Part

Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World conference was held in Tucson, Arizona, from February 22 to
24, 2017. Experts on the implications of advances in s cience and technol-
ogy for domestic and international policy decisions from around the world
gathered to share their knowledge and visions for the importance of Sci-
ence Diplomacy in the twenty-first century. The goal of the conference was
to discuss how and why scientific knowledge and policy is critical to deal
effectively with the challenges and opportunities that our planet faces. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the sponsors.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
E. William Colglazier, Honorary Chairman of the Conference

Kevin Lansey, Executive Editor of the Proceedings and Co-Chairman of
the Conference
Hassan Vafai, Executive Editor of the Proceedings and Co-Chairman of
the Conference
Stephanie Zawada, Co-Editor and Senior Rapporteur of the Proceedings
Nico A. Contreras, Co-Editor and Associate Rapporteur of the Proceedings
Sierra Lindsay, Compilation, Formatting, and Copyediting of the Proceedings
Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
DIPLOMACY
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
DIPLOMACY
A focus on the Americas
with Lessons for the World,
Volume I
The Role of Science in Diplomacy
HASSAN A. VAFAI
KEVIN E. LANSEY
Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World, Volume I: The Role of Science in Diplomacy
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2018 by

Momentum Press®, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-346-2 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-347-9 (e-book)
Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.

Chennai, India
First edition: 2018
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Abstract
Science diplomacy and policy can support collaborative national and

international science for advancing knowledge with societal impact in
fields such as climate, space, medicine, and the environment. Scientific
advances made possible by the basic and applied research carried out by
government agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations
create opportunities and challenges with growing impact on policy deci-
sions. Developing structures that produce the best science information to
policy makers is becoming more critical in an ever-changing world.
This three-volume set presented by prominent figures from the disci-
plines of science, engineering, technology, and diplomacy includes their
perspectives on potential solutions to opportunities 21st-century scien-
tists, engineers, and diplomats face in the future:
• To shed light and interface science, technology, and engineering

with the realm of policy
• To provide a vision for the future by identifying obstacles and
opportunities while focusing on several key issues.
KEYWORDS
climate change, cross-cultural communication, global affairs, global

health, science and technology diplomacy, science policy, scientific
collaboration, STEM education, sustainable development
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xvii
Conference Program xxi
PART 1 AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND
SCIENCE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 1
Introductory Remarks 3
Introduction to Thomas Pickering 4
Science as an “Energizer of the World” 5
Introduction to Peter Agre 9
Science Diplomacy: Global Health 10
Introduction to Norman Neureiter 20
Cross Cultural Communication:
Science Diplomacy 21
PART 2 ROLES WITHIN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY 33
Introduction to Roles within Science
Diplomacy 35
Science Diplomacy in the Twenty-First Century:
A Call to Understand the Global Dynamics
of Science, Technology, and Innovation 37
Introduction to the Role of International
Organizations and Governments in Science
Diplomacy 52
The Internationalization of Science through
UNESCO 53
x • Contents
Preparing for Twenty-First-Century

Challenges through Science-Driven
Partnerships 61
Exporting Science for Sustainable
Development and Economic Growth
in Costa Rica 65
PART 3 THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES AND
ACADEMICS IN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY 79
Introduction to the Role of Universities and
Academies in Science Diplomacy 81
The History and Impact of Regional Academy
Networks 83
Building the Capacity for Science Diplomacy
in Mexico 89
Science Diplomacy between Cuba and the
United States: A Mechanism to Build Trust
by Engaging Scientific Communities across
Political Divides 95
Speaker Biographies 107
About the Authors 117
Index 119
Preface
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on the Americas c onference
was held at the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, Arizona, from
February 22 to 24, 2017. These proceedings are a description of the activ-
ities at the meeting, including question and answer discussions. This work
collects the presentations made by prominent figures from the disciplines
of science, engineering, technology, and diplomacy. The talks cover their
perspectives on potential solutions to opportunities—such as the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals—improving diplomatic rela-
tionships through scientific engagement and enhancing economic growth
through scientific achievement.
During conference planning and development, several questions arose:
1. What is Science Diplomacy and Policy (SDP), and why host a con-
ference on SD?
2. Why organize the meeting at a university?
3. Why host the meeting at the University of Arizona?
The answers to these questions provide context for the conference and
its goals.
WHY HOST AN SDP CONFERENCE?
One concept of Science Diplomacy is that it is the use of scientific col-

laborations among nations to address common problems and to build
constructive international partnerships.1 The National Research Council
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy focused on
the definition of SD. They drew heavily on the Royal Society2 and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science’s description that
1
N. Fedoroff. 2009. “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Cell 136, no. 1, pp. 9–11.
2
The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy (London, UK:
The Royal Society).
xii • Preface
focuses on examples of SD activities rather than stating a specific defini-

tion. Three main types of activities cited were3:
“Science in diplomacy”: Informing foreign policy objectives with sci-

entific advice
“Diplomacy for science”: Facilitating international science cooperation
“Science for diplomacy”: Using scientific cooperation to improve
international relations between countries
The first activity can also be described as Science Policy, which

intends to expose policy makers to the best information available regard-
ing science, technology, and innovation to advise their decisions. The latter
topics refer to facilitating cross-border collaborations to improve science
or relationships between nations.
SD is not new; rather, it continues to evolve in emerging areas that
require international cooperation, including medicine, the environment,
nanotechnology, space, alternative energy, and science education. How-
ever, we believe that a gap existed in articulating comprehensive retro-
spective and prospective views of SD. Thus, the overriding goal of the
conference was to provide an overview of SDP successes, goals, chal-
lenges, and opportunities that twenty-first-century scientists, engineers,
and diplomats face for the future. To that end, with the support of Honor-
ary Conference Chairman Dr. E. William Colglazier, we enlisted a group
of eminent individuals involved in diplomacy with the emphasis in using
science and engineering as the basis for discussions.
These generally senior dignitaries spoke on the opening evening
and first day of the conference. The open-to-the-public evening session
(Figures 1 and 2) focused on the need for SD and its accomplishments.
The following morning discussion shifted to the roles of academies,
universities, international organizations, and governments in SD. Finally,
the afternoon was dedicated to the challenges facing and opportunities for
SD practitioners, and a concrete example of the United Nations Sustain-
able Development Goals as an application that has a significant need for
science to address long-term global concerns.
Although the speakers addressed some of these broad topics, a coher-
ent vision and history as portrayed by the esteemed thought leaders has not
been assembled. This proceedings begins to capture those ideas. Each talk
and subsequent question and answer period was transcribed, edited, and
appropriate references added by volunteer rapporteurs. The papers were
3
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National Academies U.S.
and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy: Report of a
Workshop (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press), p. 60, ISBN 978-0-309-22438-3.
Preface • xiii
Figures 1 and 2. Opening session of the SDP conference—University of

Arizona—February 2017
then thoroughly reviewed by a scientific committee and approved by the

speakers for inclusion in this proceedings. The result is a comprehensive
view of SDP from those who have significantly impacted the field.
WHY ORGANIZE THE MEETING AT A UNIVERSITY?
Generally, this type of meeting would be hosted by a professional organi-

zation or society for practitioners. We believe that a university is highly
appropriate venue and enhances the meeting’s influence. Universities
provide forums for open and uninhibited discussion of sensitive topics.
Further, the academy generates much of the new knowledge, science, and
xiv • Preface
engineering that is needed to solve vexing global problems. Holding the

meeting at a university also increases faculty and student awareness of how
their research can support and influence policy and international relations.
In addition, the SD field needs a continuous infusion of new blood
and energy. A second focus of the conference was to enhance student
knowledge of SD careers and directions. Most students do not recognize
the opportunity of connecting their science to policy as a professional
focus or have knowledge of how to pursue such a direction if they are
aware of the vocation. The university setting of our meeting highlighted
student interest that was demonstrated by the significant number of stu-
dent questions during Q&A session and the positive response to Dr. Gual
Soler’s presentation on connecting scientists and policy.
On a more local level, the self-selected student and early career
rapporteurs’ enthusiasm and effort at the conference and in preparing
papers provides optimism that the next generation of science diplomats
are emerging. Their contributions to the completion of these proceedings
were significant and the rapporteurs are acknowledged within the papers
that they supported.
WHY HOST THE MEETING AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF ARIZONA?
Clearly, the hub of SD in the United States is Washington, DC; not

southern Arizona. However, the UA is well-positioned geographically
and connected intellectually with Latin America. The UA has significant
global ties on a number of fronts, in particular in the areas of water re-
sources and climate change. Thus, the focus of the second full conference
day was on the value and benefit of SD and collaborations in the Americas
for resolving water- and climate-related issues (Figure 3).
This conference serves as a foundation for SD activities at the UA.
The UA has a strong international presence and reputation as a leader in
a range of fields that have high potential for contributing to SD, includ-
ing medicine, space, engineering, and natural sciences and the environ-
ment. In addition to faculty-to-faculty collaborations, particularly in Latin
America, an SD seminar series is under way for faculty and students.
Among other initiatives, an innovative microcampus education model is
exporting UA education around the world.
Finally, SD must venture not only to understand problems but to solve
them. Problem-solving is the domain of engineering. The College of Engi-
neering values invigorating its students and faculty to add an international
dimension to their scholarly undertakings. To that end, they played a leading
Preface • xv
Figure 3. Water sustainability and climate change sessions in the SDP
conference—University of Arizona, February 2017
role in this conference. Engineers without Borders, a Grand Challenge Schol-

ars Program, and the establishment of a Science-Engineering Diplomacy
Initiative are other ongoing engineering-based SD activities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National

Academies U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and
Science Diplomacy: Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
emies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-22438-3.
Federoff, N. 2009. “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Cell 136, no. 1,
pp. 9–11.
The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy.
London, UK: The Royal Society.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the persons and institutions that have made the Science
Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas conference and the pub-
lication of these proceedings possible. Many University of Arizona (UA)
entities on campus provided financial and in-kind support for the con-
ference: College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, the University of Arizona Foundation, College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Office of Global initiatives, Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy, Institute of Environment, and Agnese
Nelms Haury Program in Environmental and Social Justice. In addition,
the Lloyd’s Register Foundation also provided support. Dr. Jeff Goldberg,
Dean of the College of Engineering, who recognizes the value of science
and engineering diplomacy, played a pivotal financial and intellectual role
in advancing the conference forward.
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas confer-
ence, convened at the University of Arizona, was an exceptional event.
However, it would not have been realized without the dedication and com-
mitment of the Honorary Conference Chairman, Dr. E. William Colglazier,
and we thank him for his support. As described in the preface, the opening
session and first conference day provided a comprehensive perspective
on the contributions, as well as value and future of SDP. As a recognized
leader in the field with a comprehensive awareness of current activities
and trends and historical context, Dr. Colglazier was instrumental in
establishing the program and assembling the eminent group of speakers to
achieve that goal. He spent many hours with us in conversations on confer-
ence content and structure as well as connecting with potential speakers.
The second group that guided the intellectual direction of the confer-
ence was the UA organizing committee that consisted of UA faculty and
administrators: James Buizer, Randy Burd, Andrea Gerlak, John Hildebrand,
David Pietz, Juan Valdes, and Robert Varady. This team refined the confer-
ence objectives and directions and identified and invited the diverse mix of
speakers, particularly for the second conference day.
xviii • Acknowledgments
We also convey thanks to the distinguished speakers for investing

their time to join us at the UA to describe the results of experience and
research in prepared talks and participate in the wide-ranging discussions
that followed their presentations. Particularly, we appreciate their efforts
and significant time spent to collaborate with the conference rapporteurs
and our staff to convert their talks to this proceedings. The enthusiasm and
professionalism of this group elevated the conference quality to a seminal
event.
Further, we acknowledge the work done by the team of rapporteurs,
including supporting conference activities and transcribing, researching,
editing, and, in some cases, with the speakers, condensing the talks for
clarity. This outstanding team comprised a self-identified multidisci-
plinary group of graduate and undergraduate UA students and postdocs
interested in learning and, perhaps, developing a career in science diplo-
macy and consisted of
Stephanie Zawada Ravindra Dwivedi Jacob Petersen-Perlman

Nico A. Contreras Patrick Finnerty Jennifer Salazar
Leah Kaplan Estefanie Govea Benjamin Siegel
Andisheh Ranjbari Jamin Lee Bhuwan Thapa
America Lutz Ley Alex Utzinger
Given their substantial efforts, Ms. Stephanie J. Zawada, the senior

rapporteur, and Mr. Nico A. Contreras, the associate rapporteur, are coedi-
tors of this document. Of note, Ms. Kaplan, Ranjbari, and Zawada attended
the AAAS Science Diplomacy and Leadership workshop and presented a
summary of this meeting and its influence on their thoughts and career
directions.
Leading up and following the conference, the UA hosted three semi-
nars to highlight SDP. We thank each of them and their hosts from the orga-
nizing committee: Dr. George Atkinson (Institute for Science for Global
Policy), Dr. David Cash (University of Massachusetts–Amherst), and Ms.
Frances Ulmer (U.S. Arctic Research Commission). Lastly, we would like
to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Vazirizade and Mr. Soltanianfard in
assisting to check the copy edited files.
Additionally, we thank Professor Mohammad Noori and Dr. Joel
Stein from Momentum Press for their valuable advice and recommenda-
tions regarding the quality and content presentation of the proceedings.
In addition, we would like to acknowledge Ms. Kiruthigadevi
Nirmaladevi, project manager at S4Carlisle Publishing Services, for
her accuracy and patience in preparing the manuscripts for publication.
Acknowledgments • xix
Also, the extraordinary efforts of Ms. Sheri E. Dean, marketing director

at Momentum Press, in completion of the books and her promptness
are appreciated.
The organizers also compliment Ms. Hillary Beggs (conference
organization) and Mr. Frank Camp (publicity) from the UA Office of
Global Initiatives on their contributions. We especially appreciate Hillary,
who was a tremendous resource and understood and navigated our team
through the complexities of hosting an international conference. In addi-
tion, thanks to Ms. Jill Goetz of the College of Engineering Marketing
and Communications Services for her keenness in developing pre- and
postconference stories.
We appreciate the support of the UA Office for Government Relations
in identifying and inviting leaders to speak at our dinners and lunch and
thank Mr. Matthew Salmon, his Honorable Mayor Jonathan Rothschild,
and his Honorable Congressman Raul Grijalva for their comments.
Finally, our gratitude goes to the staff of the UA Department of Civil
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics for fitting this out-of-the-ordinary
task into their already at-capacity workload. Of particular note, we thank
Ms. Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager, for her efforts in financial
oversight and on-site conference support. Ms. Sierra Lindsay, an undergrad-
uate creative writing student, deserves our special thanks. She joined the
department several years ago and has grown tremendously as she s upported
the preparation of various publications. Sierra had p rimary responsibility
for compiling, copyediting, and formatting these proceedings.
Kevin E. Lansey
Hassan A. Vafai
December 2017
Conference Program
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017—AT THE

CROSSROADS OF SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY
6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

E. William Colglazier, introduced by Andre
Comrie, UA Provost
6:45–8:00 p.m. Free and Open to the Public: Ask the Experts
about the Role of Scientists and Governments
in Science Diplomacy—Peter Agre, Norman
Neureiter, and Thomas Pickering
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017—ROLES

WITHIN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

by Jeff Goldberg, Dean of the UA College of
Engineering
8:15–9:05 a.m. Keynote address: Science Diplomacy in the
Twenty-First Century—Vaughan Turekian
9:05–10:05 a.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of International
Organizations and Governments in Science
Diplomacy
Panel: Lidia Brito, Roman Macaya, and John
Boright
Moderator: Marcella Ohira
10:05–10:30 a.m. Break
10:30–11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of Academics and
Universities in Science Diplomacy
Panel: Sergio Pastrana, Michael Clegg, and
Arturo Menchaca
xxii • Conference Program
Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

Professor of Neuroscience and Foreign Secre-
tary of the National Academy of Sciences
11:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Address: Connecting Scientists with Policy Around
the World
Marga Gual Soler, introduced by John
Hildebrand
12:00–1:15 p.m. Lunch
1:15–2:15 p.m. Panel Discussion: Challenges and Opportunities
for Science Diplomacy Panel: Norman Neureiter,
Alan Leshner, and Glenn Schweitzer Modera-
tor: Carol Rose, Lohse Chair in Water and Nat-
ural Resources, UA James E. Rogers College
of Law
2:15–3:15 p.m. Address: The 2030 Agenda and the Sustain-
able Development Goals: New Entry Points for
Science at the UN
Richard Roehrl, introduced by John Boright
3:15–3:45 p.m. Break
3:45–5:00 p.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of Science, Technol-
ogy, and Innovation for Achieving the SDGs
Panel: E. William Colglazier, William E. Kelly,
Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Jamie Urrutia-
Fucugauchi
Moderator: David Pietz, UNESCO Chair of
Environmental History, UA Department of
History
5:00–5:30 p.m. Summary Remarks and University Initiative on
Science Diplomacy and Policy: Jeff Goldberg,
Dean of the UA College of Engineering
5:30–6:30 p.m. Reception on hotel patio
6:30–8:00 p.m. Dinner: with speaker former U.S. Congress-
man Matt Salmon (R-AZ-05), introduced by
Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2017—CLIMATE CHANGE

AND WATER SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES
8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

Conference Co-Chair
Conference Program • xxiii
8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

A. Scott, UA Udall Center for Studies in Public
Policy
Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Research: Science Diplomacy and Capacity
Building: Marcella Ohira
Water Sustainability Challenges for the Americas:
Katherine Vammen
10:00–10:30 a.m. Break
10:30–11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: Climate Change Challenges for
the Americas and the Role of Science Diplomacy
Panel: Paty Romero-Lankao, Diana Liverman,
and Hem Nalini Mozaria-Luna
Moderator: James Buizer, Professor of Climate
Adaption, UA School of Natural Resources and
the Environment
11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Panel Discussion: Water Sustainability Chal-
lenges for the Americas and the Role of Science
Diplomacy
Panel: Helen Ingram, William Logan, and
Francisco Zamora Moderator: Robert Varady,
Professor of Environmental Policy, UA Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy
12:30–12:45 p.m. Concluding Remarks: E. William Colglazier;
and Conference Chairs Kevin Lansey and
Hassan Vafai, UA Department of Civil Engi-
neering and Engineering Mechanics
1:00–2:30 p.m. Lunch and Closing Presentation with Speaker
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-03),
introduced by John Paul Jones III, Dean of the
UA College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Moderator: Shannon Heuberger, Director of
UA Federal Legislative Affairs
PART 1
At the Crossroads of
Diplomacy and Science:
Where Do We Go
from Here?
Introductory Remarks
E. William Colglazier
Honorary Chairman of the Conference
Provost Andrew Comrie has provided an excellent introduction to the

purpose of this conference. He has reminded us that America’s research
universities, such as the University of Arizona, are a tremendous asset
for our nation and a vital force for our engagement with the world. Our
research universities have attracted talented creative people from many
different countries. Some stay and contribute here; others go back and
help their home countries. The enrichment of our country from this dias-
pora points to the importance of our university system that contributes to
America’s vitality. So it is an honor for me to be here at one of our great
research universities, the University of Arizona.
You are in for a treat with the three people you will hear in this open-
ing session. All three were role models for me. I learned a tremendous
amount from each of them. Two are here in person, and one, who could not
be with us, has been downloaded from the cloud. They cover all aspects of
the connection between science and technology with diplomacy and inter-
national relations. The first speaker has had a distinguished career inside
the government, inside our foreign ministry, the Department of State. The
second has never served in a government, but has been a terrific science
diplomat. The third has moved back and forth between the governmental
and nongovernmental sectors. The three illustrate through their stories the
rich history of how over several decades American scientists and engineers
have engaged across the world to advance the interests of our nation and
contributed to the well-being of people throughout the world.
The first speaker, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, could not be here in
person, but is able to send his message via a video taken by iPhone. When
I talked with Tom, he asked me to remind him of the purpose of the confer-
ence. I did so for about 20 seconds, he thought about it for 10 seconds, and
then he spoke extemporaneously for an eloquent 13 minutes. Before turn-
ing to Tom, a close friend and colleague, John Boright, executive director
of international relations at the National Academy of Sciences, will do the
introduction. John has worked with Tom over several decades. There is no
one better to provide us with a few vignettes of Tom’s history.
Introduction
to Thomas Pickering
John Boright
Executive Director of International Affairs,
United States National Academies
We are very fortunate to have a contribution to our discussion from

Ambassador Thomas Pickering. For me it is a special pleasure to introduce
his presentation, since I worked under him many years ago in the State
Department and have benefited from his energy and wisdom so many
times since then.
Thomas Pickering is clearly one of the (if not THE) most eminent dip-
lomats of his generation. His remarkable series of major positions i nclude
Ambassador to Russia, Israel, Jordan, India, Nigeria, and the United
Nations, and Undersecretary for Political Affairs (the top career position
in the State Department). But at the same time, and of great interest to our
discussion, Ambassador Pickering has had the most sustained and deci-
sive interest of any U.S. diplomat in the role of science and technology in
the interaction of the United States with the world community. That has
included leading the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans, Environment,
and Science early in his career, and a key role in the series of advisory
reports that the National Academy of Sciences has provided at the request
of the State Department and of United States Agency for International
Development (USAID).
Science as an “Energizer
of the World”
Thomas Pickering
Vice President, Hills and Company,
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Good day to you all, and by one of the miracles of modern science, I am
appearing before you while I have to spend time here in Washington.
I apologize for not having the chance to join you in what looks like both
a fascinating and a very stimulating conference to look at science and
diplomacy.
EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY
Science is very much an energizer of the world and is increasingly import-

ant both internationally and domestically. How we make or fuse science
and the world of diplomacy and governance will be one of the principal
challenges for all of us in the days ahead.
Most importantly, we need to continue to find ways to use, integrate,
and create synergies between science and diplomacy. Since my early days
in the American Foreign Service, beginning in the 1950s, I had the great
opportunity to be associated with negotiations on, among other things,
arms control and disarmament. During these negotiations, there was a
clear and intimate knowledge of science brought by people who were
vastly adept in this area, such as geophysicist Frank Press. He was able
to provide the ideas and create the kinds of innovative solutions that were
necessary to deal with everything from nuclear testing to the reduction
of weapons of mass destruction. Knowing how to fit the science together
with the general directions in which we were moving back was extremely
important.
Another outcome of Science policy is the fact that nuclear verifi-
cation and monitoring in this area has increased many fold and has in
Rapporteurs: Jacob Petersen-Perlman and Stephanie J. Zawada

6 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME I
many ways been a marriage of the knowledge of how science and tech-
nology could provide innovative ways to understand what was going on
in a foreign environment on very sensitive questions with diplomatic
answers. The task was in a balanced and reciprocal fashion the accep-
tance by each side of the kinds of obligations that were necessary to
assure that their commitments to reduce weapons or stop testing were
being carried out.
In this sense, the 2015 Iran nuclear arrangement is one of the
latest innovative efforts to make effective this marriage of science
and diplomacy in serving our national and world interests. For exam-
ple, in that particular agreement a wide number of new technologies
were implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to ensure real-time photographic and technical monitoring in a way
that allowed the IAEA to know and understand what was happening
on a regular basis—and to be the driver of regular visits to sites to
assure 24/7 knowledge of what was going on in the Iranian nuclear
program.
THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT AND

DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR
PEACEFUL PURPOSES
In the Iran Agreement, we had for the first time an opportunity to look
at centrifuge production as a way to assure that the Iranians were abid-
ing by the agreement, including the limitations they had accepted on
their use and development of centrifuges. Additionally, the fact that the
agreement included “cradle-to-grave” monitoring of uranium, from the
mine to the disposition of the spent fuel, was very important in ensur-
ing here a solid basis for knowing and understanding precisely what the
Iranians are continuing to do with the enrichment of uranium. This in
itself was subject to strict limitations, the importance of which we all
understand.
Other innovative arrangements are also built on scientific basis.
These innovations and, indeed, these restrictions on uranium enrichment
and similar arrangements with respect to plutonium production give us a
new opportunity to begin to think about how and in what way we should
make the agreement the “international gold standard” so that all countries
enriching and using plutonium will have the opportunity to develop these
particular facets of important activity for the future, and do so in ways
that are transparent and keep us assured that they are not going to take
off into military programs. This can help close a loophole in the Nuclear
Science as an “Energizer of the World” • 7
Nonproliferation Treaty that makes no restrictions on either the enrichment

of uranium or the separation of plutonium.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN PUBLIC

HEALTH AND AGRICULTURE
There are large questions regarding international health and how and in
what ways science and medicine—a long and collaborative effort over
generations—can help prepare the world to deal with man-made threats
such as biological warfare, as well as evolving problems such as world-
wide epidemics. Our recent experiences with Ebola and Zika have edu-
cated us on the need to move early and in a cogent and coordinated way.
In contexts where the local health infrastructure is weak, we must move
internationally to help reinforce the kinds of steps such as treatments to
stop the spread, and ultimately bring an end to the impact, of epidemics.
Of high interest to me is international agriculture, which has success-
fully been promoted by a network of research institutions begun 30 or
40 years ago with the help of American foundations—for example, the
development of new varieties of rice at the International Rice Research
Institute in the Philippines, which led to the Green Revolution. I hope that
we can expect this continuing contribution, which could bring us to a new
level of revolution in agriculture. It would be useful to take a look at world
health research and see if the same level of coordination and diversity
achieved in agricultural research could be applied to the world health—
especially in anticipating and delivering rapidly in the face of new viruses
and epidemics that might affect mankind around the world.
Building the science and technology capacity of developing countries
is extremely important. I had the experience of serving as an American
ambassador in Central America in the midst of a very difficult time. But
it is very clear to me that particularly in areas of high overpopulation,
the basic need for education and the need to turn education toward the
knowledge-based economy are ways in which these countries have a great
opportunity of bootstrapping themselves ahead. We need to think about
the ways in which they can make a contribution on the employment side.
ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY, AND DIPLOMACY
I had the opportunity after I retired from government to spend some time
at a major U.S. company manufacturing aircraft. That experience taught
me a great deal about how and in what way scientific research can be
applied to modern technological innovation in a creative and useful way.
On the one hand, that is important not only in terms of a major company
maintaining a high level of technical excellence, but how in a very serious
way it draws on international capacities. Boeing has supply chains around
the world, many of which are devoted to technological research that could
be useful in creating and building future products. It has the ability to draw
upon the knowledge base of the rest of the world that was important in
helping to promote the creation of new jobs in the United States and over-
seas. Incidentally, it was not an inhibition in selling airplanes: Countries
that participated in the construction of Boeing’s airplanes were interested
in how and in what way they were going to play a role as potential cus-
tomers for these airplanes. These are some of the significant questions
and innovative issues that suggest how widely cooperative research as a
technique can be applied internationally.
ADDRESSING INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGES

THROUGH SCIENCE
There are many other issues that we pay attention to and that we see in
terms of the challenges. Science has helped us in places as different as
Iran, Russia, and China. The United States’ capacity to maintain the excel-
lence of its science base is clearly supported by the fact that as a country
we have continuously welcomed individuals, including scientists, of merit.
Some estimate that up to 30 percent of our recent innovations are contrib-
uted by recent arrivals in the United States, who have come because they
admire what we do and the opportunity to work here. They have made
tremendous contributions to the development of a new knowledge base
and new capacities for this country. Our future as a country depends upon
the strength of our science.
I want to say I appreciate very much the opportunity to be with you
and to touch on these few subjects, but to tell you how much I look forward
to seeing the results of your conference and to thank you very much for
the opportunity to say these few words in the early stages of your meeting.
Introduction
to Peter Agre
Our next speaker is a very distinguished scientist, Peter Agre, recipient of

the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and former president of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. He is the former Chair of
the Committee on Human Rights of The National Academies of Sci-
ences, Engineering, and Medicine. Currently, he is Director of the Malaria
Research Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He has used his great rep-
utation in science as a way to engage with countries around the world,
even in a number of countries where diplomatic relations with the United
States do not exist or are frayed. When he travels, Peter and other Nobel
Laureates are treated like rock stars, and they use that reputation to benefit
all citizens of the world.
It is a great pleasure for me to ask Peter to speak.
Science Diplomacy:
Global Health
Peter Agre
Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at Johns
Hopkins University, Nobel Laureate
ABSTRACT
At “Global Challenges: Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on the

Americas” conference, hosted near the University of Arizona on February
22 to 24, 2017, Dr. Peter Agre, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at
the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Director of
the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, introduced the practice of
science diplomacy as a mechanism for improving access to medical care
in the developing world. Having contributed to public health initiatives
in Africa’s rural communities, Agre shares his experiences as a scientific
research diplomat and advocate for global health at the intersection of epi-
demics, government dictatorships, and the role researchers and innovators
can play in saving lives by leveraging science as a collaborative tool to
improve international relations.
Keywords: global health, malaria in Africa, science diplomacy, scientific

collaboration
SCIENCE AS AN OPPORTUNITY IN SOLVING

GLOBAL CRISES
“Weiji,” the Chinese word for crisis, is composed of two characters: the
first, signifying “danger,” and the second, “opportunity.”1 From press-
ing public health crises to climate concerns, numerous threats of nature
challenge the stability of international relations. Coupled with man-made
Rapporteurs: Stephanie J. Zawada, Jacob Peterson-Perlman, and Alex Utzinger

1
K. Kanel. 2012. A Guide to Crisis Intervention (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning), p. 4.
Science Diplomacy: Global Health • 11
perils, such as nuclear weapons proliferation, these hazards jeopardize

the future of humanity; however, the dichotomous meaning of the word
“danger” incorporates an element of hope that specifically rests on the
ability of scientists, engineers, and innovators to identify and control cir-
cumstances to devise technical solutions with real-world impact—that the
children of today will have better lives through science. Science, aside
from solving technical problems, is the mechanism for generating inter-
national, interdisciplinary collaborations targeting the urgent political and
social questions of the twenty-first century.
Similar to the 33,000 undergraduate students enrolled at the U
niversity
of Arizona, Agre began his studies at Johns Hopkins University with an
interest in science. Although originally passionate about global health
and fieldwork, Agre pursued years of laboratory research, developing the
technical skills and expertise that would aid him in establishing future sci-
entific collaborations with a global scope. Building upon his bench-side
experience in the biological and chemical sciences, Agre’s fervor for field-
work and dedication to day-to-day experimental work merged in an effort
to address worldwide malaria epidemics.2
COMBATING MALARIA IN WAR-TORN REGIONS
A century ago, the spread of malaria was not restricted to tropical and
sub-Saharan regions, encompassing the Low Countries of Europe and
North America as far north as the Great Lakes.3 Through medical research
and pharmaceutical development, malaria has been eliminated in the West
and in first-world countries around the globe; however, malaria is endemic
in many parts of the developing world, such as the part of the African
continent found to the south of the Sahara, affecting over 40 percent of the
global population.4
With the era of African independencies in the 1960s, the colony
of Rhodesia was split into two countries.5 The country occupying the
northernmost land of the former colony, the Republic of Zambia, emerged
2
S. Mirsky. 2011. “Nobel Laureate Peter Agre: From Aquaporins to Lutefisk.” www
.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/nobel-laureate-peter-agre-from-aqua-11-07-20,
(accessed July 20, 2011).
3
P. Reiter. 2000. “From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age.”
Emerging Infectious Disease 6, p. 1.
4
M. Bouzid. 2017. Examining the Role of Environmental Change on Emerging Infectious
Diseases and Pandemics. (Hershey, PA: Advances in Human Services and Public Health
Book Series), p. 206.
5
T.G. Jakobsen. 2012. “The Fall of Rhodesia.” www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/19/
the-fall-of-rhodesia, (accessed October 19, 2012).
as a liberal democracy. Although more progressive than its neighbor-

ing countries, Zambia is not without economic and political strife.6 For
instance, as the price of copper decreased in the 1970s, Zambia’s foreign
debt continued to grow, remaining at the top of the list of the countries with
highest per capita foreign debt.7 The nation’s economic decline dovetailed
its political strife, which reached a boiling point in the 1990s when riots and
an attempted coup d’état stifled Zambia’s relations with foreign countries
and governing bodies.8 Today, Zambia has emerged as one of the world’s
fastest economically reformed countries, according to the World Bank.9
In spite of its rapid economic and political progress, Zambia is still
forced to combat the epidemic of malaria, largely due to its many rural com-
munities spread throughout the country.10 As these small towns and trailside
communities are largely inaccessible via traditional transportation methods,
the option of conducting on-the-ground research is not always directly fea-
sible. Thus, another dimension of science diplomacy must materialize as
the collaborative work undertaken by American scientists and physicians
specifically in countries with polarizing political situations. In the rural
countryside of Zambia, the local peoples do not know the motivations or
capabilities of foreign scientists and health professionals. This impasse
affords scientists the unique opportunity to establish trust at the local levels
while strengthening the international ties among their home countries and
the Zambian government—an opportunity no other diplomats can leverage.
Tragically, the majority of the victims of malaria are the revered chil-
dren of rural communities in Africa. Each year, 400,000 deaths r esult from
the epidemic, with several million survivors left injured from complica-
tions related to brain damage, blindness, and other afflictions.11 In these
rural, poverty-stricken communities, the subsistence farmers, including
6
N. Simutanyi. 2010. “The State of Zambian Democracy: Left Organizations and Their Role
in Political Struggles.” Paper presented at the SACP Democracy Conference on “The Left’s
Experience of Participatory Democracy in Africa: Tasks and Challenges,” Johannesburg,
South Africa, August 19, 2010. www.alnef.org.za/conf/2010/presentantions/zambia.pdf
7
G. York. 2015. “Declining Copper Prices: A Large Factor in Zambia’s Economic Tumble.”
www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/african-and-mideast-
business/declining-copper-prices-send-zambia-into-economic-crisis/article26995466,
(accessed October 26, 2015).
8
G. Macola. 2008. One Zambia, Many Histories: Towards a History of Post-Colonial Zambia
(The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV), p. 115.
9
J.J. Ngoma. 2010. “World Bank President Praises Reforms in Zambia, Underscores Need
for Continued Improvements in Policy and Governance.” www.worldbank.org/en/news/
press-release/2010/12/18/world-bank-president-praises-reforms-zambia-underscores-need-
continued-improvements-policy-governance, (accessed December 18, 2010).
10
World Health Organization. 2016. “Zambia.” www.who.int/malaria/publications/country-
profiles/profile_zmb_en.pdf
11
A. Jack. “Battle to Save 400,000 Lives from Malaria.” www.ft.com/content/e40dc13c-155
d-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76?mhq5j=e3, (accessed April 27, 2017).
young children, work for roughly one dollar per day.12 When malaria
emerges, the work must stop, forcing economic development to halt.
Through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the
International Centers for Malaria Research compose a worldwide con-
sortium of research facilities funded to disseminate the knowledge and
protocols for preventing and treating malaria outbreaks. Funded by U.S.
taxpayers, these centers, such as the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research
Institute directed by Agre, solicit immunology collaborations and facilitate
multinational delegations composed of American, African, Zambian, and
Zimbabwean scientists.13 Through these successful collaborations, the prev-
alence of malaria has decreased each year over the past 15 years; however,
if the work ceases or is no longer funded, the efforts to contain malaria will
decrease, resulting in the spread of the disease.14 Therefore, it is imperative
that such research efforts continue to be funded and approached from an
interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective to guarantee the effective-
ness of malaria containment and subsequent eradication efforts.
In the northwest of Zambia, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), additional political challenges complicate the containment and
treatment of malaria in the region. The people of DRC have been subject
to a series of difficult governing situations, beginning with the assassina-
tion of Patrice Lumumba, the country’s first legally elected prime minister,
in 1961.15 Following the subsequent upheaval of 1961, the dictatorship of
Mobutu Sese Seko isolated the Congo (then named Zaire) from efforts to
aid the developing world.16 Now, President Joseph Kabila has stated that,
although his elected term was slated to expire in December 2016, the elec-
tion would be postponed until 2018.17 Thus, the political climate in DRC
has been largely inhospitable to economic growth and international col-
laborations; however, it is the work of individuals in both DRC and abroad
that keep the malaria containment efforts alive in spite of ever-increasing
political tension between DRC and the global community.
12
A. Banerjee. 2007. “The Economics Lives of the Poor.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
21, p. 141.
13
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2017. “International Centers of
Excellence for Malaria Research.” www.niaid.nih.gov/research/excellence-malaria-research,
(accessed May 12, 2017).
14
S. Desmon. 2017. “Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute Awards $10 million Grant.”
https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/04/24/malaria-research-institute-awarded-10-million, (accessed
April 24, 2017).
15
L. de Witte. 2001. The Assassination of Lumumba (New York, NY: Verso), p. 74.
16
A.T. Imoh, and N. Ansell. 2014. Children’s Lives in an Era of Children’s Rights (New York,
NY: Routledge), p. 73.
17
J.M. Mbaku. “The Postponed DRC Elections: The Major Players for 2018.” www.brookings
.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2016/12/02/the-postponed-drc-elections-the-major-players-
for-2018, (accessed December 2, 2016).
In DRC, malaria containment efforts have been focused in the Katanga

province, located in the southeastern part of the country, far from any
main highways. Although rich in mineral wealth, the rural Katanga prov-
ince is among the most violently affected by the epidemic; in some vil-
lages 80 percent of these rural children are infected by malaria annually.18
Through the President’s Malaria Initiatives in the USAID program, U.S.
taxpayers contribute relief to the people of DRC in the form of distrib-
uted medications; distributing these life-saving pharmaceuticals, though,
is a challenge tackled by a network of missionary pilots who fly into the
remote, marshy countryside of the Katanga province.19 Within the small
towns of the countryside, the village elders are committed to regional
health workers to care for the people.
Unlike Zambia, which operates a liberal democracy, the other half of
the original Rhodesia colony, Zimbabwe, has been subject to a brutal civil
war along with the 37-year Mugabe regime. The combination of dictator-
ship and an embattled population has resulted in the steady erosion of pub-
lic health standards and the collapse of the country. Zimbabwe was once
one of the richest nations in Africa; now, it ranks among the poorest, with
citizens camping along the rivers. These rural campsites are among the
most affected by malaria outbreak during the rainy season when children
are brought by their mothers into the local clinics on a daily basis. Often
lacking medicines and medical equipment, the Zimbabwe clinical centers
lack personnel and organization to deliver optimal treatment and care.20
One of the wonderful contributions of the United States and of
American science to global health is its role in reducing childhood m alaria
deaths in Zimbabwe. Similar to the work of international scientists in Zam-
bia, the dangers prevalent in Zimbabwe also afford scientists the o pportunity
to engage local and national leaders, who would otherwise be cut off from
the international community, for the sake of preventing the spread of an
epidemic; interacting with a dictatorial regime, however, is no easy task and
requires a diplomatic strategy built on Machiavellian principles. For exam-
ple, one of the collaborating nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with
which Agre and his team collaborate involves working alongside Mugabe’s
niece. One of the key principles of utilizing science diplomacy, or scientific
cooperation to improve relations between countries, is that some compro-
mises must be made to work more effectively within the system of a country.
18
M.D. Gershman, E.S. Jentes, R.J. Stoney, K.R. Tan, P.M. Arguin, S.F. Steele. 2016. Yellow
Fever and Malaria Information, by Country (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 2.
19
“President’s Malaria Initiative.” PMI.gov. www.pmi.gov
20
IRIN. 2014. “Zimbabwe’s health system in crisis.” IRINnews.com. www.irinnews.org/
news/2014/08/11/zimbabwes-health-system-crisis, (accessed August 11, 2014).
In his work with the American Association for the Advancement

of Science (AAAS), Agre developed a program series of scientific
visits with governments exhibiting strained relations with the United
States. The first country Agre and AAAS engaged was Cuba. From
a diplomatic point-of- view, Cuba and the United States have been at
odds since the Castro regime; however, scientists from the two coun-
tries have simultaneously collaborated over biomedical research proj-
ects since the Walter Reed Commission. The Commission, convened
in 1900 to evaluate and conclude the mechanism of yellow fever trans-
mission, reviewed and conceded that Cuban physician-scientist Carlos
Finlay was the first to conclusively demonstrate that yellow fever is
transmitted by mosquitoes.21
After the Cuban Revolution, one of the key objectives of the C astro
government was to eliminate malaria from Cuba. During this time, Cuba
graduated a greater number of medical doctors than ever before and
invested resources in pharmaceutical research in an effort to prioritize
economic development via scientific research.22 Reflecting upon his
personal meeting with Fidel Castro, Agre noted that, although the two
did not agree on many issues, both understood the urgent need to use
science to advance the people of the world (Figure 1). After lecturing
at the University of Havana, Agre was astonished by the overwhelming
enthusiasm of the students—students without political ideologies who
are interested in nonpartisan science and desire the same opportuni-
ties U.S. students have in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) fields.
Another country that Agre and AAAS engaged was Myanmar (earlier
Burma). In Myanmar, the political climate began to neutralize roughly
5 years ago. In his visit to the nation, Agre met with the Minister of Health,
the Forestry Ministry, and faculty from the University of Yangon. Agre
reflected that it was clear the Burmese people were delighted to host
visiting American scientists and that they eagerly wanted to work with
American counterparts. Although the nation is in need of aid with respect
to scientific capability and educational opportunities, the potential exists
for the young people of Myanmar to advance their nation.
In the world of diplomatic affairs, friendships make a difference. On
an invitation from an elite foundation part of the office of the Vice Presi-
dent, Agre and AAAS visited Iran and lectured on science before Iranian
21
M.C. Crosby. 2006. The American Plague: The Untold Story of Yellow Fever, the Epidemic
That Shaped Our History (New York, NY: Berkeley Books), p. 96.
22
D. Starr. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” www.wired.com/2004/12/cuba, (accessed
December 1, 2004).
Figure 1. Agre meeting Fidel Castro
faculty at the Tehran University of Medical Science. Although head of

the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, a nuclear
engineering graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who
assisted in the negotiations of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, is frequently
viewed with skepticism in the United States, he is open-minded and has
a great respect for America. During the trip, the then President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad requested a meeting with the AAAS delegation. Although
he has been justifiably criticized, the short meeting we had with him was
diplomatic and respectful.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), more com-
monly known as North Korea, was another country to which AAAS sent
official representatives, including Agre, to host scientific visits and lec-
tures (Figure 2). In North Korea, few Americans visit, as it is difficult
for an individual to receive permission to enter and, upon receiving said
permission, the individual is then subject to major restrictions. The Kim
regime runs North Korea with great cruelty and oppression. The nation
cannot grow and process enough food to survive; as such, they are depen-
dent upon supplies from around the world. Likewise, they do not have the
collaborations or resources to perform top-tier research and development
in the life sciences; however, they obtain scientific information from the
Figure 2. U.S.-DPRK science engagement consortium
United States since U.S. science is free.23 One example of the intersection
of science diplomacy and higher education is the Pyongyang University
of Science and Technology (PUST), the only English-language university
in North Korea. This university was founded by economics professor Kim
Chin Kyung, who was born in South Korea and holds a U.S. passport, in
an effort to build bridges between United States and North Korea through
science and the introduction of English courses at PUST.
CONCLUSION
The twenty-first-century scientists are positioned to identify and strategize

methods by which current perils can be managed, mitigated, and maneu-
vered to uncover new circumstances through which international relations
can be improved. From tackling the epidemic of malaria in the developing
23
I. Jeffries. 2006. North Korea: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments (New York,
NY: Routledge), p. 74.
world and drug-resistant tuberculosis in poverty-stricken regions to defin-

ing common scientific goals between politically opposed nations, science
diplomacy can be utilized to establish trust with local communities in an
effort to leverage intergovernmental efforts to more effectively combat a
crisis at hand.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banerjee, A. 2007. “The Economics Lives of the Poor.” Journal of Economic

Perspectives 21, pp. 141–167.
Bouzid, M. 2017. Examining the Role of Environmental Change on Emerging
Infectious Diseases and Pandemics. Hershey, PA: Advances in Human Ser-
vices and Public Health Book Series.
Crosby, M.C. 2006. The American Plague: The Untold Story of Yellow Fever, the
Epidemic that Shaped Our History. New York, NY: Berkeley Books.
Desmon, S. 2017. “Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute Awards $10 million
Grant.” The Johns Hopkins University: Hub. https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/04/24/
malaria-research-institute-awarded-10-million, (accessed April 24, 2017).
de Witte, L. 2001. The Assassination of Lumumba. New York, NY: Verso.
Gershman, M.D., E.S. Jentes, R.J. Stoney, K.R. Tan, P.M. Arguin, and S.F. Steele.
2016. “Yellow Fever and Malaria Information, by Country.” CDC Health
Information for International Travel 2016. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Imoh, A.T., and N. Ansell. 2014. Children’s Lives in an Era of Children’s Rights.
New York, NY: Routledge.
IRINews.com. 2014. “Zimbabwe’s health system in crisis.” http://www.irinnews
.org/news/2014/08/11/zimbabwes-health-system-crisis, (accessed August 11,
2014).
Jack, A. 2017. “Battle to save 400,000 lives from malaria.” Financial Times. https://
www.ft.com/content/e40dc13c-155d-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76?mhq5j=e3,
(accessed April 27, 2017).
Jakobsen, T.G. 2012. “The Fall of Rhodesia.” Popular Social Science. http://www
.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/19/the-fall-of-rhodesia, (accessed October 19,
2012).
Jeffries, I. 2006. North Korea: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kanel, K. 2012. A Guide to Crisis Intervention. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Macola, G. 2008. One Zambia, Many Histories: Towards a History of Post-Colonial
Zambia. The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Mbaku, J.M. 2016. “The Postponed DRC Elections: The Major Players for 2018.”
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2016/12/02/
the-postponed-drc-elections-the-major-players-for-2018, (accessed December 2,
2016).
Mirsky, S. 2011. “Nobel Laureate Peter Agre: From Aquaporins to Lutefisk.”

Science Talk. Podcast audio. https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/
episode/nobel-laureate-peter-agre-from-aqua-11-07-20, (accessed July 20, 2011).
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2017. “International Centers
of Excellence for Malaria Research.” May 12, 2017. https://www.niaid.nih
.gov/research/excellence-malaria-research
Ngoma, J.J. 2010. “World Bank President Praises Reforms in Zambia, Underscores
Need for Continued Improvements in Policy and Governance.” The World Bank.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2010/12/18/world-bank-
president-praises-reforms-zambia-underscores-need-continued-improvements-
policy-governance, (accessed December 18, 2010).
PMI.gov. 2017. “President’s Malaria Initiative.” https://www.pmi.gov, (accessed
June 4, 2017).
Reiter, P. 2000. “From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice
Age.” Emerging Infectious Disease 6, pp. 1–11.
Starr, D. 2004. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” Wired. https://www.wired
.com/2004/12/cuba, (accessed December 1, 2004).
Simutanyi, N. 2010. “The State of Zambian Democracy: Left Organizations and
Their Role in Political Struggles.” Paper presented at The Left’s Experience
of Participatory Democracy in Africa: Tasks and Challenges, Johannesburg,
South Africa, August 2010. http://www.alnef.org.za/conf/2010/presentantions/
zambia.pdf
World Health Organization. 2017. “Zambia.” WHO Country Profiles. http://www
.who.int/malaria/publications/country-profiles/profile_zmb_en.pdf, (accessed
June 4, 2017).
York, G. 2015. “Declining Copper Prices: A Large Factor in Zambia’s Eco-
nomic Tumble.” The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
report-on-business/international-business/african-and-mideast-business/
declining-copper-prices-send-zambia-into-economic-crisis/article26995466,
(accessed October 26, 2015).
Introduction
to Norman Neureiter
Last but certainly not least is Norman Neureiter. Norm was the first
Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State in the modern
era. It was a position that was recommended by a report from the N ational
Academies of Science and Engineering. Norm has had a career that has
included government service, including time in Eastern Europe, and serv-
ing with U.S. corporations overseas. He is currently a senior scholar at
AAAS and has received the highest honor of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the Public Welfare Medal. He, like Peter Agre, has traipsed around
the world, interacting with many countries.
Cross Cultural
Communication: Science
Diplomacy
Norman Neureiter
Former Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State
ABSTRACT
Addressing the attendees of the “Global Challenges: Science Diplomacy

and Policy with Focus on the Americas” conference, hosted near the
University of Arizona on February 22 to 24, 2017, Dr. Norman Neure-
iter, former adviser to the White House Office of Science and Technology
and Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy
at AAAS, reminisced about his past adventures at the frontlines of the
Cold War—adventures that sprung from his ability to utilize science to
foster communication and relationship building across cultures. From his
early days as chemistry graduate student and science attaché, Neureiter’s
technical skills, coupled with his command of multiple languages, led him
to play a role in some of the most iconic moments of the twenty-first
century, from post–World War II nuclear weapons discussions to the 1972
Nixon-Zhou Enlai Talks.
Keywords: Cold war, cross-cultural communication, nuclear proliferation,

Richard Nixon and China, science diplomacy, scientific collaboration, U.S.
department of state
Rapporteurs: Jacob Petersen-Perlman, Alex Utzinger, and Stephanie J. Zawada

A CAREER OUTSIDE THE LAB? SCIENCE AS A

MEANS OF DIPLOMACY
“Maybe I should not return to the chemistry lab,” Norman Neureiter thought
after completing his Fulbright Fellowship in Germany. “Maybe I should
find positions that will help me contribute to making a better and more
peaceful world without throwing away my science education and back-
ground.” Through his experiences in doing scientific research and cultural
exchange during the rebuilding of post-World War II Europe, Norman
Neureiter, a chemistry doctoral student at the time, returned to the United
States with a new career goal: to utilize science to push the future in a
nobler direction, saved from man-made destruction, pointless deaths, and
decimated nations.
When Neureiter started college at the age of 16, his father had one
piece of advice for him: Learn Russian, as it will be useful someday. A
few years later, during the summer of 1959, the United States Informa-
tion Agency (USIA) hosted an exhibition, the American National Exhi-
bition, in Sokolniki Park, Moscow. This showcase event, which emerged
from a mutual agreement between President Eisenhower and Soviet
premier Khrushchev, was designed to compare and contrast the capital-
ist American economy with the socialist system of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). Khrushchev firmly believed that the USSR
was developing on top of a solid foundation of principles, including the
control of information; however, the results of the exhibition would chal-
lenge that notion.1
The situation in the USSR was similar to the political climate in China
under Mao Tse-tung and the USSR under Stalin. Those leaders understood
that to control people they must be isolated from the world and their infor-
mation controlled. Accordingly, during the Khrushchev era, there was no
free exchange of students from the USSR to the United States or vice
versa. However, Khrushchev, who believed in his system, was willing to
be a bit more open to outside influences and was willing to have the U.S.
exhibition in Moscow, after the United States accepted a Soviet exhibition
in New York.
The Soviet exhibition focused on conveying their technological prow-
ess, showcasing their sputnik satellite, machine tools, and industrial equip-
ment. However, the U.S. exhibits focused on consumer goods, such as
dishwashers, color television, and other modern life products. Essentially,
1
M. Novak. “The All-American Expo That Invaded Cold War Russia.” http://paleofuture
.gizmodo.com/the-all-american-expo-that-invaded-cold-war-russia-550628823, (accessed
July 24, 2014).
Cross Cultural Communication: Science Diplomacy • 23
the display revealed the divergence between the former allied nations of
the United States and the USSR, with the United States highlighting the
American way of life and the USSR presenting heavy industrial technol-
ogy. One specific scene from the event was a debate between the then Vice
President Nixon and Khrushchev over whether Russian workers could
live in a home with facilities like those displayed by the Americans.2 The
debate also produced an iconic picture that would become a campaign
staple in the 1960 presidential election in which Nixon pointed a finger at
the Soviet premier, figuratively reprimanding the USSR and its policies.3
FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND SCIENTIFIC TRAINING:

A WHOLE NEW WORLD
The wise counsel of Neureiter’s father—that knowledge of the Russian

language would be critical one day—was proven insightful. For the exhi-
bition, Neureiter was selected to be a guide, not only standing for 10 hours
a day for the duration of the 6-week event, and answering questions from
Russians eager to ask about life in the United States, but also putting down
hecklers trained to embarrass with questions about U.S. policies.
After his service at the exhibition, Neureiter returned to the United
States and passed the interpreter’s examination at the Department of State.
He then went back to work at Humble Oil and Refining Company, now a
part of Exxon Corporation, where he once again served as an interpreter
and guide. This time it was for a 3-week visit of a petroleum delegation
from the USSR to the United States. As the Soviets were beginning to
enter the global oil market for the first time, there was great interest in this
visit by both the U.S. oil industry and the U.S. government.4
Six months later, another Soviet delegation visited the United States
for discussions about controlling the use of nuclear weapons including a
proposal for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. The visit was pub-
licized at major universities as an organic chemistry lecture by a leading
Soviet scientist. Indeed, that it was and it was open to the public. However,
the critical meetings took place later in private where highly distinguished
U.S. university scientists deeply involved in nuclear issues discussed
with the Russian visitors the possibility of a ban on nuclear testing.
2
P.R. Yannella. 2011. American Literature in Context after 1929 (Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell), p. 55.
3
B. Kovarik. 2011. Revolutions in Communication: Media History from Gutenberg to the
Digital Age (London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing Group), p. 322.
4
W.R. Freudenberg, and R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and
the Battle over Offshore Drilling (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press), p. 16.
Because Neureiter was trained as an organic chemist, he was able to trans-

late the chemistry lectures as well as the later, private nuclear discussions.
Attendees at these private meetings included academy presidents,
government officials, and Pugwash representatives as well as internation-
ally renowned professors championing the control of nuclear weapons.
Pugwash was (and still is) the name of a nongovernmental global organi-
zation dedicated to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. These visits, which
included California Institute of Technology and the University of C hicago,
ended in Washington with a dinner hosted in his home by President
Kennedy’s science adviser. On the next day, a brief meeting was held at
the National Academy of Sciences with President Kennedy himself.
In his early career days, Neureiter’s firsthand experience with ded-
icated scientists strategizing in back rooms with the innovators of the
twentieth century to save mankind had a profound impact on him. It was
remarkable to see how individual citizens could, in effect, be real dip-
lomats and participants in influencing the outcome of debates between
countries. However, these citizen diplomats had to be scientists who,
though their training, could engage in scientific debates with colleagues
from other nations in order to solve problems both in the lab and perhaps
also in the halls of government.
Ten years after World War II, Neureiter moved to Germany as a
Fulbright Scholar. Working alongside German graduate students just

like himself, Neureiter was forced to examine the purpose of World War
II. With over 50 million people slaughtered, most countries in Europe
destroyed, the tragedy of the Holocaust, China on the edge, and Russia lost
to Communism, what was the reason for so much misery? Questioning
mankind’s destiny and the role of governments in protecting the innocent,
Neureiter reevaluated his career decisions, setting his sights on real-world
policy work grounded on scientific expertise.
UNANTICIPATED ACCESS IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS
With multiple translation and guide experiences at the center stage of

world events, Neureiter joined the U.S. Foreign Service. Due to his com-
mand of the Russian language and culture, he was sent to Poland, quickly
learning the Polish language. During the Vietnam War, Neureiter spent
2 years in Poland as the first scientific person assigned as an attaché in
Eastern Europe. As a scientist, he had access to local and regional inter-
actions that other diplomats did not. For example, Neureiter could present
a lecture at the Institute of Organic Chemistry in Warsaw, Poland, and
engage renowned professors and intellectuals. Although the political
relations between the United States and Soviet-occupied territories were

tense, Neureiter witnessed how language and science combined could be
personally rewarding, professionally advantageous, and an effective con-
tribution to the world.
Ukichiro Nakaya, a renowned glaciologist and snowflake expert from
Japan, studied how an individual snowflake, although each is composed
of an identical chemical composition, could mold into a unique shape.5
Similarly, although American scientists are trained in the same natural and
physical world principles as their foreign counterparts, they are unique
in their cultural values and way of interacting with the social world. It is
through exposure to scientists from around the world that U.S. scientists can
become diplomats and assist the United States in achieving foreign policy
goals in a way no other citizens can. A shining example of this phenomenon
occurred while Neureiter was working at the National Science Foundation
(NSF) during the Kennedy administration, which launched the nation’s first
science diplomacy initiative. When Hayato Ikeda, the then prime minis-
ter of Japan, visited Washington in June 1961, he toasted the collaborative
future in store for the United States and Japan, suggesting that a joint com-
mittee on science and technology should be formed. He also expressed a
desire to see American–Japanese student exchange programs for aspiring
scientists and engineers to visit one another’s countries to promote a new
era of international scientific research collaboration.6 Although he did not
know Japanese at the time, Neureiter was tapped to be the program’s direc-
tor. The opportunity expanded Neureiter’s previous understanding of the
Japanese way of life, interacting with individuals who had only known the
dictatorial existence of pre-World War II Japan. Although it was difficult
for the American scientists to find things to do with their Japanese counter-
parts outside of the lab, they were instrumental in helping the first Japanese
scientists adapt to the democratic principles of the United States, leading
to future fruitful research collaborations and the democratization of Japan.
WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE CALLS: SERVING

AMERICA THROUGH SCIENCE
After 2 years of service in the NSF, Neureiter transferred to the State

Department. While working in Poland in 1969, he received a phone call
5
I. Olovsson. 2016. Snow, Ice and Other Wonders of Water (Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific), p. 9.
6
W.A Blanpied. 2007. “A Brief History of the National Science Foundation’s Tokyo R
egional
Office.” www.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/history.jsp, (accessed December 2007).
from the White House. The International Affairs Assistant at the White
House Office of Science and Technology (OST) informed Neureiter that
he was retiring from his post and offered him the position. Three months
later, Neureiter moved into the Executive Office of the President, serving
in the OST for four exciting years. In his role, Neureiter reported directly
to the President’s science adviser, assisting him with the research and strat-
egy behind the science and technology cooperation initiatives launched
from 1972 to 1973 between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the
People’s Republic of China.
One of the most important science diplomacy initiatives Neureiter
played a role in shaping was the Nixon initiative with China, a program he
personally dubbed the Nixon-Kissinger breakthrough. Neureiter’s role was
assigned in secret, being told to develop a list of plausible science-specific
areas of collaboration between the United States and China. Neureiter,
with some trusted science colleagues, devised total 40 initiatives that
were carried off to Beijing. When the report of the 1972 Beijing meeting
between Nixon and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was released, the com-
munique read that one of the collaboration areas in which China would
cooperate with the United States would be in science. Six years later, the
NSF resumed cooperation efforts with China’s Ministry of Science and
Technology.7 The outcome of this groundbreaking step toward expand-
ing international research collaborations is self-evident today, with the
U.S.-China research relationship ranking among the most significant in
terms of impact and number of collaborations in the world.
CONCLUSION
Interacting with other societies has limitless potential to nurture scientific

progress and address the critical issues challenging mankind and its future.
While relations between the United States and North Korea are strained,
a few scientists from both countries continue to try to cooperate on glob-
ally relevant topics, and this has been easier with the United Kingdom
than with the United States because Britain has diplomatic relations with
North Korea whereas the United States does not. Areas of some modest
cooperation include forestry, seismology, and ecology.8 Throughout his
7
National Research Council. 2011. Building the 21st Century: U.S.-China Cooperation
on Science, Technology, and Innovation (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press), p. 38.
8
S. Zhang. 2016. “How British Scientists Got Inside North Korea to Study a Volcano.” www
.wired.com/2016/04/north-korea-opens-arms-volcano-western-scientists, (accessed March
15, 2016).
career, Neureiter has pioneered the field of science diplomacy, exposing

the world of science to a variety of cultural differences. If one examines
the long-term repercussions of using scientific collaborations as a channel
to access and bring the values of democracy and freedom to other nations,
early exposure to foreign languages and cultures is key to developing a
new generation of science diplomats equipped to guide policy makers and
governments in avoiding war and preventing natural disasters.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blanpied, W.A. December, 2007. “A Brief History of the National Science Foun-
dation’s Tokyo Regional Office.” National Science Foundation. https://www
.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/history.jsp
Freudenberg, W.R., and R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions,
Politics, and the Battle Over Offshore Drilling. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Kovarik, B. 2011. Revolutions in Communication: Media History from Gutenberg
to the Digital Age. London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing
Group.
National Research Council. 2011. Building the 21st Century: U.S.–China Cooper-
ation on Science, Technology, and Innovation. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
Novak, M. July 24, 2014. “The All-American Expo that Invaded Cold War Russia.”
Paleofuture. http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-all-american-expo-that-
invaded-cold-war-russia-550628823
Olovsson, I. 2016. Snow, Ice and Other Wonders of Water. Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific.
Yannella, P.R. 2011. American Literature in Context after 1929. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Zhang, S. 2016. “How British Scientists Got Inside North Korea to Study a Volcano.”
WIRED. March 15, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/north-korea-opens-
arms-volcano-western-scientists
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
E. William Colglazier: I think you can see why I consider these three
individuals to be role models. I think they illustrate to all of us how you
can be a great science diplomat, not only for the benefit of the United
States but also for all people. If anyone has any questions, if you could
introduce yourself and ask away. While you are preparing, I will ask a
question to my esteemed colleagues first.
Question: What advice would you give to a young scientist or engineer

who is interested in science diplomacy, but they are obviously worried
about their own career, their work, and making a name for themselves in
whatever their discipline is. How can they do something related to science
diplomacy even very early in their career?
Peter Agre: I get that question from students, and I am sympathetic, but
I have to say I am a bit of a hardliner. My first question is, “How is it going
on the thesis project?”, because I think science diplomacy follows once
you are a credible scientist. It is not something that doors will magically
open. You have to have some entry. I think to get the best possible train-
ing in science is a powerful entry, but it does not happen automatically.
Certainly, the training that we get in the life sciences—and, I am sure, in
the physical sciences as well—is a great international event. As a medical
student working in a lab, I was introduced to dozens of different countries,
and we have remained friends decades later. I think the kinds of activities
that Norm was discussed, like the work we have done at Hopkins, will
come at a later stage in our career, but we certainly bring students along in
a lot of our activities in Africa, and they love it. I think they have to look
for opportunities. They are there.
Norman Neureiter: I think it is critical what the individual really wants
to do. You want to be good at what you are doing. And, when you’re good,
people notice you. Then, you have a chance to broaden out in a wide num-
ber of ways. I think if you do a good job at your science, then there will
be opportunities to extend it to the broad world. But can you go major in
science diplomacy? I guess so. You can write articles or something. But,
you are not really going to do science diplomacy; you are not going to be a
big hit. You have to have some establishment in your profession, and then
you build onto that. I think we see eye-to-eye exactly on that issue, Peter.
Peter Agre: My dad was a small college professor in Minnesota, and
he would teach in India in the summers in some NSF-organized program.
He found it tremendously enlightening for his own experience, so there are
activities, and they are not always at the highest level. It is the colleagues
AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND SCIENCE • 29
that really count. I think when scientists work together they have a com-
mon bond, a very strong bond, that forms. I think that is something very
special, and I think it has been really good for the United States.
Norman Neureiter: I did not plan to have the chance of interpreting for
Nixon and Krushcev together, but that in fact happened one day. Not for
long but it lasted.
E. William Colglazier: The only counterpart I would make is that in the
3 years I spent in the State Department visiting a large number of countries,
the thing that was most inspiring was meeting with all of the young people
who really do want to change the world. And, they were the same in almost
every country that I went to, the young scientists and engineers. It’s true;
it is good advice that you really have to build your career, build your com-
petency, show you are an expert at something, but I also think we have to
find a way to tap that enthusiasm of youth and how they can contribute. In
the case of both of the individuals here, and you heard it with Norm when
he was a young person being a translator with Khrushchev and Nixon, you
can find ways to get involved. In fact, there is a great interest right now
in a number of universities to at least create some courses that bridge this
world of science and diplomacy. So students that are becoming scientists
and engineers as well as those who are in international relations, or in other
fields, can actually learn from each other. I still think it is important to tap
into the enthusiasm of young people to use what they are learning to bene-
fit the world in general.
Norman Neureiter: I used to call this international cooperation in sci-
ence. I think we owe it to Vaughan Turekian, who in his 8 years or so at
AAAS really focused on making us call “science diplomacy.” He even
created a small journal that comes out quarterly, which is very interesting,
and you can contribute, if you have something to contribute, and get it
printed. I think that has really made this phenomenon blossom as science
diplomacy. I pretty much said we cooperate with other people in science,
and we think it does good in the world. But he has given it a name, and
the name is spreading, and that is really why we are having this meeting.
E. William Colglazier: For those of you who are interested, tomorrow,
Vaughan Turekian , who is the current Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State, both under John Kerry and now under Secretary
Tillerson . . . if you are interested, come hear Vaughan tomorrow morning.
Question: Do you feel that the scientific community will be either hampered
or advanced by the current political atmosphere in the United States today?
Peter Agre: From a budgetary standpoint, reductions in science budgets

will hurt science—there is no question about it. And, we have not yet seen
what the budget will be forthcoming in the next years. We are apprehen-
sive from fiscal level. I am sure I am in agreement with most here that
the level of enthusiasm in science among the scientists and the students is
terrifically high. The administration will serve for a few years, and then
another administration will be there, but the science goes on. Anthony
Fauci, who has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Disease for about 25 years, has gone through multiple admin-
istrations, and he takes a somewhat isolated view of his job: It is to do the
science and not worry about what the leadership is articulating. I think
the leadership in the White House now is concerned with so many other
things, some of them pretty crazy, but science has not been on the agenda
that much. But, we’re worried.
Norman Neureiter: For the science community in general, we just fin-
ished the AAAS General Meeting, and it was a big issue at that meeting.
What is the future of science in the United States? How will budgets hold
up? And, is there to be a different paradigm for how science and scientific
research are funded in the future? I think there is a lot to be done on that
issue, but there are reasons for concern as well.
Peter Agre: I think getting the visas for young people is an immediate
concern. About half of the trainees at Johns Hopkins, and I am sure about
half of the postdoc students at the University of Arizona, come from all
over the world. If they are detained or prevented from coming, they won’t
have the experience and we won’t have the talent, so science could be
markedly reduced because of that. I think it is a cause of concern.
Norman Neureiter: There were 225 people initiated as fellows of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science at the annual meet-
ing. To look at the catalog of those names, you just know they did not all
come from the United States. And, that is so important to recognize the
value of bringing these people to the United States, many of whom fled
unpleasant circumstances in their own countries, and that ought to be a
message to all of us. We ought to stand up and fight for it.
Question: What are your ideas on getting science to lead policy instead
of policy leading science?
Peter Agre: I think science is not an ideology. We all know that. Science
is how we pursue the truth; it’s how we understand the natural world. Bad
policies have been formulated over the years, and they never stand—not
forever. I think, basically, when truth is uncovered, intelligent people
respond intelligently and share it with others. I think, by and large, science
drives policy to some extent, not literally all the time.
AT THE CROSSROADS OF DIPLOMACY AND SCIENCE • 31
Norman Neureiter: I should have worn my badge that was given out at
the AAAS meeting that reads, “Ask for the evidence.” Eventually, evi-
dence does triumph. In general, ask for the evidence, and the evidence
will define the future of science, but don’t give up that scientific search
and research while worrying about the evidence. You need to accumulate
the evidence which will then define, hopefully, the truth.
Question: There is a gap between science and policy. Some institutions and
groups are more effective at communicating science and raising awareness
than others. Is it possible to carve out within our own system a method of
managing both science and policy without having institutional bias?
Peter Agre: Policy is formulated by elected officials. By sharing your sci-

entific understanding with them, not just passively but making sure they
understand it, by getting others involved, they will respond. I think we
have a responsibility of sharing what we know with the public, not just
with the highest elected officials but in local communities, at PTA and
Scout meetings. My dad used to teach the chemistry merit badge for Boy
Scouts. It sounds pretty trivial, but it’s a good way of getting some infor-
mation out there. I think, by and large, the public can understand this and
will support it. That is my view.
Norman Neureiter: What you would like is that those who make pol-
icy do, in fact, seek the truth, and do not just make policy based upon
opinion or on political pressure. But, a lot of positions which turn into
policy under certain politicians are very strongly held—they are strong
beliefs. Remember, some of these are ethical beliefs, and they are reli-
gious beliefs. Often, they are more important in determining policy, or at
least to the personal mix to policy, than the scientific evidence. Policy is a
very complicated thing, and the structure of our government—checks and
balances, inputs, two houses of Congress, and the supreme court—those
instruments were ingeniously created by the founders, so you would not
just have one person flying off and doing something without the ability to
check that person and demand more information and evidence. But, I also
think that society can be very fragile—very fragile. And, that’s why all of
us need to be very alert to those fragilities, if they’re tested and could be
broken. It’s a really sophisticated but very complicated question.
E. William Colglazier: I would like to give one advertisement, reminded
by the comments right here. There is a wonderful program the American
Association for the Advancement of Science has now, over four decades
old, called the Science and Technology Policy Fellowship. It’s an oppor-
tunity for young scientists and engineers to learn what it is actually like,
interacting with policy makers, because the science-policy interface is a

contact sport. You have to understand the constraints that our policy mak-
ers and our elected officials have, and they need to understand better where
scientific evidence comes from and how it can help to inform policy. The
Science and Technology Policy Fellowship program now has an alumni
class of 4,000 or 5,000 people over the past 40 years who have added
greatly to the people with scientific and technical backgrounds serving in
our government.
Norman Neureiter: I am so glad you mentioned that because it gives a
person also the chance to examine his professional career, vis-à-vis chang-
ing to a diplomatic career or something different, if he or she decides
they have real expertise or capabilities in the other direction. I think this
fellowship program has been really important in changing people’s careers
in a very constructive way.
E. William Colglazier: For those of you who are interested, for the next
day and a half, I think you can learn even more about the interaction of
science and diplomacy. I think we all know that science and technology are
moving incredibly fast, which creates great opportunities as well as great
challenges. I think it is important for the university communities to help us
grapple with these challenges.
Index
A Clegg, Michael, 82
AAAS. See American Association Climate change, 68
for the Advancement of Collective planning, 58
Science Communication, cross cultural,
Academies role in science 40. See also Cross cultural
diplomacy, 81–82 communication
Academy of Sciences of Cuba, Comrie, Andrew, 3
96, 98 Congo, 13
Academy-government Costa Rica
partnership, 84 conservation in, 68–69
African independencies, 11–12 economic development,
Agre, Peter, 9, 15–16 66–67
Agriculture, 7 education, 67
international cooperation in, 7 leadership, 68
Alberts, Bruce, 36 leverages, 67–68
American Association for the national parks in, 69
Advancement of Science primary exports, 67
(AAAS), 15–16, 36, 66, 99 research as primary economic
forums, 59 engine, 67–68
American Foreign Service, 5 research collaborations,
Atkinson, George, 35 69–70
scientific diaspora of, 70
B scientific success, 67
Bolivar, Simon, 85 Cross cultural
Boright, John, 3 communication, 86
Bush, George W., 36 science as a means of diplomacy,
23–24
C science as diplomacy,
Canada, 86 22–23
Castro, Fidel, 15–16, 98 serving America through
Chile, 86 science, 25–26
Citizen scientists as unanticipated access in foreign
diplomats, 84–85 affairs, 24–25
120 • Index
Cuba G
funding and education, 97 Global citizenship, 56
national scientific research, 97 Global innovation, 40–41
research and development in, Global projects, 40–41
98–99 Global science enterprise, 43
research excellence in, 99
science achievements in, 98 H
science as an economic force in, Health care, 62–63
99–100 Health security, 63
scientific community and Hildebrand, John, 81–82
national independence, 96 Holt, Rush, 66
Cuban Academy of Sciences, Huxley, Julian, 56
96–98
Cuban Revolution, 15 I
IAEA. See International Atomic
D Energy Agency
Deforestation, 68 IANAS. See Inter-American
Democratic People’s Republic of Network of Academies of
Korea (DPRK), 16–17 Science
Diplomacy, 3, 56 IAP. See Inter-Academy Panel;
private sector in, 7–8 Inter-Academy Partnership
science and. see Science, and ICSU. See International Council
diplomacy for Science
Domestic policy objectives, 40 ICSU’s Regional Office for Latin
DPRK. See Democratic People’s America and the Caribbean
Republic of Korea (ICSU-ROLAC), 91
Imperatives, 35
E Individual leaders, relationships
Ebola, 7 and negotiations between, 84
Economic development, 54 Inter-Academy Panel (IAP), 85
Education, 62–63 Inter-Academy Partnership (IAP), 41
Einstein, Albert, 63, 85, 96 Inter-American Network of
European Organization for Nuclear Academies of Science
Research (CERN), 57 (IANAS), 85, 86
Evidence-based decision Intergovernmental Panel on
making, 42 Climate Change (IPCC), 85
International academy
F partnerships, creation of, 85
Food security, 63, 86 International agriculture, 7
Foreign affairs, 24–25, 40 International Association of
Foreign languages, 23–24 Academies, 96
Foreign Ministers Science International Atomic Energy
Technology Advisers Network Agency (IAEA), 6
(FMSTAN), 42 International collaborations, 54
Foreign policy objectives, 40 in Mexico, 91–92
INDEX • 121
International community, 36 M
International Council for Science Macaya, Roman, 66
(ICSU), 81–82, 85 Malaria, 11–17
International Council of Scientific Manhattan Project, 85
Unions, 96 Mexican Academy of Sciences,
International engagements, 63–64 86–87
International gold standard, 6 Mexican National Council for
International health, 7 Science, 90–91
International relations, 3 Mexican science diplomacy, 93
stability of, 10–11 activities of Mexican Academy
International Rice Research of Sciences, 90–91
Institute in the Philippines, 7 establishing, 89–90
International science cooperation, international collaboration in,
58, 98 91–92
International scientific research funding roadblocks,
collaborations, 66 92–93
International scientific research Mexico
collaborations, 90 diplomacy in, 93
International security, 41 nuclear technologies, 93
International Union for partner countries with, 90
Conversation of Nature science and technology, 92
(IUCN), 57 scientific publication
Internationalization of statistics, 92
science, 56 scientists, 93
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Mugabe, Robert, 14
Panel on Climate Change Myanmar, 15
Iran nuclear agreement, 6–7
IRAN nuclear agreement and N
development of nuclear NACSEX program. See North
energy for peaceful American-Cuban Scientific
purposes, 6–7 Exchange program
IUCN. See International Union for National Academy of Sciences, 39
Conversation of Nature National Autonomous University
of Mexico (UNAM), 92
J National defense, 84
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research National Science Foundation
Institute, 13 (NSF), 63, 85
National security, 41
K Network, building and
Kabila, Joseph, 13 implementation, 38–39
Kennedy, John, 35–36 Neureiter, Norman, 20, 22, 25, 35
NGOs. See Nongovernmental
L organizations
Latin America, science in, 85 Nongovernmental organizations
Leshner, Alan, 66 (NGOs), 14
122 • INDEX
North American-Cuban Scientific Regional academy networks, 83,

Exchange (NACSEX) 86–87
program, 98 academy-government
NSF. See National Science partnership, 84
Foundation citizen scientists as diplomats,
Nuclear energy, development of, 84–85
6–7 launch of science academies, 85
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Resource crisis, 62–63
6–7 Rhodesia, 11–12
Nuclear testing, 5 Rocha, Arturo Menchaca, 82
Nutrition security, 86 Roosevelt, 85
O S
Office of Science and Technology Science
Policy (OSTP), 66 academies, 85
OSTP. See Office of Science and and diplomacy, 12, 35–36, 56,
Technology Policy 64, 84, 93
activities of Mexican Academy
P of Sciences, 90–91
Paris Agreement, 56 addressing international chal-
Partnerships for Enhanced lenges through, 8
Engagement in Research current initiatives, 41–42
(PEER) Program, 63 establishing, 89–90
Pastrana, Sergio, 82 evolution of, 5–6
PEER Program. See Partnerships international collaboration in,
for Enhanced Engagement in 91–92
Research Program international cooperation
Pickering, Thomas, 3 in public health and
as diplomats, 4 agriculture, 7
Plutonium, 6 Iran nuclear agreement and
Poland, 25–26 development of nuclear
Poverty, 12–13 energy for peaceful
crisis, 62 purposes, 6–7
Private sector in science, life-changing impact of,
technology, and diplomacy, 42–43
7–8 network building and
Problem-solving, 54–56 implementation, 38–39
Public health, 7 opportunity in solving global
international cooperation in, 7 crises, 10–11, 11–17
policy and policy makers, 39–40
Q research funding roadblocks,
Queen Isabella II of Spain, 96 92–93
role of private sector in science,
R technology, and diplomacy,
RAND report, 99 7–8
INDEX • 123
sustainable development goals, Skill set, 39

40–41 Society, 55
in Latin America, 85 Software, 39
in national planning STAS. See Science and Technology
conservation in Costa Rica, Adviser (STAS)
68–69 STI. See Science, technology, and
current research collaborations, innovation
69–70 Sustainable development goals, 35,
leveraging, 66–67 40–41
research as primary economic
engine, 67–68 T
policy, 39 Teaching, 39
private sector in, 7–8 Technology, private sector in, 7–8
trends in rise of, 55 Tico Talent Network (TICOTAL),
before World War II, 85 70
Science, diplomacy, and policy TICOTAL. See Tico Talent
(SDP), 39 Network
Science, technology, and Tillerson, Rex, 39
innovation (STI), 38, 39, Transportation system, 38
42, 54 Turekian, Vaughan, 35–36
global commitments
requiring, 56 U
infrastructure to ensure, 55 UNAM. See National Autonomous
partnerships in, 62 University of Mexico
Science and Technology Adviser UNESCO. See United Nations
(STAS), 40 Education, Scientific, and
Science Development Forum, 41 Cultural Organization
Science-driven partnerships, 90 Union of Soviet Socialist
university of process of science, Republics (USSR), 22
63–64 United Nations Climate Change
USAID, 62 Conference, 93
young people with education and United Nations Education,
health care, 62–63 Scientific, and Cultural
Scientific advisory boards, 58–59, Organization (UNESCO), 56
58–60 creation of, 54
Scientific community, 63 international collaborations,
Scientific engagement in 56–57
international affairs, 62 and internationalized science,
Scientific training, 23–24 56–58
SDP. See Science, diplomacy, and science as problem-solving,
policy 54–56
Security science diplomacy at work, 57
international, 41 scientific advisory boards and
national, 41 forums for networking and
Seko, Mobutu Sese, 13 planning, 58–60
124 • INDEX
United Nations Sustainable USIA. See United States

Development Goals, 41 Information Agency
United States, 16 USSR. See Union of Soviet
United States Agency for Socialist Republics
International Development
(USAID), 3, 14, 62 V
United States Information Agency von Humboldt, Alexander, 84–85
(USIA), 22
Universities
Mexican, 91–92 W
of process of science, 63–64 Walter Reed Commission, 15
role in science diplomacy, 81–82 Women for Science Symposium,
Uranium, 6 91
U.S. education system, 85 World Science Forums, 58
U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, 96, 99–100 Z
USAID. See United States Zambia, 11–12
Agency for International Zika, 7
Development Zimbabwe, 14
OTHER TITLES IN OUR SUSTAINABLE STRUCTURAL
SYSTEMS COLLECTION
Mohammad Noori, Editor
• Numerical Structural Analysis by Steven O’Hara and Carisa H. Ramming
• A Systems Approach to Modeling Community Development Projects by Bernard Amadei
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Concepts
and Development by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Advanced
Topics and Application by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Multi-Scale Reliability and Serviceability Assessment of In-Service Long-Span Bridges
by Mohammed Noori
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume I: A Tutorial for Engineers
by Wael A. Altabey
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume II: Dynamic, Probabilistic Design
and Heat Transfer Analysis by Wael A. Altabey
Momentum Press offers over 30 collections including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil,

Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical, and many others. We are a leading book
publisher in the field of engineering, mathematics, health, and applied sciences.
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research
Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering

topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers,
faculty, and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content
in sensors and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and
materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

• perpetual access for a one-time fee
• no subscriptions or access fees required
• unlimited concurrent usage permitted
• downloadable PDFs provided
• free MARC records included
• free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the

US, please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.

Part

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Part

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons

E. William Colglazier, Honorary Chairman of the Conference

Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager

The Role of Science in Diplomacy

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published in 2018 by

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-346-2 (print)

Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.

First edition: 2018

Printed in the United States of America

Science diplomacy and policy can support collaborative national and

• To shed light and interface science, technology, and engineering

climate change, cross-cultural communication, global affairs, global

Preparing for Twenty-First-Century

WHY HOST AN SDP CONFERENCE?

One concept of Science Diplomacy is that it is the use of scientific col-

focuses on examples of SD activities rather than stating a specific defini-

“Science in diplomacy”: Informing foreign policy objectives with sci-

The first activity can also be described as Science Policy, which

Figures 1 and 2. Opening session of the SDP conference—University of

then thoroughly reviewed by a scientific committee and approved by the

WHY ORGANIZE THE MEETING AT A UNIVERSITY?

Generally, this type of meeting would be hosted by a professional organi-

engineering that is needed to solve vexing global problems. Holding the

WHY HOST THE MEETING AT THE UNIVERSITY

Clearly, the hub of SD in the United States is Washington, DC; not

role in this conference. Engineers without Borders, a Grand Challenge Schol-

Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National

We also convey thanks to the distinguished speakers for investing

Stephanie Zawada Ravindra Dwivedi Jacob Petersen-Perlman

Given their substantial efforts, Ms. Stephanie J. Zawada, the senior

Also, the extraordinary efforts of Ms. Sheri E. Dean, marketing director

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017—AT THE

6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017—ROLES

8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2017—CLIMATE CHANGE

8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

Provost Andrew Comrie has provided an excellent introduction to the

We are very fortunate to have a contribution to our discussion from

EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY

Science is very much an energizer of the world and is increasingly import-

Rapporteurs: Jacob Petersen-Perlman and Stephanie J. Zawada

THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT AND

Nonproliferation Treaty that makes no restrictions on either the ­enrichment

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN PUBLIC

ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN SCIENCE,

ADDRESSING INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGES

Our next speaker is a very distinguished scientist, Peter Agre, recipient of

At “Global Challenges: Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on the

Keywords: global health, malaria in Africa, science diplomacy, scientific

SCIENCE AS AN OPPORTUNITY IN SOLVING

Rapporteurs: Stephanie J. Zawada, Jacob Peterson-Perlman, and Alex Utzinger

perils, such as nuclear weapons proliferation, these hazards jeopardize

COMBATING MALARIA IN WAR-TORN REGIONS

as a liberal democracy. Although more progressive than its neighbor-

In DRC, malaria containment efforts have been focused in the Katanga

In his work with the American Association for the Advancement

Figure 1. Agre meeting Fidel Castro

6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

Nonproliferation Treaty that makes no restrictions on either the enrichment