The International Council of Scientific Unions

If there’s one thing I have learned from reading Marxist literature, it’s that it always starts with some alleged ‘moral call’. Every time. And while that might appear a somewhat strange place to start an article on the ICSU, it is absolutely relevant.

Encyclopedia’s entry on the International Council for Science includes a fair bit of history on the topic of ICSU. See, the contemporary organisation - headquartered in Paris - is a merger beween the ICSU, and the ISSC - the International Social Sciences Council.

And why is that relevant?

Because the ISSC - I kid you not - was founded under the auspices of UNESCO. And - a short primer - it was UNESCO who enabled NGO function at the United Nations via ECOSOC 1296, it was UNESCO who arranged the 1968 biosphere conference which led to our present predicament, and… the founder of UNESCO - Julian Huxley - also founded IUCN, and they lobbied hard to pass ECOSOC 1296.

Of course - and somewhat unbelievably - it was also UNESCO who, prior to the ink being dry on the dotted line establishing the organisation, turned around and entered into a formal agreement with none other than the ICSU back in 1946.

In other words - UNESCO are here, there and everywhere behind the scenes… apart from all matters relating to the ICSU.

UNESCO is furthermore the only UN agency to be located in France. Paris, to be exact. And it does have a League of Nations predecessor - the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, established in 1922.

-

But back to the ICSU -

It’s an NGO, it exists to identify and address major issues of importance, facilitate interaction among scientists, promote participation, and provide independent advice. And section 5 of its statute further adds - ‘ICSU shall not permit any of its activities to be disturbed by statements or actions of a political nature‘.

Yeah, well that clearly didn’t last.

Its predecessor named the International Research Council, launched in 1919, and there’s a brief historical article worth including here -

Upon formation they immediately set out to form separate associate unions for different fields of science, though interestingly, the IRC would in charge of the administrative work - effectively, serving the equivalent of contemporary organisational secretariats.

The council was made up by the nations joining, counting 15 at inception, and 35 when this article was written in 1928.

Due to WW1, the council rejected Germany’s entry, but finally in 1926 sent the invite. In spite thereof, Germany remained hesitant. Reason being them not considering it a wholly scientific union, as some associate unions included scientific organisations run by governments - a point to which the article eventually concedes.

The article closes by adding that ‘some modifications of the statutes… may be desirable’.

Back to the main article, and the UNESCO and ICSU cooperation -

‘…, Joseph Needham (1900–1995), then Head of the Natural Sciences Division of the Preparatory Commission of UNESCO, addressed the ICSU Committee on Science and Its Social Relations, outlining the prospects of postwar scientific cooperation. This was discussed during ICSU's London General Assembly of 1946, and the first agreement between UNESCO and a non-governmental organization, i.e. ICSU, was signed shortly thereafter. Topics discussed included a plea for the elimination of military secrecy, a hope for increased international collaboration in applied science especially with regard to atomic power, a request for scientific "frankness, openness and integrity" so as to promote the common good, and advancement of the public understanding of science‘

Already here, I am somewhat wary. It’s not ICSU’s job to promote the common good, nor advance anything. Sure, that’d be UNESCO pushing for this you may argue, but if the two organisations have a signed agreement from inception point, it appears questionable that ICSU still remains entirely outside of influence.

‘In 1963 ICSU formed the Standing Committee on the Free Circulation of Scientists (SCFCS), which in 1993 was renamed the Standing Committee on Freedom in the Conduct of Science and given an expanded mandate… The balance between safeguarding free scientific communication and keeping a politically neutral position was always a delicate one, and necessitated low-key action. By and large, the SCFCS managed to fill its watchdog role. In 1976 the SCFCS published its first edition of the "blue book," which is currently entitled "Universality of Science" and contains the principles pertaining to the rights of scientists and their freedom of movement‘

I didn’t even know of the SCFCS, but it appears yet another associate organisation spawned due to the complexity of an issue being great - or taking a long time to resolve. Either way, in 1976, they published a book outlining the rights of scientists, and their freedom of movement. And because of that description, I cannot simply ignore it, but will address after the current document.

In terms of structure, we have the General Assembly, assisted by an Executive Board, which consists of six regional officers, eight ordinary members, four union members, and four national members. (6+8+4+4=22).

That means that in order to control overall direction, you would need 12 people voting in alignment. Simplest here would probably be to control those ordinary members, and union members. But there are many ways to skin that cat, when addressing said hypothetical.

‘Since 1972 the ICSU Secretariat has been based in Paris with French government support. A small structure was built up under the leadership of Julia Marton-Lefèvre (1978–1997) and has become a cornerstone in ICSU activities‘

So Julia’s own CV covered yesterday likely refers to her tenure as lead. But furthermore, what she did no doubt was to further cement control, because the real power in this organisation including associates solidly rests with the main organisation - the ICSU. More on this later.

The Best Available Science

In activities, we also find the ‘International Geophysical Year‘, which… omits key detail relating to its genuine purpose. More on that later.

‘ICSU also engaged in other areas of common concern for international science. ICSU in 1966 set up its interdisciplinary Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) aimed at making scientific data of various kinds accessible to scientists beyond their origin. In 1969 the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) was established to plan and facilitate, among other things, a global monitoring network and a training program for future environmental managers. SCOPE contributed to the Untied Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), which was initiated in 1986‘

COSTED provides a convenient opportunity to institute an ‘information clearinghouse’, and SCOPE was established to plan and facilitate a global monitoring network, and a training program for future managers. The former is about global surveillance.

SCOPE

‘Such activities strengthened the ICSU role in the area of global environment and development, and led to close collaboration with various UN bodies‘

Without democratic oversight, and this then led to ASCEND 21 and Agenda 21. This combination deserves special attention, and will not be covered here

‘ICSU now sponsors three global observing systems (GOS)—the Global Ocean Observing System, the Global Climate Observing System, and the Global Terrestrial Observing System…. The goal of the GOS is improved monitoring of the global Earth system‘

Global surveillance, for… durr, protecting us.

Conservation and Global Surveillance

‘ICSU links with the social sciences and engineering remain relatively weak‘

It shouldn’t exist at all. Soft sciences - if even science at all - deserve its own category, if for no other reason but it stops subversive marxists from doing their ‘thing’, and clouding issues with ambigious ‘moral calls’ for political expedience.

‘Of the member unions in ICSU, four can be counted as belonging to the social sciences, among them the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science (IUHPS).’

History and philosophy of science????? No, sorry - that’s not science. That’s at best a derivative thereof, and should not be in the ICSU at all.

When were they admitted, and by whom?

’Already during the 1980s and early 1990s it was recognized that the global problems facing humankind required cooperative efforts from scientists, social scientists, and engineers. Efforts were made to bring these various fields together through closer cooperation between ICSU and the International Social Science Council (ISCC). In 1996, then, ICSU, ISCC, and other organizations became cosponsors of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), originally established in 1990‘

… and there’s the merger between science and non-science which should never, ever, ever in a trillion years have taken place.

This is the moment where the ideological corruption of science became… well, perhaps not so much possible as I’m sure it always existed to an extent, but rather enabled to a colossal acceleration thereof.

And I really do not care about arguments in this regard. There’s a reason why these institutions were compartmentalised in the first place, and card-carrying Marxists droning on about self-serving definitions of ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ is one.

‘In the early 2000s the IHDP, IGBP, and related programs were brought together under the banner of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) to promote international and interdisciplinary research within four focal areas: carbon, food, water, and human health‘

Yeah… human health.

‘At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s under the presidency of M. G. K. Menon the ICSU Executive Board took up issues of the ethics of science‘

Ethics of science? Sorry, but no. No, no, no. The ethical aspect comes into play downstream from the scientists. It has to, because ethic and moral values are not uniform.

‘In the light of environmental and developmental issues, science was seen as not only part of the solution but to some extent as part of the problem. Second, scientific activities need to be guided by a sense of social responsibility.’

NO!

’While ICSU already had established a mechanism to deal with the rights (freedom) of scientists, it lacked a platform to deal effectively with scientific responsibilities‘

Which would allow someone lacking said ‘moral values’ to steer the general direction of the ICSU, and science in general. Let’s revisit their statute above - ‘ICSU shall not permit any of its activities to be disturbed by statements or actions of a political nature‘, which given the claim of responsibilities is now about as valuable, as ESWI’s claims of independence from their big pharma contributors.

The ESWI

‘Following these discussions IUHPS was contacted for further suggestions on how to deal with this challenge. L. Jonathan Cohen (Oxford University), then secretary-general of ICSU and member of IUHPS, and Jens Erik Fenstad (University of Oslo), member of the Executive Board and former president of IUHPS, were among the driving forces in this effort‘

… in other words, the IUHPS drove this effort at corrupting from the inside.

‘IUHPS then focused its activities on ethics of science, … ICSU set up an informal working group that proposed a Standing Committee on Responsibility and Ethics of Science (SCRES)‘

Great, and it even spawned a working group titled SCRES, a prime place of participation, should you seek to corrupt the process from the inside. As to their focus -

‘focus within ICSU and with outside partners for questions pertaining to scientific responsibility and ethics‘

I could not possibible disagree with this more strongly.

‘clarify issues of moral principle‘

Oh wait, I stand corrected.

That old chestnut. It’s a moral call. That’s what drove the socialist, Will Durant, to push for his ‘Declaration of Interdependence’ (aka communism) in 1945. It’s what caused his father-in-law to partake in the creation of the MPDA in 1915, at a time when Hollywood was increasingly being infected by communist ideology.

Communism: Declaration of Interdependence

‘raise awareness of important ethical issues among scientists, policy makers and the general public‘

…. no. That would be a matter for those who write the curriculum. Hopefully not UNESCO, but definitely not a secretive science organisation acting with impunity.

‘This took a new turn in the planning of the World Conference on Science (WCS) that was jointly hosted by ICSU and UNESCO in Budapest, Hungary, in 1999. Cooperation with the UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) led to a special WCS session on "Science, Ethics and Responsibility." Indeed, SCRES prepared a WCS background document that was one of only two such documents distributed to all speakers, chairs, and rapporteurs (ICSU-SCRES 2000).‘

… and just like that, they’re now in a prime position to influence those who call the shots. You know, those who were elected as opposed to working for a secretive organisation concerned about topics like the ‘morality of 2 + 2 = 4’.

‘The WCS also placed a new topic on the SCRES agenda. The WCS keynote speech of Joseph Rotblat (b. 1908), the Polish-born physicist and international activist, called for a universal oath or pledge to be taken by scientists when receiving a degree in science‘

I can tell you what comes next. An enforcement mechanism, ensuring that those who speak up will lose their livelihoods.

‘In response, SCRES produced a study of 115 ethical guidelines and codes of ethics that was presented to the ICSU General Assembly at its Rio de Janeiro meeting in 2002. At the same time SCRES presented an evaluation of its own activities and suggested that ICSU reconsider how best to place the ethics of science within its structure‘

And just like that, even the main organisation is corrupted by some judge, who rules on imperfect knowledge, and yet get to call the shots on what exactly constitutes morality and ethics in science.

‘SCRES was dissolved in 2002, and ICSU established a strategic review committee to work out suggestions for the future of ethics within ICSU‘

… as they’d carried out their duties, no need to keep them around.

I know that document was longer than expected, but do not bail. The next section is important.

So let’s address the ICSU document above; ‘ICSU and the Universality of Science: 1957 -2006 and beyond - From SCFCS to SciDIF‘.

‘In 1958, the General Assembly of ICSU, endorsed what had up until then been implicit but not explicit in the Council’s operations, when it voted a policy resolution on political nondiscrimination, which subsequently evolved into statute 5 as it reads today. Then, in 1963, a dedicated Standing Committee on the Free Circulation of Scientists (SCFCS) was established to safeguard the Principle of Universality as stipulated in statute 5. This subsequently evolved into the Standing Committee on Freedom in the Conduct of Science, whose members have included many respected and well-known scientists, all of whom have devoted many hours of their time because of their belief in the importance of universality‘

Confirming the above, but with a tie to 1958.

‘…, the challenges to freedom and responsibility in science are different today to those of the past. These changes formed the backdrop for an ICSU strategic review, Science and Society: Rights and Responsibilities that was published in 2005 and recommended that the SCFCS be replaced by a new Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science (CFRS). This committee will have a broader remit than its erstwhile predecessor. In addition to providing advice and assistance for individual scientists, it will play an active role in promoting the universality of science and associated responsibilities of scientists. Working with National Members and International Unions, it will actively monitor threats to the international exchange of science and scientists and advise on appropriate policies and actions.‘

The excuses are as old as time. Someone is threatening you, so we need to strip your rights to compensate. It works the same everywhere, per Goering.

As for the ‘Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science‘, I stated up there, it would be followed by an enforcement mechanism, and this ‘committee will have a broader remit’ means they likely will have some capacity to judge, or at least influence the process.

And as for ‘actively monitor threats to the international exchange of science and scientists‘… yeah that’s really convenient, because in order to ‘protect’ those scientists, they will now have to ‘monitor’ them. Ie, surveillance.

‘In 1957-58, ICSU sponsored the International Geophysical Year (IGY) which was the largest international field research programme ever undertaken. The data and information coordination and management requirements for the IGY, were far beyond anything previously experienced and necessitated the development of new structures. ‘

Oh really?

‘Two new Interdisciplinary Bodies of ICSU were established specifically to meet the needs of IGY and ensure the full, open and long-term availability of the data and information coming out of this unique international research effort.’

Centralisation of data, and information about the data, in other words. We saw the exact same pattern form when GEMS was rolled out. IRS/INFOTERRA acted the role of ‘information clearinghouse’ -

INFOTERRA; The International Referral System

’

The Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Services (FAGS) and the World Data Centre (WDC) system are both networks of national centres. They continue to function to this day and many of the original services and centres continue to provide open access to data and information on which many scientists depend. Over time, new facilities have also been incorporated into these networks.‘

As said, they now control the data, the coordination thereof, and will strap some heavily biased ‘executive summary’ for the ‘benefit’ of public servants who do not have the time to trawl through a 593 document on ‘The Concept of well-being in South America’, or whatever tedious garbage drummed up, through which they hide a single-line atrocity to be exploited in 30 years, after said politician has retired.

‘In 1966, …. A new ICSU Interdisciplinary Body, the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) was established to facilitate international cross-disciplinary cooperation on data and information issues‘

… thereby ensuring data can be exchanged, per a common set of standard.

‘The principal focus of this Summit was the use of information and communication technologies to address the digital divide between richer and poorer countries. In this context, ICSU was instrumental in ensuring that mechanisms to enable universal access to scientific knowledge were high on the agenda; science has a prominent place in the formal declarations and plan of action that governments signed up to at the Summit.‘

… and just like that, I think I should go look for documents tying the ICSU to ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’… oh they contributed to a document in 1999, now did they (though that’s beyond the scope of this article)?

… and that conference declaration led to a new initiative, now did it - ‘A New social contract for science‘?

‘The ICSU Press, was created as the publishing house of ICSU in 1983 and, as publishing practices changed, with the major shift from paper-based to electronic media, it evolved into the advisory Committee on the Dissemination of Scientific Information. This committee organised several important international meetings on scientific information needs and new publishing practices. And it was as a result of one of these that the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications was created, in 1992, in partnership with UNESCO and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World.’

Oh so my links above were already old news?

’INASP, which is one of the newest Interdisciplinary Bodies of ICSU, has a goal of improving worldwide access to scientific information. In just over a decade, it has established a network of over 3000 partners, including publishers, librarians, science managers and academics in the developing world. It responds to requests for assistance on all aspects of scientific literature publication, access and dissemination, and it assists development and funding agencies in the establishment and implementation of information-related programmes in low-income countries.’

Oh brilliant, so they’ve already been ‘helping’ us all for decades already. Since, essentially, … around the time everything started to go horribly wrong.

’Although its original focus was on the compilation of directories and provision of scientific publications at affordable cost, mainly from the North to the South, it has extended its work considerably beyond these initial activities. Its activities are needs-driven, with priorities being set by scientific communities in low-income countries. This has led to an increasing emphasis on training in the use of information and communication technologies and to the development of local publishing capacity using electronic media‘

Ah, say no more. They have also been ‘educating’ the masses in how to ‘use technology correctly’. Say, that sounds awfully like something I saw in this document, something about a ‘modern data expertise’ -

UN 2.0

‘This assessment sets out over 50 specific recommendations and concludes that there is an urgent need for a coordinated global approach aimed at providing universal and equitable access to quality data and information. Achieving this will require some restructuring and re-focusing of existing ICSU structures, as well as the development of new systems, mechanisms and policies. The General Assembly in 2005 requested that ICSU convene a Scientific Data and Information Forum (SciDIF) for all the key stakeholders as part of the planning for an international framework for scientific data and information‘

Yeah, their aim is to control everything, including information.

Perhaps ESPECIALLY information.

‘Many members of the ICSU community share this commitment in their own contexts, as do many of ICSU’s interdisciplinary research programmes. For example, ICSU’s Global Environmental Change bodies launched the START programme in 1992, specifically to foster regional networks of collaborating scientists and institutions in developing countries‘

By being first - and pushing their infrastructure - they also get to control it.

… look, their influence is absolutely undeniable. As I stated in one of several articles on global surveillance and GEMS in particular - something happened in the 90’s to the Global Environmental Monitoring System - aka GEMS - but it was hard, very hard to establish exactly what, because all the information is hard to trace. Well, about that. The initiative which took over from GEMS - GOS - was also carried by them.

GOS then became GEOSS, which spawned exciting new initiative like GEO BON (Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network), and EO4HEALTH.

And what’s also impossible to deny, is that the acting Deputy Director for Climate and Environment, serving under Joe Biden, is a former president of the ICSU.

Oh wait, I almost forgot to best part. It’s at this stage I invite you to scroll up and check out who wrote the ‘A New social contract for science‘.

As for the ICSU - and the ISSC - they merged in 2018.

That’s right - even though social sciences should never have come within a nautical mile of a legit ‘hard science’ (aka ‘science’) union, those two are now cooperating in full, which probably always was the intent from the minute the ISSC was spawned by UNESCO back in 1952.

Perhaps that also gives a clue as to why the trust in science now appears to be in a tailspin.

As for the awareness of the replication crisis in science… how fitting that Ioannidis kicked it off in 2005 with the release of this paper, given that the Manhattan Principles - One Health - launched only the prior year.

-

Update:

Decided to read Jane Lubchenco’s proposal for a ‘new social contract’. It didn’t fail to disappoint.

Very early stuff relating to the ‘ecosystem service’ garbage, accepting authoritarianism, allowing the human health and environment conflation, the ecosystem service valuation fraud, and so forth.

This is so obviously connected to the general Ecosystem Approach scam.

… and that, you can find over here.