Context and Rationale
Since the 1990s, the end of the Cold War, the European research for an autonomous strategic role,
the rise of globalization, and hopes for effective multilateralism as a means of conflict resolution led
many to believe that science could transcend geopolitical tensions. Science was seen as an
independent sphere, capable of guiding solutions to global challenges—particularly climate change.
It is in this context that science diplomacy was conceptualized. However, rather than being a novel
idea, science Diplomacy represents a rediscovery of long-standing practices.
Over the past two decades, science diplomacy has been explicitly framed as both a field of practice
and a domain of study, bridging scientific knowledge and diplomatic expertise. Initially, its primary
objective was to foster cooperation and openness. Yet, as science and technology increasingly
become instruments of power in international politics, competition and closure have emerged as
alternative motivations. Science diplomacy now faces a dual role: it is both a tool for addressing
global challenges and a means of navigating power dynamics.
The traditional definition of science diplomacy—promoting cooperation, protecting scientific
potential, and balancing openness with strategic interests—has dominated the discourse. However,
this narrative often overpromises, leaving little room for critical evaluation. Can a historical and
interdisciplinary analysis, informed by practical insights, help mitigate this tendency?
Objective of the Volume
This volume aims to explore the evolution of science diplomacy through a focus on the interplay
between diplomats and scientists as experts/advisors, and stakeholders. Rather than celebrating
successes, we invite contributors to critically examine failures, confusion, and deceptions in science
diplomacy since the 1960s. The goal is not to dismiss science diplomacy as ineffective, but to
reflect on the conditions that shape its outcomes.
In a world marked by geopolitical crises and a resurgence of power politics, what can we learn from
failures—often overlooked in favour of success stories? How can a nuanced understanding of what
did not work inform future practices? By questioning the relativity and relevance of success and
failure, we seek to initiate a necessary process of evaluation.
