Reports from a variety of bodies have highlighted the role that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and practices must play in order to try to avoid the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. Research into the feasibility of these technologies is primarily undertaken by scholars in the natural sciences, yet, as we argue in this commentary, there is great value in collaboration between these scholars and their colleagues in the social sciences. Spurred by this belief, in 2019, a university and a non-profit organization organized and hosted a workshop in Washington, DC, intended to bring natural and physical scientists, technology developers, policy professionals and social scientists together to explore how to better integrate social science knowledge into the field of CDR research. The workshop sought to build interdisciplinary collaborations across CDR topics, draft new social science research questions and integrate and exchange disciplinary-specific terminology. But a snowstorm kept many social scientists who had organized the conference from making the trip in person. The workshop went on without them and organizers did the best they could to include the team remotely, but in the age before daily video calls, remote participation was not as successful as organizers had hoped. And thus, a workshop that was supposed to focus on social science integration moved on, without many of the social scientists who organized the event. The social scientists in the room were supposed to form the dominant voice but with so many stuck in a snow storm, the balance of expertise shifted, as it often does when social scientists collaborate with natural and physical scientists. The outcomes of that workshop, lessons learned and opportunities missed, form the basis of this commentary, and they collectively indicate the barriers to integrating the natural, physical and social sciences on CDR. As the need for rapid, effective and successful CDR has only increased since that time, we argue that CDR researchers from across the spectrum must come together in ways that simultaneously address the technical, social, political, economic and cultural elements of CDR development, commercialization, adoption and diffusion if the academy is to have a material impact on climate change in the increasingly limited window we have to address it.

来自多个机构的报告强调了二氧化碳去除（CDR）技术和实践必须发挥的作用，以尽量避免人为气候变化的最坏影响。对这些技术可行性的研究主要由自然科学领域的学者进行，然而，正如我们在本评论中所指出的，这些学者与社会科学领域的同事之间的合作具有巨大的价值。在这一信念的推动下，2019年，一所大学和一家非营利组织在华盛顿特区组织并主办了一次研讨会，旨在将自然科学家和物理科学家、技术开发人员、政策专业人士和社会科学家聚集在一起，探讨如何更好地整合社会将科学知识引入CDR研究领域。该研讨会旨在建立跨 CDR 主题的跨学科合作，起草新的社会科学研究问题，并整合和交换特定学科术语。但一场暴风雪使许多组织这次会议的社会科学家无法亲自前往。研讨会在没有他们的情况下继续进行，组织者尽最大努力让团队远程参与，但在每天视频通话之前的时代，远程参与并不像组织者希望的那么成功。因此，一个本应关注社会科学整合的研讨会继续进行，但组织该活动的许多社会科学家却没有参加。房间里的社会科学家本应形成主导声音，但由于有这么多人陷入暴风雪，专业知识的平衡发生了变化，就像社会科学家与自然科学家和物理科学家合作时经常发生的情况一样。 该研讨会的成果、吸取的教训和错失的机会构成了本评论的基础，它们共同指出了在 CDR 上整合自然科学、物理科学和社会科学的障碍。自那时起，由于对快速、有效和成功的 CDR 的需求有增无减，我们认为来自各个领域的 CDR 研究人员必须以同时解决 CDR 开发、商业化的技术、社会、政治、经济和文化要素的方式聚集在一起。如果学院要在我们必须解决这个问题的日益有限的窗口内对气候变化产生实质性影响，那么它的采用和传播。