In India, the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment has been developing inter- and trans-disciplinary research for 25 years to drive positive environmental and social outcomes Sharad Lele is Distinguished Fellow in Environmental Policy and Governance at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), in Bangalore, India What is your current activity? Sharad Lele: ATREE has two major research centres: the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, and the Centre for Environment and Development, of which I led the latter for about 10 years. I now play a more advisory role while continuing my own research. Over the past five years, my work has focused heavily on the forest sector—in which I started my PhD and postdoctoral work—while also contributing to water policy and governance. What are the main challenges today in the forest sector in India? S. L.: India still struggles with colonial legacies in forest governance. Forests were historically treated as state property for revenue and industrial use, with local communities sidelined. In 2006, the landmark Forest Rights Act aimed to reverse this, granting communities legal rights over their traditional forests. My work now focuses on enabling the Act’s implementation—particularly in central India—through research, action, training grassroots organizations, and engaging policymakers to democratize forest governance. Could you give an example of field action? S. L.: In Bastar district, in the state of Chhattisgarh, where 60% of the population is Indigenous, we help communities claim legal rights over their forests under the Forest Rights Act and develop sustainable management plans. Our field team, composed entirely of Indigenous members, has been working for four years to ensure these communities can use their forests for livelihoods, conservation, and cultural needs. So forestry work at ATREE isn’t just about trees and ecology? S. L.: Exactly. We follow a socio-ecological systems approach. In practice, that means helping communities understand their legal rights, claim forest land, and design management plans. We blend traditional ecological knowledge with modern science, documenting Indigenous practices and integrating them with scientific insights. How do you define a sustainable future in this context? S. L.: Historically, forestry in India meant alienating communities to enable timber extraction or, later, to enable wildlife conservation. Post-independence, this state-controlled model persisted. The Forest Rights Act shifts the paradigm: communities now hold rights, and forest management starts with them. They can balance livelihood needs, cultural values, and conservation while rejecting practices like monoculture plantations of teak or eucalyptus, which degrade ecosystems and exclude local users. This new approach emphasizes diverse, multifunctional forests managed from the bottom up—potentially even integrating wildlife tourism managed by communities themselves. So the 2006 Act is your legal foundation? S. L.: Yes, but implementation remains a challenge. Forest departments often resist ceding control, limiting communities’ ability to exercise their rights. Our role is to support these communities, and demonstrate that their methods are not only legitimate but often ecologically superior to bureaucratic management. More broadly, what is ATREE’s purpose? S. L.: ATREE is dedicated to biodiversity conservation and environmentally sustainable livelihoods. We focus on both sustainability and justice. For example, in forestry, you can sustainably harvest timber for a century but deny Indigenous communities their rights: that’s unjust. In water governance, we address both sustainability and equity. Distributive equity is central to water, both within sectors, such as domestic water availability, as well as across competing sectors, such as agriculture, urban use, industry, and power generation. Moreover, excessive or unsustainable groundwater extraction impacts downstream users as well, showing how sustainability and justice are deeply intertwined. Why was it necessary to create ATREE outside of universities? S. L.: Twenty-five years ago, and even today, few Indian institutions supported truly interdisciplinary research that met rigorous academic standards while engaging with real-world problems. Academia often remains siloed in different disciplines and distant from practitioners. ATREE was created to bridge that gap. Our motto, “knowledge for change,” reflects this mission: we generate research not for its own sake but to drive positive environmental and social outcomes. Do you try to influence academia more broadly? S. L.: We try to influence by example. ATREE runs one of India’s most interdisciplinary PhD programmes in environmental studies, where multidisciplinary teaching is core. We share our experiences in journals and conferences, contributing to global discussions on interdisciplinarity. But academia has inertia—especially in India, where centrally funded universities dominate, and independent institutes like ATREE are lower in the hierarchy. Change requires collaboration. That is why I co-founded the Indian chapter of the International Society for Ecological Economics, working with other academics to promote integrative approaches. How could The Earth-Humanity Coalition (EHC) help? S. L.: In many ways, it’s the reverse: EHC can amplify lessons from ATREE’s trial-and-error journey as a purpose-built transdisciplinary institute. Developing countries especially need such models because resources for institutional experimentation are limited. EHC could convene like-minded institutions worldwide, those with 20–25 years of experience in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work, to share successes and failures. Together, we could brainstorm how to restructure academia or, alternatively, scale up experiments like ATREE: imagine “a thousand ATREEs” globally, operating on academia’s boundaries but deeply connected to real-world challenges. What concrete steps could EHC take? S. L.: First, bring together institutions like ours for knowledge exchange and collective problem-solving, identifying internal challenges and external barriers to inter- and trans-disciplinarity. Second, engage academic leadership, university presidents and policymakers, with both arguments for reform and concrete examples of how transdisciplinary structures can work. If we could influence even 10 major universities, that would be significant impact. How would this differ from gatherings like the Sustainability Research and Innovation Congress? S. L.: SRI focuses on exchanging research on specific themes, like water, mining, energy, and less on rethinking the knowledge-making system itself. What EHC can propose is deeper: interrogating how academia functions and how to reshape it to address sustainability challenges. Over time, even transformative initiatives like ecological economics have become professionalized, publishing journals, holding conferences, without changing the mainstream. We need to reignite their original vision:

The president of the newly created National Sustainability Society, in USA, tells why such an organization is necessary today to tackle environmental and human challenges Dan Brown is the President of the National Sustainability Society. He is the Director of the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington (USA) What is your professional background? Dan Brown: I have been a professor at the University of Washington for the past eight years. My career spans over 30 years as a land system scientist, focusing on satellite imagery, spatial analysis, and simulation modeling to evaluate human interactions with land systems in various environments, including forests, human settlements, and agriculture. My PhD was in physical geography and landscape ecology, but I soon discovered that to understand what we were seeing, we had to start to think about what people were doing: biophysical gradients and patterns were not enough. My work aims to understand both human well-being and environmental outcomes. You have recently taken on the role of President of the National Sustainability Society. What is this society about? D. B.: The National Sustainability Society (NSS) was officially formed in 2025, though discussions began in 2022. We are a nonprofit organization that serves as a hub for sustainability science and scholarship. Our aim is to bring together individuals from various disciplines to focus on sustainability as the primary theme. Our first annual meeting in 2024 attracted about 600 participants, and we are working on growing our membership and activities. Why not create a subsection within an existing learned society? D. B.: I have worked extensively in multidisciplinary settings and recognize the value various disciplines bring to the table. But sustainability, in my view, is a problem-oriented field that doesn’t care about disciplinary perspectives. Our goal with the NSS is to create a space for those who find themselves on the periphery of their disciplines but are passionate about sustainability. We aim to include diverse sectors such as engineering, economics, ecology, business, and public health, along with private, nonprofit, and government organizations. What are the initiatives and plans that NSS is currently pursuing? D. B.: Beyond having an annual meeting, we are actively discussing the launch of a journal to archive and facilitate dialogue around sustainability scholarship. We are also talking to Juan Camillo Serpa about the SusAN Hub platform, to determine how we could join efforts. Additionally, we are organizing webinars and exploring training opportunities. Is the NSS solely focused on academia, or does it include members from other sectors? D. B.: Our membership is transdisciplinary, including academics, business professionals, and NGO members. This diversity is crucial because sustainability challenges require collaboration across sectors. Our goal is to bridge the skills gap in the workforce for sustainability-oriented careers by connecting with practitioners in various fields. We aim to create programs that align with the needs of organizations hiring sustainability-focused graduates, ensuring that our educational programs are relevant and effective. We are also incubating a project that is funded by a private foundation to identify opportunities for accreditation of sustainability programs. That project, led by Krista Hiser, has essentially drawn on scholarship about the learning objectives and the outcomes that should be represented in sustainability programs, based on interviews with people who are hiring, and communicating that back to universities. Given the global nature of sustainability challenges, does the NSS have international collaborations? D. B.: Our society is national, focusing on the U.S. To be practical, we wanted to be at a scale where there was at least some degree of common context for the solutions being implemented. Obviously, we recognize the global nature of sustainability issues. We have had initial non-formal conversations with international entities like the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a group in Germany about potential collaborations. How do you see the NSS evolving in the future, and what role can organizations like EHC play in supporting your mission? D. B.: We envision NSS as a platform for rich, interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. To foster deeper connections, we prioritize in-person meetings : there was no virtual component at our first meeting, and there won’t be any during the next one. We think there is more value in people coming together and developing community, particularly when we are trying to take on really difficult problems that are complex and that require these different perspectives and different people developing closer ties across difference. However, we are open to exploring various forms of collaboration, including potential federations with other national organizations. Sharing information and identifying collaborative opportunities can significantly advance our collective goals in sustainability. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The Généthon laboratory, set up and driven by the association AFM-Téléthon, works to develop gene therapy treatments with patients and their family as top priority. The second interview Gérald Perret (right) is the Director of Programs and Clinical Development at the Généthon laboratory Généthon was set up to decode the human genome, and a few years later, it began to work on gene therapy. Is its purpose to pioneer fields where public research or industry is not active? Gérald Perret: Especially where the pharma industry does not go: on rare and ultra-rare diseases. Having spent part of my career in the pharma industry, I know that it is very difficult to convince these company to develop medications for a narrow market. Could you describe some of Généthon’s key work and its unique capabilities? G. P.: Today, Généthon is a leader in gene therapy. Its strength is its fully integrated structure. We can conduct activities from fundamental research, discovering disease causes, designing drug candidates, preparing and running clinical trials, all the way to registration. This is absolutely unique for a non-profit organization. We also have a link with Yposkesi, a spin-off from Généthon and the largest European platform for gene therapy manufacturing. Could you explain what gene therapy drugs actually are? G. P.: Basically, we are using genes as medicines. We transfer genes in the diseased organs of patients affected with rare genetic diseases in order to compensate for their pathogenic mutation. Genes do not enter cells spontaneously and we have to use molecular transporters to deliver the therapeutic genes into cells. Such transporters are usually derived from viruses which naturally can enter cells. These are extremely complex objects, far larger than a small molecule chemical drugs such as aspirin, requiring very high-level technologies to produce. What is in Généthon’s clinical pipeline? G. P.: We have 13 candidate drugs currently in clinical trials, about half of which Généthon manages directly as the sponsor. We expect 7 more candidates to enter clinical phase within the next three years. Our portfolio covers neuromuscular diseases like Duchenne or limb-girdle muscular dystrophies, and myotubular myopathy, as well as blood disorders (severe immunodeficiencies, sickle cell) and liver diseases like Crigler-Najjar syndrome. Let’s focus on Duchenne muscular dystrophy. G. P.: Duchenne is emblematic for AFM. It is a devastating disease affecting mostly boys with rapid muscle wasting and function loss: loss of walking occurs around age 12, respiratory assistance is needed before 20, and death typically between 20 and 40. We have a gene therapy program, GNT0004, for this disease. In the first three patients treated at an effective dose, we saw spectacular, unprecedented results over two years post-treatment, maintaining ambulatory function, even at a maximum score for one of the patients treated. For similar untreated patients followed in parallel, significant decline is obsreved. The patients are not fully cured: some biomarkers remain above normal, albeit significantly reduced. We need to confirm these results in a larger trial of 64 patients, planned to start this summer in France and the UK. As Généthon develops and produces drugs, does that make AFM-Téléthon a non-profit pharmaceutical company? G. P.: Yes, any profit generated would be absolutely reinvested in research. Our unique goal is to ensure that the treatment reach the patient. We have to strike a difficult balance: either we grant a licence to a for-profit company very early in the R&D process, in which case we have little or no control over the price or conditions. Or we try to maintain control. Ideally, we would develop all projects ourselves and manage the programs driven solely by patient interests including setting the lowest possible price. However, we do not have the means to fund all clinical programs, so we need partners. With partners, who are for-profit or investors, there will be a request for a return on investment – that is how pharma works. But it is crucial that the medication does not become inaccessible to patients. AFM-Téléthon is run by patients and parents of patients. Does this influence clinical trials? G. P.: The board of Généthon is controlled by the AFM, hence our global strategy is set by the patient organization, with always the patients’ interests and needs at the center of our actions. Besides that strategic vision, patient involvement is also crucial in clinical trials design and execution. Designing a trial without listening to patients makes no sense to me. It is quite naturally done here at Généthon. We have close links with patient representatives who help design both the drug requirements and how to verify that the medication meets patient needs. When I was in pharma industry, we more focused on doctors, who are prescribers, and on health authorities. But meeting the patient’s needs is the top priority. So, are patients involved throughout the trial process? G. P.: Yes, we have clinical advisory boards with clinicians, experts, and patients or patient representatives. They follow the design and implementation on strategic questions, even regarding safety or considering different patient populations. So, patients are indeed part of the design and follow-up of the trial implementation. Does patient and parents’ involvement offer practical benefits beyond ethical considerations? G. P.: I could answer that Généthon would not exist if it had not been created by the will of a patient organization and this is very practical. Also patients’ perspective is essential in precise understanding of the diseases and clinical trial design. Given the heterogeneity in diseases we are dealing with, parents are unbeatable for caring for their own child. They provide additional information that researchers or even clinicians might not have, as they live with the disease daily. This is a different, complementary knowledge that is valuable for trials. It is not just a question of morals or ethics: there is very strong added value. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The Sustainaibility Academic Network, SusAN in short, has been launched in March 2025, to create an online discussion and collaboration space for scientists who are concerned with sustainability Juan Camilo Serpa is an associate professor at McGill University, in Montreal, Canada What is your current position? Juan Camilo Serpa: I am the academic director of the Management Science Research Centre at McGill University. I specialize in sustainability and AI, and I founded the Sustainability Academic Network, susanhub.com, which is the largest sustainability platform worldwide. What specifically is your field of expertise? J. C. S.: My main focus is on how to implement Artificial Intelligence to enhance sustainability efforts. I am an AI and data science specialist, and I used to do supply chain. But I wanted to work about biodiversity: it started a few years ago, when I created an institute in Costa Rica to join all NGOs in the country to improve their biodiversity efforts by implementing AI. Let’s come to the Sustainability Academic Network. Could you tell us more about it? J. C. S.: The idea was conceived when Donald Trump launched his social network, Truth Social, for right wing people to have online discussions in their own space. I realized that environmentalists and sustainability researchers needed a similar platform to communicate and collaborate. The Sustainability Academic Network serves as a hub like LinkedIn for climate change research, enabling efficient networking and resource sharing. It has been publicly launched at the beginning of March 2025. Our plan is to invite 1.3 million sustainability professors worldwide: we are reviewing 55,000 universities in 197 countries, and we look for every single sustainability professor; then we send them a one-time invitation to join. How many members are there already? J. C. S.: Around 500 new users are joining every day currently. The first month, we had 300, the second month, we had around 2,000. The third month, we had 5,000. And the fourth month, we already have 15,000. If this trend stands, weare going to have around 100,000 by the end of the year. What are the purposes and goals of the network? J. C. S.: SusAN aims to break down silos in academia by connecting researchers across disciplines. It provides a platform for communication, data sharing, and collaboration on sustainability topics. We offer access to datasets, papers, job opportunities, and more, all focused on sustainability. How do you avoid the clustering effect often seen in social networks? J. C. S.: We want to break the silos that exist within universities: scientists from the business faculty do not talk to their colleagues from the engineering or from the chemistry faculty, and the latter rarely talk together either. You would be surprised also that scientists from North America talk very little with scientists from Europe, and even less from Africa or from Asia. So, we focus on identifying members by themes rather than disciplines or faculties or geographical location. For instance, instead of grouping by engineering or business, we connect researchers based on shared interests, like solar energy. This approach encourages cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration. We do the same with scientific papers: usually, a scientist looks only at specific journals in her field; with SusAN, we promote a classification by topics. That is also true for datasets. Is the network limited to academics? J. C. S.: First, we focus on academia due to limited resources. However, the next step is to include industries and NGOs to foster innovation at the intersection of academia and industry. Our ultimate goal is to become the LinkedIn of sustainability where everybody who is interested could join. How is the network funded and maintained? J. C. S.: It started with my research funding, and we have an in-kind contribution from Google, that give the server for free, for an equivalent of US $35,000. We are exploring sustainable funding models, such as offering services to institutions and accepting donations, to continue improving the platform. Any money we would be able to collect would go to the project, in a non-profit scheme. What challenges do you see in mobilizing scientists for sustainability, beyond what SusAN can currently provide? J. C. S.: Researchers are primarily rewarded for publishing, not for mobilizing research or creating connections. Our platform aims to change this by encouraging the dissemination and collaboration of sustainability research. We need to shift incentives to value not just publication, but also the broader impact of research. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The AFM-Téléthon association in France funds its own research labs and its own program to find treatment for genetic rare diseases. What makes it unique? It is run entirely by patients and their parents. The first of two interviews that explain everything François Lamy (left), is a Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of AFM-Téléthon, in charge of Téléthon. Gérald Perret (right) is the Director of Development of the association Could you introduce AFM-Téléthon and your role? François Lamy: I am a Vice-Chairman of the AFM-Téléthon board. Like all board members, we are either patients ourselves or parents of patients. My son has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is why I volunteer on the board. The association was founded in the 1950s by a mother whose four sons with Duchenne muscular dystrophy all died before age 18, at a time when there were no treatments. What are the core values of the association? F. L.: We refuse fatality. Facing incurable diseases, parents cannot accept to be told that nothing can be done. So, we do something. All parents I know become experts in their child’s illness. They develop a unique competence to provide care, improving comfort and prolonging life. These are progressive diseases, so there is an urgency to find solutions. The strength of the collective is crucial, allowing parents to find practical solutions together, not just medical ones, but things like going to school or adapting housing, and building a fulfilling life for their children in spite of the fatal disease. What is the guiding strategy for AFM-Téléthon? F. L.: Our strategy, reinforced by the significant funds raised thanks to Téléthon, a yearly national mobilization through television and all other possible media, is a mission of general interest. Every decision is made to advance research for all rare diseases, not for one specific patient or pathology. We refused from the start to focus on just one pathology. There are over 8,000 rare diseases. The idea was that by advancing research for one of these would advance knowledge for others. This was theoretical in the 1990s but is a reality today. We meet today at Généthon, located in Évry, 20 kilometers or so South of Paris. What exactly is Généthon? F. L.: Généthon is a scientific research laboratory created by AFM-Téléthon in the early 1990s. Why did AFM-Téléthon create its own laboratory? F. L.: When the first Téléthon has been held in France, in 1987, the amount of money collected exceeded all expectations. Facing these funds, there was a rapid desire to create a scientific laboratory to understand the genome, as the diseases AFM-Téléthon is dealing with are of genetic origin. At the time, only a handful of genes causing diseases were identified. Généthon was created because automating genome decoding, that it set out to do initially, did not exist anywhere else in the world. Was it successful? F. L.: Généthon scientists worked hard to decode human DNA and map the genome. This was achieved in 1995, beating other labs, including American ones working manually. The genetic maps were then transmitted to UNESCO to be protected as world heritage and so that they could not be patented. This provided an invaluable resource for scientists. Why did Généthon changed its research goals then? F. L.: In the mid-1990s, with sufficient genome knowledge available for initial work, the association decided it wasn’t their role to pursue fundamental genetic exploration further, but rather to focus on therapeutics. Then it has been decided to focus on gene therapy. The genotyping work was taken over by a public structure called Génoscope. Does AFM-Téléthon fund research beyond Généthon? F. L.: We fund three main laboratories: Généthon for gene therapy, Istem for stem cells, and Institut de Myologie, on muscle research. Additionally, we fund over 200 research projects annually through calls for proposals, ranging from fundamental research to preclinical studies. We also have larger multi-year “strategic projects” with a clear clinical ambition, that we fund externally. Who makes the final decisions on which projects are funded? F. L.: The Board of Directors is sovereign on decisions. But the Scientific Council, composed of over 90 permanent members and soliciting up to 5,000 experts worldwide, evaluates project proposals and provides advice. We respect their advice greatly because they are high-level scientists. However, the Board, consisting of only patients and parents, makes the final decision: we consider scientific excellence, but also other criteria like a project’s therapeutic potential, or focus on a neglected rare disease. Is it relevant that non-scientists make these funding decisions? F. L.: It is often questioned, especially by scientific institutes. However, Généthon currently has a pipeline of dozens of clinical trials. My analysis is that while scientists here are not more intelligent than those elsewhere, the strategic orientation has been clear from the start: finding medications, not just publishing nice articles in scientific journals. This changes how scientists approach their work. The importance of citizens, specifically patients, in research orientation is essential here. Is this model of a patient-led organization funding and driving research applied elsewhere? F. L.: It is certainly unique in France. And, from my knowledge speaking with many international rare disease associations, there is no equivalent elsewhere. In other countries where philanthropy is important for research funding, for instance in the USA, foundations are mostly family-based, and focus on a single disease: our strategy of general interest, aiming to advance research across many rare diseases, is also quite unique. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

Leslie King works with communities across the United States, tackling environmental and social issues through innovative, participatory approaches Leslie King is an organizational and community change consultant based in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA What is your current role and focus areas? Leslie King: I am an organizational and community change consultant and coach, running my own consulting firm. My work primarily revolves around education, climate and environmental issues. I focus on participatory design, community-based systems change, and equity-centered approaches to influence structural and institutional change. Can you provide some examples of the projects you’re involved in? L. K.: One project I am working on is creating energy hubs for communities in Virginia that experience electricity blackouts. These hubs serve as substitutes for energy during outages, ensuring essential services aren’t disrupted. My work spans interdisciplinary research, bridging environmental justice, public health, and organizational transformation. I also work with communities facing issues like heat islands and flooding, helping them build capacity to advocate for policy changes while raising awareness about these challenges. How do you make academic research accessible to communities? L. K.: Bridging the gap between academic research and everyday communities is a key part of my work. Research findings are usually locked away in journals, inaccessible to the people who could benefit from them. I focus on making this information culturally understandable and usable, helping communities engage with it to foster resilience against climate impacts and promote climate justice. How did you become interested in the Earth-Humanity Coalition and its goals? L. K.: I was drawn to EHC because I wanted to connect with others globally who are engaged in similar work. The coalition’s goals align with my focus on climate, environmental, and health issues. It is an opportunity to learn, share, and expand influence across borders. I believe the challenges we face in the U.S. are connected to those in other parts of the world, and collaboration is key to sustainable development. What do you hope to gain from your participation in EHC activities? L. K.: Beyond sharing knowledge, I aim to bring a unique perspective to the coalition, especially in bridging cultural gaps and fostering social practice alongside scientific approaches. I hope to contribute to creating accountability structures within EHC, ensuring that its stated values become actionable practices. I am particularly excited about the potential to develop transdisciplinary hubs, which could serve as platforms for collaboration and innovation. How do you envision these transdisciplinary hubs functioning? L. K.: These hubs would be spaces for interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together experts from different fields to address complex issues. They would focus on designing strategies and solutions that embody the coalition’s values, fostering a culture of accountability and practice. I’m eager to facilitate the creation of such hubs in the U.S. and beyond, to drive meaningful change. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

In an era where environmental concerns and social challenges are diring, The Earth-Humanity Coalition could contribute to the integration of scientific knowledge with social activism Kentaro Toyama, here with Rajasthani children, is the W. K. Kellogg Professor at the University of Michigan School of Information Could you elaborate on what inspired you to join The Earth-Humanity Coalition working group on general strategy and your views on the role of scientists in social change? Kentaro Toyama: I joined the EHC working group because I saw it as an opportunity to collaborate with other scientists and knowledge generators to drive the substantial social change needed for environmental and climate-related issues. Our world faces increasing challenges, and while science plays a crucial role, it’s not enough to rely solely on research and logic to instigate change. The cognitive science of persuasion shows that logic is one of the weakest ways to convince people. We need to engage in activities beyond traditional scientific endeavors, such as writing letters to leaders, organizing protests, and participating in non-violent actions that attract media attention and public interest. What you describe is similar to how movements like “Stand Up For Science” are acting. Do you think that there should be a collaboration? K. T.: Indeed, movements like “Stand Up For Science” reflect a growing trend of scientists taking to the streets to voice their concerns. The EHC can play a pivotal role in making these efforts global. We need to connect not only with formal scientists but also with other knowledge creators and civil society groups. By uniting these diverse voices, we can foster a social movement that goes beyond reshaping research priorities, and focuses on collective action for larger societal changes. One of the challenges you mentioned is bridging the gap between scientists and non-scientific groups. How can the EHC facilitate this integration? K. T.: The challenge lies in outreach. Many knowledge-producing groups, like those focused on environmental or poverty issues, contribute significantly to the discourse but may not traditionally collaborate with scientists. The EHC aims to bring these groups together, advocating for a unified approach to sustainability. This effort may also involve practical steps like organizing demonstrations and coordinating activities that UNESCO and other large organizations typically cannot handle at a grassroots level. You have highlighted the importance of a global collective action day. How do you envision this taking shape? K. T.: I imagine a global day akin to “Stand Up For Science,” but oriented towards “Science for Sustainability.” On this day, each country could have its own specific demands, but by acting together, we can garner significant global attention. The key challenge with sustainability is that it requires individuals to make personal sacrifices, which are hard to enforce without a unified social momentum. If we can build this momentum, even politicians will listen, as they respond to the beliefs of their constituents. What message would you like to send to both scientists and the general public about the role they can play in this movement? K. T.: My message is that we need to shift the narrative from science for science’s sake to scientists advocating for broader societal benefits. It is about using our scientific knowledge and methodologies to support a sustainable future, requiring both scientists and the public to step out of their comfort zones and engage in actions that drive tangible change. Interview by Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

In a Québec Science’s compelling article, discover how participatory research is transforming who gets to do science — and how it’s done. Read this article published by Québec Science about the importance of participatory research The excellent science magazine Québec Science a very interesting article, written by Sophie Mangado and published by . It is in French, but worth the read. Use your favorite translation tool or challenge your high school French if you have some! “What happens when science steps out of the lab and into communities?” ask this article.  From Indigenous knowledge holders to patients, farmers, and local citizens, non-scientists are actively shaping research questions, collecting data, and driving meaningful change. This piece highlights real-world examples from different parts of Québec, showing that when people outside academia get involved, science becomes more grounded, inclusive, and impactful. Whether you’re a researcher, policymaker, or community leader, this article offers a rich, thoughtful look at how participation improves both knowledge and outcomes. Some examples At the Université de Montréal, a participatory research project on rare genetic diseases involves patients and their families in shaping research priorities. Their input helps scientists understand not only the biological mechanisms, but also the day-to-day challenges of living with such conditions — resulting in more relevant and humane research outcomes. In Quebec, farmers are working directly with researchers to test sustainable practices in agriculture and soil conservation. Their on-the-ground expertise influences experimental design, ensuring that scientific solutions are practical, not just theoretical. Citizen science initiatives allow locals to help monitor biodiversity and water quality. Volunteers collect data on invasive species or pollution levels in rivers and forests, empowering communities to take part in environmental stewardship. In Indigenous-led collaborations, traditional ecological knowledge is recognized as co-equal with academic science. This is especially important in areas like land use, conservation, and climate adaptation. 👉 Read the article here: https://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/societe/recherche-participative-impliquer-non-scientifiques-etudes/ SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The association Sciences Citoyennes acts to ensure that citizens have a say in the organization of research and its orientations, to equip society for an ecological and inclusive transition Aude Lapprand is the coordinator of the association Sciences Citoyennes What is Sciences Citoyennes? Aude Lapprand: It is an association, founded in 2002. At the start, there were reflections carried out by Science & Technology Studies (STS): the co-founders gathered through a critical vision of science, in connection with 1970s movements that questioned hegemonic sciences. These founders came from the humanities and social sciences and from the experimental sciences. Some of them were themselves impacted by this majority science, as well as whistleblowers, such as Jacques Testart, who criticized his own experimental research practices on medically assisted procreation, André Cicollela, who studied the dangers of glycol ether, and Catherine Bourgain, who described how biology research was monopolized by the issue of GMOs. What were the goals of these founders? A. L.: The Sciences Citoyennes charter highlights the proliferation of environmental, health and other crises. In this context, it asserts that there is an urgent need to bring together different forms of knowledge to respond to the challenges posed by these crises: the only “legitimate” sciences from academia will not be enough. It is the hybridization of different kinds of knowledge that will enable citizens to find a way out of the current crises. With these multiple crises, it is necessary to stop thinking about science as mean of mastering nature: science should serve common good, and be designed with and for citizens. So, the members of Sciences Citoyennes are professional scientists? A. L.: No. The level of education of our 200 or so members is quite high: mostly master’s degree and above. But we are not a collective of scientists: we wish to be open to all citizens who combine strong militant convictions and an interest in science, without necessarily being professionals. Many of our members join us because they are initially motivated by a particular techno-scientific controversy: geo-engineering, nuclear power, GMOs, etc. And they discover that the underlying questions are the same in all areas: who are the experts? How is the regulatory question formulated? What research choices have been made? How can a truly democratic debate be created on this scientific issue? Sciences Citoyennes conducts a cross-fields reflection on these different themes. And so, what actions does the association take? A. L.: We have defined five axes, in which we are more or less active depending on the period: reorienting research, making research and expertise more accountable, producing a critical analysis of techno-sciences, supporting the third scientific sector and mobilizing with civil society. Reorienting research: what does that mean? A. L.: It starts with analyzing public research strategies at the regional, national and European levels, to find out what public decision-makers want to encourage as a research orientation. And it continues with reflection and proposals on the ways in which citizens could influence these research orientations. Since 2007, we have worked extensively on citizens’ assemblies, in line with what the Danish Board of Technology did in the 1980s. It is a democratic process that needs to be well-framed to avoid abuses and instrumentalization, as we saw in France in 2019 and 2020 with the Citizens Convention on Climate. It is also a topical issue: thanks to our work, in January 2025 French parliamentarians tabled a proposal for a constitutional law on citizens’ assemblies. The aim is for the mechanism to be enshrined in the Constitution, with precise rules on who can convene it, who organizes it, how the steering committees are constituted, how representative democracy interacts with participatory democracy, etc. And we also propose that 10% of the public research budget be allocated each year by one of these citizens’ assemblies. What is you action at the European level? A. L.: Research funded by the European Union is organized by the Horizon Europe framework program, which is discussed every six years. This program is extremely structuring, both because of the money it mobilizes and because it defines major trends for research, that other funders often follow. At each deadline, we try, with a coalition of other organizations from other European countries, to influence both the content and the way the content is made. We support, as in France, the proposal that part of the framework program budget be allocated by a citizens’ assembly. What are your suggestions relative to the direction this framework program should take? A. L.: In 2019, together with AtEcoPol Toulouse and Engineers Without Borders, we drew up our own version of a European framework program for research, with the aim of achieving an ecological and inclusive transition. What research do we need to make this transition a success? The result was a text of about a hundred pages, with 400 priority research questions, which was clearly different from Horizon Europe: our horizon was not growth and industrial competitiveness! This text is a tool that we also use to advocate the idea, if there was still any need to prove it, that science is not neutral. What are your actions for the second axis, making research and expertise more responsible? A. L.: In 2018, we wrote a Manifesto for Responsible Scientific Research and organized a series of three symposia on this issue: the first focused on the responsibility of research institutions, how they are organized, what kind of research they promote and what this produces; the second was devoted to the professional responsibility of researchers; the third focused on proposals to make scientific research truly responsible. Are you involved in the work on RRI, supported by the European Union in particular? A. L.: We are more radical. In particular, we criticize the notion of academic freedom, according to which only research professionals decide what they work on. This academic freedom is used, in some cases, to legitimize some sciences, without discussion. Sciences Citoyennes considers that research orientations are, above all, political choices, and that it

If you are interested in crossing disciplines, in working with the people who are affected by complex societal or environmental problems, and with decision makers, you should join! Gabriele Bammer is the president of the Global Alliance for Inter-and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance) What is the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity? Gabriele Bammer: We have two major purposes. One is to be a professional society for people who consider themselves to be inter- and transdisciplinarians. The other is still an aim, namely to help establish a peak body for all the different groups that develop approaches for tackling complex problems like sustainability. This obviously involves the inter and transdisciplinarians, and also the convergence researchers, the post normal scientists, the action researchers, the systems thinkers, etc. There is a long list of approaches, and we are all developing theory and methods that overlap, but we all have our own silos. Why? G. B.: For two reasons. One is that it’s important from a scholarly perspective, for doing good work and not reinventing the wheel. For example, transdisciplinarians often start thinking about problems as systems, so rather than reinventing systems thinking transdisciplinarians should be collaborating with systems thinkers. It is also important from a political perspective: if we want science for sustainability to become accepted and to use the kinds of methods and concepts and theories that have been developed, then we need to be an influential group, and for that size matters. Being a number of small groups is hopeless, because nobody can find us, and because we have no voice at the research policy and funding tables. You mean, on the last point, even regarding the institutions you are working with, transdisciplinarity is not regarded well enough? G. B.: It depends, institutions vary, with some embracing transdisciplinarity or one of these other approaches and some not interested. If we look at global bodies, the International Science Council, for instance, is really taking transdisciplinarity seriously, which is fantastic. But there are other major organizations that set the research agenda that don’t pay any attention to transdisciplinarity at all, or very little to these different ways of doing science. What are the differences between transdisciplinarity, system thinking, action research, etc? G. B.: Let me talk about our similarity: we are all interested in crossing disciplines, in working with the people who are affected by the complex societal or environmental problem, and in working with decision makers to do something about the problem. Those three things unite transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, systems thinking, action research, post-normal science, implementation science, team science, etc. In terms of differences, each approach puts the focus in different places: transdisciplinarians on co-production, systems thinkers on connections, boundaries and interrelationships, action researcher on giving power to those affected by the problem, so they try to take the back seat as researchers and really push forward the people with the problem to help them get power and to solve the problem for themselves. These are three examples. We are all doing the same thing, but with different emphases. And in any research project, one approach is just too narrow. Where can sustainability be present in this community of approaches? G. B.: All the approaches that I talked about deal with sustainability and all also deal with a whole range of other complex problems. In fact, sustainability science is another one of those approaches and I just haven’t mentioned it. The thing that defines these approaches is that we support methodological and theoretical development to deal with systems, context, uncertainty, pluralism, integration, change, decision making, communication, working together etc. There are plenty of people dealing with sustainability problems who are good at the science, and what these approaches aim to do is help them efficiently work with other disciplines, affected communities and decision makers, by providing relevant easy-to-access theory and methods, so they don’t have to reinvent them. One could imagine that the approaches you described could be at the service of goals very different from sustainability, and perhaps even opposite. G. B.: Yes. For instance, you can see the Manhattan project that built the nuclear bomb in World War II as a transdisciplinary project: an alliance between a number of physical science and broader disciplines, working with the military. It’s important to say that for transdisciplinarians, systems thinkers and proponents of other approaches, being clear and transparent about your values is critical. So, if you are working against sustainability, you are doing it knowing full well what you are doing. Do you think that the status of the non-scientific stakeholders that researchers collaborate with, be they associations, citizens or private companies, makes a difference to the status of the science? G. B.: It is a really important question. The non-scientific stakeholders provide different perspectives on the problem and potential actions that can be taken. How representative they are (especially citizens) and how influential they are (especially those who are in a position to take action) can massively affect how well the problem is understood and how effective the actions are. ITD-Alliance is a member of The Earth Humanity Coalition. What do you expect from this membership? G. B.: Sustainability is a big, complex problem, and it is fantastic that The Earth-Humanity Coalition recognizes that transdisciplinarity and all those allied approaches are important. What we want is to be able to contribute and provide shortcuts for people who are in the coalition and who are unfamiliar with these approaches, so that they do not have to reinvent the wheel. The ITD Alliance can provide a conduit to all the other approaches, e.g. systems thinking, action research, post-normal science etc. On the other way, do you expect something from other members? G. B.: We are a new organization. Many EHC members are peak bodies that have been around for a long time. Watching how they operate is a huge lesson for us. It is really enlightening. Let’s talk now about your planned activities in 2025. What are your plans for the coming months?