Science for Parliament Podcast – episode seven - Carlos Álvarez Pereira – Member of the Club of Rome
SPEAKERS
Carlos Álvarez Pereira, Denis Naughten
Denis 00:00
Welcome to the Science4Parliament podcast. This is the first podcast that aims to foster the relationship between science and decision makers and to show how research and innovation are vital to an equitable and sustainable functioning of our societies and economies. My name is Denis Naughten, and I'm your host. I'm a directly elected member of parliament in Ireland for the last 27 years, and I've served as an Irish cabinet minister, and I know firsthand how important it is to have access to usable scientific evidence to support policy decisions. I'm chairperson of the Inter-Parliamentary union Working Group on science and technology, which is based in Geneva which aims to inspire a global parliamentary action to legislative work in the field of science and technology. This podcast aims to highlight the work of innovative people who are trying to bring the world of science and policy closer together. Today I'm talking with Carlos Alvarez Pereira from the Club of Rome. Carlos is a senior professional combining more than 30 years of experience in research and innovation, entrepreneurship and business management. Carlos, you're very welcome. And to add something different to our conversation. My guests are being asked to pick two numbers, each of which is related to one of 10 random light-hearted questions, some of which would be asked during the interview. So Carlos, pick two numbers for me.
Carlos 01:27
Six and eight?
Denis 01:31
Well, listen, look, Carlos, thanks for coming in to talk to us today. And can I first ask you? What is the Club of Rome? And how did you get involved in it?
Carlos 01:42
Well, the Club of Rome is a group of individuals from all over the world ,140 right now, from very different backgrounds, geographic, but also different sectors. So we have and that's quite unique, I think. We have people from science from different disciplines, but also people from politics, from business, and from civil society, NGOs, activists, etc. And also many of them have been doing one thing and then the other. So we have scientists, who for whatever reason, became at some point members of the parliament and and then now they are more in the on the activist side. So we have also a lot of people with multiple experiences. And the organisation was created in 1968, with a keen interest on the big questions for the future of humanity. It was created by our Aurelio Peccei, outstanding Italian businessman, but also a humanist, and somebody with a deep curiosity. And since the beginning of the topic was human development, and what does it take, and the intersection of human beings and science? Is it possible? Or how could it be possible to have human development for everybody on earth? In within, you know, find a planet within the, what we call now planetary boundaries?
Denis 03:18
Yeah, the planetary boundaries that are there. And I suppose climate change brings everything into perspective at the moment. But can I ask you, how did you get involved in the Club of Rome?
Carlos 03:27
Well, funny thing is that I heard about the Club of Rome when I was a kid, because my mother was an early fan. So she we have mostly known for the publication of the Limits to Growth report. So I started hearing about that when I was a kid, and of course I was unable to understand that.
Denis 03:46
So what's the Limits to Growth report?
Carlos 03:49
The Limits to Growth is an exercise in investigating possible futures, published in 1972, but still very much valid, you know, so the exercise was at the intersection of science and humanism, as I said, and at a moment where the systems dynamics was a new discipline being created, what could be done to try to investigate with the computerised model of the world what could be the scenarios for the future? And so it was not about predictions in both different scenarios on the big variables, population production, industrial production, food production, pollution, etc. And they were doing this in the 1970s. And they weren't doing that imagine. I mean, it's difficult to imagine what the computers were in the late 60s, early 70s. So so they did an incredible job, you know, and produced a number of scenarios, most of which …..that was the big deal, you know, most of which were showing the high probability of collapse of civilizations because of the combination of exhaustion of non-renewable resources with pollution. But not all of them, were showing that in some scenarios, the possibility of imbalance between human well-being and the planetary boundaries were shown to be feasible. And this is where you say, Well, that was an exercise, not a prediction, not a doomsday prophecy at all. It was more a question answering the question about the possibility of human development for everybody on Earth, and an invitation to explore and to learn and to change. Because what was clear is that if we were going to follow the business as usual, we would have big problems as we are having. So unfortunately, even if it is was not a prediction, we are still in the business as usual scenario, which is bringing as you know, a lot of issues.
Denis 05:57
But it's significant that this far back, there's people were modelling and predicting the we're in the difficulty that that we're in today. And I suppose that gives weight to the work that the Club of Rome is doing now. And I know that one of the things that you're very much involved in, is this interface between science and politics and policy. But before I ask you about that, I'm going to come to one of your numbers, and that was number six. So what's your favourite meal in a restaurant?
Carlos 06:32
Wow. I mean, asking that to a Spaniard is a difficult one, you know, because we have a lot of good food in in Spain, but actually, maybe it will surprise you. I'm, I love pasta, you know, I love Italian food.
Denis 06:53
So is that anything to do with the Club of Rome?
Carlos 06:55
Well, I don't know. But because I think it was like that before I got engaged with the Club of Rome. So maybe it's a destiny, you know, maybe goes back to your mother either way. I mean, any particular pasta with seafood? I love when,
Denis 07:11
of course the Spanish low love seafood anyway, we're coming back to the question. So the Club of Rome and your own work that you do, you're very much involved in this relationship in trying to build this relationship between science, politics and policy? Can you tell us a bit about that, and why it's so important?
Carlos 07:33
Well, I think it's crucial, because obviously, we need science, we need modern science to imagine the future, you know, an imagined better futures. But what we see is that there is a big distance between these different worlds, you know, and we live in a society which is very much siloed. So, people in science work in science, people in politics, work in politics, and so on, and so on, in business, etc. So the, the sectors are siloed. And there are very few occasions in which they interact with each other. But if we look at science, there is also an issue of silos within science, the number of disciplines of different academic disciplines as exploded, some people talked about 20,000 different academic disciplines. So science, the evolution of science has gone into a direction that produces experts in even more narrow and narrow fragments of the of the whole. The perspective of the Club of Rome has always been holistic, you know, so we've been systemic, putting attention on the interdependencies that we everything is dependent and connected with everything else, you know, in the web have in the web of life. From that point of view, we are pushing for more Integrative Science transdisciplinary science and for a different model of science, building from the issues, the social issues, that the challenges that societies face, which cannot be defined only by sides. So the questions that science is called to respond based on the latest advancements of our knowledge, the questions actually cannot be asked by science or not by science only. And this is where the connection with the society in general, but in particular, with policy and politics is, is critical. And what we are seeing is that the lack of understanding the letter of communication and the fact that the languages are completely different that there are no incentives for people from science to talk with people from politics. This is hindering the progress in addressing our existential challenges. The siloing phenomenon is a big limitation when we need to deal with complex issues, like climate change, loss of biodiversity, but also social issues like the growth of inequality. But the frustrating thing about it is that, like science is there to solve problems.
Denis 10:21
Yeah, politics is there to solve problems as well. So the end goal of both scientists and politicians is the one thing and yes, they can't seem to communicate and talk with each other. And you're right, in terms of the social inequalities, they're getting greater and greater as our knowledge and understanding or other cut off the economy of our planners of society, in our knowledge and understanding is growing at an exponential rate. And yet, that knowledge doesn't seem to be converted into an impact for those people that are really struggling to heat their homes, or to feed their families on a day to day basis.
Carlos 11:09
Because I think there is a substantial dissonance between the, what I understand are the high missions of science and politics. And both have high missions in society, you know, sides, let's say the mission of improving our understanding of the world, of ourselves of the physical world, but also of life, you know, and how life works. And definitely, it's improving our understanding that the high mission, and politics is a completely different sport, if you wish, but it's also it has also, high mission of finding the most appropriate arrangements is in a society, which of course is full of contradictions and different interests and different visions, etc. But then when you go down, if you wish, to the day-to-day reality of the people involved in science and the people involved in politics, and what are their incentives, and what is the what are the constraints under which they leave, that's a completely different story. And often the connection with these high missions is lost. You know, so scientists who live in typically in academia, particularly in universities, and research centres are, their incentives are.
Now within, as I said before, narrow silos, the incentive is about producing papers, to be published in scientific journals so that their credibility, their reputation grows, and then they are in a better position to ask for the next research grant to continue publishing papers, etc. And very little is done, if anything, to reward those scientists who are really willing to produce an impact on society on real challenges on real, everyday challenges. You know, it's not, it's not nonexistent, but the framing of their work every day is not geared toward that. And even worse, the research agendas, the funding mechanisms are not predominately going in the direction of the sustainability challenges. SDGs if you wish, you know, this is not the driver of the research agendas that exists today. So that makes it the inertia the usual inertia of the everyday is not making easy that scientists actually work on the questions coming from society. On the other side, the politicians, I mean, we see the kind of political landscape in which we are aware, you know, with the bigger and bigger impact of social media and echo chambers and simplifying your messages and no nuances at all. No, any detailed explanation is out of scope. You know what, well, politicians have to win elections and the means to win elections are not aligned again, with higher mission of explaining to people to citizens challenges which are complex by nature, and which will require a lot of imagination, but a lot of also a lot of trade offs.
Denis 14:51
And that's a big problem, and particularly in politics today because you don't have the scope., the time to actually explain in detail a lot of these big challenges and complex challenges. And I think there probably is an opportunity using science and with greater engagement with politicians to look at some, you know, win win situations. Yes, for example, if you look at climate change by improving air quality, which has a direct impact in terms of people with breathing difficulties, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, would also has a long-term impact in relation to climate change. And clearly, there's an opportunity there for the scientific community to have joined the dots in relation to that, and help politicians progress some of these policies, is that not the case?
Carlos 15:44
It is, but we have to overcome the situation in which, to some extent, part of the scientific community which is more engaged in sustainability issues, like for instance, climate change, is still working in a way which is doesn't make easy to interact in a fruitful way with politics. You know, I mean, we have to overcome the situation in which the scientists say, Oh, we have done our work. We have raised the alarms, we have analysed the phenomena, we have compiled the data. And this is what comes out of all that. We put that in our reports, typically 600 pages reports, you know, and now it's the turn to politicians to do their job of implementing the policies, which should fix the issues that we have analysed, you know, I mean, extra effort is required to make that happen. Because, as you said, first, timescales are completely different. And the timescale of politics and that big issue, as becomes so much focused on short term, not even the part of the electoral cycle, it's, it's what what will be said tomorrow in the news cycle now.
Denis 17:09
Yeah, the social media, what will be the trendy topic tomorrow
Carlos 17:15
Yeah and while of course, scientific analysis of phenomena, for such a complex phenomenon, as climate change, requires a lot of time, you know, and it has a lot of details. So, obviously, there is a missed opportunity until now, in establishing fruitful dialogues between these both worlds. And in general, more generally, you know, between the world of science and society at large, through activities like Citizen Science and others, some progress has been made, but there is still a lot to be made for people to be sitting at the same table, engaging in understanding each other as human beings, for another mutual respect for each other and have mutual and build trust and understand if I am a scientist, and I think that my responsibility, part of my responsibility lies with influencing the policies that are being defined in influencing them, so that they go in the positive direction, I will have to do an extra effort to understand how politics work, and how politicians are working, you know, and how I can help them. And vice versa, you know, if I am a politician interests and worried about bad what is happening, but with the perspective of how important science is to address the challenges, I will need to be to pay a little bit of attention to how scientists live and how they work. So that you know, the process of mediation of, of translation, you know, because even using the same language, written language, they're actually talking different languages, you know,
Denis 19:06
yeah. And it's even worse than that, because I often joke with my colleagues and we run the stop clock to see how long does it take the scientist, when they come into the room, to ask for money? Because it's usually the question they asked for. Now for a a more lighthearted question. If you were an animal or a bird what would it be?
Carlos 19:25
If I was an animal or a bird? Wow, what a question. I would definitely prefer to be a bird you know, the dream of flying by ourselves, you know, we humans, we have been able to build planes. I am an aerospace engineer myself. So yeah, we did that. But there is sort of frustration you know, because the birds without any without, with a lot of technology, but not the ones we produce, are able to fly much better than the planes. I would love to be an eagle. You know?
Denis 19:59
One final brief question that I have Carlos and thanks for your time with us today. But do you have any advice for politicians in terms of engaging with science?
Carlos 20:11
That's that's a good question. Of course, a lot of respect for what science is doing. My advice would be to meet outside of the usual spaces of politics and the usual protocols of either of politics or of science. So it's not will not work. If you bring the scientists to the place of government or to the to the Parliament, it doesn't happen spontaneously, it will not happen either by politicians going to scientific conferences. I think this requires specific spaces where people are invited as people where where people can really speak in an open way you know, about what they need, and what are the concerns and also what is not working, you know, in that in that kind of dialogue, you know, why? Why as a politician, I'm not being able to listen to you. And this requires, I think, a warm, safe space where a number of things can be expressed, you know, frank conversation, yes. So, the first thing to do is to build trust, trust and respect, you know, if that does not exist, very, very difficult to get anywhere, each one each side of the science and politics from their own frameworks that will not happen.
Denis 21:46
Thanks for that Carlos. Thanks for your time on the Science4Parliament podcast and giving us your perspective on things and as always, if listeners have any questions or queries, they can email me at Denis.Naughten@ oireachtas.ie. So, until the next time, thanks for listening
More details on the Club of Rome available here - https://www.clubofrome.org/
Denis Naughten’s contacts:
Email: Denis.Naughten@oireachtas.ie
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/denis-naughten
X (Twitter): @DenisNaughten
Web: https://denisnaughten.ie/
