Today I am returning (on Azerbaijan Air, non-stop to JFK) from the Global Baku Forum, which has been held here in the capital of Azerbaijan, on the western shores of the Caspian Sea, for the past several years to engage current political leaders (and many more former leaders) in conversation about a variety of international issues.   I was invited because one of the members of the organizing team—my friend Ismail Serageldin, the economist and founder of the new Library in Alexandria (Egypt)—insisted that the audience, composed largely of politicians and economists, needed to learn more about the role science should and could play in the development of policies that influence those issues.

The panel that I chaired on March 15th, entitled “The Role of Science and Culture in Contemporary Decision Making”, was geared toward understanding what determines the incorporation of scientific knowledge into political positions and government action on some hot-button topics: climate change, genetically modified foods, vaccination, energy sources (e.g. nuclear power), tobacco use, transportation, gene therapies, etc. Because the mass shootings at two mosques in New Zealand was just being reported, there was also some discussion of the implications of gun ownership and gun laws.

I opened the session by reminding the audience (and the many panelists) that there were at least three issues to consider about each country:  (i) Does the government do a good job in supporting science (with grants, training programs, institutions, sensible immigration rules, etc)? (ii) Does the government have standing mechanisms to obtain advice about science and technology (as we usually do in the US through advisory committees such as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Academies, scientists working in government agencies or even occasionally as elected members of Congress)? and (iii) How does the government weigh information provided by scientists against other, potentially opposing views embedded in cultural traditions, religions, or economic stresses or goals?

We heard from panelists hailing from countries as far-flung as New Zealand, Romania, Canada, Kyrgzstan, India, and Egypt, as well as numerous members of the audience, about the difficulties scientists have had in building knowledge and confidence in their audiences.  These limitations were attributed to several things: poor methods for transmitting information, a lack of knowledge about the psychology of persuasion (as also noted in Jenna’s report from her meeting in Paris), a lack of respect for people’s fears, the difficulty of persuading people to forego short-term gains to improve prospects for a much longer-term future.   Most of the attention was focused, as at Jenna’s meeting, on climate change, where the risks to the species are greatest and the short-term losses from increased regulation are most acutely felt.   But even in the discussion of vaccines and of control of tobacco and vaping, where the benefits of stronger regulation are easiest to discern, the obstacles to adoption of stricter controls seem large.

A couple of other aspects of the conversation are worth noting.   First, there is a relatively small number of science-based issues that seem to dominate the conversation, even though science is critical to so many aspects of modern life.   Perhaps that means that science and technology are generally thought of favorably and become contentious only when some deep cultural standard is violated for some citizens.  Second, several of the politicians on the panel had deep roots in science (a physicist, a mineralogist, a psychologist), perhaps a preview of the changes occurring in the US Congress, to which several scientists and health care professionals were elected in 2018.

I’d be happy to field questions about the Baku Forum or about Baku itself when we meet.

Harold Varmus