Participants supported research into SRM, particularly computer modelling, provided it is carried out within a robust ethical framework and does not distract from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While participants saw the value of research, some urged caution about large scale deployment and stressed SRM should not distract from the root causes of climate change.
What is SRM?
SRM is a group of methods to cool the Earth by reflecting a small portion of sunlight back into space.
This could include:
- adding particles into the atmosphere
- spraying salt water into clouds
- making the surface more reflective
However, there is currently insufficient knowledge of the impact these interventions might have on the Earth’s system if they were ever deployed at scale
And how this would affect regional climate, humans, and ecosystems.
Why in-depth dialogue matters
The dialogue was commissioned by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Sciencewise, and delivered by public deliberation specialists Hopkins Van Mil (HVM).
It engaged 52 participants from across the UK in more than 17 hours of workshops and discussions between September and October 2025.
Participants heard a range of evidence from 19 specialists and deliberated in depth on this complex and emerging area of science.
Unlike large-scale surveys, public dialogues bring together a smaller group of people reflecting the UK population, to explore complex topics in depth.
This approach allows participants to learn from experts, ask questions, and carefully form more informed and nuanced views on potential benefits, risks and ethical implications.
Participants attended in-person workshops in Glasgow, Chester, Exeter or Peterborough and online sessions.
Six principles for responsible research
Participants developed six core principles they believe should guide SRM research, with some also relating to any future SRM deployment:
- do no harm to people or the environment
- do not distract from reducing greenhouse gas emissions
- global collaboration, equity and governance: research should be internationally coordinated and inclusive
- public information and engagement: ongoing dialogue with the public is essential
- prioritise the public good and future generations
- research integrity, transparency and accountability
Support for computer modelling research
Participants broadly welcomed the use of computer modelling:
Computer modelling has been used for many years in a variety of areas such as tracking infectious diseases, weather forecasting, and reacting to natural disasters.
It would seem logical and sensible to use computer modelling to understand and evaluate the possible impact of SRM in the real world.
However, many urged caution on whether research should progress to outdoor experiments and emphasised the need for global governance before any such steps:
I just don’t know how ethically it will ever be OK, even if it’s in this country, to actually test when ultimately it is actually going to affect, you know, the globe.
Keeping focus on emissions reduction
A consistent theme throughout the dialogue was the importance of ensuring SRM research does not become a distraction from tackling the root causes of climate change:
I think it is tremendously important that SRM doesn’t distract attention from the real problem and the long-term solution, which is to decarbonise as far as we can.
It’s very important that SRM doesn’t provide an excuse for stopping climate change mitigation.
Valuable insights in an emerging field
Kate Hamer, Director of Strategy and Analysis at NERC, said:
This dialogue marks an important milestone in our SRM investment.
It provides hugely valuable insights for us, the wider research community, policymakers and other funders as they consider how to develop responsible governance frameworks for this emerging field.
The understanding gained from this dialogue will continue to inform our thinking and shape our approach as we continue our investment in this research.
Wide range of perspectives
Henrietta Hopkins, Director, HVM said:
This is a complex topic on which there are a wide range of perspectives to be taken into account.
Dialogue participants took time to unpick this complexity and to carefully and thoughtfully consider SRM research and its global implications.
As a result of this foundational dialogue, research funders, the research community, and policymakers can take next steps with a rich understanding of what matters to people across the UK.
We look forward to seeing how these views are taken into account in future research, policy and practice.
Informing future investment and research
The findings will inform NERC’s £10.5 million investment in four SRM research projects running from 2025 to 2030, which focus exclusively on computer modelling, and future research on this topic.
NERC will work with partners to act on key dialogue recommendations to ensure that:
- this work will have lasting impact
- this work will strengthen public understanding
- this work will inform policy
- decisions about SRM are grounded in evidence without advocacy
The full report, including detailed findings and recommendations for future public engagement, is available on the Sciencewise and NERC websites:
- solar radiation modification public dialogue (Sciencewise)
- solar radiation modification: a public dialogue (UKRI)
The Sciencewise website also includes a film about the dialogue.
Further information
SRM refers to a range of proposed methods to cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight, including marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol intervention/injection, and surface albedo modification.
The public dialogue was delivered by HVM, a specialist deliberative research agency, in line with Sciencewise guiding principles.
An independent oversight group ensured balanced evidence and rigorous process.
URSUS Consulting Ltd is the independent evaluator for the dialogue.
Participants were recruited through the Sortition Foundation using demographic criteria to ensure diversity across age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background, geographic location and attitudes to climate change.
NERC is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
Sciencewise is an independently run, UK government programme that provides funding and support to deliver impactful national‑scale public dialogue.
About the dialogue
Why have you funded this public engagement activity?
NERC, with support from Sciencewise, commissioned the public dialogue as part of the broader investment in the NERC SRM research programme.
SRM is considered by some as controversial, so the need for public involvement, and more general inclusion of ethics and governance, were recognised as important.
The aim of this is to engage a diverse group of the UK public to deliberate on SRM to understand what public views and considerations are on SRM.
The information gathered will be relevant and inform a broad audience including a range of decision-makers, researchers and UKRI.
Tell me more about the programme
Find out about the research projects: Modelling the impact of solar radiation modification.
Are you deploying SRM to test the approaches?
No SRM will be deployed as part of this research or public engagement.
What ethical guidance and governance is in place to manage any risks around SRM research or this programme?
The programme and dialogue aligns with the government position on geoengineering, including SRM, which is that the UK is not deploying SRM and has no plans to do so.
What is the difference between solar radiation management and SRM? Why have you used both?
As this area evolves, NERC takes advice on the appropriate language to use.
Although there is strictly no difference in meaning between the two, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is now using ‘modification’, and therefore NERC is moving to use this terminology to ensure consistency.