This special issue, entitled “Science Diplomacy and Neocolonialism: Lessons from the Field with a View to the Future,” invites readers to confront those tensions directly. As Dr. Bayoumi and colleagues note, recent global crises, from the COVID-19 pandemic to ongoing conflicts in places such as Ukraine and Palestine, have revealed how international collaboration can deepen inequalities when it is shaped by uneven power structures. Yet the issue also highlights how practitioners and researchers across Africa, the Middle East, and other underrepresented regions are forging new paths toward inclusion, reciprocity, and shared authority in global health.

At the heart of this collection is a call to rethink science diplomacy as a governance project, not simply a means of brokering international ties, but a way of redesigning the systems that determine whose knowledge counts and who benefits from it. The featured studies showcase diverse experiments in co-governance. For instance, Kenya’s Women in Health and their Economic, Equity, and Livelihood Statuses During Emergency Preparedness and Response (WHEELER) project embeds community advisory groups in research decision-making. The project aims to change research power dynamics, and enable equitable collaborations, while respecting pre-existing local leadership and review procedures.

In another example from the special issue, the WHO’s Emergency Medical Team Training Centre in Addis Ababa, established in collaboration with the Ethiopian Ministry of Health, reimagines a former evacuation site as a regional hub for training and collaboration aligned with African Union priorities. Since the training centre was established, staff from 12 countries in 2022 and 7 countries in 2023 have availed of valuable training, and a comprehensive framework to allow monitoring and evaluation has helped to maintain and improve training standards.

In these examples, power begins to shift its form from control to collaboration, and from external oversight to local leadership.

Capacity building emerges as another cornerstone of equitable science diplomacy. Instead of transferring “best practices” from wealthy countries to poorer ones, contributors emphasize dialogue, co-creation, and cultural grounding. Programs such as WiRED International’s community health worker curriculum in Kenya demonstrate that locally owned, culturally resonant approaches can build more resilient and effective systems than imported models ever could. For instance, the curriculum for the program is WHO-aligned but locally adapted, and delivered by medical instructors from the same region, allowing lessons to reference local dialects, norms, health issues and cultural practices.

When training and knowledge exchange are designed around reciprocity rather than dependency, both researchers and communities grow together.

The question of resources and partnerships is equally critical. Several papers in this issue explore how funding structures can either perpetuate or transform inequalities. The Addis Ababa EMT hub, the Jordan-based “We Love Reading” initiative, and comparative studies on climate–health strategies in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon all point to the same conclusion: genuine collaboration requires shared decision-making over how resources are mobilized and used. It means multi-year commitments, not short-term grants vulnerable to political shifts, and measuring success not by donor priorities, but by outcomes defined by the communities themselves.

For instance, in the “We Love Reading” initiative in Jordan, the partnership structure gives local actors, such as community groups and local institutions, a formal role in budgeting, staffing, and resource allocation, not just implementation, so they share power over where funding goes and how it’s spent.

Another thread running through this collection is accountability, meaning that equity is not just an aspiration but a measurable reality. Certain articles in the collection illustrate methods for evaluating projects through culturally validated metrics and community-defined indicators.

For instance, one study investigates the cumulative effects of adverse experiences in childhood on levels of depression and anxiety in adults in Abu Dhabi. The study used the Adverse Childhood Experiences International Questionnaire in both its Arabic and English versions, after stakeholder consultation, translation, back-translation, and checks of cultural relevance. Similarly, the authors relied on self-report screening metrics in a community sample (rather than only clinical diagnoses or administrative data), in part because stigma and underreporting make institutional records less reliable in that cultural context.

When assessment frameworks reflect what local populations value, rather than applying one-size-fits-all standards, they become tools for empowerment rather than control. As Dr. Bayoumi and her co-authors argue, this kind of accountability transforms science diplomacy from a top-down exercise into a participatory process rooted in mutual respect.

Other featured studies also highlight the utility of culturally adapted research tools. One study in the issue examines implementation of the Fertility Quality of Life Tool in Sudan.  The study explores how infertility-related quality of life can be better measured in low- and middle-income countries. The Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) questionnaire, developed and validated mostly in Western contexts, is used worldwide to assess how infertility affects people’s emotional, relational, and social well-being.

However, this paper highlighted the need to make such tools culturally relevant when applied in non-Western societies like Sudan. Incorporating local language nuances, social dynamics, and financial challenges can make the tool more accurate and meaningful. This culturally grounded approach exemplifies how science diplomacy can bridge global and local perspectives in healthcare research.

Similarly, another study examining a mental health intervention in Gaza city explores a 15-year community-driven adaptation of the “Focusing” therapy method, called Tarkiz, developed by the Palestine Trauma Centre. In a region marked by ongoing conflict and collective trauma, Tarkiz redefines mental health care by emphasizing community resilience, cultural relevance, and local leadership.

Through qualitative interviews with Gazan practitioners and clients, the study found that success was perceived less in terms of symptom reduction and more through strengthened relationships, emotional growth, and renewed community engagement. The research highlights science diplomacy as a model for equitable global collaboration, showing that sustainable mental health care in crisis contexts must be culturally rooted, community-based, and co-created with those it serves.

Finally, in a Perspective article included in the collection, the authors propose some concrete steps that researchers can undertake to help level the field in the context of science diplomacy. They urge researchers to prioritize local leadership and expertise in the Global South, using participatory and community-driven methods that allow those most affected to shape the research process. Engaging diaspora scientists can help bridge global divides and bring culturally informed perspectives into decision-making. Partnerships should be built on genuine collaboration rather than simple data extraction, with shared ownership of research outcomes.

The paper also calls for more inclusive ethical frameworks that represent diverse cultural and religious values, as well as stronger coordination among universities, governments, and NGOs to align goals. Finally, the authors stress the need for reflexivity, to encourage researchers to examine how their practices may perpetuate colonial hierarchies and to design funding and governance models that empower local scientists as equal partners in global knowledge production.

Taken together, the contributions to this Research Topic chart a pragmatic and hopeful path forward. They show that dismantling neocolonial structures in science and health is not only possible but already underway, in the laboratories, clinics, classrooms, and community networks of the Global South. What remains is to scale these models, embed them in policy, and hold global institutions to higher standards of fairness and transparency.

This research collection demonstrates that science diplomacy need not serve as an instrument of soft power. It can instead become a practice of shared power, one that recognizes the diversity of scientific traditions, the legitimacy of local expertise, and the necessity of equitable partnership.