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?

In the Kimberley region of Western Australia, Indigenous First Australians are partnering with researchers to pioneer environmental planning and management. Anne Poelina of the Nulungu Research Institute at the University of Notre Dame Australia argues that the key to our planet’s future may lie in Indigenous knowledge and wisdom The Martuwarra, named the Fitzroy River by European settlers, flows through the Kimberley region of Western Australia. For the Indigenous peoples, the River is not merely a geographical feature, but a living ancestral serpent being and the source of law, spirituality, and identity. This deep connection between people and place is at the heart of recent research by Indigenous scholar, Professor Anne Poelina of the Nulungu Research Institute at the University of Notre Dame Australia. Poelina champions the position that Indigenous leadership, wisdom and governance are crucial in addressing climate change and achieving environmental and multi-species justice, providing the ability to include this ancient wisdom and practice towards a climate chance. A long history of exploitation Today, Yi-Martuwarra people showcase the Fitzroy River as Australian National and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. However, it faces threats, of water extraction for agriculture and large-scale mining, including fracking. These plans, Poelina argues, continue a long history of exploitation, and ongoing invasive unjust development that has transformed a region of peace, harmony and balance into a situation of incremental ecocide and genocide. Central to the Indigenous perspective on these issues is the concept of First Law. This law, passed down through generations, governs the relationship between people and Country. It is not merely a set of rules, but a holistic system that encompasses spirituality and sustainable management practices. The Bookarrakarra philosophy The researchers introduce the concept of Bookarrakarra, an Indigenous philosophy that calls for us to learn from history to plan for the future, but to enact these lessons now. This perspective challenges linear Western notions of time, offering a holistic view of environmental stewardship. Yi-Martuwarra people believe that human and non-human beings have an equal right to life. Everything is in relationship as kin, as family. They see humans as part of nature, not separate from or dominant over it. This worldview recognizes the interconnectedness of living things and challenges the dominant Western paradigm of nature as an exploitable resource. Relearning harmony In response to the threats facing the Martuwarra, local Indigenous elders and young leaders from 9 nations have come together to form the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. Established in 2018, this alliance of Traditional Owners aims to maintain the legal, spiritual, cultural, and environmental stewardship of the region. As the world grapples with climate change, the message from the Martuwarra and its people resonates far beyond the Kimberley. Our survival depends on relearning how to live in harmony with the natural world, guided by the wisdom of those who have maintained that connection for millennia. Watch the video Original Article Reference Summary of the papers ‘People: ‘Just-Us for All’ – Indigenous wisdom for human and planetary well-being’ in Minority and Indigenous Trends, ‘Martuwarra Fitzroy River Watershed: One society, one river law’ in PLOS Water, and ‘Ancient wisdom dreaming a climate chance’ in Traditional knowledge and climate change: An environmental impact on landscape and communities. Contact For further information, you can connect with Prof. Anne Poelina at chair@martuwarrafitzroyriver.org or anne.poelina1@nd.edu.au This article has first been published on SciTube This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

In France, ALLISS brings together academic and non-academic organizations to develop a “third sector” for research, which is essential for the development of participatory research Stéphanie Bost is the coordinator of the ALLIance Sciences Sociétés (ALLISS), in France What is ALLISS? Stéphanie Bost: ALLISS stands for ALLiance Sciences Société (alliance of sciences and societies). It is a French association that brings together research institutions, universities and players from the “third sector” of research. What is the “third sector” of research? S. B.: It is very heterogeneous: associations, cooperatives, small companies and even individual entrepreneurs. They all have in common to be involved in research projects, in one way or another. Some of them are professional researchers, others are not but all of them contribute to research and knowledge production. We only have one rule about our members: their purpose and organization must be in line with the goals of ALLISS. What exactly are these goals? S. B.: ALLISS is working to structure the “third sector” of research. First, to help the players to get to know each other better, so that they can build a common narrative. Then, on the basis of this common narrative, to constitute a credible partner for scientific research, with the research and higher education organizations. Basically, what is the point of developing this “third sector”? S. B.: The main driver is the desire to put the “third sector” of research alongside industrial research and university research. Pierre-Benoît Joly and Évelyne Lhoste, who are among the founding members of ALLISS, wrote about this “triple helix”. We want to ensure that civil society is recognized as a contributor to knowledge and research. And, more broadly, we want to highlight the notion of expertise from practice: the recognition that we have knowledge and expertise that comes from our practices. One of the best examples of this is the CO3 initiative (CO-COnstruction de Connaissances pour la transition écologique et solidaire, co-construction of knowledge for the ecological and social transition) a program co-funded between 2018 and 2024 by the Fondation de France, the Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation, the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le Progrès Humain, the Agropolis Fondation and ADEME. This program has given rise to participatory research projects to emerge, bringing together actors from different worlds: citizens’ groups, food producers, farmers and university laboratories. These projects have shown that the expertise of users is as productive of knowledge as that of erudite scientists. When you are interested in a very specific topic, the expertise of people who are not researchers, but specialists in the field, is essential. Is it a matter of efficiency? S. B.: I wouldn’t use that word. It is about broadening the knowledge base and democratizing the production of knowledge. An example can be useful. One of the projects funded by CO3, called Roc-Cha, for ‘Réseau d’Observation et de Conservation in situ des variétés de Châtaignes et des savoirs co-construits locaux et scientifiques associés’ (Network for the Observation and in situ Conservation of Chestnut varieties and associated local and scientific co-constructed knowledge), associated chestnut growers and the CNRS Centre d’écologie fonctionnelle et évolutive in Montpellier to monitor the adaptation of chestnuts and chestnut trees to climate change. Based on surveys carried out by partner producers in the Ariège, Corsica, Ardèche and Drôme departments, the aim of the work with the scientists was to identify the varieties that would be best able to adapt to the decreasingly harsh climate, which is causing more and more damage to the trees. In a way, there is a search for efficiency in adaptation. The co-production of knowledge also means the co-production of future practices, on how we can adapt to changes in our climate, our economy and our society in general. In this example, we are talking about adapting to climate change. Is the goal of sustainability always present in your actions? S. B.: By co-producing knowledge with a range of stakeholders from different sectors, we aim to reduce our impact on resources and use them wisely. Is this a conviction shared by all ALLISS members? S. B.: Yes, and it helps determine the way we deal with our members.  Why are academic entities, who are not part of the “third sector”, members of ALLISS? S. B.: They are very interested in meeting non-academic organizations that are motivated by research. The development of this “third sector” allows them to build bridges, relationships and networks. Our members in the academic sector are convinced of the importance of working more closely with actors specialized in certain topics, from the local to the national level, in order to be more firmly rooted in socially relevant issues and questions. In addition, it is important for them to build up a common agenda, based on the grassroots issues. Does it make sense to do this at national level? S. B.: I am in favour of working through local and regional relays. They can support networks that are starting up in other regions. The shape and dynamics of the “third sector” are not the same everywhere, and that is good, because it helps us to see that it can have many different aspects. It is also useful to act at the national level: it allows us to compare practices, to identify good or bad practices, which helps us to move forward. At the national level, we can also lobby for regional plans and research policy laws, and take advantage of European framework programs. Is ALLISS part of a wider European network? S. B.: This is one of the missions I would like to work towards. I am not aware of any equivalents to ALLISS in other European countries. We have a representative from the University of Lausanne on our board, Alain Kaufmann, who has been working on these issues for a long time. Through him, we have links with the RÉIUNIS network (Réseau International Universités-Société, Universities society international network). Through my previous job at the Trait d’Union science shop in Montpellier, I am

In the past four years, participatory research pervaded several kinds of initiatives undertaken by the university in order to develop strong links between research and citizens Thierry Machefert is Vice-President of the University of Caen Normandy, France, he is responsible for culture and the relationship between science and society – Dircom Unicaen The University of Caen Normandy was awarded the « Science avec et pour la société » (SAPS) label by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in 2021. What was the content of your project? Thierry Machefert: Before the team led by President Lamri Adoui, who was elected at the end of 2020, took office, the relationships science-society were not a major topic at the University of Caen Normandy. We were determined to develop this area. We took the opportunity of the call for expressions of interest, launched in March 2021 by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, to propose a project with four axes. It was selected, along with those of seven other universities, and we received a €290,000 grant for 3 years (a total of €970,000). Our application was singular, as we built it with a non-academic partner, Le Dôme, a center for scientific, technical and industrial culture based in Caen, created by an association. Moreover, Le Dôme is singular itself, since it is a science center in which there is no permanent exhibition: it mainly offers public participation actions. You mentioned four axes. What are they? T. M.: The first one is participatory research, with several initiatives. In particular, we organize the Turfu Festival every year in conjunction with Le Dôme. This festival on participatory research pre-existed our partnership, but we have increased the presence of university players. We have also expanded the scope of the Têtes chercheuses contest, launched in 2010 by Relais d’sciences, the association that created Le Dôme. In addition to a prize awarded by the Fondation Musée Schlumberger, for the production of a scientific mediation device, we have created a second prize: the UNICAEN “Science & Société” prize funds a participatory research project. What are your other priorities? T. M.: The second axis concerns fake news and misinformation. In particular, we have set up a cinema-science cycle, which offers all kinds of films, including fiction for the general public. The third axis is devoted to training in mediation and participatory approaches. Its central focus is the creation of a master’s degree in “Information, Mediation, Science and Technology”, with a “Participatory approach and research” course. The start of the third promotion took place in September 2024. And the last axis? T. M.: It is the promotion and evaluation of participatory research and scientific mediation activities. How can we encourage and enhance the value of what academics do when they take on this kind of activities? The aim is to get them more involved, but also to give them better recognition by the university on the one hand, and by society on the other. For a long time now, many academics have been involved in mediation in schools, colleges and high schools, but it is more or less invisible: we want to show society that it is interesting to talk to scientists, to find out about their job, their methodology and how research works. We have created two partnerships: one with the association L’Arbre des Connaissances, to better deploy its Apprentis Chercheurs (scientists in training) scheme; and the other with Cercle FSER and its DECLICS initiative. These two schemes, aimed at primary school pupils, enabled us to structure, on a university scale, interventions that had previously been the result of personal initiatives. In fact, participatory research is present in all four axes? T. M.: Indeed! For example, a network of masters in scientific mediation was set up, as a consequence of the SAPS label process, and now includes a dozen establishments. We can see that in Caen, our specificity is based on a very strong emphasis on scientific mediation using participatory methods. Do you also train scientists in participatory research? T. M.: Indirectly. We have set up a cultural department, which is responsible for cultural and scientific issues, as well as science-society relationships. In this department, staff are dedicated to support academics who wish to set up a workshop at the Turfu Festival, or submit an application to the Têtes chercheuses contest, or propose a cinema-science session. It is a way of passing on skills to these researchers, without it being a training approach as such. In addition to the UNICAEN “Science & Société” prize, how do you encourage the emergence of participatory science projects? T. M.: The Turfu Festival is made up of several three-hour workshops, each of which must be a step in a participatory research project: the start of the project, an intermediary step, the assessment or the presentation of a completed project. It is another opportunity to support participatory research projects. Our idea is to create a dynamic that encourages academics to contact us when they want to develop such projects. For example, the cultural department dedicated to science and society has supported applications to the French national research agency (ANR) calls for projects on participatory research. At the end of 2024, Lamri Adoui was re-elected president of the university for a second term, with the same team. Did you include participatory research in your program? T. M.: The electoral program included the support and the promotion for this kind of research and for the academics who want to get involved. For example, we now offer the creation of a system that would make it easier to bring researchers into contact with society, within the framework of participatory research. We do not explicitly mention a “science shop”, as we need to make sure we have enough resources to implement it, but that is the idea. The funding associated with the SAPS label ended in 2024. How do you continue to fund these actions? T. M.: The situation is the same for all universities who received the label,