WSIS Action Line C7 E-science

Following the WSIS+20 review by the UN General Assembly in December, member states tasked action line facilitators with developing roadmaps to guide implementation over the next decade. These roadmaps are intended to ensure the action lines are concretely operationalised and that progress is being made towards agreed targets. The roadmaps will be presented to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development in Geneva in April 2027.

Davide Storti explained that the UN General Assembly reiterated commitment to the action lines and tasked facilitators with developing roadmaps , and that the WSIS Forum provides an opportunity to engage stakeholders in building these roadmaps, which will be presented to the CSTD .

Member states have requested that the WSIS process demonstrate in concrete terms how the actions taken by different stakeholders, including the UN, are making a difference. This requires translating the eScience action line into specific, actionable steps and identifying measurable indicators of progress over five, ten, or more years. Davide Storti acknowledged this is a challenging but essential task as WSIS moves towards its 30-year review.

Storti posed the question of how to demonstrate in three, five, or ten years that the agenda has moved forward, noting this is a direct request from member states , and invited ideas from the floor on how to formulate this more concretely .

UNESCO launched the Global Quantum Initiative in partnership with the United Nations University, JESTA, the Open Quantum Institute, IUPAP, and other partners, targeting quantum education, shared infrastructure, open data, and governance. The initiative has attracted interest from more than 70 countries, primarily from research institutes and scientists. It serves as a concrete example of how the eScience action line can be operationalised at a global scale.

Amal Kasry described the UNESCO Global Quantum Initiative and its partners , its focus areas of quantum education, shared infrastructure, open data, and governance , and noted that it has generated interest from over 70 countries, mainly research institutes and scientists .

Emerging technologies such as AI and quantum computing are widening rather than closing the gap between the Global North and Global South. The concentration of AI research output in G20 countries and the extremely limited access to quantum computing for Global South researchers illustrates the scale of this divide. Kasry argued that urgent action is needed to address this through open science, shared infrastructure, and capacity building.

Kasry cited that almost 90% of AI research output originates from G20 countries, while less than 5% of quantum computing access is available to Global South researchers , and stressed that emerging technologies are widening rather than closing the divide .

UNESCO is actively building capacity in quantum science by offering online courses on quantum algorithms and providing remote access to quantum computing infrastructure. This includes collaboration with Cleveland Clinic to give access to an IBM quantum computer. These efforts aim to empower researchers and scientists in the Global South to engage with cutting-edge technologies.

Kasry mentioned that UNESCO conducts online courses for quantum algorithms as part of the core of eScience , and that UNESCO provides remote access to quantum computers in collaboration with Cleveland Clinic, using one of IBM's computers .

Kasry clarified that UNESCO's 2021 Open Science Recommendation goes well beyond open access to publications and covers a wide range of dimensions including shared high-performance computing infrastructure, open educational resources, citizen science projects, and equitable participation in scientific endeavour. This comprehensive framework is intended to address the full spectrum of barriers to inclusive science. It works in tandem with the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI.

Kasry noted that many people mistakenly think the Open Science Recommendation is only about open access, but it is much more comprehensive , covering open access to publications, shared infrastructure such as high-performance and quantum computers, open educational resources, citizen science, and equitable participation .

UNESCO has established monitoring mechanisms for both its Open Science Recommendation and its AI Ethics Recommendation, collecting data and annual reports from member states on implementation progress. These mechanisms are designed to track whether equity is being achieved and whether the technological divide is being reduced. Capacity building programmes accompany these monitoring efforts, particularly targeting developing countries.

Kasry described that for both recommendations there are monitoring mechanisms where UNESCO collects data and annual reports from different member states regarding implementation , and that capacity building is conducted particularly in developing countries to support implementation .

Kasry argued that national policy and government strategy are the most critical levers for reducing the quantum divide, as UNESCO's capacity building and partnership efforts are most effective when member states have clear national strategies in the field. Without coherent government frameworks, the impact of international initiatives is limited. This underscores the importance of supporting member states in developing quantum and digital science policies.

Kasry stated that the policy aspect is the most important because governments need a certain strategy or policy in the field in order to enable UNESCO to achieve more in reducing the divide .

In her closing remarks, Kasry emphasised that the advancement of eScience cannot be achieved through technology alone but requires a foundation of openness, trust, and international cooperation. These values are central to UNESCO's mandate and must guide the development and deployment of AI, quantum technologies, and open science frameworks. Ensuring that innovation is shared, trusted, and accessible to all is the overarching goal.

Kasry concluded by stating that the future of eScience depends not only on technology but on openness, trust, and international cooperation, which are at the core of UNESCO's mandate .

The Open Quantum Institute (OQI), hosted by CERN and created by JESTA with support from UBS, is a multilateral governance initiative focused specifically on quantum computing rather than quantum technology as a whole. It operates through four interconnected pillars: developing applications for the Sustainable Development Goals, securing access to quantum computing resources, building capacity and education, and engaging in diplomatic processes. These pillars are designed to work in a mutually reinforcing way.

Himmer described the OQI as a multilateral governance initiative championing global, equitable, and inclusive access to quantum computing , hosted by CERN and created by JESTA , and outlined its four pillars of applications for SDGs, access, capacity building, and diplomatic engagement .

The OQI deliberately focuses its activities on regions it identifies as quantum-underserved, namely Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The approach is locally driven, meaning the OQI works with local actors to develop programmes and activities rather than imposing a centralised model. This is intended to ensure sustainability and continued momentum after specific projects conclude.

Himmer specified that the OQI targets quantum-underserved geographies including Southeast Asia, Latin America, MENA, and Sub-Saharan Africa , and emphasised that the commitment is to be locally driven, working with local actors to develop activities and programmes .

Himmer revealed that export controls are a practical barrier to quantum computing access in some of the countries the OQI works with, with some platforms being unavailable in certain regions due to national legislation. The OQI has responded by diversifying its pool of platforms, including using regionally relevant providers such as a Japanese platform with a Vietnamese founder for work in Southeast Asia. Simulators are also less subject to export controls and can serve as an alternative pathway.

Himmer noted that some quantum computing platforms were not accessible in certain countries due to export controls, which actively impacted educational programmes , and described how the OQI navigated this by diversifying platforms, for example using a Japanese platform developed by a founder in Vietnam for work in Southeast Asia .

Himmer argued that quantum computing hackathons should not be evaluated by the same metrics as classical hackathons, where startup creation might be an expected outcome. Instead, success is measured through the connections made, such as students being hired by companies, universities forming collaborations with quantum platforms, and the development of joint curricula. These events serve as stepping stones for building a broader quantum ecosystem.

Himmer described hackathons as connectors and networking events , citing examples such as students being hired by companies after hackathons , and connections between quantum platforms and universities leading to growing collaborations and curriculum development .

Himmer stressed the importance of maintaining realistic expectations about what quantum computing hackathons and education programmes can achieve given the current state of the technology. While quantum computing is not yet commercially viable for most applications, she argued that exploring use cases now is essential so that when sufficient qubits become available, the groundwork will already be in place. Without this proactive approach, the field risks being dominated by those with the greatest resources, such as pharmaceutical and banking sectors.

Himmer acknowledged that results of quantum hackathons differ from classical ones and that teams are more likely to explore use cases for future development than produce immediate commercial outputs , and warned that if use case exploration is not done now, it will be dominated by those with the biggest resources, such as pharmaceutical and banking sectors .

A participant raised the question of how quantum computing is being incorporated into educational curricula at different levels and across different countries and regions. They noted that France, for example, is updating its baccalaureate curriculum to include quantum concepts for younger students. The participant asked whether UNESCO is conducting any systematic study of how curricula are being updated globally in this area.

The participant noted that France is updating the baccalaureate curriculum so that young students would understand what quantum is , and asked whether UNESCO has a study about how curricula are being updated in different stages and regions .

A participant with experience organising hackathons in the UK since 2014 asked about how hackathons have evolved and what frameworks exist for potential spin-out companies emerging from quantum hackathons. They also enquired about whether photonics and AI are being integrated into these events as emerging technologies. The participant sought to understand the current state of hackathon organisation in the quantum space.

The participant referenced their own experience trying to organise hackathons in the UK in 2014 and asked about the role of photonics and AI in current hackathons , as well as the frameworks for spin-out companies .

Stephen Wyber from IFLA argued that current AI regulation conversations, including those taking place at major forums, are not adequately accounting for the needs of science, particularly inclusive science. The regulatory trajectory tends to favour larger players with significant valuations, which disadvantages smaller actors and undermines equitable access to scientific tools and outputs. He suggested that the WSIS cross-cutting framework could be used to advocate for equity in AI regulation as it moves forward.

Wyber noted that there is very little consideration of the needs of science in AI regulation discussions, including those at major forums , and that this plays into the hands of bigger players with trillion-dollar valuations, which does not work for others .

Wyber highlighted a concerning trend whereby companies that control access to scientific outputs are reducing the openness of data and metadata, taking things offline in ways that contradict the goals of open science and open access. This is driven by the recognised commercial value of scientific data and metadata. He noted this is happening even as the body of work around open science is becoming more sophisticated.

Wyber observed that companies controlling scientific outputs are reducing the openness of what is available and taking things offline, which contradicts the work done around open science and open access , and that the value of data and metadata in particular is driving this trend .

As open science standards become more sophisticated and detailed, there is a risk that only well-resourced countries will be able to meet them, effectively excluding less-resourced nations from full participation in open science. Wyber questioned what a genuinely inclusive open science agenda would look like within the WSIS space, one that is accessible to all countries regardless of their resources. This raises fundamental questions about the design of open science frameworks.

Wyber raised the concern that the ability to be a good open science citizen risks becoming accessible only to those countries with the resources to abide by the standards being set , and asked what an agenda for promoting open science in a way that is actually accessible to everyone would look like going forwards .

Wyber suggested that civil society organisations and others could complement national reporting mechanisms by identifying gaps in open science governance that occur across borders and that may not naturally feature in nationally oriented reports. He proposed a kind of para-national or international civil society reporting opportunity to highlight where projects are not working across borders due to missing governance frameworks. This could add value to the existing national reporting processes.

Wyber proposed that civil society could help on the international aspect by identifying where gaps exist and where things are not working across borders in ways that may not feature in nationally oriented reports , and suggested this could be a para-national reporting opportunity .

Wyber noted that from the perspective of a library organisation such as IFLA, being given clear and specific tasks is helpful because there are many possible areas of action and organisations need guidance on where their contributions are most valuable. The WSIS multi-stakeholder model would benefit from more explicit direction to stakeholders about what is needed from them. This would help channel efforts more effectively towards the roadmap goals.

Wyber stated that from his organisation's perspective, being tasked with things is helpful as there are 101 million things they could be doing, and that clear guidance on what is helpful is valuable .

Wyber suggested that IFLA and the broader library community are well positioned to contribute to identifying where open science implementation is falling short at an international level, particularly in areas that national reports may not capture. Libraries have a long-standing role in facilitating access to knowledge and could bring this perspective to bear on the WSIS eScience agenda. This represents a concrete way for the library community to engage with the roadmap process.

Wyber indicated that there may be a role for civil society and others, including by implication IFLA, to help on the international aspect and identify gaps where things are not working across borders .

Shamira Ahmed argued that quantum technologies should be understood as a form of information and communications technology, building on existing foundational elements such as data, high-performance computing, and internet connectivity that have already been discussed within WSIS. Rather than creating entirely new governance frameworks, she advocated for applying lessons from digital ethics and AI ethics to anticipate the ethical, legal, and societal challenges of quantum technologies. This approach avoids duplication and leverages existing knowledge.

Ahmed framed quantum as ICT with foundational elements already discussed at WSIS , and argued that learning from digital ethics and AI ethics can inform anticipatory governance for quantum . She also referenced a session at the ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference on ecosystem innovation ethics for quantum-safe transitions .

Ahmed highlighted that UNCTAD's Commission on Science and Technology for Development is specifically focusing on data and open science for development, with a particular emphasis on global majority governance. She suggested that UNESCO and the WSIS eScience work should collaborate with these initiatives rather than working in parallel. This would ensure coherence and avoid duplication across international bodies working on related issues.

Ahmed noted that UNCTAD's Commission on Science and Technology for Development is focusing specifically on data and open science , and asked whether UNESCO is collaborating with these initiatives that focus on global majority governance on data and open science for development .

Boris Engelson argued that while the eScience revolution does not fundamentally change how people enjoy the benefits or marvel of science, it has the potential to completely reshape who is considered a scientist and how research communities are organised. The traditional academic model, which requires formal appointments and career progression, is increasingly being questioned by thinkers who argue that universities can constrain rather than enable scientific thinking. Digital tools create new possibilities for participation in scientific discovery that challenge established structures.

Engelson outlined three traditional relations between society and science - enjoying benefits, marvelling at science, and creating science - and argued that eScience could trigger a total revolution in the third by redefining who is a professional scientist and through which networks . He noted that an increasing number of thinkers are questioning the traditional academic model .

Engelson suggested that citizen science, though currently often framed narrowly around fields such as climate and health, represents a much broader opportunity for digital tools to reshape who participates in scientific discovery. He implied that the framing of citizen science should be expanded to reflect the full range of possibilities that eScience offers for non-professional participation in research. This connects to the broader question of how digital transformation is reshaping the research community.

Engelson noted that citizen science is usually framed around climate and health , and suggested that the participation possibilities offered by eScience are broader than this framing implies .

Merab Labadze from the Georgia Innovative Education Foundation raised the question of how success can be meaningfully measured in quantum education initiatives and hackathons, given that quantum computing remains largely esoteric and not yet directly applicable as a commercial technology. Unlike other technology hackathons where participants might produce immediately usable applications, quantum hackathons face a different challenge in demonstrating tangible outcomes. This question prompted a broader discussion about realistic metrics for quantum capacity building.

Labadze noted that quantum sounds esoteric and is not like other applications that can be immediately tuned for commercial use , and asked how success is measured in this context .