Our first point is that a right to participate in knowledge production presumes equitable access to the systems that enable it. States, institutions, and knowledge holding communities must provide transparent and open access systems to enable all people, regardless of sex, identity and background, to be included in the process of doing science.
Influenced in part by a growing awareness of the socio-economic benefits associated with having a diverse research ecosystem, efforts to facilitate the inclusion of under-represented groups in scientific research have been delivering results. The overhaul of the Canada Research Chairs program, for example, saw the number of women chairholders rise from roughly 28% in 2015 to 47.8% in 2024. Yet, long standing and systemic barriers continue to undermine progress.
Overcoming this requires new thinking and a commitment to concepts such as inclusive excellence which prioritize making space for those who have, over time and space, been deliberately excluded, peripheralized, or simply overlooked on account of conscious and unconscious biases and structural inequalities. A right to participate in knowledge production means recognizing that the perspectives, questions, and priorities of women and other marginalized groups were left out and discoveries did not happen as a result.
As well, there are serious economic risks associated with excluding the contributions of women from an entire national system, as is happening currently in Afghanistan. The sustainability of our economies and science systems depends upon members taking responsibility for facilitating the participation of a broader group of individuals in activities of knowledge production. This is why the science being done in the Global South needs greater respect and recognition; its young people need to feel encouraged and inspired to enter the world of knowledge production.
Increased participation in knowledge production is closely linked with our second point – a right to challenge established knowledge. Acknowledging this right means recognizing that the dominant science culture does not possess all the answers because it has not considered all the questions. It means acknowledging the potential consequences and limitations of science. It also recognizes that past harms done in the name of discovery and science have been significant and have adversely affected marginalized communities around the world.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights agree that science must have the “capacity” to “contribute to the well-being of persons and humankind”. This capacity cannot exist if people refuse to participate because they do not trust the scientific systems. While the lack of trust in science is entangled with the rise of mis- and disinformation, a question the scientific community must squarely confront is: “Why is science and the systems that underpin it so vulnerable?”
The beginnings of an answer to this question depends, in part, upon the answers to two prior questions: “Who is a scientist?” and “Who gets to decide?”. Science, as a process of discovery through the rigorous observation and interrogation of phenomenon, and the systems that enable it must be spaces where diversity of thought, practice, and people co-exist. It must become a process that connects with those who see the world and its living beings through different lenses.
Indigenous ways of knowing and Indigenous knowledges, which are the product of deep observation and interrogation over millennia, for example, have much to teach us about where and how we live. Science must be seen as a collective human endeavor that requires contributions from diverse communities around the world. It must rely on empirical evidence, objectivity, and rigorous testing to achieve universal explanations, while also incorporating holistic ways of knowing that are intertwined with cultural practices, spirituality, and generations of environmental observation.
One promising example in the field of Indigenous Health is Etuaptmumk or Two-Eyed Seeing. Proposed by Mi’kmaq elders in Mi’kma’ki (a region also known as part of eastern Canada), Etuaptmumk is an approach which recognizes the value of using multiple perspectives to explore complex challenges. Strong systems are those that consistently invite and incorporate new people, new ideas and new ways of thinking and working.
Françoise Baylis and Karly Kehoe are Members of the ISC Standing Committee for Freedom and Responsibility in Science (2022-2025).
The International Science Council (ISC) has released its interpretation of the “right to participate in and benefit from science,” providing a clear framework for understanding this fundamental right.
The interpretation outlines the key obligations and responsibilities required to ensure universal access to science and scientific knowledge, while emphasizing the protection of scientific freedoms and the promotion of education. Aligned with the ISC’s Principles of Freedom and Responsibility in Science, it reinforces the vision of science as a Global Public Good.
The Right to Science
The International Science Council believes that there is a universal human right to participate in and enjoy the benefits of science, and that it is a responsibility of governments to create and sustain the opportunities of citizens to use this right.
The Right to ScienceDisclaimer
The information, opinions and recommendations presented in our guest blogs are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the values and beliefs of the International Science Council
Read more about Unpacking the ‘right to science’ – from origins to ISC advocacy
Read more about War’s hidden toll: How scientists are confronting the environmental devastation left in conflict’s wake
Read more about Transforming science organizations: The impact of women’s leadership on institutional reform
