Diplomats need to build clear structures that bring expertise into strategy development, not just crisis response.

BY LEE E. VOTH-GAEDDERT

In Jakarta, as part of a United Nations (UN) food security cluster, I watched international agencies—often competitors for visibility and resources—coordinate with laser precision. Access to senior government officials was scarce, and everyone understood that when the Ministry of Agriculture opened its doors, you had to show up ready. It was one of the most tightly coordinated environments I’ve worked in.

Years later in Guatemala, I found the opposite. Embassies, UN agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) could book a meeting with a ministry official in days, if not hours. The urgency to coordinate across agencies, ironically, was absent. Those two experiences, on opposite ends of the coordination spectrum, taught me a simple truth: The systems we build shape the diplomacy we get.

When it comes to science and technology (S&T), the U.S. Department of State has made important strides, but too often we rely on improvisation. Expertise arrives too late. Scientific insight gets lost in silos. And we continue to treat science as an add-on rather than as a design principle for diplomacy.

But diplomats can’t afford to improvise on S&T. They need clear structures to bring expertise into strategy development, not just crisis response. As a trained systems engineer who has worked across State, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the UN, I’ve seen this from both the field and headquarters. The good news? We don’t need more bureaucratic layers. We just need smarter scaffolding.

The path to more science-informed diplomacy doesn’t require reinventing the department; it requires rethinking how insight flows. Across embassies, bureaus, and leadership, the fixes are less about expansion and more about intentional design: roles with a mandate, tools with a purpose, and structures that anticipate rather than react.

The Diagnosis

S&T are no longer fringe issues in foreign policy, they’re central. Artificial intelligence (AI) governance, digital surveillance, antimicrobial resistance, food security, climate adaptation—these are now staples of diplomatic portfolios. Yet while the issues have evolved, the State Department’s internal systems for engaging S&T expertise have not.

In most cases, it’s not that expertise is unavailable. Rather, it’s uncoordinated, underutilized, or arrives too late to shape the conversation. S&T insight still depends too heavily on personal networks, informal taskers, or a scramble for outside help once a crisis is underway. In some bureaus, technical engagement is strong; in others, it’s patchwork or peripheral. Field posts may have environment, science, technology, and health (ESTH) officers, but these roles are unevenly distributed, underresourced, and rarely backed by dedicated support structures.

The path to more science-informed diplomacy doesn’t require reinventing the department; it requires rethinking how insight flows.

We’ve seen moments of progress: the launch of the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy in 2022; the 2021 establishment and 2023 expansion of the regional technology officer program; and the elevation of S&T issues in high-level strategy like the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council; the AUKUS tech agreements between the U.S., the U.K., and Australia; and the U.S.-India initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET). But without institutional scaffolding—dedicated roles, clear coordination channels, and agile tools—those gains remain vulnerable to staff turnover and shifting leadership priorities.

If we want science-informed diplomacy to be the norm, not the exception, we need to move beyond ad hoc fixes. What we need now is a system: lean, intentional, and built for complexity.

Rewiring the Front Lines

If you want to understand how science meets diplomacy, don’t start at headquarters, start at the front lines. Overseas posts are where global health threats emerge, environmental trends are first noticed, and regulatory shifts take shape. Yet, as my colleagues and I at the State Department’s Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary (STAS) found, most embassies lack the consistent tools, training, or personnel to engage meaningfully with S&T.

Through my work with STAS, I helped pilot a tool designed to address this gap: a rapid-response “Ask-a-Scientist” platform for diplomats in the field. When embassy staff had questions on topics like semiconductors, green hydrogen, or sustainable fishing, we matched them with vetted experts who could respond within days. The demand was there, and so was the relief. In complex environments, even a small injection of tailored insight can shift how diplomats prepare, negotiate, or respond.

But a tool is only as effective as the people empowered to use it. That’s why we also need to strengthen the personnel side: better training for officers assigned to ESTH portfolios and a more deliberate approach to placing S&T-literate staff in strategic posts. A formal focal point model—where officers are designated, trained, and supported—could go a long way.

Diplomacy increasingly depends on technical fluency. We don’t need every post to have a lab coat on staff. But we do need to give embassies the tools and confidence to quickly spot, elevate, and act on science-relevant developments.

Breaking the Silos to Empower Bureaus

Inside the State Department’s domestic bureaus, technical talent isn’t absent; it’s often just isolated. Expertise tends to cluster within specific programs or policy shops, with limited formal mechanisms for sharing that knowledge across regions or issue areas. The result is familiar to anyone who’s worked in a large bureaucracy: duplication, delays, and missed opportunities.

One practical fix is to designate “science policy leads” within certain bureaus, particularly those under the P, E, and T under secretariats. These leads wouldn’t operate as lone experts but as connective tissue: sitting on a cross-bureau Science Policy Council, coordinating technical input into planning cycles, and helping staff tap into relevant partnerships or surge expertise.

In complex environments, even a small injection of tailored insight can shift how diplomats prepare, negotiate, or respond.

Equally important is creating a mechanism to stand up—and, critically, stand down—cross-bureau S&T working groups. During my time helping to launch an innovation lab within a consulting firm, one of the biggest lessons was that not every challenge needs a permanent committee. What matters is clarity of scope, speed of formation, and a shared understanding of when the work has been successfully completed. Applied to the department, this kind of agile coordination could be transformative, especially for fast-moving issues like synthetic biology or space governance, which cut across thematic and regional divides.

Science-informed diplomacy doesn’t mean every desk officer needs a PhD. It means they need access to knowledge, to networks, and to people who can help translate complexity into strategy. That starts by giving bureaus the internal muscle to organize, synthesize, and act.

Designing for the Long View

S&T are not just fast-moving, they’re disruptive. AI governance, biothreats, critical minerals, planetary boundary tipping points—these are issues that reshape alliances, markets, and geopolitics. Yet too often, State Department leadership is forced into a reactive stance, navigating crises with incomplete information and little time to think ahead.

The solution isn’t a bigger bureaucracy; it’s a smarter structure. At the leadership level, the department should formalize a Science Policy Council, previously mentioned, that includes senior representatives from important bureaus and offices. This council would be tasked with surfacing cross-cutting science priorities, aligning policy development across bureaus, and serving as a high-leverage advisory node for senior decision-makers.

Paired with this, the department needs a formal horizon scanning and foresight function, a capacity to look ahead at emerging risks and opportunities, not just respond to what’s already on the front page. During my time across USAID, MCC, and State, I saw how long-term initiatives like Feed the Future were shaped (or limited) by whether upstream alignment and technical forecasting were in place. When it works, good foresight can align agencies, inform budget cycles, and shape diplomatic posture well before events unfold.

Leadership doesn’t need to predict the future, but it must be better positioned to anticipate it. A council for science policy, informed by structured foresight, is not an extra step. It’s the operating system upgrade diplomacy now requires—quiet, efficient, and absolutely essential.

Smarter by Design

Having worked across institutions, from embassy coordination tables to innovation labs to field programs and interagency strategy, I’ve seen the costs of fragmentation and the power of thoughtful systems. The diplomats I’ve supported aren’t asking for more experts; they’re asking for better access, smarter pathways, and the confidence that their decisions are informed by the best available knowledge.

Getting there is possible. It doesn’t take massive new investments, just a shift in how we think about S&T as part of diplomacy’s core operating logic. With a few practical changes, we can build a department better wired for complexity, resilience, and the future that’s already arriving.

Lee Voth-Gaeddert is a systems engineer who has worked at the State Department, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the United Nations. He currently serves as a Distinguished Fellow at Arizona State University’s Leadership, Diplomacy and National Security Lab, where his work focuses on bridging technical expertise with diplomatic operations to strengthen the role of science and technology in foreign policy.

Read More...

• “Technology and Diplomacy: From the FSJ Archive,” The Foreign Service Journal, June 2018
• “Cyber Diplomacy for Strategic Competition” by Emily O. Goldman, The Foreign Service Journal, June 2021
• “At the Crossroads of Tradition and Innovation with AI” by Paul Kruchoski, The Foreign Service Journal, June 2024