Our Activities and Campaigns

  1. Right to Science

    The name, Science for Democracy (SfD), hints at the core belief of its members: science and democracy are inextricably linked. Science is essential to democracy. We want to see more science in the political decision-making process and more scientific literacy amongst decision-makers and the public. At the same time, we believe that there must be more democracy in science. The scientific enterprise can and must be more transparent, accountable, inclusive, and open.

    SfD is committed to promote the Right to Science worldwide. We work to push States and international organizations to protect, respect, and fulfill the Right to Science, in all its articulations. We also work to clarify and expand the scope of the Right to Science.

    SfD is committed to help clarify and expand the Right to Science. To that end, it has supported the preparation of the book Romano C./Boggio, A., The Human Right to Science: History, Development and Normative Content, Oxford University Press, 2024. The book is an exhaustive (900+ pages) analysis of the history, development and normative content of the right to science. Excerpts of the book and other educational material on the RtS will be posted here.

  2. Parallel Reports

    Since its inception, SfD has called the attention of States and international organizations to the RtS through Parallel Reports (also known as ‘shadow reports’ or ‘alternative reports’).

    When States ratify human rights treaties, they also accept the obligation to periodically present a report detailing what measures they have taken to give effect to that treaty. Parallel reporting helps to ensure that UN treaty bodies are aware of, discuss, and make recommendations to States in relation to important human rights issues that may have been overlooked or omitted in the official State report. Parallel reporting makes it possible for civil society (i.e. non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, other intergovernmental organizations, academic institutions and the press) to take an active role in holding States accountable to their legally mandated obligations.

    Parallel Reports may be presented to UN human rights bodies as well as those of regional organizations (e.g. Organization of American States, African Union etc.). They may address specific issues, treaty articles, or mirror the country’s report. Once the human rights body has received the State Report as well as any Parallel Reports, it publishes its “Concluding Observations,” a document addressed to the State in question that contains the body’s concerns and recommendations. These are some of the Parallel Reports that SfD has authored or co-authored over the years, calling attention to the Right to Science and/or some of its associated rights.

    Chile (CESCR)
    China (CESCR)
    Costa Rica (CESCR)
    Estonia (CESCR)
    Germany (CESCR)
    Italy (CESCR)
    Italy (UPR)
    Kazakhstan (CESCR)
    Malawi (CESCR)
    Pakistan (CESCR)
    Sierra Leone (CESCR)
    Slovakia (CESCR)

    Currently, we are working on several new Parallel Reports, including Lesotho (CEDAW), Turkmenistan (CESCR), and Germany (CESCR).

    The choice of States on which we prepare parallel reports is, by and large, dictated by the treaty bodies calendar and what States comes up for review when.

  3. Open Science

    Science for Democracy shares the principles of the Open Science movement, believing they are indispensable for the full enjoyment of the Right to Science. Open Science asks for free and universal access to scientific research. Open Science encompasses several aspects, which together make science open: Open Educational Resources, Open Evaluation, Open Access, Open Research Software and source, Open Data, Open Methodology, and Open Collaboration. Open Science is a powerful ally to protect both scientific research and access to its benefits, where discrimination and bad scientific practice cannot find their space.

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  4. Evidence-Based Debates and Policies

    We believe that sound scientific evidence must underlie any decision-making process. Science for Democracy promotes science/policy interfaces: “social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making” (Sybille van den Hove, “A Rationale for Science–Policy Interfaces”, Futures, Vol. 39, Issue 7, 2007, pp. 807-826, p. 807). We reject scientism (i.e. the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality). Science cannot be the only factor that is taken into consideration in decision-making. However, we believe that scientific evidence can and must be the common ground from which politics starts its complex action.

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  5. Freedom of Research

    Freedom of Research is a key component of the Right to Science. SfD supports the freedom of scientists to choose their research topic, articulate hypotheses, choose methods and materials, as well as their right to share the results of their work. We reject preconceived bans on any type of scientific research, such as those on genetically modified organisms, human germline and stem cells, cultured meat, or psychedelics. We believe the only acceptable limit to scientific research is the duty to respect human rights. We stand up for any scientist around the world whose work is arbitrarily hindered or blocked and through our S.O.S. Science initiative we work to bring their cases to the attention of the international community.

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  6. Sexual and Reproductive Health

    We believe that effective, universal, and free access to sexual and reproductive medicine is required if everyone is to actually benefit from progress in science and its applications. Sexual and reproductive health is an instrument of self-determination, not just a health care practice. The right to safe abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, safe sex from infective diseases, family planning, assisted reproduction, and the right to be protected from sexual violence, are necessary to guarantee the universal freedom of people to have a “responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to have children and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so”. (World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/southeastasia/health-topics/reproductive-health).

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  7. Environment and Biotechnologies

    Science for Democracy is committed to promoting a science-informed approach to the protection of the environment, from climate change to biodiversity. We believe that modern biotechnology is a strategic tool for the protection of the environment and of the well-being of its inhabitants, especially in the context of the current climate crisis. We oppose bans of biotechnologies in agriculture, from GMOs to cultured meat, that are not scientifically justified. We equally oppose broad bans of research on human stem cells or germline cells that preclude further advancements in science.

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  8. Controlled Substances

    We advocate for the freedom of research and practice with controlled substances. Any discussion about drugs and related issues should be based on scientific evidence and human rights, including the protection of human dignity. The ill-conceived “war on drugs” has caused a global-level escalation in controlled substances’ illegal production, consumption, and trafficking. It has enriched and empowered criminal organizations. At the same time, restrictions and prohibitions to research on controlled substances are preventing the progress of science, the improvement of human knowledge, and the possibility for millions of people to benefit from them. We advocate for international and national policies that consider the already-existing extensive and comprehensive body of scientific evidence. We support debates on controlled substances where ideologies and cultural biases do not trump the duty to protect human rights, including the right to health, right to science, and right to human dignity.

    To learn more about some of our activities in this regard, click here.

  9. Special Mandate on Science

    SfD is committed to the creation of a new special mandate dedicated to the Right to Science or Science and Human Rights.

    Special mandates are experts (or groups of experts) who are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. Special Rapporteurs undertake country visits; act on individual cases of reported violations and concerns of a broader nature by sending communications to States and others; contribute to the development of international human rights standards by writing reports on specific issues; and engage in advocacy, raise public awareness, and provide advice for technical cooperation. To date, the UN has 46 thematic and 14 country mandates.

    Currently, the Right to Science falls under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, who split their attention between the RtS and science and many other cultural issues. We believe science and the RtS deserve a full and dedicated mandate.

    In February 2024, the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, Alexandra Xanthaki, recommended the UN Human Rights Council to “Explore a proposal for a new special rapporteur on the right to science and technology, fully understood as a cultural right”. (A/HRC/55/44, 21 February 2024, para. 98). SfD welcomes this development and remains committed to this campaign.

  10. A Treaty on Science

    SfD is committed to launch a campaign for the adoption of a global compact for science, a treaty bringing the international community together to reaffirm and clarify the right to science. Too many international legal instruments approach science from a place of fear, trying to blunt the negative effect that certain scientific developments might have instead of focusing on what science has to offer. Regulation of science typically takes the form of restrictions, however we believe the goal should be to enable scientific practice/progress, not restrict it.

    The time has come for States to affirm support of science, scientists, and the scientific endeavor in a binding legal instrument, a “Science Treaty.” This global compact in support of science would be firmly connected with the body of international human rights law, and in particular with the right to science, both by way of preamble and substantive provisions.

    A Science Treaty is an opportunity for States to commit to binding human rights principles in support of innovation and to specify what obligations the right to science entails, helping to entrench its normative content.

    Please, join our appeal urging States to start negotiations towards the drafting and adoption of a Treaty on Science!

  11. Adding the RtS to the European Human Rights Regime

    Even though Europe is at the forefront of scientific research and human rights, the RtS is nowhere to be found in the continent’s main human rights regimes: the one of the Council of Europe and the one of the European Union.

    The RtS is not codified in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The only mention on the subject is in the Charter of Fundamental Rights: “Academic freedom is guaranteed” (CFREU, Art. 13).

    There are some historical reasons for that neglect, mostly stemming from the fact that Europe decided to focus on civil and political rights and the RtS is considered to be an economic, social and cultural right. However, we firmly believe that there is no reason why the RtS should not be included in these important documents.

    SfD is committed to fostering new discussions about the gap in the European human rights regimes and ensure the idea to add the RtS is around when discussions about amendments will take place. Please, join our appeal urging European States to include the RtS in the European Convention on Human Rights, European Social Charter, and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union!

  12. Cultured Meat

    SfD is active on the front of cultured meat. Cultured meat, also known as cultivated meat among other names, is a form of cellular agriculture where meat is produced by culturing animal cells in vitro.

    The planet’s current meat production system is resource-intensive (land and water), has negative environmental impacts (including on climate), causes animal suffering, and is linked to several public health issues, including animal-transmitted pandemics and antibiotic resistance. At the same time, global demand for meat is forecast to increase rapidly as the world population grows. Cultured meat has the potential to address many of the ethical, environmental, and public health issues associated with conventional meat production.

    A range of social issues, including consumer appeal and acceptance, media coverage, religious status, disruption of traditional agriculture, and potential overall economic impacts are some of the challenges decision-makers are facing as they strive to create a legal framework to regulate the research, production, commercialization and international trade of cultured meat. While some States have decided to prohibit cultured meat (e.g. Italy), others are divided (e.g. in the US, Texas, Alabama, and Florida have banned it while California, Oregon, and Washington are favoring it). Some have already created regulatory frameworks that make it possible for startups to research, develop, and commercialize (e.g. Singapore and Israel).

    In the EU (but also in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada), novel foods such as cultured meat products have to go through a testing period of about 18 months during which a company must prove to the regulatory authority that their product is safe.

    In April 2024, the Dutch start-up Meatable was the first in the EU to receive regulatory approval from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for a public proof of concept tasting of cultured meat (i.e. a sausage).

    Although it will take several years to scale up production for cultured meat to become a choice for consumers, at least in high-income countries, several governments are already facing difficult choices.

    So far, discussions about cultured meat have not adequately probed the issue of how States’ international legal obligations might shape national and transnational regulatory frameworks. While opposers of cultured meat often invoke the precautionary principle and the duty of States to protect public health, the environment and social values at large, those who favor it point to the obligations States have to combat climate change, ensure food supplies, and respect the right of everyone to benefit from progress in science and technology (a.k.a. the right to science).

    Come join us at two events where cultured meat will be discussed.
    2024 Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipation Summit, on 9-11 October 2024, in Geneva, Switzerland.
    Defund Meat Conference, on 15 January 2025, in Heidelberg, Germany.

  13. Digital Rights and the RtS

    SfD is in the process of developing a case to be submitted to either the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Committee on Persons with Disabilities concerning Italy’s failure to make it possible for persons with disabilities to electronically sign key documents necessary for their participation in the political life of the country.

    The technology to make it possible to electronically verify identity and to sign documents is now several decades old. Yet, in Italy, it is still not used by the public administration for certain key public activities, such as signing electoral lists, or voting. Persons with disabilities who cannot manually sign documents are, therefore, denied their rights.