Science diplomacy is not new, even though it has recently seen a significant surge of interest. For many years, governments and individuals have realized, and acted on, the value of science in furthering relation­ships, although these actions have often not been identified as science diplomacy

.

Science diplomacy is a term now used to describe a variety of activi­ties and often implies different things to different people; discussants suggested that this lack of clarity can sometimes be a disadvantage. Most workshop participants acknowledged that while science diplomacy is closely related to the topic of global science cooperation, addressed in the first part of the workshop and of this report, the two terms are not identical and should not be used interchangeably. They stressed the importance of clarity and transparency with regard to the motivations for various activities that have been described by the term science diplo­macy, and simultaneously acknowledged the difficulties in arriving at a single definition of the term and in defining boundaries that should be drawn between science cooperation and science diplomacy.

 

 

Lama Yourself of Syria pointed out that according to Webster’s Dictionary, diplomacy is defined as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations” and also as “a skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility.” Those two are quite different definitions with different implications. Since a primary meaning of diplomacy is as an instrument of governments, some understand science diplomacy as a way to pursue a national agenda, or otherwise stated, a component of “soft power.” Yourself noted that one of the international science com­munity’s main objectives, trust building, is not compatible with the idea of soft power. According to her, even though science diplomacy

Clarity and transparency are important. The kinds of things many of us are doing can help in improving people’s lives. But it is not always clear that it is a good idea to label it “diplomacy.”

John Boright, Executive Director, Inter­national Affairs, U.S. NAS promises to rise above conflict, the term raises serious ideological questions and practical challenges. Such challenges are apparent in the Middle East, where U.S. policies evoke doubts about true intentions. John Boright, executive director for international affairs for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), cautioned against implying that potentially divisive national agendas are being pursued when using the term “science diplomacy,” in cases where the motivation is simply advancing science, addressing common problems, and building personal relationships. Scientific cooperation and exchanges between the United States and Iran were cited as an example of cases in which the label science diplomacy could affect scientific counterparts negatively.

原件下载：