Science as a Global Public Good: Reflections from the Royal Society’s Science+ Event

Earlier this month, scholars, practitioners and policymakers converged at the Royal Society for a two-day exploration of a deceptively simple question: can science truly function as a global public good? Across conceptual, political and practical dimensions, the event exposed both the profound promise of science and the structural tensions that prevent it from serving societies equitably. For ICPEM, whose mission is to connect science with policy and practice in emergencies and resilience, this was an especially resonant conversation.

Re-examining “Science as a Public Good”

Professor Michaela Massimi opened by reminding us that the idea of science as a public good is neither settled nor straightforward. Legal, philosophical and economic perspectives often clash: UNESCO speaks of science as a shared human endeavour, yet widening global inequalities suggest that access to scientific progress is far from universal. Professor Geoffrey Boulton highlighted how modern scientific practice—publication models, professional incentives, and siloed academic cultures—systematically reduces the availability and usability of knowledge. Democratizing science, he argued, will require structural reform: rethinking publishing, enabling lifelong access to scientific knowledge, and strengthening the public voice within scientific institutions.

UNESCO’s Dr Konstantinos Tararas emphasised that scientific freedom, safety and openness are prerequisites for science to serve society. However, emerging tools for monitoring these freedoms reveal severe risks, including threats to researchers, online harassment, political pressure, and the challenges posed when funders also act as assessors of scientific freedom.

Human Rights, Public Value and Participation

Discussions on the human right to science, led by Professors Alexandra Xanthaki, Professor Jonathan Wolff and others, underscored the complex interplay between freedom, inclusion and expertise. A recurring theme was participation: not merely access to scientific outcomes, but meaningful involvement in setting research agendas, shaping decisions, and ensuring that benefits and harms are shared transparently. This raises practical questions about funding, fairness and whose knowledge counts—especially for communities with lived experience, indigenous knowledge systems, and non-traditional expertise.

Geopolitics, Science Diplomacy and the Fractured Global Landscape

Several speakers noted the rising pressures of national security, geopolitical fragmentation, and commercialisation. Science diplomacy is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity for maintaining global cooperation on climate, health, disasters and technology governance. Yet the global science system remains structurally unequal. Contributions from African leaders were particularly powerful: African science relies heavily on external funding, is structurally marginalised, and often shaped by donor agendas. If science is to be globally just, those structural dynamics must be confronted directly.

Education, Inequality and the Future of Scientific Talent

Professor Dame Athene Donald’s session was a stark reminder that science as a public good requires diverse participation and equitable educational opportunities. From gender gaps in STEM participation to the global disparities in access to schooling, societies are consistently failing to nurture scientific talent—especially among girls, minority groups and marginalised communities. These inequities echo the same structural issues visible across global science governance.

What Should Change?

In the final discussions, speakers returned to the central question: what must be done? Among the clearest conclusions:

• Strengthen the link between science and society through genuine engagement, not one-way communication.

• Rebuild public trust by being transparent about uncertainties and limits.

• Align incentives across universities, industry and government to support public-good science rather than commercial metrics alone.

• Design resilient, predictable science systems capable of long-term discovery.

• Ensure global science governance is inclusive, equitable and cognisant of local contexts—especially in the Global South.

  
  

For ICPEM, the message is clear: science must be accessible, useful and used. Achieving this goal requires not only better communication, but structural reform, cultural change, and active participation from both communities and practitioners. In an era of polycrisis, the public good value of science is not aspirational—it is essential.