Science diplomacy has shifted amid growing geopolitical disruption, pushing scientists and diplomats toward more aspirational, pragmatic, and transactional approaches. In response, Québec announced at the 2025 UNESCO Global Ministerial Dialogue that it would build a network of research chairs in science diplomacy — a plan realized in March 2026 when the FRQ launched eight chairs covering themes from AI governance to Arctic diplomacy and food sustainability. This marks a shift from ad hoc engagement to structured policy capacity, now formalized in Québec’s international policy since June 2026.

As geopolitical rivalry strains the institutions that have underpinned global cooperation since 1945, José Manuel Durão Barroso argues that science can still hold the door open. In this piece, the former European Commission President makes the case for science diplomacy as a bridge across political divides, for open collaboration balanced with legitimate security concerns, and for treating knowledge as Europe’s “Fifth Freedom” — a strategic asset as vital to the continent’s future as the free movement of goods, people, and capital.

Facing mounting geostrategic, political, and technological pressures, science cannot afford to be passive—it must confront the incentives and cultural failings within its own institutions, from the “bibliometric disease” to weakened self-regulation. Only by pre-emptively reforming how it governs, communicates, and justifies itself can science shape its own future and remain a trusted public good, argues Sir Peter Gluckman.

Science has entered a data-rich era, but its integrity, equity, and openness now depend on treating FAIR data as a first-class output and closing the governance gaps around AI-driven research. Without urgent policy action on data standards, infrastructure, and incentives, AI risks accelerating hallucination and eroding trust rather than advancing trustworthy science, argue Barend Mons, Arie Baak, and Koen Jonkers.

In a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, scientific institutions must proactively reform their internal incentives and self-governance to protect research integrity and ensure knowledge remains a trusted global public good. Passive compliance with external pressures will no longer suffice if science is to survive as a credible, universally accessible enterprise, argues Sir Peter Gluckman.

Science diplomacy has evolved from idealistic collaboration into a pragmatic tool for navigating global tensions, shaping policy, and strengthening international cooperation. As science, diplomacy, and governance become increasingly interconnected, trust, openness, and strategic engagement are becoming essential to solving shared global challenges.

Science for Policy 3.0: AI is transforming how governments use evidence—but efficiency gains may come at a hidden cost. As AI takes over policy workflows, the real challenge is protecting human judgment, expertise, and institutional capacity before they quietly disappear.

Held under Chatham House rules, the discussion brought together leaders across research, policy, industry, and media to examine how trust is shaped by transparency, governance, and communication practices. Participants emphasized that in an increasingly complex and fragmented information landscape, strengthening trust requires more than scientific excellence. It depends on aligning incentives, improving access to reliable evidence, and building systems that connect knowledge to action across sectors and societies.

This article examines how science advisors in Asia work within diverse political systems. The authors show how advisors deliver scientific evidence while keeping their work accurate and reliable. By comparing state-led development in China and Vietnam with active democracies in India and Indonesia, the text highlights the difficulty of staying neutral. It reviews the trade-offs of inside advisory groups versus independent, arm’s-length systems. Finally, the authors share practical steps to keep science advice stable during government changes, using regional examples like the Fukushima wastewater release.

In this commentary, Guillermo Anlló, Chair of INGSA-Latin America and the Caribbean, argues that shifting political cycles, drastic budget cuts, and the discontinuation of long-term programs are quietly dismantling Latin American science. He warns that losing local research capacity creates global blind spots in climate, biodiversity, and disease tracking, fuels brain drain, and erodes democratic resilience. Anlló calls for regional trust funds, coordinated science diplomacy, and initiatives like INKA to safeguard science as a transnational public good.

Science is driving unprecedented advances in health, technology, and society—yet science advice is facing growing scrutiny and political tension. This piece examines the deeper forces behind this apparent paradox.

A reflection on the institutional, political, and conceptual lessons from the NHS COVID-19 contact tracing app, examining how science advice operates under uncertainty, digital dependency, and crisis conditions.

A first-hand account of the development of the NHS COVID-19 contact tracing app, examining how scientific advice operates under institutional pressure, technical uncertainty, and political scrutiny during a public health crisis.

Ethics advice helps policymakers understand the societal impacts and value trade-offs behind scientific decisions. Strengthening ethics expertise within the science-for-policy ecosystem can lead to more transparent, inclusive, and trustworthy policymaking—especially in times of uncertainty and rapid technological change.

Science and science advice: a defining moment? explores the evolving role of science and scientists in policymaking amid societal complexity, polarization, and uncertainty. It highlights challenges in trust between society, governments, and research institutions, and considers how science advice can remain effective, inclusive, and evidence-based. The article emphasizes collective intelligence, the role of honest brokers, and the importance of iterative, context-sensitive approaches to navigating complex policy landscapes.

Strengthening the International Ecosystem for Scientific Advice examines the growing global and European efforts to build more coordinated, resilient, and inclusive science-for-policy systems. Drawing on recent initiatives by INGSA, the European Commission, and national advisory communities, the article outlines the opportunities and challenges of linking diverse advisory structures, reducing fragmentation, and enhancing institutional capacity for evidence-informed policymaking. It highlights the importance of connectivity, mutual learning, and principled approaches to scientific advice—especially in a period marked by geopolitical uncertainty, technological transformation, and complex societal challenges.

Science advice in challenging settings is an increasingly relevant issue and there is value in ‘slow conversation’ to explore the challenges and co-create paths forward. This series aims to address some of the recent challenges that emerged in conversations that have taken place through the INGSA Europe community. We invite contributions to this ‘slow conversation’ to explore more deeply how science advice can be effective today and lay evidence based foundations for the future that is being created.

The European Union has embarked on a comprehensive process to phase out animal testing for chemical safety, engaging stakeholders across numerous consultations and workshops, though final implementation remains years away. In contrast, the United States Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a clear and ambitious roadmap to rapidly reduce animal testing, centered on validated New Approach Methodologies such as organ-on-chip and advanced computational models. These regulatory developments underscore a global shift toward innovative, human-relevant safety testing methods and signal important changes for pharmaceutical regulation worldwide.

As the recent repeated climate-related tragedies in several countries (…) demonstrate, we are now observing what was predicted many years ago on the basis of scientific models. As William Ripple and colleagues have stressed, (…)  “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperilled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis.

We live in a time of significant global challenges. The term polycrisis has emerged as we face wide-reaching and impactful issues such as the climate, war and conflict, and health.  To address these challenges, we will need political will, global collaboration, inter- multi- and transdisciplinary approaches, systems thinking and scientific breakthroughs at scale.  Science and scientists have an important role to play as societies tackle these challenges and lay foundations for actions that will direct the course of the future.   It is possible to argue that science that engages effectively with society will depend on the sharing, uptake and accessibility of scientific knowledge and insight, but also on the way that science is designed and co-designed in ways that reflect excellence and the aspirations and expectations of societies. 

In the 21st Century, as humanity and the Earth face crises of survival and sustainability, we must fundamentally rethink the values that science and technology aspire to, their social roles and methods, and the norms of scientists. This rethinking will likely lead to significant changes in the 200-year history of modern science, which has been institutionalized since the early 19th Century. 

Modern society is one of fragmented logics. Business, finance, government, academia, all apply different logics in their operations. All of them make sense within their limited bubbles, all together create the conditions for self-extinction.  

Science is perceived by many as the activity allowing us to make sense of the rest, by unveiling the mysteries of how nature works and enabling human inventions changing, supposedly for good, our relationship to other humans, to nature, and to time. But science itself is a bubble operating with a partial logic. I am talking here of what makes scientists do what they do, investigate certain topics (and not others), and take decisions for their professional careers. Hyper-specialisation has become a useful tool to keep the dynamic of publication-grant-publication running, and that is what defines a good scientific career. Are we sure this logic is enough to serve societal purposes in the 21st century?