Antarctic Diving and International Diplomacy: An Interview with Dr. Paul Berkman

It’s a common misconception that science should be daunting and irrelevant for non-scientists. In reality, science impacts the whole world, from the people living in it to the planet itself. Our interview series on the Science & Us blog raises awareness about interdisciplinary careers bridging science and society.

Recently, we chatted with Dr. Paul Berkman, whose work spans oceanography, international relations, and more. Berkman holds many roles, including serving as the director for the Science Diplomacy Center at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

What do you do?

I’m an explorer. I have been since I was little, growing up along the coast of California, where I fell in love with the ocean, playing with a little swell shark in a tidal pool. My dream at that stage, and still, is to study the ocean and help protect it on a planetary scale. Management involves law, policy, and government, but I always wanted to contribute from the perspective of a scientist.

I’ve had to develop interdisciplinary skills — skills that cross the natural sciences, oceanography, law, policy, government, social sciences, and history, and indigenous knowledge. Indigenous cultures around the world think in terms of seven generations: your grandmother, your great-grandmother, your father, mother, self, your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren — there’s a co-existence of generations.

Since the age of 22, I’ve been traveling around the world as a profession. I spent a year in Antarctica, scuba diving and studying animals on the seafloor. The deepest dive ever made under ice still to this day: under 22 meters of ice, under an ice shelf. I began as a visiting professor at UCLA at 23, teaching a course on antarctic marine ecology and policy. I worked with the US government in Washington, D.C., directly after that, and then started graduate school at 25.

The journey has continued to this day. I think in international terms, in interdisciplinary terms. What I’ve learned in all of this is that the biggest challenge we face as a civilization, at global to local levels, is inclusion. There’s a term I use regularly that embodies international, interdisciplinary, and inclusive — it is the concept of holistic.

We’re challenged to think in terms of balance: balance between present and future needs, between environmental protection and societal well-being and economic prosperity, between issues and impacts. I write books, speak at meetings, and convene courses.

How have you contributed to the sustainable development of our world?

It’s not something that I’ve done by myself. As a global civilization, the challenge we face is recognizing that nations account for third of the world in terms of land area. The other 70 percent are oceans and international spaces.

My quest — sometimes I feel like Don Quixote — is to identify strategies to help with balance, stability, and peace across generations on a planetary scale. There are nations in the middle of the spectrum, international on one end, and sub-national on the other. The ends are becoming more important in global decision making. If there are any concepts I’ve introduced, that would be one.

A specific example is how I co-convened the first formal dialogue between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia. Russia is clearly in the news for all kinds of reasons, and has been a long-term antagonist with the United States, certainly during the Cold War. But at some point, it will be important for the United States and Russia to normalize relations and to work cooperate in ways that are hopeful for the world.

The workshop, regarding security in the Atlantic Ocean, was approved by NATO through the NATO-Russia Council and involved 17 nations, all of the Arctic States, a number of non-Arctic states, and 4 ministries in Russia, including the representative of the President of Russia. It remains the only formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding Arctic security.

That’s a tangible example of science diplomacy and navigating a very practical discussion in ways that bring allies and adversaries together to think in terms of their common interests. Science diplomacy is an important tool the world has for building common interests and contributing to sustainability.

Convening so many groups, such as the NATO Advanced Research workshop, is really impressive! How did you gain the influence to do so?

Diplomats are not just individuals appointed by governments. We constructively contribute to the world we live in with diplomacy and candor. It requires a sense of vision and skills in communicating effectively. And I’ve done that. I’ve learned how to be candid. I’ve learned how to engage in dialogues and build relationships.

Recently, I’ve been assisting with the formation of a foreign minister Science and Technology Advisory Network, a request from the Science and Technology adviser and Secretary of State the United States. What I’ve done is convene two dialogues that brought together diplomats, high-level decision-makers from foreign ministries around the world.

I sent invitations directly to the foreign ministers of dozens of countries. I don’t know the foreign ministers. It works its way through the food chain, and depending on the circumstances of the decision and merit of what is essentially a proposal, participation emerges.

One observation is to be brave, while understanding the interests of the various parties you’re working with. If you want to contribute, you have to do your very best to try and contribute. You never know what doors will open, or how they will open. Remain open and aware. Surround yourself with strong and helpful creative individuals. As to how I did these things: I don’t know. To this day I’m trying to figure that out and pass on these lessons.

How do you translate complex topics to diverse audiences?

I think in terms of analogies. For example, simply saying that the Arctic Ocean is changing doesn’t really convey anything, so I think in terms of an analogy. An analogy in that case would be a room defined by its boundaries. The room has a floor, walls, and ceiling. You’ve got inflow and outflow through the doors. You presumably have a window. Lights go on and off. Very similar to the Arctic Ocean. It’s got a sea floor, continents surrounding it, and a sea ice surface. It’s got inflow and outflow through the North Atlantic and North Pacific. It’s got light turning on. So you can see the system in terms of boundaries.

Now imagine the room that you’re sitting in. I take away the ceiling. And it’s raining outside, windy and cold at night. Your movements, your interactions in that space, would fundamentally change. Not because it’s necessarily circumstances outside have changed, but the characteristics of your system have changed.

The observation here is that whenever you change the boundary of a system, you fundamentally have changed the system. And so by changing the surface of the Arctic sea ice it’s no longer the same Arctic Ocean. We have a new Arctic Ocean, which means that all of the dynamics associated with our ocean are different. It’s inherently introducing instabilities, political, economic, and cultural. All of this is happening because it’s a new Arctic Ocean. It’s not because it’s just the sea ice changing — it’s because the system has fundamentally changed.

That’s an example of how to illustrate a complex concept with an analogy. On my first research paper in college, my professor wrote in big block letters across the back of the page: “YOUR WRITING STINKS!!!” It’s important to recognize that the ability to communicate requires work and continuous practice. Along the way, it became clear to me that the real skill of communication is to be able to communicate with anybody.