The House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that condemns an initiative by the leadership of Britain's largest academic union to boycott Israel's academic community. The world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, supports the House resolution and calls on members of the University and College Union to reject the boycott proposal as counter to the goals, values and culture of global science.
It would be a momentous misstep for the University and College Union's membership to use a boycott to demonstrate its disapproval of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. The shared pursuit of knowledge has long been a cultural touchstone. Free and open communication throughout the worldwide scientific community has been essential to countless scientific contributions toward improving human welfare. It also has been, at times, virtually the only form of open conversation among countries whose other relationships are fragile, badly strained or nonexistent.
For example, the shared interests of Soviet and American scientists during the Cold War in researching common problems led to the development of organizations such as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and provided critical diplomatic connections that helped to ease tensions between the two nations. Today, scientists in Iran and other areas of the Middle East continue to seek opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues locally and abroad, and should be encouraged to do so as participants of an international scientific community.
From archaeology to medical advances to water treatment, science diplomacy incorporates the four E's that Karen Hughes promoted in 2005 when she took office as U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs: engagement, exchanges, education and empowerment. Particularly in the highly charged atmosphere of the Middle East, it's crucial to keep lines of communication open to promote inclusive dialogue. Any boycott of Israeli researchers would work against diplomacy, by politicizing the scientific enterprise in ways that don't work to serve society.
Sadly, many important scientific pursuits in fields such as agriculture, cancer research and physics, to name a few, could also be derailed if the union boycotts scientific collaboration with Israel. For example, a six-nation study including researchers at British and Israeli universities is working to develop specially engineered T-cells that attempt to destroy cancerous tumors. The project is funded by the European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, which encourages research collaboration throughout Europe and beyond.
Twice before, the British Association of University Teachers has called on members to refrain from academic contacts and exchanges with universities in Israel. Leading science groups and many Nobel laureates and other researchers quickly opposed any boycott. Fortunately, a proposal adopted in 2005 was repealed. A 2006 proposal was never approved. Now, the University and College Union is taking up the charge.
There's little doubt that a vocal, politically motivated minority within the union is driving the call for a motion to boycott. But mixing political goals with scientific pursuits undermines the positive role of free inquiry in improving the lives of citizens everywhere, and in promoting cooperation among nations despite political differences.
It's also ironic that a British academic union might consider cutting ties with Israel at a time when many Palestinian scientists are struggling to maintain academic accord. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization, for example, is working to "create a science-based bridge of goodwill, cooperation and dialogue." With the organization's support, Palestinian and Israeli researchers are jointly pursuing breakthroughs related to leukemia, food crops, congenital heart disease and more.
Fortunately, the University and College Union decision remains pending, and several international and British science organizations have decried talk of a boycott. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has added that such a move would be "misguided" and would do "no good for the peace process."
Free scientific inquiry and international research must stand apart from political conflicts, in a neutral, academic realm where differences are set aside to promote the greater good. Only in this way can scientific advances be pursued to improve the quality of life for people in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and beyond. The current boycott discussions work against the nature of an inclusive and collaborative science enterprise and should immediately be abandoned.
Alan I. Leshner is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science. His e-mail is aleshner@aaas.org.