This commentary breaks down the institutional inertia and siloed governance currently blocking cross-sector action on planetary health. The authors propose an "Open One Health Data" framework to bridge the gap between global science and national policymaking.

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.

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 today is simultaneously expanding at an unprecedented global scale and facing a growing set of interconnected challenges. This article examines the health of contemporary science in a world of poly-crisis — from internal incentive distortions and declining trust, to geopolitical pressures, access barriers, and the transformative impact of AI — and argues why strengthening science’s robustness and authority is essential to navigating global turmoil.

Barbara Koremenos argues that international scientific collaboration can build trust and help solve global problems, even amid geopolitical rivalry. Using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) as a case, she makes the ethical and strategic case for transparent, government-backed research—distinct from deployment—and points to the Antarctic Treaty system (and bodies like SCAR) as a model for credible, science-led governance. She stresses that inclusive participation, especially from the Global South, and clear communication are key to closing today’s trust gaps.

This article traces today’s tension around the post‑WWII “social contract” for publicly funded basic research (shaped by Vannevar Bush’s Science: The Endless Frontier). It argues the contract is straining as governments demand faster, more visible returns, even though long-run payoffs (like mRNA vaccines) show why basic research matters. It proposes updating the model through broader collaboration, clear outcome goals, and continued support for curiosity-driven research as essential, not optional.

Ruth M. Morgan argues that trust between science and society depends on sustained, open dialogue. She highlights that knowledge is disruptive and uncertain, and that progress starts with asking better questions—especially in an era of misinformation.

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.

Five years after its launch in November 2020, the Frontiers Policy Labs has grown into a global initiative connecting thousands of readers and contributors worldwide. Born out of the COVID-19 crisis, the Labs explore how open science can inform policymaking, addressing challenges from pandemic responses to sustainability, AI, and biotechnology. Guided by the principle of rethinking the world with science, the Labs aim to develop evidence-based policies for a rapidly changing world, where old frameworks no longer suffice. Looking ahead, priorities include ensuring a healthy planet, responsibly guiding AI and biotechnology, and addressing global security. To support this mission, the new Science House initiative will bring together leaders from science, policy, and industry at the 2026 World Economic Forum. As JCB notes, “Our first five years were just the beginning… we still have a long way to go.”

“No Place to Hide: Science Is the Foundation of Policy” calls for urgent, science-driven climate action. With global temperatures already surpassing 1.5°C, the EU places science at the heart of its Green Deal, climate law, and upcoming 2040 framework. The message is clear: climate policy is not just about nature—it is about security, resilience, and economic survival. Science provides the evidence, innovation, and solutions we need, but action requires breaking silos, effective communication, and shared responsibility across all sectors. The EU’s upcoming climate adaptation plan and investment in resilience show the path forward. The research community is central to this mission, and their work fuels the hope of a safer, stronger, and more sustainable future. There is no time to wait—together, we must act now.

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.

In a context of tensions and conflict globally and locally, we are seeing polarisation and isolation in our societies, and growing evidence that trust is being eroded. This tension is clear within the science community (in its broadest definition), and between science and society. (…)