The foundation of modern lobbying is the promotion of ideas and their incorporation into legal documents

Author: Viktor Shcherbina, member of the Ethics Council of the Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association

A New Dimension of Representing Interests: Lobbying for Ideas.
(based on the theme of the 2026 “open letter” by philosophers)

Most people are unable to realize what ideas they are promoting—especially since these ideas are, as a rule, created precisely for that purpose. By uncritically accepting these ideas as manifestations of reality itself, the public often becomes susceptible to manipulation and prone to acting against its own interests.

In July 2026, a group of leading philosophers of science published an open letter titled “An Open Letter Calling for Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest in Publications by Philosophers” (“An Open Letter Calling for Mandatory Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Philosophical Publications.”)

The authors of the letter—Cailin O’Connor (University of California, Irvine) and Craig Callender (University of California, San Diego)—called on academic journals to implement mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest and covert lobbying in scientific research.

The authors of the letter drew attention to the growing collaboration between researchers and large corporations, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence, climate policy, technology, and disinformation, emphasizing the need to ensure transparency in academic research.

Very soon, this letter received the support of more than 200 representatives of the international philosophical community. Prominent figures in the philosophy of science, ethics, and science and technology studies called for the implementation of mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest in philosophical research. This is a difficult task, but we must take action.

Overall, the academic community’s response to the appeal was largely positive and demonstrated that there is a demand for new standards of transparency in the humanities.

Professional philosophy media viewed the letter in question as evidence that philosophy in the modern era faces the same challenges that previously arose in medicine, economics, and the natural sciences.

Authors and commentators drew attention to the growing collaboration between academic philosophers and technology companies, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence, and emphasized the need to develop mechanisms to maintain public trust in research.

The very idea of disclosing conflicts of interest, following the example of *Science* and *Nature*, garnered support. In particular, the letter’s supporters emphasized that transparency does not restrict academic freedom; on the contrary, it strengthens the legitimacy of scientific findings and allows readers to independently assess the potential influence of external factors on research.

At the same time, the discussion revealed a deeper problem. Many commentators drew attention not only to the issue of funding but also to the risk of humanitarian research gradually becoming institutionally dependent on large corporations. Particular concern was raised regarding the ethics of artificial intelligence, where businesses are increasingly acting simultaneously as clients, partners, and users of research findings.

For researchers of lobbying and those who engage in it, the most significant point is that the academic community has effectively acknowledged the existence of a new dimension of influence. The focus of discussion was not on contacts with politicians or regulators, but on influencing the process of producing knowledge, concepts, and social narratives. It is precisely this circumstance that makes the philosophers’ letter significant not only for philosophy but also for contemporary lobbying theory.

For professionals in the field of lobbying, this document is particularly valuable because it effectively addresses one of the most complex mechanisms of influence today: shaping public decisions through the creation and dissemination of theories, concepts, and worldview models.

Lobbying for regulations and lobbying for ideas

In the classical sense, lobbying is associated with representing interests before government authorities; however, modern practice shows that this influence increasingly begins well before a bill or regulatory act is drafted. First, a theoretical model explaining a particular phenomenon is developed; then this model becomes the subject of academic debate; and finally, it enters the expert community. Through its communication with the public, the expert community shapes “informed opinion,” which subsequently transforms into political decisions and social practices that are taken for granted.

In such cases, it is very difficult to trace the chain from the originator of an idea to a political decision. For example, one of the most notable ways a scientific idea has influenced social processes is the “Gaia hypothesis,” proposed by British scientist James Lovelock in the 1970s.

There is speculation that it was commissioned by representatives of the oil industry. This is suggested by the fact that it was the oil industry that actively and effectively used it for its own purposes.

“The Gaia Hypothesis” asserts that the Earth is a self-regulating system (a superorganism) that inherently strives to maintain balance. Therefore, for oil companies (in particular, Royal Dutch Shell, where James Lovelock worked for many years as an independent scientist and inventor and received grants and commissions), this idea became the perfect argument against strict government regulation of emissions. To promote their own business, oil companies used the following logic: “If the Earth is a living organism capable of healing itself and regulating CO₂ levels through biota, then anthropogenic pollution is not catastrophic, and the planet will cope with it.” We now live in a world where the CO₂ problem is viewed as one that requires a human solution and is not “automatic.”

Despite ongoing debates regarding its scientific status, the “Gaia concept” itself has had a significant impact on environmental philosophy, social movements, and the development of environmental policy in many countries. Today, most scientists do not consider Gaia to be a fully proven scientific theory in its original form; however, the idea of the close interconnection between the biosphere, the atmosphere, the oceans, and the climate system has become a widely accepted part of Earth sciences.

Whether this is good or bad for the advancement of science is a separate issue, but the public is interested specifically in the transparency of such processes. This is especially true now—as we are experiencing a series of “wars” over the future of humanity with artificial intelligence.

The example of the “Gaia hypothesis” illustrates a fundamentally important point: society often makes decisions not only on the basis of facts, but also on the basis of conceptual models through which those facts are interpreted.

Accordingly, if certain concepts are developed or promoted with the active participation of interested parties, the public has the right to know about such connections. This is precisely what the authors of the open letter are emphasizing. Consequently, the issue of funding knowledge production is now just as important as the issue of funding political activities.

What does the growth of lobbying in the modern world in general—and in Ukraine in particular—have to do with this?

The philosophers’ open letter effectively offers a new perspective on transparency in the representation of interests. The traditional approach has focused on the openness of contacts between lobbyists and government agencies. However, today’s challenges require us to take into account yet another level of influence: the production of expert knowledge.

It is important for a democratic society to understand that:

• Who exactly is funding the development of new social concepts;
• Who exactly is funding the research that shapes the future agenda;
• what specific interests lie behind—or may lie behind—the promotion of certain theoretical models;
• Where exactly is the line between independent expertise and advocating for the position of an interested party?

Based on the ideas set forth in the philosophers’ appeal, as well as contemporary principles of transparent representation of interests, the following recommendations can be made for the development of the lobbying institution in Ukraine:

1. Broaden understanding of lobbying activities.

Attention should be focused not only on legislative processes, but also on the mechanisms for developing expert knowledge, analytical materials, and conceptual approaches to social issues.

2. Establish standards for disclosing conflicts of interest within the expert community.

Individuals involved in preparing reports for government agencies must openly disclose their financial and professional ties to interested parties. This idea is explicitly supported by the authors of the open letter.

3. Ensure transparency in the funding of think tanks and research projects.

The public should be able to evaluate not only the quality of the expert opinion but also the environment in which it is formed.

4. Develop ethical standards for academic lobbying.

Cooperation between science, civil society, business, and the government must be guided by the principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability.

5. Foster a culture of transparent advocacy.

Democratic lobbying does not conceal interests; on the contrary, it clearly identifies them and makes them understandable to the public.

6. Recognize intellectual influence as a distinct focus of public attention.

In the 21st century, influencing ideas, concepts, and scientific paradigms can have consequences no less significant than influencing legislation or political decisions.

The 2026 Open Letter from Philosophers is important evidence that modern advocacy extends far beyond the halls of parliament and government. Today, the struggle over future decisions begins at the level of ideas, theories, and models for explaining reality; therefore, the further development of the lobbying institution in Ukraine must encompass not only the regulation of contacts with the authorities but also the establishment of transparency standards regarding the formation of expert knowledge.

According to members of the NALU, lobbying can fully fulfill its democratic function—namely, the legitimate, transparent, and accountable representation of the public interest—only under these conditions.

In today’s world, lobbying is increasingly linked to the shaping of public perceptions of reality. The authors of the aforementioned letter emphasize the risks of hidden influence by corporate interests on philosophical and academic research through undisclosed ties and conflicts of interest.

That is precisely why modern lobbying should be viewed not only as a mechanism for representing interests within government institutions, but also as a mechanism for shaping public opinion. Through expert opinions, think tanks, scientific research, academic concepts, and public debates, the intellectual framework within which citizens, politicians, and government agencies make decisions is formed.

In a democratic society, this role of lobbying is a necessary condition for the development of pluralism of interests. At the same time, it requires a higher level of transparency and competence. If society has the right to know who is lobbying for a bill, then it has no less of a right to know who is funding the concepts, ideas, and expert approaches that shape attitudes toward future decisions. This is precisely the aim of the authors’ call in the aforementioned letter for the disclosure of conflicts of interest in philosophical research.

For Ukraine, where the civilized institution of lobbying is still taking shape, this lesson is of strategic importance. Future regulation must take into account not only the direct influence on the government, but also the impact on knowledge production, the formation of expert opinions, and public narratives. It is precisely here, in the 21st century, that the process of representing interests increasingly begins.

The Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association views modern lobbying not only as a tool for communication between interest groups and the state, but also as an important social institution for shaping public opinion. The legitimacy and social value of a lobbyist’s activities will be determined first and foremost by the level of openness, integrity, and transparency of the ideas they help promote in the public sphere. It is precisely on these principles that a modern culture of ethical and socially responsible lobbying must be built.