Best practices for geosciences in the time of crises

Geopolitical crises increasingly determine where geoscientists can work, who may collaborate, and which forms of knowledge are considered appropriate. In response, scientific institutions have refined best practices that enable engagement with war, displacement, and environmental harm while preserving neutrality, excellence, and uninterrupted research activity—without jeopardizing institutional rankings, benchmarking exercises, or global competitiveness indicators.

Three core guidelines are outlined. First, ethical engagement should be articulated through statements, panels, and codes of conduct that acknowledge suffering in general terms while avoiding reference to specific actors, histories, or responsibilities. Second, international collaboration should be promoted in principle, provided it remains compatible with security frameworks, funding rules, visa regimes, journal indices, and ranking-sensitive performance metrics. Third, moral and political tensions are most efficiently managed by delegating responsibility to individual researchers, early-career scientists, and affected communities, thereby allowing institutions to remain impartial while safeguarding reputation, citation aggregates, and position in global league tables.

Taken together, these practices demonstrate how geosciences can continue to produce knowledge during crises while carefully limiting institutional accountability. The framework highlights neutrality not as an ethical position, but as an optimized governance strategy for maintaining visibility, stability, and rank.

This is satire, or is it?