Dominant geopolitical narratives on the Arctic argue that the region is either edging towards conflict or international law is respected and peace is maintained through cooperation to address shared concerns. While both of these narratives are present in the Arctic states’ strategies, most of them tend to support collaborative efforts. Science diplomacy (SD) is a useful mechanism in this regard as it helps states overcome potential disagreements and can stimulate cooperation in other areas. Given the growing concerns about global risks, SD is more important now than ever before. In our study, we identify and focus on three indicators for potential SD in the Arctic strategies: i) scientific infrastructure; ii) membership in intergovernmental/interparliamentary and scientific/education organisations and networks and iii) specific areas of scientific cooperation. Considering the intensive scientific activity in the region, it is not surprising that the strategies discuss different forms of research and scientific cooperation, although none explicitly use the term “science diplomacy”. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals the Arctic states do apply the SD concept in their strategies and use three types of diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science – in the three indicators.

What is the mission of agriculture and what techniques are used to accomplish the mission? This paper examines mission statements of agribusiness companies, agricultural producers, and environmental groups. One hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups share missions and objectives with environmental groups and their mission statements should demonstrate shared goals. A second hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups do not share missions or objectives with agribusiness companies and their respective mission statements should demonstrate their lack of common interests. The paper also asks which of these three groups will be the best sources of intellectual and other support as land-grant universities strive to fulfill their respective missions. It is not obvious from the mission statements that the three groups studied share missions or objectives. The mission statements neither reveal clear information on the second hypothesis, that agricultural producers do not share missions or operational objectives with agribusiness companies, nor do the mission statements demonstrate their lack of common interests. Analysis of mission statements is one place to learn which groups have common goals and should work together. But this is only a beginning.