Can Knowledge Cross Borders When Politics Cannot

At UNESCO in Paris, science advisers and diplomats confronted a difficult question: how can evidence remain useful when trust among governments is weakening?

Scientific knowledge is often described as universal. Evidence does not change nationality at a border, and a virus, climate system or ocean current does not respect a diplomatic dispute. Yet science is produced by people working inside institutions, funding systems, legal regimes and national priorities. Knowledge may be international in aspiration while the conditions of cooperation remain deeply political.

That tension framed the tenth-anniversary symposium of the Foreign Ministries Science and Technology Advice Network, held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris on November 9, 2026. Titled Reinventing Science Diplomacy in a Changing World, the meeting was organized with support from the European Commission in cooperation with UNESCO and the Paris Peace Forum. It preceded World Science Day for Peace and Development and served as an official side event of the Paris Peace Forum.

FMSTAN was established in 2016 as an informal community for experts who advise foreign ministries on science, technology and innovation. It now brings together roughly forty members. Unlike a scientific academy, it sits close to the machinery of diplomacy. Its purpose is to strengthen advisory capacity, share practices and help foreign ministries understand where scientific evidence intersects with international policy.

Science diplomacy is sometimes divided into three overlapping activities: science in diplomacy, when evidence informs foreign policy; diplomacy for science, when governments negotiate the conditions for research cooperation; and science for diplomacy, when scientific collaboration helps maintain relationships between states. The categories are useful, but events rarely fit neatly inside one. A research agreement may advance knowledge, build strategic influence and preserve communication simultaneously.

History provides examples of cooperation surviving political strain, but it also cautions against easy celebration. Scientific exchange has supported arms control, space cooperation, public health and environmental monitoring. It has also been shaped by military competition, intelligence concerns, unequal access to data and the movement of expertise from weaker institutions to stronger ones. Science does not become neutral merely because diplomats call it cooperation.

The present challenge is intensified by technologies whose risks and benefits travel quickly: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum systems, satellites, cybersecurity and climate engineering. Governments need expert advice before political consensus exists. They must distinguish genuine security concerns from restrictions that unnecessarily weaken open inquiry. They must also decide how to include countries and communities that have historically been treated as recipients of knowledge rather than co-creators.

Trust is therefore the central infrastructure. A government must trust that advisers can explain uncertainty rather than offer convenient certainty. Researchers must trust that collaboration will not expose them to theft, coercion or arbitrary exclusion. The public must trust that institutions will disclose conflicts and correct errors. International partners must trust that agreements will survive changes of administration. None of these forms of trust can be created by a single summit.

Translation is part of the problem in more than the linguistic sense. Scientists speak in probabilities, confidence intervals and provisional conclusions; political systems often demand a clear decision and a short timetable. Diplomats must translate evidence without stripping away uncertainty, while researchers must understand that policy weighs law, ethics, economics and public legitimacy alongside technical findings. Misunderstanding can occur even when everyone shares a language.

The symposium’s location at UNESCO is significant. UNESCO was founded on the conviction that peace requires intellectual and moral solidarity, not only treaties among governments. Science diplomacy belongs to that tradition when it broadens participation and protects the conditions for inquiry. It departs from it when cooperation becomes branding without openness or when scientific prestige masks exclusion.

Can knowledge cross borders when politics cannot? Sometimes, but never automatically. Data needs standards, institutions and access. Researchers need visas, funding and personal safety. Advisers need independence and channels into government. Diplomats need the patience to sustain relationships before a crisis. Knowledge can keep a door open, but people and institutions must choose not to close it.

Sources

UNESCO, Reinventing Science Diplomacy in a Changing World. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/reinventing-science-diplomacy-changing-world-fmstan-10th-anniversary-symposium

INGSA, FMSTAN 10th Anniversary Symposium. https://ingsa.org/divisions/fmstan/fmstan-10/

INGSA, Foreign Ministries Science and Technology Advice Network. https://ingsa.org/divisions/fmstan/

FMSTAN, Tenth Anniversary Symposium Agenda. https://ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/FMSTAN-10th-anniversary-agenda-051026-public.pdf