Who Practices Science Diplomacy?
Understanding science diplomacy today: Part 2 of a five-part introductory series.
Science diplomacy is often talked about as an abstract idea, but in the real world, it is carried out by specific organizations. These groups all work under different rules, have different levels of power, and face their own unique limits.
There is no single headquarters for science diplomacy. Instead, the field is built through the way scientific experts are included in international groups, government offices, regional organizations, and global networks. These setups determine what science diplomacy can actually achieve and where it is likely to fail.
How these organizations are built and managed explains who is actually doing the work of science diplomacy. It is not enough to just have good intentions or a desire for scientific cooperation; the way these groups are structured is what really matters.
International Organizations as Science Diplomacy Platforms
International groups have long been the main stage for science diplomacy. They provide a stable place for nations to work together, even when their political relationships are tense or unfriendly.
Organizations like UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the International Atomic Energy Agency don’t just use science as a side project; they build their entire work around it. In these groups, science is the foundation. Their research, safety checks, and technical rules often determine what choices leaders can even make.
Their methods differ based on their goals. Some focus on creating global reports and setting new standards, while others organize research networks, manage shared labs, or keep a close watch on sensitive technologies like nuclear power. In every case, the group’s power comes from its scientific reputation, often just as much as its political authority.
However, these organizations rely on trust and teamwork between their member nations. This is becoming harder to maintain as competition and security worries start to interfere with global scientific cooperation.
Government Science Diplomacy in Practice
Nations carry out science diplomacy through various government offices, usually within their foreign ministries, science agencies, and overseas embassies.
Specific roles like science attachés and technical advisers act as the bridge between the world of research and the world of politics. These professionals manage international research agreements, advise leaders on new technologies like AI, and balance the need for open sharing with the demands of national security and economic competition.
How this is organized varies greatly between nations. Some governments have formal, written strategies and large teams dedicated to this work. Others rely on informal networks or the expertise of individual scientists. In every case, government-led science diplomacy is shaped by a nation‘s own goals, local politics, and laws.
Because of this, science diplomacy at the government level is rarely neutral. It is used as a strategic tool, much like any other part of a nation‘s foreign policy, to advance its own interests on the global stage.
Regional and Supranational Approaches
Beyond individual nations, regional groups have increasingly made science diplomacy a key part of their political and economic strategies.
The European Union is one of the clearest examples. Through its massive research funding programs and laws, it builds science directly into its relationships with other nations and its security plans.
In the E.U., scientific teamwork is seen as both a way to help the world and a tool to gain influence. By creating shared standards and research goals, the E.U. coordinates many different nations to speak with one voice on global issues.
These regional approaches show how science diplomacy can be organized on a larger scale than just a single country. However, they also reveal a constant tug-of-war between shared goals and the interests of individual nations.
This is especially true when cooperation involves sensitive technologies, like AI or green energy minerals, where nations may worry about their own safety or economic advantage.
Networks, Consortia and Informal Channels
Not all science diplomacy happens in official government meetings. A huge amount of work is done through informal scientific networks, research groups, and professional associations that don’t have an official political “boss.”
These informal channels are often called track-two dialogues. They involve influential people like university researchers, retired officials, and civil society leaders who talk to each other in a personal capacity.
Because they aren’t representing a government, they can keep communication lines open even when official relationships between nations are broken. These groups are often more flexible and can test out risky new ideas that official diplomats aren’t allowed to discuss yet.
Examples of this “neutral ground” include CERN in Geneva and SESAME in Jordan. At SESAME, researchers from nations that often have deep political conflicts, such as Israel, Palestine, and Iran, work side-by-side on scientific projects.
These long-standing collaborations allow for “backdoor” communication and help build trust where official treaties might fail.
However, these informal networks have a major weakness: they rely on constant funding and a certain level of political tolerance.
During times of high tension, governments may tighten rules on sharing data or cut the grants that keep these networks running. If the people involved lose their funding or their ability to travel, these valuable bridges can crumble very quickly.
Why Institutional Design Matters
A consistent pattern appears across all these different settings: science diplomacy is shaped less by good intentions and more by how organizations are built.
The way an institution is designed, including how it gives out authority, uses expertise, and assigns responsibility, is what truly decides its success.
When scientific advice is built directly into the foundation of how decisions are made, cooperation tends to last much longer.
In these “integrated” systems, science is a core part of the process. However, when science is kept on the sidelines or used only as a symbol, it is easily ignored when political goals change.
This is why science diplomacy is more than just scientists working together. Its real power depends on the “plumbing” of the institutions, or how they manage the relationship between what we know (knowledge) and what we do (power).
Looking Ahead
The wide variety of organizations involved in science diplomacy is both a major strength and a significant weakness. Having so many different groups involved creates many ways for nations to start working together, but it also leads to uneven resources and difficulty in getting everyone on the same page.
In the next part of this series, the focus will move from the organizations themselves to how they actually get things done. We will explore how science diplomacy works when there is no official boss in charge and why informal habits and relationships often carry as much weight as formal treaties or official agreements.
Next: Part 3 — How Science Diplomacy Works Without Formal Power