FAKE SCIENCE? Knowledge Diplomacy as Kingmaker in the Post-Factual Era

One can now say with certainty that the rise of post-factual movements, once presumed dead, has surprised our enlightened world. In many places, a feeling of helplessness now reigns over public debate, not only in the media but also in scientific discussions. Evidence-based political decision-making processes at many different levels are suddenly in need of explanation, or even facing an unprecedented legitimation crisis. Academics, scientists and experts are on the defensive and forced again to justify their social mandate to an increasingly sceptical public.

[Translate to Englisch:]
[Translate to Englisch:] @ Jon Tyson - unsplash.com

The fundamental importance of expert knowledge for policy-making had been broadly accepted. Scientific and technical understanding provided a framework for collective decision-making. Objectivity was needed to help bridge gaps between political views. But now in the post-factual era, the objectivity of expert knowledge is suddenly being called into question. So what is causing science and facts to suddenly be perceived as substitutes for normative political decisions? Why are the supporters of right-wing and left-wing strongmen rejecting facts? Does society now want policy-making to be based on ignorance instead of knowledge? In search of the answers to these questions, it is worth taking a closer look at knowledge diplomacy.

[Translate to Englisch:]
[Translate to Englisch:] @ Vlad Tchompalov - unsplash.com

Knowledge diplomacy can be understood as an aggregate of different negotiation processes in collective decision-making at various levels. The process helps structure technical knowledge, complexity and uncertainty. Within this structure, knowledge diplomacy provides the basis for negotiations. Knowledge diplomacy can be divided into different categories according to the type of influence. For instance, one of the main types of knowledge diplomacy concerns the institutionalisation of truth by consensus. An example of this is the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which applies de facto as a foundation for negotiations on the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Another type of knowledge diplomacy is the influence of experts from science and the private sector who have acquired technical knowledge through research and professional experience. Certain groups have no intention of using this to exert any direct influence. Others, like many of the think tanks, attempt to sway decision-makers by generating and disseminating specific knowledge.

Knowledge Can Change the Balance of Power

Knowledge generated in this way can serve as a basis of power for the actors in a negotiation process. Power is an integral element in negotiations because interests can only be asserted through power. A critical look reveals that it is the smaller, wealthier states that attain this leading role through technical knowledge, while developing countries have less capacity to build up their technical expertise. Major initiatives such as China’s think tank offensive are pushing for specific investments in research to overcome these disadvantages.

Technical knowledge also plays an important role within the national context. Knowledge can change the balance of power, particularly in favour of those with access to knowledge. However, tensions arise when the scientific community, which has the authority to generate and interpret knowledge, becomes a calculating political actor. This casts doubt on the mandate of science, which is thought to be apolitical, and blurs the line between objectivity and political agenda. Shifting the political decision-making to expert committees contributes to the watering-down of political responsibility. This widens the distance between society and politics, and between politics and social responsibility, especially when technical knowledge is used to justify unpopular interventions.

Dangerous Market Logic in Science

For science, this development means not only a change in (self) perception, but also in its impact. By linking knowledge-generation and political decision-making, a certain market logic is fostered in science. Increased competition for research funds has reinforced a customer-focused attitude in many research facilities. More and more, their competitiveness is measured by their political and market relevance. As a result, research questions and methodology are adapted to the ‘customer’. A consequence of this dependence, the aim of science may no longer primarily be to create knowledge but rather to satisfy the customer. If political actors then ‘shop’ for scientific studies to underpin their political agenda, it leads to a loss of credibility for the entire field of science. Moreover, because the political establishment justifies its authority through expert knowledge, it gives the impression that science is a sole privilege of the elite. Due to this loss of credibility, knowledge can be downgraded to mere opinion, on the same level as ideologies and opinions based on emotion.

Supporters of science and experts need to take a hard look at themselves if they are to counteract this development of the post-factual era. For example, fundamental questions in science and science ethics must first be formulated by the scientists alone, independent of their political customers. It may also be useful to initiate new discourses about their social mandate. This is the only way to break the perceived narrative monopoly of the anti-intellectual movements.
New approaches are needed, such as the democratisation of science and dialogue formats between scientists and non-scientists. At the same time, critics of the social role played by science must be able to successfully distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists and demagogues. Science must be impartial in order to be democratised.

Like the free press, science in the post-factual era is under threat. Since both are important foundations of democratic order, it is up to the state to protect their legitimacy. For the state, it is an important balancing act to make decisions supported by technical knowledge without creating a technocracy. But the separation of state and science in terms of information does not mean that states are not responsible for supporting science. The activism of individual scientists should never diminish the neutrality of science as a whole, because it is this activism that has often led to key innovations in the past. As such, financial support from politics cannot only be associated with the alleged political relevance, since this is what increasingly calls the impartiality of science into question.