Why science matters to the global north? Fundamental human communication as a tool for improving research assessment in the developing world and the role of the institutional foundations
Science is steeped in injustice and exploitation. Scientific insights from marginalized people have been erased, natural-history specimens have been taken without consent and genetics data have been manipulated to back eugenics movements. Many people from ethnic minority groups have little trust in science and don’t feel welcome in academia, an ongoing barrier to diversity that universities claim to pursue.
In an article last year I outlined guidelines for healthy global scientific collaboration, which included avoiding tokenism, build long term collaborations and don’t be extractive. Evol. 5, 1193–1194; 2021). Basic human communication is what it comes down to. First, listen. Really listen. Try to put yourself in our position and have some empathy. I would like to see people from the global north debate in a different language. I want to see researchers take steps to change the structure of funding that keeps the funding power in the hands of people in the global north and makes it hard to build capacity in the global south. There is no time for progress to be very slow.
I think there’s a lot of ‘equity washing’ — if I can invent a term — which really pisses me off. By that, I mean that researchers or institutions don’t change anything when it comes to equity efforts. Colleagues from rich nations will invite me to work on a project and say, “You only have to provide me with access to the field sites” or “You only have to provide me with the species data” ‘Only’. It is unbelievable. Do you know how often I receive dismissive comments joking about cocaine and corruption when I introduce myself as a researcher from Colombia? These are researchers who have probably signed the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which has a main goal of making research assessment more equitable around the globe. More than 22,000 people and institutions in 159 countries have signed, but the majority don’t apply it.
I get funding rejections when the applicants has strong credentials. She has a good publication record. Her output seems less than the standards of the call. I am unable to give resources to my colleagues in the northern part of the world. To compare researchers’ impacts fairly, I think we should change how metrics, such as h-index, are calculated. For example, one could multiply one’s impact score by the percentage difference of gross domestic product spent on science between countries.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03785-3
Building a brand in Colombia: The COVID-19 crisis and the role of biomedical research in international politics, including the case of Brazil and China
It is difficult for colleagues to see those of us who complain as complainers. If you want to collaborate with me here in Colombia to help you build a brand in France or the United Kingdom, forget it. I only accept invitations that allow my group to be on a level playing field and for us to take a leadership role. It’s not easy, and there is a cost, but I find it helpful to set these boundaries.
The percentage change in biomedical research Share in the Nature Index in some leading countries saw distinctly different trends during the first two years of the COVID-19 crisis. A number of nations had a large rise in Share from 2019 to 2020, which could be related to involvement in important early pandemic-related research. Some nations could suffer a percentage fall after a boost as research volumes fell back to pre-pandemic levels. Some nations, however, such as China and Israel, continued to see a rise in Share in 2021 and others, such as India, dropped in 2020 but bounced back the following year.
Harvard University again features among the top academic–corporate biomedical partnerships in the Nature Index by bilateral collaboration score, but the top collaboration involves two Switzerland-based organizations, the University of Basel and international pharmaceutical company Novartis.
Science is being used as leverage in international politics. That must not become a barrier to countries working together on climate change, biodiversity loss, pandemic prevention and other pressing goals.
Although in the summer China temporarily broke off bilateral climate talks with the United States that had been announced at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, UK, at the end of 2021, these talks are now back on, mainly thanks to long-standing relationships between China’s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, and top US officials such as climate envoy John Kerry and physicist John Holdren. Tensions have also been high between China and Canada over the past few years, but policymakers and researchers from the two countries worked constructively at the COP15 biodiversity summit, which was led by China.
But the COVID-19 pandemic continued to provide textbook examples of nations working in their own interests. The governments of a relatively small number of wealthy countries had already bought and hoarded vaccines from pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the United States (Nature 607, 211–212; 2022). Nature was proud to help against an international campaign encouraging the sharing of vaccines, therapies and intellectual property. More lives could have been saved, and more vaccines could have been given, should they have listened to the words of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The invasion of Ukraine, meanwhile, has halted all official research cooperation between Russia and Europe and the United States. This year, Russia held the rotating chair of the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation in the region, but much of the council’s work has been suspended because the seven other member countries have stepped back. At the same time, supporting Ukraine’s research community has become a priority for Europe and the United States, working with campaign groups such as Scholars at Risk and the Council for At-Risk Academics.
The incentives for China to promote its research ended two years ago. It’s in no one’s interests if China’s researchers become more isolated from their international counterparts (Nature 579, 8; 2020). Sadly, this is starting to happen. In 2021, the number of co-authored papers between researchers in the United States and China fell for the first time in 20 years (C. S. Wagner and X. Cai Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00453; 2022). There has been a drop in the number of authors reporting dual US and China affiliations on their research papers, too.
Rivalry between the two countries is also being played out in trade and technology, with the era in which powerful countries encouraged open markets looking to be at a turning point. The United States is restricting sales by US companies (and non-US companies that use US technology) to China of the types of microchip that are used in artificial intelligence and supercomputing. US citizens and residents are no longer allowed to work for Chinese companies. It believes that African countries can become an alternative base for technology cooperation and is interested in encouraging them to do so. China lodged a dispute with the World Trade Organization last week, accusing the US of violating the rules for international trade that both countries have signed up to.
An ongoing Pandemic, war, climate risks and associated economic shocks are what economist Pedro Conceio calls a new uncertainty complex. We will likely see more instances of countries raising trade barriers, protecting their economies, and using science and technology to help foreign-policy objectives.
That said, governments must accept that they have responsibilities to ensure the integrity of international cooperation in science-based policymaking. The presidency of the next climate summit will be taken over by the United Arab Dhabi, who will take charge in the future of climate change.