Hello there, Noah Baker here. In place of today's briefing chat, we're going to do something a bit different and turn our attention to the war in Gaza. On Sunday the 19th of January, after 15 months of war, the first stage of a ceasefire deal came into force. Whilst only the very beginning, many hoped this could be the start of a long and likely uncertain process of recovery from a truly devastating war. And science too has not been spared. Joining me now to discuss just some of those impacts is Nature's Bureau Chief for Africa and the Middle East, Essan Masood. Hi, Essan.

Hey, hi, Noah. I'd

like to start by asking you a little bit about your approach towards reporting on war more broadly, especially as a science specialist.

Well, so Nature has, I would say, you know, quite a history or at least a story of war reporting. I mean, we look through the archive, we've covered previous wars, wars in the 20th century, wars also in our present time. One of the reasons for that, of course, is that we are, we're human, right? Wars are a very human story. And in that sense, they're a science story. And then there's a sort of, there's an additional dimension, of course, and that is that, you know, what is the relationship of research to the impact of wars, to the conduct of wars? And there, of course, you know, that's a whole other sort of situation. There are researchers who study so many different aspects of, you know, of the conduct of wars. There are researchers who study how people are affected. And then there were researchers who study, you know, what needs to be done, you know, in a sort of more humanitarian sense or afterwards. So there are lots of ways in which we would be covering this. And it's sad, it's really sad to say this, but you know, we've been doing this probably since the start of nature.

Yeah, absolutely. And I suppose there's two questions here. One is the way that science interacts with war and the process of war. But then there's also the question as an institution ourselves, and as journalists, how we go about covering it, just from the nuts and bolts of reporting, for example, when we don't have special correspondence on the ground, like how does one go about trying to seek the information that you might need to find those stories, the way that science is being impacted and scientists are being impacted. You're

absolutely right. I mean, not having correspondence is, it's a huge drawback. We're hoping that with the ceasefire that if it holds, you know, that might change. We're definitely hoping, I mean, a lot of us in the media space are hoping that might change. But for the moment, of course, we then have to rely on essentially from secondary sources, or we rely on talking to people, you know, using email, you know, other online sources, phones, and so on and so forth. But I guess, you know, when we're doing science reporting, a big source of our knowledge is the published research literature. And here, because researchers have been so active, both outside of Gaza and Israel, and also inside, there is quite a lot of material that we can draw on material that's coming out of the peer reviewed literature, so we can use that. There's also a whole panoply of international organizational material, you know, from United Nations agencies, from places like the World Bank, from non-governmental organizations, from even from the business world, from the business community. And so we can draw on that information, we can draw on that knowledge as well. So there are ways. And of course, you know, finally, and in some ways, really difficult is, of course, the scientists on the ground, and we try and reach them when we can.

Absolutely. And I mean, that's something that's really vital, trying to access that good quality, corroboratable information. I mean, it's something that lots of journalists value very highly. Nature, as a science specialist, of course, really, really highly values reliable, repeatable in the context of research, corroboratable in the context of reporting something like war information. And it's been hard to gather that information in this particular conflict, especially in the early

days. I mean, partly it's difficult because of access. I mean, in many ways, even international organisations have struggled to get access. When we do science reporting, you know, we understand that, you know, the knowledge changes as the evidence changes. And so if we don't know something one month, we'll go back in three months and we might get a different answer. We might go back after seven months and they'll go, oh, we've actually refined what we know. We didn't know this thing before, but we actually know something better. I mean, one example of this kind of tangible example on this is, you know, we reported as much as we could about the level of damage to the universities and other scientific infrastructure, I think within about a month of the October 7th attacks on Israel by Hamas. And we came back to it after about a year, and then we just sort of just kept on going. And that, you know, that information does get better and does get more refined.

And that's something that I think we should pick up on in terms of the ways that this war has impacted science. Impacts on universities is one of the most tangible things that I think I can think of immediately, outside of the impact on people, scientists themselves, that we can point to. very important to Palestinians and to Israelis. Culturally, it's important in terms of spending on R&D, in terms of access to institutions. And all of that has been turned on its head in many, many, many different ways by this conflict. Can you give us a kind of an overview of how science has been impacted by this war?

Well, it has, and it's been hugely and in very, very different ways. I mean, from the Israeli side, you know, one university, Ben-Gurion University, Negev, you know, they lost 84 people in the October 7th attacks. I mean, that was a pretty devastating impact on one institution. And just more broadly, scientists in Israel have had to go and join their war effort. And so actual day-to scientific work, if it's not directly related to the war, is pretty much nothing like what it was before. Elaborations have really dropped off. And then from the perspective of the Palestinians, from the perspective of Gaza, I mean, it's just a whole other dimension to what's happened. I mean, they, as you say, universities, knowledge, scholarship, learning is equally important to both of these communities. And for the Palestinians in Gaza alone, 21 universities and colleges for a population of 2 million, that's pretty impressive. And from the data that UNESCO, the UN Science Agency put together, as of September, they estimate that 15 out of the 21 have been either destroyed or severely damaged.

I can think of relatively few scenarios in my experience as a science journalist, where you can point to such a significant impact on the academic infrastructure as a result of a conflict. I mean, we're looking at a situation now where there is, it's hard to really fathom how this can be

rebuilt at this point in time. 100%. Looking ahead, I mean, the first thing, of course, is that the ceasefire has to hold. And so at the moment, you know, we've got sort of six weeks of the present situation, and then hopefully a slightly longer period, hopefully not a very long period, before we get to the third phase of the plan, which is, you know, what do we then think about in terms of reconstruction? I think what the researchers that we've been talking to are saying or advising is that very quickly, let's not wait. Let's quickly get to a needs assessment. And that will require some research, some science on the ground now, while there is, you know, space and scope to do this because, you know, there isn't an active, it's not an active war zone. And then that needs assessment could then inform the reconstruction that is to come, you know, after the third phase. But there's no reason why the needs assessment should wait. Water, clean water is just non-existent at the moment. Access to food aid, having, you know, beyond that more of a functioning economy. And then you've got, of course, the whole story around bomb buildings, environmental remediation, you know, just even removing human remains and giving people a decent burial. All of those things, you know, are where, you know, then the next level will go.

We know that rebuilding infrastructure, rebuilding economies and so on, these are really important. But of course, we must never overlook the fact that there are people that have been directly impacted lives, livelihoods, families that are going to come back and find their lives very, very different. What are the people on the ground that we're speaking to saying, what are the scientists that you're speaking to telling us about how they're looking forward, what they want to do next? There are sort of two ways to think of this. There's ways in which research can help things rebuild, but then there's also ways that researchers can try to pick up their life again. It's

all of the above, Noah. And I think, you know, for, I mean, this is where, you know, you asked me earlier about, you know, how do we go about this story as science journalists, because this is not something that we do that often. And it is, it's some of the most difficult aspects of reporting because, yes, on the one hand, people are trying as much as they can to still do their data collection and their publishing and keep in contact with their collaborators where they can, but they're doing this where they haven't got a home or where they have to suddenly find some firewood because that's how they're cooking. There's no gas or there's only a particular window when they've got, they might have a phone signal or a mobile signal so they can keep in contact with people. And that's before, you know, before any knowledge of what's happened to their own homes. You know, do they have homes to go back to? Or are they looking like they're going to be living in much, much more temporary accommodation in tents and so on, you know, for a longer time. So that, you know, that's difficult, you know, I'm not going to mince my work. I can't sort of, there's no going around the fact that this is some of the hardest,

some of the hardest

aspects to report. And

I think for scientists trying to go back to their institutions, they're faced with the reality that many scientific institutions, universities, for example, we are aware were specifically targeted by the IDF, the Israeli Defence Force, as they believed they may be places that were harbouring Hamas operatives. And so the destruction there, whilst pretty comprehensive across the whole of Gaza, is particularly extreme. And so how that can be picked up again is really a question that we're going to have to keep watching. It

is. I mean, we are going to have to keep coming back to this. I'm hoping that we're going to do this. I mean, we've done a few stories, you know, in the 15 months. Let's hope, you know, fingers very, very firmly crossed that this ceasefire holds because that's the key thing. You know, that's the key to getting people down to assess what's needed. And there's a whole well of goodwill out there, if that's the right word, scientists from the diaspora of both communities who are really ready to play their part. There are institutions who are ready to do more. This is the bit of the optimist in me. It's difficult to be optimistic in reporting these stories, but I think we need to maintain that. And the optimist in me says that if there is a window, it is now to have something much more permanent. And there is a huge amount of interest and goodwill outside. And it's a case of how that can be honest.

That's all for this week. As always, you can keep in touch with us on email via podcast at nature.com. I'm Benjamin Thompson. And

I'm Nick Petrich-Hell. Thanks for listening.