Ed. Note: I’m a space nerd, so bear with me as I try to bring some science to this international communications blog.

During the Cold War, technological advancements in the U.S. and USSR carried a powerful symbolic meaning. Which country would be the first to put a man in space? Or on the moon? Each scientific milestone represented a victory for each country.

But in 1998, the “new frontier” became an arena for pioneering international cooperation when the International Space Station was assembled by space agencies in the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada. By working together in the station, the U.S. and other participating nations are able to make their dollars in space research stretch further and share scientific findings between nations. The ISS has brought about an era of peaceful international communications in science between several countries. But this collaboration has not been all sunshine and rainbows.

As discussed in Daya Kishan Thussu’s book International Communication: Continuity and Change, states that are still developing technologically have a disadvantage, even in the modern era. This was demonstrated in 1996, when Brazil and NASA reached an agreement that would send a Brazilian astronaut to space in return for flight hardware. The Brazilian space program’s poor industrial management ended in a failure to produce the hardware, and NASA chose not to include the Brazilian astronaut. Aside from the political tensions that arose from this, Brazilian exclusion also communicated to political and scientific leaders that supporting advances in the Brazilian space program was futile.

As international communication is fostered through scientific networks, it is important to note how certain nations are left out.

MaryCate Most