Matthias Honegger, Co-CREATE project lead, Perspectives Climate Research
As we approach the Co-CREATE Forum on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) Research Governance, I find myself reflecting on what this project has been trying to achieve so far, and why this work remains both difficult and necessary.
Public debates about SRM are often organised around a single, overarching question: should it ever be used to address climate risks? That question is unavoidable. But it is not the starting point for this project. Co-CREATE was established as a coordination and support action focused on a more foundational issue: under what conditions, if any, could research into SRM be considered responsible, legitimate, and socially grounded? How might societies govern the process of learning itself, when the stakes are so high, the uncertainties profound, and the consequences potentially long-lasting?
This distinction matters. The Co-CREATE approach opens space for people with very different views to engage seriously and constructively on the topic of SRM research governance. One can oppose future deployment while recognising the need for clear rules, oversight, and accountability around research. One can also see potential value in SRM as a future option, while insisting that research must meet demanding standards of responsibility and public legitimacy. Co-CREATE’s contribution lies in helping clarify those standards and the conditions under which they might plausibly be met.
This task is often treated as technical or scientific. In practice, it is anything but. Disagreements about SRM research rarely stem from data alone. They are rooted in differences in values and worldviews, as well as underlying assumptions about risk, responsibility, justice, and the role of science in society. Some people see SRM research as an unacceptable moral hazard, others see it as a necessary form of harm anticipation, and others view it primarily through lenses of geopolitics, security, public health, or technological power.
Tracing disagreements back to those deeper layers is essential. Without doing so, debates about SRM tend to become circular. People talk past one another, often assuming that others are either uninformed or acting in bad faith. In reality, many of these disagreements are genuine, reasonable, and deeply normative. This diagnosis is echoed in the recent Scientific Opinion of the EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, which emphasises that SRM assessments and decision-making cannot be reduced to technical analysis, but necessarily involve ethical, legal, societal, and political judgements about risk, uncertainty, responsibility, and governance.
A central tension running through these debates concerns how much we already “know”. Some voices argue that we already know enough: that SRM research is too risky, too unjust, or too politically dangerous to justify further investigation, particularly when it involves outdoor experiments. Others argue that we know far too little and that, given the scale of climate risk, societies have a responsibility to engage in a deliberate and long-term learning effort across many disciplines and domains, explicitly aimed at exploring uncertainties, risks, and governance challenges over time.
Co-CREATE positions itself within this tension. It does not assume that all forms of SRM research are desirable, but it does take seriously the idea that— especially in a context where technological capabilities, private actors, and geopolitical interests may move faster than public institutions and democratic debate.
This raises a further, increasingly salient question for research priorities: could SRM field research under clearly defined, publicly accountable, and internationally coordinated conditions reduce the risk of unregulated, opaque, or narrowly self-interested activities elsewhere? If ignorance is not neutral, then neither is the absence of publicly governed research capacity. From this perspective, prioritising certain forms of SRM research may have strategic value not because it advances deployment, but because it helps to establish shared norms, institutional expectations, and practical reference points for what responsible research looks like, including through international collaboration.
Over recent years, Co-CREATE’s work has sought to build a concerted learning space. The project has mapped existing legal frameworks and governance gaps, synthesised what is known — and not known — about SRM science, examined different types of potential field experiments and their implications for oversight, and developed criteria for evaluating research proposals. It has explored how risk might be assessed beyond purely technical metrics, drawn lessons from governance analogues in other domains, and engaged with questions of justice, participation, and research ethics.
Taken together, these contributions are not a blueprint for action. They are tools for clearer thinking: resources intended to help policymakers, funders, and research institutions better understand what is at stake when decisions about SRM research are made.
This brings me to an issue often discussed in terms of “framing”, but which is better understood as a question of research priorities. Decisions about SRM research priorities — i.e., whether to support or constrain certain categories of activity or specific proposals — cannot rest on technical assessments alone, nor on abstract ethical principles in isolation. What decisionmakers need instead is a diverse and complementary set of analyses that jointly clarify the potential implications, risks, uncertainties, and value conflicts associated with different research pathways. This emphasis closely aligns with the aforementioned recommendations of the EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.
This should include not only the scientific analysis of physical and climatic effects, but also assessments of ecological and public health risks; legal and institutional feasibility; implications for international relations and security; questions of justice, participation, and intergenerational responsibility; and analysis of how research trajectories themselves shape future political and technological options.
No single discipline, framework, or policy domain can provide this picture on its own. SRM research simultaneously engages climate governance, security policy, public health, international law, science policy, and ethics. Each domain raises distinct questions and concerns. Responsible governance depends on holding these perspectives together rather than allowing any one of them to dominate by default.
From this perspective, the challenge is not to identify a single “correct” way of framing SRM research. It is to ensure that research agendas themselves reflect this plurality — that uncertainties and risks are explored comprehensively rather than selectively, and that underexamined dimensions are brought into view early enough to inform meaningful choices.
That, ultimately, is what I see as the core purpose of Co-CREATE: to help clarify which kinds of knowledge, analysis, and governance capacity are needed so that societies can take informed, legitimate, and accountable decisions about SRM research, with due attention to future implications and difficult-to-reverse consequences.
Responsible research governance begins with intellectual humility: acknowledging how much remains uncertain, contested, and value-laden, and resisting the temptation to simplify complexity in the name of premature closure. The Co-CREATE Forum is but one moment in this longer process of collective learning. It brings together different perspectives to make the governance of SRM research more visible, explicit, and openly debated, at a time when choices about research trajectories still remain open.
If you’d like to join us in Brussels as we discuss these questions, please indicate your interest here. Consider joining our stakeholder forum to stay informed on project developments.