Abstract:
Arguably since the pandemic, science advice ecosystems have seen rapid development globally. With evolving challenges to the institutions of science and democracy, these ecosystems are also under more pressure to adapt and respond to their new reality. Leveraging INGSA’s international network of expertise, this panel proposes to explore contemporary issues of science advice ecosystems across regions of the world. The heads of INGSA’s regional chapters will discuss the changes they’ve seen in approaches to science advice in their regions, and what might lie ahead in evolving geo-political, socio-technical and climate-disrupted contexts.

Summary of Conversations 

Global discussions focused on strengthening evidence-informed policy, highlighting the network’s mission to build capacity worldwide. A shared theme was the difficulty of translating scientific findings into actionable policy, especially at the local level where citizens’ immediate needs and crisis management require pragmatic, readily applicable knowledge. This led to a consensus on the need for better mutual communication and a shift away from the term “advice,” which can be misinterpreted as unsolicited criticism. Regional perspectives varied, noting established, sophisticated systems in the global north that face alarming trends of reduced political willingness to use evidence and threats to academic freedom. Conversely, Africa and South America show growing interest in engaging with evidence despite severely low resources for science and technology and concerns over using research primarily from the global North. The importance of capacity strengthening, training, and collaborative governance models was emphasized as a path forward.

Take Away Messages/Current Status of Challenges

• Under-resourced Scientific Ecosystems: Many regions in the global south operate with extremely low funding for science and technology, such as South America reporting less than 0.5% of GDP investment, which severely limits the number of researchers and their capacity for policy engagement.
• Output and Evidence Source Disparity: Despite a large population, Africa produces less than 1% of the global research output, prompting a critical challenge concerning the reliance on evidence and research generated primarily in the global North.
• Fragmentation of Governance: In systems like North America, the science interface is institutionally strong at federal levels but highly fragmented across federal, state/provincial, and municipal systems, preventing the efficient flow of information to local decision-makers.
• Erosion of Policy Uptake: Even where sophisticated advisory systems exist, there is a noted, alarming trend of reduced willingness and ability among policymakers to integrate scientific evidence, often due to a re-ideologization of politics.
• Threats to Academic Freedom: Academic freedom is facing pressure in various forms, including direct undermining in some countries and subtle, indirect methods such as shifting funding priorities that effectively constrain research areas.
• Paternalistic Perception of “Advice”: The conventional notion of “science advice” can be a non-starter, often being misconstrued by political leaders as unsolicited criticism from outside experts who do not fully grasp the constraints of political life.
• Lack of Incentives for Engagement: Academic evaluation metrics typically do not reward the effort and time scientists spend on communicating with or training policymakers and communities, thereby creating a disincentive for researchers to participate actively at the science-policy interface.
• Data and Comparative Gaps: The lack of consistent, robust data (e.g., on the number of scientists or the impact of policies) across diverse regions makes it difficult to compare progress, set informed policies, and track success in science, technology, and innovation.

Recommendations/Next Steps

• Adopt Collaborative Terminology: Reconceptualize the relationship by using terms like “science support,” “science exchange,” or “suggestion” instead of “advice” to promote a more humble, mutually respectful, and effective engagement model with policymakers.
• Enhance Communication and Contextual Training: Expand the provision of training and capacity-building workshops for scientists to enhance their communication skills and help them better understand the operational frameworks, constraints, and urgency faced by policymakers.
• Develop “Accompanying Expertise” Models: Implement deeper, co-creative engagement strategies, such as assigning teams of scientists to accompany a legislative file from its conceptual start to its conclusion, building trust and ensuring timely, relevant evidence provision.
• Strengthen Local/Municipal Interface: Prioritize the development of boundary organizations (e.g., living labs, research centers) that serve as neutral, pragmatic interfaces to build local science capacity and facilitate the translation of knowledge for city-level crisis management and basic citizen services.
• Integrate Citizens’ Advice: Foster and research models of citizen engagement to create a system of “citizens’ advice to decision makers,” which can broaden the evidence base and help reinforce public trust in researchers.
• Strengthen Government Civil Servant Capacity: Expand capacity-strengthening efforts beyond researchers to include training for government civil servants, enabling them to better receive, understand, and integrate evidence-based inputs into policy development.
• Uphold Ethical Responsibility and Foresight: Scientists must act with a clear ethical code, maintaining distinct values from decision-makers and exercising long-term foresight when advising on powerful new technologies (like AI) to prevent their use for outcomes contrary to shared values.

Conduct Post-Crisis Learning Reviews: Systematically carry out “post-mortem” reviews of past crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) to document lessons learned and reinforce best practices, preventing a complacent return to old, less-effective working methods after the acute phase of a crisis has subsided.