Science and science advice: a defining moment?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.30675953

Published on November 24th, 2025

Science advice is operating in challenging times. In many ways it was ever thus, yet there are signals that indicate the challenges are evolving and doing so at pace. The challenges we face as a society have never been more interconnected, rapidly developing, urgent and impactful.  Challenges are increasingly multifaceted, and the pace of change creates the potential for wide reaching unintended consequences that shape the future in deep and profound ways. Polarisation is evident, and certainty is sought (and uncertainty eschewed) in contexts where there is increasingly less likely to be a single answer.  As such, the importance of considering how science advice can best serve policy and our societies is timely and urgent. 

Trust in science has been a topic of broad discussion for many years and it continues to fuel lively debate. When it comes to the matter of trust in this context of science advice in challenging times, there are two important considerations. There is the broad issue of the trust society has in science (where the trust that civil society and government has in science is in focus), and there is also the consideration of the trust that society has in scientists (which encompasses both the trust government has in its research institutions, as well as the trust universities and research institutions have in their researchers).

Attention to the trust that society has in science is reasonably well-worn territory, yet it is possible to argue that we may be witnessing a(nother) transition in this relationship. In the wake of the second world war in Europe and North America science was considered to be an important endeavour that could provide answers to societal problems and create new beneficial opportunities (and this posture led to the first articulation of a social contract for science where there was a commitment to enabling scientists to undertake research with the confidence that the outcomes of that research would bring benefits to society, like getting humans to the moon).  In the 1980s and 1990s there was a shift in this relationship.  As the benefits of science became visible, so too did the impact of science that revealed complications and challenges (such as the impact of fertilizers on soil, the impact of pesticides in the environment).  The complexity of systems became more apparent, and the narrative moved from science having the answers (often the answers to the problems created by science endeavours) and became one of science having some of the answers, and being a contributor along with other forms of insight and knowledge to establish answers to key questions (such as climate change driven by the industrial revolution).  Today we are in a time when science is no longer the answer, or even necessarily part of the answer. It is arguably now possible to make decisions and solve challenges through policy without reference to science or in direct opposition to science insights that are available (such as the challenges witnessed in Europe with strong division between member states on GMOs on the recommendations made by European Food Safety Association).

When it comes to the issue of trust in scientists, it is also possible to observe changes in the relationship between governments and research institutions, and research institutions and their scientists. Trust is not simply a general quality, considering for what purpose trust is placed is critical. While scientists remain considered to be one of the most trustworthy professionals by the public, public opinion is split on whether scientists should be involved in policy decision making with 48% of US adults saying scientists should stay out of policy decision making. In this context within research institutions it is possible to observe a trend of narrowing in focus of disciplines, a reduction of opportunities for researchers and academics to develop a broad range of diverse skills across research, teaching, enterprise and innovation, and in a growing number of cases, a reduction in academic freedom. As such, alongside the instances where trust is being eroded between society and science, it is possible to observe indications that there is also a trend of a loss of trust from institutions in their scientists.

Science advice in challenging settings is therefore highly relevant and pertinent, and the value of ‘slow conversation’ is increasingly clear.  In the conversations at the INGSA Europe meeting, a number of questions emerged that we present here as provocations to 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:

• Do we need to consider the value of collective intelligence rather than solely the single perspectives of eminent individuals?

• Do we need to consider how we frame risk and opportunity, certainty and uncertainty, and explore more openly the distinction between accountability (of science and scientists to offer insight that is robust and evidence based) and responsibility (of policy makers and politicians who have to make decisions on the basis of the advice they receive)?

• How can scientists be ‘honest brokers’ in challenging contexts where trust in science and scientists is in transition?

• Is there a need to look at how we can achieve ways to present collective intelligence as a science community?  The need for both the hedgehog that knows one big thing, and the fox that knows many things.

• How can we foster a collective science community that embodies diversity of thinking, mentoring of ECRs, porosity across different types of knowledge?

• Can independence be a real goal? Knowledge is connected and in complex global challenges increasingly so, so is the claim of science insight offering an independent insight feasible?

• Can we reframe uncertainty as a core attribute of science and its contribution to thriving societies?

• How can we address language, culture and context in the messiness of human and physical environments, upholding the iterative nature of science, and the urgent policy needs of today and tomorrow?

Copyright: © 2025 [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.