NEARLY a year ago a group of British academics called for an end to European Union funding of science in Israel 鈥渦ntil Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians鈥�. Since then, the debate over whether scientists should or shouldn鈥檛 cut links with Israel鈥檚 universities and research institutes has been ugly and ferocious.
As yet, it remains doubtful whether beneath the smog of name calling, petitioning and counter-petitioning much of an academic boycott of Israel actually exists. What is clear is that to attempt to evaluate the pros and cons of such action is to enter turbulent waters, and that at present scientists have no coherent guidelines by which to steer a course.
For decades, the closest thing to a moral map has been a principle called 鈥渦niversality of science鈥�, a little-known statute of an organisation known as the International Council of Scientific Unions, whose members include nearly 100 national academies of science and research councils. Later this month the ICSU will debate the universality principle. It should seize the chance to overhaul it.
Advertisement
Despite its grand title, the principle is little more than a single paragraph exhorting scientists never to discriminate in their dealings with other scientists on the basis of 鈥渃itizenship, religion, creed, political stance, ethnic origin鈥︹��. This is a fine aspiration. But as stated, it forbids all scientific boycotts, no matter how appalling or dangerous a regime might be, or how much effort and sacrifice the international community might be making to isolate it through economic, cultural and sporting sanctions. During the 1980s, numerous scientists and institutions invoked the universality principle to justify maintaining professional ties with South Africa. Many saw such a course as not just expedient but ethical. Then as now it was often argued that boycotts risk hurting the very people you are trying to help, while continued cooperation and communication offer a chance to influence the 鈥渂ad guys鈥� and break down political divisions.
All of which is true, up to a point. The problem is that it is no less true of sport, the arts and trade. Cooperation in these universal traditions can bring nations together too. Boycotts are blunt and imperfect instruments, best used only in very special circumstances. But science does not take place in a moral and political vacuum, and cannot logically claim special immunity. Any new version of the universality principle should make that clear.