Reflections on the UNESCO's International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development Conference July 15 and 16 2026.

"Is Peace Possible?" was the question posed by Kathleen Lonsdale in her 1957 book [1]. Nearly seventy years later, a Nature editorial (16 July 2026) [2], reflecting on the Global Inequality Report [3] and the UN's latest Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) progress report [4], asked a similarly ambitious question: "Is utopia possible?". Against this backdrop, UNESCO convened a conference in Paris on 15–16 July 2026 on the International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development (IDSSD). The conference confronted the UN's own assessment that progress towards its 17 SDGs remains far too slow as monitored via its 169 targets [page 4 of ref 4]. I watched the recordings of the two-day conference [5] soon after it concluded. These appeared to comprise the plenary sessions rather than the breakout groups. I offer my personal impressions below.

I had expected the programme to concentrate on scientific and technological advances—and on areas where progress remains limited—such as sustainable aviation, low-carbon transport and other areas. These are examples where the translation of existing science into practical application remains inadequate and where new fundamental research is still needed. Instead, UNESCO placed its emphasis on building international networks of national focal points to exchange experience and best practice in achieving equitable and sustainable development, particularly in food, water and energy security, together with employment and economic opportunity. This emphasis was reflected in many of the country presentations, including Guatemala, Thailand, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritius, South Africa, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Spain and Angola. They illustrated the breadth of experience being shared through this international dialogue, with the recordings available online. Kathleen Lonsdale was to my mind not simply writing about world peace in the abstract; as a crystallographer and Quaker she was arguing that scientists have ethical responsibilities extending beyond the laboratory.

The UNESCO conference on the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (IDSSD) was to assess progress since the Decade's launch and to help shape its future direction. Bringing together ministers, scientists, international organisations and civil society, the meeting sought to strengthen science's contribution to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Crystallography as a discipline has long demonstrated how fundamental science underpins practical advances in health, materials, energy and manufacturing. The UNESCO conference provided an opportunity to consider how international science policy is evolving. It also exposed several important questions about how science itself is being represented within the Decade.

One discussion centred on the preparation of the Interim Report of the Decade. It was suggested that the report should evolve into an "Action Map". Yet this immediately raises an obvious question. The United Nations has already agreed an Action Map in the form of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their 169 associated targets. The challenge is not to create another roadmap, but to identify how science can accelerate delivery of the existing one. Convincing explanations for the lack of progress included geopolitical instability, increasing military expenditure and competing national priorities, all of which divert attention and resources away from science in general and sustainable development in particular. These are realities that science alone cannot resolve. The conference therefore explored science diplomacy in detail, with CERN in Geneva and SESAME in Jordan highlighted, as well as enthusiastic support for the African Synchrotron proposed project. Indeed, throughout the meeting there was extensive discussion of scientific collaboration, capacity building and Open Science. These are all important. However, relatively little attention was devoted to the innovation pathway through which scientific discoveries become technologies that improve society.

Industrial scientists on the programme could have demonstrated how existing research aims to deliver lower-carbon cement and concrete, hydrogen technologies, renewable energy systems, advanced batteries, sustainable aviation, and new manufacturing methods. Such presentations would naturally have identified the scientific questions that remain unresolved and therefore where future basic research is still needed. Instead, the programme largely separated fundamental science from industrial application. 

This separation became particularly apparent during discussion of the respective roles of basic and applied science. Some contributors appeared to favour restricting the Decade primarily to basic scientific research, while others argued for embracing the entire continuum from discovery through innovation to societal implementation. These should surely not be regarded as competing philosophies. Basic science provides tomorrow's discoveries; applied science transforms today's discoveries into tomorrow's technologies. Sustainable development depends upon both.

Crystallography itself illustrates this continuum. Discoveries in diffraction physics, structural chemistry and molecular biology have led directly to improved pharmaceuticals, catalysts, semiconductors, energy-storage materials and countless industrial products. The distinction between "basic" and "applied" science is therefore often artificial. Each drives progress in the other. 

An illuminating moment came during a ministerial session that included representatives from Thailand, Iran, Cuba and Haiti. The representative from Thailand's Ministry of Science explicitly observed that both large companies and smaller enterprises have important roles in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in his country. This recognised industry as an essential partner alongside governments and universities. Surprisingly, this important point disappeared from the Chair's concluding summary of that discussion, which instead concentrated on governmental and institutional perspectives.

Similarly revealing was the contribution from the International Science Council. Its Science Director explained that the Council preferred to concentrate primarily on SDG 16, relating to peace, justice and institutions, rather than SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation and infrastructure. While likely entirely consistent with the Council's chosen priorities, this emphasis affirmed the conference programme, which left innovation and industrial science under-represented during a conference intended to discuss the contribution of science to sustainable development. 

These examples suggested an underlying tension running through the meeting. Was the Decade primarily about science informing public policy, or about science generating innovation that industry can deploy? The conference appeared to favour the former interpretation.

This emphasis also influenced discussion of Open Science. UNESCO's Recommendation on Open Science wisely advocates knowledge being "as open as possible and as closed as necessary." [6]. This carefully balanced principle accommodates commercial innovation, intellectual property, national security and Indigenous Knowledge alongside the wider goal of openness. Yet much discussion during the conference seemed to emphasise openness as an end in itself rather than exploring how openness operates across the diverse realities of modern scientific research, including industrial research and development.

The geographical balance of the programme also prompted reflection. Detailed contributions from countries including Thailand, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, South Africa and Guatemala brought valuable perspectives on developing national scientific capacity. Particularly encouraging was the presentation by the Vice-President of Guatemala, outlining recent investments in science and education. This is of particular interest to us as crystallographers because Guatemala joined the International Union of Crystallography at the Melbourne Congress in 2023, illustrating how participation in international scientific organisations contributes to national scientific development. Another heartening example was the Minister for Science in Uzbekistan announcing the resolution of desertification of the Aral Sea caused by the Russian cotton industry’s use of water from two rivers flowing into it.

The absence of comparable participation from governments of the major G7 research nations was noticeable, while China was well represented. These countries account for a substantial proportion of global scientific investment, industrial innovation and international development assistance. Their inclusion alongside developing nations could have enriched discussion by bringing together both aid donor and recipient perspectives on implementing the SDGs through science and technology.

The conference format itself also limited opportunities for deeper engagement. Most sessions consisted of panels of invited speakers followed by very limited audience discussion. As a result, many potentially important issues were left unexplored, or ambiguities were not pressed. A meeting intended to shape the direction of an international scientific decade would arguably benefit from more extensive interaction between delegates and speakers, allowing the considerable expertise assembled in the room to contribute more fully to the outcomes.

Despite these criticisms, the conference demonstrated genuine international commitment to ensuring that science contributes more effectively to sustainable development. It reaffirmed the importance of international collaboration, scientific capacity building and trust in science. These are objectives with which crystallographers have long been familiar through international facilities, shared databases, community standards and global scientific cooperation.

Nevertheless, future meetings on the IDSSD could move beyond discussing science in principle towards demonstrating science in action. Greater participation by industrial researchers, engineers and technology developers would show how scientific discoveries are already contributing to the SDGs while also identifying where further fundamental research is required. Such an approach would unite basic science, applied science and innovation within a single coherent framework. An example of such participation was from Rolls-Royce and Novartis at The Royal Society Discussion Meeting on “Science as a Global Public Good?” held earlier this year [7]. 

A surprise came in the final session, The Way Forward Panel. Without any preparation, we were presented with three presentations from different industries: BOE China, Phos Agro based in Moscow and MMG China (headquartered in Australia). This last session was led by Joanna Wiśniewska, Head of Global Engagement at GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplomatic Anticipator Foundation https://www.gesda.global/ ).  BOE China advocates supporting capacity building in education rather than a single product, as sustainable development is going to be for the long haul. Phos Agro, with partners IUPAC and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), as well as UNESCO, already has a diverse range of impressive activities, most notably, I think, the training of 15,000 farmers in sustainable agriculture. MMG China advocates, like BOE China, an educational support role. No panel presentations from Europe or the USA, although again the USA is no longer a member of UNESCO, so their absence is unsurprising. In over 100 webinar hours of UNESCO open science events these past two years, I heard nothing of industry, despite my badgering them to get industry involved. Unfortunately, there was no time allowed for questions from delegates, which would have provided an opportunity to explore issues such as the environmental impacts of mining and intensive agriculture.

The inclusion of three industrial presentations in the closing session was a welcome development. But some way must be found to be more inclusive of European and US industries. The latter is currently in a self-imposed isolation from UNESCO, clearly a very important organisation for the survival of our Earth. There is, after all, no planet B.

For crystallographers, our integrated perspective of basic and applied science is entirely natural. Our discipline has repeatedly shown that curiosity-driven research and practical application are not competing activities but complementary stages of scientific progress. The International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development offers an important opportunity to communicate that lesson more widely. If future UNESCO conferences embrace the complete pathway from discovery to deployment, they will provide an even stronger platform for demonstrating how science can help achieve sustainable development. These matters could usefully be discussed within our own General Assemblies. 

References