S&T Reviews for the BWC and CWC: The Contributions of International Scientific Organizations

1. S&T Reviews for the BWC and CWC: The Contributions of International Scientific Organizations Jo L. Husbands Scholar/Senior Project Director Board on Life Sciences U.S. National Academy of Sciences

2. The Challenges for Policy • A challenge to governments both to track the changes and to understand their implications • Processes of monitoring and assessing different and distinct needs and functions • Especially difficult for governments to track trends, to appreciate what is real and what is promise • Need the help of the scientific community, of those doing the research • Scientists inside and outside government needed to debate implications of scientific advances • Governments, individually and internationally/collaboratively, will decide how to address the implications • But scientists can have a role in helping to assess potential risks and benefits – and trade-offs – to inform decisions • To fulfill these roles, need scientists to be aware and engaged – one reason for education

3. Meeting the Challenges There is already an informal “scientific advisory network” operating for chemical and biological risks • Workshops on trends in S&T for all three CWC review conferences and 6th and 7th BWC review conferences • Engaged with both BWC and CWC – and hence able to address areas of increasing overlap between chemistry and biology as a technical issue

4. Meeting the Challenges The Workshops • July 2002─CWC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) workshop in Bergen, Norway • September 2006─BWC: IAP: The Global Network of Science Academies/International Council for Science/Royal Society workshop in London • April 2007─CWC: IUPAC workshop in Zagreb, Croatia • November 2010─BWC: IAP & 2 international unions workshop in Beijing, China • February 2011—CWC: IUPAC workshop in Spiez, Switzerland

5. Meeting the Challenges Common Features of the S&T Workshops • Sponsored by major international scientific organizations/networks • Support from national academies and professional societies • Mix of nongovernment researchers in key fields and government scientists and technical experts • Genuinely international participation • Discuss and debate advances – conclusions about the state of S&T and potential implications • Do not make recommendations for policy

6. Meeting the Challenges Beijing 2010 • Informal consultations with several states parties and ISU • Funding from government and private sources • Held before Chinese-Canadian workshop on the RevCon • Convened by IAP: the Global Network of Science Academies and two international science unions • Hosted by Chinese Academy of Sciences • Almost 80 participants from 28 countries, BWC ISU and UNODA • International steering committee organized by US NAS organized workshop & prepared reports • Factual summary of presentations released in time for PrepCom • Final report released at UN 1st Committee event in October • Executive summary served as primary ISU background document for Review Conference • Extensive dissemination effort

7. Meeting the Challenges Spiez 2011 • FormaI request from OPCW SAB to International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) • OPCW provided financial support, as did several governments • Hosted by SPIEZ LABORATORIES, Swiss national CBRNE laboratory • Almost 80 participants from 25+ countries, OPCW and BWC ISU – a number of SAB members • International steering committee under IUPAC and staffed by US NAS organized meeting and prepared report • Preliminary conclusions and recommendations to SAB six weeks later • Final report released not long before RC-3 in Pure and Applied Chemistry, the IUPAC journal • Dissemination effort limited because of funding

8. Continuing challenges Some Questions • How to increase acceptance and impact? • Who “owns” the Convention? Does it “belong” to the States Parties”? • Especially true for BWC • How best to connect outside discussions to the treaties’ processes? • How to engage and inform diplomats with limited S&T background? • How and where to find funding to enable sustained work by outside groups, for meetings but also for dissemination

9. For Current BWC Intersessional Process What now? Some Possibilities • From scientific organizations, more systematic dissemination to states parties and engagement of national affiliates • For BWC, workshops and events geared to annual S&T topics • Research Roadmap for Microbial Forensics, 14-16 October 2013 (IUMS, Royal Society, Croatian and US Academies) • Understanding Pathogenicity, August 2014 MXP (IAP, others) • This time, just prior to the MXP (à la Pugwash) • Aiming to attract more technical experts • Side event for diplomats to translate • For CWC, meeting with OPCW science advisor during IUPAC General Assembly in August 2013 to discuss relationship and explore new ideas

10. For more information Jo L. Husbands jhusband@nas.edu THANK YOU! All NAS reports are available as free pdfs from www.nap.edu

11. Meeting the Challenges IAP: The Global Network of Science Academies* • Network of now 106 of the world’s science academies, created in 1993 • Devoted to increasing capacity of academies to be effective advisors on science policy • Issues statements endorsed by member academies and also has programmes and initiatives • IAP created a Biosecurity Working Group, February 2004 • Current members – the academies of Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland (chair), Russia, U.K., and U.S. • IAP released a Statement on Biosecurity, December 2005 • Endorsed by 69 of then 90 member academies from all over the world • Presented to 2005 intersessional meetings • Collaborated on Forums and Workshops *Formerly the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues