Mutually reinforcing policies and research

pressing global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Countries must not be afraid to acknowledge vulnerabilities exposed by either domestic or international research. It is easy to celebrate science when researchers achieve a breakthrough, but science must also be heard when it is the bearer of bad tidings.

During the pandemic, governments everywhere have turned to their biomedical communities for solutions. Many have allocated generous research budgets to these communities. That is all very well but it is those research communities that were well funded before the virus emerged that have been best equipped to respond to the crisis. Research communities are not born overnight. They must be nurtured over time. Currently, four out of five countries still spend less than 1% of their gross domestic product on research. In many countries, funding for research remains low or erratic. Researchers enjoy little status. This makes poor economic sense. Why invest in training a scientist or an engineer only to waste that investment by denying them the means to carry out their mission effectively?

In 2015, governments around the world pledged to raise their research expenditure as a share of GDP when they adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. Within three years, 32 countries had effectively raised their research effort. But another 13 headed in the opposite direction. Scientific communities need sustained adequate funding to thrive. This is one of the main messages of the Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers adopted by UNESCO’s member states in 2017.

4/5 1%

SHAMILA NAIR-BEDOUELLE

Shamila Nair-Bedouelle is the assistant director-general for natural sciences at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. She previously served as director of the OzonAction programme at the UN Environment Programme. She has pursued her research interests in parallel to her career at the United Nations, and was director of research at the University of Paris V since 2000. From 2002 to 2007, she served as scientific officer and deputy scientific coordinator of scientific programmes of the European Commission.

Twitter @unesco  unesco.org

For humanity to solve the myriad crises it faces, it will be very important for research and public policies to be mutually reinforcing. During the pandemic, policymakers have often been faced with a range of unpalatable options necessitating trade-offs among health, economics, individual rights and social well-being. Scientific analysis and advice have helped them to make informed decisions in an extremely difficult situation. Now, decision makers have an opportunity to build greater resilience to future pandemics by adopting policies that support scientific institutions.

Despite the need for research and public policies to be mutually reinforcing, scientists and policymakers are not always on the same path. Scientists have been producing valuable research on COVID-19 in countries where governments have been reluctant to listen to science. Similarly, scientists have been producing valuable research on climate change mitigation and adaptation in countries where it has been government policy to minimise the importance of climate change. This antagonism is problematic, because scientific knowledge can only be transformational if backed by political will. If decision-makers refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem, they will not support policies that facilitate problem solving or heed research that proposes practical solutions.

Scientists themselves have obligations to the wider community. They must be attuned to the ethical issues that their research may raise. The ethics of science has long been a focus of UNESCO’s work, through the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology and the International Bioethics Committee. Most recently, this work has led to the elaboration of a Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, to be submitted for adoption at this year’s General Conference. ▪

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed two important truths about global politics: the world does not take global health seriously enough, and governments are not prepared to respond to global threats collectively. To be ready for future crises, leaders must better balance domestic challenges with international matters. In today’s interconnected world, they are inseparable.

Global health threats go beyond borders; so, too, must our response. Choosing efficiency and short-term thinking, by only following a national agenda, will prevent us from investing in the necessary long-term structures to protect against future pandemics.

Leaders need to stand as part of a world alliance. We need global systems and institutions that are always functional and ready, as well as politically and financially independent. And they need sustained leadership and investment. Global health should feature regularly on political agendas –not only during crises. We need to see

By Sir Jeremy Farrar, director, and Caroline Schmutte,

regular discussions on global health security at the United Nations Security Council, the G7 and G20, and across the European Union.

Pandemic preparedness is a constant, long-term investment. Rich countries, including the G7 and G20, must agree on a set of preparedness and response tools, and commit to financing and adopting them. If we fund vaccine development, we must do so with a global market in mind, for example by funding the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. If we vaccinate people, we must cover all countries and communities to avoid dangerous virus mutations. If we create centres of pathogen