A New Vision for Science Diplomacy: Q&A With Cassidy Sugimoto
Cassidy Sugimoto, School chair, Tom and Marie Patton Chair, and professor in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech
Cassidy Sugimoto describes herself as a “metascientist.” She analyzes how the scientific ecosystem operates, and how its parts — the people, patents, publications, policies, funding, data, and more — comprise and influence the whole.
For her latest project, Sugimoto is going global. A grant from the Trans-Atlantic Platform for Social Sciences and Humanities is taking her across national borders and into science diplomacy. Here, we talk to her about her work and how a more open and equitable scientific ecosystem can change the world for the better.
Sugimoto is the School chair, Tom and Marie Patton Chair, and professor in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech.
Please tell us a bit about your work and research.
In my research, I use a variety of tools — big data, surveys, interviews, and social science research methods — to understand how the system of science is operating. I want to know if it’s functioning efficiently, responsibly, and equitably. I look at how we make science, how it is funded and rewarded, and the policies supporting science. I also look at inequalities within the scientific system, such as the intersection of race and gender, and how that plays out in scientific production.
I’m also an administrator, which I love. I get to take all my research and put it into practice by considering how we support science and mentor scientists, and how we build organizations that are more equitable, sustainable, and innovative.
You have a new research project that’s taking you into science diplomacy. What is science diplomacy?
At its core, science diplomacy is about the interaction of science and nations. We split it into categories of science for diplomacy, diplomacy for science, science in diplomacy, and diplomacy in science. For example, we might use science to achieve a diplomatic objective, like fostering exchanges of scientists between countries to build goodwill. We might use science to inform diplomacy — for example, to understand which countries are competitive in certain emerging technologies and where we should focus our attention. We might also need diplomacy to achieve scientific goals, such as gaining access to a critical observatory or resource. Science diplomacy is all these things. For our project, we focus on creating an evidence base that is most useful for diplomatic purposes, with a particular emphasis on metascience observatories.
What is a metascience observatory?
In an astronomical observatory, you observe the cosmos. You’re observing and counting stars and planetary bodies and analyzing how the system works. But imagine that instead of looking at the sky, you're looking at the system of science.
Metascience observatories study scientific data and the scientific ecosystem. This includes the actors of science — scientists and administrators. It also includes institutions that support science, like funding agencies and academic universities. Finally, there’s the output of science. This includes scientific publications, scientific patents, and anything produced by scientists. So those are all the objects of the scientific system: people, institutions, and products.
We then take those people, institutions, and products and aggregate and analyze them, and — this is the “observatory” part — observe trends over time.
By observing all the parts and data that make up the scientific ecosystem, what questions are metascience observatories trying to answer?
The metascience observatory is about providing real-time data on the state of the scientific system to inform policy.
It could be anything related to the working of science. For example, are we producing more scientists or fewer? Is the system functioning openly and equitably? Are we studying certain topics more than others? Are we becoming more productive or less productive? Are we meeting society's needs? Are we addressing disease burdens that affect our countries?
These analytical questions inform policymakers, who can then make informed recommendations about how science can perform more optimally to address a nation’s needs.
Are there any current examples of metascience observatories? What do they do?
Our work has identified about 40 metascience observatories around the world. These meet our strict definition of being formal organizations dedicated to the study of science and technology that collect, analyze, and maintain data about the science and technology ecosystem, and that share their work openly with the public.
In the United States, the most prominent observatory is the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, which operates out of the National Science Foundation. This is a critical organization that provides data to the government on the status of science and engineering. It also publishes data and reports to inform researchers and
policymakers on the state of science in the U.S.
What are you trying to achieve with this project? How will you know if you’ve accomplished your goal?
We began our grant with the job of defining and identifying scientific observatories. We are now conducting surveys and interviews to gain more information on how these organizations function, particularly in relation to diplomacy. In parallel, we are conducting several case studies — such as artificial intelligence and nuclear power — to examine how diplomats use science in these domains. Bringing these together, we will examine how evidence-based science diplomacy can be used to improve democracy, governance, and trust both within and across nations. We will also look at how we can build a more open, inclusive infrastructure for doing this type of work.
You mentioned “openness” of science. What does that mean, and why is it important?
Part of this story is about open science communication. When we don’t share scientific information quickly and accurately, it hinders the goals of science. The pandemic was an excellent example of science diplomacy’s importance.
During the pandemic, researchers were trying to publish Covid-related findings in some of the most elite journals, which caused delays in sharing critical information about Covid-19. Scientific publishers saw this concern and responded by making data and publications on Covid-19 freely available.
However, post-pandemic, they reverted to their closed approach. A recent study showed that publications associated with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals are even less available than the average paper. This hinders science and, by extension, science diplomacy. To be able to provide evidence, that evidence should be open and robust.
How do you hope the global scientific ecosystem will evolve over the next decade or so?
Our scientific system is plagued with inequalities. On the individual level, scholars face barriers based on their gender, race, nationality, and language. Resources are concentrated within institutions, restricting the diversity of ideas. Nations have vastly unequal access to resources, which has adverse effects on meeting global needs. Even our data is skewed toward certain disciplines, languages, and countries, making our knowledge of the ecosystem incomplete and highly flawed. The most robust scientific ecosystem, and the data that supports it, requires an inclusive, open global infrastructure.