Strategy, advocacy and neutrality: reflections on the realities of Science Advice in Asia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.32605203

Published on June 8th, 2026

As science advisors leading INGSA’s Asia Chapter we see how, while all regions face similar basic challenges, different aspects dominate in different contexts. We also see emerging strategic responses across formal and informal advisory systems that acknowledge the realities of political agendas, while always preserving the integrity of the evidence.

Strategic practices in different political contexts

Across the region the aspiration of “neutrality” in science advice is challenged in two very different ways. In countries like China and Vietnam, the conduct of science is often closely aligned with state-led development agendas, constraining the realities and perceptions of scientific “neutrality” both internally and externally. By contrast, in democracies such as India or Indonesia, it is more likely that scientists may, by necessity or choice, be drawn into public debates in circumstances which also make it impossible for their advice to be or to be perceived as “neutral” by everyone. In such cases and in highly politicised contexts at every level from local to global sometimes there is simply no “neutral” option because the advice - whatever source is providing the evidence - may be perceived as in implicit alignment with the contextually dominant power structures. Therefore for individual science advisors there may need to be personal choices about when and how far deliberately to choose to behave as an issue advocate and to acknowledge personal values or policy preferences, provided that does not ever involve misrepresenting the evidence.

Across the region, advisory systems themselves also range from highly embedded to arm’s length and plural. Advisory models embedded in public governance structures, as in Japan, Singapore or China, may have higher influence but are often aligned with national strategy.  In embedded contexts, the questions of proximity and alignment are not only about the overall national agenda and political aims, but about the conflicts which universally occur (often not visible publicly) between government departments with their own different aims.

Advisory models which rely on arms-length advisory institutions such as those emerging in India and Indonesia, have greater freedoms both in what to address and what to say, but less consistent uptake by governments.

Mitigating strategies - distributed models of science advice

Ideal national systems might have dual positioning or plural sources. Some parts of the system would have proximity to power in order for the scientific evidence to be directly influential, and others would be independent so that their evidence was more credible with those not aligned with government agendas. In addition, and as an important part of the strategic context for advisors, national science advice can also draw from multi-national and global institutions and political settings. For members of INGSA-Asia, these might include APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), as well as INGSA itself.  A positive example of how highly sensitive national decision-making and public opinion can be informed by considering science advice across borders, concerns the decision by Japan to discharge treated, diluted radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean in 2023. The International Atomic Energy Authority had already provided evidence which supported the move. But, with Japan, China and Korea all potentially affected and with strong economic and political pressures on all sides, it was helpful for decision-makers strategically to be able to draw on Malaysian science advisors to provide additional credible evidence in order to reach agreement on the risk assessments.

For the more embedded advisory structures, changes in political leadership threaten to diminish continuity in knowledge, relationships and advice and to increase the politicisation of appointments. A partially mitigating response is institutionalisation, such as in permanent academies and statutory councils. For example, South Korea’s strong institutional advisory systems help maintain continuity across administrations. Malaysia's experience of a single point Chief Scientific Advisor system was that this was vulnerable to politicisation during government changes and a move to a council-based advisory structure helped continuity.

Copyright: © 2026 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.