Science and Peace
To: Fumiko Kasuga
7 June 2022
From: (Your name
7 June 2022
RE: USING SCIENCE TO BOLSTER PEACE
I greet you hoping that this letter finds you in good mood and health. I want to address various issues that you raise in your article, “Science as a Common Language for Contribution to Sustainability and Peace” and reemphasize the significance of the information that you present. I share the same views that peace is key, and that the only way to achieve impressive results in this area is to take bolder measures towards dealing with threats to peace. However, I also include my suggestions on what I think may improve peaceful coexistence using scientific approaches. I touch on the roles that future researchers and scholars may deploy as a way of improving how scientific approaches help to improve peace. I congratulate you for your effort in showing how science can help to improve peace and for allowing me to express my ideas on what needs to improve to make the article and future publications more informative and comprehensive.
I acknowledge your argument that science provides a suitable opportunity to deal with issues that could destabilize peace. The overview of your article encourages readers to proceed further with exploring the scholarly work. You begin by stating that there are various background factors and reasons that could foster conflict encompassing social and political values and beliefs. Your article also acknowledges that wars have in many instances threatened the environment and sustainability. Moreover, I agree with your view that disparity and inequality are more evident in the world today as a result of COVID-19, and that there is need to consider the environmental alterations triggered by human actions as climate changes might facilitate the emergence of new conflicts (Kasuga). More researches in your perception are required for a comprehensive awareness of holistic perceptions on the constraints at the interfaces of sustainability and peace that largely entails trans-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary ties among cohorts of communities of practice. Consequently, you state that collaborative scientific researches on these interfaces is being performed in the name of the Future Earth Programs, and various others. Consequently, you argue that science provides a suitable pathway and a common avenue for interactions and engagements aimed at achieving peace and sustainability under global transformations.
I think that you present your argument in a clear and easy-to-understand manner that may encourage various groups to explore further the points that you think could trigger conflict. I am captivated with how you refer to COVID-19 as a potentially new avenue for conflicts and social inequality. You clearly state that “Past war zones, the health crisis is identifying and exploring unevenness of all forms, setting nations and communities against each other” (Kasuga). You share the same sentiments with the Secretary General of the United Nations Mr. Guterres who believe that the pandemic has caused socio-economic imbalance in communities internationally and substantial restrictions on the freedom of people. However, am confident that your argument on how science may help to win the crisis that leads nations to conflict is effective and one that has basis.
I also appreciate how you present your ideas on how science may help to resolve some of the issues that could lead people to conflict or war. Your presentation evidently suggests that whereas it is possible to deal with conflicts using various techniques including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, it is also possible to adequately deploy scientific approaches to address the same concerns (Nature Immunology). I must admit that the article covers an area that many scholars are yet to exploit due certain limiting factors. Hence, the article serves as a valuable piece of information that deserves as keen look and analysis to acquire and grasp all the valuable content embedded in it. Your research and writing restores courage that there is still an opportunity to explore more ways to stabilize peace, especially in war-torn or vulnerable areas. I feel that by focusing on this topic you challenge scientists who specialise in different fields to consider their practice has having a solution to conflicts or any other practices that could cause breach of peace. Therefore, I take this opportunity for choosing to shed light onto a subject that still requires additional assessment to understand the role of science in building peace.
The way you use logos, pathos, and ethos is breathtaking and suggests that you are a prolific author who understands the value of using various methods to appeal to your audience. Logos entails the use of logical facts to explain an idea. You effectively presents various logical points in your paper, some of which relate to how science helps to improve peace. For instance, you mention and describe how biosecurity works, and terms it as mechanisms enacted to prevent disease-causing agents leaving or entering a place where they can cause significant risks for people and animals, or other products. Biosecurity is a proven scientific approach that may help to maintain peace in the event of conflicts (Ahmad et al. 141). The practice helps to seclude or isolate people before permitting them to enter certain areas, a practice that offers the chance to evaluate the population and find out who may be a security risk (Sarwer et al. 84). With regard to pathos, I notice that you use various elements and strategies to appeal to the audiences’ emotions. The way you persuade readers by knowingly evoking particular emotions to make them feel the way you want is a prolific concept that plays fundamental functions in focusing the audiences’ attention on how science presents a suitable chance to foster peaceful coexistence. For instance, before explaining how science has helped to combat COVID-19, which also proves to be a security threat, you give an illustration of how the pandemic has impacted adversely on individuals and communities (Kasuga). The strategy is instrumental in allowing readers to stick to what you present to the end. Also noticeable is how you deploy ethos by achieving credibility in how you present and argue your points. The author reaffirms his expertise in the topic and in the way he presents ideas by giving a description that is well-arranged and not characterized by spelling or lexical errors. Hence, using the various forms of appeals serve crucial functions in presenting the key argument, which revolve around the effectiveness of deploying science in building peace.
However, I feel that your appeal and argument would be more detailed if you addressed or expounded on certain aspects that are worth mentioning. For instance, addressing some of the impediments to using science to bolster security would make the work more impactful in explaining what lacks or needs to happen to improve use of scientific forms in addressing conflicts and nurturing peace. For instance, I believe that many people still require relevant knowledge on how to use science to improve peace. Excelling in this area calls for more training and research on individual basis to acquire needed information and be able to explore various science-based options to address issues that could destabilise peace (Gleditsch et al. 150). I also appreciate your mentioning of how technology forms part of the scientific forms that boost peace. You mention that unless suitable reviews, discussion systems, and rules are formed, fast development of new technologies may not contribute effectively towards bolstering peace as anticipated (Kasuga). Consequently, you advocate for a systematic and informed application of various modern technologies such as brain research, artificial intelligence, and reproductive medicine that may contribute towards improving peace. However, I believe that the paper would be impactful and highly informative at the same time if it expounded on how the various technologies work rather than just mentioning them, and stating how they may not work if certain structures and factors are considered. Moreover, the article would be more enlightening if it shed more light on the technological forms that may help to avert biological forms that could threaten peace and possibly cause destruction and death. For example, paying more attention to the technology that could help to counter the effects of H5N1 influence, which is termed as a chemical and biosecurity concern globally may present a better chance to prevent biological attacks that could have devastating effects as witnessed during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks in Japan.
Overall, it is imperative to pay considerable attention to how science provides a solution to conflict and serves as an avenue for encouraging peace. Hence, future researchers should explore the topic further and come up with more valuable information regarding the impact of science in bolstering peace. For instance, it is essential to expound further on the concept of Peace Innovation (PI) that Miklian and Hoelscher (201) identify as a newly emerging scientific approach to building peace. The authors think that the approach could help deal with existing challenges that could trigger conflicts, thus serving as a suitable approach for building peace. In addition to exploring the PI, I think it would be a good idea to focus more on how scientific techniques methods could be applied in peace and conflict studies, which is a field of social science that acknowledges and assesses violent and nonviolent conducts and the structural components causing conflicts, encompassing conflicts, with a perception towards knowing the actions and practices that would lead to peace and a more conducive human nature (Moore-Berg et al.). More fundamentally, I think that you would agree with me that paying more attention to how the Science for Peace and Security Programme may help to improve peaceful coexistence and relations. The organization of engineers, scholars, and scientists has continued to promote peace globally and shedding more light onto its aspirations, structure, and functions will impact significantly on strengthening peaceful coexistence. I know that you may have better ideas of what future researchers and scientists may do to elevate the use of science to promote peace. Thus I encourage you to share them in your subsequent writings that we all look forward to with great aspirations.
Ahmad, Tauseef, Kuldeep Dhama, Khan Sharun, Fazal Khan, and Irfan Ahmed. “Biosafety and Biosecurity Approaches to Restrain/Contain and Counter SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid-Review.” Turkish Journal of Biology, vol. 44, no. 3, 2020, pp. 135-145.
Gleditsch, Nils, Jonas Nordkvelle and Havard Strand. “Peace Pesearch – Just the Study of War?” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 51, no. 2, 2018, pp. 145-158.
Kasuga, Fumiko. “Science as a Common Language for Contribution to Sustainability and Peace.” Sustainability Science, vol. 16, 2021, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-021-00972-5
Miklian, Jason and Kristian Hoelscher. “A New Research Approach for Peace Innovation.” Innovation and Development, vol. 8, no. 2, 2018, pp. 189-207.
Moore-Berg, Samantha, Karen Bernstein, Roman Gallardo and Boaz Hameri. “Translating Social Science for Peace: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations.” Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 3, 2022, doi:10.1037/pac0000604
“Promoting Peace through Science.” Nature Immunology, 2017, https://www.nature.com/articles/ni0907-895.pdf. Accessed 7 June, 2022
Sarwer, Golam, Farhana Lovely, Ahmadul Kabir, and Mahmudul Hasan. “A study about Importance of biosafety and biosecurity on aspect of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) in a Quality Control (QC) laboratory of Bangladesh.” World Journal of Microbiology, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 82-92.