December 13, 2021 | Reflections
Prof. Matthew Adamson lives in Budapest, Hungary. His research work has focused on the history of nuclear programs, on the worldwide search for nuclear raw materials, and on the diplomacy of the nuclear technosciences. He is presently Director of Academic and Student Affairs at McDaniel College’s campus in Budapest, as well as Guest Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies of Corvinus University (Budapest). In this post, Joseph Satish interviews Prof. Adamson on the work of Division of History of Science and Technology – DHST Commission for Science, Technology, and Diplomacy, (of which he is Secretary) the Commission’s ongoing and future engagements with science diplomacy in the global South, and synergies between STS and historical analyses of science diplomacy.
Could you say a word about the DHST Commission on Science, Technology and Diplomacy? What are your personal responsibilities and activities as Secretary of the Commission?
By the time of the 2017 International Congress of History of Science and Technology (ICHST) in Rio de Janeiro, a number of participants who had been working on topics concerning the history of science and technology in diplomatic affairs proposed to the DHST General Assembly the creation of a Commission on the topic. Simone Turchetti took the lead and presented our case to the Assembly. Happily enough, there was sufficient agreement and the Commission was formed.
Our intention was for the Commission to encourage a more equitable, global engagement in the history of science in international affairs. With that in mind, the Commission tries to invite new members from different parts of the world. As secretary I help keep track of agendas and meetings and when need be make sure things like new membership or initiatives get recorded.
The Commission has argued for a different reading of science diplomacy – one that challenges current definitions that emerge from the Global North. How have other historians and diplomats responded to this attempt, especially to include perspectives from the Global South?
I think by and large it’s been warmly welcomed. The Commission’s work is part of a broader movement in the field. In traditional histories of science, technology, and diplomacy, the regions of the Global South were treated as a passive periphery. Of course historians of science have done a great deal in the past few decades to demonstrate the specific, local nature of manifestations of technoscience and the agency behind those manifestations. More generally, there’s been a long-standing movement in allied fields towards a critical reading of traditional narratives and a critical historical appraisal of the geopolitical power dynamics we see emerging during and after the Cold War.
In calling for more narrative origin points in the history of science diplomacy to be located in the Global South, we are not so much making a wave as riding it. The challenge is to access more historical sources and support historians and scholars of science diplomacy from the parts of the world less represented in the field.
Could you share something about the InsSciDE project? What has your role in the project been?
The InsSciDE project (Inventing a Shared Science Diplomacy for Europe) is one of a handful of European Commission-supported efforts to study and support science diplomacy. The project is oriented towards historical case studies as a means of enriching our understanding of particular areas of science (health, space, environment, and so on) and developing a clearer picture of how science diplomacy practices map onto different theoretical approaches to power in international relations.
I authored a case study in the work package about security. The project supported the research I carried out on the attempt by the Kingdom of Morocco to acquire a nuclear research reactor at the end of the 1970s and the various frameworks of diplomacy that contextualized that initiative. This case study was one of several that lent the InsSciDE project a global perspective. I happened to follow that research with work on how the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) interest in appealing to Southern member states resulted in its cultivation of the field of isotope hydrology.
Has your (and your colleagues’) involvement in the InsSciDE project contributed to a greater respect for historical analyses of science diplomacy, especially among diplomats?
The InsSciDE project responded to a call from European diplomats, who stressed their need for greater historical context for the work they do in science diplomacy. So, drawing diplomats’ attention to historical analyses was one of the key intentions of the project from the moment Pascal Griset (Sorbonne/CNRS-Paris) and his collaborators proposed it. InsSciDE includes several means of outreach, most significantly summer schools in science diplomacy involving a diverse range of participants–senior diplomats, scientists, and young diplomats. The latter are of particular significance, because one thing that the InsSciDE summer schools did was to sensitize its participants to the historical inequalities in the science diplomacy landscape and to give a greater sense of how these inequalities can inhibit diplomatic initiatives. Generally, then, there’s a genuine interest in historical analyses of science diplomacy.
To return to the DHST Commission for Science, Technology, and Diplomacy for a moment, what are the future plans for the Commission’s work in engaging with the Global South?
What we’ve been doing most recently suggests our future direction. Two of our officers, Aya Homei and Gordon Barrett, have organized a series of workshops on Asia in histories of science diplomacy. Resulting from this is a special issue in the works, as well as a firmer sense on the part of the Commission that we’ve been able to bring more Asia-centered narratives to light. Members of the Commission have also been the principal drivers behind two recent special issues on the general history of science diplomacy, in Centaurus and Berichte zur Wissenschafts-Geschichte. Each features a global range of case studies.
Besides the workshop series and special issues, several of the Commission members are part of a new European Commission-supported research project called ‘Negotiating world research data’ (NEWORLD@A). This project will analyze the development of world data exchange systems in a number of scientific fields, the negotiations that led to the establishment of those data centers, and the kinds of tendencies and imbalances we see in the use and circulation of data. Simone Turchetti directs this project, which involves collaborators from Europe, China, Brazil and Africa. We will be organizing a symposium at next year’s European Society for the History of Science Conference to think further about Global South perspectives in science diplomacy, and we always welcome contributions from anyone interested.
What scope might there be for co-travelling with 4S in this journey of engagement with the Global South?
The first thought that occurs to me is for the Commission to organize a panel on science diplomacy at a 4S conference. That would be a great starting point for reflecting on the many important things STS scholars bring to the table as far as the study of science diplomacy is concerned. The kind of critical approach to the sciences and science diplomacy which STS makes, and the emphasis that STS puts on the significance of interdisciplinarity and human values in scientific and technological application and practice, would mean, ultimately, a better science diplomacy, more likely to succeed in its inclusion of multiple perspectives in the resolution of global problems.
Published: 12/13/2021