Debates on Governing Research

Download the PDF here

Governance of solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation modification or SRM) research is a contentious issue, involving balancing concerns about risks and unintended consequences with the potential to limit harm and suffering, the need for scientific exploration, and informed decision-making.A core challenge is whether research can be conducted without implicitly paving the way for deployment – the so-called slippery slope concern. This debate examines two contrasting governance approaches: restricting SRM research vs. enabling research.

Arguments for Restricting SRM Research

Concerns about premature normalization & deployment include:

• Slippery slope risk: Research could gradually legitimize SRM as a viable climate strategy, making future deployment seem inevitable.
• Moral hazard: The existence of SRM research could weaken political will for emissions reductions and adaptation.
• Uncertain risks: Environmental, social, and geopolitical risks of SRM remain poorly understood, and research could advance faster than governance structures can keep up.
• Equity & justice concerns: Vulnerable communities, particularly in the Global South, currently have little say in research decisions that could affect them disproportionately.
• Lack of global consent: No international governance framework ensures democratic, transparent decision-making in SRM research.

Restrictive governance approaches:

• Bans or moratoriums on outdoor experimentation.
• Strict international regulation before any research is conducted.
• Public funding restrictions to prevent government legitimization of SRM research.
• Bans on patenting of SRM technologies and associated materials.

Arguments for Supporting SRM Research

Potential benefits of research:

• Reducing uncertainty: Studying SRM can provide better data on risks and impacts, ensuring decisions are based on science rather than speculation, including for non-SRM climate science research.
• Empowering science-based decision-making: A research ecosystem could strengthen decisions on use or non-use, rather than undermining them.
• Preventing harmful experimentation: Early work around small-scale experiments can help contribute to building a transparent research process, potentially reducing the likelihood of unilateral or harmful SRM experiments.
• Ensuring the development of robust safeguards: Research learnings can help inform the establishment of guardrails that ensure responsible decision-making about any future use.

Enabling research approaches:

• Creating platforms for data and research sharing across institutions and geographies.
• Ethical guidelines for SRM research that define the boundaries around research.
• Public funding rather than private or unregulated interests to push research forward in trusted ways.

Moving Beyond the Binary: A Precautionary, Responsible, and Inclusive Research Ecosystem

This debate must extend beyond whether SRM research should take place to how it might be governed responsibly. A well-structured research ecosystem may:

• Separate research from deployment decisions, ensuring that studyingSRM does not automatically lead to its use.
• Embed public participation and equity in research design,empowering affected communities.
• Ensure legitimacy in future decision-making by strengtheningdemocratic governance structures rather than deferring authorityto a small group of academics or policymakers.
• By integrating precautionary principles, global cooperation, andtransparency into governance, it may be possible to reduce risks whilemaintaining decision-making flexibility for future generations.