Governing SRM Research for Legitimacy and Justice

Abstract With major US scientific institutions supporting a program of solar geoengineering research, the UK’s ARIA agency actively pursuing open air experimentation, and the EU in the process of clarifying its position, the question of how such research should be governed has been given new urgency. This paper argues that innovation in the structures and procedures of existing institutions for the oversight of scientific research is highly desirable, to promote the level of legitimacy, procedural justice, and recognition to which recent major proposed research governance frameworks aspire. First, we argue that SRM research is importantly dissimilar from climate research, but bears more similarity to other high-risk research areas, implying the need for special institutional arrangements. Second, we identify the special challenges of legitimacy–particularly its procedural justice component–with respect to the potential global, intergenerational and cross-community scope of legitimation requirements. Third, we argue that achieving legitimacy and procedural justice in the context of SRM research governance must include considerations of justice as recognition. Finally, we consider the institutional implications of legitimate and recognition-inclusive SRM research institutions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10074
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Governing SRM Research for Legitimacy and Justice

Bennet Francis
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Climate Change and Geoengineering
article

Governing SRM Research for Legitimacy and Justice

Bennet Francis
article en

Abstract

Abstract With major US scientific institutions supporting a program of solar geoengineering research, the UK’s ARIA agency actively pursuing open air experimentation, and the EU in the process of clarifying its position, the question of how such research should be governed has been given new urgency. This paper argues that innovation in the structures and procedures of existing institutions for the oversight of scientific research is highly desirable, to promote the level of legitimacy, procedural justice, and recognition to which recent major proposed research governance frameworks aspire. First, we argue that SRM research is importantly dissimilar from climate research, but bears more similarity to other high-risk research areas, implying the need for special institutional arrangements. Second, we identify the special challenges of legitimacy–particularly its procedural justice component–with respect to the potential global, intergenerational and cross-community scope of legitimation requirements. Third, we argue that achieving legitimacy and procedural justice in the context of SRM research governance must include considerations of justice as recognition. Finally, we consider the institutional implications of legitimate and recognition-inclusive SRM research institutions.

European Journal of Risk RegulationVol. 16(4)
University of Twente (NL)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.