Professor Donald B. Dingwell, President Elect of Academia Europaea
Following an intensive scrutiny process, the Board have accepted the recommendation of an independent search group who proposed Professor Donald B. Dingwell MAE for an approval by the Academia Europaea members.
An E-ballot of all eligible members was held between 17 – 30 June 2025.
His term will officially start at the AGM of members on 14th October 2025. He will serve a term of three years and is then eligible to be re-elected for a second and final term of three years.
Yet, many argue that One Health has evolved to focus heavily on human health, without paying enough attention to the vital connection it has with the environment and ecosystems, on which all life depends.
What is ‘One Health’, and what role does the sustainability of the environment and ecosystems play within it? How can we move One Health away from being so focused on humans and instead take a more balanced, truly interconnected approach that values all parts of the system—people, animals, and the environment? What real-world challenges stand in the way, and what could we do to overcome them?
Join us for this interactive webinar, which is free and open to all.
Our panel of speakers includes leading experts on One Health, including those who recently provided scientific advice to the European Commission:
Dr Andrea Ford, Wellcome Trust Research Fellow in Humanities and Social Science, University of Edinburgh; Member of the SAPEA Working Group on One Health
Professor Joanne Cable, Head of Organisms and Environment Division, Cardiff University
Pablo Sagredo Martín, One Health Officer, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Professor Lucy Robertson, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Member of the SAPEA Working Group on One Health.
This webinar is a cooperation between the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), Academia Europaea Hubs at Cardiff University and the University of Bergen, the Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM) and Environment Platform Wales.
Hosted by both Academia Europaea Budapest and Wroclaw Hub, this online panel discussion will explore persistent gender disparities in academia and scientific research.
Date: June 12, 2025
Time: 16:15–18:00 CET Venue: Online Admission: Free | Register here
Despite notable progress in recent decades, women—particularly mothers—continue to face structural, cultural, and institutional challenges throughout their academic careers. This event aims to examine these issues through a rich exchange of experience, evidence-based insights, and examples of effective initiatives.
We warmly encourage you to share this invitation with your members and networks, and to join us for an engaging and impactful discussion.
AE Bergen’s Ole Øvretveit speaking at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. Photo credit: SARDARI.COM
AE-Bergen project manager Ole Øvretveit participated in the Science Diplomacy Summit, hosted at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC, on April 14–15, 2025. The event brought together approximately 1400 participants from a wide range of countries and sectors, including academia, diplomacy, and Indigenous communities. Several nations, such as France, Poland, and Austria, were represented at a high diplomatic level, highlighting the global relevance of Arctic science and cooperation.
Øvretveit contributed to the session “Polar Diplomacy: Arctic & Antarctic ” with a talk titled “Towards a New Era of Arctic Exceptionalism.” His presentation reflected on the legacy and uncertain future of Arctic cooperation in the face of growing geopolitical tensions and environmental urgency. What has long been referred to as Arctic exceptionalism—the ability to maintain collaboration across political divides—now appears increasingly at risk. The region is becoming polarized between a “Western Arctic” and a “Russian Arctic,” the latter more closely aligned with BRICS and non-Western powers. Meanwhile, China’s rapidly growing research presence and intensified U.S. interest in Greenland are further complicating the geopolitical landscape.
These emerging fractures pose a serious threat to science-informed decision-making and coordinated sustainability efforts in the Arctic. Øvretveit emphasized that while Arctic collaboration has never been perfect, with enduring challenges around cross-border research, Indigenous inclusion, and balancing development with environmental protection, the region has nonetheless stood out globally for its ability to foster consensus among diverse actors. At the core of this cooperation has been the Arctic Council, which remains the most important institutional platform for peaceful and knowledge-based governance in the region.
Looking ahead to the Fifth International Polar Year in 2032–33, Øvretveit called for renewed ambition and long-term investment in inclusive, ethical Arctic research—anchored in Indigenous leadership and societal relevance — to ensure that the next era of Arctic cooperation is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable.
Meeting, Wednesday 14th May 2025, 13.00 UK time, 14.00 CEST, 15.00 Ukraine time
Academia Europaea Cardiff is taking action to support Ukrainian researchers facing scientific isolation due to war. In collaboration with Odesa National Medical University, we are launching a pilot initiative to connect Ukrainian PhD students – qualified medical professionals – with academic mentors across Europe.
Join our meeting this May, chaired by our Hub Director Professor Ole Petersen CBE FRS ML MAE, to hear directly from representatives of Odesa National Medical University and the PhD students seeking academic support in the areas of medicine and health. Through short talks and personal stories, they will share their challenges, aspirations, and the crucial role international collaboration can play in sustaining Ukrainian medical research.
Valeriia Marichereda, First Vice-Rector, Professor of gynaecology and obstetrics, Odesa National Medical University, Ukraine
Viktoriia Borshch, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor of Management in Healthcare, Odesa National Medical University, Ukraine
Oleksandr Shakhanov, PhD student, “A modern approach to the treatment of chronic wounds”, Odesa National Medical University, Ukraine
Borys Bovsunovskyi, PhD student, “Optimisation of bone canal formation technique in osteosynthesis”, Odesa National Medical University, Ukraine
Daria Drobot, PhD student, “Visfatin as a marker for the development of atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer in women with metabolic syndrome”, Odesa National Medical University, Ukraine
This is a chance to make a real difference. Show your support, stand with Ukraine, and discover how you can play a vital role in mentoring and supporting Ukraine’s next generation of medical professionals.
Supported by Cardiff University.
Registration
To attend, please email ‘Register me for the webinar meeting‘ to Juliet Davies at DaviesJ89@cardiff.ac.uk, and you will receive the joining details for the meeting.
Updated 2nd May 2025. For more information contact AECardiffHub@cardiff.ac.uk
The recent SAPEA report “One Health governance in the EU” defines the “One Health”-concept as an integrated approach to optimize the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems, emphasizing their interdependence – how it’s all connected. Nominated by Academia Europaea Bergen, parasitologist Lucy Robertson participated in the working group for the report.
Lucy Robertson, teaching at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and has been a member of the working group for the report SAPEA report “One Health governance in the EU”.
In this interview, Lucy Robertson explains many aspects both of the “One Health”-concept and of how the SAPEA report can advance the One Health thinking. The report addresses governance, operationalization, and evaluation of One Health policies, offering evidence-based recommendations for implementation.
– What do you see as the most important gains in adopting a “One Health” approach for society?
– It is clear to me that use of a One Health approach is essential for not only tackling disease in people (both infectious and non-infectious), but to ensure that we have a planet that is liveable for future generations. The unescapable fact that changes we make to our environment affects animal and human health, means that the approach of only addressing problems when they arise, and not realising that even mitigation of an apparently urgent problem may result in negative consequences, is being increasingly recognised as non-sustainable.
– Instead of the “detect problem then deal with problem” chain of events, we have the means to collaborate and consider the more strategic “anticipate problem then avoid problem” approach. This can only be good for society.
– In what ways did your background as a researcher contribute to your interest in the «One Health» concept?
– I am a parasitologist, and parasites are one of the pathogen groups that are often associated with zoonotic (animal-to-human) transmission. After my PhD, which focussed largely on intestinal parasites in school children in Panama, I continued my career in parasitology in a general hospital in Scotland with particular focus on Cryptosporidium, a parasite that is zoonotic and often transmitted via contamination of the environment, such as water and food.
– Moving to Norway, I began working in the Norwegian Veterinary College, but on the same sort of topics, but this time with more focus on the animal side. So, for many years I have been very much aware of the importance of being aware that animals-humans-environment are best considered not in silos, but as a whole system, in which one part affects, and is affected by, the other parts. More parasites and more research later, this is still clearly the way to go. It is the basis of the One Health concept, and my research and outlook has been very much rooted in this since the 1990s (at least a decade before the “Manhattan Principles” were published). I think that many parasitologists (and others) would also consider that their work had been ground in One Health, long before it became a written concept.
– What are the origins of the «One Health» concept?
– This is not a “new” idea at all. The German physician, Rudolf Virchow (1812-1902), is considered the founder of social medicine and veterinary pathology. He described the life cycle of the parasite Trichinella spiralis and later discovered that cooking meat before consumption was an effective mean to prevent infection. His insights are clearly within the scope of One Health, without that term having been used. In 1964, Calvin Schwabe introduced the term “One Medicine” in his book on veterinary medicine and human health.
– A meeting in the Rockefeller University in 2004 made concrete many of the One Health principles under which many had already been working without giving the concept a formal name. This meeting was largely generated by a series of outbreaks of different diseases (West Nile Virus, SARS, BSE (“mad cow disease”) that brought home that only be considering human health, domestic animal and wildlife health could a broader understanding of disease be achieved.
– Although the health of the environment was not mentioned directly here, many examples of, for example, climate change and biodiversity recognised the importance of the environment, the ecosystem in which we all live. Since then organisations such as FAO, WOAH, and WHO have collaborated, along with UNICEF, UNSCI, and the World Bank to provide strategic frameworks fin which the One Health concept can be applied at the ecosystem- animal-human interface.
– The first One Health congress was held in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, and now it is a concept with which many are familiar. As with such concepts, the term is frequently misused, and many work within a One Health framework, without calling it that (just “business as usual”). It is on the shoulders of all these pioneers in One Health, with only a few mentioned here, that the SAPEA group began its work.
– The working group in this SAPEA report refined the definition of the One Health concept slightly. Can you take us through the process of working on the definition of “One Health”?
– The working group all were concerned with One Health, but all had different backgrounds and areas of expertise. We started from the One Health definition provided by the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) in 2022. By going through it word by word and discussing how each of us understood it, we were able to pinpoint where we felt there were ambiguities. This was particularly regarding the word “environment” and “ecosystem”, whether they are in fact synonyms, or that one encompasses the other. We ended up by defining “environment” as being a component of an ecosystem, but neither an animal nor a person.
– In what ways does the One Health concept relate to pandemic prevention and preparedness?
– Pandemic prevention and preparedness is obviously an important example of the “anticipate problem then avoid problem” approach. Previously (and repeatedly) we have waited for the pandemic “problem” to arrive and then rushed around trying to arrive and mitigate its impact. By brining in a wide spectrum of relevant people to anticipate when, where, and how a pandemic “problem” might arise, we give ourselves the chance to avoid that problem even occurring or only occurring in a controllable way.
Lucy Robertson is a professor at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and has been a member of the working group for the report SAPEA report “One Health governance in the EU”.
– However, I would like to emphasise that although pandemic awareness is high in the minds of many, not least due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic just a few years ago, there is more to One Health than pandemic awareness and prevention. This is an extreme example that frightens everyone, but there are many other One Health issues that may still make an impact on many although being of a more insidious, and less dramatic, nature.
– The SAPEA report mentions that we might see a paradigm shift on the topic of “One Health”. Do you agree and if so, how is that expressed today?
– I agree that there is already a paradigm shift within the field of One Health, in that there is a lot more emphasis on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in many aspects of tackling problems. This effort to move away from “silo thinking” is of value. The concern is that this is only very superficial, and that some partners in any multidisciplinary project may be sidelined or their impact considered of less value due to entrenchment in values from specific specialist fields. However, I think that as positive outcomes become recognised as being, at least in part, due to a One Health perspective being used, there will be a shift towards a greater understanding of the importance of this approach.
– I think that the anthropocentric framing of One Health is going to be more difficult to overcome. We are all selfish, and it is very difficult for any of us not to feel that people are of greater value than all else. As it happens, in One Health, the costs and benefits of all within the ecosystem need consideration, and recognition of the interaction may enable us to see that all One Health issues will, of their very nature, consider human aspects too. Thus, it is not putting “trees before people” but realising that aspects of both impact and effect each other.
– Are there any of the recommendations in the SAPEA report “One Health governance in the European Union” you want to highlight?
– To encourage everyone to take the One Health approach seriously, it is important to prove the value. Thus, to me, even for One Health adherents, it is important that we are held up to scrutiny and formal monitoring and evaluation is included. Methods by which we can determine the contributions from different sectors in addressing problems from a One Health perspective are important. The “Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence” may sound very dull, but enables and promotes inclusion of expertise form diverse disciplines.
– Economic analyses also sound very dry, but demonstrating that a One Health approach is more profitable than a siloed approach is very simple to understand and is convincing, also for politicians. The report from SAPEA gives many concrete examples of this, which demonstrate how important it is to be able to provide such data so that the relevance and financial benefits from using a One Health approach to tackle different issues can be realised.
Building Bridges 2025: Fostering Knowledge Across Disciplines
In an era where misinformation and subjective narratives challenge the foundations of truth, the role of rigorous academic inquiry has never been more crucial. Building Bridges 2025, the annual meeting of the Academia Europaea in Barcelona, will bring together leading scholars from all areas of knowledge to reaffirm the value of critical thinking, scientific evidence, and interdisciplinary dialogue.
At a time when public discourse is often fragmented and influenced by misleading information, academia remains a beacon of intellectual integrity. By connecting disciplines—from the humanities to the natural and social sciences—this meeting will explore how collaborative research can address global challenges, foster innovation, and reinforce the importance of knowledge-based decision-making in society.
As we gather in Barcelona in October 2025, we invite participants to engage in thought-provoking discussions, build new synergies, and strengthen the role of academia as a pillar of informed public debate. In a world of uncertainty, knowledge remains our most reliable bridge to the future. Let’s reinforce it!
The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters has decided to award the Abel Prize 2025 to Professor Masaki Kashiwara at Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS), Kyoto University, Japan, and Kyoto University Institute for Advanced Study (KUIAS), Kyoto University, Japan.
Masaki Kashiwara has during more than half a century in mathematics opened the door to a new mathematical field. He has built bridges and created tools. He has proven astonishing theorems with methods no one had imagined. He has been a true mathematical visionary.
Like Niels Henrik Abel (1802-1829) himself, Masaki Kashiwara (b.1947) showed excellence already when very young. He remembers his love of algebra being kindled at school by a problem called Tsurukamezan, about calculating the numbers of cranes and turtles, respectively, from knowing the total numbers of heads and legs. He loved being able to generalise a method to solve any problem. From there on he has continued to find new approaches and create new methods to solve mathematical problems throughout his astonishing mathematical life.
At the University of Tokyo, he first encountered his mentor Mikio Sato (1928–2023), by enrolling for his senior year seminar. Sato had founded a new field – algebraic analysis – and in 1970 Kashiwara completed his Master’s thesis under his supervision. This thesis established the foundations of D-Module Theory, a new basis for studying systems of linear differential equations with algebraic analysis, when Kashiwara was just 23. For the next 25 years this thesis remained only available in Japanese, but it continued to have such great impact and influence, that it was eventually translated to English.
Broad spectrum of mathematics
With his Master’s thesis as a starting point, Kashiwara continued his remarkable mathematical career with new and groundbreaking discoveries and solutions. His numerous achievements have exerted great influence on various fields of mathematics and contributed strongly to their development. Over the years many mathematicians have been inspired through Kashiwara’s ideas.
While still a graduate student, Kashiwara travelled to France with Sato and fellow mathematician Takahiro Kawai, where he met his lifelong collaborator, Pierre Schapira. After completing his Ph.D. at Kyoto University in 1974, Kashiwara was appointed Associate Professor at Nagoya University. In 1977 he went as a researcher to MIT, before returning to Japan in 1978, where he has remained ever since at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS), Kyoto University. He became Professor Emeritus following his retirement in 2010 and has continued his research as Project Professor at RIMS. He has also served as Program-Specific Professor since 2019 at the Kyoto University Institute for Advanced Study (KUIAS), specially established as a hub for the world’s most advanced research.
Jens Braarvig (MAE) and Danuta Shanzer at the Uppsala Conference.
The Uppsala Conference and The General Assembly of the World Philology Union (WPU) at Uppsala University, December 2024, resulted in the signing of the “The Uppsala Declaration on the Preservation of Philology and the Study of Historical Languages”.
– For the board of the World Philology Union and for philological scholars gathered in Uppsala before Christmas, it is of vital importance to see the recognition and the working conditions for the philological disciplines brought back to the centre of humanistic studies, rather than being scaled down as we see in many universities today, says the president of the WPU, Professor Jens Braarvig (MAE).
To underline this urgency, “The Uppsala Declaration” points out, among other issues, that “philology, defined as the grammatical and literary study of the oral and written heritage of the world’s various languages, is the ultimate foundation of the humanities”.
The work to anchor “The Uppsala Declaration” is in its early stages and is expected to go through several phases, Amund Haave of the WPU board explains.
– The Assembly at Uppsala were signatories as an assembly, and by extension also as individuals. In the first phase, we’ll ask academic institutions to sign, and possibly in a second phase, we will ask for individuals to sign, Amund Haave adds.
WPU president Jens Braarvig has been driving force at the WPU since it was founded in 2021, working to bring back philology as a central discipline of humanistic studies.
– Looking at my own University in Oslo, we see that a proud philological tradition is now reduced to just a few subjects being studied. Now, only Greek, Latin and Old Norse is being studied from a philological perspective at University in Oslo. This reduction in the field of Philology is also seen internationally, Braarvig says.
We have to ask ourselves as a society if we want to have basic research on historic texts. If yes, we need to access the sources. When early texts in ancient and classical languages are the source, then the philological expertise is needed to interpret them, Braarvig adds.
Philology as intangible heritage
Amund Haave
In addition to their work with universities, and with Science Academies such as Academia Europaea, The World Philology Union is also working to give the discipline of philology recognition on the World Heritage List from UNESCO.
– A dichotomy is seen between intangible heritage and tangible heritage. Of course, great buildings and great architecture, or other forms of tangible heritage is important to honour. Still, intangible heritage is also important to the human experience. That’s why the WPU is working with UNESCO to recognize the discipline of philology as a central part of the intangible heritage of the world, Jens Braarvig says.
Founded in 2021
President of the WPU, Professor Jens Braarvig (MAE), at the Uppsala Conference.
The World Philology Union (WPU) was founded on the 2nd of December 2021 at the Norwegian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Oslo, as an international association which promotes the philological study of written cultural heritage from all regions of the world. It was established in coordination with the Union académique internationale (UAI), the umbrella organization of all academies of science worldwide, and the UNESCO-related Conseil international de la philosophie et des sciences humaines (CIPSH).
With the establishment of the WPU in 2021, comparative philology has also come more into the forefront of the discipline.
–For a long time, philologists were friends that did not communicate very much. As we’re now working to establish philology again, we will also try to strengthen comparative studies in philology, Braarvig says.
Hvordan forutsi og utvikle systemer i komplekse omgivelser? Innsikt og erfaringer fra geologisk lagring av CO2
Mange viktige samfunnsbeslutninger omhandler sammensatte system som kan være både ufullstendig beskrevet og vanskelig å fremskrive i tid. Ett eksempel er geologisk lagring av CO2, der CO2 skal pumpes inn langt under havbunnen, med formål å lagres nærmest permanent. Professor Jan Martin Nordbotten vil belyse usikkerhet rundt datadrevne fremskrivelser og professor Philip Ringrose vil presentere analyser fra CO2-lagring i Utsira-formasjonen.
Om møtet (holdes på norsk)
Atmosfære, hav, og undergrunn. Verden som omgir oss styres av fysiske lover som hver for seg kan være enkle og relativt godt forstått, men som når settes sammen til virkelige fysiske systemer blir komplekse. Dette er ikke bare en metodisk kompleksitet, men gir opphav til ikke-trivielle fenomener som f.eks. et variabelt klima, havstrømmer og jordskjelv. Innenfor denne virkeligheten skal vi planlegge og utvikle matproduksjon, energisystemer, transportsystemer og andre bærende funksjoner for det moderne samfunn. I alle tilfeller må planer og beslutninger tas med støtte av forutsigelser i hvordan det naturlige systemet utvikler seg, og responderer til eventuelle inngrep og endringer.
Å kunne identifisere og utvikle trygge geologiske lager for CO2 er et eksempel på slik industriell utbygging innenfor rammene av et komplekst system. Gitt lagringsdybder på over en kilometer under havflaten, er tilgang til gode data og observasjoner begrenset. Videre tvinger tidsperspektivet i CO2-lagring oss til å vurdere utviklingen av systemet over flere hundre år, noe som kun kan gjøres ved hjelp av databeregninger. Dermed vil utvikling av CO2-lagring nødvendigvis være karakterisert av beslutninger tatt under usikkerhet. I likhet med mange andre slike system, er det også i en viss forstand en gradert usikkerhet, hvor noen aspekter av CO2-lagring kan være forstått med høy sikkerhet, mens andre aspekter kan være mer usikre.
I første del av møtet vil professor Nordbotten gi en introduksjon til problemstillingen, og adressere to spørsmål: Først: Er analysen av et gitt CO2-lager mer avhengig av hvilke metodevalg som gjøres, eller hvilke ekspert som utfører analysen? Deretter: Hvor godt forstår eksperter usikkerheten ved sine egne forutsigelser?
I andre del av møtet vil professor Ringrose bruke CO2-lagring i Utsira-formasjonen som utgangspunkt for å gi innsikt i hvordan prosjektet ble gjennomført i lys av tilgjengelig kunnskap og tilhørende usikkerhet, og hvordan observasjoner, spesielt fra seismisk avbildning, ble integrert i både prognoser og beslutningsprosesser. Hvor forutsigbar er CO2-lagring?
Det blir anledning til spørsmål og tid til diskusjon etter presentasjonene.
Om foredragsholderne Jan Martin Nordbotten er professor ved Matematisk institutt, UiB, og medlem av NTVA. Han har jobbet med CO2-lagring og relaterte problemstillinger siden 2002, og ga sammen med Michael Celia ut lærebok på temaet i 2012.
Philip Ringrose er professor i energiomstilling geovitenskap ved NTNU og medlem av NTVA. Han har utgitt lærebøkene ‘How to Store CO2 Underground’ og ‘Reservoir Model Design’ og har tidligere jobbet med mange CCS-prosjekter i Equinor.
Praktisk informasjon
Møtet holdes tirsdag 8. april, og inngår som del av One Ocean Week i Bergen
