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. (…) Despite six IPCC reports, 28 COP meetings, hundreds of other reports, and tens of thousands of scientific papers, the world has made only very minor headway on climate change, in part because of stiff resistance from those benefiting financially from the current fossil-fuel based system” (1). Others have introduced the term of “polycrisis” to describe the occurrence and interaction of multiple threats to the planet (2). Though the effects of climate change are now easily visible, we may be underestimating other key aspects of the polycrisis. Primary prevention has failed for climate change so far, and might fail also for other components of the planetary boundaries. Here I will particularly focus on the impacts of biodiversity loss on health.  

We now live in a world that is struggling to evolve, especially with nations repeating the mistakes of the 20th century that led to two world wars, fomented by nationalism with industrial capacities and advanced technologies.  The complication with planetary-scale considerations on Earth – epitomized by climate and 8 billion humans –  is nations will always first and foremost look after their national interests, which is the biggest risk for the survival of humankind.

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 what may be termed a Post-Covid Ongoing Stress Era (POSE), the appeal to reason and scientific knowledge, as we’ve understood these, seems all but cancelled.   

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 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. 

“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. 

Making sense of science today requires not only a grasp of fundamental principles but also the ability to critically navigate uncertainty and complexity. Today’s challenges introduces significant diversity across key dimensions of human existence, including history, culture, politics, societies and economics. Furthermore, there is considerable diversity among scientific sub-communities regarding how we know what we know and how to design actionable solutions. The social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and medical fields are acculturated into science in widely varying ways, often complicating communication and collaboration. Yet, most challenges we face inherently require collaboration. 

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. 

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.  

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 recent years, UNESCO has played a leadership role in promoting open science. The 2021 Declaration on Global Open Access to scientific publications is a prime example of this commitment. UNESCO has championed the notion of immediate and cost-free access to scientific literature, often referred to as the ‘Diamond model’, where neither the authors nor the readers bear any costs. The Diamond model is one among many with other examples of open access being developed in various parts of the world. Several nations and organizations have adopted open access policies using a diversity of models. Quebec’s Research Fund (FRQ) signed the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and actively supports Coalition S, advocating for free access to scientific publications in all languages independent of the open access model. While these efforts are laudable, they remain insufficient. We must move to the next phase: measuring compliance and understanding the impact of open access initiatives. Open access is still not secured and policy support to all and any open access model still needs to be implemented by many governments, funders, and institutions that still allow the use of public funds to pay for closed and paywalled science.

The human rights case can be made for Open Science – this has been made clear by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 25 on science and economic, social, and cultural rights. In this this much-awaited interpretation of the so-called right to science under Art. 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Committee made clear that Open Science forms part of the right to science in the digital era. Released during the Covid-19 pandemic, the timing could not have been better, for the pandemic not only illustrated in unprecedented ways the importance of science in today’s world, but also the advantages of open research practices in speeding up scientific discovery. Yet, does this legal development mean that access to scientific data and content can now be enforced before courts via the right to science? A closer look reveals that important hurdles in claiming Open Science via the right to science remain. In this short contribution, our aim is to highlight some selected challenges of implementing and adjudicating open research practices via the right to science.  

Sandrine Dixson-Declève rightly denounces the slowness of the pace of work and the deliberations of the COP process in face of the climate crisis. She also says, again rightly so, that the science of climate change is clear, hence the sluggishness of the decision-making process on climate change appears particularly striking. I am paraphrasing Dixson-Declève’s piece, but I think I have it right: we need to act yesterday, we know enough and the current process is not fit for the outcomes we need. If my reading of her piece is correct, I fully endorse her plea for a decision-making process that does justice to the urgent and determined action we must take: reversing the course of adverse changes in our life-supporting climate system.

The International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) was formed in 2014 under the sponsorship of the International Council of Science’s (ICSU, now the International Science Council (ISC)). Over 220 practitioners and academics at the science-policy interface from more than 40 countries, both developing and developed, attended an inaugural meeting in Auckland. The discussion focused on identifying the issues that challenged the provision of effective science advice to governments, a process which was very patchy across the globe. Ten years later, INGSA held its fifth global conference in Kigali, Rwanda.

Are the climate talks and COP (Conference of Parties) processes failing humanity? Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Co-president of The Club of Rome, recently warned that we are both failing on the Paris Agreement and to deliver action at the speed and scale necessary to avert the worst effects of global warming. She urges the United Nations to shift gears and radically transform the COP process, to ensure a safe and just future for humanity. If we’re going to avoid failure on climate, then safeguarding the global commons must be a focus.

Animal testing has long been a controversial issue in the European Union (EU), with growing public concern over the ethical and scientific limitations of relying on animal models for chemical safety assessments. Despite being seen as a “gold standard” in research and safety assessment, animal studies have limited applicability to human health, and are difficult to replicate due to poor reporting procedures and large variability.

Despite COP's mission to prevent dangerous climate change and keep global warming below 2°C, there is a stark gap between its goals and the inertia it reinforces among member states. We are failing on the Paris Agreement and delivering climate action too slowly to avert the worst impacts of global warming. The United Nations must shift gears to focus all efforts on meeting global goals by 2050, which requires a rapid and radical transformation of the COP process to ensure a safe climate future for humanity.

Even as enthusiasm grows over the potential of artificial intelligence (AI), concerns have arisen in equal measure about a possible domination of the field by Big Tech. Such an outcome would replicate many of the mistakes of preceding decades, when a handful of companies accumulated unprecedented market power and often acted as de facto regulators in the global digital ecosystem.

Throughout the second half of the 20th century academic freedom has developed in many societies into a widely acknowledged and legally protected fundamental value of academia. This coincided with the recognition of academic freedom as a prerequisite for well-functioning open and democratic societies that adhere to the rule of law. An important condition for this role of academic freedom to be realized is that academics use it to acquire, generate and apply knowledge in ways that are essential for their societies.