Reflecting on Five Years of Science Leadership and Change

As Sir Peter Gluckman hands over the ISC presidency to Robbert Dijkgraaf, he reflects on five years of building the Council’s voice and what science must face next.

Five years at the helm

When you took office in 2021, what did you expect the job to be like and how did it compare to what it turned out to be?

The first three years after the merger were dedicated to consolidation and dealing with Covid, so my main task was to lead discussions about our mission, the “global voice” for “science” understood in practice.

And you have no voice if there is no one to listen. ISC was new and relatively unknown, so we had to ask ourselves who we were talking to. The fundamental answer is that ISC is there to do what its individual members cannot do. Only ISC has the legitimacy and convening power to do this on a global level.

Looking back, what achievements are you most proud of or what achievements would you most like to reflect on?

The ISC’s standing within the multilateral policy community is now very high. We have built relationships with the UN system and its agencies, as well as with the European Commission and the OECD. I am particularly pleased to have strengthened our relationship with UNESCO. The European Commission is now funding us to lead a dialogue on the principles and values underpinning research cooperation between North and South, East and West. This will probably be the most important activity of the ISC in the next 2-3 years, and Robbert has asked me to stay involved in it.

We have also grown our global footprint, with fantastic work being done in our offices in Colombia and Australia, new presences to be launched in Uzbekistan and Oman, and a rebuilding of our presence in Africa. I am particularly proud to have supported the establishment of the Pacific Academy of Sciences. This connects small nations on the front lines of climate change with the global scientific community.

Within the ISC family, we have made young academies members free of charge, as we must also represent the future of science. Excellent work has been done to clarify and expand the number of members, and we have addressed a number of issues in the Statutes through a major revision. The ISC Fellowship, still ongoing, now reaches around 300 individuals who stand out by projecting the voice of science in society, politics and diplomacy.

I am proud of how we have raised the discussion about trust in science, the relationship between science and society, and the interface of science diplomacy.

How has the presidency changed you or your vision of science and its place in the world?

My thinking has clearly evolved. I now think much more about the fact that science is not yet fully engaged in society. It retains too much of what Robert Merton described in 1942: science standing apart from society. We need to integrate ourselves better into society, which is why I am a passionate advocate of transdisciplinary science and I would like other actors in the scientific system – such as funders – to embrace and support it with the same enthusiasm. I am delighted with the way the ISC has led discussions and reflections on transdisciplinary research and the barriers to it.

An impartial umbrella organization

How has the organization changed during your presidency, in terms of added value to its members, science, and society as a whole?

The fundamental test is whether we do what our members, as individual organizations, cannot do. And I think we do. We speak to the world about the role of science, we promote global cooperation, we engage in diplomacy and politics, and we collaborate with UNESCO on the ethics and norms of science. Every one of our members has a visceral interest in these global issues.

My travels in recent years have repeatedly reminded me that every country, regardless of its size or stage of development, needs to invest in research. Science is not just for the big players or the rich.

Eight years after the merger, what is the situation of the organization and what still needs improvement?

This diversity is both a strength and a weakness. It gives us legitimacy, but it means that we cannot meet every demand with our resources. We only reach scientists through our approximately 250 members, and with approximately 20 staff we need to represent the global community in countries at every stage of development. That is why we have established five flagship areas in our strategic plan.

Most of the issues surrounding the merger are now resolved: constitution, statute, membership categories and, in principle, a unified fee structure. We are also working much more closely with our affiliated bodies.

My biggest regret is how limited our resources have been: we face the same resource challenges as our members and uncertainties in France. And while we generate income through grants and contracts, it is important that these do not distract or distort the organization. We had the ambition, the expertise and the legitimacy to do more, depending on the resources.

In a time of geopolitical rivalry, heightened research security, and increasing politicization of science, where can a non-governmental body like the ISC have real influence, and where are its limits?

The ISC is probably the most globally representative body in the world. Science is the closest thing we have to a universal language, so it has a special role to play in a fractured world. Science diplomacy is something precious that only the ISC can do.

The limits are equally clear. We cannot assume the individual interests of country X or organization Y: we lack the legitimacy and resources, and that would be wrong