Rich Countries Dominate Climate Research

The imbalance may make it harder for poorer nations to participate effectively in the Paris climate agreement

The research divide may impact most on least developed countries (LDC) and small island developing states (SIDS).

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Developed countries’ dominance in climate research may make it harder for poorer nations to participate effectively in the Paris climate agreement, according to a report published last week in Nature Climate Change.

That imbalance is overwhelming: Researchers from industrialized countries published 10,442 scientific and technical journal articles in 2011, compared with only 1,323 by researchers from the developing world, according to World Bank data.

The 14 authors of last week’s paper say that state of affairs could complicate poor countries’ ability to appropriately participate in agreements like the Paris deal, which calls on nations to formulate and fulfil their own commitments.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Northern domination of science globally relevant to climate change policy and practice and lack of research led by Southern researchers in Southern countries may hinder development and implementation of bottom-up global agreements and nationally appropriate actions in Southern countries,” they write. “The divide may impact most on least developed countries (LDC) and small island developing states (SIDS), which are the most vulnerable to climate change but contribute least to relevant research.”

The imbalance may also erode Southern trust in a process that is sometimes perceived to be more responsive to developed countries’ interests and needs, they wrote. And it may assign developing countries a junior position within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change body responsible for advising on implementation and technological and scientific questions, giving researchers from wealthier countries a disproportionate say in that body’s conclusions.

It also may decide what gets studied, they write.

“Southern scientists have argued that most studies feeding into global assessments focus directly or indirectly on issues more relevant to the North and are often based on assumptions not transferable to the South.”

The group calls for more funding to support the work of climate researchers from developing countries.

Reprinted from ClimateWire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe