Home > Science Diplomacy at the intersection of post-truth movements, populism, and tech-nationalist science. Interview with Stéphanie Balme

Science Diplomacy at the intersection of post-truth movements, populism, and tech-nationalist science. Interview with Stéphanie Balme

06/03/2025
Participants in the March for Science

Since 2017, 7 March has been recognised as the Stand Up for Science movement day in response to the anti-science actions of the first Trump administration. The movement advocates for science-based policymaking, scientific integrity in public discourse, and the protection of academic freedom. The beginning of Trump's second term has exacerbated these issues, with staff layoffs, budget cuts, cancelled diversity programmes, and cancelled conferences. In this context, Stéphanie Balme (Director of the Centre for International Studies) joins us to discuss the evolution of science diplomacy in recent years, highlighting the challenges faced by a field that was initially designed to address the Sustainable Development Goals but is now caught up in post-truth movements, anti-science rhetoric, and the increasing politicisation of science by various external actors.

How would you define science diplomacy today, in a few words?

While the term science diplomacy is relatively recent, the role of science in diplomacy has existed for centuries. Science, technology, and innovation (STI) have become crucial to understanding international relations and are now a fundamental part of them. As defined by Bruno Latour, science diplomacy is a typically interdisciplinary field that emphasises the relevance of the social sciences and humanities in a science, technology-driven environment and vice versa.

Notwithstanding the centuries-long existence of science diplomacy in various forms, it was formally recognised as a distinct field within international relations in 2010 with the publication of the Royal Society and AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) report New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. This report adopted a bottom-up approach, whereby academics took the initiative, interacted with diplomats, questioned their capacity to integrate scientific outcomes, data, and results into international negotiations, and, for the first time, projected themselves as key diplomatic actors.

The report highlighted the importance of bridging the gap between science and diplomacy to address global commons and challenges such as climate change, migration, public health, the Sustainable Development Goals, and emerging technologies. The report defined science diplomacy in three key ways. This definition has since then gained significant traction:

  • Science in Diplomacy (SiD): applying scientific knowledge to inform and influence foreign policy decisions, such as climate, migration etc.;
  • Diplomacy for Science (D4S): using diplomacy to support scientific advancements and international collaboration; and
  • Science for Diplomacy (S4D): leveraging scientific cooperation to foster diplomatic relations and rebuild trust, particularly in post-conflict regions and through so-called Track II diplomacy efforts.

A new report has just been released, what does it tell us about Science diplomacy in 2025?

The Royal Society and AAAS released a new report in February this year, Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption, reflecting on 15 years of developments, with COVID-19 emerging as a pivotal turning point in two key ways. On the one hand, the pandemic reinforced the concept and practice of science diplomacy, bringing it into the spotlight. Concurrently, it has given rise to an unparalleled contestation and politicisation of scientific expertise. Additionally, scientific knowledge’s global geography and structure have been transformed over the past 15 years. Top-tier research remains concentrated in the Global North, particularly in three key regions based on Nobel Prize distributions (Switzerland, Scandinavia, and Ivy League universities in the U.S.). China’s ascent as a scientific powerhouse and the rise of regional research ecosystems in the Global South are reshaping the scientific landscape. Notable emerging research hubs include Turkey, India, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, and Malaysia, to cite only a few.

The 2025 report also acknowledges the increasing number of actors now involved in science diplomacy, recognising the widening gap between traditional diplomacy and the pace at which science evolves, particularly with STI playing an increasingly central role in shaping foreign affairs. The involvement of cities, scientific academies, NGOs and the private sector in science diplomacy has grown, with major companies using it to advance their interests. Additionally, it underscores the growing role of national security concerns in scientific collaborations, marking a shift from the 2010s, as security risks now play a central role in rising global tensions. Consequently, there is an increased need for more apparent roles and objectives for scientists and diplomats to mitigate these risks. This highlights the urge of new training frameworks to equip future diplomats, journalists, policymakers, and similar professionals with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate these challenges effectively. I have been contributing to this dynamic at Sciences Po since 2020, by developing courses on the introduction to Science Diplomacy, Science Diplomacy as new frontiers in IR, and Tech Diplomacy at Sciences Po/PSIA.

Globe of science CERN
The globe of science and innovation, CERN, Switzerland, September 2020.
Photo by olrat for Shutterstock.
Because the report stresses the bidirectional nature of Science Diplomacy, refining the framework to show how science influences diplomacy and how diplomatic priorities shape scientific agendas, it calls for a more specific understanding, expanding beyond the original 3 definitions (Science in diplomacy, Diplomacy for science, and Science for Diplomacy). The rise of post-truth movements, particularly concerning vaccines and climate change, the ongoing risk of instrumentalising and politicising science, and the growing competition in science and technology have given rise to considerable tensions. It is essential that these challenges are addressed to ensure that science continues to serve as a catalyst for global cooperation rather than conflict. This is evident in the European strategy of derisking cooperation with unlike-minded countries, such as China and the US’s decoupling strategy for the equivalent countries.

At the same time, China’s rapid advancements in science, framed through a techno-nationalist-utopian perspective (the subject of another course I teach at PSIA) have reshaped the global science diplomacy agenda. China’s scientific initiatives, including the digital Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its leadership within the G77+1 group at COPs, redefine and challenge “North-South” and intra North and South scientific cooperations and, with the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement aim to position China and the EU as leaders in addressing global human development issues.

Scientific research is inextricably linked to IR considerations, emphasising diplomats' need to incorporate scientific expertise into foreign policy. However, traditional diplomatic training is inadequate to address these enormous challenges. There is a clear need for innovative educational models and interdisciplinary curricula to prepare diplomats, scientists, and policymakers to navigate the daily evolving landscape of science diplomacy.

Beyond climate and environmental diplomacy, which have been institutionalised through the work of the International Panel on Climate Change and is now a standard component of academic curricula, new subfields within science diplomacy have emerged over the past 15 years. These include, for instance, global health and biomedical diplomacy, space diplomacy, ocean diplomacy, and tech diplomacy—all of which require dedicated study and expertise. Critical issues remain at stake in the context of ongoing global conflicts, including the governance of international spaces such as the high seas, outer space, the atmosphere, and Antarctica. Additionally, managing transboundary natural resources—particularly in regions shared by multiple nation states—poses significant challenges. Lastly, global commons issues, including wildlife conservation and water resource management, demand urgent attention within the science diplomacy framework.

Among Science Diplomacy’s subfields, tech diplomacy merits particular attention. Historically, technology-focused foreign policy has centered on state interests, emphasising national security and economic priorities. However, the scope of tech diplomacy has expanded significantly, now encompassing the private sector, civil society, and multilateral organisations as key stakeholders in global negotiations. In recent years, a notable surge in private-sector investment in R&D. Private sector involvement in geopolitics is not new, with historical examples such as the East India Company and the influence of European and US industrialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is a growing reliance on private corporations to drive technological innovation and research accross industries. Companies like Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Apple, Huawei, and Microsoft now have annual R&D budgets that surpass those of many nations. As such, some private companies wield disproportionate control over critical technologies. Consequently, AI development is becoming increasingly monopolised by a few major corporations, which limits the diversity of research and creates dependencies on corporate-funded infrastructure. In response to these challenges, many countries appoint tech diplomats and establish diplomatic offices in major technology hubs such as Silicon Valley.

The report on European science diplomacy has just been released, in the current unstable international context. You contributed to it as part of a group of European experts as a member of the EU Science Diplomacy Steering Team and the WG1 working group: ‘Using science diplomacy strategically to tackle geopolitical challenges in a fragmented, multipolar world’. Could you tell us a little about it? What was the working methodology for the preparation of this report?

Yes, a group of experts led by Jan Marco Müller, a pioneer in the field, at the DG research and innovation, has released A European Framework for Science Diplomacy strategy. This report consolidates the efforts of five EU Science Diplomacy working groups, involving 130 experts from science and diplomacy across Europe. The report assesses the current state of European science diplomacy, outlining its mission, objectives, and values, and proposes a new taxonomy for EU science diplomacy. The groups were tasked with developing recommendations for a unified European framework for science diplomacy.

Science diplomacy has been central to the EU’s integration, with key institutions such as CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research), the European Southern Observatory, and the European Space Agency established in the 1950s and 1960s. The Horizon Europe programme is the world’s most extensive multilateral research funding mechanism today. The 2012 EU policy document marked the first official recognition of science diplomacy, and the 2015 “Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World” declaration signalled a further policy shift. Horizon 2020 projects on science diplomacy have helped lay the scientific groundwork for the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance launch in 2021. The European External Action Service has recently stepped up its efforts by appointing a Science and Technology Advisor, launching networks of science diplomacy coordinators and adopting the “Global Approach to Research and Innovation”, highlighting science diplomacy as a key tool for projecting “EU values and interests”.

European framework for science diplomacyEuropean science diplomacy takes place at different, interrelated levels. At the national and subnational levels, following the principle of subsidiarity; at the EU level it focuses on common EU interests and sovereignty; also, by involving countries associated with the EU Research and Innovation Framework Programme and those covered by the EU’s neighbourhood policy, usually through pan-European organisations with third countries and, finally, at the global level by collaborating with organisations like UNESCO, WHO, UNEP, etc. The key actors in European science diplomacy include scientists, diplomats, professionals such as administrators and policy officers, and intermediaries such as science advisors, communicators, and trainers. Despite these efforts and this new web of connections, there remains an urgent need for better coordination.

The EU report emphasises the essential role of science in shaping the European economy, particularly in driving innovation and technological advancements. The EU faces significant challenges, such as closing the innovation gap with US and Chinese scientific ecosystems, decarbonising the economy while boosting competitiveness, and enhancing defense and security. Consequently, science diplomacy is reemerging as a crucial tool for Europe’s global strategy. The report underscores the increasing need for coordinated science diplomacy efforts, which are not currently firmly established.

The 2025 document aims to integrate scientific expertise into the EU’s foreign and security policies. To achieve this, the report calls for science diplomacy to become more visible and central to EU foreign policy, advocating for enhanced diplomacy supported by scientific evidence and better capacity building. On 28 February 2025, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a European Research Area Policy Agenda 2025-2027. One key objective is to “enhance the science-policy-diplomacy interface,” with an expected outcome of creating a “European framework for science diplomacy.” This indicates that the politicisation phase of the report is underway and will be crucial for the future of science diplomacy at the EU level.

Why do you consider it is essential to take part in science diplomacy as a researcher and a professor and how have you engaged in favour of science diplomacy?

Together with Enrico Letta, Carlos Moedas and Pierre Lemonde, we co-founded the European Science Diplomacy Initiative (ESDI) at Sciences Po in 2019 to promote collaboration in teaching and research at the intersection of the sciences (both natural and social) and international relations. In this role, I collaborate with the International Science Council (ISC) as a research associate to support global science diplomacy initiatives. In 2023, Sciences Po formalised this partnership through an Memorandum of Understanding with the International Science Council. Many of my students have completed, and continue to undertake, internships at the ISC headquarters in Paris. My commitment to science diplomacy is also reflected in my recent appointments to the scientific boards of ERAC at Nature Springer and IDDRI (which focuses on climate diplomacy).

Beyond academia, I have actively engaged in policy discussions through op-eds on scientific sanctions, analysing their impact on global research collaboration. Alongside physicist Pierre Lemonde, I co-authored policy briefs for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, contributing to developing France’s national science diplomacy strategy. My longstanding commitment to academic freedom includes fostering innovative solutions within the EU. In 2023, I authored the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Academic Freedom, submitted on behalf of Sciences Po in support of our colleague Fariba Adelkhah, who was then detained in Evin prison in Tehran. With colleagues worldwide, I am deeply committed to science diplomacy and academic freedom. Bringing this topic onto the political agenda is never easy—actually, it is always a challenge! However, it is a path worth pursuing.

What are the challenges ahead?

Science diplomacy has evolved from a conceptual framework to a vital tool for understanding interenational relations. As global tensions intensify and new actors reshape the diplomatic landscape, the need for a balanced approach that preserves the integrity of scientific expertise while strategically embedding science diplomacy in foreign relations becomes paramount. The challenge ahead is to maintain the credibility and impartiality of science while ensuring that it remains a central pillar of diplomacy in a post-American Europe and an increasingly post-transatlantic world.

Interview by Miriam Périer, CERI.

Further reading and references

  • Mark Corcoral. “Omniprésence sans omnipotence : la puissance américaine contre Huawei à l’heure de la 5G”. In Conflits, crimes et régulations dans le cyberespace , pp. 115-143. ISTE Editions, July 2021. URL: https://hal.science/hal-03380946
  • Adrien Estève. “Preventing and Managing Climate Risks: France’s Approach to Climate Security”. In Judith Nora Hardt, Cameron Harrington, Franziskus von Lucke, Adrien Estève, and Nicholas P. Simpson (eds), Climate Security in the Anthropocene, vol. 33 of The Anthropocene: Politik-Economics-Society-Science, pp. 113–130. Springer International Publishing, May 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-26014-8 6. URL:https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-04212174.
  • Adrien Estève. “La diplomatie climatique française après la COP21”. In Bertrand Badie and Dominique Vidal (eds), La France, une puissance contrariée. L’état du monde 2022, pp. 218-224. Éditions La Découverte, September 2021. doi: 10.3917/dec.badie.2021.01.0218. URL: https://hal.science/hal-03380940v1.
  • Elena Sidorova. Book review “Géopolitique de l’IA. Les relations internationales à l'ère de la mise en données du monde”. European Review of International Studies , 10(2):226–228, October 2023. doi: 10.1163/21967415-10020014. URL:https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-04277713.

Publications by Stéphanie Balme on the topic

  • “The future of EU science diplomacy ambitions: the insights from a policy-maker”. Watch the lecture . The lecture is given by Maria Cristina Russo, Director for International Cooperation in Research & Innovation at the European Commission. The discussion was chaired by Stéphanie Balme, Dean of Sciences Po Undergraduate College, Research Professor at PSIA and CERI. This event was offered as part of the course “Science Diplomacy: The Next Frontline To Global Challenges?” taught by Professor Stéphanie Balme in the spring semester at PSIA.

Illustrations:
- Washington, DC, 22 April 2017. Participants in the March for Science, photo by Bob Korn for Shutterstock
- The globe of science and innovation, CERN, Switzerland, September 2020. Photo by olrat for Shutterstock.

Back to top