1 Introduction

Responsibility in the context of climate change is often approached through natural sciences or legal perspectives, focusing for instance on extreme weather attribution and responsibility (Otto et al. 2017), historical emissions and responsibility (Shue 2015), or state responsibility and the thorny issue of compensation for climate change losses and damages (Tol and Verheyen 2004). Aside from such cause-and-effect-centred approaches, broader theoretical and normative attention has been paid to responsibility of science across disciplines, including philosophy (Douglas 2003; Mitcham 2003), sociology (Mitroff 1974; Pellizzoni 2010), STS (Glerup and Horst 2014; Arnaldi and Bianchi 2016) as well as within the environmental and climate sciences themselves (Schmidt 2015; Donner 2017). As I have argued elsewhere, the growing understanding of how rapidly the climate around us is changing directs more and more attention and responsibility to those who bear the knowledge and evidence of climate change (Hartz 2023a). Mounting calls by scientists on scientists to fulfil their “professional responsibility” (Green 2020; see also Oreskes 2020; Capstick et al. 2022; Gardner et al. 2021) increasingly function as what I term a “peer-to-peer responsibilisation”. Accounting for the burgeoning interdisciplinary debate around (novel) roles and responsibilities of scientists in society, I take this peer-to-peer responsibilisation as a point of departure to contextualise such calls, asking what scientists themselves already feel and assume responsibility for at both the personal and professional level. Footnote 1

By approaching such senses of responsibility as a relational practice, I make legible how, in this case of application, individual scientists and experts relate to what they know and how they feel about it; the institutions or communities they become part of, and the responsibilities they assume within these institutionalised or communised structures. This conceptual operationalisation of responsibility enables me to put into perspective demands on scientists to take on ‘more responsibility’ by recognising the already practiced and lived responsibilities of scientists in times of climate crisis.

Taking the empirical case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an interdisciplinary community of practice in which “responsibility is put into use” (Vetterlein and Hansen-Magnusson 2020; p. 14) by participants, my analysis surfaces four key moments in which responsibility for climate science– as one important and authoritative form of climate knowledge– is practiced: responsibility in the Production, Assessment, Communication and/or Enactment (PACE) of climate science. Drawing on 77 semi-structured interviews with IPCC participants across all assessment cycles and Working Groups (WGs), I fill a gap in interdisciplinary debates around responsibility in and for (climate) science by providing an empirically grounded and actor-centred perspective on what it means for particular scientists to feel and take responsibility in a changing climate.Footnote 2

The IPCC– widely regarded as the “most authoritative voice of climate science” (Asayama 2021; p. 2)– constitutes a particular pertinent case to study responsibility for science. While the IPCC itself has looked at questions of historical, distributional and even moral responsibility in its assessments, responsibilities of IPCC participants have received limited consideration. Given the increasing policy-relevance of climate science and demands for, inter alia, more solution-oriented IPCC outputs (Beck and Mahony 2018), climate experts participating in the IPCC not only assume increasing responsibility across different stages of the IPCC process but also beyond. As my data analysis demonstrates, IPCC participants increasingly feel and take on responsibility not only for producing and assessing climate science but also for communicating and/or enacting it (PACE).

The contribution of the article is threefold. Firstly, it makes sense of the mounting peer-to-peer responsibilisation by surfacing and contextualising how, why and with what consequences climate knowledge holders already assume responsibility for climate science at four key moments (PACE). Secondly, conceiving of the IPCC as a community of practice, the article provides novel insights into the work of IPCC participants and their individual experiences with the institution and its processes. Thirdly, it contributes to a growing body of literature on practices of responsibility and climate emotions by focussing on participants' individual affective experiences following recent calls for more research on emotions and their toll felt by (climate) scientists (Duggan et al. 2021; see also Renouf 2021)– some of which come from IPCC authors themselves (Clayton 2018).

The article proceeds as follows. The next section provides a theoretical contextualisation, followed by a description of data and methods. I then present and discuss the empirical findings in the main body of the article according to PACE. I conclude by elaborating on measures the IPCC may undertake to support scientists in assuming their responsibilities in the context of climate science.

2 Contextualising responsibility for climate science

2.1 On feeling/taking responsibility and being responsibilised

Notions of responsibility constitute a central tenet of social life as “all spheres of belonging that encompass our social being are delimited by explicit or implicit attempts at defining, assigning, assuming, questioning or resisting” (Hage and Eckersley 2012; p. 2) our individual but also collective responsibility vis–à-vis ourselves and society at large. A modern, human-centric conception of responsibility combines the “capacity to be accountable” with the “capacity to reflect on this accountability” (Hage and Eckersley 2012; p. 1–2). However, as Eckersley (2012; p. 160) observes, responsibility is a “versatile workhorse” carrying “multiple meanings, ranging through ideas about causation, culpability, professional roles, accountability, capability and taking action to get the job done”. Similar to Eckersley’s (2012) analytical approach to responsibility as ‘taking political responsibility’ for solution-oriented climate politics, this article is concerned with responsibility in the sense of ‘feeling and taking responsibility for climate science’. Conceptualising ‘feeling responsibility for climate science’ in the Weberian sense of Verantwortungsgefühl or “sense of responsibility” (Weber 1926; p. 51; see also Jackson 2022; p. 424), I understand climate scientists as responsible subjects in the sense of them being ‘experts’ who “kno[w] in order to do, produc[e] knowledge that will be useful in making things happen” (Jackson 2022; p. 430). Individuals engaged in the production, assessment, communication and/or enactment of climate science, especially in and around the IPCC, can be considered particularly responsible experts given their role and authority at the interface of science, policy and society.

This process of taking responsibility– or being attributed responsibility– based on assumptions as to why “someone is or should be responsible for something“ is referred to as responsibilisation (Hansen-Magnusson and Vetterlein 2022; p. 8). As a result of the ever-increasing policy-relevance of science, especially concerning wicked problems such as climate change (Hulme 2009), it has been argued that “climate scientists are having to accept new social (and political) roles and responsibilities” (Porter and Dessai 2017; p. 9) in light of their knowledge and understanding of climate change. Debates among scholars across disciplines around scientists’ responsibilities are burgeoning, including direct calls on scientists to “act as sentinels” of climate knowledge (Oreskes 2020), to protest and engage in civil disobedience at individual and collective level (Yamin 2019; Green 2020; Gardner et al. 2021; Capstick et al. 2022) but also indirect prompts to halt the production and assessment of further climate science (Glavovic et al. 2021). This peer-to-peer-responsibilisation– a term I propose to describe this trend in the academic literature– has grown with the realisation that with “knowledge comes responsibility” in a time of urgency (Gardner et al. 2021; p. 2). Here, my contribution lies in consciously taking a step back. By putting the increasing peer-to-peer responsibilisation into context, I unearth what it actually entails to be a ‘sentinel’ of climate science, what responsibility (climate) scientists already feel and take as bearers of such knowledge.

This contextualisation of the lived responsibilities of scientists also affords a closer consideration of how their (novel) roles affect them. Within STS but also psychology and geography (Farbotko and McGregor 2010; Clayton 2018; Duggan et al. 2021), assuming and practicing responsibility for climate science is increasingly recognised to influence, and be influenced by, emotions. As an interview-based study by Head and Harada (2017) shows, Australian climate scientists cope with their knowledge and responsibilities through emotion management. Similarly, Renouf (2021; p. 14) findings from interviews with 16 climate experts (including many with IPCC experience) suggest that their expertise is a form of “embodied knowledge” as they make sense of climate change “through experience and emotions”. Comparing why scientists, students and the wider public cared about climate change, Wang et al. (2018; p. 37) demonstrate that climate scientists cared strongly about future generations and the planet, in part as a function of their “emotional closeness to climate change as an issue”. They highlight a linkage between climate scientists’ identity perceptions and their feeling of responsibility to take action (Wang et al. 2018; p. 38)Footnote 3. Providing insights into what IPCC participants feel responsible for, the ensuing analysis will contribute to this burgeoning body of work on the role of climate emotions.

2.2 Responsibility and (communities of) practice

Within the various (inter-)disciplinary approaches, this analysis draws specifically on recent conceptualisations of responsibility as practice suggesting a turn from “normativity explicated in concepts towards normativity embodied in practices” (Moos and Arndt 2023; p. 4). This enables an understanding of responsibility as a practical act in “communities that form around the practices of actors” (Vetterlein and Hansen-Magnusson 2020; p. 14). Similar to Gustafsson (2021), I argue that global scientific assessments like the IPCC can be conceived of as communities of practice in which experts from across world regions, backgrounds and disciplines come together, forming an interdisciplinary community around practices of knowledge exchange, assessment, communication and so forth. Such communities require participants’ recognition of relations of responsibility and accountability– towards each other as well as towards their “joint enterprise” (Wenger 1998; p. 81). This process is dynamic and driven by iterative and mutual meaning making, involving engagement and the articulation of emotions and ideas (Wenger 1998; p. 82). As the analysis will highlight, senses of (mutual) responsibility underpin participants’ affective experiences and professional practices in the IPCC and beyond.

2.3 The role of the IPCC and its participants in a “climatised” world

Established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC has since “carried the principle international responsibility for providing policy-neutral but policy-relevant scientific advice on all aspects of the climate change issue” (Zillman 2008; p. 23). The IPCC is not mandated to produce original research but to synthesise the already available state of knowledge on the physical science basis (WGI), impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (WGII) and mitigation of climate change (WGIII).

The IPCC is governed by its 195 member states which decide, inter alia, on the scope and authorship of reports. Every cycle, each WG is tasked with producing a contribution to the current cycle’s assessment report. They also join forces to create special reports and a synthesis report at the end of an assessment cycle. Additionally, a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) regularly publishes methodology reports and refinements. Since the early 1990s the IPCC has issued more than 45 reports, many of which contain a so called ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM).

To secure its scientific authority, the IPCC is devoted to the guiding-principle of being policy-relevant but policy-neutral and non-prescriptive. However, needs and expectations about IPCC assessments have changed in a post-SR1.5 world as expectation for solution-oriented scientific assessments increase (Beck and Mahony 2018). As Guillemot (2017; p. 52–53) argues, our world is increasingly “climatized” and the “priority is no longer to inform negotiators and the wider public on the scope of the problem but to respond to a more diverse and fragmented set of scientific and political questions”. The increasingly intricate web of scientific and political expectations has led to heightened scrutiny on the IPCC, its mantra and process (see e.g., Asayama et al. 2023; Carraro et al. 2015). Despite such scrutiny, the IPCC has been able to maintain its role as the most authoritative global assessor of climate science. It has been demonstrated over time that the IPCC possesses substantial symbolic power to “construct the meaning of climate change” (Hughes 2015; p. 85). The same is true for the IPCC’s authorship which has considerable influence over policy-relevant meaning making (Hughes and Paterson 2017) as there is “enough flexibility [for authors] to shape the assessments” (Hartz 2023b; p. 6; see also Grundmann 2023).

Participation in the IPCC often takes the form of voluntary, part-time work (e.g., as an IPCC author or review editor) but can also be part of an individual’s main profession (e.g., when acting as a government delegate). IPCC authors are not renumerated by the IPCC and often devote immense resources to being involved in the assessments, depending on professional and personal circumstances. Determined by their role, participants commit to various pre-defined tasks in the IPCC, ranging from Lead Authors (LAs) jointly drafting chapters and revising them based on expert and government reviews; to Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs) managing chapter teams on top of their author work– some of which also participate in approval plenaries where SPM drafts are discussed line-by-line with governments–; to WG Technical Support Units (TSUs) supporting and the IPCC BureauFootnote 4 managing the assessment process. These roles come with specific procedural rules and responsibilities, often directly or indirectly defined through the IPCC’s guiding premise to be policy-relevant but non-prescriptive. For example, IPCC leader- and authorship as well as professional staff need to declare any conflicts of interest statement in order to participate in the assessment work.Footnote 5 Moreover, the IPCC communications strategy entails clear rules on how participants should speak on behalf of the organisation. Participants must, for example, “refrain from public statements that could be interpreted as advocacy and compromise the IPCC’s reputation for neutrality“ and are offered media trainings to receive “specific guidance on how to approach speaking on behalf of the IPCC versus speaking in other capacities“Footnote 6. The idea of juggling multiple ‘hats’ symbolising multiple responsibilities and constraints will be discussed in the analysis below.

3 Data and methods

This paper forms part of a larger study on the IPCC and notions of responsibility for which I conducted 77 semi-structured interviews with individuals who had participated in the IPCC in different roles over different assessment cycles (see Table 1; see also Supplementary Material). I carried out online interviews between October 2021 and April 2023 which lasted between 25 and 81 minutes. To identify participants, I, inter alia, used the publicly accessible IPCC author database and snowballing in interviews. I also recruited interviewees at the 26th and 27th Conferences of the Parties (COPs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at which I participated in as an accredited observer via the University of Cambridge. My selection strategy was informed by my larger study’s goal to capture IPCC processes and participation patterns across cycles to better understand the institution’s evolution and impact on participants. I acknowledge this selection approach comes with certain IPCC-related participation biases, especially regarding gender balance, regional and disciplinary representation (see e.g., Gay-Antaki and Liverman 2018; Liverman et al. 2022).

Table 1 Interview demographics (n = 77)
Full size table

The semi-structured interviews included questions on (1) personal motivations for profession, (2) perceptions of scientists’ roles, (3) IPCC involvement and experiences, and (4) future developments (see Supplementary Materials for details). For this analysis I employed an iterative and informed grounded coding approach (see Thornberg 2012). Using NVivo, I followed Cope’s (2010) grounded coding strategy which is based on the identification of manifest descriptive codes and latent analytical codes/themes. Through further coding iterations, PACE emerged as relevant analytical themes/moments around which taking responsibility for science in practice can be analysed. Interview data was anonymised according to participants’ wishes and labelled I1 to I77 based on the date of conduct.

4 Responsibility for climate science as understood by IPCC participants

4.1 Producing climate science

The perhaps most intuitive responsibility for science is the responsibility to produce it. The scientific enterprise has traditionally been characterised by specific norms and values providing guidance on how to do ‘good science’. Classic norms of science include communism, universalism, disinterestedness and organised scepticism, developed in 1942 by Robert K. Merton (also known as Mertonian or CUDOS norms). While their relevance and applicability on science in different times and disciplines has been long debated (Bucchi 2015), the CUDOS norms are still adhered to by the vast majority of scientists (Anderson et al. 2010; Bray and von Storch 2017). When surveying climate scientists about their normative orientations, however, Bray and von Storch (2017; p. 1354) found that more than half of respondents felt “their intellectual work was influenced by personal beliefs and values”. This speaks to what Merton and others have called “counternorms” in science, including solitariness, particularism, interestedness, organised dogmatism as well as emotional commitment, which are particularly pertinent in the context of “ill-structured problems” (Mitroff 1974; p. 592–594) like climate change. Navigating such (counter)norms and personal interpretations of value-freedom in science (Douglas 2009; Betz 2013) are fundamental aspects of scientists’ responsibility in terms of producing climate science, especially in times of post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) and an ever-increasing policy-relevance of scientific outputs. This also holds true for the production of policy advice (Pielke 2007; Tholen 2018).

While the IPCC does not produce original research, particularly IPCC authors (which most of the interviewees had been) have been found to shape knowledge production practices through their IPCC engagement (Hughes and Paterson 2017; p. 763). Moreover, they are also often engaged in the production of science outside the IPCC. As a mid-career natural scientist who had recently participated in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) as a WGI LA noted, “I think the responsibility is the same as for any scientist really, that you have to not cut corners to do a thorough job, to be the best scientist that you can” (I2). In line with Bray and von Storch’s (2017) results, many interviewees shared the sense that they needed to produce the best science in a rigorous and honest way, for example when describing uncertainty in their results. A senior social scientist and former member of the WGII TSU in the Second Assessment Cycle argued it was important for climate scientists to not only create good basic but useable science by having “an ear open to understanding what people could use, what their questions are, not just what the scientist’s questions are” (I5). This has been subsumed under the term ‘social responsibility’ of scientists, arguing “that a particular relationship between science and society is necessary in order for science to be responsible” (Glerup and Horst 2014; p. 32). A senior natural scientist who had participated as a LA in two earlier IPCC cycles also believed in a responsibility to do ‘good science’ but emphasised they did not feel responsible for rescuing the planet (I3). This conforms to the value-free ideal in science (Betz 2013), clearly separating the scientifically appropriate pursuit of scientific knowledge from potential influences thereof through normative, non-epistemically inscribed value considerations or responsibilities. It also aligns with Gundersen’s (2020) findings on the normative views of Norwegian IPCC authors on the impact of non-epistemic values in their role as scientists and IPCC authors. Several of my interviewees tried to set clear boundaries between professional responsibility and personal motivations and values, while admitting the difficulties that come with navigating this boundary (see Gundersen 2020; p. 103). As a mid-career natural scientist noted, it becomes increasingly complicated for scientists to navigate their role in today’s society (I16).

Indeed, quite a number of interviewees found it challenging to reconstruct in what way their emotions, values and beliefs had shaped their pursuit of scientific knowledge and the outputs thereof. But as one interviewee made clear, “as scientists we are not droids or some other artificial thing. We are humans and we are complete people. And so, to say that we are not at all influenced by what is going on in science is not true” (I5). Emotions that interviewees described in relation to ‘what is going on in science’ were often polar-opposite feelings of enthusiasm about their work and impact, but also of frustration about its uptake; of concern and distress about the future but also of hope regarding certain progress made (similar to findings by Renouf 2021; Wang et al. 2018; Clayton 2018; Head and Harada 2017). In this context, emotions like fear, guilt but also hope functioned as drivers to “energise the work” (I66). One interviewee had even adopted hope as a “fundamental strategy…to keep going” (I4).

These emotions and notions of responsibility connected to the production of climate science provide further evidence to Bray and von Storch’s (2017) observation that climate scientists are increasingly influenced by non-epistemic values. The production of climate science becomes an increasingly blurry, sometimes uneasy, and often difficult to navigate personal and professional space for scientists, in particular with regard to the impact of individual interpretations of responsibility and the handling of emotions in the production process. In the context of the mounting peer-to-peer responsibilisation, this development is unsurprising and becomes even more apparent in the assessment of climate science.

4.2 Assessing climate science (in the IPCC)

Since their inception in the late 1970s, global environmental assessments (GEAs) “have become an established feature of the international policy landscape” (Jabbour and Flachsland 2017; p. 193). Given the mounting policy-relevance of climate science and the exponentially increasing amount of research produced, assessing and synthesising key information from peer-reviewed and grey literature in a robust and transparent way has become a key responsibility of climate science to inform decisionmakers and the public. The IPCC constitutes the prime example of the global assessment effort on climate change, but there exist myriad regional, national and global assessments on related issues, with another prominent example being the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Over the past three decades, the IPCC has set global standards for what the responsibility for assessing climate science entails. As per the IPCC governing principles, assessments shall be conducted in a “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” manner (§ 2)Footnote 7 and IPCC leader- and authorship have to follow the assessment’s guiding principle to be policy-relevant but remain policy-neutral and non-prescriptive. But even within such a tight set of institutional rules and procedures, assuming responsibility for assessing climate science requires an individual scientist or expert to understand their embeddedness in a particular, often interdisciplinary, community of practice in which individual and collective understanding and feelings of responsibility have to be reconciled to successfully engage at the science-policy interface.

Following the IPCC’s example, IPBES was set up in 2012 and has since been considered a best practice case when it comes to inclusivity, diversity and plurality of knowledge and expertise in GEAs (see e.g. Borie et al. 2021). The lack of Indigenous perspectives has long been criticised as a particular challenge in the IPCC process and its outputs (Ford et al. 2016; Petzold et al. 2020). It has been argued that an assessment which aspires to be epistemically, socially and ultimately climate just needs to be reflexive and ensure the consideration, representation and participation of diverse knowledges, people(s) and places (Chakraborty and Sherpa 2021; Rashidi and Lyons 2021). Here, it is necessary to stress the particular import and rightful place of Indigenous Knowledge in climate science and policy, as Indigenous Peoples possess the experience and ability to not only to safeguard the natural environment and mitigate climate change but also to adapt to its impacts (Latulippe and Klenk 2020). Scientists practicing responsibility for producing and assessing climate science thus also assume a representational responsibility to strive for epistemic, cultural and social inclusiveness.

Assessing climate science in its entirety in an inclusive and transparent way has become a particularly far-reaching new responsibility context for climate science, both professionally and personally. At the time of the IPCC’s First Assessment Cycle, climatic changes, their cause and impacts were still relatively unknown to public and political spheres, as a former WGI TSU member from the First Assessment Cycle recalled. However, as the interviewee recounted, scientists working on the First Assessment Report quickly realised that “they had a responsibility…it was going to be a political problem that we needed the best solutions for, and it was part of their responsibility to spend time on this”. By the time of the Second Assessment Report, the interviewee continued, “there were a lot of people who almost sort of said…’Well, why am I left out? I need to be involved in this as well’” (I21) as they saw potential in IPCC assessments to bring about positive change (I8). This anecdote from IPCC history illustrates how the responsibility for assessing climate science was born out of and has evolved with the IPCC enterprise (for a matching detailed recount of the IPCC’s history by its first chair, see Bolin 2007). Today, as a former LA from WGII AR4 and AR5 remarked,

There is a lot of scientists now if you ask them why they are studying climate change they will say 'Because it is the most important challenge and that gives my life meaning and purpose'…I suppose indirectly then that affects an IPCC Report because a lot of those authors wouldn’t be doing what they are doing and contributing in that way if they didn’t feel like that. (I4)

For authors, contributing ‘in that way’ means taking on a lot of personal and professional responsibility as they often volunteer in their spare time or, when able to commit part of their working life, put up with opportunity costs to participate in the IPCC. The volunteering aspect, however, was criticised by an AR6 LA who suggested that those who took up IPCC work as part of their day job would not qualify as volunteers in the most altruistic sense (I45). Many participants highlighted the positive impacts the IPCC had on their careers which means there also exist non-altruistic, opportunistic reasons for joining the IPCC, including career advancement, network building, personal and professional growth, etc. While such incentives may be the main motivator to take part in the IPCC for some, many of my interviewees displayed various senses of intrinsic motivation or, as one AR6 WGI LA put it, a “responsibility to be part” of the IPCC (I20) which highlights that different motivational factors can co-exist.

What stood out in several interviews was that assuming this kind of responsibility for climate science involves accepting certain risks and sacrifices in both your personal and professional life. At a personal level, for instance, this includes spending more time away from friends and family (I41, I46, I61). One AR6 WGII CLA recalled that “we are sacrificing our work time, we are sacrificing our personal time, we are certainly sacrificing family time” (I41). Some interviewees, in particular from the Sixth Assessment Cycle, also expressed what Duggan et al. (2021) have described as intensifying perils to mental health “for those working on the front line of climate change”. One AR6 WGI LA revealed that,

you get a lot of scars in the process and for me there was one period that was really complicated and dark…it was not the IPCC that put me there, but it was the fact that you are so immersed in climate change all day, all day, all day. There was a point at which I was like ‘Well, what is the point of everything? We are going to die, we are doomed’ and then you go to a really dark place, and it is really hard to get out of that place. (I26)

Such health-related challenges were only exacerbated when the COVID-19 pandemic caused global lockdowns, extensive travelling and assembling restrictions, turning assessing climate science into an isolated and isolating experience at times (I35). In this context, however, authors from every AR6 WG described a particularly strong sense of responsibility and camaraderie to look out for each other (I25, I26, I30, I59, I69). This demonstrates that the IPCC can serve as an institutional space where those bearing the evidence on climate change come together, whereby “safe spaces” (Duggan et al. 2021) are created among the authorship in which positive and negative emotions may be shared and coped with collectively.

At a more professional level, as some participants remembered from earlier cycles, fellow authors were being attacked by climate deniers for work they had done in the IPCC (I6, I8). Two interviewees even admitted they themselves had at some point made the conscious decision to stop being involved in the IPCC to protect their own safety and wellbeing (I51, I66). However, both returned in later cycles because they thought the work was important.

Among my interviewees were many LAs, responsible for certain portions of chapter texts, but also CLAs whose responsibilities are more far-reaching in terms of leading and caring for their author teams. As one AR6 CLA explained, “I felt really responsible for making sure everyone was able to access the materials, to communicate successfully with each other, to collaborate, to make sure that their perspective was fully included” (I58). Ensuring inclusivity and representation across culture(s) and language(s) is a particular relevant responsibility to avoid the domination of debates by outspoken communicators or native English speakers (I37, I47)– an issue which has recently also been raised in academia (Müller 2021). In this context, interviewees underscored the importance of further improving inclusiveness in terms of representation of Indigenous Peoples and Global South voices (I30, I36) as well as a better gender balance, for example, through engaging in task forces and developing action plans (I18, I35, I61). Of the developing countries scientists I spoke to, some were actively engaged in recruiting new authors for various roles from their regions (I46, I60, I64). Others saw their involvement in the IPCC as a “platform to channel the voices and the findings from the field [as in their country/region]” (I57). These insights speak to the representational responsibility that comes with providing global assessments on climate change. While it is mainly up to IPCC leadership and governments to improve diversity and set the standards for good collaboration, I found many authors to be concerned with doing their part in creating inclusive workspaces for their teams and fostering representation, for example, through the inclusion of contributing authors from underrepresented groups, such as Indigenous Peoples' voices.

With the perceived authority of the IPCC’s work also come role-related pressures. As a first-time author reflected, “if you do something wrong or you didn’t take something into account or you didn’t do your homework properly you can take down the whole system” (I26). Many interviewees sooner or later recited the IPCC’s mantra to be policy-relevant but neutral as a principle that needed to be adhered to as an IPCC author. An interviewee who had participated in the past three cycles as CLA and LA described the mantra as useful to avoid a “conflict of purpose” (I6) that would arise from wanting to tell governments what to do. Some authors who had participated in SPM approval sessions, however, also shared a sense of responsibility for ‘defending’ the underlying science from government intervention to secure the “accuracy of the information” (I73), including the carefully drafted uncertainty and confidence language– a responsibility, that if realised successfully, could even help “change the world” (I68). While defending science is part of the scientific portfolio, defending it against experienced negotiators in plenary is, for many, a unique experience that can be equally insightful and challenging.

The manifold ways in which the responsibility for assessing climate science manifests in new roles, rules, tasks, challenges and emotions illustrates the breadth and depth of effort that IPCC participants commit to (even when having joined for various different reasons). Taking stock of the First Assessment Cycle, Schneider (1991; p. 25) concluded that the IPCC “provided a major opportunity for scientists and others from around the world to engage in responsible discussions about global warming, its potential impacts, and possible solutions”. As the findings above illustrate, engaging in responsible discussions in IPCC assessments has not only been a major opportunity, but has also become an important, though increasingly complex, responsibility of scientists. This responsibility for climate science has developed alongside the IPCC as an institution. While assessing climate science already involves investing immense personal and professional resources and potentially facing personal and professional risks, some take it even further by also assuming responsibility for communicating climate science and IPCC outputs.

4.3 Communicating climate science (and IPCC outreach)

The responsibility for communicating climate science has grown in recognition over the past years. While this topic has been extensively studied from the perspective of the public, more research is needed to understand how and why scientists themselves choose to communicate (Entradas et al. 2019). In their study of members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in the US, Entradas et al. (2019; p. 80–81) find that while public engagement was particularly driven by intrinsic motivations, including personal interest and enjoyment, “those more aware of the controversy of climate change also have a higher sense of responsibility for communication”. Interestingly, Brysse et al. (2013) have suggested that public scepticism and climate denial led scientists to be overly conservative and cautious with respect to communicating their scientific results in line with traditional scientific norms (for an affective interpretation of this behaviour, see Head and Harada 2017). As Oreskes (2020; p. 39–41) has more recently specified, scientists would tend to be “behaviourally conservative” to safeguard the reliability and credibility of their collective scientific enterprise, while what is actually needed of them today is to fulfil their “sentinel obligation” to communicate and warn about climate change. As a recent survey among US climate professionals shows, climate scientists “perceive their role is to communicate findings to a broader audience than their peers and even feel a responsibility to do so” (Getson et al. 2020; p. 174). While science communication has become a professional occupation in and of itself, many scientists increasingly assume communication as an additional responsibility for climate science, including through assessment work and outreach.

When introducing their Climatic Change Topical Collection on Climate change communication and the IPCC, O’Neill and Pidcock (2021; p. 18) recently argued that the IPCC and its actors not only have a particular responsibility for assessing but also for communicating the assessments “effectively to policymakers, citizens and those who rely on the information for their lives and livelihoods”. This idea was echoed by interviewees across all disciplines both in the context of the IPCC but also their own work. According to one mid-career natural scientist, “our work is not done until it is communicated” (I30). Interviewees often described a profession-based responsibility to communicate their results, knowledge and limits thereof (I55) to as many stakeholders as possible (I25, I69, I75), especially when they had public funding mandates (I30, I58). This corresponds with Busch Nicolaisen’s (2022; p. 1020) finding that climate scientists regard themselves as ‘public service providers’. Several senior scientists observed that the relevance of science communication and their attitude towards it had changed over time (I4, I6, I32, I39). Describing a shift in their weighing of different senses of responsibility, one of them noted that “I guess my sense of responsibility is moved from providing the science because I think we actually have enough science…I feel my responsibility now is more as a communicator to try to get positive change” (I4). These scientists evidence a particular, likely growing, sensitivity to societal needs as they understand what is required of them beyond the scientific outputs and hence accept additional responsibility. By better communicating, listening, responding to and engaging with society, they ‘realise’ the social contract between science and society (Lubchenco and Rapley 2020).

Communicating climate science, however, constitutes a big commitment in terms of professional responsibility but also personal resources. In line with Entradas et al. (2019) results, many interviewees clarified that communication was not a responsibility every scientist should or must embrace, either because not everyone was a natural, comfortable or enthusiastic communicator (I1, I2, I8, I51, I58, I65, I72, I74) or because scientists’ professional resources and abilities were needed elsewhere (I38, I49). Given that many scientists involved in the IPCC already practice responsibility not only for producing but also assessing climate science, assuming yet another responsibility was a cause of concern for some, especially since scientists were not professionally trained to communicate (I39). Differentiating between a responsibility of scientists to transparently communicate their results and a responsibility to engage in public outreach, an AR6 WGI TSU member worried,

…we put a lot of pressure or weight on scientists to speak more and to reach out more in terms of communications…I find it is too big an ask to say this is a responsibility of climate scientists. And yet at the same time they do feel this responsibility and in fact there are many and maybe increasing numbers who actively engage [in communication] and it is an incredible extra work that they do on top of their own work. (I18)

The same interviewee suggested to instead shift the responsibility for public communication to– or if scientists wanted to be involved personally at least share it with– professional communicators. This sharing of responsibility could also alleviate some of the risks that scientists face when engaging in science communication. For instance, a senior natural scientist shared they had been attacked by sceptics and industry for three decades for communicating the science “without fear or favour” (I1). Others revealed they had received one or multiple death threats over the course of their careers (I6, I8)Footnote 8. One of them, however, reflected that their communication engagement was connected to a sense of guilt as they felt sorry for not being able to “do more”. They continued,

Because to me it feels so self-evident that we should be doing more. It seems to me bluntly obvious. I can’t see how other people can’t see the need. That is why I always give talks to schools or to organisations or businesses. Because you don’t know what impact you are having. All you can do is try your best. (I8)

Besides these more general forms of communication, including communicating findings to various audiences through in interviews, (public) lectures and talks or social media, communicating through IPCC findings and outreach was also considered part of the responsibility to communicate climate science. While the IPCC has itself developed and followed particular communication strategies, using different communication channels, and employing communication specialists (Lynn and Peeva 2021), authors can and do communicate climate science through the IPCC, including through IPCC outreach events. As Pathak et al. (2021) show in their analysis of IPCC outreach in India between 2018 and 2020, some IPCC participants contributed to outreach activities even after they had completed their assessment responsibility which meant considerable additional time commitments. This was echoed by interviewees from developing countries who had participated as LAs in AR6 (I31, I35). One noted, “in the outreach events…I really have taken a lot of responsibility trying to do something because we don’t have many authors from the region” (I35). This excerpt highlights how representational responsibility importantly features not only in producing but also in communicating IPCC reports.

With regard to the interface of science and policy, an interdisciplinary AR6 WGII CLA saw a responsibility in ensuring that the science they assessed was accurately communicated to “bridge between science, policy and action” (I69). An AR6 LA showcased how the responsibility to communicate climate science featured at different stages of the assessment process, including in the SPM approval process, explaining how what was negotiated during the approval sessions was not the science but how it could be most accurately and effectively communicated to decisionmakers and other stakeholders (I31). A number of interviewees highlighted the importance of the IPCC’s calibrated uncertainty language and its mantra to be policy-relevant but neutral; and especially those with a longer IPCC history found these useful institutional signposts toward robust IPCC communication (I6, I22, I34, I58). A first-time LA, however, conveyed their frustration with the overly conservative nature of the IPCC and its statements. While they thought the IPCC constituted a useful undertaking overall, they also expressed doubt as to whether AR6 would be the report that would make a difference (I30). This indicates that identification with the IPCC and its mantra influences what individual scientists consider to be part of the responsibility for communicating climate science and relates to issues around conflict of interest and purpose discussed above.

At a time of increasing public and political relevance of climate science, many scientists have come to accept communication as another key responsibility for climate science, thereby embracing the social contract between science and society. In comparison to the production and assessment, though, communicating science involves particular risks and trade-offs which can lead scientists to the very edges of their personal and professional comfort zones. This has also led to outsourcing of this responsibility to communication experts, including in the IPCC. However, some scientists assume yet more responsibility for climate science by actively enacting it beyond its communication.

4.4 Enacting climate science (through and beyond the IPCC)

While underlying issues as to whether scientists should engage in advocacy or even activism have long been debated, especially in conservation science (Lackey 2007; Scott and Rachlow 2011), climate scientists’ involvement with advocacy has received particular scholarly attention in recent years (Donner 2017; Getson et al. 2020; Cologna et al. 2021), including a recent surge in calls on scientists for more active engagement in the context of societal and political action by scientists, such as through lifestyle changes and activism. As Capstick et al. (2022; p. 773) suggest, the “trusted position of scientists in society affords a respected standpoint from which to demand change”, making the enactment of climate science a matter of credibility. Public surveys demonstrate that the climate scientists’ credibility hinges on their perceived carbon footprint and how much “they act on their own advice” (Attari et al. 2019; p. 333), indicating that concerns over diminishing trust due to science advocacy or activism may be unwarranted. However, as for assessments like the IPCC, neutrality and objectivity in knowledge-making remain relevant benchmarks against which the quality, credibility and authority of scientific knowledge and information are measured. As the traditional social contract between science and society is critically revised in a ‘moment of truth’ (Lubchenco and Rapley 2020), this responsibility for climate science is likely to grow in prominence and relevance compared to the other more established responsibilities.

As per the IPCC’s mantra to be policy-relevant but policy-neutral, enacting climate science, for example, through science advocacy beyond science communication (such as signing open letters or petitions, paying visits to decisionmakers) or even activism (such as protesting or other acts of non-violent civil disobedience), falls far from the remit of IPCC engagement. However, some interviewees connected a sense of wanting to ‘save the world’ to scientists engaged in the IPCC (I3, I63). Indeed, as a first-time LA involved in AR6 observed, “I had this glimpse of a very altruistic quality that people who are involved in the IPCC and…the generosity…their heart and their care” (I77).

This care for the wellbeing of the planet naturally led some interviewees to actively engage in advocacy or activism outside the IPCC. Regarding the latter, some interviewees said they had joined climate protests or science marches in their spare time (I14, I26). Activism in general, however, was met with scepticism. Especially more senior interviewees who had been with the IPCC for more than one cycle described policy-prescriptive or activist activities as potentially ‘dangerous’ for the credibility and authority of the IPCC but also the scientific community at large (I12, I43)– a concern which has since been challenged (Kotcher et al. 2017; Cologna et al. 2021).

Displaying what could be interpreted as a conflict of different responsibilities for climate science, more interviewees supported advocacy as a legitimate form of enacting climate science if based on evidence (I8, I19, I33, I60, I64). Those who engaged in advocacy often emphasised the scientificity of their engagement and their wish to positively impact policymaking based on facts– which is in line with the idea of ‘responsible advocacy’ of climate scientists (Schmidt 2015; p. 71). However, some admitted that boundaries between evidence-based advocacy and activism could be blurry at times (I19, I38). To mitigate this, quite a number of interviewees made sure to draw clear boundaries between individual identities (citizen versus scientist) and responsibilities (assessing versus enacting science), often by differentiating between responsibilities for climate science using the metaphor of wearing different hats, such as an ‘IPCC hat’, a ‘science hat’, a ‘citizen hat’, a ‘government hat’, a ‘teacher hat’, an ‘advisor hat’, an ‘advocacy hat’ or the hat of their respective institution, all of which were associated with different freedoms and constraints in terms of what can be done or said based on different epistemic and non-epistemic norms and values (see also Pulkkinen et al. 2022; p. 5). Wearing the IPCC hat, in this context, means adhering to the Panel’s mantra of being policy-relevant but neutral (I20, I41, I58). While an AR6 WGIII LA noted they had engaged in advocacy throughout their career, they also felt that during their ‘active period’ as an IPCC author they “shouldn’t be signing and advocacy letter or taking part in advocacy” (I72). This was echoed by an AR6 CLA, saying that as “part of the IPCC” engaging in activism could discredit the assessment (I75).

These results illustrate the way in which different responsibilities for climate science overlap and may, at least temporarily, trump each other, depending on roles and responsibilities assumed. This can be understood as a function of what Schneider (1988; p. 113–114) has termed scientists’ “double ethical bind” to both the robust and honest scientific method they practice as well as to their “wish to see the world a better place”. The bind’s potential for dilemma was evidenced by an interviewee describing their inner conflict about whether or not they should assume more responsibility for enacting climate science, especially given “how urgent the problem is” (I72). This can be specifically applied to scientists who assume responsibility for climate science through partaking in the IPCC and their bind to the Panel’s principles. A participant newer to the process criticised the IPCC’s insistence on neutrality, however, arguing that “by staying neutral you are actually taking a position” (I26). But while there have been calls on climate scientists to halt IPCC assessments (Glavovic et al. 2021) or leak from science-policy interfaces to compel action (Hartz 2023a), there was agreement among many interviewees that the IPCC’s guiding principle remains key to fulfil its role. Nonetheless, interviewees raised questions regarding the future and purpose of the IPCC itself, including challenges to its WG structure and its turn towards solution-oriented assessments which could become “increasingly politically uncomfortable” (I58).

5 Conclusion

Using insights from IPCC participants as to why, how and with what consequences they assumed certain responsibilities for climate science, this article set out to surface the breadth and depth of contexts in which responsibility for climate science is already lived and practiced by scientists. By focusing on individual (affective) experiences, I offered new empirical insights into the multifaceted responsibilities, risks and emotional fabrics IPCC participants are enmeshed in during and beyond their IPCC engagement. Starting from the observation of an increasing peer-to-peer responsibilisation among scientists, I highlighted four key moments in which IPCC participants already feel and take responsibility for climate science: in the production, assessment, communication and enactment of science (PACE).

I first discussed the responsibility context of producing climate science, traditionally governed by particular (counter)norms of science, showing how feelings of (social) responsibility, climate emotions and values make the production of science an increasingly difficult-to-navigate space, especially in light of the mounting peer-to-peer responsibilisation among scientists. Moving to the assessment of climate science, I argued that this particular responsibility for climate science has been growing in recognition and importance alongside the IPCC as an institution. I demonstrated how assuming responsibility through an engagement with the IPCC provides scientists with personal and professional opportunities but also holds risks. In this context I argued that the IPCC can function as an institutional and emotional ‘safe space’ in which participants, in particular authors, may relate and support each other through professional but also personal hardship to better cope with climate emotions. Moreover, I found scientists exercising a representational responsibility when it comes to actively enabling and empowering participation, inter alia, of experts from developing countries. When it comes to science communication, I showed how scientists have come to accept and further embrace a responsibility for communicating, also as a continuation of their IPCC engagement. As this responsibility comes with particular high trade-offs and risks, I highlighted that there exist calls to further outsource it to professional science communicators. Finally, my empirical data surfaced how the wish to assume responsibilities for climate science in different, partly overlapping and sometimes conflicting contexts makes scientists wear and juggle many hats. I also argued that identifying with the IPCC can intensify the dilemma around the double ethical bind of scientists and create conflicting views on how far scientists can go in enacting climate science.

Moving through PACE, it becomes clear that the further one departs from traditionally considered contexts of scientific responsibilities, such as science production but also assessment, and ventures into newer responsibilities, including the communication and/or enactment of science, the more contested the relationship between science and responsibility becomes. This article has presented a first attempt to contextualise calls on scientists to take on more responsibility and to recognise the already practiced and lived responsibilities of scientists. Future research may employ PACE as an analytical framework, for example, in the broader context of (other) climate change knowledge(s). There also remains more work to be done to further empirically contextualise the relationship between science and responsibility in practice, especially regarding the impact of climate emotions as drivers for assuming responsibility for climate science as well as with respect to other (institutional) spaces. This work is of particular import in light of the increasing (peer-to-peer) responsibilisation of scientists which demands, as I have argued elsewhere, “ever more critical reflexivity” (Hartz 2023a; p. 5) about scientists’ personal and professional responsibilities by the scientific community itself but also society at large.

As the Seventh Assessment Cycle gathers pace, (re)considering the responsibility of and for climate science in the IPCC as a community of practice is essential for the Panel to maintain its role as the most authoritative voice on climate change. On the one hand, it has to come to terms with its institutional responsibility and fundamental questions regarding both its mandate and its processes in times of ever-growing urgency around climate narratives, an increasing policy-relevance and a need for timely outputs. On the other hand, the IPCC has to ensure that its participants are cared for in a way that acknowledges their will to take on responsibility to assess and communicate climate science, but also enables them to continue to meet their other professional and personal responsibilities. Participating in the IPCC comes with challenges and risks which need to be fully acknowledged and attended to by the IPCC– but also the wider scientific community– so that they remain manageable. Such challenges include, for example, increasing workload and responsibilities, time pressures as well as mental health risks. To meet such challenges, the IPCC may consider, for instance, actively strengthening internal peer-to-peer support and engaging the services of professional consultancies specialised on (mental) wellbeing (as AR6 WGI did to foster inclusive and responsible collaborationFootnote 9). Such IPCC initiatives would support participants in assuming their mounting responsibilities for climate science in and beyond the IPCC.