reinforce[s] governance systems that are in many instances defined by national boundaries. Science and innovation are currently limited by policies of ‘techno-nationalism’ or transnational corporate economic interests. Given that the biggest problems demand both scientific input and international collaboration, global governance has become unavoidable. . . Governance . . . needs to occur at levels above and beneath national political entities and their international extensions.As to the principles behind such oversight and how it might be structured, the report (at 48):
invokes European principles of good governance and fundamental rights. It is our belief that the European Union as a political entity situated between the national and global levels, with its principles of good governance, its charter of fundamental rights and commitments to a European Research Area, is ideally placed to encourage critical reflection and undertake practical leadership in relation to the global governance of science and innovation. Our recommendations are addressed not only to policymakers in the European Commission and the Member States of the EU, but equally to those organisations worldwide operating within and around science.Yeah, the European example is ideal--governance is so good that the EU hasn't managed to establish a constitution or a comprehensive treaty. And human rights principles are advanced for plants and apes, while preventing protests against Islamofascism, and silencing Jews and barring believing Catholics from senior posts.
Some scientists urge abandoning the democratic process, a position NASA's James Hansen apparently adopted. This is what President Eisenhower feared--the "danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." But I doubt even Ike imagined that "jargon-laden Olympians in lab-coats" would channel a Sci-fi trope to propose a world government putsch.
"Klaatu barada nikto."
(via Roger Pielke Jr.)