Editor’s note: The following speech was delivered by immediate past Co-Chair Priscilla Kolibea Mante (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana) during the World Science Forum 2024 in Budapest, Hungary, during the Parliamentary Session on the closing day.
“Dear Colleagues, Dear Friends, Good morning. Allow me to stand on the existing protocols. And say all protocol observed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this morning’s discussion.
The definition of effectiveness of science ecosystems is not universal—it depends on who/what is being measured and how success is defined. For young scientists, the effectiveness of a science ecosystem often lies in opportunities for innovation, collaboration, and societal impact. For policymakers, it may mean scientific outputs that align with national or global priorities. For society, it’s about tangible benefits, such as improved healthcare and climate solutions.
This variability underscores the importance of asking not just what works, but also for whom and under what conditions. Without this clarity, science ecosystems risk serving a select few rather than the broader needs of humanity.
Despite this unevenness that exists, there are clear successes in the current science ecosystem we can point to. Some successes have been achieved with dynamic innovation and global collaboration.
With dynamic innovation, one standout example is the COVID Moonshot programme, a global open-source initiative where researchers collaborated on antiviral development during the pandemic. By bypassing traditional bureaucratic barriers, this decentralized approach enabled rapid innovation. For young scientists, it provided a platform to contribute meaningfully, while society benefited from expedited solutions to the global health crisis.
Global collaboration is another area of strength.
There are so many other successes that can be mentioned in areas like open science and grassroots movements. In response to the question of “What is missing?” I must say there is a lot that is missing. Several have been mentioned over the last few days.
Despite these advances, critical gaps remain. The science ecosystems as we know them are far from equitable or inclusive. Deep systemic inequities persist, particularly for young scientists and scientists in the Global South. Many researchers face challenges like limited funding and outdated infrastructure, which restricts their participation in global science.
Initiatives like open science/open access are excellent because they improve knowledge sharing. However, they fail to address deeper structural barriers such as the technological divide or resource disparities. There are a lot of international training programs that often aim to build capacity in the Global South by inviting young scientists from under-served regions to attend workshops or conferences abroad. However, these opportunities frequently neglect to provide follow-up support.
A researcher may return inspired and equipped with new techniques, yet still face overwhelming challenges to applying them due to a lack of local infrastructure or institutional support. This disconnect between opportunity and sustainable impact prevents the translation of individual potential into systemic change.
Barriers fueled by ranking systems further limit progress. Academic and funding systems disproportionately favor senior scientists. This stifles creativity, especially in areas where fresh perspectives are most needed. The current reliance on bibliometric indicators reinforces structural inequities and limits the broader relevance of research. The system rewards incremental or redundant research rather than transformative science. Additionally, it marginalizes researchers from the Global South, who may lack access to high-profile collaborations or well-funded institutions that dominate prestigious journal publications.
Another missing piece is representation. Young scientists, particularly from marginalized communities, are under-represented at the decision-making tables. There seems to be an emphasis on enhancing the composition of decision-making bodies rather than fostering the meaningful participation of young scientists. This again perpetuates a cycle where well-promoted global strategies fail to reflect diverse perspectives and priorities.
There are also transparency and accountability gaps—for instance in peer review, and funding systems—which undermine trust in the system. We often talk about the mistrust between scientists and policymakers and between science and society. But little is spoken about the mistrust within the science ecosystem itself. Divides exist between disciplines, divides exist between generations of scientists, and divides exist between world regions. This often hinders collaboration and progress. It is not enough to tout jargons like transdisciplinary research and collaboration without addressing the underlying tensions and structural barriers that prevent meaningful interaction.
Similarly, barriers to advocacy persist. Institutions frequently undervalue advocacy, discouraging young scientists from engaging with societal challenges. Combined with growing public mistrust of science, these barriers limit researchers’ ability to make meaningful societal impacts.
How Can We Do It Better?
We need to build equity into science. It is important to ensure that diversity metrics go beyond surface-level representation to measuring actual participation and influence in decision-making. Inclusive policies must actively address barriers that prevent marginalized groups, including young scientists, women, and researchers from the Global South, from having meaningful roles in shaping research priorities and institutional strategies.
Science advocacy must be recognized as an integral part of scientific careers. Institutions should offer fellowships, and funding for advocacy and public engagement, ensuring that researchers have the time and resources to communicate their work effectively. Equipping scientists with skills to engage policymakers and the public can help rebuild trust.
In as much as international support for science is needed in the Global South, one critical solution that is needed is for governments of countries in the Global South to take an active role in supporting scientific advancements, by learning from success stories in regions with comparable constraints.
For instance, countries like India have demonstrated how targeted investments in national research funding can drive innovation and elevate local scientists on the global stage. Establishing dedicated national science funds can provide long-term, sustainable support for researchers. These funds should focus on empowering early-career scientists and supporting research that addresses pressing regional issues.
Academic and funding systems also require urgent reform. To address this, evaluation criteria should be redefined to prioritize societal relevance and the broader impact of research. Funding agencies should create equitable mechanisms to ensure that resources are distributed more fairly across regions.
Trust in science must begin with trust within the science ecosystem. This requires addressing the divides that exist between disciplines, generations of scientists, and regions of the world.
We must foster open communication, mutual respect, and transparency within the ecosystem. By creating an inclusive, supportive environment within the scientific community, we can model the kind of trust we seek to build with policymakers and society. Only then can science truly fulfill its potential as a driver of progress and equity, and thus support the UN’s Pact for the Future.
In conclusion, what works today—dynamic innovations, grassroots movements, global collaborations, and ethical practices—provides a foundation.
But what’s missing highlights the work ahead.
By empowering young scientists, addressing systemic inequities, and fostering accountability, we can transform science ecosystems into engines of progress.
Allow this to be my closing remark: As Wang Yang-ming reminds us, “To know, and not to act, is not to know.”