Vital Interests: Helle, thanks very much for joining us all the way from Copenhagen. Your work is in the area of law and humanities with particular focus on economic, social, and cultural rights. You are the UNESCO Chair in Cultural Rights at the University of Copenhagen, as well as being a professor in the law faculty.

You’ve edited, with Sebastian Porsdam Mann, a yet-to-be published book on The Right to Science: Then and Now. In this period with a devastating pandemic and the challenges of climate change, the role of science in the global community is a timely and important topic.  What motivated you to put this volume together and what message will it have for readers?

Helle Porsdam: Thank you for this opportunity. The right to science has been at a disadvantage in many ways, for many years. Most people don't know that there is such a thing as a human right to science. It has been an international obligation since 1948 when the right to science was included in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also in the instrument that I work with as a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Chair, which is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), where Article 15 talks about the right to science in all its manifestations.

The right to science is one of the so-called cultural human rights. There are four core cultural rights: the rights to education, to participate in cultural life, to benefit from scientific progress and its applications (here simply called the right to science), and authors’ rights. Three of these are outlined in Article 15 ICESCR. Those of us who work on cultural rights are therefore very interested in this particular article. 

Article 15(1) has three parts. It protects the right to participate in cultural life, the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, or just the right to science, and authors’ rights. Article 15(2) requires states to develop and disseminate science (and culture). As the drafters of the ICESCR knew, without dissemination and popularization there is no right to science because then people don't know and cannot benefit from what's happening in the world of science. The third part of Article 15 concerns the obligation of States to respect the freedom of scientific (and cultural) research. Finally, Article 15(4) asks states to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific (and cultural) fields. 

In all parts of Article 15, science and culture are mentioned side-by-side. This is interesting. Science is a part of culture and like culture, it has to be shared. The free flow of people and ideas is important at a time where our most important problems – climate change, pandemics such as COVID-19, the rising gap between rich and poor - are global in nature and have to be solved at the global level.

Article 15 ICESCR is very rich and provides a lot of interesting ways of putting out there ideas that are very important right now.

VI: Why do you think that this particular Article and this particular human right was ignored for so long? Why wasn't it pushed by the human rights community and the scientific community as a way of promoting their own interests?

Helle Porsdam: That is such a good question. Some people would say that it's because the right to science was classified by the drafters of the Covenant as a cultural right. Had it been drafted among social rights or economic rights, it might have been considered differently. It's only since 2009 that we have had a UN Special Rapporteur within the field of cultural rights.

These cultural rights have not been taken quite as seriously as other human rights. People aren't quite sure what they mean and entail. The first special rapporteur, a wonderful Pakistani sociologist by the name of Farida Shaheed, relates that when she first started as a special rapporteur nobody in the UN community knew what cultural rights were. There was a concern that cultural relativism would be a difficult issue to address. Would science, if considered a cultural right, end up ‘suffering’ from the kind of cultural relativism that is well-known from the humanities?

This is a concern for some scientists. When they hear that the right to science has been placed right next to the right to culture and is classified as a cultural right, does it mean that science will not be taken seriously? We don't really know why the right to science has been ignored for so long, but these are some of the reasons, I think. 

VI: The obligation of the state parties with regard to this Covenant is to recognize the benefits of science for society and to disseminate them throughout the global community. But governments often work hand-in-hand with commercial entities (think Big Pharma) who make huge profits from these discoveries even though they are often the result of work by government agencies, academic institutions and nonprofit foundations.  How has that impacted this whole picture?

Helle Porsdam: That is another very good question.  Intellectual Property issues are everywhere within the field of cultural rights. Part of the problem is really that we're talking about two different international systems: the UN system and the WTO and WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, system. In the UN system, science and culture are considered to be public goods that should benefit everyone, but intellectual property (IP) is about privatizing rights. Once you have a copyright or patent on something, it is taken out of the public domain and becomes someone’s private property. Others have to pay to use it. It's the WTO and WIPO that regulate in this area.

As you know, those are two different discourses, one talking about the general public good, the other one talking about private property rights. IP is a big, big issue right here. It also comes up because in Article 15(1), as I just mentioned, the third part of Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights concerns authors’ rights. Authors’ rights are not IP rights, but there’s a long discussion about this in the legal community. There are some – private companies, for example - who now point to authors’ rights as ‘proof’ that IP rights are human rights. Well, it isn’t; it’s something different.

VI: In other words, this has to do with ownership of scientific discoveries and innovation. Private entities, like Big Pharma and tech companies, take out patents which establish their claims and rights to commercial exploitation, not global sharing?

Helle Porsdam: Yes, exactly.

VI: This brings up the essential requirement of the Covenant -  that science is to be shared, that there is to be an internationalization of science, a transfer from developed countries to developing countries - so that science and the products of science benefit all of humanity. That does not seem to be the current reality.

Helle Porsdam: It's interesting, when you draw into the picture the UN 2030 Agenda, and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, science is involved in many of those. The Agenda makes the deep, global societal problems stemming from an unacceptable imbalance of power and wealth everybody’s business and responsibility. It also points to ways of implementing key rights - and here, science and technology play a key role. The ethical principle behind the Agenda is a sense of universal responsibility for the state of our world. In addition to helping countries who cannot, on their own, live up to the goals of the Agenda, the developed world also has to make significant domestic changes in order to fulfill the pledge of leaving no one behind, that guides the implementation of the SDGs.     

Along with other recent UN instruments, the Agenda recognizes that ‘doing’ science is not only an activity that scientific professionals engage in. It also includes collaborations between scientists and members of the public. Volunteers (known as citizen scientists) constitute an important knowledge resource when it comes to the genesis of science in terms both of making discoveries and understanding values and norms.  

International transfer issues get me to another point that is important right now and that is ‘science diplomacy’. ‘Science diplomacy’ has become an umbrella term for the use of scientific and academic collaborations among nations to address common problems. The idea is to use science as a ‘soft’ or ‘smart’ power’ tool to achieve foreign policy objectives. During the Cold War, not only research outcomes but also science itself, as a process and way of communicating, was used to further specific power interests. But science diplomacy may also serve to build constructive international partnerships.

The current trade frictions and technological contests between the U.S. and China make it necessary for scientists, at times, to engage in science diplomacy – a kind of activity for which they are not trained and therefore feel unprepared. Scientists, who by necessity need to work globally, are caught right in the middle and they don't know what to do.

We hear in the media about Chinese scientists who are now afraid to enter the U.S. and avoid contact with U.S. scholars because they might be accused of this, that and the other thing - sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. Some Chinese scientists are now turning their attention to collaboration with European scholars. 

Last year, I was on a panel on science diplomacy with a European science organization. There was general discomfort with the pressure scientists are under to factor in political realities as they pursue their research. They are being put in the middle of a diplomatic game that they are not trained to handle. They, and society in general, need some guidelines - and that is what I'm currently working on, to recognize the need for science diplomacy and how the international scientific community can come together to address global political, economic, and social realities.  

VI: Many scientists work in government agencies. Their research is funded by government grants. Isn’t it inevitable that they're going to be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as pursuing the interests of their countries?

Helle Porsdam: Yes, of course, that is the situation with scientists and governments.  Intellectual property issues are part of the reason why there is this disconnect right now. The U.S. government is afraid that Chinese scholars will take back to China knowledge that is protected by means of intellectual property. It's that, and then also the fear that stolen scientific knowledge may be used for military purposes.

VI: Currently, with the Covd-19 pandemic, bioterrorism is a major focus. When the virus first appeared there was great concern about its origins with the Trump administration floating rumors that it was a virus “weaponized” by the Chinese. How can the scientific community counter these suspicions?

Helle Porsdam: Scientists, basically, just want to do their research, and all of these other issues, security issues and IP issues, keep intruding. They don't know what to do or how to avoid situations where they may find themselves in peril. Scientists, all of a sudden, are in the middle of these international debates that impact important current work and how they will collaborate in the future.

VI: How substantial will the consequences of this type of scrutiny and limits on international scientific cooperation  be? There has been meaningful global scientific progress made on many fronts - the production of food and health care for example. Won’t these new political realities be a set back to scientific progress?

Helle Porsdam: That is exactly what we're afraid could happen. In areas where things are really moving fast, in terms of technology and scientific applications, a new Cold War-like atmosphere is engulfing science. The science we need to solve world problems like pandemics and challenges from climate change cannot be achieved without politically neutral agendas where the global public good is paramount. 

VI: The Trump administration is leading attacks on international organizations - the WHO, WTO, UNESCO, NATO - claiming they are biased and do not serve U.S. interests.  What is the impact on global scientific cooperation of this new American attitude?

Helle Porsdam: It has a devastating impact - certainly in terms of funding. The U.S. has been a major sponsor of international organizations and programs. I don't know what's going to happen - it is really a catastrophe. The credibility of the international system is certainly going to suffer as a consequence. But still, when I talk to people at UNESCO regarding these sentiments on the part of the U.S., they say that UNESCO’s mission has never been more popular. I see that in both the law school and the History Department where I teach at the University of Copenhagen. Students are really interested in understanding and working with international organizations. 

Some of this may be symbolic power but, hopefully, it's going to still work. So, in the middle of all these anti-global forces that we see right now, the return to a nationalistic paradigm and ultra-right nationalistic attitudes, there is a growing backlash, both in Europe and the U.S. There are forces out there who are saying, "No, wait a minute we need the international context to solve global problems.”

We see it concretely, those of us who live within the European Union. There's a feeling that we need this coming together now because we're right in the middle, between the U.S. and China. If the individual states in Europe want any say in what's going to happen in global affairs, it has to be through the unified voice of the European Union. There is no doubt that the participation of the U.S. will be sorely missed within those international fora.

On the other hand, I think that now's a moment, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, that the importance of global science and of transnational collaboration is absolutely necessary.  Let's hope that that can be a counter-argument to those nationalistic forces.

VI: Within the UN system there are powerful actors other than the United States who will take advantage of this power vacuum. China and Russia are very active in scientific affairs and have their own agendas. What impact will this have?

Helle Porsdam: It's something that's a bit sensitive. I feel this when I talk to people in UNESCO or other UN agencies. They see how the U.S. leaving the international stage enables China, Russia, and other parties to move forward their own agendas. We see national interests working for their own good more than the general public good. It's a very delicate issue which requires groups like UNESCO to be very careful when working with state parties and their intentions. Therefore, the work goes very slowly at times, annoying slowly.

VI: How are new technologies and science different? Is there an effort to separate the two? 

Helle Porsdam: The wording in both the Universal Declaration and the international Covenant talks about the right to enjoy scientific progress and its benefits. This relates both to basic science and to applied science, which is technology. Basic scientific research and applied science are equally important and should not be played out against each other. They are two sides of the same coin. As some people see it, the only thing that is interesting is technology, that is, applied science. The transfer of applied science, from one part of the world to another. Whereas for the others, the most interesting thing about the right to science is basic scientific research, access to knowledge, and access to truth. 

As I see it, the right to science is about both basic and applied science. It is not just about, say, the right to health or the right to technology. It is about the right to hear the kind of truth science can offer.

VI: We're in a strange reality when you have to talk about “fact-based” science. There are two obvious situations the global community is confronting, one is the COVID-19 pandemic and the other is climate change, where the advice and warnings from scientists are disputed and attacked.  How can the scientific community withstand and confront this kind of skepticism and efforts to discredit it? 

Helle Porsdam: That's precisely one of the problems here. I think the COVID crisis may have an impact, in a positive way, as people now see that science is critically important for their welfare, for the survival of their families and community.  COVID-19 has illustrated the need for science that can be trusted and deemed capable of effective action in times of crisis.

VI: With the rise of nationalism there is a desire to control and own science. When there is a vaccine to control COVID-19, countries like the United States have stated it will be for their populations first. Isn’t this exactly the opposite of the Covenant’s call for the global sharing of science?

Helle Porsdam: It is, but there have been positive examples also, like German hospitals opening up to French patients because they didn't have as many COVID patients. There have been other examples of that altruistic behavior, but sometimes we hear more about the other side of the coin, namely the tendency to say, "Our patients, our citizens have to go first." That is where global collaboration becomes more and more important and is stressed over and over again.

The world is a global community, isolation just doesn't work anymore. People may think and hope and want to go back 50 years in time, but things have changed. Even if they want to be nationalistic, there is no way of avoiding the realities of multinational cooperation, especially in the field of science.

VI: In the UN system of conventions, covenants and treaties there are obligations that states parties should honor and implement - but there are no enforcement mechanisms. Many countries sign treaties but are lax about compliance. How do you build in accountability? 

Helle Porsdam: It is a significant issue in international cooperation. It's a criticism that has been raised against human rights from the very beginning - how to enforce them. ‘Obligation’ is the word used in human rights instruments about duties that are correlative to the described rights. For example, the right to vote imposes a corresponding duty on the state to make sure that elections take place. But there are also duties and responsibilities of a more individual kind. In terms of policy making, when States fail to meet their correlative duties and/or to implement rights, other relevant agents, including individuals and collective groups, must be identified who can take responsibility for bringing about political and normative change. 

Ethically speaking, Cambridge Philosopher Onora O’Neill contends one problem is that the major human rights instruments are silent about duties without counterpart rights, and that the explicit language of individual duty to other individuals, to society, or to the state is reduced to a matter of subjective or private values that have no deeper justification. Individual or collective cultural and subjective preferences or values are not the same as ethical claims that concern how to act justly. For centuries, the classical question was ‘what ought we to do?’ But now, both legal and political philosophers tend to avoid talking about ethical justifications for principles of justice, and instead only focus on that which complies with ‘the letter of the law.’ 

With relation to the right to science, there is also the question of the responsibility of the individual scientist. That responsibility is in some ways the flipside of the right to scientific freedom outlined in Article 15(3). Many would say that scientists themselves need to take more responsibility and play a more active role – or at least to realize that it is not enough for them to produce scientific analyses and then leave the task of acting on those analyses to policymakers. This is especially the case because many of us are afraid of dual use science and technology that have both a civilian (good) and a military (bad) use.

VI: We are coming to the end of our time. You have given us insights into what the right to science means and how it should be considered in the light of where we are today, with the COVID situation and general uncertainty in the world. Science has an important role to play in providing solutions to present threats and assuring a safe and prosperous future, for all mankind. 

Helle Porsdam: One thing that has also interested me, as somebody who's coming out of the humanities and not a scientist, is the possibility of using the language of human rights. We've talked about some of the criticisms of human rights that have been raised. We all know that human rights are not perfect, but right now they are the only global ethical discourse we have.

Using that discourse, and the right to science that is articulated in Article 15, allows us to raise issues that are really, really important, and to do so in a respectful manner that takes into consideration the viewpoints of all the relevant stakeholders. It gives us a language we can use-- it's not perfect but it gives us a workable language. That to me is one of the very important uses of human rights discourse.

Helle Porsdam is Professor of Law and Humanities and UNESCO Chair in Cultural Rights at the University of Copenhagen. She has headed research projects and published widely on the interface of cultural rights, copyright, creativity and cultural heritage institutions. Her most recent monograph is The Transforming Power of Cultural Rights: A Promising Law and Humanities Approach, which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2019. Her volume, co-edited with Sebastian Porsdam Mann, The Right to Science: Then and Now, will be published in 2021, also by Cambridge University Press, and she is currently finishing a monograph on the right to science. Helle Porsdam will be a Leverhulme Visiting Professor at CRASSH, University of Cambridge during the spring of 2021.