Right from the start, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has been bringing nations together. In 1964, its members (pictured here) celebrated the 10^th anniversary of its founding document. | Image: Photopress Archive / Keystone

When the Higgs boson is created, it decays again immediately. This is why it used to be described only in theoretical terms. Then in 2012, it was finally detected in an experiment in the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva. The Higgs boson finally completed the standard model of particle physics.

This was a sensational discovery – but one that was only possible because CERN had been founded as a peace project over half a century earlier. After the Second World War, particle research suffered from a massive loss of reputation when Hiroshima and Nagasaki made evident the destructive power of the atom bomb.

The idea of a great bridge-builder

The humanitarian consequences of the bomb prompted a global discussion about the potential misuse of atomic energy. But at the same time, there was a huge interest in nuclear fission on the part of the scientific community. So it was decided that particle research ought to be embedded in a new, international, collaborative context in order to promote peace. This was the idea that led to CERN being set up.

When the foundations for CERN were laid in 1955, it was the result of several years of diplomatic efforts to convince as many countries and governments as possible to participate. Those efforts were successful: twelve countries signed CERN’s founding charter. Today, 32 countries are directly involved in it, and well over 10,000 scientists in 100 countries are currently conducting research on CERN projects.

The ideals of bridge-building

“When CERN was founded, politicians were prepared to think well beyond their own term of office, and ensuring peace through scientific cooperation gave everyone a shared, overriding social concern”, says Leo Eigner (29) of the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich. He is conducting research into the interface between science, technology and international relations. One concept that connects all three of these fields is science diplomacy, of which CERN is today regarded as a prime example.

The idea behind this was that science can build bridges. It can help to stabilise relationships by establishing bilateral and multilateral partnerships and dependencies. These can lead to dialogue across national and cultural borders that in turn promotes peace. All this is possible only because science is considered to be non-partisan and universal. And science is becoming more and more powerful, because it can provide us with answers to the greatest challenges of our time. When it comes to combating a global pandemic or protecting the climate, no nation can solve such problems on its own – and certainly not a small nation like Switzerland.

“It’s hardly a coincidence that CERN is located here”, says Eigner. This is primarily thanks to Switzerland’s neutrality, but also to the fact that it was early on willing to participate in the increasing internationalisation of science, and because it later placed big-science projects and science diplomacy at the heart of its foreign policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is also one of the most important international organisations, and it, too, is based here.

“Countries have worked together on joint projects for centuries, but the notion of ‘science diplomacy’ only became current in 2010”, says Eigner. That was the year when the concept was defined jointly by the British Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and divided into three categories: ‘Science in diplomacy’ uses scientific findings for foreign policy in order to make the best possible decisions. ‘Diplomacy for science’ describes the use of diplomatic means to promote international scientific cooperation. And in ‘science for diplomacy’, as the term suggests, science itself becomes a means of diplomacy.

Giving scholarships creates a superpower

But science diplomacy is not alone in promoting peace. There are also non-profit organisations that have been founded explicitly for this purpose. One of them is the Rockefeller Foundation. “It was set up in 1913 to contribute to world peace through science. And that remains one of its stated goals today”, says Ludovic Tournès, a professor of global history at the University of Geneva.

He and a team of eight colleagues have recently been working with Rockefeller Foundation scholarship holders, to whom they refer as ‘ambassadors of globalisation’. From 1917 to 1968, the Foundation ran a scholarship programme that enabled a total of almost 14,000 young people from well-nigh 130 different countries nations to study the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. Many of them travelled to other countries for their studies. According to Tournès, the Foundation’s aim was for their scholarship recipients to receive an education that would help them contribute to creating “modern, free, open markets and stable states all around the world”.

But did it really promote peace? “We can’t assess that, because philanthropic foundations aren’t state authorities and they don’t make political decisions”, says Tournès. “But we’ve been able to show that the scholarship policy of the Rockefeller Foundation made the USA into the focal point of the transnational circulation of scientists from the 1920s onwards”. Its many exchange and funding programmes enabled the USA to become both a scientific superpower and an important player in scientific diplomacy – a diplomacy shaped in part by the Rockefeller Foundation.

No more participation in wars

Research can also do the exact opposite of promoting peace. Such as when it operates in an unfree system, or even profits from it. That was the case with the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG), a German research institution that worked both inside the Nazi regime and actively with it. Although KWG did not actually develop weapons, let alone build them, it was involved in armaments research, in the development of so-called racial doctrines and in ‘breeding research’ for Nazi Germany’s planned ‘expansion to the East’.

This was why the Allies wanted to close KWG after the Second World War. They feared its research might contribute to the re-emergence of a powerful Germany. But the British in particular insisted on allowing it to continue functioning. They succeeded, although it was given a new name, the Max Planck Society (MPG), and had to realign its aims.

“They used a discursive trick for this”, says Carola Sachse, an emeritus professor of contemporary history at the University of Vienna. She recently published a book about MPG and its role in international politics from 1945 to 2000. “This trick meant that it henceforth only engaged in basic research, no more applied research”. The problem with this, says Sachse, is that in the real world, it is impossible to separate the two completely, and this particular restriction on its activities found no mention in its new statutes. But ever since, MPG has been all the more insistent about its autonomy. “This is their ‘never again’ commitment” – their conviction that politics should never again interfere in their scientific agenda.

As of the mid-1970s, the opposite also applied. From that point onwards, MPG no longer wanted its researchers to get involved in politics. Some of them nevertheless spoke out in favour of disarmament, nuclear arms control and ‘Ostpolitik’ – a new political approach to the Eastern Bloc. “But they were ignored in their own institution, with some of them even receiving an informal reprimand”, says Sachse. “They were at best only allowed to appear in public in their private capacity, but never as representatives of the Max Planck Society”.

According to Sachse, MPG never engaged in any active work to promote peace. “Research was always its top priority. The Society allowed itself to be roped into diplomatic matters, but only when the demands of foreign policy were compatible with its own scientific interests”. In the mid-1970s, for example, says Sachse, MPG managed relations with China on behalf of the West German science system. But it was only because this enabled it to ensure maximum autonomy in its collaborations with China. “The West German Foreign Office repeatedly complained that the Max Planck Society was doing whatever it wanted”, she says.

When the going gets tough

Sometimes, there is no way out except to terminate international scientific cooperation with a country or countries. This happened on 28 February 2022, four days after Russia began its war of aggression against Ukraine in violation of international law. The Executive Board of the Volkswagen Foundation – Germany’s biggest private science funding organisation – met and decided to cease all joint projects with Russian research institutions.

This also affected the ‘trilateral partnerships’ between Russia, Ukraine and Germany. It was a relatively small-scale programme but exemplary for demonstrating how promoting science can also promote peace: “We chose this constellation after the Russian annexation of Crimea in order to make a contribution to a process of rapprochement and understanding between the countries in question”, says Henrike Hartmann, the Deputy Secretary General of the Foundation. They were able to maintain this cooperation for several years, but it was made impossible when the war broke out.

And yet, according to Hartmann, this programme was actually delivering what the Volkswagen Foundation had hoped for, i.e., high quality in its science and a personal dialogue among researchers. She especially remembers a symposium that was held in Dresden in 2019 that was attended by many of the participants. The Russian and Ukrainian researchers always had to meet on neutral ground. “And I was able to see for myself what a vibrant, trusting community had been created thanks to our funding”.

In total, the Volkswagen Foundation has funded 39 such projects to the tune of EUR 15.4 million. Nine of them are still running – bilaterally – between Germany and Ukraine. They will end next year at the latest – and with them, the trilateral partnerships will also officially cease. They will be replaced by initiatives designed to support researchers and research institutions in Ukraine alone.

“Above all, we want our funding to improve the quality of scientific work. If we’re also contributing to international cooperation and peace, that’s a secondary benefit”, says Hartmann. “But we have to be realistic: when a conflict enters a critical phase, scientific collaboration loses its significance as a peacemaker”. CERN – otherwise a prime example of science diplomacy – is another case in point: at the end of November 2024, it will carry out its decision of 2022 to cease almost all current contact with Russia.