a unique benefit, yet many believe businesses are not doing enough to combat climate change. Gavin McCormick clarified that a lot of companies are interested in going green, provided it can be done quickly and affordably. He added that there is a great deal of understanding within the private sector of the importance of open science and of what it means to have new science pointing to faster, cheaper, better ways to reduce emissions. As more data is shared, it is possible to see what opportunities already exist and can be adopted right now, making it easier to achieve net zero goals. To promote and accelerate this cycle, all science and data should be made openly accessible. McCormick went a step further to warn that not participating in open science would prove detrimental to any business or entity, as this is the way forward for both the economy and the climate. 

“We need to apply the same open science and open data culture to climate change mitigation that we have applied very successfully to weather prediction. We are not quite there yet, and this is one of the things that I would like to see happen at this COP. It's not just about making the science open though, it's also about opening up, making the COP parties receptive to it, so there are things that need to change on both sides of the equation.”  

Open science and open data are vitally important in many fields. To demonstrate the significance of knowledge sharing in meteorology, Lars Peter Riishøjgaard explained how experimentation in the field is not replicable as the atmosphere never repeats itself. This makes each data point unique, providing valuable information that would otherwise be lost and limiting researchers’ knowledge and understanding of important weather-related events and patterns that affect our daily lives. This is why meteorology has a long tradition of openly sharing climate and weather data. Acquiring this data allows meteorologists to draw and verify conclusions, whether it be predicting the next week’s weather or examining 30 years’ worth of climate data to understand how much the climate has changed to then project how much it will change in the future. While not all fields experience the same limited replicability, applying this culture of openness around science and data to climate change mitigation can better prepare society for the enormous potential impacts of climate change. Riishøjgaard added that open science and open data are just one side of the equation. Society, and decisionmakers in particular, need to open themselves up to receiving this information and using it to inform their decisions so that they are based on the best available science. Without both parts, we cannot tackle climate change. 

Pathways to a Sustainable Earth: Unlocking Solutions through Transformational Science 

“It's extremely important that we work with this transformational science in a special way. First, it is our responsibility to make it open. It's the open dynamic that is going to allow us to take this work and get it into the research innovation cycle. Secondly, it must participate in policy. We hear all the time the urgency of the climate emergency, it compels us to prepare these insights in a way that's useful in policy. Thirdly, we must restore the public's faith and trust in science. All of these are important elements of the open science dynamic.”  

Transformational science is new science with real potential. It has the capacity to shift paradigms and address the societal challenges that we face. Frederick Fenter reiterated a message shared in the previous panel on just how important it is to get this new science immediately into the collective scientific brain through the open science dynamic. The COVID-19 pandemic was the prototypical example of this with information being quickly and openly shared to save lives, something that publishers played a key role in facilitating by making all relevant articles open access. Fenter pushed for the same sense of urgency to be applied to the climate emergency. Once this information is available, it then needs to be contextualized. Fenter saw an opportunity here for publishers like Frontiers to amplify the latest discoveries by providing policy editorials and incorporating the voices of leading scientists to put the scientific results into perspective, being sure to include summaries for the full demographic, even children, like the Frontiers for Young Minds initiative. This type of communication, in addition to bringing the community together and recognizing scientists for their valuable work through events like the Frontiers Forum and the Frontiers Planet Prize, can foster dialogue and trust in science so that we can solve the climate crisis. 

“We will not transform if it's only about the science. With transformational science, we need transformational policy and transformational innovations, which will bring with them transformational systems governance. Within our scientific frameworks, if transformational science is going to enable us to transform, we have to think about all those elements going alongside. Narrative building and transformational partnerships have to go hand in hand within the transformational sciences. We also have to think of the systems breakdown we have across our over financialized economic system and take into consideration the social elements with inequality and poverty. All of those elements are going to enable us to transform but they have to go together.”  

Our society mirrors the earth’s systems in the sense that both are intimately intertwined with other areas and a change in one area can have effects elsewhere. Just as we have transformational science that examines all these different intersections, we need governance systems that take a holistic approach to transformation. Recent events have shown us what happens when systems work with or against each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw what was possible when working together to adapt our economic, financial, and scientific models to quickly achieve a common goal. In contrast, energy poverty in Europe showed what can happen without this coordination. More progress could have been made in less time had decisions not been made in silos, often disregarding scientific models, social tipping points, and other potential impacts on people. Sandrine Dixson-Declève used this example to point out how today's science is not injected into the decision-making process that is currently taking place, including COP28. This type of disconnect serves as a significant barrier to transformation. We need to break down existing silos, reintroduce science, and join up thinking to achieve this holistic approach. Dixson-Declève acknowledged the complexity of this, but emphasized transformation is possible. Bringing in social sciences to complement the hard sciences will help better address the pain points and overcome many of the barriers she and other panelists mentioned in terms of the translation and implementation of science into policy with respect for the larger picture.  

“It's great to see the body of knowledge that we have accumulated. We need to work on translating that into actionable insights that can be taken up by policymakers. We also need to think about messengers, who take that knowledge and bring it to the policy table. Those messengers must be trusted but are not necessarily scientists or are scientists with a very specific skill in communication. That kind of group and collaboration can pull the science more into the center of the debate on climate change and climate solutions.”  

Science can tell us the necessity of making certain systems changes to address climate challenges. This information is important as we want to be sure the challenging, but positive transitions are what we want to pursue or are what must be done before asking people around the world to undergo these transitions. Joeri Rogelj identified this as one of the underlying motivations for the recent Frontiers in Science article, “The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization,” that he co-authored. We have been concentrating on the net zero emissions goal without much consideration for what comes after. The article evaluated what we know about how the climate will behave once we reach net zero, which presented a strong likelihood of a continued warming after net zero to create a stabilizing, but not yet stable, climate. Knowing this, Rogelj explained how the net zero emissions milestone may be just that, a milestone in our climate journey that we need to reach before we begin to reverse our environmental impact in a sustainable way. This type of new information is what needs to be translated and disseminated to policymakers and other stakeholders so we can continue to adjust our path forward. It is an area that provides a unique opportunity for social and physical scientists to work together. Rogelj recommended developing methods and ways to extract evidence-based, actionable insights from transformational science and identifying expert communicators to deliver these insights in ways that resonate and motivate the target audiences, such as policymakers. 

“The good thing is that we know pretty much almost all of the technical and economic ways to achieve these transitions. Unfortunately, we're much hazier on the social barriers to implementing those changes.”  

In addition to fully electrifying our energy system, the food system alone is enough to drive society beyond the 1.5- or even 2-degree mark, which is why a great food transformation is top of mind for many food system researchers. Paul Behrens laid out the changes necessary to reduce emissions in this area, namely the widespread adoption of plant-based diets, reduction in food waste, and improvements in food production. He continued to explain that knowledge required for us to lead healthier, happier lives on a cleaner, healthier planet already largely exists. The challenge, and what’s needed to make these paradigm shifts a reality, is social change. This is an area that is more difficult to analyze as we don’t have good modeling understandings of leverages for tipping points. We know that committed minorities can shift the majority to new forms, but we don’t know what this might look like when it comes to food or other systems. Additionally, more information is needed about how climate impacts, like extreme weather events and increasing food insecurity, will feedback into society in terms of politics and mitigation and adaptation efforts. While narratives can be shared about what life will be like on the other side of these transition phases, as people navigate the potentially uncomfortable middle, their attitudes and willingness to commit to change may shift, either on the individual level or the larger social and political levels. Behrens concluded that we want to ease the transition phase for people and have already seen that many of the mitigation and adaptation options increase resilience to climatic change and science has been instrumental in identifying these. More collaboration between various scientific disciplines, including the social sciences, and policy can help provide clarity in areas that are lacking and make sure the right messages are being delivered to policymakers and the public. 

“We talk about the climate emergency, but it is not being experienced and treated as an emergency in quite the same way [as COVID].”  

Global warming is already producing dire consequences. Climate events are becoming more frequent and intense, indicating that the situation is escalating faster than anticipated. Global systems, like food and water systems, are under increasing stress and can cause a ripple effect in other areas and in ways we may not be able to foresee. And as a society we have only six years to course correct to hold the 1.5-degree mark, fulfill the Paris Agreement, and avoid the negative effects that come with every additional increment of warming. Scientists have sounded the metaphorical alarm, even changing the language used, referring to the situation as a “climate crisis” or “climate emergency.” Still, Lars Peter Riishøjgaard does not believe our reaction to all this is urgent enough. He compared the response to the climate crisis with that of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw global mitigation measures swiftly implemented, to underline the lack of action when it comes to global warming. He stressed that the climate emergency must be approached as a scientific problem and can only be solved by scientists and policymakers working together on this to apply science-based solutions as the highest priority, something COVID-19 demonstrated as being possible. To address the climate crisis effectively, Riishøjgaard proposed several measures, with the most important one being the adoption of fully open science. Though he recognized that open science may not necessarily be received with open arms by all at first. Other steps include building trust in science, something open science can aid in, and improving the communication of this science. Both of which can be done by including scientists in all levels of discussion and translating findings into clear, consistent messages that do not oversimplify or downplay the issue, while highlighting the key points that can guide policymaking. 

“When we identify these ideas, frameworks, solutions, let's talk more to the scientific community about what we are doing to get some of the latest insight, but possibly also use our work and share it.”  

Climate action is an ongoing process that requires strong, long-lasting collaboration. Clea Kaske-Kuck shared how more structured collaboration can remove barriers and close the gap between innovation and implementation. To do this, it is important to recognize, incentivize, and play to the strengths of each contributor, such as science and business. Science builds knowledge about the world, with transformational earth systems science able to better comprehend the complexity of the planet and its boundaries. It should be used to guide the best ways forward. Businesses are strong, agile innovators, able to rapidly develop and implement new strategies, processes, and solutions. They bring a how-to approach that can accelerate action in line with the latest information provided by the scientific community. Kaske-Kuck referenced the Partnership for Carbon Transparency (PACT), which seeks to accelerate decarbonization, as an example of how businesses can leverage these strengths for the benefit of the planet. The PACT community has developed global frameworks for the methodological and technological basis emissions data exchange, creating more alignment and making the operating space easier to navigate. They’ve also compiled a toolbox of case studies and practical examples of how companies around the world start to take climate action, representative of diverse geographies, industries, and sizes, as well as roadmaps to help businesses prepare for what’s to come based on science. Kaske-Kuck encouraged more widespread development of such resources to drive change and take advantage of the interest there from stakeholders who may not otherwise know where to begin their climate journeys. She also acknowledged that there is potential for even greater collaboration between science and business, as well as other stakeholders like government, to align at all levels and continue to combine their strengths. 

Read more about Frontiers’ and the Frontiers Research Foundations’ participation in COP28 and takeaways from additional panels here.