This paper explores the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of the British Council's science programmes as instruments of cultural diplomacy during the twentieth century. It examines how science was framed — by the Council and in its broader public messaging — as apolitical, neutral, and universally beneficial, echoing the organisation's own self-description as “non-political, non-sectarian, and non-commercial.” This dual framing positioned both science and the Council as disinterested actors, able to operate above ideology in service of shared global progress, during a time that was critical for the institutionalisation of cultural diplomacy and cultural relations. Yet beneath this rhetoric of neutrality lay complex entanglements with geopolitical agendas, post-colonial development strategies, and Cold War-era contests for hearts, minds, and markets. The paper analyses how scientific exchanges, technical assistance schemes, exhibitions, and educational partnerships functioned as soft power tools, particularly in regions transitioning from colonial rule or caught in East–West ideological competition. The paper argues that the British Council's science diplomacy should be understood not as peripheral or exceptional, but as a core component of twentieth-century cultural diplomacy and cultural policy. In doing so, it seeks to broaden conceptual boundaries within cultural diplomacy research, highlighting the importance of scientific knowledge, institutional ethics, and narratives of neutrality in the cultural politics of international engagement.
Alice Naisbitt (Wed,) studied this question.