Researchers from academic and non-academic communities explore together the many aspects of clam gardens constructed by coastal First Nations of British Columbia (Canada) and Native Americans of Washington State and Alaska (USA) Clam gardens are made by constructing rock walls at the low tide line along the edges of bays and inlets, transforming naturally sloping beaches or rocky shorelines into productive, level beach terraces. Image: Google Earth – Text: The Clam Garden Network Clam gardens are ancient intertidal features constructed by coastal First Nations of British Columbia (Canada) and Native Americans of Washington State and Alaska (USA). The Clam Garden Network is a diverse community of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge holders including academics, community members, researchers, and resource managers from British Columbia, Washington State, and Alaska. Together, we celebrate, promote, and seek to uphold the cultural and ecological importance of clam gardens and traditional seafood management. Context Clam gardens enhance the production of culturally important seafoods and have been a part of Indigenous food systems for at least 4,000 years. Today, Indigenous Peoples throughout the Pacific Northwest are reclaiming clam garden construction, management, and related cultural practices to enhance food security and sovereignty, support and assert rights and title in coastal and ocean spaces, and revive ancestral teachings and practices. Clam gardens and other culturally important beaches have a legacy as places of learning. While out on the shoreline together, elders, youth, and other community members reflect on teachings, observations and stories about marine systems, cultural values, cosmology, economics, and the importance of family. Method The Clam Garden Network embraces different ways of knowing, shares ideas, and uses various research approaches, tools, and data to build knowledge about people and intertidal resources. We celebrate, promote and uphold clam gardens because they are a focal point to advance Indigenous rights and governance, intergenerational knowledge, and food security in the face of climate change. Benefits Our goals are to: build solidarity and cooperation across people, communities and disciplines; support clam garden restoration; stimulate conversation and learning that challenge predominantly Western ways of doing science and resource management; and work in ways that respect Indigenous community selfdetermination and resurgence. Nicole Smith, independent archaeologist, Victoria, B.C, and Jennifer Silver, University of GuelphThis text has first been published by BRIDGES in a special brochure. BRIDGES in a member of The Earth-Humanity Coalition. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

Food systems transformations in South America: insights from a transdisciplinary process rooted in Uruguay Cover of the final report of the “Knowledge on the table” research Between 2019-21, the South American Resilience and Sustainability Studies Institute (SARAS) in Uruguay, gathered a transdisciplinary international community of natural and social scientists, humanities scholars, artists and multiple stakeholders to codesign food systems transformation. Saberes sobre la mesa (knowledge on the table) engaged Uruguayan policymakers, government officials, food producers, the service sector (chefs), soup kitchens, other civil organizations, and consumers. Context Latin America is the largest net food exporting region in the world. The continent’s food systems significantly contribute to global climate change and are at the core of many crucial global issues such as food security, nutrition, endemic poverty, land use change, loss of biological and cultural diversity and national identities. Uruguay shares many of the socialecological challenges and risks that are characteristic of the larger region. Method The project organised transdisciplinary working groups to represent and reflect on the prominent problems in the region: fisheries, the farming export industry, and the emergence of agroecology. It then developed nine projects. Four transdisciplinary projects focused on bottom-up processes of innovation in the sustainable production, distribution and/or consumption of food. Four interdisciplinary projects which targeted decision makers, researchers and scholars. Each communicated information on the social-ecological footprints of Uruguay’s global trade flow of food, and on the feasibility of circular economy. The last project was a book on the history of local recipes and the place of local food culture in national identity. Benefit Saberes sobre la mesa built a collaborative network comprised of academics, several ministries and municipal governments, the media, agricultural producers’ organisations, and civil society groups to produce the knowledge necessary to help address the significant challenges in Uruguay listed above. The final report of this project can be downloaded from the Zenodo virtual repository platform. Jorge Marcone, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Chair of Advisory Board of SARAS This text has first been published by BRIDGES in a special brochure. BRIDGES in a member of The Earth-Humanity Coalition. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

Paris Sciences et Lettres University, in collaboration with the company SoScience, has launched an innovative initiative to foster research projects that unite researchers, civil society, public authorities, and companies Olivier Dauchot, Research Director at CNRS, heads Gulliver, a joint laboratory of École Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles – PSL and CNRS. He also coordinates PSL’s Partage des Savoirs, the outreach program of PSL University, within the broader action of the Communication Department You coordinate the Partage des Savoirs (Knowledge Sharing) action at Paris Sciences et Lettres University (PSL). What is your mission? Olivier Dauchot: Four years ago, PSL received structural funding for nine years, allocating around €100,000 annually for knowledge dissemination and scientific outreach. Given my experience in these areas, I was asked to take on this mission. With the approval of PSL’s Board of Presidents, we devised a strategy based on two key pillars: interdisciplinarity and engagement with civil society organizations, associations, businesses, and public authorities. Why focus on interdisciplinarity? O.D.: PSL encompasses a broad spectrum of disciplines across its schools and faculties — from dramatic arts at the Conservatoire National Supérieur d’Art Dramatique to cold atom physics, and including law, economics, philosophy, and more. To leverage this diversity, we organize initiatives where representatives from different disciplines share their perspectives on a common word or theme. This cross-disciplinary approach is incredibly stimulating. How does interaction with civil society fit into this approach? O.D.: When we think of science outreach, we typically picture children, students, or families participating in events like the Physics Olympiads, the Fête de la Science, or European Researchers’ Night. However, we also aim to engage decision-makers and influencers — those who shape society through their actions. It is important for them to understand what is happening within universities. Many civil society organizations are now highly competent, and with the Internet granting access to information, a well-informed NGO manager may know more about a specific topic than a non-specialist researcher. However, researchers and NGO leaders often speak different languages, follow different schedules, and address distinct challenges. Bringing them together can bridge these divides. How do you facilitate these discussions? O.D.: We partnered with SoScience, a company that runs a multi-stakeholder project ideation program called The Future Of. Over the course of a year, this program identifies three or four projects involving participants from three sectors: academia, civil society, and business. Ideally, each project includes several members from each category. What are the steps in this process? O.D.: First, we select a broad theme, which is refined by a scientific committee composed of researchers, civil society representatives, and business leaders. The question posed must be specific enough to guide discussion but open enough to allow for creativity. For instance, the first year’s theme was Urban Water, with a focus on short-cycle management in large cities. The committee drafts a pitch, and we issue a call for expressions of interest. Do you receive many applications? O.D.: Around 150 each time. The committee, with SoScience’s initial screening, filters out proposals lacking a collaborative approach or those promoting pre-existing products. Ultimately, about 50 individuals are selected. Does this result in 50 projects? O.D.: No, it results in 50 individuals with 50 ideas. However, we ask them to set aside their initial ideas and collaborate to develop new ones. We also reach out to additional participants to ensure the group is balanced. These 50 people are invited to a fully funded workshop in Paris, where, by the end of the day, about 15 project concepts are drafted. Are project groups formed during this workshop? O.D.: Yes, groups of five to ten participants are created. Some people are involved in multiple projects, while others may not join any. From there, SoScience follows up with the groups for six weeks, helping to refine their projects into detailed ten-page proposals. This process typically narrows the field to seven or eight projects. Finally, the committee selects three projects based on criteria like maturity, feasibility, and funding potential. Does PSL fund these projects? O.D.: No, PSL doesn’t fund them directly. SoScience supports the selected projects for six additional months, helping participants apply for funding from sources such as European grants, the French National Research Agency (ANR), or ministerial funds. The diversity of project leaders expands the range of potential funding options, and sometimes a participating company will decide to invest. What is PSL’s return on investment in this initiative? O.D.: It is similar to public science outreach during an event like a science fair: you don’t know exactly what outcomes to expect. However, we are the only university collaborating with SoScience on The Future Of. The former French Minister of Higher Education and Research personally came to announce our first selected projects. Additionally, PSL researchers can benefit directly: for example, one of our academics is involved in a Future Of urban water project that received initial funding from ADEME and is likely to secure ANR support. Are three new projects per year sufficient? O.D.: Three are formally selected, but the process creates a network of connections and lays the groundwork for many more collaborations. Even if some ideas take years to materialize, this cross-sector interaction is invaluable. How often have you run this process? O.D.: We are currently in the third cycle. The first year focused on urban water, the second on active health during the Olympic Games, and this year’s theme is metamaterials for sustainable development. How will you ensure the program’s sustainability? O.D.: Initial funding from the Ministry of Higher Education and Research supported us for three years. We have secured funding to continue our action for another four to five years, but long-term sustainability will require sponsorship. Thankfully, this initiative’s prestige should attract sponsors. Has your approach inspired transdisciplinary research within PSL? O.D.: Yes, though not all projects are directly related. For example, a PSL economist studying the 19th-century industrialization of agriculture has expanded his work into participatory research with farmers, involving them in data analysis and interpretation. We provided additional

With a collaborative research platform, ATD Fourth World association, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers and Centre national de la recherche scientifique, in France, are developing knowledge on participatory research into poverty. Bruno Tardieu (right), a full-time volunteer at ATD Fourth World, is one of the moderators of the merging knowledge workshops Why is ATD Fourth World involved in collaborations with scientific researchers? Bruno Tardieu: ATD Fourth World was founded in 1957 by Joseph Wresinski, a catholic priest, in an emergency housing camp built by the public authorities following Abbé Pierre’s call in 1954. The camp had become a slum, inhabited by desperate families. Wresinski was there as chaplain. The first people in charge of ATD realized that reality was being denied: officially, there was no longer any misery in France, there were only social cases, people not suited to progress. To get this reality recognized, a sociologist, Jean Labbens, and a psychologist agreed to carry out in-depth studies in the camp. From the outset, they took seriously the participatory observation reports drawn up by the association’s “permanent volunteer” staff: as they still do today, they wrote down every evening that had happened during the day. They worked from these as well as with open interviews.  What happened next? B. T.: With the support of the French Commission for UNESCO, ATD Fourth World organized two symposia at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, in 1961 and 1964, on what were then known as “misfit families”. They helped to establish the notion of social exclusion, to contradict the notion that people were ill adapted to their situation: it was really that outsiders did not understand how they intelligently adapted to impossible situation. The association was also involved in work with historians, writing the family histories of very poor families over several generations, and in research into children’s language development. Researchers at the Columbia University School of Social Work in New York (USA) were soon intrigued by these methods, community organizing that included priority to the poorest and invited ATD to collaborate with them on community development programs in the USA. Let’s jump ahead in time: in 2023, ATD Fourth World France shared the Participatory Research Prize for the “Croiser les savoirs avec tou.te.s” (merging knowledge with all) project. What was this project? B. T.: It has to be seen in the context of what I have just explained. Many academics disputed the scientific nature of the work carried out with ATD in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1980, at a conference held at UNESCO, Wresinski countered this view by asserting that, as far as poverty was concerned, academic knowledge was not superior to the knowledge that people themselves had of their condition, or to the knowledge of action acquired by social workers and permanent volunteers. And that people living in poverty must be allowed to formulate their questions and work on them: they can be the driving force behind other forms of research. These ideas led to the development of the merging of knowledge method: we invited academics, people living in poverty and people in action to co-construct knowledge. The work we carried out in this way brought to light epistemological questions, which were formulated in 2015 during a seminar in collaboration with a laboratory at the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (CNAM). This led in 2017 to the creation of the collaborative space “Croisement des savoirs avec toutes et tou.te.s”, through an agreement between CNAM, CNRS and ATD Fourth World, with the support of the Groupement d’intérêt scientifique “Démocratie et participation” (group of scientific interest “Democracy and participation”). It was the work of this collaborative space that was awarded the prize in 2023. What was at stake in this work? B. T.: In France, or in Europe, politicians were interested in the knowledge we were producing together with people living poverty who were themselves members of ATD, because they could see that they could use it practically. But before using it as a basis for policy, they would check with university experts in the field. And there, they didn’t hear the same point of view at all: our knowledge was dismissed as non scientific. This is what forced us to formalize the terms of an alliance. So, you wanted to forge an alliance with these experts to produce a common knowledge, rather than fight for legitimacy? B. T.: Yes. And what’s more, this cooperation produces a better quality of knowledge. Academics help us to understand our knowledge using concepts from other fields. For example, the notion of epistemic injustice, which was identified in feminist philosophy by Miranda Fricker, from New-York University, is relevant to poverty studies: what people say is interpreted by concepts that go against what they mean. That is what happened when the poor were called inadapted, and we changed that into socially excluded. Another more recent example, the notion of non-recourse: in France, 30% of those entitled to social benefits do not receive them, and this is called non-recourse (or non take up). But what very poor people who have thought about it say is that it is non-access, rather than non-recourse: in practice, it is very difficult for them to apply for these benefits. And non-recourse imply that people do not even ask for their rights. We need to deconstruct some notions produced by academics alone, who have been blinded by their environment. And it is also necessary to deconstruct notions created by an association like ours, and beliefs that circulate among very poor people. Doing so, we are building new knowledge and ways of thinking together: the various participants in the research realize that they can indeed work together, despite their social, economic or educational differences. What was the collaborative space’s work program? B. T.: We explored three issues. First, separation in peer groups: should the different categories of participants to the merging of knowledge always work together, or is it preferable to keep some separate meetings in peer groups as safe spaces? The collaborative

The representative of associations in the steering committee of the University of Montpellier’s science shop explain why it is important for associations to be part of such a body. And why it can be difficult too. Nicolas Saulnier is the director of the département de l’Hérault branch of the Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux Occitanie and a member of the steering committee of the Trait d’Union science shop in Montpellier Why are you a member of the Trait d’Union steering committee? Nicolas Saulnier: The activities of the Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux Occitanie (LPO, Birdlife France) are focused on two actions: the protection of nature and the mobilization of citizens. The latter serves the former: we carry out a variety of activities to mobilize citizens to help protect nature, and to participate in the collection of data on its health. We have developed databases and participatory science tools, sometimes in conjunction with the academic world. In 2017, when the University of Montpellier organized Assises Sciences-Sociétés (science society forum), they invited the headquarter, which asked me to represent LPO. The idea for the Trait d’Union science boutique was born at this meeting. Did you feel the need for it at the time? N. S.: It was a discovery: I was not familiar with this type of structure and approach. The conference, and the work that followed in prefiguring and co-constructing the science shop, made me realize that the natural sciences and life and earth sciences are not the only approach to optimizing biodiversity protection: the human sciences are just as important. They help structures with divergent or even conflicting interests to come together and work collectively. And today, we realize that the challenges of protecting biodiversity, and the environment, are mostly linked to human commitment, to the ability to make decisions, and to the ability to evaluate that commitment. Progressively, I became involved in this dynamic. Especially as there was a concrete aspect from the outset, with a call for projects, to which we submitted. What project did you propose? N. S.: We were then working on the impact of wind farms on biodiversity. We thought that some of the devices supposed to reduce bird and bat mortality were not as effective as their promoters claimed. To evaluate these devices, we proposed to launch a research project with the CNRS Centre d’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive in Montpellier: this took the form of the “Réduction de la Mortalité Aviaire dans les Parcs Éoliens en Exploitation” (MAPE) project, which was deployed over several time scales, with internships, doctorates and post-doctorates, and is still ongoing today. From the outset, Trait d’Union has been committed to sustainable development projects. I joined the steering committee with the aim of focusing on biodiversity. Who was in the steering committee? N. S.: Initially, it brought together academics, institutions and non-academics. I represented the college of non-academics. Over the past year, the steering committee has opened up to other associative structures, which has enabled us to consolidate the balance between academics and non-academics. Who are the other associations involved in Trait d’Union? N. S.: Environmental education and sustainable development associations, as well as circular, social and solidarity economy structures. There are also associations founded by scientists. Today, the aim is to bring these different players together. But it must be acknowledged that, for the associations, it can be difficult to participate, due to their precarious financial situation and to the time availability of their leaders and members, while academics can sometime value their participation in this type of body, as part of the research work. There is also a cultural difference: for researchers, such participation is more or less self-evident, which is not always the case for associations. Was it easy to convince LPO members and managers of the importance that you spend time on this project? N. S.: As it started on the request of LPO, there was already an indication of the value of taking part in this initiative. Also, in the Hérault département, we were used to working with researchers, particularly within the framework of the National Action Plans, run by the French government to implement European and international commitments to protect nature. The territorial council and the board of directors of the local LPO clearly understood that it was in our interest to forge links and work on these types of dynamics. The fact that we were involved in a project from the outset helped a great deal: an association like ours can’t just be a think tank, it has to take action too. However, I think this commitment is also due to personal affinities: if I were to withdraw tomorrow, I’m not sure there would be the same interest. Does your participation in the steering committee of Trait d’Union take place during your working time for the LPO? N. S.: Yes. I do not sit on Trait d’Union as an individual, but as a representative of an association. We have also managed to ensure that the associations taking part receive a small allowance, which is not nearly as much as we would need, but which however exists, even if it is recurrently being debated. Does this financial participation by Trait d’Union also extend to projects supported by the science shop? N. S.: No, it only concerns participation in the steering committee. Participation in research projects is financed from our own funds. Who participates in LPO research projects? N. S.: The LPO is a volunteer-based association, with salaried staff to back up the volunteers’ efforts. However, for research work, you need interest and skills: researchers from different academic bodies sometimes accompany us and facilitate interaction with the research community. In other places, LPO has a local scientific director or a local scientific committee. This is not yet the case in Hérault. What about your ordinary members? N. S.: Members join us because they feel concerned with the ecological reality of our environment. Some are already trained and competent naturalists who are already working on

Through its participatory research platform, the University of Rennes helps since 2022 to the development of research project co-constructed by academics, associations and decision makers Benoît Feildel is Senior Lecturer in Spatial Planning and Urban Development at the University of Rennes 2, and Vice-President in charge of Sciences and Society of this university In 2022, the University of Rennes was awarded the “Sciences with and for Society” label by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. For which project? Benoît Feildel: The TISSAGE project, whose acronym stands for “Triptyque Science Société pour AGir Ensemble” (Science Society Triptych for Acting Together). It has three main themes: “Meeting in training”, “Reinventing public debate” and “Co-constructing research”. I am in charge of the latter, which is developing a participatory research platform. What is the motivation behind this platform? B. F.: Today’s universities have become specialized and estranged from civil society. The choice of research topics is made either by the state, or by the academics themselves. We want to change that a bit. That is why all our actions in the TISSAGE project are based on the equally balanced triptych researcher-citizen-decision maker. Citizens are represented by organizations of the civil society: mainly associations, and small businesses. The decision makers are public decision makers, political and administrative leaders, as well as business leaders. In all three areas, we require all three types of stakeholders to be present. The aim of the participatory research platform is to implement this triptych in research projects. How does it work? B. F.: The participatory research platform is a seed fund and incubator. Each year, we launch a call for projects offering a grant of between €3,000 and €5,000. This sum is mainly intended to finance meetings where the three types of stakeholkders – researchers, citizens and decision-makers – get to know each other better, translate each other’s vocabulary, and start to build the research project. This stage is crucial, as we know of examples of “participatory research” in which academics are the prescribers of the research problem. And it is important to give economic recognition to the involvement of civil society: participating associations can be paid for this meeting time. In all, we have financed 32 projects over three years, out of the 35 proposals. Why is the success rate so high? B. F.: The selection committee, which is made up of the same triptych, does not judge scientific opportunity: it judges the desirability of a meeting. It tries to assess the willingness of the project’s co-initiators to really work together. Moreover, the applications did not exceed the total budget, which was around €50,000 per year. What types of projects were selected under this scheme? B. F.: To illustrate the diversity, in the last wave, decided in October 2024, there is a research project with the Rennes-based association Les Pétrolettes, which works on student prostitution, with academics from the École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (Public Health Advanced Studies) and the metropolis of Rennes. There is a project to experiment with agroforestry as part of a social economy scheme. Another example: the reconstruction of a prehistoric pirogue in experimental archaeology, with locals in Vannes, in collaboration with an association working on urban policy. Or the mobilization of the associative sector in the neighborhood near Rennes 2 university to reflect on the issues of inequality and forms of discrimination, with sociologists, city policy players, the local community center and, of course, the public decision-makers behind these policies. How easy is it for citizens to get involved through associations? B. F.: Cécilia Querro, the platform’s coordinator, has worked hard to create links. She has used her knowledge of the associative world, and specific methodologies to enable the positions of the different players to be symmetrical, so that civil society, the associative sector, think that they are legitimate to put their questions to the university and to co-construct together. The call for projects is launched through higher education and research diffusion channels. C. Querro brings these opportunities to the attention of the associative sector, and accompanies the requests that come from there. Once projects have been selected, how do you support them? B. F.: During the incubation period, which lasts about a year, we offer three group meetings for the collectives behind the projects, so that they can share their experiences and help each other. There is also more individualized support, depending on the needs and requests of each collective. And, at the end of the year, we organize a symposium, with a reflective goal. In the first year, we focused on how researchers position themselves in participatory research, how it transforms their profession, but also their epistemology, their way of conceiving the construction of knowledge, and the legitimacy of different types of knowledge. In the second year, we worked on the notion of the citizen-researcher, by conducting a survey of “key witnesses”. Next year, we plan to turn our attention to decision makers. What’s more, as we come to the end of the three-year experiment, we hope to raise awareness of the need for further funding. Have you already evaluated the impact of this scheme? Some groups have held meetings, developed research projects, and applied for, and even obtained, funding from other sources. For example, since 2019, the Brittany Region has had a call for Research and Society projects, for maximum funding of €80,000. Other projects have obtained funding from the National Research Agency, 1% of whose budget is dedicated to science with and for society, and which launches dedicated calls for projects. Other groups have failed to meet. On a more general level, many of the associations that come to us say that participatory research gives them a form of legitimacy to make themselves known and to seek subsidies from public players. It’s a form of instrumentalization, but we accept it, as long as the work carried out is of a scientific nature. If this in-depth work reveals that associative action has a strong social utility and that

Indigenous science can help solve some of the great problems of our time. Here’s how… Dja Dja Wurrung Traditional Owners undertake a cultural burn in Tang Tang swamp, Victoria. AAP Image/Supplied by Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action Australia has committed to elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge as one of five national priorities in science and research. This comes as part of the National Science Statement released by the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic. The statement signals the national priorities that will shape investment and policy across research and development over the next decade. Indigenous knowledge systems are a national strength! Australian research already punches above its weight. The statement notes we produce 3.4% of the world’s research with just 0.33% of the world’s population. So how can we accelerate our impact? Indigenous knowledge systems are a national strength. The history of science on this continent is extraordinary, yet we often fail to recognise the sophisticated knowledges held by our First Nations peoples. Indigenous voices must be at the table. The first peoples, the first scientists Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the first astronomers, physicists, biologists and pharmacists on this continent. From as far back as 65,000 years Indigenous people have been integrating knowledge systems with and for people and Country. There are many examples of Indigenous knowledge contributing to contemporary problems. Traditional Aboriginal burning takes into account local weather conditions, plants, environments and animals. Support regeneration and biodiversity It is showing how plants react to fire, how to reduce the risk of major fire events, and support regeneration and biodiversity. Indigenous-led approaches to urban water are pointing towards more sustainable water management practices that also regenerate ecological and cultural environments. Beyond this, Indigenous approaches to research can challenge Western science models in important ways that can bring about new leaps of innovation. The stakes are high The new national statement comes at a time when we face existential threats in climate change, artificial intelligence, new pandemics, social unrest and beyond. Research remains crucial to finding solutions for our survival. But we must approach the task of elevating these knowledge systems in the right way and be mindful of the ongoing legacies of colonisation. Eminent Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith has noted: Indigenous people are considered the most researched in the world, and yet have seen the least amount of benefit. The legacy of these past practices continues to foster uncertainty and distrust of research (and researchers) by many in Indigenous communities. This observation, based on engagement and conversations with communities, highlights an imbalance in research benefit between those who are studied and those who do the research. It is tied to centuries of colonisation. Huge extraction of knowledge from Indigenous peoples Science has long adhered to the principle of “do no harm”. However, Western science has sometimes done harm. This was recently highlighted in Melbourne University’s book Dhoombak Goobgoowana, or truth-telling in the Woi Wurrung language, which described some of the terrible outcomes of colonial biases in science. At the same time Western institutions and industries have extracted an extraordinary amount of knowledge from Indigenous peoples. According to the World Health Organization around 40% of pharmaceutical products today draw from nature and traditional knowledge, including landmark drugs: aspirin, artemisinin [an ancient Chinese herbal malaria treatment], and childhood cancer treatments. Big benefits for pharmaceutical companies This has benefited humanity, and fattened the profits of many pharmaceutical companies. Yet Indigenous people have seen very little financial benefit – or even credit. This is one of the many reasons we need to foster Indigenous-led research and engage communities in research. Bringing more people to the table – both in research and at universities in general – will help us ask better questions. It will ensure people, especially Indigenous peoples, can lead or guide the research, see benefit and help build capacity in communities. A call for teamwork The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies code of ethics points the way forward. It centres Indigenous self-determination, Indigenous leadership, sustainability and accountability, and demonstrating impact and value. It all starts with listening, and ensuring that research addresses priorities determined and supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The National Science Statement calls for teamwork. It calls for research collaborations between universities, civil society, governments and international partners to solve some of our biggest societal, geopolitical, economic and environmental challenges. Make the world a better place This task also demands new approaches to what responsibility means in research. To create futures in which people can thrive, responsible research must go beyond compliance to formal rules of ethics and integrity. It must ask much bigger questions about the place of research within local communities and much larger geopolitical environments. And it must reconsider how we partner well with the governments, industries and the communities with which we are embedded. This takes us right back to the question of why we do research. Is it to publish more papers, or find a drug that makes a lot of money? Or are we here to make the world a better place? It’s a question the National Statement on Science is asking. It is up to us to put it into practice. This article was first published by The Conversation and written by Tristan Kennedy (Professor & Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous), Monash University) and Melissa Miles (Acting Pro Vice-Chancellor Research, Monash University).  Find the original here. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

A network of open laboratories works with local authorities, managers, professionals, associations, and populations to restore the habitability of territories. Olivier Ragueneau is research director in the French national research center (CNRS) in Brest, and coordinator of the Zones Ateliers network. You are the scientific delegate for the Zones Ateliers (workshop zones) network. What is a Zone Atelier? Olivier Ragueneau: It is an open structure organized on a well-defined territory: a river, a mountain range, a city. Researchers from different fields work on issues linked to sustainability, or the Earth’s habitability, together with local stakeholders. We aim to reconnect human beings and their environment, which scientific studies have separated for at least two centuries, by tackling the complexity of socio-ecosystems, in order to reposition human activities within the environment and the great planetary cycles, taking limits into account. For example, in Brittany, the “Zone Atelier Brest Iroise”, of which I am a member, studies the land-sea continuum, while the “Zone Atelier environnementale rurale Argonne” focuses on hyper-rurality, in the North-East of France. They have a variety of issues, but within each of them, we are developing similar approaches: interdisciplinary, with natural sciences, human and social sciences, and engineering sciences; and transdisciplinary, with local stakeholders involved in joint research. What does this network do? O. R.: The Zones Ateliers network is a CNRS Ecology and Environment initiative. There are 16 Zones Ateliers, with two more under construction in overseas France. The existence of a network enables us to link up the experiments and approaches developed in each of the Zones Ateliers, for comparative purposes. We stimulate projects in which we can test hypotheses along gradients, whether climatic, of human impact, and so on. For example, on the question of the history of relations between researchers and stakeholders, and their impact on the transformation of public policies: is the same thing happening in a recent Zone Atelier where researchers are starting to work with stakeholders, and in Zones Ateliers that have been developing links with non-scientific stakeholders and policy-makers for 20 or 30 years? The environmental and political context of agro-ecological transition differs greatly from one Zone Atelier to another, and it is interesting to draw comparisons. For example, in Brittany, with green algae and intensive agriculture, we are in a territory that is extremely blocked from a political and economic point of view, with the whole agro-industrial system. It is less conflictual elsewhere. The adaptation of flora and fauna to climate change is different in alpine pastures, in cities and by the sea, where there are risks of erosion and submersion in coastal areas due to the frequency of storms. Why is it important to take this diversity into account? O.R.: The collapse of biodiversity and climate change are creating a situation where transformative action is becoming increasingly urgent. But this cannot be decided in a top-down, uniform and prescriptive way: if we try to apply homogeneous indicators or criteria in different contexts, it will not work. And populations generally rebel against this. We have seen this in Brittany with water quality indicators: those established at national or European level do not work and cause a whole host of problems. It is essential to take into account the diversity of our socio-ecosystems. This will be at the heart of the Transform Priority Program and Equipment (PEPR Transform) currently being contracted by the French national research agency (ANR). In September 2024, the Zones Ateliers network organized a symposium entitled “Co-constructing research on socio-ecosystems”. What does this mean in concrete terms? O.R.: For us, the term “co-construction” covers the entire research process, starting with the emergence of research questions. For example, we were approached by fishermen who could no longer fish for scallops in the bay of Brest, because there were toxic phytoplankton, and fishing was banned. Together, we have discussed their problems, we have confronted this with the expertise we have, and the knowledge we lack. If we assess that we can set up a research project together, then we transform a public problem into a research question, and we can engage in co-research with different stakeholders, who will carry out experiments, for example. This can include participatory science, because as the project progresses, we will need to collect data, with the help of citizens and professionals. And then, in the analysis and restitution, we may also want to involve different stakeholders. Why is this co-construction important? O. R.: The main interest is to bring politics back to the territories, in the sense of citizen participation in the life of the city: it is more efficient to involve people than just explain things with a conference. Being involved in research, non-scientific stakeholders, participate to the production of knowledge. What is more, as today science is criticized, and fake news are everywhere, this approach enables us to disseminate the scientific methods, and not just the results of research. For example, in Brittany, on the issue of “green tides”, we are running participatory science projects with agricultural high schools: working with young people who are future farmers could help to break the conflict between scientists and farmers, who question the data. Involving students in sampling, measuring nitrates, explaining long-term trends and discussing with them goes far beyond raising awareness. They take ownership of the scientific approach, which gives them empowerment back. This is in line with the theory of inquiry, developed by the American philosopher John Dewey in the early 20th century, and taken up again in recent decades by the French philosopher Bruno Latour. What is more, we are doing this with people who often do not think they have the capacity to do so: it is rewarding for them. The assumption we make in the Zones Ateliers network is that the co-construction of knowledge has a performance-enhancing effect, and leads to greater transformations in public policy than if we only transmit scientific data to decision-makers, with the hope that they will make the right decisions for sustainability and socio eco-systems good

With the association Sciences Citoyennes and the Mouvement pour des Savoirs Engagés et Reliés, physicist Pablo Jensen is working for greater citizen participation in decisions concerning scientific research Pablo Jensen is director of research at the CNRS, member of the physics laboratory at the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, member of the board of directors of the association Sciences Citoyennes and organizer of the Journées des Savoirs Engagés et Reliés (JESER) Why are you a member of the board of the Sciences Citoyennes association?  Pablo Jensen: The scientific activity is too important to be left in the hands of scientists alone. That is what Sciences Citoyennes is all about: opening up science and working with citizens. In France, it is, to my knowledge, the only long-term association in this field: it has been created in 2002. At the end of the 1990s, I launched Cafés des Sciences in Lyon, as did many others elsewhere, but this type of initiative, driven by one or two individuals, dies out when these individuals want to move on to something else. It is really important that, at least at the national level in France, there is a structure that embodies this desire to open up the academy to society, without being subservient to the academy or the institutions. What is the underlying motivation? P. J.: Let’s take the example of GMOs. A technique that was of interest to biologists, for exploring living organisms and fundamental sciences in the laboratory, has been appropriated by industrialists for applications on millions of hectares. The first thought that come to scientists is: “It is good that something we found in the laboratory can be applied.” And they are often blind to the fact that what is done outside the laboratory is very different from what is done in the laboratory: GMOs in the field raise many new questions, as have shown activists, allied with professional researchers, in this case ecologists. Generally speaking, the social consequences of all scientific work concern many citizens, and this is set to increase with the ecological crisis. So, a social control on science is important, in a democratic way. Do you feel that science is not enough controlled by society? P. J.: Today, the sciences are obviously in society, because they depend on public budgets and have public consequences, but this is done in ways that are not very democratic. For example, it is hard to know who really decides where public funding goes. Historically, with modern science came the ideas of research autonomy and laboratory confinement. This has produced sciences which are not intrinsically bad, but which are intrinsically dangerous: the kind of knowledge they produce lends itself very well to technological acceleration because it is so entangled with technology. As soon as you create knowledge that is totally dependent on technology, especially because of the laboratory equipment you use, it is very natural to contribute, thanks to this knowledge, to the technology and acceleration that endangers the habitability of the planet. Everything should not be put on the same level, but there is a strong trend that needs to be noted, and which the scientific community needs to reflect on. What are the actions of Sciences Citoyennes? P. J.: There are three main areas: the democratization of science, research ethics and the scientific third sector. I am directly involved in the first only. We are working with MPs and senators, who are promoting a law to have 10% of the public research budget decided by a citizens’ convention. And Sciences Citoyennes is also making a major contribution to support the Mouvement pour des Savoirs Engagés et Reliés (MSER). What is it all about? P. J.: It is an informal group of organizations, born of the desire to open up science and enable exchanges with civil society. That is what the citizen science cafés were already doing to some extent. But today, we are focusing on the ecological question, for which openness is crucial: the consequences will affect everyone, and it is crucial to co-construct solutions. Our main idea is that all knowledge is engaged and connected, because all knowledge is situated in a world that has helped to produce it and makes it relevant. We would like everyone to be convinced of this, the academic world, to begin with. What do you mean? P. J.: Many researchers, especially in the “hard” sciences, believe that they are working to create neutral, objective knowledge, which society can then use for its own needs. It’s not up to us to say what should become of particle physics, biology or chemistry, but we would like these researchers to reflect on the world they are building with the knowledge they are developing. But some of them are already doing so? P. J.: Yes. I am thinking, for example, of a fellow astrophysicist who was dissatisfied with the impact of his work, and who used his simulation tools to work with ecologists who monitor and model the movements of animal populations. However, if the researcher had not first developed and mastered tools in astrophysics, he would have been less useful in ecology: doesn’t fundamental, abstract science create tools for other fields? P. J.: This is a classic argument, but it seems to me to be an a posteriori justification for work that appeals to very fundamental physicists. It is paradoxical to say: “Let’s do a bit of research anywhere, and then be useful in areas where there are pressing questions”. We might as well work directly in these important areas. In fact, there are just as many fundamental questions to be resolved before we get to applications. Of course, in science, there are always crossovers and unexpected discoveries, but that’s not the right way to build a science policy. But what becomes then of academic freedom? P. J.: Of course, academic freedom must be supported. But, first, it cannot be used as a pretext for researchers to say: “Give us funding, and let us do what

Since 2023, the University of Toulouse has been implementing the Toulouse Initiative for Research’s Impact on Society, with 4% of its budget directly dedicated to the development of interactions between all sciences and society. Bertrand Jouve is Research Director at CNRS and scientific coordinator of the TIRIS project at the University of Toulouse You coordinate the Toulouse Initiative for Research’s Impact on Society (TIRIS) project. Why does it include a program explicitly devoted to co-constructed research? Bertrand Jouve: TIRIS is one of the 46 projects of excellence in the Investissements d’Avenir program steered by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research, which started on January 1ᵉʳ 2023, for ten years. Our motto is “Science in and for Society”. Therefore, it makes sense to have a program explicitly dedicated to the interfaces between science and society. The TIRIS project has been built around four programs: research, training, science and society, and innovation. And these programs are developed on three pillars linked to global challenges: health and well-being, global change, and sustainable transitions (energy, mobility, industry, etc.). The science and society program includes a call for co-constructed research projects, as well as a “Science Shop” and an Observatory. Why are there different programs for science and society and innovation? B. J.: In TIRIS, and more generally, science and society interaction, where we build with civil society, is separated from innovation, where we build with experts, from the economic and social sectors, local authorities, etc. However, the boundaries are blurred, and we’re working on the links between both. What actions have you already launched within this science and society program? B. J.: We have three initiatives. Two are in progress and one is already launched. The latter is a call for transdisciplinary projects, bringing together experts from civil society, extra-academics and academics. There is an “incubator” component: for the first year, 21 projects were submitted, and after selection, we are supporting 8 of them with a maximum of €10,000. These include, for example, a project to improve the reception and linguistic follow-up of migrant teenagers in Toulouse, a program on the transmission and production of knowledge in agroecology, and a project on citizen initiatives in epidemiology. There is also a “consolidation” component: we are supporting 5 of the 14 projects submitted, for a maximum of €40,000 each. These include, for example, a project on the habitability of a territory, bringing together the environmental sciences and the human and social sciences on the issue of pollution; a project on migration, with the Toutes Ensemble! association and the Empalot district social center; a project on youth mobility in ultra-rural territories, shared governance and territorial resilience, with the Observatoire Territorial des Jeunesses et des Politiques Jeunesses of the Lot département. Will this call for projects be renewed every year? B. J.: Yes, the next one will be launched mid-December 2024 or early January 2025. Over time, we’ll see if we need to adapt it to changes in the context. What is the share of this co-research call in the budget of TIRIS? B. J.: TIRIS is funded with €95 million over 10 years. The co-research program will spend €4 millions over 10 years, including 1,3 million from the Occitanie Region. So the Occitanie Regional Council considers that co-constructed research is important? B. J.: Sure. The Occitanie Region also funds the Laboratoire des Transitions, an experimental approach to consultation and intermediation between regional public policy players and researchers in the human and social sciences, for co-constructing public policies around major societal issues. It is run by the Maisons des Sciences de l’Homme in Toulouse and Montpellier. What are the other initiatives of the TIRIS Science & Society program? B. J.: We are setting up the Observatoire des Interactions Recherche-Société (Observatory of Research-Society Interactions): we list science and society initiatives, identifying the diversity of interactions, characterizing them, pinpointing the obstacles or levers, etc. The aim is to create links, pool resources and train stakeholders to facilitate the development of these interactions. All kinds of interactions between research and society, not just co-constructed research, are concerned? B. J.: Yes, we have carried out a survey using a questionnaire, which is currently being analyzed. There is also a “Science Shop” project: what is it about? B. J.: The goal is to connect the academic world with citizen projects. We need to find ways of generating demand from non-academic stakeholders, and then assess the potential for development, in order to put them in touch with researchers who can help develop the idea. Non-academics are often unfamiliar with the academic world, and unable to identify the right partners. The specifications have been drawn up, and the web portal is under development. What is the budget for this Science Shop? B. J.: €1.7 million over 10 years. These are operating costs. Projects can then apply for funding under the co-research scheme or seek funding from other sources. It also works the other way round. Six projects that applied to the “incubator” co-research call got a good evaluation, but the link between extra-academic partners and academic partners was too weak: we offered them support via the Science Shop, so that they could eventually apply again, to the “consolidation” section. What are the needs today to further develop co-constructed research? B.J.: We’ll have to take care to ensure that the budget keeps pace with the inevitable growth in demand. To get the science and society program off the ground, €4 million over 10 years is enough. But if we are successful and the projects become more ambitious, I am afraid we will be limited in our ability to respond afterwards. The best thing would be to develop sponsorship. Another important issue for us will be to work on coordinating our Science & Society program with our Innovation program, with a particular focus on social innovation. Interview by Luc Allemand Innovation must be both technological and social “As far as innovation is concerned, we want it to be not only technological, but also social.