Reflections on an evening at the Royal Society

“Responsible science activism” was the topic of discussion at a Foundation for Science and Technology event at the Royal Society in London last night. Three scientist activists - Dr Charlie Gardner, Prof Jeff Waage and myself - were invited to the motivations behind our actions, setting out our perspectives on how the scientific community can respond effectively to the escalating Emergency and why it is vital that we do. 


The challenges, comments and questions that followed ranged from constructive, thoughtful, insightful... to troubling and harmful. Constraints of the event's format meant that we couldn’t examine or respond to more than a few there and then, so I’d like to take the opportunity to do so here now. 


***For now I have just listed the main points I’d like to respond to, and will be updating this post when I have some time to address each one***



The harmful narratives*

  • Activism is largely ineffective, and in many cases “seriously counterproductive”.
  • Activism undermines scientists’ credibility as well as public trust in science as a whole.
  • Climate action is unpopular and if it’s not already a ‘vote winner’ then there’s not much else that can be done.
  • Action to protect future generations is at odds with the needs of today's society, especially in relation to ending fossil fuel extraction. 
  • If you want to make change, go into politics...with the implication that other approaches would be neither equally valid nor complementary to this. 


The constructive questions

  • How do we deal with the barriers to institutional change?
  • How should our approaches shift amidst mounting attacks on, and declining trust in, science?
  • What can scientists do to interface with the media more effectively?
  • What would leadership look like from scientists and their institutions?


Personal reflections

What I’m taking away from the discussion…

  • We do have common ground: for the most part scientists recognise that climate and ecological breakdown are serious threats and that current action is insufficient. 
  • But where is the sense of urgency? In the face of such imminent and existential threats, the complacency and/or apathy amongst influential scientists felt palpable, alarming and frankly depressing. The apparent lack of knowledge about the scale of the Emergency and the action needed to respond proportionately amongst prominent, senior figures is deeply concerning as is the lack of emotional connection with the reality we face. 
  • I’m left questioning the role of our institutions more deeply than ever. They could be playing a key role in informing and enabling necessary, systemic changes… but as a result of their resistance to adapting and evolving as the world around us profoundly changes, how many are doing more harm than good?
  • What now? At the end of National Emergency Briefing, Prof Mike Berners-Lee urged senior figures in politics to be truly honest with themselves, and to step aside if they weren’t up to the job of leading with integrity and courage in the knowledge of how much danger we are all in. Bringing this ultimatum to science’s influential people and institutions is one form of activism, and one I’m increasingly convinced is needed to enable the scientific community to fulfil our potential - and arguably our responsibility - to empower Emergency action.


*notably many-if-not-most these types of narratives came from scientists currently or previously in leadership roles within academic institutions, learned societies and/or policymaking.