Can a science and diplomacy partnership save the world?

On Inside Geneva this week: world leaders are gathering in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos, but do they have any answers?

“I think we are at an amazing moment in history. We have in our hands the opportunity to do well, to save our own environment, the planet, to take the right decisions to bring humanity onto a good path,” says Marilyne Andersen, Director General of the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA).

But will they take that path? Technology is racing ahead.

“Human rights, like every other field, are very much under the influence now of what’s happening in technology and science. It’s one of the destabilising factors right now,” says Jürg Lauber, Swiss ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in Geneva.

“I was absolutely sure that a robot can kill a human. We are living in a situation where we don’t even have these AI ethics,” says Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the UN Office at Geneva.

“If we just do things when they have already happened, then it’s too late and technology has already evolved to the next stage,” says Sylvie Briand, Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO).

International law is being abandoned.

“War is a terrible thing, but at some stage in the past, human beings decided to write the Geneva Conventions to at least reduce a little bit the horror of war,” adds Sami Kanaan, former mayor of Geneva.

In Geneva, a group is pushing for partnerships between science and politics, so we’re ready for the challenges ahead.

“Let’s take advantage of knowing what is coming to act on it now and not be in reactive mode, not in catch‑up mode,” says Andersen.

Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.

Get in touch!

• Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
• Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en

Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.

For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/

Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang

Chapters

• 0:00 Setting The Stage: WEF And AI Fears
• 4:16 Why GESDA Exists And How It Works
• 9:49 AI’s Acceleration And Regulation Gaps
• 16:28 Can We Still Anticipate? Quantum And BCI
• 23:31 Power Shifts: Tech Firms And Governance
• 28:32 Equity Lessons From The Pandemic
• 31:31 Updating Diplomacy Without New Treaties

Transcript

Setting The Stage: WEF And AI Fears

SPEAKER_07 0:58

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Folkes, and this is a production from SwissInfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program.

SPEAKER_00 1:13

AI is the future of healthcare, also we've been told. But what does it mean? Is it coming for your job? Is it saving your life?

SPEAKER_08 1:21

Let's take advantage of knowing what is coming to act on it now and not be in reactive mode, not be in catch-up mode.

SPEAKER_05 1:31

Soon AI could silently determine what ideas ever reach your mind or what thoughts ever form within it. Your next action, your next decision, your next job or relationship or purpose.

SPEAKER_08 1:45

I think we are at an amazing moment in history. We have in our hands the opportunity to do well, to save our own environment, the planet.

SPEAKER_06 2:00

Grok, the artificial intelligence tool on Musk's platform X, is under fire after people discovered it can be used to create nude images, including of children.

SPEAKER_08 2:09

We don't have any more that space between the moment we know it's coming and the moment it's there. It is there, and therefore we don't have that safe space to talk about what regulations we could have because there is already a race going on.

Why GESDA Exists And How It Works

SPEAKER_07 2:24

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. Now, this week, the world's great and good, or perhaps better called, the world's powerful and rich, are gathering right here in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. We'll see presidents and prime ministers, industry bosses and tech giants. All the forum likes to tell us getting together to try to solve our big global challenges. And let's face it, those challenges are huge. From climate change to the rapid and largely unregulated development of artificial intelligence, to conflict, poverty, and inequality. But there is something else we need to face. Those VIPs gathering at the forum have quite clearly failed to solve those challenges so far. Some of us might argue they're actually creating new problems and making existing worlds worse. So do we need a new kind of diplomacy? Something based less on who is rich and powerful, and more on knowledge and taking advice from people who really understand the huge advances in the science and technology that we're currently witnessing. And guess what? There is such a group of right here in Geneva called the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator, or GESIDA. Late last year Gezeda held a debate where participants highlighted their concerns.

SPEAKER_03 3:57

If we uh just, as you said, do things when they have already happened, uh then uh it's too late and and uh technology has already evolved to the next age.

SPEAKER_02 4:07

Human rights, like every other field, is very much under the influence now of what's happening technology in technology and science. Uh it's one of the destabilizing factors right now.

SPEAKER_01 4:17

War is a terrible thing, but at some stage in the past human beings decided to write the Geneva Conventions to at least reduce a little bit the horror of war.

SPEAKER_04 4:27

I was absolutely sure that a robot can't kill a human. We are living in the uh situation when we don't even have these AI ethics.

SPEAKER_07 4:37

You heard they are from Sylvie Brion, chief scientist at the World Health Organization, Ewart Lauber, Switzerland's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Sami Kanan, the former mayor of Geneva, and Tatjana Vallovaya, the Director General of the UN here in Geneva. We'll be hearing more from that debate throughout today's programme. But let's start with an extended interview with Mariline Anderson, the head of Gesda, and also a professor of sustainable construction technologies at Switzerland's prestigious Federal Technology Institute in Lausanne. I caught up with Marilyn in a lively Bayern Cafe and asked her first to explain exactly what Jezda is.

SPEAKER_08 5:21

So Gesda is a foundation based in Geneva that was founded at the initiative of the Federal Council, uh, Department of Foreign Affairs, to propose a way to complement the International Geneva's agenda through an anchorage in science anticipation. So what we do is we work from what science has in its drawers in the future that we structure into 5, 10, 25 years, and we start from there to show what the possible futures are due to scientific advances, which currently are quite fast and quite transformative, so as to show that it is worth doing something about this information today before these advances actually take place. So to take advantage of the space that we have between now that we know what the possible futures and tomorrow where when these scientific advances will have happened, to prepare for them, to prepare legislation, collaboration frameworks, cooperation models, all of this to make sure that science is accessible to all, that we have safeguards, and so on. And so we go from that science anticipation into also training to gain that anticipatory mindset, but also to acting, to transitioning from this anticipation work into actual projects in different parts of the world to get on the ground, get in the field, in the transformation of the society to be ready for these changes.

SPEAKER_07 7:02

For many among us currently feeling utter dismay about the state of the world right now, Marilyn's ideas sound really positive. My immediate reaction, let's get started on that collaboration right now. But if we go back to that gesta debate where participants carefully unpicked the challenges we face, Juri Glauber and Tatiana Vallovaya were concerned that even starting now it might be too late.

SPEAKER_02 7:31

We are talking uh a lot about how we missed the train on the internet, how we probably missed it on AI, how we are or we will be able to address uh quantum, etc. But at the same time what we also face today is we are increasingly I think not understanding what the people how how societies evolve and and and how uh societies are becoming more and more skeptical of of institutions and why that is and and what kind of response uh that requires.

SPEAKER_04 8:03

It's absolutely clear that these days we can't have a proper economy unless you have access to internet. And even wider, when we use, for example, uh artificial intelligence, Chat GDP is getting wiser, is getting more politically correct. But still, if you work hard with it, you see Chat GDP still thinks like a white male. And quite often, after long, long discussion, it gives you something, and you're just stricken how outdated it is.

AI’s Acceleration And Regulation Gaps

SPEAKER_07 8:39

And so I have more questions from Marilyn Anderson. I'm just thinking about the kind of scientific developments which might benefit from this anticipation, possibly all of them, since people are a bit nervous of the new and a bit nervous of change. But the one that springs to mind most immediately is artificial intelligence, AI, which is progressing rapidly, and yet there is, even if we look at the forerunner of AI, perhaps social media, a real disconnect or disagreement between different countries about whether there should be any regulation or or diplomacy, if you like, at all. Do you see that as something that JESDA could address?

SPEAKER_08 9:24

So there are many dimensions in that question. First, on the influence of AI and on what transformation it brings. It is in itself, of course, a novelty, and the fact that it is now in our daily lives is very new and will have or is already having deeply transformative impacts on how we work, what we rely on to seek for the truth, and ultimately for the next generations will have an influence on how even our brains will evolve because they will be confronted to answers about everything which we didn't have before. At the same time, it plays the role of an accelerating factor for the other scientific developments, for other scientific advances, let's say neurotech, discovery, synthetic biology, gene editing, protein and folding. All of these have now the capacity to go much faster because they can rely on AI. So this is great because that means we can go faster in discovery. It is also making the difference between the pace of science advances and the pace of diplomacy or institutions more distinct, let's say. And then there is the role of JESDA in all this, which is, as I said before, really focused on anticipating what is coming. When it comes to AI, it's basically there already. So there is not much to anticipate except anticipate maybe the changes that this will happen or the transformative impact it will have on other domains. Also, we are trying to move to artificial general intelligence, and there is a race going on there. So all of these are aspects where Jesda can play a role, especially when we think about embodied AI in the future or the influence on robotics, so things that haven't happened yet. But the regulatory question that you had is very much of essence now, but it also shows the fact that we don't have any more that space I was mentioning before between the moment we know it's coming and the moment it's there. It is there, and therefore we don't have that safe space to talk about what regulations we could have because there is already a race going on. The tech companies are racing against each other to be the fastest, the first, and that means regulation is tough to implement at this point.

SPEAKER_07 11:53

These tech companies also seem to be influencing some governments buying some governments, some people would say. Maybe you don't want to comment on that, but it does worry people.

SPEAKER_08 12:03

What is uh worrying or what is very different is that it is a development that is not really anymore state-owned or state-driven, that's industry-driven. I mean, a lot of the changes that are happening in the world are industry-driven, but in this case there is this kind of power or decisional power shift that we are observing, and that can be worrying because whereas governments have at the heart of their mission the common good, the industry has at the heart of their mission financial return on investment, and therefore it's a it's a very different goal. And this change in goal is not bad per se, but it does change the situation when it comes to transformative advances that relate to technology or science.

SPEAKER_07 12:53

Can I just give you one example that is always in my mind? Because when I first started the Inside Geneva podcast, which is in early 2020, one of our first topics was lethal autonomous weapons. And the things that the people who were campaigning for regulation described to me were quite terrifying, but they said we have time, they're maybe 20 years away. They're here. We've seen them. Well, you said we have no space with AI anymore. Do we have space for anything? Can Jezda or the people in Jesda? I know it's a it's a great idea, but can you actually influence anything?

SPEAKER_08 13:31

I mean, there are many developments that are still that we know are coming but are not here yet. For example, quantum computing. Many people are working on it. It is gaining momentum and so on, but we are still in some kind of a pilot or lab phase for this. So we can prepare for it. So, yes, in many cases there is the space. Maybe the space is not as long as our linear brains are expecting it to be. So we may be a little too conservative in thinking out into the future, like what is coming in 5, 10, 25 years. Well, maybe this will be a shrinking timescale compared to what we thought. But there are several aspects that are where there is a lot of talk about it, like for example, BCI, brain computer interface, but it is actually still in a lab phase. There it's amazing what is happening, but it's one individual at a time.

SPEAKER_07 14:26

Just explain for our listeners what that is. Not everybody will know what brain computer interface. I mean, I feel a bit, a slight chill running down my spine, even hearing the phrase, but anyway.

Can We Still Anticipate? Quantum And BCI

SPEAKER_08 14:36

Yes, it is actually a very um, it's an amazing advance that also raises big questions. So the amazingness uh in it is that it can heal. Basically, the brain computer interface is literally what it is, is to make an interface between the brain and a machine. And therefore to have a machine help the brain and therefore the human, in the case of humans, do something either better or something that they weren't able to do before, such as people suffering from paralysis, to be able to walk again if you can bypass the injury and connect the very well-functioning parts of your body with the very well-functioning brain, but it's just the passing of the signal that doesn't uh work anymore. So this is already happening in labs and and in uh startups and and so on. And it also can, for someone who cannot see, will sort of bring vision by interpreting the signal that the brain is is receiving, even if something along the line between the eye and the brain is not uh working anymore. So it has amazing promises. But of course, as long as we talk about therapeutic applications, it's wonderful. But if you can do that, that means you can also do more. You can also, in a way, augment the capacities of very healthy individuals that then can be connected to the internet permanently, for example, and therefore have contact with a wealth of knowledge that we didn't have before. This is something that we should look into to make sure that we go into a direction that we want. And therefore, we should use the space between now that we are working on this and then when it will become more mainstream, which is not the case yet, to look at what safeguards, what guidelines, what frameworks should be put in place to not derail and to sort of keep control over exactly what we want to do with it and not let it lead us into directions we may not want.

SPEAKER_07 16:48

Guidelines, frameworks, developing and upholding them are at the very heart of international Geneva. But how much does the rest of the world really think about these things nowadays? Increasingly, it seems that the power and the power bestowed by money are the deciding factors. Something that, at that Jezda debate, worried Sami Kanan.

SPEAKER_01 17:13

But what makes me nervous is that it's beyond money, it's about values and rules and the whole framework of multilateralism, which is challenged. And to be a little bit provocative, I think multilateralism, if you define it at the core, is the expression that public institutions have a crucial role in handling collective issues and finding solutions together.

SPEAKER_07 17:33

And even though we do have some frameworks, Sylvie Brion of the World Health Organization reminded us that when faced with the global challenge of COVID-19, our basic principles of fairness and equality didn't help us.

SPEAKER_03 17:49

We need also more equitable research ecosystems. Because if I take the example for the mRNA vaccine, for instance, the first vaccine required a cold chain at minus 80 degrees. And this is a kind of cold chain that doesn't exist anywhere. But rich countries were able to develop this cold chain at the early days of the pandemic, while many uh developing countries couldn't afford it. It was too expensive. So I think when we discuss innovation, we need to have this uh equity lens, and it has to be embedded in in research ecosystems as well.

SPEAKER_07 18:24

So do we need to strengthen international law? Now doesn't seem like quite the right time to find support for that. So Ambassador Jorg Lauber is still advocating dialogue.

SPEAKER_02 18:36

We talk a lot about geopolitics, but technology is at least as important. The question is do we need to adapt international treaties instruments we have? Probably not. Probably what we need is a conversation about how we use them, what they mean in these new circumstances, how they need to be implemented. We need to build this bridge between diplomats and the scientists, so the scientists can tell us what these new technologies mean, and of course uh what is further down on the horizon technology upon us, and for the diplomats then to discuss among ourselves how do we prepare, what does it mean for for instance in the field of human rights?

SPEAKER_07 19:12

I'm still left wondering, though, not just whether such a dialogue can be successful, but whether many of today's political leaders are even open to it. Another question for Marilyn Anderson. How optimistic are you that you and your colleagues can get a hearing and get diplomats? Because I know it's not just you're a scientist, but it's diplomats in Gesta. That's what exactly the purpose. From my point of view, I see an utter failure of traditional diplomacy, whether it's over the conflict in Ukraine, whether it's the Middle East, whether it's Sudan, or whether it's basic agreements to trade with one another in a civilized way, or to agree some basic humanitarian standards around the use of this new technology.

Power Shifts: Tech Firms And Governance

SPEAKER_08 20:06

Yes, this is a very vast uh question. There is no doubt that the multilateral system is being questioned. It is not necessarily anymore the standard that everyone thinks is above everything and that we should abide to it. So there is increasing maybe examples where rules are changing, where the respect for this, let's say, status quo is being questioned. And when you change the rules, then for a world that lives on rules, you start to run into problems. Other aspects have, I think, a dual nature. On the one hand, we feel that maybe the current diplomatic system and the multilateralism in general, which Wonderful as an idea and as a principle because it is how we get to an agreement between different parties, different governments to do something together. So this is very precious to keep. And at the same time, there is a pace that the pace question that is that we mentioned before, the pace of transformation is really very high. And therefore, there there seems to be a mismatch. And this comes back to AI, which helps us statistically to make decisions. And so if we let AI help us making decisions based on statistics and therefore based on an objective kind of an objectivity of what information is available, probably more objective than any single individual would do, we can go fast, but this also has a danger, I think, in diplomacy, because time has helped or is helping in the past the negotiation, the understanding of the other side and the trying to find a way to come to an agreement. And this is a precious time, a time that we should value as well. So going fast in diplomacy is not, I would say, I mean, I'm a scientist, as you said, so I can only speak as a novice, so to speak, but is also something to cherish. So there is a lot of changes going on, a lot of questioning that hasn't happened before, a lot of rule changing in how diplomacy is being managed or done, which when combined with the transformative nature of scientific advances today, I guess does put Jezda in a useful position. But we are small. We are only a group of 30 people, actually, with a with a wonderful board and the great support from Geneva and from the country. And so this is very precious. But we would love if this mindset was disseminated maybe quickly enough so that there is a momentum to combine maybe reinvented traditional diplomacy with the anticipatory angle and taking science as a real actor in geopolitics, which it has become today.

SPEAKER_07 23:15

Let's look then specifically at science rather than the failure of traditional diplomacy, which we we've talked about. We've seen in the last, particularly in the last five to six years, a growing distrust of science, which in particular we saw this during the pandemic. People did not want to trust the science. Does that make your task harder when you're you're reaching out to diplomats, to governments, offering your services to anticipate challenges going forward?

SPEAKER_08 23:52

It does. I mean, if there is a growing mistrust in science, it of course makes science anticipation more difficult to convince people about. I think this growing distrust is linked to two bad reasons. One is to misunderstand what science is, and one is to misuse what science is. The misinterpretation of what science is is to consider that science is truth, that science is, it says something and then it's true. This is not how science works. Science is about evidence-based demonstrations of what we observe. Therefore, it's an evolving quote-unquote truth. It's an evolving explanation of the world and an evolving shaping of new discoveries for the world. So to be angry that in a new field coming with a pandemic that is very rapid and to some extent unexpected, to blame science for not having the final answer immediately is again misinterpreting what science does. Science will do experiments very quickly. I mean, the rapidity at which the vaccines have been developed is absolutely amazing. So we should actually rather recognize that than blame the fact that we didn't quite know uh since the beginning whether we should wear masks and so on. So we shouldn't expect from science what it's what it's not. It's not a dogma, it's not uh immuable truth, it is an evolving explanation. So this is the first problem that we probably faced with uh with the pandemic. The other is the misuse, is to use marginal, pseudo-scientific, sometimes, let's say, outliers, to reinforce your opinion. Your opinion that is maybe not at all science-based. And to then say that, use, for example, uncertainty, which is inherent in science, and to say that that means science doesn't know anything for on climate change, let's say. It's it's an absolute misuse of science to serve opinions. So these two issues have led to maybe a growing mistrust, and it is our work, but also the work I would say mostly of universities and schools and the education system and the research sector in general, to reinstate science without these two misuses and misinterpretations.

SPEAKER_07 26:19

But today we live in a world where climate change is dismissed as a hoax against all the scientific evidence, and where leading politicians have connected autism with the use of paracetamol, despite there being absolutely no evidence for that either. Still, Ambassador Jurg Lauer continues to plead for open, fact-based conversation.

SPEAKER_02 26:43

In my experience, when you bring in scientists who explain to you what the real issues are, not only does it help you to find a common language and common understanding which is necessary to then come to conclusions. And if you don't do that, your discussions will remain ideological, overly political.

Equity Lessons From The Pandemic

SPEAKER_07 27:01

There's no doubt, though, that millions of people are now anxious or frightened, or even losing sleep over the current state of the world. What then political scientists like Marilyn Anderson say to reassure us? People are actually quite frightened right now. Not just of the geopolitical state of the world, which is highly concerning, as I'm sure you have noticed or you agree, but they're frightened about the pace of change. You know, they were frightened by the pandemic, naturally. They're frightened, or many people now, by this almost science fiction, except it's not fiction, the specter of AI. People are worried about the developments of that. I mean, two things. What would you say to reassure people if you can, but what would your appeal be to maybe the diplomats from governments who haven't quite listened to you yet or are not quite on board with your project?

Updating Diplomacy Without New Treaties

SPEAKER_08 28:02

Um well, I think we are at an amazing moment in history. We have in our hands the opportunity to do well, to in a way save our own environment, the planet against climate change, but also to take the right decisions, to bring humanity on a good path. The anxiety might come in part from sensationalism about bad news. We react very strongly to bad news because we evolved for that. We survive if we are very attentive to bad news. If we see a flower, it's great and we can admire it. This will not be a key to survival. Whereas if a tiger comes to attack us, we we better pay attention. So sensationalism is mostly targeting bad news, and therefore we feel that the world is in a very bad shape. But actually, it is maybe because we don't give enough space to what is improving poverty, less child mortality, all the good things about health advances and so on, we don't speak about them enough. And we have in our hands, because of these technological advances, the means to do well. So I think the advice, if I can give any advice, would be that everyone in their own sphere of influence has in mind to contribute positively to making the world a better place. And this goes to absolutely everyone. Whatever your job is, whatever your age is, you can contribute to making the world a better place and maybe not be frightened or paralyzed by this overwhelming anxiety that is linked to what we read a lot about, but what is maybe not the signature of our world today. It's a world of opportunities. Now, when it comes to the role of JESDA or uh our interactions with the diplomats, we are working uh hard on trying to establish these relationships, on getting the word out. We hope that we are not alone in this mission to uh both make or continue to build the bridge between science and diplomacy. Science can serve diplomacy, diplomacy is serving science, so we both need each other. And uh this anticipatory angle that we try to bring, I think is probably very important today because of the pace and of the transformative aspects of science. And therefore, let's take advantage of knowing what is coming to act on it now and not be in reactive mode, not be in catch-up mode. The catch-up mode is what we tend to do because we go from one crisis to the next. So let's try to carve some space to also work on what is not a crisis yet, so that we avoid that it becomes a crisis in a little time.

SPEAKER_07 31:07

And that brings us to the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. Huge thanks to Marilyn Anderson and all at Jesda for a really inspiring conversation, which made me, and I hope our listeners, think again about how we might tackle the huge challenges facing us. I'm Imogen folks. Thanks again for listening, and do join us next time on Inside Geneva. A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or white survivors of human rights violations, turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen Folks, and thanks again for listening.