Good science anywhere is good for science everywhere: In conversation with Subra Suresh

On 30 June, IIASA welcomed Prof. Subra Suresh for a Science Parliament Lecture titled "Innovation 4.0 for Humanity 4.0." In his lecture, Suresh explored the evolution of global innovation ecosystems, the importance of balancing immediate societal needs with long-term investment in fundamental research, and the critical role of the "quintuple helix" – academia, industry, government, philanthropy, and the nonprofit sector – in driving innovation. He also reflected on the growing importance of science diplomacy and the transformative opportunities and challenges presented by artificial intelligence.

Watch the Science Parliament lecture on the link below. 

Suresh is Vannevar Bush Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Professor at Large at Brown University, former Director of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and former President of Carnegie Mellon University and Nanyang Technological University Singapore. Throughout his distinguished career spanning academia, government, and international leadership, he has championed scientific excellence, innovation, and global collaboration.

In the conversation below, he expands on these ideas, reflecting on the future of international scientific cooperation and why, in his words, "good science anywhere is good for science everywhere."

Q: During your lecture you described innovation as a partnership between academia, industry, government, philanthropy, and nonprofits. Where do organizations like IIASA fit into that ecosystem?

Organizations like IIASA can play an important convening role by connecting researchers, policymakers, industry, and other partners. Innovation doesn't happen in isolation – it depends on bringing people and institutions together across sectors. In the United States, for example, universities work closely with industry, government agencies, venture capitalists, and philanthropic organizations. Programs like the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) were designed specifically to bring these groups together. Building those connections is what enables ideas to move from research into real-world impact.

Q: Science has often served as a bridge when political relationships become strained. Is science diplomacy becoming more important, or more difficult?

I think it's both. Science diplomacy is more important than ever, but it has also become much more difficult. Today there are many barriers to international collaboration. Chinese scientists often struggle to obtain visas to attend conferences in the United States, fewer American scientists are travelling to China, and scientific exchanges with Russia have largely come to a halt since the war in Ukraine. In some ways, I think the situation is even more challenging than during the Cold War, when scientists continued communicating despite political tensions.

Artificial intelligence adds another layer of complexity. Increasingly, research is being viewed through the lens of national security. Export controls on technologies such as advanced computer chips and AI systems make it harder for researchers in universities and industry to collaborate openly across borders.

Q: How can trust between scientific communities be rebuilt?

Science depends on trust. Peer review, collaboration, and the exchange of ideas all rely on researchers having confidence in one another. When scientists have opportunities to meet, work together, and build relationships, that trust develops naturally. When those interactions disappear, people begin to make assumptions about one another that often are not true.

One way to overcome this is by creating neutral venues where researchers from different countries can continue to meet. If scientists cannot easily travel between the United States and China, for example, organizations like IIASA can provide a place in Europe where they can come together and continue those conversations.

Q: Where do you see the greatest opportunity for international scientific collaboration today?

Collaboration can absolutely continue to thrive. As support for science becomes more uncertain in parts of the world, Europe has an opportunity to play an even greater leadership role. Not individual countries acting alone, but the European Union working collectively has the scale and capacity to strengthen global scientific cooperation.

If support for science declines in one part of the world, somebody else has to pick it up. Otherwise, scientific progress is going to suffer.

At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the importance of mobility of scientists across borders. Researchers need to be able to move, exchange ideas, and learn from one another. I've always believed that good science anywhere is good for science everywhere. Supporting excellent research, wherever it takes place, ultimately benefits the global scientific enterprise.

Q: What advice would you give the next generation of science diplomats?

It's important to look beyond your own discipline. Everyone begins with specialist expertise, but science diplomacy requires a broader perspective. Communication is equally important. Whether it's written or spoken, scientists need to be able to explain complex ideas clearly and help people understand why they matter.

One of the biggest challenges is communicating uncertainty. Scientists are trained to be cautious because there is always some degree of uncertainty in research. But if that caution is misunderstood, it can undermine public trust. Rather than debating small differences in numbers, we need to communicate the broader direction and the larger message that the evidence is telling us.

Q: Looking back on your career, what stands out most?

Luck has played an important role. Being in the right place at the right time, making certain decisions, and sometimes deciding not to take an opportunity, can completely change the direction of your career. Along the way, mentors, colleagues, friends, and family who believed in me made an enormous difference.

Serving as Director of the NSF was especially rewarding because it changed my perspective. As a professor, you're naturally focused on your own research and students. At the NSF, I discovered that you can derive just as much satisfaction from helping other people succeed as you do from your own achievements.

Q: If we were having this conversation ten years from now, what breakthrough would you most hope we had achieved?

I hope we will have established the right guardrails to ensure artificial intelligence benefits both individuals and society. That means putting in place the policies and mechanisms needed to guide its development and use responsibly.

I also hope we will have made long-term commitments to sustainability in all its forms – financial, environmental, and planetary. These are challenges that require sustained commitment over many years, and we cannot afford to have priorities such as AI governance and sustainability shift with every election cycle.

Note: This article gives the view of the author, and not the position of the IIASA Insights blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.