What role does science plays in nuclear diplomacy?

Diplomacy has long concerned itself with trade, territorial disputes, alliances and the management of conflict. These responsibilities endure, but the questions facing foreign ministries increasingly demand scientific understanding. Artificial intelligence, nuclear technology, water security, energy and public health all require decision-making wherein technical dimensions cannot be separated from their political consequences. Science must therefore have a substantive place within foreign policy. Scientists ought to be embedded in foreign ministries, contributing from the earliest stages of policy (including foreign policy) development and negotiation. Their involvement should extend beyond the occasional consultation or the arrival of a white paper after the principal decisions have already been made.
This is the purpose of science for policy: bringing scientific evidence bear upon decisions that affect societies, nations and their respective relations between states. Carefully selected specialists can support technical due diligence, assess competing claims, explain uncertainty and advise on whether proposed commitments are feasible. Their expertise should help shape the questions being asked, alongside the answers being considered. Nuclear diplomacy makes this need particularly clear. Negotiations may turn on what can be measured, what an inspection can establish which activities can be verified. Political assurances gain credibility when agreements provide workable means of assessing compliance. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards illustrate this connection between international obligations and technical verification.
A diplomat need not become a physicist. Equally, a physicist cannot be expected to navigate every legal and political dimension of a negotiation without preparation. Effective teams require both forms of expertise, with scientists given meaningful opportunities to influence proposals and diplomats equipped to understand the evidence informing them. There is also a diplomatic value in scientific relationships themselves. During the Cold War, Pugwash brought scientists and scholars from opposing sides into dialogue about the dangers of the nuclear age. Such exchanges demonstrate how professional relationships can provide additional channels of communication across political divisions, even when official relations are strained. The strength of science lies in the discipline of testing claims against evidence, acknowledging uncertainty and correcting conclusions when findings change. Scientists have a responsibility to communicate honestly, including when the evidence challenges a preferred policy position. That responsibility deserves institutional protection.
Nationally, this provides an opportunity to connect scientific education with diplomatic service. Graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics could receive training in international law, negotiation and regional affairs. Through specialist appointments and secondments, they could contribute to foreign policy and support mediation, through a fourth pillar of science diplomacy, the Muscat Model, involving technically complex issues.
Their participation should begin when objectives are defined, continue as proposals are developed and extend into implementation Sustained involvement of scientific advice would guarantee continuity and allow specialists to understand the diplomatic context in which their knowledge is applied.
Nuclear diplomacy offers hope because it demands that states find ways to manage existential security challenges through dialogue and credible commitments. Embedding scientists within that process would strengthen the foundations of negotiation. Internationally, investing in people who can connect evidence with diplomacy could make a valuable contribution to international security.