A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation

The report examines the interactions between the various goals and targets, determining to what extent they reinforce or conflict with each other. It provides a blueprint to help countries implement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Countries around the world are faced with a significant challenge: How can they reach the 17 SDGs – and 169 targets that sit underneath these goals – by 2030? The SDGs, which were adopted by the international community in 2015, cover a diverse range of issues including gender equity, sustainable cities, access to clean water, and good governance. It is a big, unwieldly, ambitious agenda that – if it is successfully implemented – could set the world on a course toward inclusive, sustainable development. The report proposes a seven-point scale to quantify these synergies and conflicts. The scale ranges from +3, which applies when one goal or target is very reinforcing of others, to -3, which applies when goals and targets conflict with each other. A score of 0 indicates neutral interaction. The report includes detailed analysis of four SDGs and their interactions with other goals: SDG2: Zero Hunger SDG3: Good Health and Well-being SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy SDG14: Life below Wate

A Study about the Causes for Low Adoption Rates of Agriculture Research Results in West and Central Africa : Possible Solutions Leading to Greater Future Impacts.

This study was undertaken at the request of the interim Science Council (iSC) of the CGIAR. It is a follow up to the decision of the CGIAR to address more effectively the heterogeneity of the causes of poverty in different regions. As a consequence the system agreed to adopt a stronger regional orientation in its research planning and implementation, and to diversify and expand its partnerships to ensure that its limited resources are effectively leveraged in addressing the problems of the poor.The study means to contribute to this new approach by looking into the following issues in relation to the West and Central African region:- the appropriateness of currently available improved technologies giventhe agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions in the region,- the efficiency of the present technology transfer mechanisms in widelyreaching the producers,- the bottlenecks (technical, institutional, organizational and cultural)that restrain the generation, dissemination and adoption of improvedtechnologies, and- implications of the above issues for the new CGIAR regionalizationstrategy, leading into recommendations towards an increased impact ofits future research efforts.This report is an annex to the Interim Science Council's report entitled "Progress Report on Regional Approach to Research".The report was discussed at the stakeholder meeting at AGM02, agenda item 7

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

Scientific and Legal Perspectives on Science Generated for Regulatory Activities

This article originated from a conference that asked “Should scientific work conducted for purposes of advocacy before regulatory agencies or courts be judged by the same standards as science conducted for other purposes?” In the article, which focuses on the regulatory advocacy context, we argue that it can be and should be. First, we describe a set of standards and practices currently being used to judge the quality of scientific research and testing and explain how these standards and practices assist in judging the quality of research and testing regardless of why the work was conducted. These standards and practices include the federal Information Quality Act, federal Good Laboratory Practice standards, peer review, disclosure of funding sources, and transparency in research policies. The more that scientific information meets these standards and practices, the more likely it is to be of high quality, reliable, reproducible, and credible. We then explore legal issues that may be implicated in any effort to create special rules for science conducted specifically for a regulatory proceeding. Federal administrative law does not provide a basis for treating information in a given proceeding differently depending on its source or the reason for which it was generated. To the contrary, this law positively assures that interested persons have the right to offer their technical expertise toward the solution of regulatory problems. Any proposal to subject scientific information generated for the purpose of a regulatory proceeding to more demanding standards than other scientific information considered in that proceeding would clash with this law and would face significant administrative complexities. In a closely related example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered but abandoned a program to implement standards aimed at “external” information

Assessing the potential of utilisation and storage strategies for post-combustion CO2 emissions reduction

The emissions reduction potential of three carbon dioxide handling strategies for post-combustion capture is considered. These are carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS), enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (EHR), and carbon dioxide utilization (CDU) to produce synthetic oil. This is performed using common and comparable boundary conditions including net CO2 sequestered based on equivalent boundary conditions. This is achieved using a “cradle to grave approach” where the final destination and fate of any product is considered. The input boundary is pure CO2 that has been produced using a post-combustion capture process as this is common between all processes. The output boundary is the emissions resulting from any product produced with the assumption that the majority of the oil will go to combustion processes. We also consider the “cradle to gate” approach where the ultimate fate of the oil is not considered as this is a boundary condition often applied to EHR processes. Results show that while CCS can make an impact on CO2 emissions, CDU will have a comparable effect whilst generating income while EHR will ultimately increase net emissions. The global capacity for CDU is also compared against CCS using data based on current and planned CCS projects. Analysis shows that current CDU represent a greater volume of capture than CCS processes and that this gap is likely to remain well beyond 2020 which is the limit of the CCS projects in the database

Between Scylla and Charybdis: reconciling competing data management demands in the life sciences

Background: The widespread sharing of biological and biomedical data is recognised as a key element in facilitating translation of scientific discoveries into novel clinical applications and services. At the same time, twenty-first century states are increasingly concerned that this data could also be used for purposes of bioterrorism. There is thus a tension between the desire to promote the sharing of data, as encapsulated by the Open Data movement, and the desire to prevent this data from ‘falling into the wrong hands’ as represented by ‘dual use’ policies. Both frameworks posit a moral duty for life sciences researchers with respect to how they should make their data available. However, Open data and dual use concerns are rarely discussed in concert and their implementation can present scientists with potentially conflicting ethical requirements. Discussion: Both dual use and Open data policies frame scientific data and data dissemination in particular, though different, ways. As such they contain implicit models for how data is translated. Both approaches are limited by a focus on abstract conceptions of data and data sharing. This works to impede consensus-building between the two ethical frameworks. As an alternative, this paper proposes that an ethics of responsible management of scientific data should be based on a more nuanced understanding of the everyday data practices of life scientists. Responsibility for these ‘micromovements’ of data must consider the needs and duties of scientists as individuals and as collectively-organised groups. Summary: Researchers in the life sciences are faced with conflicting ethical responsibilities to share data as widely as possible, but prevent it being used for bioterrorist purposes. In order to reconcile the responsibilities posed by the Open Data and dual use frameworks, approaches should focus more on the everyday practices of laboratory scientists and less on abstract conceptions of data