Over the past decade, work and initiatives implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have grown drastically. Many institutions across the western world and beyond have embraced EDI programmes with pride and enthusiasm.
In the last couple of years, however, criticisms escalated and EDI values are being discredited by a growing scepticism, even from the general public and often also from highly organized orchestrated anti-EDI campaigns. In many cases, as a result of political pressure or recent government funding decisions, EDI programs are being significantly scaled back or even entirely dismantled. One of the arguments that was raised is that EDI has become overly ideological, rigid in its adherence to a doctrine. EDI is sometimes considered responsible for the introduction of the so-called positive bias, or a bias against categories that have been previously favoured. Other concerns have evolved around the meaning of gender differences, introducing at times ambiguity in the concepts of equality and diversity. Another reason of concern is given by actions that were considered limiting the human rights. Examples are the cases related to free speech, where speakers were uninvited or impeded to talk. In particular in science, it has been a reason of concern as the attitude of resisting to a diversity of opinions can be perceived as counter-productive for progress.
Some voices argue that instead of building on what people have in common, EDI culture focuses on their differences, often perceived as exclusionary. These positions have both played in favour of opposing political platforms and alienated people with more moderate views, or people less ’educated’ on EDI issues. Today, sadly, the EDI term has taken on a new and sometimes divisive meaning.
EDI movements need to regain ground in their defence for fairness and coalition building, concerned with all sorts of inequalities, backgrounds and views. The concept of inclusivity in EDI is crucial in preventing societal division. Re-thinking EDI is essential to science and society in these challenging times.
In this Great Debate we aim to discuss the criticisms to EDI and identify strategies to move forward with a constructive attitude, with the awareness of the benefits EDI has achieved, and a recognition of the values an inclusive science culture brings to science. Invited speakers will include influential members of the geosciences community and beyond.

In 2025, the Commission on Geoethics of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) developed recommendations for the ethical application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in geosciences. The report discusses eight themes where ethical concerns surrounding AI are particularly relevant to the geosciences: human responsibility in AI use; transparency and explainability of AI systems; bias and fairness in data, models and algorithms; protection of personal data and informed consent; stakeholder and community participation; environmental protection; scientific integrity in research, publishing and education; and the geopolitical implications of AI deployment. Moving beyond high-level principles, the report makes actionable recommendations.

As AI capabilities and adoption in the geosciences grow, profound questions arise. In this Great Debate, the panellists will address key issues raised by AI applications and the necessary ethical considerations, and will invite the audience to share their views.

As our world approaches 1.5°C of global warming, as worldwide emissions continue to grow, and the impacts of climate change escalate, there is a general sentiment that we are running out of time. Increasingly, geoengineering concepts are being pushed into the media and policy spheres, using this sentiment of urgency to frame these concepts as “buying us time” for mitigation. There are many concepts, with the most advanced concepts including solar radiation management (marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol injection mostly), sea ice thickening/brightening, sea curtains, tarping mountain glaciers, ocean fertilisation or alkalinity enhancement, as well as ocean biomass dumping, and many more. Some might target the root cause of our rising temperatures by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but with detrimental effects on the ecosystems impacted. Other concepts would just attenuate the symptoms of our planet, the rising global temperature.

Are geoengineering concepts a distraction from our urgent need for adaptation and mitigation? In a world where research funding, political focus on the green transition, and geopolitical order are dwindling, are we reducing our chances of reaching the highest possible mitigation ambition to stay well below 2°C and pursue efforts to stay below 1.5°C by even discussing these options? Several of the targeted ecosystems (e.g. our deep ocean, cloud-aerosol interactions, etc.) are not yet well understood at a fundamental level. Is it appropriate to advocate for their manipulation without first conducting adequate fundamental research?

In this Great Debate, we aim to have a constructive and open dialogue on the value of delving into geoengineering concepts in the context of mitigation targets and policy dialogues.

Across the globe, the pathways from scientific evidence to political action are anything but uniform. While some researchers are encouraged to engage directly in shaping national agendas, others operate in systems where science-policy boundaries are strictly delineated.

Rather than asking what should be the role of scientists—a debate often limited by normative frameworks—this Science for Policy Great Debate asks: What could be the role of scientists in various governance and institutional contexts? The aim is to spark a forward-looking conversation on how scientists could engage across policy systems—acknowledging structural, cultural, and political diversity—and what mechanisms are needed to support that engagement sustainably. This Great Debate will also look ahead: What emerging structures and support systems are necessary to equip scientists with the tools, networks, mandates, incentives, and trust to work across science-policy boundaries? How can international collaboration respect national context while fostering shared ambition?

This session brings together researchers, policymakers, and science advisors from different countries and sectors to explore how scientists navigate their responsibilities and opportunities at the science-policy interface. How do political cultures, institutional structures, and public expectations influence the mandates scientists take on—from knowledge brokers and community advocates to embedded advisors and Horizon Europe Mission leads?

As we approach the IPCC’s AR7 era, the landscape of climate prediction is more diverse—and contentious—than ever. Should we trust high-resolution, process-based models rooted in physical laws, or embrace the promise of machine learning, which some claim will soon surpass traditional approaches? With Earth observations and hybrid frameworks adding further complexity, a critical question emerges: can data-driven models anticipate a future climate that will be fundamentally different from anything in the observational record? This debate is urgent, as society demands actionable guidance on climate risks and tipping points.
At the same time, global leadership in climate science is shifting. With recent political developments in the US, the European Union faces both a challenge and an opportunity to shape the scientific and policy agenda. What should Europe’s role be in steering the next generation of climate modeling and ensuring robust, transparent advice for decision-makers? This session brings together leading voices from science, policy, and technology to debate the future of climate prediction, the limits of machine learning, and the responsibilities of the EU in a rapidly changing world.

Earth system models and associated finer resolution models are key tools for the simulation of the feedbacks and linkages between soil, hydrological, geomorphological, and ecosystem processes, and to simulate the water and energy balance and their interactions at different scales. However, there are important coupled feedbacks on the scale of years to decades missing in many terrestrial ecosystem models. For example, water cycle patterns affect soil carbon stocks and microbial community structures, which in turn affects the hydraulic and ecophysiological response of the soil. Soil organic carbon fraction is a key determining factor for soil porosity and water holding capacity that drives soil moisture dynamics in hydrological models, and the soil moisture, in turn, drives soil organic carbon decomposition rates – creating a dynamic feedback that is often ignored in models. Another example is the coupling and feedback between hydrology and geomorphology in processes such as soil erosion and landslides and related vegetation patterns. Landscapes change and adapt to atmospheric forcing, changing climatic conditions and anthropogenic activities, leading to a changed hydrological behavior of the earth surface. These dynamics are not included in the larger scale hydrological models, nor discussed as critical. As such soil (eco)systems are often considered static in models of freshwater stocks and fluxes at catchment to global scales, and important interactions over time scales as short as a year or a decade are overlooked. While no model can include all processes, ongoing developments in computation and earth system science urge us to continue to press the boundary of model development and to include important feedback processes.
This session will contribute to the debate on which processes and stocks in the terrestrial ecosystem need to be included in modeling efforts that aim to increase our understanding of the coupled atmospheric-terrestrial water cycle. On the one hand this session aims to raise awareness of the importance of these feedbacks and that soil is more than a parameter that can be considered static for models that are run for several decades, and on the other hand provide a dialogue between contrasting opinions on what is important to include in models. In other words, the session will provide a platform to discuss when we need a detailed representation of soil-related feedback processes and when we can simplify these.

For several centuries, scientific journals have been the primary means for disseminating and validating scientific knowledge. They provide platforms for peer review, ensure long-term archiving, and often form rankings by which researchers are evaluated. However, the digital era opened new possibilities for faster and more interactive scientific publishing, though with different levels of rigor in scientific quality control, e.g., open access preprint servers, repositories and discussion forums with public peer review. At the same time, the pay-to-publish model led some commercial journal publishers to impose high article processing charges, prioritizing profit over quality, while the scientific quality assurance is performed by scientists. These developments raise fundamental questions: Should scientific journals remain essential in the evolving publishing landscape? To what extent can alternative publishing platforms complement or even replace them? What are advantages and limitations of different publishing models? How can publishing companies as service providers effectively support scientist-driven publishing in the future? In the debate, we will explore these questions and discuss the future of scientific publishing with a focus on transparency, cost efficiency and scientific integrity.
Confirmed panelists:
Ken Carslaw, Professor Univ Leeds, UK, co-founder of Atmos. Chem Phys. (EGU), the first interactive open access journal
Laurence El Khouri, Deputy Director of the Open Research data department (DDOR), CNRS, France
Martin Rasmussen, Managing Director Copernicus Publications, Göttingen, Germany
Ludo Waltman, Scientific director and professor of Quantitative Science Studies, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, NL