GoodGeist
A podcast on sustainability, hosted by Damla Özlüer and Steve Connor, brought to you by the DNS Network. Looking at sustainability issues, communications, and featuring global guests from a wide variety of sectors such as business, NGOs and government.
GoodGeist
Ocean Science Diplomacy, with Andrei Polejack
In this episode we talk to Andrei Polejack, the Research and Innovation Director at the National Institute for Ocean Research in Brazil, who joins us for a tide-shifting conversation about his pioneering work in ocean science diplomacy. We explore how he transitioned from a biologist to a key figure in international science diplomacy, and how scientific knowledge shapes global ocean governance and why understanding power dynamics in marine environments is crucial.
We also talk about how, in a world awash with misinformation, effective science communication has never been more critical. Andrei shares his insights on the evolution of public understanding of science and stresses the importance of a dialogue-based approach to foster trust and support.
We discuss the integration of diverse knowledge forms, including those from policymakers and indigenous communities, and Andrei introduces innovative concepts like ocean literacy that aim to bridge the gap between human activity and nature.
So dive in, and discover ocean science diplomacy with Andrei!
Follow GoodGeist for more episodes on sustainability, communications and how creativity can help make the world a better place.
Good Geist, a podcast series on sustainability hosted by Damla Özler and Steve Connor, brought to you by the DNS Network.
Speaker 2:Hello, hello everyone, you are listening to Good Guys, the message on sustainability which is brought to you by the DNS Network, the global network of agencies dedicated to making the world a better place. This is Damla from Mira Agency, istanbul, and this is Steve from Creative Concern in Manchester.
Speaker 3:This podcast series explores global sustainability issues, how they're communicated and what creativity can do to make positive change happen.
Speaker 2:So in this episode we're going to talk to André Poljak, the Research and Innovation Director of National Institute for Ocean Research in Brazil. He is a Senior Ocean Advisor for the Brazilian Ministry of Science, technology and Innovation and is deeply involved in the science policy interface.
Speaker 3:Deeply involved. Indeed, as a transdisciplinary researcher, andré is interested in ocean science, diplomacy as a field of study, seeking to understand the complex interaction of ocean scientists and diplomats, along with the political sphere of power dynamics and interest in the marine realm, coordinating national ocean and polar research programs, providing technical advice to governments few this keeps going, andre formulating and implementing public policies and negotiating international agreements, amongst many other things. So, andre, thank you so much for taking time to talk to delma or myself it's my absolute pleasure to be amongst you.
Speaker 4:Let's dig into the ocean.
Speaker 3:We're going into the ocean so well. First of all, andre, as anybody who's listened to our podcast will know, we love to get somebody's story, and you've poetically put your story, as once upon a time there was a biologist that loved all bio things I'm going to use that phrase more now um but most mostly evolutionary ecology. He then took a role in the science branch of the brazilian government, where a new passion emerged, and he decided there was time to learn more about this thing on science diplomacy in the ocean. So so right, tell us, andre, how this story unfolded.
Speaker 4:To do so. So I was, you know, trained as a biologist and I was trained to be a pure researcher. But then I got into the government and I had to, you know, give advice and translate scientific findings into public policies, and I wasn't quite trained on doing that. So it was like being forged by the hell, by the fires of hell, and then, after so many years doing that, I decided that I should take a break and try to understand actually what was I doing. So I discovered this beautiful literature, scholarly literature, on science policy interface. But then I always kept the question and I've lived and saw many scientists providing advice to international agreements, international cooperation. So how did that work?
Speaker 4:So I decided to step down a little bit from the government job and pursue the PhD on maritime affairs and devoted myself to science diplomacy. And it was with a big surprise that I saw that nobody had actually delved into the ocean. And I mean, the ocean is all around us. It's a big part of diplomacy. It is what connects all of us at a certain point. It is the birth of life in itself. So how come nobody has ever looked into that with more tenderness and carefulness? So that's what I did. So I coined the new term as ocean science diplomacy, because the ocean is fluid, it is all around us. The international regime for the ocean governance is super complicated, super fragmented, it is sectorial. So I was very much curious on understanding the power of the scientific knowledge into that governance. So that's what I did.
Speaker 2:Oh, my God. Okay, we have so many things to ask you even with this introduction, but let's talk about science diplomacy a bit. The term has been around for some time, actually going way back, with some milestones like 1954, cern, then ICTP in 1960s and I want to quote all of the name because it sounds so cool Recently, synchrotroton light for experimental science and applications in the Middle East. Wow, that sounds very, very interesting. However, it was only the last decade that the concept of science diplomacy has been conceptualized and mainstreamed in foreign and security policy. So the question is, andrei, why shine a new light on it now? What happened? Why now?
Speaker 4:That's a great question. Thank you, damla, because science diplomacy, as you said, has been around, as in the influence of science into international decision making Right, which is much more complicated than national settings. Usually you have advisory boards at the national settings that you know advise on ministers, municipalities there's always someone somewhere giving, giving, providing scientific information into a decision-making process. Even us in our daily lives, we do take decisions on a daily basis based on what science has offered us, as you know, evidence. But then, at the international realm, there was this movement back in 2010 between the AAAS, which is an American association, and the Royal Society of London, a British association, trying to formulate what science diplomacy actually means, and what they did is. They held a meeting and three aspects of scienceomas came about, which would be providing knowledge to international decision-making that's one. Diplomacy helping research projects together and get funding that's the second. And the third one would be when science makes diplomacy change the way we look at the world. So if you look at those three aspects initially framed by those two associations, what you see is a very positive image of science diplomacy, but then scholars took on the effort on actually unveiling what is behind those very positive views and perceptions of science influencing and being influenced by diplomacy, and many papers came out stating that actually what would drive science diplomacy would be national interest. That could be from industry, that could be from political action, that could be from industry, that could be from political action. So national interests would be super important into driving whatever scientists would be, whatever role scientists would have in international negotiations. And when you look at examples, practical examples, you have like a very good one, which is the ozone layer treaty. That was really helpful. So today nobody else uses the gases that would make a hole at the ozone layer in Antarctica, over Antarctica. So that was a very successful science diplomacy process, I would say.
Speaker 4:But at the same time you look at the climate agenda or in the oceans agenda, we're not getting much better, are we? We're not solving humanitarian challenges. Things are not being very positive at the end. So there are influences of power and there are influences of hegemonic discourses. Who takes the lead? Who finances the science behind those decisions? And why are we neglecting the information and the evidence that we have so far? Why is public opinion not going crazy over things that we are doing today that are harming our very own home?
Speaker 4:So those are the questions that go behind the backstage of science diplomacy that we're still trying to understand, and what I came about to learn from my own research is that science diplomacy is actually very context dependent. It really depends on the people that are negotiating internationally, but it also depends on who gives what evidence to that process. So it is a matter of ethics. At the end of the day, are we being ethical? And there is a big, a huge difference, I would say, between what the global North understands as science diplomacy and what the global South, and gladly we have seen a rising into scholarly knowledge on science diplomacy from the global South, and gladly we have seen a rising into scholarly knowledge on science diplomacy from the global South, particularly from Asia and the Latin America and the Caribbean. So we are framing science diplomacy into whatever makes sense to us in this case and even, I would dare to say, proposed ways of using science diplomacy to acquire the basic capacities that us in the Global South are very much looking forward to develop.
Speaker 3:Damla, what have we done? I mean so, andrei, they're amazing, right. Yeah, I'm going to have to go for a lie down in a dark room, but because I know, honestly, you've had you had me at discourse, andre, to be honest, but the? No. There's so much to look into there, which is you've talked about ethics in science, which is fascinating, and the disparity between the global north and the global south on all this, which is huge. What you just said as well calls to mind for me, the whole status of science in public discourse globally. We recently had a fascinating moment in the UK, fairly recently, during the Covid pandemic, where one of our senior ministers, um, quite famously said we've had enough of experts, like literally in full public view, pretty much, said science, no, we've kind of had enough of that, but the important. So we could talk about all of those things.
Speaker 3:But what I wanted to ask you about, andre, um, was something that really is at the heart of this podcast and what damer and I do, which is communications. And and so science diplomacy has a kind of cousin, a very important cousin which I'm really interested in, which is communications. And so science diplomacy has a kind of cousin, a very important cousin which I'm really interested in, which is science communications, and in the last decade we've seen quite a lot of that backlash against scientific evidence, intellectual endeavors. We've seen what some people call the post-truth era occurring, the rise of false science, false news, pseudoscience, even at the highest level, as we know, even in the White House sometimes. So we've seen a decade, haven't we? Particularly in the political arena, where this emotional sweep is coming through and almost sidelining rational arguments, almost sidelining rational arguments. So how would you describe what's been going on in terms of the public understanding of science in the last decade or so, and how does that reflect back on the work that you've been doing on science diplomacy?
Speaker 4:Thanks, stephen. I'd love to chat about that, mainly because the science that we understand today has been around for 60, 70 years. It's not very old. The scientific method that we apply today, it's what we call science, and that is a very particular way of looking at science. So science is not uniform, it's not the same everywhere and it's not the same over time.
Speaker 4:I would say that today the international processes of communicating science are much, much better. For instance, the last IPCC report brings a very key information on the confidence level of that scientific information, and that, for me, is key to inform people that science has its faults as well. We don't know everything and evidence doesn't mean truth. We are pursuing ways of understanding natural phenomena and understanding the influences of multi-factors and complexity is super high in the systems that we live today. So the best way of communicating that is actually stating the flaws of the scientific method itself. That's my own belief, but there are others that believe that science should be like this entity, which is always right. It's the holder of the big truth, and if we don't do that, we open ways of, you know, misunderstanding of science, fake news, even miscommunication of science. But I am one of those that believe truly that science communication is more about a dialogue. It's more about opening up science and receiving other knowledge holders, even policymakers, have knowledge that they have produced over time that is not encompassed into science unless it goes under the scrutiny of the scientific method, meaning that policymakers, indigenous peoples, they need to be interviewed, they need to fill up a questionnaire and that's the only way that their knowledge will become a scientific knowledge. So there are differences in those knowledge forms that need to be respected but integrated in a way. So, in my perception, this is a dialogue and, again, it is context-dependent. It really depends on the audience that you're talking to. It really depends how you frame the information so you can open up a frank conversation about what we know, what we don't know, and why we don't know what we don't know, because then you get the public to support scientific endeavors, because it's not just about mistr in science.
Speaker 4:Recent research has actually shown that people tend to trust and believe in scientists more than they do on politicians, for instance. So doctors, as medical practitioners, and scientists are the two most trusted professionals around the world, and this is huge. This is powerful, but we need to be more. You know people-people. We need to be more frank and open and talk about science as something that it is permeating people's lives every day, and how we are to collectively indulge new forms of knowledge that are not known to science right now but should be incorporated into the public decision-making that we have. And for that I'd like to recall that there are tons of excellent work done by behavioral psychologists on how people actually behave in a group, how we translate our values, our beliefs, and how we confront that with scientific knowledge that goes against those beliefs and trust. That process. It is not that simple. So, also, science has been studying, through humanities and social sciences, how we relate better. And there's this new, absolutely outstanding field of the science, of science communication, and I love that very much. So it is deep into my heart how we can actually do something better and understand so issues such as citizen science.
Speaker 4:In our case, in the ocean, we have come up with a concept of ocean literacy. Ocean literacy means that you understand the impact that you make on the ocean, but also the impact that the ocean has on you, and that impact could be you with your grandma going your utmost fear about something of the unknown, of the dark depths of the ocean, but also you, in a beautiful beach, relaxing, contemplating nature, your connection with yourself, your connection with the umbilical cord that you have with the universe, cord that you have with the universe. So that's ocean literacy. That's how we can actually do something together as a whole, because when you think about human rights, you usually neglect the nature's rights right. So the ocean could be an entity too. If you could sit down with Neptune or, in our case, yemanjá, which is the sea goddess for the ocean in Brazil, how would you connect? How would that conversation be? How would you dialogue with the ocean and yourself, your inner self? That's what science should be doing, I believe.
Speaker 2:Oh my God, André, you opened up so many questions in my mind and, steve, something is crawling in the back of my head at the moment, because what he said was as communication professionals and advertisers, we always need certainty and simplicity, like what is your message? Give me it in one sentence. What is your benefit? Give me in one sentence what is the call sentence. But maybe that was the mistake we have been doing when we're communicating about climate. Maybe we should change that all. We should find a way to communicate the ambiguity. We should try to make new phrases for communicating change. So, steve, this is my note for you. This is our new agenda.
Speaker 3:Watch out, Andrea, I'm getting a note.
Speaker 2:Yeah, will we turn everything we know about campaigning and advertising upside down? We should talk about it in another episode.
Speaker 3:I'm going to make sure everything now is in this epistemological conversation.
Speaker 4:That's what I'm taking from this one, Andrea.
Speaker 4:And please bear in mind that language matters. It does really matter, not just, I mean, different languages around the world, which is something that has really been a problem to most of us that don't speak english as a lingua franca, but if you think about language as the words that you use and how you conceptualize a narrative, it's really important. So let people listen more than talk. Listen to people, open a dialogue, check whatever, because the recent studies have shown that we lack one very critical aspect of communicating science, which is love. What do you love, what do people love? What do they care about? Don't try to shove people with information. Try to understand where they come from, what's their reality, connect with them at an individual level, and that is based on love, as Bell Hooks has said before.
Speaker 2:Wow, I am taking my note now from you, andrei, but I have another question and the time flies, so I really want to ask this one. Science has been telling us the coming climate crisis for over 50 years now, and we have all the data showing the cost of fossil fuels. It is also connected to the science communication, of course, but yet again, especially in our seas and oceans, energy tensions are rising, and you know the Mediterranean Basin, the Black Sea, and we have a new report from Center for American Progress. They just released an article saying that Project 2025's plan to drill baby drill threatens ocean health and economic stability. So how can science diplomacy play a role in this fractioned geopolitical arena for a better future for all of us?
Speaker 4:Yeah, damla, this is a hard, a tough one because, within the energy transition that we are going through now, we have to be positive in that aspect, because now we're talking about it really open. It's not very common In the last 10 years. We have built this kind of discourse and narrative that we need to discuss this as society as a whole, and that is very good. But looking at the other side, the way that we build our livelihoods today, it is highly dependent on oil and petroleum, not just for fuel, but for many, many other things, including medical application. It's really hard in the near future that we abandon that source of raw material for our society, but we are talking about it. So that means that we are being innovative. Even within the technology development, we are trying to find different ways of doing that, and that's where science diplomacy can actually be beneficial. It can connect, like a matchmaking exercise of different minds around the world, very creative researchers who are also entrepreneurs that can come up with very nature-based solutions, for instance, and solutions that we can actually apply in different settings and convince the public opinion that we can still do it. It's not all doom and gloom, right and research has also pointed to that direction, but also bear in mind that the discrepancies, the imbalances in the world are still very much vivid, you know.
Speaker 4:So I am very passionate about the colonial thought line of reason, which means that we cannot understand our reality today without understanding that we, not long ago, were the ones you know committing genocide. You know, and not very far from history. Actually, we are living this nowadays with the question of Israel and Palestine. Colonialism is still very vivid and we produced, produced a ranking of humans that kind of give a different importance to people, and that includes gender imbalances but also racial social constructs. If you get a kid, the kid doesn't understand the difference in the skin color or something you know. Natural, that needs to be hanked. It's just another person. And we are the ones that should be delivering things back to our kids and grandkids. We are the ones leaving them a world that is not sustainable at all today. But we also are the ones that can propose different pathways, and there are hundreds of very good ideas, especially in economics with the degrowth theories on how to slow down growth. It's not just about GDP, it is about people, it is about us and how we can live still with comfort and technology around us, but in a different setting, in a setting that is more respectful of the planet so andre this is this
Speaker 3:is far. I mean, we always say this, don't we done that we just have to do at least three more episodes with every guest. But in this time, andre, you've absolutely set so many trains of thought running. It's really difficult to, to, to, to, to come to any kind of conclusion within 25 minutes. Particularly, you know, I'm really struck by that, the brevity of modern communications that damla and I represent damla's whole point about having a killer punch line for every type of communication we pull together, and it's a brevity that I imagine policymakers are always hunting for as well, aren't they? The magic solution?
Speaker 3:And, and as you're saying so powerfully to us, science being this dialogue where we pursue knowledge and then consider it, and it's driven by love, it's extraordinary. So much for us to think about. So, almost last question, but I imagine that many people would love to go on a bit of a voyage of discovery across your oceans, if you like, right now, and see science, diplomacy in action, find out more about it. And you're connected to the, I think, the All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance, and so I think maybe that's a good starting point for people to discover more. So do you want to tell us a little bit more about that alliance and its expected impact.
Speaker 4:Yeah, absolutely, when you think about it, regional alliances are generally within the same geographical area. So you see, like in the Mediterranean, even the Sesame, which is in the Middle East, and with this All-Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance we crossed so many boundaries. We crossed not just south and North, east and West, but we also crossed disciplines within ocean sciences, in whatever definition you want to use. We crossed the boundaries between policymakers and scientists, because this was all a bottom-up construction that we built and it is super powerful up to today, not just with the research projects that we have set up, but also with the next generation. So we have the Youth Ambassadors Program, which is amazing, and many of them have become within the decade of ocean science. Of IOC, unesco became what they call the Early Career Ocean Professionals, or simply ECOPs. Of Ocean Science. Of IOC, unesco became what they call the early career ocean professionals, or simply e-coops. It's amazing to see the agency of this new generation coming up, raising flags and doing things, and you see that happening on a daily basis. And now the alliance is expanding. We have Morocco, argentina, we have the US and Canada and everybody just sees the value of pursuing that, of course, into the science diplomacy realm.
Speaker 4:We are talking about balancing national interests and political backgrounds that we all have to compass with, but at the end of the day, it is all science, but with science.
Speaker 4:So we are doing that to find benefit for the citizens around the Atlantic and we are doing that in such a fashion that these interests need to be stated and balanced and negotiated.
Speaker 4:So the possibility of opening up this Pandora box, of negotiating national interests into science but being very clear about this is a scientific alliance. So this is for the scientists to produce the knowledge that we are very much looking forward to, but for us in the global South. But for us in the global South, it also brings the possibility of accessing technology and also upholding our own knowledge that are usually published in different languages in journals, scientific journals which are not mainstream. So it's getting our voice also, you know, even within the scientific community, which is not just one single entity but a multitude of voices composing of it, and we do have a gender balance aspect of that as well, because, you know, women have been falling out of the context of science for way too many years and we need to come up with different solutions. So, the whole, I am fully supportive of alliances such as that and we need to come up with different solutions. So I am fully supportive of alliances such as that and we need to pursue better alliances similar as these.
Speaker 2:Well, that was absolutely wonderful, Andrea, and, of course, because of our time issue, we left out some of our background stories about you. Like, you were being the advisor of W20, I think, advocating for women's rights also, but that's an issue for another episode and that's why I'm coming to our last question. So, final question promise. Our network is ironically called Do Not Smile, because we need to make sustainability a subject that brings happiness into the world. So what object, place or person always make you smile?
Speaker 4:That would be my family, in particular my kids. Whenever I am successful in doing you know, I don't know publishing a paper or getting a public policy out, or helping someone, and I go back home and I look at their faces and say, yeah, I'm doing it, so it's going to be for them. It is for them.
Speaker 3:Oh, andre, what beautiful work. There's been a whole lot of love in this conversation. If you don't mind me saying it is, this is an audio only podcast, so it will be wasted on our listeners. For me to say I also love your shirt, which is a little bit of ocean in our conversation, but no, there's been so much there. I mean, I knew about science, diplomacy, but I had no idea about the world that you're going to open to us, andre, so it's been a hugely brilliant conversation.
Speaker 2:Um, thank you so so much, damla so thanks to everyone who has listened to our good guys podcast, brought to you by the do not smile network of agencies and make sure you listen to future episodes.
Speaker 3:We'll be talking to more amazing people like Andre about how we can work together to create a more sustainable future.
Speaker 1:So, andre, damla, see you soon see you see you, bye thanks good geist, a podcast series on sustainability hosted by Damla Özler and Steve Connor, brought to you by the DNS Network.
