Susanna Niederer’s Post

I have just read this short commentary and recommend all scientists to do so. One of the quotes in it that speaks out to me: ‘What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?’ https://lnkd.in/d7vEjt4u The commentary mentions another study (https://lnkd.in/du5DFhNg) that points out a key barrier to a scientist becoming an activist and in particular becoming a protestor, is not knowing someone who is already involved in climate activism. If that is true for you - please do not hesitate to get in touch. As the commentary also points out, there is a myriad of different ways to get engaged - there is so much to do also for everybody not willing to risk being arrested by the police for peaceful civil disobedience. We are in a planetary emergency. It is about time to show that we take science seriously. Emergency times require emergency actions.

Mobilizing scientific research is the answer to a green future. Learn how the Frontiers Planet Prize is driving this green renaissance via our article in the Financial Times ⬇

🚨 New Paper Alert ❓ What drives scientists to engage or not engage the different public about environmental change? Here, we respond to this question in our latest work. ✍ In this study, we found 19 factors (#individual, #organizational, and #systemic) affect how scientists talk with different audiences about our changing world.  ✨✨Across #society, there is an increasing expectation for more #scientists to #engage with industry, government, and communities to solve pressing issues affecting our modern world, including climate change. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence of what drives scientists to #embrace or #avoid engaging different audiences on environmental change. 📢 While scientists enjoy sharing their research findings with communities and policymakers, our study uncovered that they found it #hard to #deal_with_conflict, #face_skeptics, and navigate #organizational #politics and structures to engage others in a public-facing role. 📢 Also, a lack of #institutional_support and #engagement #culture, #role_ambiguity, unequal #power relations, and a legacy of past encounters led many scientists to engage in tokenism. 📜 This work shows why #scientists might not engage others in a public-facing role and what might be needed to transform engagement. Thanks to my awesome co-authors Gretta Pecl Emily Ogier Catriona Macleod and support from the University of Tasmania Centre for Marine Socioecology Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies Here is the link to the full open-access article.

Wonderful talk at MIT last night by MIT Professor Susan Solomon, of the Earth and Planetary Science Department, who came to MIT in 2012 through the Ellen Swallow Richards (ESR) Professorship that also was honored last night. She reviewed a 40-year story of impactful global collaboration across sectors, stories that we don't hear often enough. #Scientists are not as different as one might imagine. They also work to the point of exhaustion often over the course of a lifetime to reach levels of #expertise otherwise unimaginable and inaccessible to mere covetous desires and desperate opinions. When the right diversity of them are in the right place at the right time, they are blessed with the opportunity to work collaboratively as equal colleagues with #technologists and #policymakers purely and honorably with the objective of solving problems. #Problemsolving is a slow and complicated #story to tell. It's not amenable to reality TV and the ridiculous attention spans of social media and contemporary news media (for which most of the blame rests solidly with consumers). Nevertheless, there are stories that can and should be told of humanity's #successes that fly in the face of simplistic divisiveness from which ideologues and grifters benefit. The kind of success that #transforms environments and culture is evident throughout human history, but we seem to have forgotten about it, forgotten that we are not imprisoned in worlds built on #developmentally less mature understanding. "Solvable" is one noteworthy story, with many chapters and protagonists, that offers #hope in our capacity for #discovery, #innovation, and global #cooperation. It's a story about overcoming obstacles that seemed overwhelming to those who cannot imagine cooperation and compromise among stakeholders with different objectives. It's a story that reveals opportunities to solve even more complex problems in ways that are at once "#personal, #perceptible, and #practical." ESR Professorship https://lnkd.in/e3vpEDXs Ellen Swallow Richards https://lnkd.in/eVuDEw2j #MIT #Chemistry #Physics #Mathematics #Computation #Industry #Government

“in a planetary emergency where scientific evidence plays a secondary role to the power of private capital in the formation of policies that will determine the future of life on Earth,” This secondary role of Science to Money is true as long as we continue to allow “private capital” to include capital markets capture of fiduciary money, transmogrifying fiduciary stewards of social trusts for future dignity entrusted with discretionary authority over the investment of money for income as well as safety to assure security and dignity across the generations, into Asset Owners Allocating Assets across Asset Classes, and within classes, selecting Asset Managers peer benchmarked by Consultants for generating the highest possible purely pecuniary risk-adjusted profits extracted as gain on sale to other market participants in the capital markets, solely in the financial best interests of [maximizing fees and profits for capital markets professionals]. What can Science say to Asset Managers about purely pecuniary risk-adjusted profits? There is an innovation that will make money make more sense to our common sense by turning Asset Owners back into fiduciary stewards with the power, purpose and time to use the technologies of spreadsheet math, desktop publishing and digital communication to flow the right money into the right enterprises, for its use in doing the right work, for the right time, at the right cost and on the right terms, through negotiated agreement on equity paybacks to an actuarial/fiduciary cost of money, plus opportunistic upside, from enterprise cash flows prioritized by contract for suitability to the times, longevity over time and fairness over time, to form the right businesses for forming the right technologies for forming the right choices for forming the right economy for forming a cohesive society and keeping it ongoing into a dignified future. Fiduciary stewards need Science to speak to suitability and longevity, and common sense to speak to fairness, to help choose the right places for tens of trillions in fiduciary money to flow, on the right terms, for security ongoing into a dignified future. There is much that Science can say to Fiduciary Stewards about building a world of security and dignity.

I covered the Iran nuclear negotiations during the Obama-Rouhani era as a professional analyst while advocating for the Iran nuclear agreement in my own private capacity. I kept those two roles strictly compartmentalized, which was my professional obligation, and in my advocacy I was careful to caveat because I was not interested in making myself appear to be naive in the pursuit of peace. (It is a dangerous mistake to want peace more than one's adversaries.) I think it is entirely possible to provide objective analysis--insofar as there is such a thing as complete objectivity on such matters--while also having a private view and advocating in support of whatever one's perspective is on whatever issue. On climate destabilization, it is silly and absurd to expect scientists to be neutral. This is like saying that someone should be neutral about the future survival prospects of their species or their civilization. Kind of a deep spiritual problem if you've gotten to that point. 😂

Very interesting discussion about climate science is picking the pace, as the very objectivity of science is on the line. To what degree can a scientist be political, and still be regarded as a producer of objective knowledge? Can a scientist really be neutral? I have written on these same issues considering mathematics in my blog at: https://lnkd.in/dsGJK3bc

This is truly unique. I wonder what the other universities will do next. Princeton University has reversed a previous policy that restricted funding for academic research from fossil fuel companies, stating that the measure had a “disparate and unfair impact” on faculty engaging in environmental research. Initially implemented in 2022, this policy was part of a broader movement among U.S. educational institutions to distance themselves from the oil, gas, and coal industries, which included divesting from 90 companies connected to these sectors within its endowment. Faculty members expressed that the restrictions hindered their ability to secure necessary funding for critical environmental research. In a recent update, three high-ranking officials from the university acknowledged that these rules unfavorably and unequally affected scholars addressing urgent environmental issues. They emphasized that researchers lost not only external funding opportunities but also valuable collaborative partnerships that aligned with the university's commitment to combat climate change. Under the revised guidelines, while Princeton’s endowment will maintain its divestment from fossil fuel companies, faculty are now permitted to accept research funding from these firms if their projects are specifically focused on reducing the environmental impacts of carbon emissions. However, this shift has sparked backlash among students, with an editorial in The Daily Princetonian labeling the decision as a “betrayal” of the university's mission and integrity, arguing that it compromises the institution’s responsibility to future generations. Critics argue that fossil fuel-funded research is likely to favor corporate interests and reinforce reliance on fossil fuels, rather than promoting innovative solutions. Since the original policy was imposed until January 2023, Princeton divested from 29 companies and identified 2,371 fossil fuel entities for potential disassociation. Despite lacking direct affiliations with most of these companies, this figure significantly increased from the original 90. The university will cease updating this list, which previously included notable mining and energy firms like BHP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil, but will continue to publicly disclose all external research funding sources and contributions each year. In its latest report, Princeton revealed that research sponsorships in 2023 amounted to nearly $3.4 million from BP, $848,000 from ExxonMobil, $120,000 from Shell, and just over $100,000 from Syncrude. Furthermore, a congressional investigation conducted by Democrats in April highlighted instances of oil companies working with universities to further their business strategies. https://lnkd.in/eraf322Q

One of my biggest challenges in leaving academia was constantly being told that I was departing from #science. I’ve always approached science differently, both in how I conduct research and lead others. My focus has always been on communicating impact, teaching, and sharing science's economic and societal value in ways beyond academic publishing. The rigidity and 'hands-off' approach some defend just aren’t compatible with the urgent crises we face today. Activism and a clear position from scientists, within and beyond academia, are absolutely necessary in a world overwhelmed by competing voices. We cannot afford neutrality when scientific evidence risk being sidelined by private capital and policy decisions that shape the future of life on Earth. So, I resonate deeply with the article's perspective and feel encouraged by statements like, 'democratic societies are often pluralistic in their values, and we must ensure this pluralism is reflected in the scientific community.' As a consultant and content creator, I’m doing my best to carry this forward. #greenskills

To say "everything is not fine" is scientific neutrality in itself. Just observe the evidence, and draw whatever conclusion the evidence implies. If that happens to favor one political agenda over another, that's not the scientists' fault, and it really shouldn't be the scientists' problem. The problem here is that many people (politicians and their followers, mostly) are ready to denounce any science and scientists that disagree with their predetermined political position as lies and liars, and as fraud or wild imagination gone amok. Well, sometimes scientists do have wild imaginations gone amok, but that doesn't entitle anyone to belittle anyone describing discomforting evidence. In science, one's hypothesis can always be wrong, and that isn't a crime and doesn't make anyone a fool -- all of us are mistaken, sometimes, and most of us at least consider possibilities that turn out to be incorrect rather often. But evidence means material and tangible facts, not figments of someone's imagination, and evidence accumulates. Here in the US, the anti-environmental movement is in practice much stronger than the environmental movement. But not so long ago, the anti-evolution movement was stronger than the evolutionist movement.