Are scientific institutions failing us?

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 this week. Three scientist activists - Dr Charlie Gardner, Prof Jeff Waage and myself - were invited to share 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 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 share some reflections here now. 

The harmful narratives

Within the walls of this 365 year old institution, with all its grandeur and prestige, it was no surprise to be met with some hostility having challenged the ‘established’ way of being a scientist through our activism. Whilst we acknowledged the value of the ‘traditional’ routes for scientists to engage with politicians and the wider public, we know that on their own they’ve been insufficient to drive the kind of change necessary to prevent the existential danger every person and every species now faces. So the question is what do we do now? How does the scientific community’s approach need to evolve and expand to inform and energise a society-wide Emergency response at a time this is so desperately needed?

I remember how deeply uncomfortable it felt years ago grappling not just with how serious a predicament humanity is in, but also with how profoundly that changed how I felt about my own achievements, priorities and ambitions especially in relation to a scientific career that formed such a strong part of my identity. So I can empathise with a broad spectrum of defensive reactions. But however charitable I try to be, the tone of some of what was levelled against scientist activism and environmental action more broadly at this event has added to my frustration and disillusionment with our institutions. 

I had expected plenty of critique about the role and perception of scientists as activists, but I was less prepared (and more alarmed) to notice the prevalence of recognisable ‘discourses of delay’: narratives leveraged - knowingly or unwittingly - as reasons not to act robustly to stave off climate, ecological and consequent societal collapse. These included:

❌ Deflecting responsibility.

We heard politics and voting framed as the most (or potentially only) effective way to bring about change, with sweeping assertions made about the actions and priorities of the wider public e.g. that they “vote against the interests of younger people” and more generally that climate action is unpopular and thus unachievable. Even if this were true (which it isn’t*), perceived apathy and lack of care by others is no justification for replicating this ourselves, especially as scientists who are in a prime, privileged and trusted position to recognise the severity of the issues, communicate them effectively, and act constructively, bravely and creatively in response.

❌ Casting doubt on the urgent need for transformative action.

At points I really wondered whether some of the senior figures who spoke had anything close to a broad and up-to-date knowledge of the science underlying the Emergency. We heard arguments often made in favour of fossil fuel use that made me wonder whether their proponents even knew how far beyond safe limits we already are, let alone what it means for our near-term survival that heating and its impacts have accelerated and will continue to do so especially now tipping points have been crossed. Our arguments as to why we view it as is proportionate and effective for scientists to take bolder, more vigorous action were dismissed quite casually; the vibe I felt emanating from the more vocal members of the scientific establishment was dispassionate and complacent, entirely misaligned with the enormity of the danger.

❌ Emphasising potential costs of action disproportionately in the context of the hugely higher cost of continued delay.

Incredibly “intergenerational equity” was seemingly used as a reason not to pour resources into rapid decarbonisation, positioning action taken to protect future generations as incompatible with meeting the needs of people alive today. Were it not the case that a rapid worldwide transition to renewables is now considered feasible and highly cost effective, or were it not the case that energy efficiency, pollution reduction and nature restoration come with substantial health and wellbeing benefits, this still wouldn’t be a defensible position when millions are already experiencing the devastating, avoidable impacts of a lack of Emergency mitigation and adaptation.**

❌ Defeatism dressed up as realism.

Encapsulating this were the very final words from the panel: “I’m afraid Thomas Mathus was probably right”. What a choice that is from a respected figure of authority in science, to end by referencing 18th century predictions of mass starvation caused by population growth… rather than to end with a call to action that scientists try everything we [responsibly] can to intervene in today’s unfolding climate and ecological catastrophes.



A figure from my infographics deck, based on the typography established by Lamb et al. mapping the most common narratives used to delay climate action. 



As anticipated there were also plenty of criticisms of activism and activists e.g. that disruptive action is counterproductive, that by taking action using our scientist identities that we’re implying we are somehow superior etc etc, which I at least felt we were able to push back on at the time***. But in doing so we didn’t have the opportunity to give the wealth of constructive contributions and questions from the rest of the audience the airtime they deserved.

The constructive questions

Some of the questions raised that I would have loved there to have been more discussion of in that forum related to themes like:

How to address structural barriers to scientists participating in activism

This would have been a great opportunity to talk about the various issues affecting the science and education sector and how they might be overcome in ways that enable climate and social action as well as benefitting research and scientists themselves, drawing on the ideas such as the academic doughnut and work around how universities etc can facilitate advocacy and activism.

How mounting attacks on, and declining trust in, science can be countered

The societal and political drivers of this are complex and something scientists are often quite naive to, but they are crucial for scientists to grapple with and confront. Emerging insights from scientists who have had to deal with such attacks for a long time (e.g. climate researchers, vaccine advocates etc) feel especially valuable to learn from here. 

How scientists can interface more effectively with the media and the public

News content around the Emergency has long been problematic, and as the crisis gets more severe, coverage appears to be declining in both volume and quality. Meanwhile climate misinformation on social media is surging. Debunking myths is an important skill but ‘innoculation’ against disinformation is perhaps an even more important work that scientists can be involved in too. I wrote about what I think makes effective Emergency science communication recently here, but ultimately actions speak louder than words, which is a huge part of our case that scientists be bolder and more visible as activists. 

The role of leadership and role modelling from scientists and their institutions

This could have been an opportunity for rich discussion on how research institutes can transform to rise to the challenges of our times, and to talk about the behaviour change research on leading by example, (e.g. in low carbon behaviours). 

Photographs from the during the event (left) and afterwards with some of my favourite 'responsible science activists' (right). 



Personal Reflections

Across the breadth of the scientific community we do have common ground: we recognise climate and ecological breakdown as serious threats and that current action is insufficient. What constitutes appropriate and responsible, productive actions is nuanced and was always going to generate some disagreement…. but I was much less troubled by this than I was by what felt like a palpable lack of collective urgency and commitment to transformative action. Most concerning to me was where harmful -  not to mention inaccurate, misleading and/or and unevidenced - delay narratives were coming from: the proponents of these ideas were scientists currently or previously in leadership roles within academic institutions, learned societies and/or policymaking. And they were some of the loudest, most confident and most influential voices in the room. 

I’m left questioning more deeply than ever the role of our institutions and those chosen to lead them. Most have undeniably positive intentions - my former workplace aspired to be a “University for Public Good” whilst the Royal Society positions itself as proponent of science “for the benefit of humanity”. They could be playing a key role in informing and enabling necessary, systemic changes… but as a result of embedded resistance to adapting and evolving as the world around us profoundly changes, how many are doing more harm than good? 

At the end of National Emergency Briefing in November, 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.  If we want our scientific institutions’ aspirations to translate into impact, I think we should be bringing this ultimatum to their leaders too. We can’t yet rely on our institutions - nor can we can’t afford to wait for them - to change by themselves. To unlock their potential we have to apply pressure strategically, working in collaboration with the allies we find both within and on the outside of them. And as we do this, there are so many opportunities to contribute our skills as scientists in every movement and every community that needs them.  

* Polls and studies repeatedly show that concern remains high about environmental issues, that the vast majority of the UK want stronger climate action, and that willingness to take various forms of action is widely underestimated

** To list but a few examples ”climate-related disasters forcibly displaced 250 million people globally over the past decade”, “hundreds of millions of people are unable to safely go about their daily lives at the hottest times of the year”, “costs of heatwaves, droughts, and floods across the EU in summer 2025 reached €43 billion and could climb to €126 billion by 2029”, “climate change-induced food price shocks are on the rise leading to malnutrition, political upheaval and social unrest” … with the severity and range of all such impacts escalating all the time. 

*** See Charlie’s opening address for a snapshot of the evidence for the power of social movements and disruptive protest, as well as research on the ‘radical flank’ effect. In the recording Jeff and I both respond to why we choose to identify ourselves as scientists in the course of our activism (and it's not that we think we are superior!)