As private firms now dominate R&D in most OECD economies, Wagner, Soete, and Mathew argue this isn’t just a funding shift — it’s rewiring how scientific knowledge is disclosed, shared, and governed, with corporate secrecy replacing open publication in the very sectors (like AI) that matter most. They call for international policy action to protect the knowledge commons before the system’s asymmetries harden into place.

As populism, AI, and political transactionalism reshape how governments use expertise, Sir Peter Gluckman argues that science advice must evolve from slow, analogue evidence synthesis to fast, AI-assisted brokerage — with human experts still essential to frame questions, curate outputs, and keep policy makers honest about what science does and doesn’t know.

Dr Michael S. Ringel, Life Biosciences, USA; Dr Carolyn B. Ringel, Harvard Medical School, USA — Biomarkers of aging can inform drug trials and clinical decisions as supportive evidence while formal validation continues. 

Legal infrastructure, not just science, decides whether precision biomedicine reaches patients. This piece argues data governance must be built into the system from the start — open where safe, controlled where necessary, accountable throughout the full data-to-model lifecycle.

When AI pre-digests contested evidence before advisers see it, errors can compress in and disagreement can compress out. Laura V. Zimmermann argues that a flawless-looking AI briefing on labour trafficking still buried a data error and hid real scientific dispute — and asks what advisers and institutions must do as fewer, shared models increasingly shape what counts as evidence.

Dr Ricardo Baptista Leite, HealthAI – The Global Agency for Responsible AI in Health, Switzerland — Health systems must be redesigned around prevention before advances in medical AI can reduce disease burden and narrow inequities in care.

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.

Lanthanide probes and associated AI should be assessed together within a unified international framework, argue Profs Pingkun Yan and Ge Wang, involved in IEEE projects related to medical imaging, and Prof Mannudeep K. Kalra, radiologist.

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.

The glucose ketone index (GKI) and other evidence-based biomarkers have an important role in personalized nutrition care in the management of chronic diseases. However, realizing their potential requires policy changes to ensure equitable access to personalized nutrition care via competency-based education and licensure and reimbursement reform—argue Corinne Bush and Amy Smith of the American Nutrition Association. 

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.

Prof Rita Carsetti, International Union of Immunological Societies, Germany, and Prof Michael Schmueck-Henneresse, University Health Network, Canada — Bringing tolerance-restoring Treg therapies to patients worldwide requires regulation, manufacturing, and reimbursement to evolve alongside the science.

As artificial intelligence and robotics reshape surgical practice, policy and regulatory frameworks must keep pace to address issues such as accountability, safety, and equity, argue members of TROGSS (The Robotic Global Surgical Society) Michail Koutentakis, Nicolas Zucchini, Christian Macias, Aman Goyal, Abhirami Babu, Adel Abou-Mrad, Adolfo Perez-Bonet, and Rodolfo J. Oviedo.

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.

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.