WSIS Action Line C7:E-Science: Open Science, Data, Science cooperation, IYQ, International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development

Summary

This discussion was a WSIS Action Line C7 session focused on eScience and its evolution over the past 20 years, featuring panelists from UNESCO, GESDA, Delft University of Technology, and IEEE Standards Association. The session aimed to identify key messages and issues for the WSIS 2020 review regarding how eScience has developed and what challenges remain.

UNESCO’s Amal Kasry presented their Global Remote Access Initiative, which addresses the digital divide in scientific research by providing remote access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and analysis software for researchers in the Global South. This program has already benefited 126 researchers and 118 students across 11 African countries, allowing them to conduct high-quality research using expensive equipment like X-ray diffractometers through virtual networks. The initiative emphasizes building regional resilience and self-sufficiency rather than dependence on certain regions.

Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA discussed anticipatory science diplomacy, explaining how their organization identifies emerging scientific breakthroughs and their potential societal impacts. GESDA’s work focuses on three fundamental questions about human identity, societal coexistence, and sustainable planetary relationships, culminating in their “Planetarized Humanity” initiative that addresses how accelerating technological change will transform basic assumptions about human existence.

Shamira Ahmed highlighted persistent asymmetries in global science and digital access, particularly affecting women and marginalized groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. She emphasized the need for people-centered approaches that move beyond mere access to actual resource allocation, technology transfer, and locally-owned innovation ecosystems. Her recommendations included sustainable prosperity networks that anchor scientific innovation in distributed problem-solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability.

Karen Mulberry from IEEE discussed the role of open, consensus-driven standards in ensuring ethical technology development, emphasizing that standards must address not just technical specifications but also social impacts like bias in AI systems and age-appropriate design principles. The discussion concluded with recognition that eScience must democratize opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all of humanity, requiring unprecedented global collaboration and partnership across all stakeholder groups.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Remote Access to Scientific Infrastructure**: UNESCO’s Global Remote Access Initiative aims to democratize scientific research by providing researchers in developing countries with virtual access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and techniques, such as X-ray diffractometers, that are typically unavailable or unaffordable in their regions.

– **Anticipatory Science Diplomacy**: GESDA’s approach to science diplomacy focuses on anticipating scientific and technological breakthroughs before they occur, identifying opportunities for action, and ensuring equitable benefits through multi-stakeholder collaboration, particularly addressing three fundamental questions about human identity, societal coexistence, and planetary sustainability.

– **Digital Equity and Inclusive Governance**: The need to align e-science initiatives with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact to address persistent asymmetries in global science and technology access, particularly focusing on underrepresented groups including women, disabled individuals, and marginalized communities in the Global South.

– **Standards and Ethical Implementation**: The critical role of open, consensus-driven technical standards in ensuring responsible development and deployment of emerging technologies, with emphasis on translating standards into ethical practice and preventing misuse while maintaining inclusivity across different organizational capabilities.

– **Human-Centered Technology Development**: The importance of maintaining human agency and social considerations in technological advancement, including addressing bias in AI systems, age-appropriate design principles, and ensuring that scientific progress serves all of humanity rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to review and advance WSIS Action Line C7 on e-science as part of the WSIS+20 review process, focusing on how to make scientific research and technological development more inclusive, equitable, and accessible globally. The session sought to identify key messages and recommendations for advancing international cooperation in science and technology while ensuring that emerging technologies benefit all of humanity.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and forward-looking tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s points, creating a constructive dialogue. The tone was professional yet passionate about addressing global inequities in science and technology access. There was a shared sense of urgency about the need for inclusive approaches to emerging technologies, but this was balanced with optimism about the potential for positive change through international cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Speakers

– **Davide Storti** – UNESCO, Communication and Information Sector (Session moderator and co-organizer of WSIS Forum)

– **Amal Kasry** – UNESCO, Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering (Joined online)

– **Manuel Gustavo Isaac** – GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), Lead Program for Science Anticipation Philosophy

– **Shamira Ahmed** – Delft University of Technology, Researcher (Joined online)

– **Karen Mulberry** – IEEE Standard Association, Senior Manager in Technology Policy

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions (including Anthony Wong, IFIT president, and Maricela Munoz from JESDA)

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers mentioned in the transcript are included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Action Line C7: E-Science Evolution and Future Directions

## Discussion Summary

### Introduction and Session Overview

This WSIS Action Line C7 session, held on the final day of the WSIS High-Level Event 2025, was moderated by Davide Storti from UNESCO’s Communication and Information Sector. The session examined e-science evolution over the past two decades and identified priorities for the WSIS+20 review process. The panel featured UNESCO’s Amal Kasry (Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering), Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), Shamira Ahmed from Delft University of Technology, and Karen Mulberry from IEEE Standards Association.

Storti opened by noting how WSIS Action Lines have become increasingly interconnected, making it difficult to discuss e-science without referencing broader digital governance and capacity building frameworks.

### UNESCO’s Remote Access Initiative

Amal Kasry presented UNESCO’s Global Remote Access Initiative, which addresses limited access to scientific research infrastructure, particularly in Least Developed Countries. The programme provides remote access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and analysis software for researchers in the Global South.

The initiative has benefited 126 researchers and 118 students across 11 African countries, focusing initially on X-ray diffractometry equipment that would typically be unavailable or unaffordable in their home institutions. Kasry explained that “virtual networks can bridge the gap between limited resources and unlimited potential,” emphasizing the programme’s goal of creating self-sufficient regional networks rather than dependency relationships.

The initiative includes training local focal points to provide hands-on support and expertise, ensuring remote access capabilities are complemented by local knowledge. Kasry stressed the importance of “creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources.”

UNESCO issued an open call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure and invited participation in initiatives under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development. Kasry concluded that the vision goes “beyond technology to democratise opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all humanity.”

### GESDA’s Anticipatory Science Diplomacy

Manuel Gustavo Isaac, representing GESDA and serving on the UN Scientific Advisory Board, introduced anticipatory science diplomacy, which identifies scientific breakthroughs with high potential impact before they fully emerge. This approach focuses on three fundamental questions about human identity in technological transformation, societal coexistence and governance, and sustainable planetary relationships.

Isaac explained that GESDA’s work addresses what he termed “Planetarised Humanity,” examining how emerging technologies will transform basic assumptions about human existence. He noted that “all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality.”

The methodology involves multi-stakeholder discussions to accelerate action opportunities and ensure equitable distribution of benefits from emerging technologies. Isaac acknowledged challenges in making complex scientific content accessible to stakeholders with different worldviews and ensuring that standards remain inclusive across different organizational capabilities.

### Global Digital Cooperation and Inclusivity

Shamira Ahmed addressed persistent asymmetries in global science and digital access, particularly affecting women and marginalized groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. She highlighted how under-investment in science, technology, and innovation ecosystems creates systemic barriers to research and development.

Ahmed emphasized that women face systematic barriers in STEM fields, with additional challenges for disabled individuals and other marginalized communities. She argued that “it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent.”

She advocated for people-centered approaches that move beyond access provision to ensure actual resource allocation and locally-owned innovation ecosystems. Ahmed proposed sustainable prosperity networks that anchor scientific innovation in distributed problem-solving and participatory accountability mechanisms, designed to complement existing e-science working groups through South-led partnerships.

Ahmed also emphasized aligning e-science initiatives with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact, ensuring human rights principles guide governance of frontier technologies.

### Standards and Ethical Implementation

Karen Mulberry presented IEEE’s approach to developing open, consensus-driven standards, noting the organization’s 500,000+ members across 190 countries. IEEE’s process addresses both technical specifications and societal impacts of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation in AI systems and age-appropriate design principles.

When questioned about preventing disasters like the UK Horizon scandal, Mulberry acknowledged limitations: “You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.”

She highlighted enforcement mechanisms such as incorporating IEEE standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act. Mulberry addressed concerns about standards creating barriers for organizations with different capabilities, emphasizing IEEE’s commitment to inclusive design while maintaining ethical principles.

IEEE has established a social technology group focused on addressing societal impacts of emerging technologies, and Mulberry invited broader participation in these discussions.

### Q&A Discussion and Key Themes

The discussion revealed several common themes across presentations. Audience member Maricela Munoz asked about maintaining “human dimension and human agency in conversations about digital and technological transitions,” which speakers addressed by emphasizing that technology development must prioritize human needs and rights.

Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of collaborative networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The WSIS community was recognized as representing potential partnerships for expanding scientific collaboration across traditional boundaries.

Discussion highlighted the challenge of translating technical capabilities into equitable outcomes. Speakers acknowledged that addressing global challenges like climate change requires collective intelligence from the entire global community, with Kasry noting “we cannot afford to leave any talent behind.”

Several unresolved challenges emerged, including effective translation of technical standards into practical implementation, ensuring adequate resource allocation for developing countries’ STI ecosystems, and maintaining human agency in increasingly automated scientific processes.

### Concrete Next Steps

The session generated specific action items:

– UNESCO’s call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure, with QR codes provided for participation

– Open call for initiatives under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development

– IEEE invitation for stakeholders to join their social technology group

– Proposals for developing Sustainable Prosperity Networks as complementary mechanisms to existing e-science working groups

– UNESCO’s commitment to expanding remote access initiative to additional techniques and regions

### Conclusion

The session demonstrated both progress and persistent challenges in e-science development since the original WSIS declarations. While technological capabilities have advanced, fundamental issues of equity, access, and inclusive participation remain central concerns.

Kasry’s closing remarks emphasized that “the future of science is not just about the technology we develop, but about the bridges we build between communities, between nations, and between dreams and reality.” The discussion highlighted the evolution of e-science from primarily technical concerns to encompass broader questions of social justice and global equity.

The convergence of digital technologies and science creates opportunities to align WSIS Action Lines with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact and UN Sustainable Development Goals. The emphasis on anticipatory governance, human-centered approaches, and multi-stakeholder collaboration provides a foundation for ensuring scientific advancement serves all humanity rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

Davide Storti: Good morning, good day, everyone. Good morning and welcome to the last day of the WSIS High-Level Event 2025. We are here for a session which is an Action Line session for Action Line C7 for eScience. This is Davide Storti from UNESCO, Communication and Information Sector. We are co-organizers of the WSIS Forum with ITU, UNDP and UNCTAD. This Action Line session is an opportunity for discussing issues and sending key messages for the WSIS 2020 review concerning this Action Line and how this has evolved and what are the issues and key messages that we like to send to the reviewers, to the Member States for advancing the work on what was called 20 years ago eScience, and maybe there are different terms that we can use today. I’m pleased to have this great panel with my colleague Amal Kasry, Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering at UNESCO, joining us online. Mr. Manuel Gustavo Isaac, Lead Program for Science Anticipation Philosophy in GESDA, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator. Online we have also Mrs. Shamira Ahmed, Researcher from the Delft University of Technology. And then to my left, this is Karen Mulberry from the IEEE Standard Association. So, without further ado, I’d like to call my colleague Amal Kasry to introduce us. What is UNESCO’s idea and points on this Action Line?

Amal Kasry: Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me well? Yes. Good morning. Good to see you. Some of you, of course, I know very well and really glad to be in this. Thank you so much for the kind invitation. As my colleague David mentioned, I will introduce one of the things we are doing at UNESCO that addresses this important topic is access and equity. Give me one second to share my screen. OK, can you confirm that you can see my screen? Yes, we can. Thank you. Perfect. OK, thank you so much. So, I know that I have very little time, so I try to be very brief and I will introduce one of our major initiatives, which is remote access to scientific knowledge, which is very important in building capacity in the fields of basic sciences, engineering and STEM. So, we are trying to help and support the scientists mainly in the Global South to achieve that. So, let me move. So, first, let me start by the major challenges that actually are there and that need this kind of access. So, limited resources, of course, in the educational and institutions, especially in LDCs, often operate with limited budget, limited tools, limited laboratories, equipment and so on. Also, fragmented efforts quite often, especially in the STEM related fields, often institutions are isolated. They don’t collaborate enough with each other. And this leads to isolation of the scientists and the engineers as well. Also, a lack of collaborative network. So, we try to design an initiative that can actually try to close all these gaps and resolve all these challenges. Also, opportunities for virtual. So, virtual networks present a kind of a very powerful opportunity to bridge this gap in the field of STEM, which is a major concern for us. So, let me now move to one of the solutions we are offering, remote access to scientific infrastructure. The Global Remote Access Initiative basically seeks to connect researchers, early career scientists, researchers, the engineers, the students as well, in different parts of the world, in the developing countries, in areas that have laboratory techniques. And this initiative fosters participation in cutting edge research to empower scientists in the different regions. The virtual lab instruments provide remote access to experimental techniques. So, basically, sophisticated techniques, especially those that are used in characterization of materials, or like microscopy, like x-ray diffractometers, which are very important for developing new applications. These can be remotely accessed via virtual software. And with that, in the cloud, the enabled experiments can be also used. So, they also allow researchers to perform complex analysis. So, whether they do the experiments or not, they also need the analysis, which sometimes need the powerful softwares, which can be remotely accessed via enabling the cloud. As in the online or the remote access also allows for mentorship and guidance, not only to use the experiment, but also to offer training and the building capacity and sharing knowledge. So, I will talk about one specific example, which we started as a demo, and now we are expanding it to other techniques and other regions. This single crystal x-ray diffractometer, for example, is used in very different fields in basic sciences, or in engineering, in biology, in physics, in chemistry, basically in material science in general. And it’s really sophisticated technique, very expensive, it needs a lot of maintenance. And in Africa, for example, there are only very few, which definitely not enough to allow African scientists in Africa to perform high quality research. So, we started, the model is quite simple. We first, of course, work with different entities, research institutes, centers, also with the governments, of course, and we select one or two scientists from each country who travel to be trained physically on the system while their colleagues work on how to remotely use the system. And the reason for having physical training, of course, is for these colleagues to act as focal points, to track errors, and so on. So, the only thing following this one month training is that the scientists have to send the samples. Of course, for that, we need many partners here or in different regions who have these techniques to allow them to send, to mount the samples for them, and then they do everything. And this really makes a huge difference in the quality of research when the scientists do everything by their own hand, and they own the data, they own the analysis, other applications. And we started to see, we started this more than two and a half years ago. We ran a survey among those who received the training. So far, 11 countries in Africa benefited from this initiative. You see these numbers here, 126 researchers and 118 students, because the researchers use it also for teaching as well. So, it’s not only for research, but also for teaching, which is, which makes it more accessible for a larger number of people. And we are expanding, as I said, we are expanding this now to different techniques and different countries, sorry, different regions. In fact, in Africa, within the same continent, connecting those who have techniques with those who don’t. And for that, in order to advance this, we issued also a big survey I will show you in a minute. So, this model of virtual network, the initial aim to connect educational institutions across the different regions, also fostering collaboration and resource sharing. And by creating this collective platform, educational initiatives, we can leverage the diverse expertise. And then in the end, we would like to have a big network of shared infrastructure that can that can easily be matched. So we try to match, we issue several calls, and we try to match the needs of the scientists with the available techniques, either computer computing techniques or experimental techniques. And we try to build regional resiliency. So not only that, to be not to be dependent only on certain regions, but actually to be self-sufficient within the same region. And in order to achieve this, this is a global mapping of scientific infrastructure that we started working on. Please, if you can take this QR code and try to contribute to this mapping, if you have a new network, if you can share it, because it’s really important for us to have results of this mapping and to try to enhance the opportunities for many big numbers of access. And also, as I said, to enhance the resilience within the same regions or the same country. So really, the final aim for us is to democratize education access by reducing geographical barriers. This inclusive approach promotes equity, allowing students from diverse backgrounds to benefit from quality education. So of course, for that, we need many partnerships, we need many laboratories and scientific institutions to be willing to share, to share the institutions. Following a call we sent to all member states, we received actually quite a very positive response from different entities and different member states, and we are working now to expand this network. Hopefully, we can share more positive results soon. Just a quick measure of programs we work on. This initiative is really serving the basic sciences program, the engineering and innovation program, and the STEM education program. And these three QR codes can take you directly to what we are doing, to all the codes we are issuing in order to achieve our aim of equity and allowing all researchers around the world to have a good chance of doing high quality research. And all this is done under the umbrella of the major initiative of the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, entrusting UNESCO to be the lead agency. The vision and the mission are very simple and very clear. The sciences and science culture required for a sustainable world are developed and accessible to all, and our mission is to engage all societal actors to further advance science and equally benefit from it. Let us say the ultimate goal is to build the culture of science. And of course, e-science is one of the most important things that can contribute now to building this culture of science. And there is a call, actually, sorry, this is a bit old from last month, and now the call is open already. Using this QR code, you can apply for or propose an initiative to be implemented under the umbrella of the decade. And following the endorsement of these initiatives that will be evaluated by executive committee and that has been presented to our advisory committee, following endorsement, the endorsed initiatives will be featured on the website of UNESCO or of the decade. And also, the logo of the decade can be used. And also, it will allow creating a big network, because all the endorsement initiatives, the authors or the owners or the applicants will have a chance to collaborate with each other and form a bigger network. So, we hope that we can see more applications related to the field of e-science soon. And thank you so much for listening. Thank you, David.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Amal, for this comprehensive presentation. Words that are resounding very much with the WSIS forum, WSIS spirit and principles of collaboration, access, guidance, the networking. So, these are all keywords that for which the WSIS community, actually, it’s the one, not only the audience, but it’s also really a network of potential partnerships to expand this work that you just described. May turn now to Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA to give us a bit of perspective on what is called the science diplomacy. Maybe you could also explain it a bit quickly what science diplomacy is and also how do you ensure that inclusivity, diversity and representativeness in science and in your work, particularly, which is science anticipation?

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: Exactly. Well, thanks so much for the opportunity. That’s a great honor to be on that panel. So, what I’ll do is I’ll present you with the work we do in science diplomacy, but more specifically, what we call anticipatory science diplomacy. So, GESDA stands for Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator, as has been said before. And it’s an independent foundation that’s been initiated by the Swiss federal government in 2019 and the city and the canton of Geneva. And with a mission to anticipate possible scientific and technological breakthrough that will have high potential impact for people, society and the planet, and to identify on that basis opportunities for action. The next step in our pipeline of activities is to accelerate these action opportunities through multi-stakeholder discussion to develop solution ideas in order to ensure that everybody benefits from future scientific and technological advances. Back to my slides. That’s fine, no worries. And the last bit on that basis is to translate the solution ideas into concrete projects and global initiative in collaboration with multilateral institutions, especially based in the international Geneva. So, one thing that’s kind of distinctive of the work we do is that we are a science-first organization. We start with scientists, with researchers, and we do not, but most importantly as well and together with opportunities. And that is what you can see now, that the digital representation is what we call the science breakthrough radar, which is the cornerstone of everything we do. It gathers all the insight that we get in terms of science and innovation that range from advanced AI to the future of consciousness, also in science, including more social sciences and humanities-like topics, such as economics. It covers all together about 40 emerging topics that are able to help us identify more than 300 breakthroughs, both mid- and long-term. That’s kind of conducted in close collaboration with a broad range of distinguished experts and scientists from around the world. And in that capacity, we are serving in various advisory boards, including the one of the United Nations Science Scientific Advisory Board. So, that’s one distinctive aspect of what we do. We start with science, we start with researchers in these communities, and we focus not only on risk, but on opportunities as well. Another aspect that’s also distinctive and that kind of really contributes to framing our whole science anticipation endeavor is that all the work we do is somehow guided by three fundamental questions. The first is about who we are as humans. What does it mean to be a youth? AI-powered chatbots, gene editing, augmented reality, and so on. The second is more at the meso level, and it concerns how we can live together as societies. And the last one is at the global level of the relationship we might wish to foster in a sustainable way with the planet. So, these three questions help us frame and build narrative for the science anticipation work we do, and that’s released on a yearly basis in the radar that I alluded to before. And that’s based, again, on expert research. We kind of gather from around the world, our kind of specialists themselves on these scientific topics. And these three big questions are kind of materializing currently in a new initiative of ours that we call Planetarized Humanity. We call that term as a diagnostic concept to try to tap into this idea of us that our human condition is basically in need to be rethought, deeply rethought. Our human relational condition, relation to ourselves and to the planet at the global scales. And this is actually going to be deeply transformed through accelerated social and technological co-evolution. So the basic rational for that is that all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality. And this transformation will actually challenge some of the most fundamental assumption we have about what it means to be human. For instance, in the context of the human right, what it may mean, how we can live together as societies and in a sustainable relationship to the planet. And we think that it is absolutely critical to anticipate as well these so-called conceptual disruption in order to align the development of emerging sciences and technologies with our human values and societal needs across disciplines and sector. So we think there’s an opportunity here to equip various decision makers and leaders with conceptual tools and practical methodologies so that they understand this accelerating social and technological co-evolution and then on that basis able to act upon it. And for the diplomatic community, what it more maybe specifically means is that by proactively anticipating these conceptual disruption, they’ll be able to address global technoscientific challenges before they become crisis, positioning themselves to shape rather than just respond to this accelerating social technological co-evolution. Thank you for the opportunity.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Gustavo. I think you said the shape, not just respond. I think it’s very actual as a theme as we see that we are all facing the major disruptions of emerging technologies every day. I think, so in a few words, maybe what are the key challenges in this?

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: If you have to name like. Well, the key challenges for science anticipation at large are kind of really, well, quite obvious. It actually, the content we are able to kind of collect from these insights from the scientists and the researcher is pretty complex. It’s very rich, it’s very dense, and it’s a translation issue. And it’s not only about doing some sort of popular science, but there’s much more to that. It’s not only about kind of having abiding by one way translation from science and research to the talk with, it’s also about making that content relevant to their needs in a way that is respectful of their own perspective, and that basically speaks to what they are concerned with. And that consideration and that sensitivity towards the other’s needs and being able to respond in a way that’s actually useful for them is something that really needs to be kind of carefully crafted, and especially when it engage stakeholders that have different worldviews and different kind of conception about some very basic ideas, such as the very notion of intelligence in the context of artificial intelligence, for instance. It’s very hard to align them and to make them speak the same language.

Davide Storti: Thank you, thank you very much. I’d like now to call Shamira Hamed, researcher from Delfin University, joining us online. And I’d like to continue this discussion on the science diplomacy, asking how can science diplomacy and global digital cooperation mechanism evolve to ensure digital public goods, such as open data standards, the scientific infrastructure, as we heard also from Amal, et cetera. So, Shamira.

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you, David, for the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue. And a lot of my inputs and insights will actually be reflecting what Amal and Manuel mentioned. So, as we reflect on 20 years of WSIS and Look Ahead, given the convergence between digital technologies and science and this event on e-science, it’s critical that we align our ambitions, especially within the UN ecosystem, for inclusive e-science with other initiatives, such as the Global Digital Compact. And some of the values and principles in the Global Digital Compact align with a lot of the discussion points mentioned earlier by my previous speakers on universal connectivity, human rights, equitable access to digital public goods and inclusive governance. So, in terms of WSIS Action Line on e-science, there is a unique role to play, given the convergence, by embedding science diplomacy and digital cooperation in the service of anticipatory, inclusive and locally relevant STI innovation ecosystem by digital technologies, according to the context of different ecosystems. And I think Amal mentioned this, that the way science, technology and innovation ecosystems are going to be created in lower resourced countries is going to be different based on their context and actual realities. So, Amal mentioned that there are persistent asymmetries in the global science digital nexus. And these are some of the issues that we also highlighted. And as you mentioned, I am a researcher. So, we developed a policy brief as part of the T7 with a wide group of researchers and interested parties, I’ll put it in the chat. And in that proposal, we highlighted people-centered science and digital transformation of the T7 task force for science and digitalization for a better future. So, the three main issues we highlighted were that a lot that Amal mentions was under-investment in STI ecosystem, which ultimately undermine research and development and are compounded by digital exclusion and job precarity from digital automation. And also according to the sex ratio that’s developed by the World Bank, although women are the majority, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, they still face systematic barriers to representation and participating in both the science technology and information communications and technology ecosystems and pipelines. And basically the STEM subjects that Amal highlighted. And this is even more dire for other marginalized groups like disabled people and people with disabilities and disabled people and people who are part of the LGBT plus Q society. And another issue was that there’s extractive behavior and an equal power dynamics in the way projects are funded. Corporations engage in these ecosystems in lower resourced countries and they often create monopolies, concentrate power and often leave out communities without access to things like their own data that is extracted for e-science and other digital innovations. And they also create governance that doesn’t facilitate resilient ecosystems, which essentially undermines the core GDC principle of equity and accountability. And some of the values and principles that Manuel and Amal also highlighted in what is needed to have a more resilient and equitable interaction for e-science. And so in terms of a way forward, I will focus my recommendations on the publication we wrote on sustainable, that centers human rights for anticipatory governance of frontier tech. And so in our proposed brief in the chat, a sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complimentary mechanism to the e-science working group for WSIS and also for the global digital compact because it anchors scientific innovation and digital cooperation in four key areas, distributed problem solving, ethical governance, open digital public infrastructure and participatory accountability. And I won’t go into further detail on these four points. The document is in the chat, but basically the SPN reinforces the digital compact vision of inclusive human centered governance and ethical digital systems that support flourishing of people and the planet. And it also highlights addressing structural gaps that forms that the WSIS plus 20 and this e-science action line can help bridge. Another document that we also developed that is complimentary to our discussion on anticipation and human rights is the UNESCO document on human rights centered global governance. These two documents that are in the chat highlight both thinking of science. and digitalization for people and the planet, and also focusing on human rights as the focal point, human rights principles as a focal point to anticipate the governance of frontier technologies, such as quantum technologies and AI, for example. So lastly, in terms of measurable outcomes and key priorities, a lot of them are highlighted in the two documents, so I won’t really go into detail just to save time. But we proposed, based on the research, and the research was developed in collaboration with many experts, so I will continue saying we because it was not an individual. Based on the evidence we developed in the development of these two knowledge products, we recommended people-centered impact metrics, global anticipatory governance and foresight, and when I say global, I’m highlighting mechanisms that link global safety and open science agendas with regional needs, and I think Manuel mentioned this as well as very important in discussing the context of how people understand science, technology, and innovation, for example. So another point I’d like to highlight on global anticipatory governance and foresight is that also aligning global initiatives like the International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development, the GDC, and this action line, but grounding them in more South-led partnerships and moving away from North-South dependency, but also having more ownership and more interaction within South-to-South learning ecosystems. Of course, the technology is not as advanced in the Global South countries, but I think potentially creating North-South-to-South corporations where different regions can learn from each other and also the Global North can learn from different scientists and ecosystems. We also highlighted an interoperability framework that aligns with the GDC. The WSIS can actually convene common ethical and data standards that allow marginalized institutions and underrepresented regions to plug global science for prosperity for people on the planet. And in closing, I’d like to highlight that to achieve inclusive e-science futures, we can’t not only ground science diplomacy, but also actual allocation of resources that supports local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems. So it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent, and ensure embedded in justice, equity, and flourishing of local communities, not just mere access. So the WSIS plus 20 process, in combination with the GDC and other instruments and principles that we are within the UN system can offer a generational opportunity to embed shared digital and scientific infrastructure as a global digital public good, particularly for socially disruptive technologies such as AI and even for the potential applications of quantum technologies. And if we do this right, we won’t need to continue historic forms of extraction and fairness, but we can just continue to connect, we can continue to connect, and we’ll connect science to the people and also build equitable, sustainable futures that everyone deserves, regardless of which region you happen to live in. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I would like now to turn to Karen Mulberry that from IEEE. I think much of what we hear has to be based on some grounds. And I think maybe you may say something about how standards for open and responsible science may actually ground this concept that we heard.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, thank you very much, especially for this opportunity to reflect on how IEEE opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technology. I’m Karen Mulberry. I’m a senior manager in the Standards Association. I work on technology policy, the crossover between one world and another. Now, before we kind of go into a little bit more about the work of IEEE and what we’re focusing on, I thought maybe I’d tell you a little bit about who we are. We’re the largest technical professional organization with over 500,000 members in 190 countries. We’re a public charity, and we operate as a technical community around the world with our fundamental mission being advancing technology for humanity. Our global technical organization, the world is becoming even more interconnected. And so standards play a very pivotal role in that fundamental language between technology and how it’s used and the applications. So when we look at how IEEE contributes, especially to the WSIS Action Lines, we promote open, ethical, and cooperative use of emerging technologies. And our approach supports inclusive access to knowledge, which is C3, accelerates scientific collaboration, which is what we’re talking about today in C7, embeds ethical principles in ICT development, which is C10, and facilitates international cooperation in C11. So as you can tell, we try to follow the WSIS Action Lines and contribute our scientific knowledge and research to the benefit of humanity. Now, when we look at the standards development process, our standards are open, consensus-driven, and they’re built on a foundation of the multi-stakeholder model. It’s a process of bottoms up, such that anyone who is interested, whether you’re a scientist, an engineer, a researcher, an academic, or just have an interest in a topic is welcome to come and talk about what it is and what should be the parameters and frameworks around the standard related to that topic. So we welcome all to come to the table who are interested in that topic to discuss it. Now, when we look at emerging technologies, now, reflect back in history, we’re the home of 802 and the Wi-Fi standards. It was initially developed to do one particular, to solve one particular problem, which was tracking things. It was more for supply chain. However, if we look at how that technology has emerged and changed because of the needs of everyone, it has evolved to, we have a smartphone that actually is smarter than my first computer. So, you know, technology continues to evolve. So you can’t just say emerging technology is just one thing like artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence starts here and it has gone into many different areas. For example, with our work in artificial intelligence, we have moved now into technical societal aspects because it’s not just pure technology or pure engineering that you need to consider. Now, with artificial intelligence being applied in many ways, it is bias. How do you address bias in the process? How do you look at other social impacts to mental health and the use of AI? So emerging technologies is just the start of a path that opens up a very broad world of opportunities where if we collaborate together, we can actually look at how we can use technology to solve some of these problems. Another example of the work that we have ongoing with AI in particular, it is, and actually we’ve looked at this a little broader. It’s age appropriate design principles should be built in when you’re looking at a variety of technology applications because what might be appropriate for one age group may not be appropriate for another age group. And you have the younger population that is most vulnerable, but you also have an aging population that is very vulnerable. So guidance needs to be established on how you expose them and what’s appropriate for them to be exposed to. So we have a body of work along in those lines. I mean, so we’re trying to make sure that we really address emerging technologies and the best application. and really to further that for all of humanity. So thank you very much.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Karen. I think that’s, I mean, here, all this discussion, I think this comforts what I’ve been hearing all week, which is basically that it’s hard with the difference between 20 years ago and now, also all these different dimensions that are actually increasingly cross-cutting. We can’t talk about one actual line without talking about another actual line, et cetera. I’d like to thank the speakers. Ask if there’s any questions from the floor or comments, of course, even online, of course.

Shamira Ahmed: There is a question online. Sorry, I’ll just take the opportunity to be online moderator.

Davide Storti: Please, please.

Shamira Ahmed: The question was directed to me, and it was about the T7. So just to give a bit of the background, the T7 proposal was part of Japan’s G7 presidency, and we developed a policy brief as part of the task force for science and digitalization. So there are only recommendations to the T7. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are these initiatives, but I think we can discuss these further with Lauren Reyes. I think I’ll send you a chat privately to discuss it further. It was definitely being initiated or operationalized by the T7 group. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you, Davide. Anthony Wong, IFIT president. A question for the panel and for our IEEE panel member. We have many standards already about technology. What I’m curious about is how do we translate all the standards to ensure that following those standards and ethically applying to ensure we don’t have similar disasters to what we’ve just seen in the latest report from the UK Ministry of Justice on the UK horizon scandal? Because with complexity of AI coming along, that’s going to exacerbate the areas and leading to things that we can’t even imagine at this stage. So of the panel’s insight, how do we translate standards to practice? Because there’s a similar question that I’m going to pose to the next session is there’s very room to the IFIT professional standards panel. How are we going to overcome these big challenges coming ahead? Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, I think you posed, I think, a very relevant question. Because at least for IEEE, we have a set of ethical principles that we follow this process to review and adopt standards. However, when the standard exists out there, it depends on the user as to how it’s applied. I know in more and more cases, especially when you look at the EU AI Act, they’re actually qualifying and quantifying standards and specific aspects of a standard in a law so that there is enforcement capabilities, so that you keep things along the ethical path. You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: Can I just add something briefly here? I think a key challenge as well is to design the challenge in a way that’s kind of inclusive and irrespective of the different kind of participants across the value chain. And then the other issue is for the standard not to increase the divide between the different kind of actors in the industries. Specifically, you might have very different abilities to actually implement them depending on the size of your organization. I believe you know that, of course.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I think I will now turn to you.

Audience: Thank you very much, Maricela Munoz from JESDA. I think this fascinating discussion. And I believe that sometimes when we talk about the transition between the analog and the digital and technological worlds, we focus, as we need to, on standards, investments, education, infrastructure. But somehow that’s loaded in the conversation. And I know that I’m always touching upon the planetarized humanity. So I was wondering if the panelists would have further insights on how we can keep and uplift that human dimension, that human agency in our conversations, in the development of anticipatory-level governance also, as some of them were highlighting. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you. Is there any panelist?

Karen Mulberry: Thank you. I know within IEEE, we have a number of years ago formed the social technology group. Philosophers, academics, researchers, looking at, especially when they were looking at AI and the data sets, how do you ensure that bias is not part of the initial data set? Because then it becomes replicated. How do you address the differences between indigenous people and languages as AI actually looks at data sets? So they have initial sets of standards that have been adopted. And they’re working on a significant body of others as people bring issues to them that technology has created this impact or this concern. And if you have something along those lines, you’re welcome to join that group and contribute to the discussion. Because it’s a bottoms-up process. So people have to identify the issue and bring it in in order to have it go through the rigor to be adopted as a standard.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I think we have to close, unfortunately. But I think Amal online would like me to conclude.

Amal Kasry: Thank you very much, David. And thank you for all the panelists for this very interesting discussion. And as we conclude, I think it’s clear that this important discussion, e-science for inclusive future, emphasized that the vision we share goes beyond technology. It is about democratizing opportunities and ensuring that scientific advancement serves all humanities. What we discussed today is not just about developing programs, or it’s actually about the brilliant minds in understanding different issues in underserved regions to the global scientific community. And they also present our commitment to ensuring that young researchers, especially in rural areas, for example, have the same opportunity to learn and the same access to cutting-edge technologies at their country parts. So there is actually urgency to act. And the challenges we face, like climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development, all these challenges require a collective intelligence of our entire global community. And we cannot afford, of course, to leave any talent behind. So we need to enable young women scientists also in the global south to have this opportunity. Of course, none of us can do this alone. It is clear that we need the partnerships, we need expertise, and we need commitment from all different stakeholders, the government representatives, private sector organizations, civil societies. And I think this panel was really a good example of having different representatives from different stakeholders. So finally, I think to get together, we can really build an e-science ecosystem where innovation knows no borders, and where talent is nurtured regardless of geography, or where scientific advancements truly serve sustainable development for all. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed the discussion and the rest of the meeting. Thank you so much.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Amal. Thank you to all the panelists for this session. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for equitable access to scientific infrastructure and resources

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Limited resources in educational institutions, especially in LDCs, create barriers to scientific advancement

Persistent asymmetries exist in the global science digital nexus, with under-investment in STI ecosystems undermining research and development

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge significant resource disparities that create barriers to scientific advancement, particularly affecting institutions in developing countries and LDCs

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Importance of human-centered approaches in technology development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry
– Audience

Arguments

The vision for e-science goes beyond technology to democratize opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all humanity

People-centered impact metrics and human rights principles should be focal points for anticipating governance of frontier technologies

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Human dimension and agency must be maintained in technological transitions and anticipatory governance development

Summary

All speakers emphasize that technology development must prioritize human needs, rights, and agency rather than focusing solely on technical aspects

Topics

Human rights | Human rights principles | Development

Need for collaborative networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Virtual networks present powerful opportunities to foster participation in cutting-edge research and empower scientists in different regions

A sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complementary mechanism anchored in distributed problem solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability

IEEE promotes open, consensus-driven standards development through a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process that welcomes diverse participation

The WSIS community represents a network of potential partnerships for expanding collaborative scientific work

Summary

All speakers recognize the critical importance of building collaborative networks and partnerships that bring together diverse stakeholders to address scientific and technological challenges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Infrastructure

Necessity of anticipatory governance for emerging technologies

Speakers

– Manuel Gustavo Isaac
– Shamira Ahmed
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Anticipatory science diplomacy focuses on identifying scientific breakthroughs with high potential impact and accelerating action opportunities through multi-stakeholder discussions

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

The challenge is to shape rather than just respond to major technological disruptions

Summary

Speakers agree on the need for proactive, anticipatory approaches to governance that can shape technological development rather than merely react to changes

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Interdisciplinary approaches

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for moving away from dependency models toward regional self-sufficiency and South-led partnerships in scientific and technological development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Building regional resilience requires creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the need to address systematic barriers and vulnerabilities affecting marginalized groups in technology and science fields

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Women face systematic barriers to representation in STEM fields, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with even greater challenges for marginalized groups

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful change requires concrete resource allocation and collective action, not just policy statements or access provision

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Amal Kasry

Arguments

Achieving inclusive e-science futures requires actual allocation of resources, investments, technology transfers, and building human talent

Collective intelligence from the entire global community is needed to address challenges like climate change and sustainable development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Standards translation into ethical practice

Speakers

– Karen Mulberry
– Audience

Arguments

Translation of standards into practice requires enforcement mechanisms, such as incorporating standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act

Standards must be translated into practice to prevent disasters like the UK Horizon scandal, especially with AI complexity

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged between the IEEE standards representative and audience member on the critical gap between having standards and ensuring their ethical implementation, acknowledging that technical standards alone are insufficient without proper enforcement mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Digital standards

Interconnected nature of technological challenges

Speakers

– Davide Storti
– Manuel Gustavo Isaac
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

WSIS Action Lines are increasingly cross-cutting and interconnected, making it difficult to discuss one without referencing others

The concept of ‘Planetarized Humanity’ addresses how emerging technologies will transform fundamental assumptions about human existence and relationships

A sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complementary mechanism anchored in distributed problem solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on the fundamental interconnectedness of technological, social, and governance challenges, with speakers from different backgrounds recognizing that siloed approaches are no longer viable

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Human rights principles | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around human-centered technology development, the need for equitable access to scientific resources, collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches, and anticipatory governance frameworks. Speakers consistently emphasized moving beyond technical solutions to address systemic inequalities and ensure inclusive participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for e-science policy development. The agreement suggests a mature understanding that technological advancement must be coupled with social justice, equitable resource distribution, and proactive governance. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing comprehensive e-science policies that address both technical and social dimensions of scientific collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing technological complexity and standards implementation

Speakers

– Karen Mulberry
– Manuel Gustavo Isaac

Arguments

Translation of standards into practice requires enforcement mechanisms, such as incorporating standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act

A key challenge as well is to design the challenge in a way that’s kind of inclusive and irrespective of the different kind of participants across the value chain

Summary

Karen focuses on legal enforcement mechanisms and preventing bad actors through regulatory frameworks, while Manuel emphasizes inclusive design that considers different organizational capabilities and worldviews across the value chain

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Unexpected differences

No significant unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The speakers generally aligned on core principles of inclusivity, equity, and human-centered approaches to e-science, with differences mainly in emphasis and methodology rather than fundamental disagreements

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles with differences mainly in approach and emphasis. Speakers agreed on the need for inclusive, equitable e-science but differed on whether to prioritize technical infrastructure sharing, governance frameworks, legal enforcement, or conceptual understanding of human-technology relationships.

Disagreement level

Low level of fundamental disagreement with high level of methodological diversity. This suggests a mature field where stakeholders share common goals but bring different expertise and perspectives on implementation strategies, which could be complementary rather than conflicting.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for moving away from dependency models toward regional self-sufficiency and South-led partnerships in scientific and technological development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Building regional resilience requires creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the need to address systematic barriers and vulnerabilities affecting marginalized groups in technology and science fields

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Women face systematic barriers to representation in STEM fields, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with even greater challenges for marginalized groups

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful change requires concrete resource allocation and collective action, not just policy statements or access provision

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Amal Kasry

Arguments

Achieving inclusive e-science futures requires actual allocation of resources, investments, technology transfers, and building human talent

Collective intelligence from the entire global community is needed to address challenges like climate change and sustainable development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Capacity development

Key takeaways

E-science must prioritize democratizing access to scientific infrastructure and opportunities, particularly for researchers in the Global South and underserved regions

Remote access to sophisticated scientific equipment and virtual laboratory networks can effectively bridge resource gaps between developed and developing countries

Anticipatory science diplomacy is essential for proactively shaping rather than merely responding to emerging technological disruptions

Standards development must incorporate ethical principles and societal considerations, moving beyond purely technical specifications to address bias, age-appropriate design, and human rights

Successful e-science implementation requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations

Human agency and rights must remain central to technological development, with emphasis on people-centered impact metrics and inclusive governance

Regional resilience and South-to-South learning networks are crucial for reducing dependency on North-South partnerships while maintaining global collaboration

The convergence of digital technologies and science creates opportunities to align initiatives like WSIS Action Lines with the Global Digital Compact and UN Sustainable Development Goals

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO’s call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure through QR codes provided during the session

Open call for initiatives to be implemented under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development umbrella

Invitation for stakeholders to join IEEE’s social technology group to contribute to standards addressing societal impacts of emerging technologies

Recommendation to develop a Sustainable Prosperity Network as a complementary mechanism to existing e-science working groups

Proposal to create interoperability frameworks that align with the Global Digital Compact to allow marginalized institutions to participate in global science

Commitment to expand UNESCO’s remote access initiative to additional techniques and regions beyond the current 11 African countries

Unresolved issues

How to effectively translate technical standards into practical implementation while preventing misuse by bad actors, as highlighted by the UK Horizon scandal example

Specific mechanisms for ensuring adequate resource allocation and funding for local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems in developing countries

Detailed frameworks for maintaining human agency and preventing dehumanization in increasingly automated and AI-driven scientific processes

Concrete measures to address extractive behaviors and unequal power dynamics in international scientific collaborations and funding arrangements

Scalability challenges for expanding successful pilot programs like UNESCO’s remote access initiative to global levels

Integration mechanisms between various international initiatives (WSIS, GDC, International Decade of Sciences) to avoid duplication and ensure coherent implementation

Suggested compromises

Hybrid model combining physical training for local focal points with remote access capabilities to balance hands-on expertise with broader accessibility

Multi-tiered standards implementation approach that considers different organizational capacities while maintaining ethical principles

Balanced approach between global safety standards and regional autonomy in science and technology governance

Integration of enforcement mechanisms within legal frameworks (like EU AI Act) while maintaining open, consensus-driven standards development processes

Combination of North-South technology transfer with South-to-South learning networks to reduce dependency while leveraging existing expertise

The basic rational for that is that all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality. And this transformation will actually challenge some of the most fundamental assumption we have about what it means to be human.

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac

Reason

This comment is deeply philosophical and thought-provoking because it moves beyond technical discussions to examine the existential implications of technological advancement. It introduces the concept that emerging technologies don’t just change how we work or communicate, but fundamentally challenge our understanding of human identity and existence.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion from practical implementation issues to fundamental questions about humanity’s future. It introduced the ‘Planetarized Humanity’ concept and shifted the conversation toward anticipatory governance, influencing subsequent speakers to consider human agency and ethical dimensions more deeply.

So it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent, and ensure embedded in justice, equity, and flourishing of local communities, not just mere access.

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed

Reason

This comment cuts through diplomatic language to address the fundamental issue of power and resource distribution in global science cooperation. It challenges the notion that representation alone is sufficient and demands concrete resource allocation and genuine equity.

Impact

This comment brought a critical perspective that grounded the idealistic discussions in practical realities. It shifted the conversation from access-focused solutions to justice-focused approaches, influencing the discussion toward more substantive considerations of structural inequalities in global science cooperation.

You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.

Speaker

Karen Mulberry

Reason

This comment acknowledges the inherent limitations of standards and governance frameworks while maintaining pragmatic optimism. It’s insightful because it recognizes that perfect prevention of misuse is impossible, but systematic elevation of ethical practices through enforceable standards is achievable.

Impact

This response to the UK Horizon scandal question provided a realistic framework for thinking about technology governance. It influenced the discussion by introducing the concept that standards must be coupled with enforcement mechanisms, and that the goal is harm reduction rather than perfect prevention.

And I was wondering if the panelists would have further insights on how we can keep and uplift that human dimension, that human agency in our conversations, in the development of anticipatory-level governance also, as some of them were highlighting.

Speaker

Maricela Munoz

Reason

This question synthesized the various threads of the discussion and identified a crucial gap – that technical discussions about standards, infrastructure, and governance often lose sight of human agency and dignity. It challenged the panel to center humanity in their technological solutions.

Impact

This question served as a crucial turning point that brought the discussion full circle back to human-centered approaches. It prompted Karen Mulberry to discuss IEEE’s social technology group and reinforced the importance of considering human impacts in all technological development, not just as an afterthought.

What we discussed today is not just about developing programs, or it’s actually about the brilliant minds in understanding different issues in underserved regions to the global scientific community… we cannot afford, of course, to leave any talent behind.

Speaker

Amal Kasry

Reason

This closing comment reframes the entire discussion from a deficit model (helping underserved regions) to an asset model (brilliant minds that the global community needs). It’s insightful because it positions inclusion not as charity but as necessity for solving global challenges.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful synthesis that elevated the moral imperative for inclusive e-science. It shifted the framing from humanitarian aid to global necessity, reinforcing that diversity in scientific participation is essential for addressing complex global challenges like climate change and sustainable development.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing multiple layers of complexity and moving beyond technical implementation to examine deeper questions of human identity, power structures, and global equity. Manuel’s philosophical framing of ‘Planetarized Humanity’ set a tone that encouraged other speakers to think beyond immediate technical solutions. Shamira’s direct challenge about resource allocation brought necessary critical perspective that prevented the discussion from remaining in abstract idealism. Karen’s pragmatic acknowledgment of limitations in standards enforcement provided realistic grounding, while Maricela’s question about human agency served as a crucial synthesis point. Amal’s closing reframing elevated the moral imperative by positioning inclusion as global necessity rather than charity. Together, these comments created a rich, multi-dimensional conversation that addressed technical, philosophical, economic, and ethical dimensions of e-science governance, demonstrating the interconnected nature of the WSIS Action Lines and the complexity of creating truly inclusive global scientific cooperation.

How can we translate standards to practice to prevent disasters like the UK horizon scandal, especially with the complexity of AI?

Speaker

Anthony Wong (IFIT president)

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between having technical standards and ensuring their ethical implementation in real-world applications, particularly as AI systems become more complex and potentially harmful

How can we keep and uplift the human dimension and human agency in conversations about digital and technological transitions?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz (JESDA)

Explanation

This highlights the need to maintain focus on human-centered approaches in technology development and governance, ensuring that technological advancement serves humanity rather than replacing human agency

How to address bias in AI processes and datasets?

Speaker

Karen Mulberry (IEEE)

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring AI systems are fair and equitable, particularly when they impact different populations and communities globally

How to ensure standards don’t increase the divide between different actors in industries based on organizational size and capabilities?

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac (GESDA)

Explanation

This addresses the risk that technical standards might inadvertently create barriers for smaller organizations or developing countries, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities

How to make complex scientific content relevant and accessible to stakeholders with different worldviews and conceptions?

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac (GESDA)

Explanation

This is essential for effective science communication and diplomacy, ensuring that scientific knowledge can be effectively translated across different cultural and conceptual frameworks

How to move from North-South dependency to South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems?

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed (Delft University)

Explanation

This addresses the need to decolonize scientific cooperation and create more equitable partnerships that respect local knowledge and capabilities

How to ensure actual allocation of resources that supports local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems beyond just having representation?

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed (Delft University)

Explanation

This highlights that meaningful participation in global science requires not just seats at the table but actual financial investment and resource allocation to build local capabilities