Leaking the IPCC: A question of responsibility?
Abstract
In August 2021, while the world was grappling with the release of the IPCC WGI report, a group of activist scientists called Scientist Rebellion leaked parts of the Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) prior to intergovernmental approval. Although Scientist Rebellion are not the first to leak an IPCC report, they are the most vocal leaker with a particular political agenda: to generate disruptive climate action by curtailing the carefully orchestrated intergovernmental process of the IPCC. I take this case of science in activism involving the IPCC interface as an example to examine the increasingly intricate relationship between science, activism and responsibility. The salient sense of urgency around climate action, the growing prevalence of the climate crisis narrative in both public and scientific spheres, and the increased policy-relevance of science-policy interfaces put strong pressures on (climate) scientists that need to be disentangled to be understood without premature judgment. I show that the leak is symptomatic of the novel responsibility to act(ivism) scientists are increasingly confronted with and I highlight some of the tensions that come with this responsibility. Emphasizing the centrality of the question of responsibility in, and of, science, I discuss the (ir)responsibility of leaking IPCC draft materials. I end on a call for more interdisciplinary attentiveness to the nexus of science, activism and responsibility and the cases in which they become entangled.
This article is categorized under:
- The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Social Movements
- The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
- The Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making
Graphical Abstract
Activism in science raises new questions regarding the responsibility of scientists vis-à-vis society and the planet. In this Perspective, I discuss what the leak of IPCC drafts by a group of activist scientists means for the role and responsibilities of (climate) scientists more generally.
1 INTRODUCTION
Anthropogenic climate change is real. This scientific consensus has been established courtesy of decades of efforts by the international scientific community and global environmental assessments, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. But questions of responsibility in the context of climate change remain heavily debated across disciplines, most notably with respect to historical and legal responsibilities (Friman & Strandberg, 2014; Otto et al., 2017; Shue, 2015). Along with the growing understanding of how climate change is caused and who is affected, awareness and recognition of the responsibilities that come with knowing the science have increased (Cologna et al., 2021; Hagedorn et al., 2019; Lacey et al., 2015; Oreskes, 2020).
Recently, the question concerning what climate scientists are responsible for—in virtue of what they know—has arisen with the leak of IPCC Working Group III drafts by “Scientist Rebellion,” an activist group under the Extinction Rebellion1 umbrella consisting mostly of scientists from various disciplines (SR, 2022). I take this case of science in activism involving the IPCC to examine the increasingly intricate relationship between science, activism and responsibility.2 In light of recent calls for more civil disobedience by scientists (Capstick et al., 2022; Gardner et al., 2021; Green, 2020) and reignited debates about the state of the social contract between science and society (Cologna & Oreskes, 2022; Turnhout & Lahsen, 2022; Glavovic et al., 2021; see also Lubchenco, 2017, 1998), I ask what this IPCC leak by a scientific activist group means for the role and responsibilities of (climate) scientists in science and at science-policy interfaces.
In addressing this question, I encounter deeper-seated questions: Is the scientific community at a crossroads when it comes to deciding whether to pursue their traditional scientific versus novel civic responsibilities? When increasingly frequent extreme weather events emphasize the urgency for acting on climate change, do the end—engendering climate action in the name of science—justify the means—disrupting the IPCC process?
Drawing on Schmidt (2015), Donner (2014) and Schneider (1996), I argue that the case of Scientist Rebellion offers an important moment of reflection about the relationship between science, activism and responsibility. The salient sense of urgency around climate action, the growing prevalence of the climate crisis narrative in both public and scientific spheres, and the increased policy-relevance of science-policy interfaces put strong pressures on (climate) scientists that need to be disentangled to be understood without premature judgment. I emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and conclude that the question of responsible activism remains, importantly, one of individual discretion. While scientists qua being scientists have a particular set of responsibilities to adhere to in order to produce “good science,” scientists increasingly have to accept “new social (and political) roles and responsibilities” (Porter & Dessai, 2017, p. 9). Some may take on the responsibility of providing policy-neutral assessments of climate and its changes as per the IPCC's guiding principle. Others may leave their labs to protest or leak unpublished scientific draft reports. In the following, I present the case of interest and discuss its implications.
2 THE IPCC, THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE REBELLION
Since its establishment in 1988, the IPCC is undoubtedly one of the most well-known organizations at the interface of science and policy and is widely regarded as the most authoritative voice on climate science. In three Working Groups (WGs) hundreds of international experts come together to produce assessments on the physical science basis (WGI), on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (WGII) and on mitigation (WGIII) of climate change. Guided by the mantra to be policy-relevant but policy-neutral and non-prescriptive, the IPCC's summaries for policymakers (SPMs), the underlying assessment and special reports are meant to inform decisionmakers and the public. IPCC assessment cycles, typically 6–7 years in length, pass through a highly orchestrated system with multiple stages, from report scoping and drafting to review and approval. Part and parcel of this is the SPM approval process. In this typically week-long negotiation process, government delegates and IPCC authors discuss and agree on an SPM line by line (see De Pryck, 2021; Vardy et al., 2017). SPMs are therefore a joint effort by the world's governments and the global scientific community to address the mammoth task of summarizing the most relevant scientific information about climate change in only a few pages.
When the much-anticipated AR6 WGI report was released in August 2021, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a “code red for humanity” (SG, 2021). While the world was grappling with this stark warning, Scientist Rebellion announced to have leaked the first draft of the SPM and the second draft of Chapter 1 from AR6 WGIII prior to intergovernmental approval. They stated to have leaked WGIII to “show that scientists are willing to disobey and take personal risk” (SR, 2021a) and “to ensure its stark wording would reach the public, and could not possibly be edited out of the final version due to direct or indirect political pressure” (SR, 2021b).3 Scientist Rebellion feared that the SPM approval process would alter the statements on mitigation options in a way that could undermine the scientific message that immediate action on climate change is needed, even in light of Guterres' “code red” language (SR, 2021c; see also Harvey & Tremlett, 2021).
Scientist Rebellion is not the first source to leak IPCC materials. The IPCC has been subject to leaks across all WGs in various assessment cycles.4 The group, however, has brought a new political quality to leaking the IPCC, not least because of its activist agenda and self-conception. While Scientist Rebellion have claimed that none of their members was directly involved in the IPCC (Bertram, 2021), they did not disclose the leak's source, leaving it open whether it was, for instance, a sympathetic author or independent expert reviewer who forwarded the drafts to be leaked.5 On their website, Scientist Rebellion calls to action following Extinction Rebellion's demand “on everyone to take their responsibilities.” They continue, “Ask yourself what you can do in your position. For scientists, it can mean shedding light on the inner workings of the science/policy interface by leaking documents” (SR, 2021b). The group presents itself as an intermediary between the public and the leaker, borrowing epistemic authority from its members, and advertising their support for scientists who want to leak documents by granting anonymity and handling press work (SR, 2021b). Through their leaking and appeal to the individual responsibility of scientists to engage in activism, Scientist Rebellion presents a case par excellence of new responsibilities assigned to scientists in (climate) science today.
3 SCIENCE, RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTIVISM
The notion of responsibility has long been debated across disciplines, including philosophy and philosophy of science (Douglas, 2003; Mitcham, 2003; Vincent, 2011; Young, 2011), sociology (Hage & Eckersley, 2012; O'Mahony, 2015; Pellizzoni, 2004; Strydom, 1999), human geography (Massey, 2004; Noxolo et al., 2012; Walker, 1997), and Science and Technology Studies (Arnaldi & Bianchi, 2016; Glerup & Horst, 2014; Owen et al., 2013; Sarewitz, 2006). There exist micro-level case studies of what responsibility means in and for research and communication (Donner, 2017; Getson et al., 2021; Porter & Dessai, 2017). Likewise, the role and responsibilities of scientists in advocacy have been much scrutinized (Cologna et al., 2021), especially among conservation scientists (Lackey, 2007; Nelson & Vucetich, 2009; Scott & Rachlow, 2011).
Whilst calls are published urging scientists to do “more walk” (Green, 2020; see also Capstick et al., 2022; Gardner et al., 2021; Gardner & Wordley, 2019) and less research (Glavovic et al., 2021), limited attention is paid to how responsibility is actually understood and enacted at the climate science-policy interface.6 This is surprising, given the importance and immense tasks conferred upon organizations at science-policy interfaces to address “wicked social problems” such as climate change (Grundmann, 2016). As others have shown, progressing climatic changes continuously scale up the policy-relevance of science-policy interactions which in the case of the IPCC means challenging its mantra to be neutral but policy-relevant (Beck & Mahony, 2018; Gundersen, 2020; Hulme, 2016; Mahony & Hulme, 2018). Moreover, the urge of parts of the climate change community to create a “countdown” on climate action through deadlinism confronts scientists, particularly those involved in the IPCC, with the question “[w]hat is a responsible response to the politics of deadline-ism for the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science?” (Asayama et al., 2019, p. 570) In other words, on whom lies the responsibility to act on climate change and what does responsible action (or in this case activism) look like?
4 (IR)RESPONSIBLE ACTIVISM
In his article Scientists who become activists: are they crossing a line?, Isopp (2015, p. 3) argues that “[n]ot all science is as politicized in the same manner as climate change, because not all science has as far reaching political implications.” Neutrality, therefore, has become an almost impossible ideal for scientists in the climate space (Nerlich & McLeod, 2016, p. 484). Climate crisis narratives only fuel this politicization and responsibilization of scientists. Scientific credibility and trust in the eye of the public now also rests on whether scientists themselves act on their knowledge (Capstick et al., 2022, p. 773; see also Cologna et al., 2021; Kotcher et al., 2017). Has civil disobedience become one of the new responsibilities of scientists?
Recognizing the “guise of ‘neutral expertise’” (Grundmann, 2018, p. 379) and the impact of values on science has led scholars to schematize the role(s) of scientists. Facing the “double ethical bind” of scientists being bound by their wish both to stay true to their scientific method and their desire to make the world a better place (Schneider, 1988), Donner (2014) develops a science-advocacy continuum along which scientists may position themselves somewhere between objective judgments (science) and normative judgments (advocacy).7 One's position depends on the impact of one's worldview on professional viewpoints, as well as on one's tolerance of scientific uncertainty and professional risk (Donner, 2014, p. 3). Hence, on the science-advocacy continuum, “[t]here is no fundamentally correct position” (Donner, 2014, p. 5), but scientists can find an “effective position” on the continuum if they critically assess their personal motivations, values, knowledge and abilities (Donner, 2014, p. 7).
In other words, scientists themselves must weigh their different responsibilities to exercise what Schneider (1996) termed “responsible advocacy.” A central element to understanding responsible activism, then, is that values should be separated from “debates over probabilities and consequences” (Schneider, 1996, p. 220). This is further spelled out by Schmidt (2015, p. 72), who explains that one central pitfall for scientists in advocacy is to assume that “one's own personal values are universal, or that disagreement on policy can be solved by recourse to facts alone.” Responsible advocacy, in contrast, “must acknowledge that the same scientific conclusions may not lead everyone to the same policies (because values may differ)” (Schmidt, 2015, p. 72). In light of this important difference between values and facts, and considering Scientist Rebellion's reasons for disclosing IPCC drafts, was this leak an act of responsibility?
Scientist Rebellion decries the intergovernmental process as incommensurate with the challenges posed by climate change. They consider the policy-neutral position of the IPCC as irresponsible and hence appeal to the individual scientists to take responsibility to dismantle the IPCC process to speak truth to power without governmental interference. Were members of Scientist Rebellion closer to the IPCC's interface, or felt more closely aligned to the values of the intergovernmental process, their attempt at responsible activism would be less clear cut. For those involved with science-policy interactions more intimately, the leak might constitute irresponsible activism. This is evidenced in the IPCC's official response to the leak. The IPCC Secretariat issued a press statement, explaining its process and mandated responsibilities. It states that IPCC drafts are confidential documents that should not be circulated before a final product has been agreed upon “out of respect for the authors and to give them the time and space to finish writing before making the work public” (IPCC, 2021). Moreover, the SPM process challenged by Scientist Rebellion actually “increases the relevance and impact of IPCC assessments” which constitutes the basis for action (Mach et al., 2016, p. 9). It is precisely the co-production between science and policy, which “lends the IPCC its credibility as a voice that is of scientists” (Dubash et al., 2014, p. 37). These diverging senses of (ir)responsibility are in line with Schmidt's (2015) reasoning that the question of responsible advocacy (or in this case activism) is ultimately a question of different, even conflicting, values and goals in the context of science-policy interfaces.
Finally, since the IPCC does not produce original research but assesses the available scientific literature, the question remains what Scientist Rebellion actually leaked, especially since all draft and review materials from an assessment cycle are ultimately made publicly available by the IPCC. By leaking IPCC drafts, Scientist Rebellion indirectly strengthened the aforementioned point that the IPCC's authority—the authority of climate science in the political process—rests on intergovernmentalism; a process Scientist Rebellion seeks to dismantle. Although the language Scientist Rebellion use implies that the responsibility to act(ivism) is as certain as the science on climate itself, Donner's science-advocacy continuum at the science policy interface reminds oneself of the importance of individual responsibility in sustaining a scientific and intergovernmental process that undergirds the role of science in international climate policy.
5 CONCLUSION
The growing urgency, the crisis communication and increasing policy-relevance of climate science require closer scrutiny when it comes to the relationship between science, activism and responsibility. As I have argued in this Perspective, while scientists are expected to take on new responsibilities, it is not obvious what these should be and where to locate them on the science-advocacy continuum.
The emergence of social movements that involve or revolve around science is indicative of a growing community that unites behind particular values and responsibilities. Some of these groups challenge the social contract between science and society more assertively than others. For instance, Hagedorn (2019), initiator of Scientists for Future, explicitly rejects the activist label, arguing that you can be active without being activist. Other movements, including Scientist Rebellion, Scientists for XR or Scientists Warning explicitly embrace activism (Simms, 2022). Which approach to act(ivism) is more responsible?
In their article The tragedy of climate change science, Glavovic et al. (2021) argue that the social contract between science and society is broken, wondering whether it is the “‘duty’ [of climate scientists] to use public funds to continue to improve the state of climate change knowledge, or whether a more radical approach will serve society better?” (Glavovic et al., 2021, p. 4) The case of Scientist Rebellion's leak and its more principal claims are symptomatic of Glavovic et al.'s (2021) critique of the IPCC and their suggestion to halt intergovernmental assessments. But what would the ultimate consequence of acting responsibly, according to Scientist Rebellion, be? To cross out the intergovernmental and just have a Panel on Climate Change?8 As I have shown, questions of responsibility in the context of science-policy interfaces are indicative of much deeper-seated debates about the future of the IPCC which recently reignited after the AR6 WGI release (Oreskes, 2021). This lends the question of responsibility particular centrality since the IPCC's authority draws from the fact that each participant in the process must navigate the science-advocacy continuum, assuming individual responsibility for their work and actions.
Spivak (1994, p. 19) once wrote that thinking about the “question of responsibility” may go against the “ideal of academic responsibility” that is rooted in objectivity and disinterestedness. Accounting for this paradox, I end this Perspective with a call for more interdisciplinary attentiveness to, and engagement with, the sometimes uncomfortable personal and professional questions related to the nexus of responsibility, activism and science—both within natural and social sciences. Acknowledging old and new responsibilities in and of science requires us to carefully analyze the cases in which they become entangled in order to understand how they can be productively unified for the benefit of science, society and the climate. Increasing calls for more activism in science also demand ever-more critical reflexivity about individual responsibility in and for science. This is not only in moments of action (e.g., when producing or leaking scientific reports), but also in the context of the continuous strain of responsibility scientists are under in their professional and personal lives, in particular when they want to position themselves on the science-advocacy continuum to act responsibly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank the Editor Simone Rödder and the two anonymous reviewers for their in-depth engagement with the manuscript and thought-provoking comments that helped refine the argument. The author is also grateful to the participants of the Geographies of Knowledge reading group at the University of Cambridge who commented on an early version of the paper.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This work was supported by the Open-Oxford-Cambridge Arts and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership (OOC AHRC DTP) and Pembroke College, Cambridge, UK.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
RELATED WIREs ARTICLES
Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science-policy interface
Endnotes
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
