How universities and researchers can do more for climate action

By Alyson Fleming

I recently returned from the COP26 meetings in Glasgow. As someone who has spent my career leap-frogging between science and policy, the COP meeting was interesting to me as it’s one of the world’s largest stage for policy action based on scientific information. I was most interested to see what the relationship was between scientific findings and policy formation. Hundreds of scientists, researchers, and conservation-focused NGOs attend these meetings every year. Why? What is their goal? What is their role? The IPCC already exists. Doesn’t IPCC, a comprehensive international body with thousands of scientific experts get the most up-to-science into the right hands when it is needed? I was curious to see where and how that science-policy interplay continued (or didn’t) at the COP.

There is a long-standing, largely linear or unidirectional, mode of interaction between the science and policy worlds that has constrained productive interaction. Specifically, science exists at the front lines--collecting data, investigating problems, gathering intel while policy resides at management levels--setting priorities, establishing benchmarks and solutions. Scientists have historically been discouraged from engaging in political discourse and thus the information flow has been more of a delivery service than a collaboration. Recently, there have been great improvements on more adaptive management approaches, especially at local scales, such as structured decision making, adaptive ecosystem governance, and spatial planning that make the science-policy pipeline less of a pipeline and more of a two-way street or even an iterative cycle. These are great steps. But I think the structure of scientific information flow and decision-making processes has been so engrained, that we in academia and other research institutions have been missing a critical space for engagement. And that space is at the other end of the pipeline – the monitoring of implementation, the tracking of progress, and the enforcing of policies.

This kind of work is already happening and the tools for it are certainly there. Of course, social and political scientists have long been examining implementation, success, and consequences of policies. But I think there is a lot more potential for progress if academic and research engines have a better awareness of the policies that are being considered and announced. This awareness can help research efforts to be more focused on improving the outcomes of these policies. From what I saw at COP26, this type of work currently is largely being done by tech and consulting industries. For example, tech companies are developing powerful machine learning and computational techniques to leverage satellite data in new ways such that it can track emissions and emitters, visualize changes in biomass and ecosystem structure. Consulting groups are gathering data on coastal ecosystems and comparing restoration methods. Universities and research institutions can add further value to this arena in a multitude of ways.

Beyond the technical and intellectual expertise housed in universities, academics and researchers are often afforded geographic access and collaboration that industry and governments are not. Additionally, universities are a training ground for the next generation of scientists, diplomats, resource managers, and policy makers. Many universities and graduate schools have created programs focused on interdisciplinary training. These could act as excellent incubators for this nature of work and be instrumental in further development of translational research that can help the policies be effective and consequential.

“There is a long-standing, largely linear or unidirectional, mode of interaction between the science and policy worlds that has constrained productive interaction”

International scientific expeditions executed by wealthy countries in developing nations are often criticized as “parachute science” ignoring local capacity and needs and merely dropping in to scoop up an interesting intellectual finding. But perhaps this elitist scientific practice can be an additional service as the world rapidly must adapt to changing conditions and changing political commitments. If the “parachuters” are focused on the adaptation and solution implementation side of the pipe then what used to be a curiosity mission becomes an additional pathway for moving resources, personnel, and funding from wealthy countries to developing countries. The funding of scientific research is a drop in the bucket compared to the dollars needed for financing a just and equitable global green transition. But it is arguably less contentious and complex than the international negotiations involved in climate finance. Finally, during my time as a professor, every student I interacted with has stated that they want to do research that helps address climate change -- so there certainly won’t be any shortage of eager students and young scientists to help address this research need.

As someone whose research has focused on whales and ocean ecosystems, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t keep conducting primary research on species, ecosystems, and natural processes. But it’s clear to me that if more earth, marine, and computer scientists work on solution tracking and policy evaluation from their respective disciplines, it would give more power and potential efficacy to the goals hammered out in the plenary rooms and huddles at COP. Conservation isn’t actually about ecosystems or species – they usually do quite well without us. Conservation is about people and I think we might be more successful if more of us conservation scientists are analyzing what our own species is doing.

Alyson Fleming is a PhD, a Tufts alum who is currently an Associate Scientist at University of Wisconsin Madison, University of North Carolina Wilmington and a Research Associate at Smithsonian Institution