In an era marked by the convergence of complex crises, science must reorganize to support people and the planet. The Montpellier Advanced Knowledge Institute on Transitions (MAK’IT) and the South Centre provided a platform to explore the multifaceted roles of science during crisis times through the international conference “What Roles for Science in Crisis Times? Outlook in the Health, Environment, and Agriculture Interconnected Areas”, held in Montpellier on 7 April 2022 (Access link: https://makit2022conference.vfairs.com). The discussions underscored a shared understanding that despite a wealth of scientific knowledge [1], its true potential remains untapped due to disciplinary silos, slow response times, and lack of integration of scientists in crisis situations [2]. Crisis can be considered acute or chronic, depending upon their onset speed, duration, locale, and intensity [1]. This article draws from the conference’s deliberations, emphasizing the need for a greater diversity of forms of science and knowledge in addressing the intertwined challenges that affect both Earth’s systems and socio-economic structures [3]. Climate change, biodiversity loss, armed conflicts, inequality, and human and animal migrations have all accelerated and often amplify each other, leading to localized emergencies such as epidemics, wildfires, floods, food shortages, increased poverty, and environmental pollution, necessitating urgent responses [3]. A more fluid, timely, and integrative approach is needed for incorporating science into the resolution of complex polycrises, including the encouragement of a scientific culture with public engagement in policy, regulatory, and financial actions [4]. Also, broader participation of the so-called developing countries in the production and access to science can help to deal with the polycrises that they face, including persistent poverty, hunger, malnutrition, educational deficits, and weak health systems.

It is imperative for political leaders to engage with science throughout crisis decision-making, mobilizing evidence from diverse knowledge systems. While addressing immediate social and political exigencies is crucial, integrating scientific insights ensures a holistic response. Effectively and rapidly mobilizing this knowledge can be challenging, especially with multiple sectors involved. By encouraging both interdisciplinarity (integrating science across disciplines) and transdisciplinarity (incorporating societal actors and stakeholders) [5,6], we can enhance science’s contribution to crisis management. Transdisciplinarity includes research designs that address complex problems and practical solutions, reliance on diverse knowledge producers and users, and purposeful integration of actors involved in decision-making and collective action [7]. This requires making scientific outputs actionable, user-friendly, and timely, and encouraging scientists to be more open to such collaborative work. A key objective is to provide timely “usable knowledge” to decision makers [8].

How can inter- and transdisciplinary science better contribute to the resolution of interconnected polycrises? An important theme from the conference emphasized addressing both local and global issues, with a focus on reducing global inequality and supporting the poorest and most vulnerable populations (Fig 1). Transdisciplinary research plays a critical role in understanding the preconditions that trigger crises and how simultaneous impacts across multiple sectors challenge ecological resilience and human well-being. It also explores implementation strategies tailored to varying levels of development and resource availability. Meaningful stakeholder engagement is essential to maximize the transformative potential of transdisciplinary science; although crises may require top-down decision-making, collaborative efforts in action and resource allocation can significantly enhance preparedness, resilience, and recovery. Additionally, scientific approaches such as participatory research, damage modelling, recovery scenario planning, uncertainty analysis, and incorporating local and traditional knowledge provide valuable insights that strengthen decision-making processes even within structured frameworks [9,10].

Direct public engagement can help produce relevant actionable science and mobilize knowledge, such as specific procedures for protection of Earth systems or cultural well-being (Fig 1). Through joint scientist-stakeholder problem identification, co-design/co-production of response strategies, and conflict resolution, transdisciplinary science can contribute to integrated and cooperative decision-making. Democratization of science at various levels can help to achieve this goal through open and honest (sometimes uncomfortable) discourse, including communication among actors, controversy analysis, conflict management, and debate, while stimulating empathy and compromise [11]. The establishment of trust is paramount. This sets the stage for better integration of science during the tumultuous periods of a crisis, when emergency responses and damage control are most intensely needed. It helps overcome rigid institutional boundaries. The ensuing adaptive transformations support recovery with more socio-economic and cultural well-being benefits, protection of the Earth system, and resolution of global inequalities.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Interconnected Polycrises: A Multifaceted Perspective.

Drawing insights from conference discussions, the figure underscores the need for balance between Earth system safeguarding and societal well-being, particularly in contexts where poverty and food insecurity remain unresolved. It accentuates the pivotal role of science, emphasizing how it can contribute to open collaboration and cooperative strategies in crafting adaptive solutions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000132.g001

Science-informed emergency interventions are essential at various crisis stages, from preventing trigger events to emergency response, damage control, and recovery. Communities and regions often face compound crises, such as the Fukushima earthquake, which not only caused a tsunami but also triggered a nuclear reactor accident and subsequent radiation release. Effectively addressing these polycrises requires moving beyond disciplinary and sectoral silos and establishing mechanisms for coordination and cooperation on a global scale [12]. The time frame of crises varies, yet moving the focus of problem-solving from short-term to long-term can improve return on investments. Behavioral economics warns us that people favor short-term over long-term outcomes when making decisions. Yet the longer view leads to a more positive and hopeful perception of the future, rather than emphasizing short-term losses and negative outcomes. Those involved in crisis management must argue for the benefits of both an early and immediate response and a long-term focus.

The conference panelists provided demonstrations of the approaches outlined here. For example, both Ebola and COVID-19 crises raised issues for aligning external science-informed interventions with local cultural norms and practices in West Africa. The Ebola Response Anthropology Platform [13] management of the disease with local beliefs and practices for illness, death, burial, and spirituality and inspired the formation of the broader Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) [14]. For COVID-19, SSHAP integrated evidence about why rapid roll out of vaccines was met with hesitancy, supporting attempts to reach vulnerable populations. Lessons from these epidemics demonstrate that disease preparedness and response is most effective when built on understanding of social and political processes that change over time and integrates the knowledge and perspectives of local communities [15].

An example in the context of food, biodiversity, and health crises is the agroecological collaboration between farmers and scientists to promote sustainable pest management practices that expanded to a regional scale across East Africa [16]. The agricultural pesticide crisis is often perceived as a local issue, with pesticide resistance increasing pest pressure on specific crops, higher application rates escalating environmental pollution, and toxic exposure intensifying human and wildlife health concerns [17]. But global trade in pesticides and in agricultural products with pesticide residues drives the pesticide treadmill. Ambitious targets for pesticide risk have been set by the Global Biodiversity Framework, yet the scientific basis for monitoring frameworks and indicators is currently inadequate [18]. Thus, cooperative action between scientists and stakeholders must occur at several scales.

Climate change is a ubiquitous underlying driver of many ecosystem crises. Global warming and changing patterns of precipitation have exacerbated local heatwaves, droughts, and flood events with increasing loss of life, health hazards, and economic losses. As a recent report from IPCC argues [19] and since many solutions are rooted at the local level, we need strategies rooted in community engagement before communities lose the ability to adapt [20]. On a global scale, lack of stakeholder cooperation and insufficient climate finance exacerbates the impact of climate change for all, paradoxically calling for increased international collaborative mitigation efforts. Climate science itself needs to become more globally collaborative and work to reduce inequities in scientific work between the Global North and South [21].

When scientists work in the public sphere and engage in transdisciplinary work with crisis responders, their activities should be rewarded in the academic system. Training in broader scientific literacy can equip both crisis responders and affected populations to better help them navigate uncertain outcomes, facilitating the necessary dialogue to interpret and respond to dynamic conditions and complex behaviours during a crisis. Scientific expertise is crucial in developing secure platforms for collecting and sharing comprehensive data, which us essential for effective crisis responses. Additionally, scientists must learn to seek access points to connect with crisis responders and the affected population, ensuring that decision-makers trust and rely on their research and recommendations, even in situations of high uncertainty and risk. Authoritarian management of scientific research or bureaucratic obstacles may generate tension for scientists who choose to advocate for transparent and cooperative processes [22,23]. Conference participants discussed a desire to conduct research to support the people who suffer most from crisis. This sense of personal moral responsibility can effectively connect individuals to collective actors or institutions with similar responsibilities for action [23]. Allies who embrace diversity of ideas and freedom of expression can bolster the work of scientists to support the most vulnerable victims of crises [24]. They can strengthen scientists’ resolve to work in transdisciplinary problem-solving roles.

The collective intelligence of global expert groups such as the IPCC, IPBES, HLPE-FSN and OHHLEP is pivotal for creating a global agenda for science in times of crisis. This agenda should address challenges at local levels and incorporate local NGOs and traditional knowledge organizations [25]. We must also critically evaluate the policies of these international bodies, recognizing the need for new and more nimble governance frameworks that bridge the gap between national and international levels. For example, the adoption of a Declaration for SDGs Acceleration by the UN General Assembly, calls for multilateral reform and high-level discussions on SDGs. This emphasizes the urgency of current crises, the importance of engagement and awareness initiatives, and a focus on equity and inclusion for comprehensive global sustainability and equity. Envisioning this, we could have dedicated teams of scientists, akin to SWAT teams in emergencies [8], along with institutional spaces, ready to assist decision-makers promptly [26].

The discussions at the conference made it clear that managing and resolving the polycrises we face requires a multifaceted approach (Fig 2). Specific actions can be attributed to different actors—policy makers, scientists, community leaders, and national and international organizations—as we have illustrated throughout this article. However, transformative change necessitates the integration of diverse perspectives, influences, and efforts. The conference conveyed a unified message: concerted action from this diverse array of actors is essential. The successful resolution of these interconnected polycrises hinges on a collective commitment to embracing and integrating these varied viewpoints.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Harnessing Science for Interconnected Polycrises.

Harnessing science to prevent, anticipate, and manage interconnected polycrises requires a multifaceted approach that promotes diverse forms of knowledge and engages a wide range of actors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000132.g002

This paper underscores the vital role of science in navigating crisis-ridden times and urges decision-makers to view scientific input as crucial for fostering sustainability and transformation in a world beset by intricate, interconnected and urgent crises. It highlights the need for transdisciplinary work, cooperative and problem-solving approaches, and close interaction between scientists, affected communities, and action-oriented stakeholders. At this pivotal juncture, uniting decision-makers, scientists, and the broader public is not just an invitation but an imperative. By harnessing the transformative power of science, transcending traditional boundaries, and cultivating collaborative solutions, we can chart a course towards a future that identifies and effectively mobilizes these potential solutions, ensuring a sustainable and equitable world for all.