In times of unprecedented uncertainty, there is an increasing need for open dialogue on how to direct research and innovation investments towards sustainable and inclusive solutions. The STRINGS project has been tackling this complex challenge, investigating how to better understand the ways in which science, technology and innovation (STI) impacts upon efforts to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

On Monday 28 February and Tuesday 1 March 2022, STRINGS hosted an online workshop – including presentations by the STRINGS research team on their project findings and guest speaker talks – to facilitate constructive discussions around the challenge of steering STI to address the SDGs.

Below, we provide an overview and recording of each session. We advise you to watch the recordings on desktop to view the presenters’ slides, which are unavailable on mobile view.

Session 1: Can current science, technology and innovation (STI) pathways lead to sustainable development?

Chair: Andrew Stirling (Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex)

Opening remarks by speakers from the United Nations Development Programme (Pedro Conceição, Director of the Human Development Report Office) and UK Research and Innovation (Michael Booth, Joint Head of International Partnerships), reinforced a guiding premise of the STRINGS project – that progress towards the SDGs could be enhanced by a more purposeful use of STI.

Tommaso Ciarli (MERIT, United Nations University and SPRU) shared key findings from the STRINGS project to begin discussion of this crucial question – whether or not current STI pathways are effectively contributing towards meeting the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Tommaso highlighted the fundamental issue of entrenched misalignments due to the uneven global distribution of STI investments across different countries and societies, so that often what is prioritized does not match the problems of those most in need. For example, in analysing past publications and patents in innovation, it is shown that whilst high income countries dominate the SDG research agenda, they produce the lowest proportion of research and innovation related to the SDGs. In comparison, although research in lower income countries is strongly related to the SDGs and has strengths such as being multidisciplinary, unfortunately this research is less funded and less collaborative. The talk summarised some of the main policy shifts that are needed if we are serious about STI contributing to the SDGs by 2030.

Peggy Oti-Boateng (UNESCO, France), Rajeswari Raina (Shiv Nadar University, India) and Anil Kumar Guptar (Honeybee Network, India) presented their own experiences of aligning STI prioritisations and pathways with global goals. Each speaker reinforced the need for interconnectivity between all individuals and communities impacted by STI-SDG relations:
Peggy Oti-Boateng’s presentation shed light on UNESCO’s development agenda, how gender is one of their core priorities, and how open science can serve as a transformative tool to reduce inequalities in STI.

Rajeswari Raina’s presentation focused on prioritising sustainable relationships in working towards sustainable development, discussing the process of inclusive innovation and referencing examples of collaborative research projects in India.

Anil Kumar Guptar presented on ‘Policy options for leveraging indigenous knowledge/grassroots innovation for meeting SDG goals’. Anil spoke about his experiences as founder of the Honey Bee Network, providing insight into their inspiring work and emphasising the different challenges faced by grassroot innovators.

Feedback presentations by Bitrina Diyamett (STIPRO, Tanzania), Francisca Mutapi (University of Edinburgh) and David O’Brien (IDRC, Canada) provided insightful reflections on the four presentations. Challenging questions were raised that interrogated tensions between economic development and environmental protection, and the STI-SDG paradox. Key facets of research were also discussed such as the politics of knowledge production – how it is conducted and evaluated – and the choice of methodologies and priorities. Attendees raised further points on reinforcing national systems of innovation, and research funding and impact.

Session 2: what local and global governance is needed to steer STI for the SDGs?

Chair: Tommaso Ciarli (MERIT, United Nations University and SPRU, University of Sussex)

Presenting for STRINGS, Andy Stirling spoke on the need for governance to enable greater diversity and plurality in research and innovation for the global goals. After reinforcing that there are no single, definitive ‘innovation fixes’ for any single SDG, he argued that recognising the importance of diversity and a plurality of perspectives within pathways, offers a pragmatic way of responding to many crucial and intractable governance challenges. Andy highlighted STRINGS’ practical aims amidst this complexity and what could be useful in this context, for example, helping to build formative governance networks in onward engagement processes and platforms.

Geoff Mulgan continued this discussion on what the STRINGS project may practically propose for global governance to better align research and development allocations and STI strategies to the SDGs. Building upon previous examples, Geoff spoke on establishing global platforms and coalitions to improve decision making on STI investments before presenting four clusters of recommendations, such as, more global pooled budgets to boost impact, focused on global goals or emergent new tools.

Francisco Sagasti’s presentation drew on his wealth of political experience,  for example, referencing the 1979 UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development. He encouraged reflection upon lessons learned from the last 60-70 years when considering: what is to be done in governance and financing on the global and regional level?

Aldo Stroebel gave insight from a public funder perspective, specifically the National Research Foundation, South Africa, sharing a range of encouraging examples that demonstrate the impactful, collaborative work that can be achieved in relation to STI-SDGs, before formally announcing the African Open Science Platform.

Anabel Marin’s presentation focused on grassroots innovation with Bioleft, an open-source initiative for seed breeding in Argentina. Anabel discussed Bioleft’s goal to help deliver an alternative knowledge system that promotes the direct involvement of farmers in the production and use of knowledge leading the development process. Anabel shared some successes and challenges faced throughout the project.

Group discussions emphasised the need for inclusion – to bridge gaps of wealth, gender and access to knowledge, and especially to better incorporate local communities into the knowledge-exchange systems and decision-making processes to contribute to global governance structures. Colleagues also discussed the influence of political change upon policy success, and the need for improved education, training and working dynamics for international collaboration.

Session 3: What types of STI can lead to a positive impact on SDGs? Under what conditions? In which contexts? With which synergies and trade-offs?

Chair: Joanna Chataway (STEaPP, University College London)

Saurabh Arora introduced the STRINGS team case studies which analysed specific STI-SDG challenges in three locations, each investigating:

• how are sciences being developed to address the Chagas disease in Argentina?
• how are conflicts around overfishing being addressed using STI in the Lake Victoria Region of Kenya?
• how are rice seeds for resilience being produced and adopted in Odisha, India?

Each case study lead – Valeria Arza, John Ouma-Mugabe and Rasheed Sulamain V – provided an overview of their work, explaining their research methodologies and key findings. Each lead presented how different STI pathways are valued by different stakeholders to differently address the above challenges. They highlighted the importance of giving attention to such different pathways, for STI to better address the SDGs.

Guest speaker Wilhemina Quaye (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana) provided a comprehensive overview of the ways in which Ghana is developing its approach to grounding the SDGs in the national context through her presentation on the STI4SDG roadmap for Ghana, which prioritizes specific SDGs like SDG 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure). She explained how those prioritisations are made in Ghana, providing a very useful example to steer STI towards the SDGs.

Following the presentations, attendees discussed in more depth what types of STI can lead to a positive impact on SDGs? Key points included the challenge of navigating the complex interlinkages between the various SDGs and the notion of intentionality behind policymaking. It was fantastic to hear a geographically diverse range of examples with references to work in Kenya, India and Mexico.

Session 4: How do we recognise STI impacts on SDGs? Using more inclusive data, tools and methods for research and policy.

Chair: Hugo Confraria (University of Lisbon and SPRU, University of Sussex)

Hugo highlighted the importance of session four’s guiding topic given the need for funders to prioritize the research they support ahead of the 2030 Agenda.

The STRINGS team presented their proposals to combine different data, methods and tools to elicit STI directions and pathways, with presentations by Ine Steenmans (UCL) and Ismael Rafols (Leiden University). Ine reinforced the intentionality central to the STRINGS approach when analysing STI-SDG relations, particularly in the importance of considering multiple perspectives, methods and data types to “really explore the diversity of innovation, science, research and the future of the SDGs.”

Ismael discussed ‘Mapping the SDGs for empowering stakeholders: capturing diversity and supporting plurality’, towards facilitating stakeholders to make their own informed choices for supporting specific SDG research relevant to their own contexts. To support such decision making, Ismael introduced the SDG Mapping Tool developed by STRINGS, and proposed a “new way of thinking about mapping research” using “plural and conditional mappings” rather than definitive maps.

Three speakers then presented their experiences using different tools and methods in the delineation and decision-making processes, within the specific contexts of their own work.

Tatiana Fernández (Economic Production, Government of Catalonia) discussed the use of open data, semantic techniques and visualisation tools before sharing insight on how these were applied to map the contributions of research and innovation to Catalonia’s ecosystem.

Glenda Kruss (Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in South Africa) presented on ‘Developing new measures and indicators for STI oriented to SDGs in the South African context’. Glenda provided insight from a practitioner point of view with a focus on STI investments and the frameworks and models by which we can understand them, exampling the STI strategy for Africa 2024.

María Verónica Moreno (Solutions Mapping for the Accelerator Lab, UNDP, Argentina) focused upon the acceleration of development through citizen science. María shared inspiring true stories and drew on multiple examples of environmental citizen science projects like eBird Argentina, demonstrating the far-reaching, positive impact that such projects can have upon sustainable development.

Further discussion of these experiences followed in a Q&A session with the speakers, before the commencement of breakout sessions on the use of more inclusive data, tools and methods.

Amongst the various though-provoking points raised, the need to look more closely at intersectionality stood out with calls to consider: what do responsible metrics look like? And what can be done to tackle obstacles to accessing data and learning? Such questions relate to, and remind us of, the central issues of power and privilege within STI-SDG research work that the STRINGS project highlights. In his closing comments, Tommaso Ciarli reinforced the need for researchers to listen to views that diverge and dissent from mainstream research communities to better understand and align STI towards the SDGs.

The STRINGS team would like to thank all participants for their generous contributions and the invaluable sharing of their diverse experiences. A special thank you to artist Raquel Durán for producing live illustrations throughout the event.

Publication of the STRINGS Final Report is forthcoming and will be accessible via the Research Findings page of this website.

Andy’s talk focused on the challenge of “acknowledging different ways of knowing, not just how to implement sustainability, but what sustainability means in itself.” In particular, Andy emphasised that “sustainability is an inherently political notion”, exampling how different discourses and knowledges of sustainability are influenced by factors like power.

For example, he reinforced the need for diverse, plural perspectives on sustainability in order to better understand and tackle the reality of its multifaceted challenges – “towards recognising that difference is a way of knowing.” This differs to dominant, politicized narratives that suggest ‘the‘ singular pathways towards sustainability – an issue also addressed in the forthcoming STRINGS report.

Key findings from the new UNESCO report on universities and the 2030 Agenda were also referred to. The 2022 report discusses the role of higher education institutions in contributing to the sustainability 2030 Agenda, and Andy was one of several expert co-authors.

Read the UNESCO report on Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability

The Houssay award is a recognition granted by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Argentina. It recognises those who have contributed throughout their scientific career to produce new knowledge, develop innovations with a social and productive impact, and promote knowledge transfer and the training of human resources.

Find out more.

See the session programme for more information.

Results from World Café exercise | Online Workshop from STRINGS project

On October 29^th, we held a virtual workshop to outline, in a collaborative way, what type of scientific research is most helpful in addressing Chagas disease, which is one of the case studies carried out in the context of the STRINGS project. Fifteen people participated from different parts of the country. They contributed their experience and perspective on the topic. Among participants, there were actors from scientific, public policy and civil society organisations.

The workshop was organized with a “World Café” methodology: three discussion tables were proposed, around which all participants rotated over two and a half hours. The discussions were very rich; they were carried out in small groups and we noticed interest in participating and a fair word circulation. We synthetise the main points that emerged in each table below.

Table 1: Why are some topics more highly prioritised in the scientific agenda about Chagas?

Participants contributed with different views. They pointed to funding schemes as one of the main reasons for the prevalence of certain research topics over others. This generates a bias: as there is more research on certain topics, there are also more academic outputs (publications/patents) and experience, which further reinforced the existing research trajectories. In addition, funding schemes often depend heavily on political-regional strategies affected by different interests. Some participants argued that the research system is tied to an economic system that privileges research in areas in which greater future economic returns can be obtained.

In turn, scientific institutions developed a trajectory on certain topics and it is then difficult to change the course. There are sunk costs associated with starting new research lines. The importance of the incentive system to guide research was also mentioned. In particular, it was pointed out that interdisciplinary research is not promoted since its potential for social impact has only recently been acknowledged

There were some claims for scientific policy to be more explicit about directions to be promoted. In particular, many agreed that there is a need to better articulate the scientific research on Chagas within the public policies arena and the health system.

Several participants highlighted that science and technology policies do not take into consideration the multidimensionality of Chagas: for example, the programme “Argentina Innovadora 2020” only funds the development of diagnosis kits and vaccines. Some participants claimed that they were concerned that the idea that Chagas should be addressed “more at the laboratory than in the territory” is extending. They argued that this conviction only contributed to further consolidating the biomedical hegemony.

In addition, we found that there are still concepts under dispute: while some argued that Chagas is a disease that should be tackled both from the medical and social perspectives,  others pointed out that it should not be thought of as a disease but rather as a complex and multidimensional problem.

Table 2: What are the social needs for scientific production in relation to Chagas?

Carlos Chagas´ studies identified the parasite, the vector and a series of clinical manifestations of the disease more than one hundred years ago. Yet, today Chagas continues to be a very important problem, with multiple dimensions to address. What knowledge is lacking to better address this complexity? For various participants, the question about “knowledge” referred to contributions from biology or medicine, where most of the scientific production on Chagas is concentrated. For many, “knowledge” is not lacking, but instead, there is a need for knowing better how to apply scientific knowledge.

Enhancing the articulation between the scientific systems and those who make decisions was seen as a strategy to address such shortcomings. The need to link the State with the companies to develop new technologies was also noted. Problems of communication and education were highlighted as well: “We need a health system that sees Chagas as an existing problem”.

Several participants commented on the need to improve the approach on public policy to be more comprehensive, taking into account biomedical, epidemiological, economic, political and cultural issues. Among other aspects, some participants mentioned the need to empower affected communities to defend their rights, arguing that in relation to other problems with lower incidence of affected people, such as HIV, the scientific and political solutions that emerged were triggered by pressures from an organized community.

Table 3: How can Open Science help to produce knowledge better aligned with needs?

The definition of “Open Science” was presented at the beginning of the session as research done in collaboration with diverse academic and non-academic actors including potential users. Open science practices promote sharing openly both research outputs and processes. In addition, they include extensive engagement, outreach and communication activities to enhance science-society connections. “Open Science” was presented as opposed to “Conventional Science”, defined as professional scientific research based on expert knowledge carried out in academic spaces or laboratories. The main aim is to design technical solutions that can be transferred to society using different policy schemes such as public-private research partnerships, or technological licenses or contracts of technical assistance.

The participants agreed that the definition of Open Science is very broad and that, depending on how it is interpreted the contribution may vary. Thus, there were discussions about different strategies related to, on the one hand, sharing scientific resources openly and on the other, enhancing collaboration, especially with social actors who may participate in knowledge production processes. Open access databases were seen as valuable for drug discovery and development. Similarly, the possibility of sharing data from clinical records was seen as important to move ahead in developing better diagnosis methods and treatments. Most participants agree that sharing knowledge saves time and resources. It was suggested that science policy should promote these types of strategies, especially for research funded by public sources.

There was a fairly wide agreement around the idea that interaction among different actors is enriching. In addition, inter- and transdisciplinary research, which also includes the affected population, was seen as superior to address complexity. It was claimed that in this way science could be better situated, and therefore, it may be in a better position to respond to societal needs. Participants also mentioned the need to translate research results for a wider and diverse audience. However, many participants proposed that these activities should be carried out by people trained in communication skills, who should be involved in research teams. This was seen as important not just to avoid putting too much pressure on researchers’ time but especially because they may not be the most capable to pursue those tasks effectively. In addition, the use of social networks was seen by some participants as an effective channel to interact and exchange with other actors. “These networks create a back and forth channel with the people, and when the laboratory opens the projects are enriched”. Finally, open science was also seen as enabling the possibility of involving social actors in the design of a research project, which may further contribute to translating scientific language into plain language.

In the session, Dr Arza talked about her research on Chagas within STRINGS project, whose goal is to map Science Technology and Innovation (STI) for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a focus on Lower and Medium Income Countries (LMIC).

Focusing on Chagas, Dr Arza said that there are needs related to SDG 3, 16, 11 and 4, and highlighted that there are mismatches with science production, mostly concentrated in SDG 3, 15 and 11 and that research collaboration was found to be key. The requirements are:

1. Interdisciplinarity, to create bridges between production of science mostly in biology and medicine and the needs in education and governance.
2. Transdisciplinarity, to better understand Chagas complexity by promoting participation of stakeholders with different experience about the problem
3. International collaboration, particularly when collaboration involves partners from countries where the disease is endemic, possibly because they have more contextual experience of what is needed.

Mr Patnaik and his wife Minakshi Devi started collecting, conserving (in-situ), documenting and promoting seeds of indigenous rice varieties without any external help. Shankar has been honoured with the ‘Dr Richaria Samman’ by Odisha Desi Bihana Mancha in 2017 for his contribution towards conservation of indigenous rice.

• The STRINGS projects’ unprecedented mapping of how different areas of STI relate to SDGs has highlighted the potential misalignments between countries’ research priorities and SDG challenges.
• The mapping and characterisation of published research also highlighted the stark inequalities between where the research capabilities are built and where they are most needed.
• During the side event, it was argued that funders, donors and international organisations should seek to steer research priorities to address this. Recommendations based on experiences in Brazil, Germany and South Africa were discussed.
• Measures that were discussed include: consulting with a wider range of stakeholders and reflecting the views of different communities across different contexts; improving the assessment of research’s (unequal) impact on societies; and introducing new forms of global governance to better analyse R&D allocations and STI strategies.
• STRINGS will publish a full report and recommendations from its research later this year You can receive regular updates on the project’s research and findings by joining the STRINGS mailing list.

Event summary

The STRINGS project’s side event at the UN STI Forum 2021 explored how policymakers, funders and international organisations can harness the power of science, technology and innovation (STI) for the Sustainable Development Goals.

Delivering the opening remarks, Dr Pedro Conceição, Director of the Human Development Report Office at the United Nations Development Programme, discussed the challenges and opportunities for advancement human development in the context of the Anthropocene, informed by the Human Development Report 2020. Pedro highlighted three roles for STI in achieving the SDGs: an instrumental role, helping to address concrete challenges like the Covid-19 pandemic; an enabling role, helping to understand the impact of new technologies and the relationships between economic, social and natural systems; and a constitutive role, helping to navigate the predicaments and challenges posed by the SDGs.

Prof Susan Cozzens, Professor Emerita in the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, gave a compelling keynote speech setting out the context within which efforts to align STI with SDGs take place. Susan highlighted vast inequalities, calling on those present to remember the very real way in which this affects lives, and setting out the need to rethink the relationship between our social, economic and political institutions, and the use of our human capacity to know.

Dr Tommaso Ciarli and Prof Joanna Chataway then presented findings and recommendations from STRINGS’ research. They highlighted the frequent misalignments which can hinder efforts to tackle SDG challenges at a global and national level and put forward a series of policy provocations. They called on STI funders and policymakers to consider questions like: Is enough resource going to SDG relevant STI? and Do we need a more systematic approach to gathering evidence about the relationship between research funding, innovation and development? Finally, they outlined STRINGS’ plans to publish an interactive online tool which researchers and policymakers will be able to use to contribute to interpreting STI’s potential contribution to the SDGs.

Following a short break, Prof Andy Stirling was joined by three prestigious panellists to discuss practical steps for steering STI to SDGs. Each of the speakers gave short remarks before engaging in an interactive discussion and Q&A.

Dr Glenda Kruss, Executive Head of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, focussed on how to build capabilities for aligning STI to the SDGs. Glenda argued that we need greater participation at the local level by people who will be beneficiaries and users. She outlined CeSTII’s work to understand the interactive capabilities which formal knowledge producers and informal actors in local settings need to facilitate this kind of interaction and how these can be supported by research institutions, for example through engagement mechanisms like local science shops and community advisory boards.

In her remarks, Prof Elisa P. Reis, Vice-President of the International Science Council (ISC), considered how and where to start in this challenge. Elisa acknowledged the disparity in research resources between high-and low-income countries and that we must not forget that, even in low-income countries, objective research issues are not prioritised because the issues the international science system attributes importance to, do not align with the needs of poorer groups. Elisa argued that we must set research priorities globally, and channel material and human resources accordingly.

Dr Falk Schmidt, Scientific Head of the Coordination Office at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, shared insights from Germany’s Science Platform Sustainability 2030. The platform is a central hub where scientists and partners from politics, the economy and civil society can jointly reflect on pressing sustainability policy issues. Falk detailed the two-way exchange the platform facilitates. In one direction, by informing and supporting the development of sustainability policies. In the other, by steering and influencing research policy.

In the discussion that followed, speakers, panellists and guests exchanged views on how to navigate questions of power, privilege, creating capabilities, community engagement, availability of data and measuring impact.

Prof Sir Geoff Mulgan closed by talking about possibilities for new global governance to better align STI to the SDGs. Geoff pointed out the long history of opaque decision making in STI and set out four interlocking possibilities for addressing this: a global STI observatory, organised constellations of STI funders, pooled global budgets and convening and summits. Geoff noted that this is the beginning of a conversation rather than the end; we must continue this discussion to develop a global governance infrastructure that ensures STI focusses on the issues that really matter.