Understanding how the right to science intersects with other human rights reveals a shared architecture and a web of mutually reinforcing rights and obligations. As Riedel aptly notes, ‘[S]ome honey can be sucked from other elaborated rights’Footnote 1 – a reminder that rights gain meaning not only in isolation but also in relation to one another. This chapter approaches the right to science through the lens of interconnectedness, grounded in the well-established principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness. These principles also reflect a broader method of systematic interpretation in human rights law.
Despite growing references to the right to science in international instruments, a comprehensive examination of its relationship with other rights remains rare. Yet such an exploration can reveal overlapping normative content, clarify state obligations and deepen our understanding of the right to science itself.
This chapter sets out to map those connections. It begins by outlining the conceptual foundation of interconnectedness before turning to the key linkages between the right to science and other human rights, drawing on General Comment No. 25, the reports of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and the Venice Statement. It then broadens the analysis by highlighting further relevant rights found in the ICESCR, ICCPR and newer instruments, including the right to development and the recently recognised right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
While group-specific rights, such as those of Indigenous peoples or children, are acknowledged in the discussion on the personal scope of the right to science, a detailed exploration of these dimensions lies beyond the scope of this book.
4.1 The Inseparable Trio: Exploring the Human Rights Principles of Indivisibility, Interdependence and Interrelatedness
The principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness have underpinned the UN human-rights framework from its inception. Though these concepts were implicit in the UN Charter, they gained explicit form in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Art. 2 enunciates that the rights delineated in the UDHR should be accessible to everyone without discrimination, while Art. 28 further affirms the right of every individual to a social and international order that facilitates the full realisation of these rights. The human rights principles have been reaffirmed at various pivotal events, such as the inaugural Tehran World Conference on Human Rights in 1968Footnote 2 and, more prominently, the subsequent World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993.Footnote 3 On 25 June 1993, the participants of the World Conference adopted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action by 173 by consensus.Footnote 4 The Declaration states,
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.Footnote 5
This formulation, crystallised in the Vienna Declaration, has since become a standard reference in United Nations documents and is utilised extensively by practitioners and academics in the field of human rights law.Footnote 6 Crucially, the principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness are distinct and should not be confused with the ethical foundations and values often linked with human rights, such as dignity,Footnote 7 participation,Footnote 8 transparency, accountability and more.Footnote 9
Refocusing on the ‘positivistic’ human rights principles, the three elements of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness are frequently employed collectively, especially in authoritative interpretations concerning the content and obligations of the ICESCR.Footnote 10 Yet, each component of this tripartite formulation has distinct nuances, which are succinctly presented. However, an exhaustive analysis of each principle and their detailed semantics, which has occurred elsewhere, is not necessary for the forthcoming analysis.Footnote 11
4.1.1 Indivisibility
The principle of indivisibility of human rights stresses that all human rights are equal in importance: no hierarchy exists among them.Footnote 12 The Vienna Declaration outlines, ‘The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.’Footnote 13 This principle challenges the dichotomy of human rights (see Section 2.3) because indivisibility is an essential aspect of universality.Footnote 14 Asserting the universality of civil rights while ignoring the universality of economic and social rights directly challenges not only the indivisibility but also the universality of human rights. Thus, the notion that ESC rights are inferior to civil and political rights is, in fact, unfounded. Indivisibility mandates that the state guarantees the comprehensive implementation of all human rights.Footnote 15
4.1.2 Interdependence
The principle of interdependence has two facets. The first concerns the synergistic relationship between rights for individuals, such as the right to education or to science. For example, the more educated a person is, the more effectively they can participate in scientific progress, have greater scientific literacy and be less susceptible to mis- or disinformation.Footnote 16 In this way, one right can be a precondition for the realisation and enjoyment of another. The second facet relates to the fact that, while all human rights should be realised, they may also conflict with each other and require appropriate balancing (see Chapter 9).Footnote 17
Although the term ‘interdependence’ has not been explicitly used, the concept that human rights are interdependent has been implicitly recognised by the ICJ. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court found that the construction of a wall between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory violates the right to freedom of movement guaranteed by Art. 12 ICCPR. At the same time, this violation renders impossible the enjoyment of other human rights protected under the ICESCR, such as the rights to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living, thereby also violating these rights.Footnote 18
4.1.3 Interrelatedness
The principle of interrelatedness highlights instances where certain rights serve as specific manifestations of broader rights. For example, freedom of science (Art. 15(3) ICESCR) is a specific application of the right to freedom of expression yet is not only linked to freedom of expression but also depends on an adequate standard of living to facilitate scientific and creative work (Art. 11 ICESCR). Notably, not every human right is similarly interdependent or interrelated; while the general principles of interdependence and interrelatedness are widely applicable in the framework of human rights law, their specific applications may vary across different rights. Rather than undermining these principles, this variation underscores the complex, context-specific ways in which rights interact and reinforce one another within the broader framework of human rights law.Footnote 19
4.1.4 Balancing the Scales of Interconnected Human Rights
Within the framework of the human rights principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness – collectively termed ‘interconnectedness’ – Eide argues that human rights interact in three distinct ways: positively, negatively and through a balancing process. A positive interconnectedness of human rights is evident through mutual reinforcement, where the enjoyment of one right is a necessary or desirable condition or component for the enjoyment of another. A negative interconnectedness is observed when the violation or neglect of one right adversely impacts others. An example of this is the lack of ESC rights, such as the right to education, right to food or social security, which has historically spurred turmoil and disturbances and triggered the rise of extreme left- or right-wing ideologies and authoritarian governments. This most notably occurred in the emergence of fascist and Nazi governments in the 1920s and 1930s, often as a response to rampant unemployment and a lack of social security.Footnote 20
Moreover, the interconnectedness of human rights sometimes requires that one right be limited to ensure the enjoyment of another. Such limitations align with the principle outlined in Art. 29(1) UDHR that everyone has duties to the community that enable the free and full development of one’s personality.Footnote 21 For example, while scientific research should fundamentally be free, certain studies may have long-term negative impacts on people and the environment. Preventing the harmful effects of scientific progress and its applications may sometimes conflict with other human rights or with scientific freedom, which is also part of the right to science. In such cases, it may be necessary to restrict one right to protect another, with an appropriate balance between the different interests involved.Footnote 22 Balancing and potentially limiting human rights is a common aspect of human rights law. While some rights are absolute and immune to limitations or derogations, others can be restricted. However, any such limitations must adhere to strict criteria under human rights law.Footnote 23 The chapter on limitations provides more detail on the balancing and limitation of rights (see Chapter 9), while the subsequent section delves into how the right to science is interrelated with other selected human rights, exploring the dynamics of these interconnections and overlapping interests in the context of the broader human rights landscape.
4.2 Unpacking Overlapping Interests
Building upon the principles of human rights delineated in Section 4.1, this section concentrates on selected human rights from the ICCPR and ICESCR with a significant interconnectedness with the right to science. Each of these rights, along with its core content, is briefly introduced, followed by a nuanced examination of its interconnectedness with the right to science. Furthermore, linkages to newly adopted human rights, such as the rights to a healthy environment and to development, are explored. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which significantly impact the right to science in the context of law and policy, are also briefly presented.
These linkages, however, resist simple characterisation as either positive or negative and invite diverse readings. Consequently, this chapter does not impose a binary classification; it recognises that a relationship advantageous in one context may pose challenges in another. Such a case-by-case approach affords a nuanced and adaptable understanding of how various rights interact with and shape the right to science, reflecting the inherently complex and multifaceted nature of human-rights interrelatedness.
4.2.1 Right to Take Part in Cultural Life (Art. 15(1)(a) ICESCR)
The first right often considered when discussing the interrelatedness of human rights with the right to science is the right to take part in cultural life (Art. 15(1)(a) ICESCR). In examining the structure of Art. 15(1) ICESCR, it is striking that the right to take part in cultural life is mentioned first, followed by the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (Art. 15(1)(b) ICESCR) and finally the moral and material interest of authors (Art. 15(1)(c) ICESCR). This sequencing has led to arguments suggesting that ‘science and culture are symbiotic’,Footnote 24 that the right to science is based on the right to take part in cultural life or that the right to science belongs to the category of cultural rights (discussed in this section). This raises the following question: Should the right to science be seen as a specific application (lex specialis) of the right to take part in cultural life, and what is the added value of subsuming the right to science under the category of cultural rights?
Prior to examining interconnectedness, the right to take part in cultural life must be briefly presented. This succinct and focused overview draws from the most pertinent sources and literature relevant to understanding this right in the context of the right to science.Footnote 25 To grasp the right to take part in cultural life, it is necessary to delve into the concept of ‘culture’ itself, as well as to understand what is encompassed within the terms ‘cultural life’ and ‘to take part’. These components form the foundation of the right and are critical to appreciating its scope and significance, especially when considering its interconnectedness with the right to science.
4.2.1.1 Culture
The understanding and scope of cultural rights are deeply intertwined with the evolving concept of culture, which was initially perceived in a narrow and elitist way, primarily encompassing visual arts and literature. Over time, this view has broadened to a more inclusive definition of culture as a dynamic process that includes elements such as language, religion and education. This broader perspective recognises the multifaceted nature of culture in shaping and defining cultural rights.Footnote 26
Four understandings of cultural life exist. Firstly, culture as ‘high culture’ includes all art, literature, orchestra music, theatre and architecture. Secondly, culture as ‘popular culture’ encompasses culture in less elitist terms, meaning expressions of the mass public such as popular, folk and contemporary music, movies, commercial radio and television. Other leisure-related activities such as organised sports and social events may fall under this category.Footnote 27 Thirdly, culture can be defined as a certain ‘way of life’.Footnote 28 This approach acknowledges that culture is also part of daily life expressed through values, beliefs, practices and ways of doing things and thinking. Fourthly, culture may constitute a collective set of memories and may also consist of ‘shared ideas and beliefs of history, ancestry and of life sustained in a community of individuals’ memory, lived, signified, expressed and enacted, which gives heritage and cultural practices their meaning’. To give an illustration, the spiritual relationship between Indigenous people and their land or the relationship between communities and significant historical events express themselves as collective memories.Footnote 29
Generally, the concept of culture thus encompasses a wide range of elements fundamental to the expression of humanity and the meaning given to existence by individuals, groups and communities. These elements include ways of life, language, oral and written literature, music and song, non-verbal communication, religious or belief systems, rites and ceremonies, sports and games, methods of production or technology, and the natural and human-made environment. In addition, culture is reflected in food, clothing, shelter and the arts, as well as in customs and traditions. These cultural aspects enable individuals and groups to construct their worldviews, which represent their interactions with the external forces that affect their lives. Culture not only shapes but also reflects the values associated with well-being and the economic, social and political lives of individuals, groups and communities.Footnote 30
Culture is neither static nor uniform; it evolves through negotiation, contestation and power dynamics. Although cultural practices can strengthen identity and social cohesion, they can also exclude or oppress. Practices such as female genital mutilation, widow cleansing, forced marriage and forced prostitution – deeply embedded in particular contexts – clash with fundamental human-rights norms and demand critical scrutiny. Evaluating cultural expressions therefore requires attention not only to their outward forms but also to how they develop over time and whether they respect core human-rights standards. This approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation that respects cultural diversity while upholding human rights principles.Footnote 31
4.2.1.2 Cultural Life
The concept of ‘cultural life’, as defined in Art. 15(1)(a) ICESCR, has undergone a significant evolution in its interpretation since the Covenant’s entry into force. Initially, the term was narrowly defined, focusing primarily on aspects of ‘high culture’.Footnote 32 Over time, however, this perspective has expanded considerably. The Committee interprets cultural life as a ‘a broad, inclusive concept encompassing all manifestations of human existence’.Footnote 33 This modern understanding sees culture not as a static set of practices or isolated phenomena but as a living and evolving process, a tapestry woven through time, enriched by its historical roots, constantly evolving with each new generation. This dynamic interpretation recognises the fluid nature of culture, where past, present and future are intertwined and where individual and collective experiences continually interact and shape each other. In this context, cultural life is an interactive process. Individuals and communities, each with their own identity and purpose, contribute to and shape the broader human cultural landscape. This process concerns not just preserving distinct cultural practices but also fostering an ongoing dialogue between these practices, allowing for a rich exchange that contributes to the collective cultural heritage of humanity. This nuanced view of culture underscores its dual role as both a product of social interactions and a catalyst for social development and enrichment.Footnote 34
The HRC acknowledges the evolving nature of cultural life, particularly in its interpretation of Art. 27 ICCPR, which focuses on the rights of minorities. The Committee clarifies that this article is not confined to protecting only the traditional livelihoods of minorities or other communities. The HRC underlines that the embrace of technological innovations or adaptation of traditional methods to modern lifestyles and technologies does not render Art. 27 ICCPR irrelevant or inapplicable. This viewpoint reflects the Committee’s recognition of the fluid and adaptable nature of cultural practices in a contemporary setting. By adopting this perspective, the HRC illustrates an understanding that cultural practices and expressions are dynamic, evolving with societal changes and advancements in technology. This approach ensures that the protections offered under Art. 27 ICCPR remain pertinent and effective, even as the ways in which cultural life is experienced and expressed continue to transform in the modern world.Footnote 35
4.2.1.3 To Take Part
The second crucial element in understanding the right to take part in cultural life is the concept of ‘to take part’. While Art. 15(1)(a) ICESCR speaks of ‘the right of everyone to take part in cultural life’, Art. 27 (1) UDHR reads that ‘everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community’. The CESCR has clarified that the terms ‘to take part’ and ‘to participate’ are synonymous in this context and can be used interchangeably.Footnote 36
The concept ‘to take part’ in cultural life embodies both active and passive elements. The former entails engaging in and contributing to cultural life, while the latter signifies having access to cultural life,Footnote 37 including the right to access cultural activities without discrimination and to enjoy their benefits. This also encompasses being informed about cultural events and activities, as well as the protection and preservation of cultural and artistic heritage.Footnote 38 On the active side, participation means the freedom to choose and change one’s cultural affiliation and to contribute freely to the development of cultural life through creative or other activities. It includes the crucial right to self-identification, which is fundamental to the dignity of the individual. Moreover, active participation extends to the right to be involved in decision-making processes related to cultural life, underlining the importance of individual agency in the field of cultural expression and preservation.Footnote 39
Against this backdrop, the CESCR outlines the concept of participation in cultural life in terms of three interconnected elements: participation, access and contribution. Participation encompasses the right of individuals, whether alone or in groups, to act freely, choose their identity, engage in political activities, practise their cultural traditions and express themselves in their preferred language. It also includes the right to seek, develop and share cultural knowledge and engage in creative activities. Access includes the right of individuals, alone or in groups, to understand their own culture and the cultures of others through education and information. It also includes the right to quality education while respecting cultural identity, experience different forms of expression through different media and live a lifestyle associated with cultural resources and heritage.Footnote 40 For example, ICTs – above all internet access – serve as essential gateways to cultural life. They enable retrieval of information and are also a key tool to express oneself and one’s cultural knowledge and expressions.Footnote 41 Contributing to cultural life includes the right of everyone to participate in shaping the cultural expressions of their community, as well as participating in community development and influencing policies that affect cultural rights.Footnote 42
4.2.1.4 Interconnectedness with the Right to Science
In recent years, the interconnectedness of the rights to participate in cultural life and to science has garnered significant attention, emerging as the most prominent among all such pairings. The following discussion aims to divide the discourse on the various ways the right to science is interconnected with the right to participate in cultural life into six categories: the right to science as a lex specialis, the right to science and culture, the categorisation of the right to science as a cultural right, human creativity as a common denominator, participation as a common denominator and the balancing of culture and science. Mapping these categories clarifies UN debates and scholarly arguments, allowing the book to focus on those most illuminating for its analysis.
a The Right to Science as a Lex Specialis of the Right to Take Part in Cultural Life
According to the Committee and the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, the interconnectedness between the rights to take part in cultural life and to science stem from a systemic and teleological interpretation of both rights,Footnote 43 which is corroborated by the travaux préparatoires. In Art. 15 ICESCR, the right to participate in cultural life is positioned immediately before the provision on the right to science.Footnote 44 This arrangement stems from UNESCO’s pivotal role during the drafting of the provision, aimed at promoting UNESCO’s purposes and objectives (see Chapter 3.1.1). Art. 1(1)(c) of the UNESCO Constitution encapsulates its mandate to protect ‘the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science’ by ‘encouraging co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity’.Footnote 45
In General Comment No. 21 on the right to take part in cultural life (Art. 15(1)(a) ICESCR), the CESCR elaborates that ‘culture is a broad, inclusive concept encompassing all manifestations of human existence’.Footnote 46 This interpretation is further expanded in General Comment No. 25 on science and ESC rights. Through systematic interpretation, the CESCR recognises that cultural life transcends scientific endeavours, encompassing various dimensions of human life and thus views scientific activities as a part of cultural life. This understanding suggests that the right to science may be seen as a specific aspect of the broader right to take part in cultural life.Footnote 47 As such, the right to science is arguably a lex specialis of the right to take part in cultural life.Footnote 48 The CESCR bases this understanding on the view that everyone has the right to participate in cultural life, which extends to participating in scientific progress and the directions it should take (see Section 4.2.1.4e).Footnote 49
However, while it is accurate to consider scientific activities as a specific aspect of cultural life, viewing the right to science merely as a lex specialis of the right to participate in cultural life would be overly simplistic. Such a perspective fails to acknowledge the principle of interdependence (see Section 4.1.2). The right to science is not just a detailed aspect of the right to participate in cultural life, it is also intertwined with other human rights that serve as prerequisites for enjoying the right to science, including the rights to participate in public affairs, to education and to freedom of opinion and expression. The interconnectedness of these rights with the right to science is also analysed to provide a comprehensive understanding of its multifaceted nature.
b The Right to Science and Culture
Some scholars, recognising the inherent interconnectedness between the rights to science and the right to take part in cultural life, have begun referring to them collectively as the ‘right to science and culture’.Footnote 50 Shaver highlights that cultural activities, including art, literature, music and theatre, extend beyond mere enjoyment; they are instrumental in facilitating personal and community development. Similarly, engagement in scientific and technological innovation concerns not just satisfying human curiosity but also understanding and improving our world.Footnote 51 In her argument, Shaver positions the rights to education, culture and science as foundational for a dignified life beyond mere survival and contends that, although these rights might not address immediate essential needs such as health, housing or food, they are crucial in supporting the realisation of other human rights. They contribute to the development of individuals and communities, enabling people to live enriched and fulfilling lives.Footnote 52
Nevertheless, one might contend against this perspective, arguing that the right to science should not be relegated to a supporting role for other human rights beyond mere survival. The right to science stands as a distinct human right, enshrined in the ICESCR, and should be recognised as a foundational right integral to the full realisation of other rights, such as to take part in public affairs and to a healthy environment (see Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.10). Moreover, one could contend that the right to science is also essential for survival, as exemplified by the threats humanity faces in the context of climate change (see Section 4.2.10). Additionally, a purely grammatical interpretation of both provisions runs counter to the notion of a distinct right to science and culture, which are rooted in two separate provisions. However, the idea of considering science and culture together is bolstered by the human rights principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness. This perspective emphasises that the right to science, while distinct, is inextricably linked with other human rights, forming a complex web of mutual reinforcement and dependency.
c Categorisation as Cultural Right
As discussed in Section 4.2.1.4b, some claim that the rights to take part in cultural life and to science share the same basis and that the right to science either could form a lex specialis of the right to take part in cultural life or should be read together as the right to science and culture. Against this backdrop, several authors argue that the right to science should thus be categorised as a cultural right.Footnote 53 This categorisation is further supported by the fact that the right to science has also fallen under the purview of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.Footnote 54
One argument for categorising the right to science as a cultural right is that as a cultural right it positions the right to science as ‘an instrument for human benefit by encouraging ethical deliberations and by prioritising human rights and human-centred considerations above commercial interests’.Footnote 55 Although this framing is both coherent and welcome, it need not be extended so far. Ethical and humanistic concerns are already intrinsic to the right to science precisely because it is a human right. Human rights inherently prioritise human welfare and adopt a pro homine approach (see Section 1.1.2.3). Thus, recognising science as a human right naturally brings humanistic and thus human rights deliberations, including ethical assessments, into the equation. Indeed, the very nature of the right to science as a human right inherently necessitates the integral consideration of human rights deliberations, including ethical assessments, which may sometimes require the limitation of scientific freedom to safeguard other human rights, such as the right to life (see Chapter 9).Footnote 56 Adopting this view ensures that scientific endeavours are pursued in a manner consistent with the broader framework of human rights law, extending beyond just cultural rights.
Categorising the right to science as inherently and exclusively a cultural right is ultimately limiting, as it overlooks the right’s broader relevance across the human rights framework. The right to science could just as plausibly be classified as a social, economic, civil or political right, given its essential role in enabling the fulfilment of a wide range of rights across these categories. This perspective acknowledges the cross-cutting nature of the right to science and resists confining it to a single, narrowly defined domain.
d Human Creativity as Common Denominator
Another aspect of the interconnectedness of the rights to take part in cultural life and to science is the idea that both are rooted in human creativity. Against this backdrop, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights contends that science and culture share identical preconditions, being both grounded in ‘the pursuit of knowledge and understanding and to human creativity in a constantly changing world’.Footnote 57 Furthermore, both rights require ‘the necessary conditions for everyone to continuously engage in critical thinking about themselves and the world they inhabit, and to have the opportunity and wherewithal to interrogate, investigate and contribute new knowledge with ideas, expressions and innovative applications, regardless of frontiers’.Footnote 58 Art. 15(1)(a)–(b) ICESCR effectively balances two key aspects: it firstly grants individuals the right to access and benefit from the creativity of others in scientific, literary or artistic fields and secondly upholds the rights of creators by protecting their moral and material interests, as articulated in Art. 15(1)(c) ICESCR. This ensures that, while the public have access to a diverse range of creative works, authors’ contributions are duly recognised and rewarded. This dual focus reflects a comprehensive approach to fostering a rich cultural and scientific environment that values both participation and creator rights.Footnote 59
While perceiving human creativity as the shared foundation of the rights to both take part in cultural life and to science is indeed intriguing, one must also consider their distinct prerequisites. Participation in cultural life frequently necessitates the preservation of traditional knowledge and expressions, which may occasionally exhibit resistance to change. In contrast, scientific progress is inherently dependent on the constant questioning and updating of established knowledge. Moreover, although both rights acknowledge the safeguarding of moral and material interests, the interpretation and application of these protections can diverge markedly. In the realm of science, OA and the dissemination of knowledge are often emphasised for the broader benefit of society (see Section 3.2.2.2). This approach contrasts starkly with the more stringent regulations sometimes applied in cultural contexts, where the protection of Indigenous knowledge, for example, takes precedence (Art. 31 UNDRIP, see Section 3.2.2.3c).
e Participation as Common Denominator
Another shared aspect between the rights to participate in cultural life and to science which has garnered heightened scrutiny from the Committee and academic circles in recent years is the element of participation. The Committee derives this understanding from a grammatical interpretation of the notion of ‘to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress’ in Art. 15(1)(b) ICESCR, arguing that benefits are not limited to the material benefits or products of scientific advancement but also include the cultivation of critical thinking and skills related to scientific inquiry. It underlines this understanding via systematic interpretation as well as by referring to the travaux préparatoires of Art. 27 UDHR, indicating that the drafters intended to recognise not only the enjoyment of scientific applications but also active participation in scientific progress. The principles of participation and inclusiveness under the Covenant support this view. The CESCR emphasises that participation in cultural life, including scientific activities, should not be limited to professionals but should also encompass citizen science initiatives (see Section 3.2.2.3b).Footnote 60 This detailed explanation of its methodology in General Comment No. 25 indicates the CESCR’s awareness of the novelty and potential implications of this interpretation. This implies that the Committee must have been aware that this is a novel interpretation which could been seen – without a presentation of the proper methodology – as a de lege ferenda interpretation, since it significantly expands the personal scope of the rights holders (see Chapter 6).Footnote 61
Vayena and Tasioulas argue that the participatory aspect of the right to science is central to its uniqueness and crucial to the added value it brings to established entitlements under more familiar human rights, including the rights to freedom of thought and expression, education, work, health and non-discrimination. The emphasis on participation underscores how the right to science enhances and complements these existing rights, highlighting its integral role within the broader human rights framework. They then refer to the work of UNESCO, which strongly advocated for the amateur who can also humbly contribute to the scientific sphere. Thus, Vayena and Tasioulas conclude that ‘for whatever reason, this participatory aspect was muted or disregarded in subsequent interpretations. It is imperative now to recapture it’.Footnote 62
According to Bidault, seeing the right to science as a cultural right gives it exactly this participatory dimension. She argues that participating in science involves not just the right but also the capacity of individuals to access, utilise and enhance cultural resources, including scientific resources, for their personal development and the fulfilment of their own rights.Footnote 63 On this subject, Besson agrees with Bidault by concluding that the right to participate in science ‘was put to sleep and has remained dormant until recently’.Footnote 64 She also advocates for a right to participate in science, first because of its cultural aspect and the inherent participatory nature of culture and, second, because the participatory element is fundamental to any knowledge-based cultural practice.Footnote 65 Finally, the above-mentioned interconnectedness is mirrored in the Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights, a document drafted for UNESCO, stating that the right to access to and participation in cultural life (Art. 5) includes ‘the freedom to develop and share knowledge and cultural expressions, to conduct research and to participate in different forms of creation as well as to benefit from these’.Footnote 66
However, the participatory aspect of science must not be seen as the predominant one of the right to science. In this regard, the Venice Statement makes a clear and welcome distinction:
Participation in scientific progress is valuable in its own right and while the benefits of science should be shared equitably, neither of these components of the right is a substitute for the other. The right to share in scientific benefits should not be predicated on participation, particularly where there is a direct threat to fundamental rights, most notably the rights to life, health and food.Footnote 67
Thus, the participatory aspect inferred by the right to take part in cultural life should not be overemphasised; it then would potentially restrict the enjoyment of the right to passively enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its application for those who cannot actively participate.
f Balancing Culture and Science
Finally, the enjoyment of the right to take part in cultural life must not unjustifiably impinge on others’ rights or impose cultural norms on individuals. Cultural practices that conflict with human rights should not be protected under cultural rights. The CESCR has noted that necessary limitations may exist in relation to the right to take part in cultural life, ‘in particular in the case of negative practices, including those attributed to customs and traditions, that infringe upon other human rights’.Footnote 68
The acceptability of cultural practices in relation to human rights, and the right to science specifically, varies widely, requiring individual evaluation. It is indeed a delicate matter to navigate the relationship between cultural freedoms and practices that may violate human rights. Within the realm of the right to science, the Committee observes that practices impeding access to scientific advancements and their applications, especially those that significantly hinder the participation of women and girls, must be eradicated.Footnote 69 As Donders argues, given the great diversity of cultural practices, it is impractical to make blanket judgments about their compatibility with human rights standards. The potential for conflict with human rights varies according to the specific context of each case.Footnote 70 Yet, a cautious approach to certain cultural practices should not lead to a wholesale rejection of cultural rights or the right to cultural participation. Achieving this balance requires a case-by-case approach and ultimately becomes a matter for adjudication by courts or treaty bodies. These assessments help identify those cultural practices incompatible with established human rights principles.Footnote 71
4.2.2 Right to Health (Art. 12 ICESCR)
The ‘right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’ enshrined in Art. 12 ICESCR is known as the right to health. This does not imply a right to be healthy per se; numerous factors influencing one’s health may lie beyond state (and individual) control, including natural elements, education, income and individual behaviour. Rather, it concerns the state’s obligation to create conditions that allow every individual to achieve the best possible health. Such conditions encompass a range of elements, such as ensuring the availability of health services to promoting healthy and safe working environments, providing adequate housing and ensuring access to nutritious food.Footnote 72
The connection between health and science is both direct and well established, making it unsurprising that this relationship was among the first to be explored in early scholarly work on the right to science.Footnote 73 Over the past decades, several international instruments have been adopted that reflect this intersection, including the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome,Footnote 74 International Declaration on Human Genetic DataFootnote 75 and Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.Footnote 76 This profound linkage is also recognised in the Committee’s own statements, which draw a clear line between scientific applications and the right to health, particularly in relation to States’ core obligations.Footnote 77
The Committee, in General Comment No. 25 on science and ESC rights, devotes a substantial section to the interdependence of the mutually reinforcing rights to health and to science. This interconnectedness spans various scientific applications, including vaccinations essential for health; the allocation of funds for disease research and drug development; the establishment of scientific standards to guarantee the quality of facilities, goods, and services; and scientific health education. These aspects are succinctly elaborated upon in subsequent sections.
The Committee highlights that these scientific advancements, such as vaccinations, are pivotal in disease prevention or in enhancing the efficacy of treatments. Thus, the Committee explains that states are obliged to encourage scientific research and advancement, thereby facilitating improved and more accessible methods for the prevention, control and treatment of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases, as stipulated in Art. 12(2)(c) ICESCR.Footnote 78
Yet, investments in research are frequently influenced by commercial interests rather than developmental needs. According to the Venice Statement, ‘Scientific advances in medicine have helped to cure more diseases and enhance the quality of life. However, these advances are driven primarily by market considerations that often do not correspond to the health needs of the world’s population as a whole, thus affecting the right to health’.Footnote 79 In the health sector, economic globalisation has augmented the influence and power of multinational corporations, which in turn has led to a diminution of the authority of states, especially in less developed countries. This shift in power dynamics can impact how health services and resources are distributed and managed, potentially affecting the ability of these states to effectively meet the health needs of their populations. Large pharmaceutical companies often have financial resources exceeding those of some governments. As a result, scientific research and progress are often more influenced by commercial interests than by human rights considerations. Medical and pharmaceutical research is costly and increasingly dependent on investment from multinational corporations, which often means that scientific advances in health are driven and controlled by private companies that may prioritise the financial potential of a drug or treatment over its societal benefits (see Section 7.4.4.1).Footnote 80
A striking example of this is the substantial funding allocated to developing drugs for conditions such as erectile dysfunction and other ailments predominantly affecting affluent populations. In contrast, significantly less investment is made in research and development as well as treatment options for preventable and curable diseases such as HIV/AIDSFootnote 81 or tuberculosis,Footnote 82 which predominantly afflict the world’s poor.Footnote 83 The CESCR emphasises that state parties have an obligation to ensure that the best available applications of scientific progress are made available and accessible to all, particularly the most vulnerable, without discrimination to facilitate the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.Footnote 84 This link was recognised, for example, by the Venezuelan Supreme Court in 2001, which ruled that the failure of the Venezuelan Social Security Institute to provide consistent and regular medication to HIV-positive people under its care was a violation of the rights to both health and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. This case illustrates how the denial of access to scientific advances, such as essential medicines, can directly impact the right to health and highlights the critical need for states to uphold both rights simultaneously.Footnote 85
Another notable example of this discrepancy in research priorities is the significant gap in research and development addressing the pest control needs of small farmers. This shortfall compels these farmers to continue using highly toxic methods for pest control. To rectify this, research efforts should be reoriented towards developing safer pesticide alternatives specifically for small-scale farmers. This shift in focus would prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable agricultural producers rather than leaving such crucial developments to market forces. By targeting research towards safer pest control methods, the health and well-being of small farmers can be significantly improved, contributing to more sustainable and health-conscious farming practices.Footnote 86
Another interconnection between the rights to science and to health is that the former extends to quality requirements for the latter, as delineated by the Committee in various General Comments.Footnote 87 The Committee specifies that health-related facilities, goods and services must be of good quality, which entails being evidence based and scientifically accurate.Footnote 88 Moreover, ensuring that health professionals are adequately trained in the use and application of modern technologies and medicines derived from scientific progress is a core obligation under the right to science.Footnote 89
The Committee also emphasises the importance of scientific health education and the necessity for scientifically accurate and comprehensive education for all on sexual and reproductive health,Footnote 90 also a prerequisite to ensure menstrual equity, for instance (see Section 3.2.2.3e). A sound scientific health education is also particularly important to prevent pesticide poisoning; the right to science should enable individuals to access and understand information about pesticides effectively, thus safeguarding their health. Notably, labelling is a key factor in preventing poisoning, yet the primary challenge is the poor comprehensibility of labels, often due to limited education in certain populations.Footnote 91 Such an approach would not only empower individuals through the right to science but also support the exercise of their right to health.
Yet, in light of these examples, the Committee highlights that it is a core obligation of the right to science to ensure that, in the allocation of public resources, priority is given to research in areas where the greatest need for scientific advancement in health, food and other basic needs related to ESC rights exists, focusing particularly on the well-being of the population and giving special attention to vulnerable and marginalised groups.Footnote 92 The right to health consequently reinforces the right to science, as evident in dedicating purposive funding to relevant research, ensuring affordability by separating research and development costs from product pricing and ensuring that IP regimes do not hinder the development of new scientific and technological solutions. These solutions address critical human rights issues such as food, water, health, chemical safety, energy and climate change, which are all integral to the right to science and enhance the realisation of the right to health.Footnote 93
Lastly, the health sector has witnessed a significant increase in IP regimes, notably through patenting. The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights consequently dedicated an entire report to exploring the tensions between IP protection and the rights to health and to science. This report demonstrates that the right to science, as a human right, can bolster the right to health; from a human rights perspective, patents should not be permitted to obstruct human rights, particularly the right to science.Footnote 94 Against this backdrop, the Committee outlines that ensuring access to the applications of scientific progress, crucial for the enjoyment of the right to health and other ESC rights, constitutes a core obligation of the right to science.Footnote 95 Furthermore, the Committee argues that the right to science ‘assists States in making sure that these property rights are not realised to the detriment of the right to health. This right becomes a significant mediator between a human right – the right to health – and a property right’.Footnote 96
Another aspect where the right to health adds to the normative content of the right to science is the point recognised by the Committee that certain scientific research may entail health-related risks, requiring a careful balancing act. Every effort must be made to ensure that medicines and medical treatments, including those in the field of drug dependency, are evidence based. Additionally, associated risks must be thoroughly evaluated and communicated in a clear and transparent manner, enabling patients to give properly informed consent.Footnote 97
An illustrative example is the only case based on the rights to health and to science brought before the Committee to date, in 2019. The claimants, a couple, had undergone IVF and requested pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to avoid transferring embryos with hereditary disorders, which the clinic denied due to restrictions under Italian Law 40/2004. All embryos produced were affected and not transferred. In a second IVF cycle, 10 embryos were produced; one was free of the disorder but of average quality. The woman was pressured into having it transferred. After the embryo was implanted, she suffered a miscarriage. The couple, who wanted to donate the remaining embryos for scientific research but were denied due to legal restrictions, argued that Law 40/2004, by restricting pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and embryo research, violated their rights to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and to health. Furthermore, the law’s ambiguity about withdrawing consent after fertilisation led to the woman having an embryo transferred against her will, violating her right to health. While the Committee found a violation of Art. 3 and 12 ICESCR due to invalid consent, it left the question of a violation of the right to science open due to procedural grounds; the authors did not sufficiently substantiate their arguments as to why the prohibition of donating the embryos to scientific research would violate the right to science.Footnote 98
This case contains several key points that can be taken in the context of the interconnectedness of these rights. It underscores the importance of access to scientific advancements, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, in making informed health decisions. The denial of this service due to legislative restrictions illustrates how scientific and technological limitations can directly impede health rights. Moreover, the situation where the woman felt pressured to have an embryo transferred against her preference emphasises the crucial role of informed consent in healthcare. Proper informed consent, a fundamental aspect of the right to health, requires clear, transparent communication of the associated risks and benefits of medical procedures, underpinned by evidence-informed science. Furthermore, the case elucidates the tension between national legal frameworks (e.g., Italian Law 40/2004) and the rights to health and to science. Laws that overly restrict scientific research and application can hinder the advancement and application of scientific knowledge, thereby affecting health outcomes and the quality of healthcare. Lastly, the denial of the couple’s request to donate their embryos for scientific research touches on the participative aspect of the right to science (see Section 4.2.1.4e) and raises questions about individuals’ rights to contribute to scientific progress and how legal restrictions can limit this participation.
Moreover, scientific research on certain substances can be impeded by misperceived health risks, such as international drug control conventions, which categorise these substances as harmful to health and devoid of scientific or medical value. However, such classifications can lack sufficient scientific evidence; credible data can indicate medical uses for several substances, such as cannabis in treating specific epilepsies. The prohibition of research on such substances could constitute a limitation of the right to health and should conform to the criteria set out in Art. 4 ICESCR. Furthermore, considering the potential health benefits of these controlled substances, such restrictions should also be assessed in light of the state party’s obligations under this right.Footnote 99
4.2.3 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (Art. 11 ICESCR)
The right to an adequate standard of living (Art. 11 ICESCR) encompasses the rights to food, water, sanitation and adequate housing. These rights are centred on ensuring access to the essential requirements for life, positioning them as prerequisites for the right to life and, more expansively, for living a life with dignity. The interconnectedness of these rights with the right to science is significant; scientific progress and its applications are frequently essential in enhancing and safeguarding these fundamental human needs. Advances in science can lead to improved agricultural practices, water purification technologies and housing construction methods, all of which contribute to the fulfilment of the right to an adequate standard of living.
4.2.3.1 The Right to Food
The right to food, as recognised in human rights law, encompasses two primary elements. Firstly, it necessitates the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals. This includes ensuring that the food is free from harmful substances and culturally appropriate. Secondly, the right to food requires that food is accessible in ways that are sustainable and do not infringe upon the enjoyment of other human rights.Footnote 100 This dual aspect of the right to food highlights the necessity of not only having adequate food but also ensuring its accessibility in a manner that respects and supports the realisation of other human rights.
The interconnectedness between the rights to food, specifically in the aspects of production, diets and nutrition, and to science is evident in Art. 11(2)(a) ICESCR, which underlines the necessity of enhancing food production, conservation and distribution methods by fully leveraging technical and scientific knowledge. It also stresses the importance of disseminating nutritional knowledge and reforming agrarian systems for the optimal development and use of natural resources, thereby directly contributing to the realisation of the right to food through scientific progress.
The interconnectedness between food and science has been explored by the Committee in General Comment No. 25 on science and ESC rights. The Committee underlines how scientific progress, particularly in agricultural technologies and food sciences, directly impacts the realisation of the right to food. The Committee emphasises that the right to science empowers farmers and rural workers by allowing them to maintain autonomy in selecting technologies best suited to their unique needs. This aspect of the right to science ensures that research and development in agriculture are tailored to address the specific challenges and requirements of these groups. By focusing scientific advancement on the needs of farmers and rural workers, the right to science is vital in fostering sustainable and effective agricultural practices, which are designed to be practical and relevant to those who work directly in the field, thereby supporting the broader realisation of the right to food.Footnote 101
Scholarship has also argued that the right to science is instrumental in shaping agricultural technology policies and fostering sustainable practices, thereby significantly contributing to the realisation of the right to food, especially through supporting vulnerable farmers and promoting the treatment of genetic resources as a public good. Haugen argues that the right to science lays the foundation for guiding agricultural technology policies; in agriculture, the adoption of sustainable and environmentally responsible technologies is crucial, particularly in terms of preserving biodiversity and natural resources for future generations.Footnote 102 De Schutter highlights the interplay between the rights to food and to science, critiquing the prevalent seed policy and agricultural development paradigm. This paradigm, focused on proliferating IP laws to spur innovation in seed technologies, often overlooks the most vulnerable farmers, particularly those in challenging environments. Due to investments and profit-oriented actions by the private sector, the most vulnerable living in the harshest environmental conditions may be excluded. In times of extreme weather and other challenges, sustainable agriculture and building resilience against climate change become paramount. Achieving sustainable agriculture and building resilience requires diversity in farming practices and crop heterogeneity. By viewing the right to food in combination with the right to science, a public good approach finds a compromise. The right to science offers a normative framework to treat genetic resources as a public good, ensuring farmers are rewarded for their innovations and that these resources remain accessible to all, akin to traditional farmers’ seed systems. By allowing them to be mutually supportive, the right to science may open new doors to access to food for the most vulnerable. Thus, with the right to science, the right to food can be realised by directing scientific progress, especially in agriculture, towards serving the poor.Footnote 103
What both authors critique is that the current IP frameworks often create challenges to essential technologies in food production. Indeed, scientific research in the field of agricultural and food technology encounters comparable challenges as observed in medical and pharmaceutical research (see Section 4.2.2). The driving force behind such research is often profit, leading to the neglect of the most food-insecure populations. For instance, investment in crops crucial for the sustenance of the poor is lacking because these crops are not deemed commercially lucrative. This scenario highlights a fundamental disconnect between scientific research priorities and the pressing needs of those in impoverished conditions.Footnote 104 Haugen argues that notable difficulties arise in accessing essential technologies for food production, especially in developing countries, exacerbated by the fact that much of the research related to food technology is conducted by the private sector, which typically prioritises profit maximisation. Such an approach does not always align with the principles of the right to science, which advocates for equitable access and benefit sharing in scientific advancements. De Schutter argues that patent rights can negatively impact agricultural technology, particularly in developing countries. The right to science should consequently guide technology policies in agriculture towards supporting agrobiodiversity, empowering small-scale and vulnerable farmers and aligning with the rights to both food and to science. This approach can help balance IP rights with the broader goals of human rights and sustainable development.Footnote 105
Another form of interconnectedness recognised by the Committee arises in the context of healthy diets and nutrition, particularly in relation to regulatory measures such as restrictions on the marketing of infant nutrition products and the diversification of agricultural production.Footnote 106 Here, the relationship between the rights to science and to food offers a valuable lens through which to examine ongoing debates around genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The right to food reinforces the right to science by generating demand for scientific innovation aimed at securing food availability, improving nutritional outcomes and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Through this perspective, scientific advances – especially in the field of genetic engineering – are recognised for their potential to increase agricultural productivity, reduce environmental harm and support healthier diets.
Genetically modified technology has had notable impacts on various environmental health metrics. For instance, the use of chemical pesticides has been reduced by an estimated 37 percent due to genetically modified (GM) crops, and GMOs have helped decrease the carbon footprint of agriculture. Furthermore, the safety and effectiveness of genetic engineering have been affirmed by numerous major global scientific organisations. This perspective highlights the potential of scientific advancements, such as GMOs, in contributing to the realisation of the right to food by improving agricultural efficiency and environmental health.Footnote 107
Despite clear evidence of the benefits of GM technology, public opposition remains widespread. Concerns are often linked to potential health risks, environmental impacts and ethical issues. This opposition continues even though many major scientific organisations have affirmed the safety and potential of GMOs to support more sustainable agriculture. Relying on scientific evidence alone to address public concerns may be insufficient, as many objections are based not only on questions of safety but also on broader ethical considerations. These include discomfort with the idea of treating genes and genomes as resources to be manipulated, particularly by large multinational companies. The high costs of regulatory compliance mean that the use of GM technology in agriculture is often limited to a small number of powerful corporate actors.Footnote 108
Lastly, the interconnectedness between the rights to food and to science offers a framework for balancing technological advancement in food production with broader human rights concerns. Rather than focusing solely on food availability, this relationship calls for a more holistic and integrated approach – one that embeds ethical, participatory and rights-based considerations into regulatory and policy decisions. It ensures that scientific developments, including those involving GMOs, are evaluated not only in terms of efficiency or innovation but also in light of their compatibility with fundamental human rights principles. In doing so, this approach engages both the right to food and the right to science, particularly the rights to be protected from the harmful effects of scientific progress and to evidence-informed policymaking (see Section 5.4.1.1d).
4.2.3.2 The Right to Water and Sanitation
The right to water and sanitation has evolved through interpretations of Art. 11 and 12 ICESCR, as well as its connections with other human rights.Footnote 109 The Committee first recognised the right to sustainable access to water and sanitation in 1991 with General Comment No. 4, which focused on the right to an adequate standard of living.Footnote 110 This acknowledgement was further developed in 2000, in General Comment No. 14, related to the right to health.Footnote 111 In 2001, the scope of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was extended to include the right to drinking water. Building on these developments, the CESCR adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water in 2002. This document reflects contemporary scientific insights into drinking water needs.Footnote 112 In 2015, this General Comment was endorsed by the UNGA, affirming it as an independent human rights guarantee. This progression illustrates the growing recognition of the right to water and sanitation within the international human rights framework.Footnote 113
The contribution of various scientific disciplines is crucial in understanding, managing and distributing water resources, as well as in grappling with the political and ethical dimensions of water management. The availability and quality of water are significantly influenced by scientific innovations, particularly in the development and efficiency of water infrastructure. This infrastructure, which includes systems for water purification and technologies for safe waste disposal, is crucial in preventing the contamination of drinking water sources. The creation, upkeep and improvement of such infrastructure demand a broad spectrum of scientific and technological expertise, involving the active participation of scientists and engineers. In light of these considerations, the right to science emerges as a fundamental component in realising the right to water and sanitation. Scientific advancements not only enhance the effectiveness of water and sanitation systems but also ensure their ethical and equitable management.
Conversely, deficiencies or inadequacies in water infrastructure can lead to infringements of the rights to both water and sanitation and to science. This scenario highlights the critical need to integrate scientific and technological expertise into the planning and implementation of water and sanitation systems to effectively uphold these fundamental human rights.Footnote 114
4.2.3.3 The Right to Adequate Housing
Adequate housing, a key component of achieving an adequate standard of living, involves ensuring ‘adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities – all at reasonable cost’.Footnote 115 The core content of the right to housing relates to ‘basic shelter and housing’.Footnote 116 Against this backdrop, the Committee stresses that the interpretation of this right should not be overly narrow. It extends beyond mere shelter, encompassing the right to live in security, peace and dignity. This broader interpretation includes access to adequate basic infrastructure, essential for a dignified and stable living environment.Footnote 117
The rights to science and to housing are interconnected; advancements in scientific knowledge and technology directly impact the quality, sustainability and accessibility of housing. The right to science fundamentally intersects with the right to housing by facilitating access to adequate technological facilities,Footnote 118 such as advanced sanitation systems (see Section 4.2.3.2). This could take the form of research projects aimed at improving building technologies to make homes more resistant to natural disasters or other safety hazards.Footnote 119 Nonetheless, in the context of the right to science, technology is not limited to cutting-edge innovations. For vulnerable groups, essential technologies may be more basic and, in some cases, decades old, such as indoor electricity for lighting and running water and sanitation systems in homes. These technologies, now fundamental to everyday life, are the result of human ingenuity to solve specific challenges and have significantly improved and sustained countless lives. The effectiveness of the right to science for marginalised groups depends on a broad, inclusive understanding of technology, even everyday technologies (see Section 3.2.2.3e).
Moreover, the right to science is instrumental in driving technological and engineering innovations that significantly influence housing. Conversely, the right to housing acts as a catalyst for scientific advancement, continually pushing the envelope of what science can achieve in the realm of housing. The right to housing ensures that scientific endeavours are not just theoretical but also practically oriented towards improving people’s living conditions and quality of life. These innovations include developments in building materials, construction techniques and sustainable design to create housing that is more affordable, durable and environmentally responsible. In addition, scientific progress is crucial in setting higher standards for housing quality. This encompasses improvements in safety measures, energy efficiency and overall living conditions, thereby enhancing the fulfilment of the right to adequate housing through the lens of scientific and technological advancements.
4.2.4 Right to Education (Art. 13 ICESCR)
The right to education, as delineated in Art. 13(1) ICESCR, is fundamental in enabling individuals to participate effectively in a free society. It fosters understanding, tolerance and friendship across all nations and among diverse racial, ethnic and religious groups. Beyond formal schooling, education encompasses a wide array of life experiences and learning processes. These experiences and processes are critical for the development of individuals and communities, helping them to cultivate their personalities, talents and abilities and to lead fulfilling lives within their societies.Footnote 120
Under Art. 13(2)(a)–(d) ICESCR, education spans a range from primary to higher levels and includes fundamental education for individuals who have not received or completed their primary education. Primary education, which imparts basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, is mandatory and must be freely available to all, as stipulated in Art. 13(2)(a) ICESCR. Secondary education, as described in Art. 13(2)(b) ICESCR, extends beyond basic education and solidifies the foundations for lifelong learning and human development. It prepares students for further educational opportunities, including vocational and higher education. This level of education, encompassing various forms such as technical and vocational secondary education, should be generally accessible to all, with a commitment to progressively implementing free education. Art. 13(2)(c) ICESCR addresses higher education, emphasising its equal accessibility to all based on individual capacity, and advocates for the progressive introduction of free education. Although human rights treaties do not provide a specific definition of higher education, it is generally recognised as education offered by post-secondary institutions such as universities, polytechnics and colleges.Footnote 121 Furthermore, fundamental education is given special emphasis under Art. 13(2)(d) ICESCR, advocating for its promotion and intensification for those who have not completed their primary education. This provision ensures that educational opportunities are extended to all sections of society, reflecting the inclusiveness of the ICESCR.Footnote 122
The rights to science and education are closely interconnected.Footnote 123 Education serves as a fundamental prerequisite for exercising the right to science, particularly in obtaining quality scientific education.Footnote 124 Under scientific education, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights understands the ‘right to be introduced to and informed about main scientific discoveries and their applications, regardless of frontiers. It also entails education instilling a spirit of scientific inquiry’.Footnote 125 This definition highlights the broader scope of science education, emphasising not only knowledge of scientific breakthroughs and their applications but also the cultivation of an inquisitive, research-oriented mindset in learners. The Committee emphasises the core obligation under the right to science to ‘ensure that people have access to the basic education and skills necessary for the comprehension and application of scientific knowledge and that scientific education in both public and private schools respects the best available scientific knowledge’.Footnote 126
Moreover, the right to education extends to educational freedom, permitting individuals to select and establish educational institutions (Art. 13(3)–(4) ICESCR). States are tasked with respecting the choices of parents and guardians in opting for non-governmental schools, so long as these institutions comply with educational standards established by the state. These schools are required to align with the principles outlined in Art. 13(1) ICESCR and meet the minimum educational criteria defined by the state. Additionally, parents and guardians must have the opportunity to ensure that their children’s education is consistent with their own religious and moral values.
Importantly, however, all schools – whether public or private – are expected to uphold high standards of scientific integrity. While educational freedom is recognised, private schools and their curricula must comply with not only the minimum criteria stipulated by the right to education in Art. 13(1) ICESCR but also the right to science. This entails a respect for and incorporation of established scientific knowledge. For instance, a curriculum that teaches creationism as the sole explanation for the origin of the world, while disregarding established scientific understanding, would be inconsistent with the rights to both science and education. In this regard, the right to science may be understood as providing a qualitative benchmark for the content of education. This interpretation is reflected – albeit implicitly – in the Committee’s articulation of the core content of the right to science, which includes the obligation to ensure that ‘scientific education in both public and private schools respects the best available scientific knowledge’.Footnote 127 While this standard does not directly address religious education, it nonetheless implies limits on curricular content where it departs from evidence-based scientific understanding.
Furthermore, the Committee emphasises the need for a progressive introduction of free education,Footnote 128 extending this mandate to both secondary and higher education.Footnote 129 As such, actions such as increasing university education fees would constitute retrogressive measures and violate the right to not only education but also science, specifically the right to access to scientific education.
4.2.5 Prohibition of Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Art. 7 ICCPR)
According to Art. 7 ICCPR, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The provision is non-derogable and absolute, allowing no limitation.Footnote 130 This provision, unique in its explicit prohibition of non-consensual medical or scientific experimentation, primarily seeks to prevent the type of human experimentation that occurred in concentration camps during the Second World War.Footnote 131
Art. 7 ICCPR specifically targets experiments that inherently amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Medical experiments causing mutilation or severe physical or mental suffering are considered impermissible. This extends to interventions in genetic engineering, such as experiments on inseminated ova that result in the birth of children with disabilities who then suffer physically or mentally. If genetic interventions on an embryo result in lasting adverse effects after birth, Art. 7 ICCPR could potentially be applicable.Footnote 132 Conversely, routine medical treatments intended to benefit a patient’s health do not fall under the definition of ‘experimentation’ in Art. 7 ICCPR and thus exceed the scope of this book.Footnote 133
The requirement of free and informed consent is a fundamental safeguard in the context of medical and scientific experimentation, particularly under international human rights law. Experiments that do not rise to the level of inhuman or degrading treatment – such as the addition of fluoride to public drinking water for experimental purposes or the conduct of clinical pharmaceutical trials without an individual’s knowledge or consent – do not automatically fall within the scope of Art. 7 of the ICCPR. However, the absence of free and informed consent may render a medical or scientific experiment inhuman, particularly when carried out against a person’s will or despite their clear objection. This concern becomes particularly acute in cases involving vulnerable groups, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women of mentally disabled or economically disadvantaged individuals, who are often more vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, making the protection of their rights in the context of medical or scientific experiments even more essential under the human rights framework.Footnote 134
The connection between the prohibition of medical or scientific experimentation without free consent and the right to science is indeed profound. Both rights emerged in response to the horrific events of the Second World War, with a specific focus on preventing the repetition of atrocities committed ‘in the name of science’. Protection against the harmful effects of science was also discussed during the drafting process of the right to science (see Section 3.1). In this context, in General Comment No. 25 on science ESC rights, the Committee underscores the critical importance of autonomy, along with the free and informed consent of research participants, particularly those who are vulnerable.Footnote 135 This emphasis may result in certain limitations on the right to science, especially concerning scientific freedom and dissemination of science. The Committee stresses the necessity to ensure the rights and obligations of all parties involved in research, particularly in countries or among populations different from those of the researchers.Footnote 136
The conduct of clinical research in developing countries exemplifies this issue. In these regions, clinical trials can sometimes constitute the only access to healthcare. However, historical instances, such as Pfizer’s experimentations in Nigeria, demonstrate the human rights concerns that can arise. In 1996, during a meningitis epidemic in Kano, Nigeria, Pfizer conducted trials of the antibiotic Trovan. Allegations arose that the company administered experimental treatments without adequate informed consent; many parents of the child participants were not proficient in English and thus could not understand the consent documents. Despite known potential side-effects on children from animal testing, such as joint disease and liver damage, the trial proceeded, reportedly resulting in severe health complications for the children involved.Footnote 137
Historically, such scenarios have predominantly been approached as matters of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Art. 7 ICCPR, combined with further ethical considerations. In this realm, ethical frameworks for scientific experimentation, such as the Nuremberg CodeFootnote 138 and Helsinki Declaration,Footnote 139 have been established and widely recognised. The right to science contributes a normative layer to these ethical standards. This augmentation not only enriches the ethical guidelines but also introduces a more comprehensive perspective. It requires that people must be protected from the adverse effects of science (see Section 5.4.1.1c) and that all human rights are considered and judiciously balanced against each other. This holistic approach ensures that the right to science does not exist in isolation but is integrated and weighed alongside other human rights, thereby fostering a more equitable and ethical framework for scientific research that does not reach the threshold of Art. 7 ICCPR, particularly in settings where vulnerabilities might otherwise be exploited.
Against this backdrop, the right to science further stipulates that scientific communication should be culturally appropriate and understandable to all participants, ensuring informed consent and understanding; otherwise, it would run contrary to the object and purpose of Art. 7 ICCPR and Art. 15(1)(b) ICESCR. The right to science also serves to protect individuals from the harmful effects of scientific experimentation, making clear that a human rights violation may occur even when an experiment does not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. This is particularly relevant in preventing the exploitation or harm of individuals, especially those belonging to vulnerable groups.
4.2.6 Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Art. 18 ICCPR)
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, under Art. 18 ICCPR, is extensive. It includes freedom of thought on all matters, personal conviction and the manifestation of religion or belief. These rights can be exercised both individually or in community with others.Footnote 140 Similarly, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, akin to freedom of opinion and expression (see Section 4.2.7), represents a cornerstone of a robust democratic society and a fundamental component of the pluralism characteristic of contemporary democracies.Footnote 141 The freedoms of thought and conscience and to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice are absolute and cannot be limited.Footnote 142
Freedom of thought and conscience comprises two dimensions: the forum internum and forum externum. The former pertains to the spiritual existence of the individual, a realm that is inviolable. This internal dimension encompasses inter alia the right of individuals to think independently of state control, adhere to their convictions, form personal opinions, and express and act upon these views and ideas publicly. The inviolability of the individual’s spiritual existence imposes a negative obligation on the state or private entities to refrain from restricting freedom of thought and conscience.Footnote 143 This freedom encompasses the prohibition of coercion as delineated in Art. 18(2) ICCPR. An individual’s thoughts and opinions must consequently not be subjected to external coercion. Moreover, every person retains the liberty to revise their opinions.Footnote 144 The forum externum involves the right to publicly defend one’s convictions. The external aspects of the freedoms of thought and conscience can be exercised individually or collectively, in private or public spheres.Footnote 145 Thus, the forum externum is also perceived as encompassing community rights, evident in the formation of assemblies, associations or trade unions, which require like-minded individuals to convene and collaborate.Footnote 146
Protected under the freedom of thought, conscience and religion are theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to profess any religion or belief. The HRC elaborates that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion differs from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. The former, protected unconditionally, cannot be limited.Footnote 147 In contrast, the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be subject to limitations as stipulated in Art. 18(3) ICCPR.Footnote 148
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion interrelates significantly with the right to science. The freedoms of thought and conscience are foundational for exercising scientific freedom. Regarding the freedom of religion, neither the CESCR, in General Comment No. 25 concerning science ESC rights, nor the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights have addressed religion within the scope of the right to science. Yet, a particularly crucial aspect of this intersection involves the religious and moral education of children (see earlier in this section). The HRC stipulates that states must respect the freedom of parents and, when relevant, legal guardians to ensure their children’s religious and moral education aligns with their own beliefs, as stipulated in Art. 18(4) ICCPR. The HRC elaborates that this provision permits public school instruction in subjects such as general history of religions and ethics, as long as it is imparted neutrally and objectively. The liberty of parents or legal guardians to guarantee that their children receive religious and moral education that reflects their convictions, as detailed in Art. 18(4) ICCPR, correlates with the freedoms related to teaching religion or belief, as outlined in Art. 18(1) ICCPR. The HRC observes that public education that includes instruction in a specific religion or belief violates Art. 18(4) ICCPR unless it offers non-discriminatory exemptions or alternative choices that respect the preferences of parents and guardians.Footnote 149 If a school curriculum were to exclusively cover a particular religion or belief, such as creationism, it would consequently not only contravene Art. 18(4) ICCPR but also impinge upon the right to science, as well as to education. Children have the right to an education characterised by neutrality and objectivity, where scientific advancement sets the standard for quality (see Section 4.2.4). This approach to scientific education is crucial in fostering critical thinking and responsibility, vital attributes that enable individuals to contribute actively and meaningfully in a democratic society. This educational framework underscores the value and benefits derived from science.Footnote 150
4.2.7 Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Art. 19 ICCPR)
The freedoms of opinion and expression (Art. 19 ICCPR) are, alongside the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (see Section 4.2.6),Footnote 151 the ‘foundation stone for every free and democratic society’.Footnote 152 Freedom of opinion and expression, serving as the vehicle for the exchange and development of ideas, are deeply intertwined.Footnote 153 What both rights have in common is that they facilitate the inquiry into and dissemination of information across various forms of media.Footnote 154
Freedom of opinion, as enshrined in Art. 19(1) ICCPR, guarantees every individual’s right to hold opinions without interference. This freedom is absolute and cannot be limited or derogated from.Footnote 155 This right encompasses opinions of various natures, including scientific, political, historical, moral and religious. Any form of coercive interference with the freedom to hold or not hold an opinion, including harassment, intimidation and stigmatisation, is strictly prohibited.Footnote 156 The freedom of opinion is inviolable, as is freedom of thought (see Section 4.2.6), which significantly contributes to the freedom of opinion, given that opinions are formed through a process of thinking.Footnote 157
Freedom of expression, as delineated in Art. 19(2) ICCPR, encompasses the ‘freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, whether orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of one’s choice’. This extends beyond the private realm of opinion, involving the active exchange of information and ideas.Footnote 158
Freedom of expression comprises two key aspects: the freedoms to impart information and to seek and receive information. The former includes a wide range of activities, such as political discourse, commentary on one’s own and public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, cultural and artistic expression, teaching and religious discourse. It may also encompass commercial advertising.Footnote 159 The lesser-known aspect of freedom of expression is the right to seek and receive information, which pertains to accessing information and records held by public bodies and institutions. The withholding of such information is permissible only for legitimate reasons, such as privacy or security concerns.Footnote 160
The limitations on freedom of expression, distinct from other restrictions in human rights law, allow restrictions based on the ‘respect of the rights or reputations of others’, diverging from, for example, the focus on ‘fundamental rights and freedoms of others’ in Art. 18(3) (see Sections 4.2.6 and 8.3.2). Additionally, the HRC uniquely acknowledges ‘special duties and responsibilities’ in the exercise of freedom, particularly pertinent to the influence of mass media and social media. This encompasses potential impacts on individual reputations and the need to regulate hate speech, as mandated by Art. 20(2) ICCPR. Similarly, limitations on scientific freedom entail special duties and responsibilities, echoing the constraints in the realm of expression.Footnote 161
The freedoms of opinion and expression are of course also deeply interconnected with the right to science. The former includes the right to hold scientific opinions (discussed earlier in this section), which is in the end also a precondition for scientific freedom (see Section 5.4.3). The latter, more concretely the freedom to impart information, is also a precondition for scientific freedom; scientific discourse thrives from the exchange of ideas across various forms of media. Possible muzzles for researchers were discussed in the light of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic but would of course have run counter to freedom of expression and, not least, scientific freedom.Footnote 162 The freedom to seek and receive information is integrally connected to the right of access to science. However, this right is contingent upon the individual’s position within the relevant spectrum (see Section 6.1.1). Legitimate grounds may consequently exist for restricting access to information, notably privacy and security concerns. Conversely, the right to science bolsters the freedom of opinion and expression, given that scientific information constitutes a vital component for the vibrant exchange of information and ideas. Without such a foundation, freedom of opinion and expression would diminish in quality. This relationship underscores the interdependence of these rights, highlighting how the right to science is integral to fostering a well-informed and dynamic discourse.
As just noted, the right to freedom of opinion and expression is deeply interrelated and a precondition for scientific freedom; it also ‘underpins academic freedom’.Footnote 163 The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has dedicated an entire report to the aspect of academic freedom within the scope of freedom of opinion and expression.Footnote 164 He emphasises that attacks on academic freedom erode the foundations of democratic life, scientific progress and human development; moreover, while the freedom of opinion and expression safeguards and fosters academic freedom in various ways, a singular, exclusive international human rights framework dedicated to this subject does not exist. Attacks on academic freedom may also represent violations of rights related to education, culture, association, belief, due process or, crucially, science.Footnote 165 The section on academic freedom provides a comprehensive analysis of the topic (see Section 5.4.3.1).
New technologies, such as the internet, are fundamental for the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, a right that can be expressed through any media of one’s choice. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression highlighted the significant role of new technologies, particularly the internet and satellite dishes, in enabling the free flow of information, ideas and opinions as early as 2000. He advocated viewing these technologies as a means to achieve a plurality of voices. The internet and satellite dishes are key components of the ‘information revolution’, crucial in amplifying dissenting voices and shaping political and cultural debates beyond national borders. However, despite the internet being a cost-effective and rapid transmission medium, it remains inaccessible to many.Footnote 166
The ambivalence towards controlling new technologies, especially the internet, in contexts such as pornography, child pornography and hate speech, also warrants attention. While acknowledging these concerns, the Rapporteur suggests that international standards and national laws can address these issues effectively without undermining freedom of opinion and expression. Additionally, some countries have implemented unreasonable measures, such as mandating ‘trustworthy’ information or monitoring internet data, which contravene international standards. The Rapporteur emphasises the democratic nature of the internet and criticises excessive state regulations that compromise individual worth and dignity, deeming them paternalistic.Footnote 167 In her report, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights delineates connections between the right to science and freedom of expression, highlighting access to the internet and information communication technologies as integral components of both the right to science and freedom of expression.Footnote 168 Thus, insufficient or absent access to the internet, coupled with excessive regulation, not only impedes freedom of opinion and expression but also infringes upon the right to benefit from scientific progress and its applications. Notably, the internet and other emerging communication technologies are encompassed within the definition of applications of science.
4.2.8 The Right to Take Part in Public Affairs and Elections (Art. 25 ICCPR)
The right to take part in public affairs and elections (Art. 25 ICCPR), which ‘recognises and protects the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service’,Footnote 169 is inherently structured as a citizen’s right, thus primarily exercisable by nationals of the state party concerned. Yet, it may to a limited extent be extended to non-nationals such as permanent residents. The right to participate in public affairs involves active participatory elements, like the rights to take part in cultural life and to participate in science (see Section 4.2.1.4).
In General Comment No. 25 on science and ESC rights, the Committee elaborates on participation and transparency in the context of decision-making and policies and stipulates that states should formulate their policies based on the best available scientific evidence and foster public trust and support for sciences across society. This encompasses promoting a culture of active citizen engagement with science, particularly through informed and vigorous democratic debates concerning the production and utilisation of scientific knowledge. Moreover, the implementation and adoption of certain technological advancements ought to be subjected to public scrutiny and citizen participation. Scientific and technological processes should be established through participatory and transparent procedures, such as engaging the public in discussions about the potential risks and benefits of employing artificial intelligence within society.Footnote 170
In conclusion, the right to participate in public affairs and elections underscores the participatory dimension of the right to science, particularly through democratic decision-making processes that guide the development and application of scientific and technological advancements. This includes not only the right to engage in public debate and policymaking but also the right to vote, which relies on informed decision-making and a sound understanding of complex issues, including those related to science and technology. In this context, the right to science supports the conditions necessary for meaningful political participation by fostering access to reliable scientific information and encouraging public understanding.
4.2.9 The Right to Development and Sustainable Development Goals
The right to development promotes the pursuit of economic growth and entitles everyone to ‘participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised’ (Art. 1 Declaration on the Right to Development).Footnote 171 The right to development represents a comprehensive framework that integrates human rights with development theory and practice. Developing states primarily utilise this right to highlight concerns regarding the adverse effects of aspects of international trade, unequal access to technology and the overwhelming debt burden. Conversely, most donor states view the right to development as a tool to enhance governance and rule of law in recipient states.Footnote 172
The linkage between the rights to development and to science is mentioned in both the Special Rapporteur’s reportFootnote 173 and the Venice Statement. The latter emphasises the necessity of aligning science and technology policy, human needs and economic prosperity: ‘States should apply human rights-based approaches to their policies and activities in the field of science and technology. Consistent with their obligations under the Covenant and the right to development, states should also promote international co-operation and assistance to countries that encounter difficulties in developing science and technology policy and science education.’Footnote 174
The connection between the right to science and development is founded on their mutual commitment to enhancing human welfare. The right to science facilitates access to and the expansion of scientific knowledge and its applications, including technology, which are crucial for societal advancement. This advancement is central to the right to development, with its focus on improving the quality of life for all. Scientific progress is crucial in development by improving health, broadening educational access and driving economic growth. In this context – particularly in the realm of the right to science – the ICESCR also emphasises, ‘The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realisation of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture’ (Art. 15(2) ICESCR) and to ‘recognise the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields’ (Art. 15(4) ICESCR), which in turn facilitates development. Furthermore, the inclusive nature of the right to development is mirrored in the collaborative spirit inherent in scientific research and innovation. Thus, the advancement of the right to science can also be seen as reinforcement for the goals associated with the right to development.
Conversely, the right to development reinforces the right to science; scientific progress and its applications should not be exclusive privileges for a select few but rather rights that consider the needs of developing states. Particularly, the right to development emphasises the necessity for a more balanced approach concerning international trade and IP law, ensuring that the benefits of scientific advancements are accessible and equitable for all.
The SDGs, established under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the UN in 2015 and comprising 17 goals and 169 targets, serve as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure peace and prosperity.Footnote 175 While not legally binding, the SDGs significantly influence and are influenced by international law, hence their relevance in this context.Footnote 176
Science and technology are prominently featured within the SDGs. Of the 169 targets, 15 explicitly mention science and an additional 34 are closely related to technological or scientific issues. Moreover, the remaining 121 targets also have key scientific and technological dimensions; specifically, 48 targets closely related to science and technology can be grouped under three main goals: (a) developing science and technology, (b) promoting access to science and technology and (c) establishing effective global innovation systems. To enhance the implementation of these goals, the UNGA initiated the UN inter-agency task team on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs, dedicated to promoting coordination, coherence and co-operation within the UN system on matters related to science, technology and innovation. With its key focus on synergy and efficiency, particularly in capacity-building initiatives, the team is thus critical in achieving the SDGs through scientific and technological advancement.Footnote 177
In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly declared the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (2024–2033),Footnote 178 designating UNESCO as the lead agency for its implementation. The initiative seeks to articulate and promote a comprehensive vision of the central role of science in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Through broad consultation with Member States and collaboration across diverse scientific communities, it aims to stimulate inclusive dialogue and identify the barriers hindering the effective application of science to sustainable development.
The proclamation of this decade signals a significant shift toward a holistic, science-driven approach to sustainability, aligning closely with the 2030 Agenda. It seeks to integrate all scientific disciplines and knowledge systems to inform policymaking and support the practical realisation of the SDGs. Moreover, the initiative highlights the importance of evidence-informed policymaking – an essential component of the right to science (see Section 5.4.1.1d) – and affirms its critical function in shaping responsive, rights-based policies for a sustainable future.
4.2.10 The Right to a Healthy Environment
In the summer of 2022, the UNGA adopted a landmark resolution recognising the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right.Footnote 179 While a universally accepted definition of the right to a healthy environment does not exist, it is generally understood to encompass both substantive and procedural dimensions. Substantive elements include the right to clean air, a stable and safe climate, safe water and adequate sanitation, sustainably produced and nutritious food and a non-toxic environment in which to live, work, learn and recreate, as well as healthy biodiversity and ecosystems. Procedurally, this right includes access to information, participation in decision-making and access to justice and effective remedies. It includes the safe exercise of these rights without fear of reprisal or retaliation. The fulfilment of the right to a healthy environment also depends on international co-operation, solidarity and equity in environmental action. This includes the mobilisation of resources and the recognition of extraterritorial jurisdiction over human rights violations resulting from environmental degradation.Footnote 180
Science is widely acknowledged as a crucial element for effective decision-making and risk assessment in international environmental matters. Nonetheless, the complexities and uncertainties of environmental phenomena often mean that scientific knowledge can be incomplete or provisional. For addressing this challenge, the ‘democratisation’ of science has been suggested as a potential solution. This approach could involve broadening the range of expert opinions and public input in assessing new technologies, engaging the public in scientific endeavours through ‘citizen science’ projects or employing the precautionary principle. While the right to science as not a cure-all, it can facilitate more democratically accountable decision-making, especially in situations where scientific uncertainties and environmental risks are a matter of debate. This right can thus be instrumental in ensuring a more inclusive and balanced approach to addressing environmental challenges.Footnote 181 Conversely, the right to a healthy environment acts as a catalyst for the right to science, deriving the rights to benefit from scientific progress and to evidence-informed policymaking and promoting international scientific collaboration.
4.2.11 Other Human Rights
The preceding discussion has highlighted key human rights that are closely linked to the right to science. While these represent the most direct and relevant connections, other rights also merit attention. For instance, the right to peaceful assembly (Art. 21 ICCPR), freedom of association (Art. 22 ICCPR) and the right to liberty of movement (Art. 12 ICCPR) could be particularly relevant for scholars who travel and participate in academic conferences.Footnote 182 Additionally, the right to self-determination, briefly touched upon by the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, is also significant.Footnote 183 Moreover, the right to social security (Art. 9 ICESCR) is crucial in mitigating poverty and fostering social inclusion through its redistributive nature.Footnote 184 This right could gain further importance in the context of digital technology and Big Data. In this digital era, the right to science acquires profound implications in understanding and tackling wealth concentration by major technology corporations through their use of Big Data.Footnote 185 The notion of economic redistribution is especially pertinent in the context of Big Data and artificial intelligence. Public data forms the foundation for large language models such as ChatGPT, which are dependent on extensive internet data and user interactions. The utilisation and commercialisation of such data raises questions about economic redistribution. In a world where the collective contributions of individuals significantly fuel technological advancement, the consideration of social security measures for poverty reduction and the promotion of social inclusion via redistributive mechanisms is not only justified but necessary. A benefit-sharing approach acknowledges the collective contribution to scientific progress and aligns with the right to benefit from scientific advancements and applications. Ensuring that economic gains from data and technology are equitably distributed underscores the principle that advancements in science and technology should benefit all, not just a privileged few.
4.3 Conclusion
The right to science does not exist in a vacuum. As this chapter has shown, it is deeply woven into the fabric of the international human rights system. These interconnections reflect the principles of indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness, which form the conceptual backbone of international human rights law.
Viewed through this lens, the traditional division between ESC rights and CP rights becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. The right to science – enshrined in the ICESCR but closely linked with CP rights such as freedom of opinion and expression – demonstrates how artificial and ultimately unhelpful this categorisation is. The right to science cannot be neatly confined to a single category. Its realisation strengthens the enjoyment of other rights, while also depending on them in turn – for example, in advancing public health through equitable access to medical innovation. In this sense, the right to science offers a compelling illustration of the human rights system as a dynamic, interrelated whole rather than a collection of discrete silos.
Recognising this complexity allows for a more accurate and meaningful understanding of the right to science – one that acknowledges both its normative richness and its contemporary relevance.
Open access