“Laputa: castle in the sky” (Studio Ghibli, 1986)

Introduction

It has become quite common to see climate and energy researchers express their professional opinions in field-related matters across various public platforms. As the world enters a state of climate emergency, some of them decide that voicing their expertise in their relative comfort zones is not enough. They go further to advocate for certain forms of politics and engage themselves in direct actions and grassroot organizations. “Scientists for Future”, who came out during the 2018–19 rise of global climate strikes, and “Scientists Rebellion”, the scientists’ group based on the organizational structure of the climate action group “Extinction Rebellion”, are just two examples in this trend.

The “researchers as activists” model is nothing new. Many fields of social sciences and humanities had their foundations laid upon participatory methods that from time to time involved direct actions and organizations. However, the scale and extent of engagement of the latest activist researchers in climate and energy science implore our attention to its uniqueness. Climate science revolves around the Earth system, utilizing many concepts in physics, chemistry, and other forms of “hard science”. Energy systems research, in the meantime, traditionally revolves around engineering and techno-economics regarding an industry that has large interests in the existing fossil fuel based infrastructure. These are perhaps the last fields of research one would expect activists participating in direct actions and organizations to be recruited from.

Of course, not all people welcome this trend of activist researchers. As we shall see in the next section of this essay, concerns arise over whether researchers as activists lead to inefficiencies, miscommunications, and the breaching of research ethics. Activist researchers themselves, in return, have justifications for their actions, based on both normative arguments and empirical data. Currently, the discussion is highly dynamic and relevant as the trend of academic activism for climate action continues to thrive.

The case against researchers as activists

The case against researchers as climate activists does not arise from denial or downplaying of the seriousness of the climate emergency (or at least, these are not the ostensible reasons). In fact, modern research ethics guidelines recommend that whenever applicable, researchers (regardless of their field of work) should consider climate related topics, such as the misalignment between cause and impact among different wealth and generational groups, complexity and uncertainty in the problem, and allocation of personal and supra-individual responsibilities regarding anthropogenic climate change in their work [1]. It is only when researchers take those recommendations beyond their research and bring them into the streets will there be critics raising questions.

One type of the critics question the effectiveness of researchers participating in activism. This is most prominent among the “technological optimism” people. Peter Edwards, a professor of chemistry at the University of Oxford, believed that finding technical solutions that can be turned into “realistic actions” is more helpful for researchers [2]. Bill Gates also famously shared similar technocratic views in his 2021 book “How to Prevent a Climate Disaster”: in it, he claimed he thought “more like an engineer than a political scientist”, and that he did not have “a solution to the politics of climate change” [3] (nor did he seem to care about the importance of it in the book). These types of “technology vs politics” narratives enhance the perceived dichotomy between the role of doing climate and energy research and that of participating in the politics of the climate emergency, while simultaneously implying that the former is the more efficient way to solve the climate crisis and what researchers should focus their effort on.

Others, while empathetic to the cause of climate activists, point out that climate activism can sometimes fall into bad-framing or ignorance of scientific studies. For the climatologist Michael E. Mann, “doomism” (the branch of climate activists that believe humanity has long passed the point of no return to conduct any meaningful mitigation measures) falls exactly into this category. “Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes. It can be enabling and empowering as long as you don’t get stuck there.” said him in an interview by the Guardian [4]. “But ‘too late’ narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science.” [5] Auke Hoekstra, a renewable energy system modeler and electric vehicle (EV) expert, has also shown distress over the rejection of EVs as a necessary transition technology from hardcore bicycle and public transportation supporters occasionally. “…bikes and less/smaller/shared vehicles are certainly better. However, since most people want cars (and you can’t stop them) and EVs already save 70% over the lifetime [6] that’s a huge improvement.” [7] “Every time I forget to end a thread by saying that [8] the bicycle proponents are all over me.” [9] In these cases, the concern that researchers as activists within the climate movement might give more legitimacy to the movement than what it deserves on particular issues could arise.

While activist researchers can take note of the two directions of criticism mentioned above and improve their tactics and organization wherever it makes sense (e.g. be more cautious at interpreting studies [10], and be more open to discussions of the effectiveness of the movement), there is nevertheless a more fundamental disagreement with the notion of researchers as activists coming from within the research community that activist researchers cannot reconcile with. In the general guidelines for researchers of the National Research Ethics Committee of Norway, it is recommended that “the researcher clearly distinguishes between professional comments made in his or her capacity as an expert on the one hand and statements of personal opinion on the other” when they engage in public debates [11]. Many people see activism as a violation of such a guideline.

The biologist Jerry Coyne stated that “scientists can’t get involved in that kind of stuff. Science cannot adjudicate issues of morality.” [12] The CEO of the American Geophysical Union Christine McEntee said “Scientific societies need to be talking about the science and not necessarily saying, ‘And here’s what you should do about this particular issue.’” [13] The engineering professor David Sedlak believed that activism “undermines the standing of academics as objective seekers of truth”. “If we move from being educators and researchers to allies of a particular cause, no matter how just, we jeopardize the social contract that underpins the tradition of financial support for basic research.” [14]

The allegory of researchers as independent and neutral truth seekers is in some way analogous to how we would expect judges to behave in a constitutional democratic society. In Taiwan, judges are subject to the “Judges Act”, which prohibits judges from participating in political activities, elections, or any other positions that might undermine “the independence of justice” or be considered “incompatible with the professional ethics or occupational dignity for a judge” [15]. There might not be a legally binding “Scientists Act” or “Researchers Act” that make similar explicit bans on the existence of activist researchers, but fundamental opponents of researchers as activists seem to believe that there exists an implicit social contract between researchers and the rest of the society that is similar to that explicitly written in law for judges.

The case supporting researchers as activists

Why then, do so many researchers decide to become activists? Perhaps it is because that amidst the climate crisis, more and more researchers nowadays feel that they are living on Laputa [16]. As the air quality PhD Peter Knapp put it [17], “My research group works on global heating of flying, but fly all the time. It’s fucking terrifying. I called them out today. ‘We need to stop talking about flying. We cannot normalise this, the planet is on fire and we have to stop flying’. Excuses. It was very uncomfortable.” [18]

This sense of alienation between the topics that researchers study on paper and the way they engage these topics in real life is a genuine one. The majority of top climate researchers interviewed in a Nature survey did not believe that humanity can achieve its climate goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement and were experiencing “anxiety, grief, or other distress because of concerns over climate change” [19]. Daniele Artico et al. reported that among the academic activists they interviewed, “deep-seated frustration with the roles of scientists in the climate and ecological emergency propels individuals to action” [20]. For those people, activism is the way to bridge the gap between the two realities. During a Scientist Rebellion action at the COP 26 conference, the conservation biologist Charlie Gardner told Nature’s reporter “writing scientific papers doesn’t influence the public or governments, whereas activism might.” [21] In an 2019 Nature article, Gardner also argued that “the scientists who alerted the world to the climate and ecological crises have a moral duty to join the popular movements demanding political action” [22]. This moral duty, as argued by the philosophy researcher Francisco Garcia-Gibson, “stems from academics’ ability as experts, and from their responsibility as teachers” [23]. Therefore, the allegory of researchers here is no longer independent judges, but rather diligent scouts on watchtowers that would always sound the alarm whenever they spot a threat, and go to the streets to wake everyone up if deemed necessary. In the words of the historian and Earth scientist Naomi Oreskes: “It is what I have called the sentinel obligation. It is, in effect, a duty to warn.” [24]

Of course, from a consequentialist viewpoint, activist researchers need to address the concern over potential harm of credibility in science due to their actions. However, as the political scientist Jessica F. Green put it, “being credible to fellow scholars is distinct from being credible to students, or the public at large, or the activist community.” [25] The main focus here should not be what members in the research community think about their colleagues who take their cause to the ground, but rather how those in the rest of the society perceive such actions (the literature on this topic suggested that in many cases, the society’s perceived credibility of a scientist was not affected when they made an advocacy statement [26] or openly supported certain policies and direct climate actions [27]). Jessica F. Green went further and claimed that researchers not being activists was what actually harmed the credibility of the community. “We delude ourselves to think that reasoned analysis will dislodge the powerful. We have brought a knife to a gun fight. …Such an approach overestimates our authority and thus undermines our credibility.” [28]

Indeed, at the end of the day, a researcher is not a judge; their work might both require a high level of integrity and independent thought process, but the work of a researcher itself can never be directly and swiftly enforced by the state apparatus in the way the verdict of a judge can. During a climate trial in Montana, US, the civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson, as an expert witness testifying for the feasibility of a renewable energy based energy system of the state, reflected on this powerlessness of the researchers on their own and why it was necessary to work with the climate movement: “I do science; nobody listens to me. But working together with other people is how we affect change. I provide information on the work we’ve done, but it requires collective willpower.” [29]

In the meantime, the effects of activism on the researchers’ credibility within their affiliated community have less externalities and should mostly be considered as part of the personal risk for the individuals engaged in activism. As the climate scientist Rose Abramoff put it during an interview by the Washington Post, “the fear of damaging our professional reputation and losing our jobs is a very real fear. Those are fears that I have. But they’re no longer as large as my fear of the future that we’re creating.” [30] Nonetheless, researchers as activists can and should collectively stand together and gradually change institutional norms surrounding this topic to mitigate the resulting personal risk. In particular, Gardner et al. listed some practical demands activist researchers can advocate at campus, such as allowing “at least 10% of time for advocacy and engagement with policy processes” and “ incorporating advocacy into the work mandates of their academic staff” [31].

Finally, there is a potential positive impact of researchers becoming climate activists. By taking direct actions, researchers show to the world that the climate crisis is a topic that they believe to be sufficiently serious, such that they are willing to break professional and institutional norms. In an article in Nature Climate Change, Stuart Capstick et al. argued that “civil disobedience by scientists has the potential to cut through the myriad complexities and confusion surrounding the climate crisis in a way that less visible and dispassionate evidence provision does not, sending a clear signal that scientists believe strongly in the evidence and its implications.” [32] After all, for people who are on the fence pondering whether the climate crisis is an issue worth devoting their time to care about, there is perhaps nothing more convincing than witnessing the researchers who educated themselves on the issue the most take the lead by setting examples with direct action as activists.

Conclusion

“Activism does not replace research — if anything, it enhances it with a stubbornly realistic reflection on what science and knowledge production can mean.” [33]

I have just shown two allegories that imply two completely opposite conclusions on the normative characteristics of researchers as activists. Amidst an existential crisis, some researchers believe it is more important to remain as objective bystanders that investigate, recommend (when asked), but never participate; while another group of researchers believe that there is an imperative to go beyond this comfortable position of studying things in the skies and start engaging with the real world via direct actions and grassroot organizations.

While it would be naive to expect activism to become a mainstream phenomenon within the research community in the next few crucial years for decisive climate actions, the phenomenon is here to stay and thrive. For the researchers who are still on the fence, perhaps they can look into the two most famous fictions depicting Laputa to gain a clue of what consequences lie ahead of the two paths, and ask themselves: “Are we to become pedants that can produce sophisticated theories on paper but nothing tangible to the real world, as in Jonathan Swift’s sarcasm novel? Or are we finally leaving the castle in the sky to make contributions on the ground, as in the Ghibli beloved classic?”

Ethics declarations

The author of this essay had, for the last decade, been active among several climate action groups in Global North countries of Taiwan, Germany, and Norway, including Scientist Rebellion. No such groups provided financial or other benefits for the completion of this essay.

Footnotes

1. Jane Thompson, “Climate”, National Research Ethics Committee, July 2015.
2. Becca Muir, “Should scientists be activists?”, Chemistry World, March 2020.
3. Bill Gates, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need”, February 2021.
4. Jonathan Watts, “Climatologist Michael E Mann: ‘Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes”, The Guardian. February 2021.
5. Michael E. Mann was referring to the false notion “that an Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all life on earth within 10 years”, which the doommists held as a fact but “there is no science to support that”.
6. He was referring to the life cycle carbon emissions of EVs when compared with vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE) here.
7. See https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1658734715166138374 for the original tweet. The grammatical errors in the tweet are left as it is here.
8. Here he meant the emphasis on reduction of private car usage and encouragement of bicycle and public transportation.
9. See https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1389956840000196609 for the original tweet.
10. In fact, it can be argued that the inclusion of more researchers from different backgrounds in the climate activism network can reduce the risk of misinterpretation and ignorance of scientific studies in the first place.
11. “General guidelines”, National Research Ethics Committee, August 2019. Similar recommendations can be found in “Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology” (guideline number 23) and “Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities” (guideline number 50) on the same website.
12. Emily Atkin, “Is the March for Science Bad for Scientists?”, The New Republic. March 2017.
13. Brian Resnick. “Scientists are going to march on Washington. Here’s why that’s awkward.”, Vox. February 2017.
14. David Sedlak, “Crossing The Imaginary Line”, Environmental Science & Technology. September 2016.
15. “Judges Act”. Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan). June 2020.
16. The fictional flying island that appeared firstly in the novel series “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift (1726) and later more famously in the anime movie “Laputa: Castle in the Sky”, directed by Hayao Miyazaki (1986) in Ghibli studio. It is worthy (for the sake of this essay) to note that:

• In the former work, the inhabitants of Laputa mastered theoretical research but could not apply their work in real life.
• In the latter work, Laputa was initially built by an advanced civilization via the appropriate use of nature such as wind energy, but later epitomize into the center of corruption and oppression towards the ground; it was only after being abandoned did Laputa become a solarpunk style paradise for the remaining non-human lifeforms.

17. See https://twitter.com/PeteK_AQ/status/1667212023443144705 for the original tweet.
18. Grammatical errors in his tweets are left as it is here.
19. Jeff Tollefson, “Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming”, Nature News, November 2021.
20. Daniele Artico et al., “‘Beyond being analysts of doom’: scientists on the frontlines of climate action”, Frontiers in Sustainability, June 2023.
21. Tosin Thompson. “Scientist Rebellion: researchers join protesters at COP26”, Nature News, November 2021.
22. Charlie J. Gardner and Claire F. R. Wordley, “Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity”, Nature Ecology & Evolution, September 2019.
23. Francisco Garcia-Gibson, “The ethics of climate activism”, WIREs Climate Change, February 2023.
24. Naomi Oreskes, “What Is the Social Responsibility of Climate Scientists?”, Daedalus, October 2020.
25. Jessica F. Green, “Less Talk, More Walk: Why Climate Change Demands Activism in the Academy”, Daedalus, October 2020.
26. John E. Kotcher et al., “Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment”, Environmental Communication, February 2017. It is worthy to note that of all the six advocacy statements tested in the research, the only one case that significantly affected the perceived credibility of the researcher was when he advocated for a specific technology (in this case, new nuclear power plants).
27. Viktoria Cologna et al., “Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement”, Environmental Research Letters, February 2021. It is worthy to note that in this research:

• The public support for scientists advocating an explicitly specified climate policy was lower than that when the policy was not specified.
• Among the specified climate policies asked, subsidies for renewable energy and extension for public transportation gather higher support than carbon taxes in general or targeting a specific sector.
• While openly supporting climate policies and protests might negatively affect the perceived objectivity of a fictitious researcher, the perception that “she acts in the interest of society” was positively affected.

28. Jessica F. Green, “Less Talk, More Walk: Why Climate Change Demands Activism in the Academy”, Daedalus, October 2020.
29. Blair Miller, “Plaintiff in Montana youth climate trial criticizes state as officials prepare to testify next week”, The Fairfield Sun Times, June 2023. While from the text alone, it might not be clear that Mark Z. Jacobson was referring to the climate movement when talking about “working together with other people”, in one of his tweets that quoted the exact sentence, he tagged climate and environmental groups such as 350 and Sierra Club.
30. Casey Quackenbush, “The climate scientists are not alright”, The Washington Post, May 2022.
31. Gardner et al., “From Publications to Public Actions: The Role of Universities in Facilitating Academic Advocacy and Activism in the Climate and Ecological Emergency”, Frontiers in Sustainability, May 2021.
32. Stuart Capstick et al., “Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action”, Nature Climate Change, August 2022.
33. Daniele Artico et al., “‘Beyond being analysts of doom’: scientists on the frontlines of climate action”, Frontiers in Sustainability, June 2023.