This commentary expands on Kurt Vandenberghe’s call for science-based climate policy by stressing that the climate crisis is, at its core, a global energy crisis with cascading impacts on health, biodiversity, equity, and security. It critiques oversimplified narratives like single temperature thresholds, arguing instead for a focus on replenishing natural capital and addressing interconnected human-driven crises. While past global challenges, such as ozone depletion, had clear scientific, technological, and political solutions, climate change requires a far more complex, transdisciplinary, and bottom-up approach. The article emphasizes that citizens—not just policymakers—must be empowered to shape resilient futures, and that science must move beyond diagnosis to help deliver actionable, collaborative solutions aligned with human well-being and planetary resilience.

“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.

A holistic, microbiome-informed approach to agrifood systems and childhood nutrition policies—rooted in global collaboration, evidence-building, and equitable innovation—can drive sustainable solutions to undernutrition and improve children’s health worldwide.

Dr. Abdelbagi M. Ismail explores how scientific innovations, strategic partnerships, and policy reforms, led by organizations like the International Rice Research Institute, are crucial for achieving sustainable food security in Africa and globally amid mounting environmental and population pressures.

Disruptive approaches such as NANOSPRESSO could help provide equitable access to advanced therapies for patients with rare diseases worldwide, as called for by the recent World Health Assembly Resolution on Rare Diseases, highlight Alexandra Heumber Perry and Debra Bellon.

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.

Realistic opportunities to extend the human healthspan and ease the societal burden of aging-related diseases are emerging, but require long-term funding for infrastructures that support large-scale data collection and systems-based aging research, advocate Prof. Renaud Jolivet and colleagues.

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. (…)

Global health policies must prioritize investments in sepsis R&D as a cornerstone of pandemic preparedness and response, urge Dr Mariam Jashi, Global Sepsis Alliance, Georgia, and Prof Niranjan Kissoon, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Academic freedom is a prerequisite for scientific advancement and innovation. It serves as the cornerstone of scientific inquiry, granting scholars the unfettered ability to explore, teach, and disseminate ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. More recently, academic freedom has faced mounting political, economic, and social pressures, bringing it back into the global spotlight. Safeguarding this freedom is essential for the continued pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of society. 

Participating last month at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, I had the pleasure of moderating  a discussion with some of the leading voices in climate science and innovation on a subject that couldn’t be more relevant given the setting and the stakes.

The topic of discussion was the underutilization of scientific knowledge in processes geared toward policy consensus and climate action. The question on the floor was: “[If] we possess so much scientific knowledge about the causes for the climate multi-crisis and about the solutions, why then does science not play a bigger role in breaking what seems like an endless cycle of deadlocked discussions?”

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?  

In the hyperbole about artificial intelligence, there have been claims about how AI, in the guise of large language models, can plausibly, confidently and succinctly summarise complex science, accompanied by warnings about its propensity for bias, factual inaccuracies and, most notoriously, to ‘hallucinate’ fake references. As was the case with the internet, this fabulous tool has to be used wisely if we are to get the most benefit. 

But there is a deeper problem with gazing at the world through an AI lens since, if anything, it can obscure the process of science.  

Today's fast-changing society is faced with a variety of complex large-scale societal challenges. Simultaneously, people are losing trust in both science and those studying and researching these challenges. Still, we need those scientists from all fields and backgrounds more than ever to work in inter- and multidisciplinary ways, solving these challenges and having their insights assist politicians and decision-makers. It is apparent that the scientific community has to foster trust in science. But how do we ensure that efforts to build trust in science are sustainable and that trust in science remains integrated in the community for the next decades to come? More than ever we need to engage across the generations and particularly the younger generations. 

In many developing countries, the role of science in policy-making and public life is often argued, undervalued, or sidelined in favour of more immediate, pragmatic approaches. Faced with urgent challenges such as poverty, health crises, food security, and geopolitical issues, governments and communities frequently rely on diverse knowledge systems and prioritise solutions that offer quick, tangible benefits. In these contexts, science is just one of many sources of knowledge, and it is often not the most trusted or influential in shaping policy decisions. As a result, the conventional approaches to promoting trust in science and science’s societal impact need to be rethought from a perspective that acknowledges local realities and values. 

“Making sense” of a particular domain at the level of an individual or a group of individuals is an act that results from a dynamic interaction between related stakeholders, influenced by their socio-economic and political environment. As such, there is room for subjective judgement and differing interpretations, as well as the potential for change over time.