Tag: Science Diplomacy

When science enters government halls, history shifts. In wartime, it built bombs. In pandemics, it saved lives. From Einstein’s letter warning Roosevelt of the Nazi nuclear threat to Sputnik’s beeps echoing across Cold War skies, science has shaped diplomacy, power, and policy.

These were more than scientific breakthroughs; they were turning points that reshaped the course of history through the force of science-led diplomacy. This is science diplomacy, where states and experts join forces, turning research into solutions that cross borders. Simply put, it’s science and diplomacy working hand in hand to tackle what no country can face alone.

While the world wields science as a tool of diplomacy and survival, Pakistan treats it as a side project.

Our pattern is painfully clear: We commission reports after disasters and rarely heed warnings before them. Climate scientists remain sidelined while decisions critical to Pakistan’s future are made without their input. This is no longer about academic debates; it is about whether our future generations inherit a functioning state or a wasteland.

“Science without policy is science, but policy without science is a gamble.” said Dr. David Grey, former Director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

Bringing scientists into the highest levels of government isn’t a luxury anymore. It’s a national necessity.

One striking example is Pakistan’s approach to a recent science diplomacy meeting in France, led by Ambassador Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, a career diplomat and our Permanent Delegate to UNESCO. According to media coverage of the MOFA website, the published brief offered broad statements with little technical depth and no clear roadmap. Rather than properly planning for such an important forum involving scientists and academics, and framing a serious science diplomacy strategy, we treated the matter as routine. Technical issues demand technical minds. This not only weakens our voice on the global stage but also reflects a worrying casualness towards a field that should be at the heart of national policymaking.

This is not an isolated event. A COP meeting, the annual UN summit on climate change, requires serious technical preparation. Experts note that Pakistan’s COP21 submission as its climate action plan reportedly ran to just 350 words, offering limited analysis or strategy.

The same approach was evident at COP29, where a 35-member delegation, funded by loans from the National Disaster Risk Management Fund (NDRMF), attended during an ongoing economic crisis. The excessive size and cost drew heavy criticism, and once again, there were no tangible outcomes.

These missteps expose a deadly dysfunction at the heart of our decision-making: sending large delegations without experts is like dispatching an army without ammunition. By sidelining technical minds, we not only forfeit strategic influence at forums like COP but also gamble with lives, turning rising floodwaters into tsunamis, smog into silent killers, and heatwaves into lethal furnaces. This isn’t red tape; it’s a life-and-death reckoning. If we don’t reverse course, Pakistan will stay reactive instead of becoming strategic.

These diplomatic misfires trace back to a more fundamental gap: the absence of meaningful investment in knowledge itself.

According to World Bank Open Data, in 2023, Pakistan allocated just 0.16% of its $337.91 billion GDP to research and development, roughly $550 million. For a country grappling with climate instability, public health challenges, and scientific isolation, this figure reflects not just a funding gap but a crisis of vision.

Now contrast that with the scientific superpowers. The United States, in 2022, spent 3.59% of its $26.01 trillion GDP, close to $892 billion, on R&D. China, aiming for technological dominance, allocated 2.6% of its $17.79 trillion economy in 2023, roughly $462 billion. Japan, ever a beacon of science-driven policy, directed 2.68% of its $4.2 trillion GDP in 2022 to over $113 billion. These figures aren’t just budget lines; they reflect strategic vision.

Adding to this challenge is Pakistan’s performance in the 2024 Global Innovation Index, where it ranked 91st out of 133 countries. In comparison, Japan is at 13th, China at 11th, and the U.S. at  3rd. These aren’t just dry statistics; they reflect how seriously each country takes science and innovation. While the world is launching moon missions and building quantum labs, Pakistan doesn’t even have a clear scientific roadmap. The gap isn’t just widening; it’s becoming a permanent divide. And the message these numbers send is louder than any diplomatic communiqué.

Science and innovation may not yield instant results, but their long-term impact fuels economic growth, soft power, and global presence. Yet, science diplomacy, being the potential gateway to strategic alliances, remains overlooked and underfunded.

Despite the criticism, there’s still hope for Pakistan to steer its scientific potential in the right direction. Just as the European Union has built a collaborative framework, working together on projects like CERN and the International Space Station. Pakistan can look toward building strong regional alliances in Asia to uplift its science diplomacy and educational ecosystem as well.

China has been a steadfast scientific partner from co-developing the JF-17 to launching our satellites and opening doors to space missions. Even through CPEC, the collaboration is clear, but it’s mostly one-way. For science diplomacy to truly take root, Pakistan must bring more to the table: joint research, meaningful academic ties, and institutions where our youth can thrive and our global partners can respect.

Let’s widen our circle beyond Beijing: partner with Japan’s materials labs, learn from South Korea’s chip-makers, tap into the UAE’s clean-tech hubs, join Kuwait’s digital transformation drive, and connect with Qatar’s global R&D network. At home, translate key texts, fund joint research, and build innovation-driven campuses. Only then will Pakistan stop watching others write the future and start shaping it ourselves.

To make science diplomacy a true instrument of geopolitical strength, we need real structures: science attachés, advisory roles for researchers, and serious investment in local talent. In an age where technological supremacy defines military and strategic dominance, research is no longer optional; it’s national security. We risk irrelevance in the new world order until we treat knowledge as infrastructure and science as strategy.

The writer is an independent science journalist. She can be reached at [email protected].