{"id":3403,"date":"2026-11-13T09:35:05","date_gmt":"2026-11-13T09:35:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/?p=3403"},"modified":"2026-11-13T09:41:20","modified_gmt":"2026-11-13T09:41:20","slug":"science-in-a-complex-world-why-our-future-depends-on-more-than-scientific-discovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/2026\/11\/13\/science-in-a-complex-world-why-our-future-depends-on-more-than-scientific-discovery\/","title":{"rendered":"Science in a Complex World: Why Our Future Depends on More Than Scientific Discovery"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Reflections from the Beijing Science Dialogue and International Science Council Midterm Meeting, Beijing, China | 19\u201323 October 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

By Ntsundeni Louis Mapatagane (CODATA)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ntsundeni Louis Mapatagena is Co-chair of <\/em><\/strong>CODATA Connect<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, CODATA\u2019s Early Career Network, Director of Planning and Institutional Intelligence at Walter Sisulu University (WSU), MSc Environmental Sciences, Ph.D Candidate on the readiness of higher education institutions for energy efficiency and emissions reduction.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>I travelled to Beijing, China, for the Beijing Science Dialogue<\/a> and International Science Council (ISC) Midterm Meeting<\/a>, expecting to engage in conversations about the future of science, international scientific cooperation and the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies. I returned with something more profound: a renewed appreciation that the greatest challenge facing science may not necessarily be our ability to generate knowledge, but our collective ability to translate that knowledge into trust, responsible behaviour, effective policy and meaningful societal change.<\/p>\n

Held under the theme Science in a Complex World \u2013 Science for a Better Future<\/em>, the gathering brought together scientists, researchers, scientific organisations, policymakers and other stakeholders from across the world. What made the experience particularly meaningful for me was the convergence of several issues that have occupied my thinking for some time: artificial intelligence, science communication, research integrity, behavioural change, sustainable development and the responsibilities of universities in shaping our collective future. Three experiences stood out in particular: the Early- and Mid-Career Researchers workshop on AI readiness, the plenary discussion on science, society and trust, and the adoption of the Beijing Science Declaration. Although these engagements approached the future of science from different perspectives, they reinforced one central conviction: the future of science cannot be secured by technological progress alone. It requires stronger institutions, interdisciplinary collaboration, public trust and a shared commitment to ensuring that scientific advancement benefits humanity.<\/p>\n

AI readiness: Are we preparing scientists for a future we do not yet fully understand?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My engagement began on 19 October with the pre-event workshop, AI Readiness and Accelerating Science Communication for Early- and Mid-Career Scientists<\/em>, convened by the ISC with support from the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST).<\/p>\n

The workshop explored how artificial intelligence is transforming science communication, research visibility and the ways scientists engage with society. However, what I found particularly interesting was not necessarily the discussion about AI tools themselves. It was the diversity and dynamism of the participants and panellists. The conversation brought together seasoned academics, open science policy researchers, and professionals working across the biological, health and other scientific disciplines. Each approached the subject from a different disciplinary perspective, yet the challenges raised converged in remarkable ways. We shared the practical realities confronting our respective fields, exchanged best practices, and considered possible solutions to challenges already emerging, as well as those we anticipate in the future. At times, the conversation felt almost like a futurist exercise. We discussed not only how AI is changing how we conduct and communicate research today, but also how these technologies could fundamentally reshape scientific work, research careers, and the relationship between science and society.<\/p>\n

It became increasingly clear to me that no single discipline has all the answers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Computer scientists may develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems, but deploying them raises questions that require the expertise of ethicists, psychologists, behavioural scientists, educators, environmental scientists, legal scholars, policymakers, and many others. The future of AI in science will therefore depend as much on our capacity for interdisciplinary collaboration as on technological innovation.<\/p>\n

More importantly, the conversation raised a question that I believe deserves much greater attention: Are we merely preparing scientists to use artificial intelligence, or are we preparing them to exercise sound scientific judgement, ethical responsibility and intellectual leadership in an AI-enabled world?<\/p>\n

The difference is significant.<\/p>\n

AI can support researchers in synthesising literature, analysing data, modelling complex systems, visualising findings and communicating research to wider audiences. These opportunities are substantial, particularly for early- and mid-career researchers working within increasingly demanding research environments. Yet the same technologies can also contribute to misinformation, fabricated evidence, questionable authorship practices, biased analysis and the erosion of public confidence in scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n

This is why I left the workshop increasingly convinced that science communication and science diplomacy must be recognised and professionalised as essential scientific capabilities, rather than treated as supplementary activities that researchers undertake after completing their primary research. Researchers should be equipped not only to produce knowledge, but also to communicate uncertainty, explain evidence responsibly, engage with different audiences and participate meaningfully in public discourse. In an age where AI-generated content can be produced and distributed almost instantaneously, the credibility of science will increasingly depend on our ability to distinguish verified knowledge from convincing but unreliable information. Scientific expertise alone is no longer sufficient. We must also develop the capabilities required to communicate that expertise responsibly.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Science, society and trust: Where are the behavioural scientists?<\/strong><\/p>\n

These reflections became even more pronounced during the plenary discussion on Science, Society and Trust<\/em>, held on 21 October.<\/p>\n

Chaired by Professor M\u00e1rcia Barbosa, ISC Vice-President for Freedom and Responsibility in Science, the session brought together an impressive range of perspectives, including those of Professor Naomi Oreskes, Roberta D\u2019Alessandro, Javier Garc\u00eda-Mart\u00ednez, Gong Ke, Maretta Kula-Semos, Mu Rongping and Yuan Xing.<\/p>\n

The panel’s diversity reflected the complexity of the challenge itself. Science is becoming increasingly sophisticated and deeply embedded in our daily lives. Yet, paradoxically, it can also feel increasingly distant from the very societies it is intended to serve. We have unprecedented access to scientific knowledge and technological capabilities. At the same time, misinformation, distrust in institutions, political polarisation and growing inequalities continue to undermine the relationship between science and society.<\/p>\n

The discussion reinforced the importance of openness, scientific freedom, responsible advocacy and meaningful public engagement. However, one question raised around the discussion resonated strongly with me: Where are the behavioural scientists and psychologists in these conversations?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I share this sentiment deeply.<\/p>\n

As someone whose academic background includes environmental sciences and research on behavioural interventions, I have long been interested in the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, social expectations and human behaviour. During my master’s research, I investigated how different forms of energy-consumption feedback could influence energy-conserving behaviour in university environments. One of the most important lessons from that research was that providing people with information does not automatically change their behaviour. Behaviour is influenced by attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioural control, collective expectations and the environments within which decisions are made. In my research, subjective norms \u2014 the perceived social expectations that influence behaviour \u2014 emerged as a particularly important factor. This insight has continued to shape how I think about sustainability, institutional performance and the relationship between evidence and action.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, following the Global Sustainable Development Congress in Jakarta, I wrote an article titled Beyond 2030: Why Science, Trust and Behavioural Change Must Rebuild the SDG Agenda<\/em><\/a>. In that reflection, I argued that the Sustainable Development Goals provided the world with a common framework for measuring progress, but measurement alone does not guarantee transformation.<\/p>\n

The same concern informed my earlier reflection, Why the 2025 SDG Report Feels Personal \u2014 and What We’re Still Getting Wrong<\/em><\/a>. The Beijing conversation brought me back to these arguments. We know a great deal about climate change, biodiversity loss, inequality, food insecurity and unsustainable consumption. We have decades of research, increasingly sophisticated models, comprehensive global datasets and internationally agreed development frameworks. Yet the world remains significantly off track in achieving the SDGs by 2030. This raises a fundamental question. If we already possess substantial scientific knowledge about the challenges confronting humanity, why are we still struggling to translate that knowledge into collective action?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The answer lies not in scientific discovery alone. It requires us to understand how people make decisions, why institutions resist change, how trust is established or lost, how social expectations influence behaviour, and how political and economic systems either enable or obstruct evidence-informed action. This is where behavioural science, psychology, sociology and the broader social sciences become indispensable. If science is to influence society, then understanding society must be central to the scientific enterprise.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would go further and argue that rebuilding public trust requires more than communicating scientific findings effectively. It requires scientists and institutions to engage communities as partners in knowledge production, acknowledge uncertainty, demonstrate accountability and recognise that different communities experience scientific and technological advancement in different ways. Trust cannot simply be demanded based on scientific authority. Trust must be earned through transparency, integrity, participation and demonstrated public value.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Beijing Science Declaration: A commitment that speaks to the Global South<\/strong><\/p>\n

For me, the most significant outcome of the Beijing Science Dialogue was the adoption of the Beijing Science Declaration: Science in a Complex World, Science for a Better Future<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

I was particularly pleased by the declaration’s clarity and ambition. Its significance extends beyond the 18 commitments it sets out. It acknowledges that the global scientific enterprise operates within a world characterised by geopolitical tensions, unequal research capacities, technological disruption and significant disparities in access to knowledge and resources.<\/p>\n

For someone from the Global South, these are not abstract concerns.<\/strong> They reflect the realities of scientific institutions that must pursue international competitiveness while navigating historical inequalities, constrained research infrastructure, limited funding opportunities and unequal participation in global knowledge networks.<\/p>\n

One commitment in particular resonated with me. The Declaration calls for developing regions to be recognised not merely as sites for data collection, but as co-leaders in data analysis and intellectual property ownership.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is a powerful statement.<\/strong> For too long, the international research system has been characterised by relationships in which institutions in developing regions contribute research sites, local knowledge, participants and data. At the same time, intellectual leadership, advanced analysis, publication visibility and commercial benefits remain concentrated elsewhere. Genuine international scientific cooperation must move beyond participation towards equitable partnership. It must recognise that African scientists, universities and knowledge systems have much more to contribute than access to research populations or geographical contexts. They must actively participate in defining research questions, developing methodologies, interpreting findings, shaping scientific agendas, and determining how the benefits of research are shared.<\/p>\n

Equally important is the Declaration’s emphasis on responsible artificial intelligence, scientific integrity, open science, international collaboration and the involvement of social sciences in AI governance from the outset. For me, this represents a significant recognition that the challenges of the future cannot be resolved through technology alone.<\/p>\n

The Declaration also calls for stronger relationships between science and society, public engagement, transparent communication of uncertainty, and a reconsideration of research assessment systems that place excessive emphasis on individual career advancement and performance metrics.<\/p>\n

These commitments are particularly relevant to higher education institutions. They invite us to reconsider what we value, how we recognise scientific achievement, whose knowledge is legitimised, and whether our research systems are adequately designed to respond to societal challenges. The Declaration should therefore be understood not merely as an expression of shared aspirations, but as a challenge to scientific institutions to examine their own practices.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Universities must prepare more than graduates. They must prepare the future.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As someone working in the higher education sector, I could not engage in these conversations without reflecting on universities’ responsibilities.<\/p>\n

Universities occupy a unique position in society. We are responsible for educating future generations, developing leaders, generating new knowledge, advancing innovation, engaging communities and contributing to national and global development. However, the pace of technological and societal change requires us to reconsider how we fulfil these responsibilities. We are preparing students for a world in which artificial intelligence will increasingly shape professional practice, scientific inquiry, economic participation and social interaction. Many of these students will enter careers that are already being transformed by technological advancements. Others will work in professions and sectors that have not yet fully emerged. They will be part of an increasingly interconnected and digitally mobile generation, able to collaborate, create knowledge and participate in professional networks across geographical boundaries. But preparing these future digital nomads and globally connected professionals cannot simply mean equipping them with technical skills. It must also mean developing their ethical judgement, critical thinking, adaptability, creativity, cultural awareness and capacity to navigate uncertainty. Similarly, developing future scientific leaders requires more than training technically competent researchers. It requires cultivating individuals who can work across disciplines, challenge established assumptions, communicate across cultures, engage society responsibly and lead within complex and rapidly changing environments.<\/p>\n

This is particularly relevant to institutions such as iYunivesithi Walter Sisulu, where the university’s contribution to society is deeply connected to regional development, widening participation, advancing knowledge and responding to the needs of communities that have historically experienced unequal access to educational and scientific opportunities.<\/p>\n

The opportunity for universities in the Global South is not simply to catch up with technological developments elsewhere. It is to help shape how those developments are governed, understood, and applied to address the realities of our societies.<\/strong> Our institutions must therefore be deliberate about building research capacity, strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration, developing responsible AI capabilities, enhancing science communication and ensuring that research contributes to meaningful societal outcomes.<\/p>\n

We must also reconsider how we define and reward research excellence.<\/strong> Publications, citations, funding and international rankings remain important indicators. However, they cannot substitute for asking whether our research improves lives, strengthens institutions, informs public policy, or contributes to more sustainable and equitable societies. Scientific excellence and societal relevance should reinforce one another.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Beyond 2030: From scientific consensus to collective responsibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another important dimension of the Beijing conversations was the future of sustainable development beyond 2030. The world is approaching a critical point in implementing the SDGs. While the goals have provided an important global development framework, persistent inequality, environmental degradation, conflict, food insecurity, and other systemic challenges show that agreeing on common objectives does not necessarily guarantee their achievement.<\/p>\n

This is not an argument against the SDGs. Rather, it argues for examining the conditions necessary to turn shared aspirations into meaningful action. The next global development agenda must be informed by scientific evidence, but it must also address the institutional, political, social and behavioural factors that influence implementation. It should recognise the interconnected nature of global challenges and the need for collaboration across the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and other knowledge systems. Importantly, it must also confront the unequal distribution of scientific capabilities and opportunities.<\/p>\n

The Beijing Science Declaration offers an important foundation for these conversations by positioning science as a global public good, calling for more equitable scientific cooperation and advocating a stronger role for science in international agenda-setting. However, declarations do not implement themselves. Their real value will ultimately depend on how scientific organisations, governments, universities and communities translate these commitments into institutional practices, policies, investments and collaborative initiatives. This is perhaps the greatest challenge that lies ahead.<\/p>\n

My final reflection: What kind of scientific future are we building?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As I reflect on my experience in Beijing, I am reminded that science is fundamentally a human endeavour. Curiosity drives it, cooperation sustains it, and its contribution to society gives it meaning. Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly transform how we generate, analyse and communicate knowledge. Scientific discovery will continue to accelerate, and new technologies will create opportunities that previous generations could scarcely have imagined, but technological advancement does not automatically produce a better society.<\/p>\n

A better future will depend on the choices we make about how knowledge is produced, whose voices are included, how scientific evidence is communicated, how technologies are governed and how the benefits of scientific progress are distributed.<\/p>\n

For me, my experience in Beijing reinforced three convictions:<\/p>\n

First, science must become more interdisciplinary.<\/strong> The complexity of contemporary global challenges demands collaboration across disciplines and knowledge systems, rather than isolated approaches to inherently interconnected problems.<\/p>\n

Second, science must become more socially embedded and trusted.<\/strong> Scientific evidence can inform decisions, but societal transformation requires understanding human behaviour, institutional dynamics, and the conditions that make collective action possible.<\/p>\n

Third, science must become more equitable.<\/strong> The Global South must not remain on the margins of global knowledge production. Its institutions, researchers and communities must help define and shape the scientific future.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Beijing Science Declaration captures an important vision of an open, responsible, inclusive and cooperative global scientific system. The responsibility now rests with all of us to give that vision practical meaning. For those of us in higher education, this begins with the students we educate, the researchers we develop, the knowledge we produce, the partnerships we establish and the communities we serve.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I left Beijing more convinced than ever that the future of science will not be determined solely by how much knowledge humanity can generate, or how intelligent our technologies become. It will also be determined by whether we can build institutions that society trusts, cultivate the collective will to act on evidence, and ensure that scientific progress becomes human progress. Because science for a better future must ultimately be science that serves people, strengthens societies and makes a meaningful difference in the world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reflections from the Beijing Science Dialogue and International Science Council Midterm Meeting, Beijing, China | 19\u201323 October 2026 By Ntsundeni Louis Mapatagane (CODATA) Ntsundeni Louis Mapatagena is Co-chair of CODATA Connect, CODATA\u2019s Early Career Network, Director of Planning and Institutional Intelligence at Walter Sisulu University (WSU), MSc Environmental Sciences, Ph.D Candidate on the readiness of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3403"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3409,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3403\/revisions\/3409"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/codata.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}