[ad_1]
As the effects of global crises such as war and natural disasters are felt around the world, a new report from the International Scientific Council (ISC) suggests that the scientific community must take action to protect science and scientists in these difficult circumstances. He says we need to be better prepared.
“Importantly, this report comes at a time when schools, universities, research centers, hospitals and all the places that promote the advancement of education and scientific research are being destroyed or damaged.” [in places like] Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza,” says Peter Gluckmann, president of the ISC, an international non-governmental organization of 250 scientific unions, associations and research councils.
The report emphasizes the need for a unified strategy that not only responds to crises, but also anticipates and prepares for them. It details more effective multilateral policy options and actions that scientific institutions, governments, academia, foundations, and the broader scientific community can start collaborating on immediately. These include promoting relationships between scientists from different countries and improving relations with news media, as well as advocating for a “stronger scientific voice” in the world .
Immediately after a disaster, it is difficult to have comprehensive, inclusive, and rational discussions.
Sayaka Oki University of Tokyo
One of the main themes emerging from this report is the lack of reflection by the science sector on past crises. Learning from the past is key to future resilience, the report says. These lessons include defining immediate needs, maintaining cross-border cooperation, and countering misinformation in the event of a crisis or disaster. The paper considers lessons learned from crises such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the 2021 Cape Town University library fire, and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. There are also examples of “crisis recovery” such as the war in the Balkans (1991-1999) and Japan after World War II.
“Immediately after a disaster, it’s difficult to have a comprehensive, comprehensive and logical discussion. That’s why we were faced with a big dilemma,” said a Tokyo resident who was present in the coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Sayaka Oki of the university’s Graduate School of Education says. Earthquake and subsequent tsunami. “In a democratic society, there should be free debate, but in practice it can be very difficult to convey a thoughtful and consistent message, especially in the days after an incident. That’s why a single voice It needs to be transparent and clear.”
crisis management
The report’s crisis management framework has three elements: prevention, protection, and recovery. Its key recommendations include strengthening resilience by developing a systematic response that leverages global expertise to minimize the impact of the crisis. Educating scientists and leaders about crisis and risk management and fostering trust in science and society. Improve cooperation and information-sharing mechanisms to protect researchers and scientific assets in times of crisis. and encourage rebuilding efforts that prioritize science, higher education, and innovation in the post-crisis recovery.
In times of crisis, the public needs access to and trust in hard evidence.
Tracy Brown, Sense of Science
Stephen Wordsworth, chief executive of the charity Council for Dangerous Academics (Cara), welcomed the proposals. “It is critical that we have experienced organizations and established processes in place to respond quickly when a crisis occurs. [Cara]was dominated by the impact of the crises in Afghanistan, Ukraine and Sudan, but with the support of a long-established network of 135 UK university and research partners, by the end of 2023 around 175 people under threat The scholar was able to successfully find a job. ‘
“Decision-makers should follow the report’s recommendations,” urges Stuart Parkinson, executive director of the World’s Leading Scientists for Ethical Science and Technology. “This report provides timely analysis of the neglected issue of protecting scientists and scientific infrastructure during a crisis.”
Tracey Brown, director of the charity Sense About Science, which aims to raise the standards of evidence in public life, welcomed the report’s call for a better relationship between science and society. ‘[This is] is important and can be improved by providing scientists with an understanding of the context in which decisions are made and recognizing the trade-offs that people face in their daily lives. In times of crisis, the public needs access to and confidence in hard evidence to help them make the best decisions for their circumstances. ”
[ad_2]
Source link
