Strengthening the International Ecosystem for Scientific Advice
Prof. David Budtz Pedersen
Aalborg University, DK
Research Fellow Queen Mary’s Centre for Practice and Policy, University of Copenhagen
Member of INGSA-Europe Advisory Board
Published on November 24th, 2025
The International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) is a global platform that helps bridge the gap between science and public policy. Since its founding in 2014, it has supported the development of effective, ethical, and inclusive science advice systems around the world — through training, dialogue, and knowledge sharing among scientists, policymakers, and intermediaries [1].
With the launch of INGSA Europe, the network now turns its attention to strengthening the European science-for-policy landscape. Europe is already home to a rich and diverse ecosystem of advisory bodies, academies, government agencies, and expert networks. INGSA Europe aims to act as a connective tissue, fostering collaboration, mutual learning, and coherence across national borders and institutional silos. For discussion about the current and future challenges being faced by those working in science advice across Europe, please see the companion blog "Science Advice in Challenging Settings" also being published today.
By linking up existing efforts, INGSA works to amplify promising practices, support emerging advisory structures, and encourage a more coordinated and resilient science advice system — one that is better equipped to respond to today’s complex societal challenges. A particular strength of the INGSA family of regional chapters is their ability to convene stakeholders and practitioners active at the science-policy interface. With its convening power and objective to include a diverse range of experts and officials, INGSA has a unique role to play in informing the next generation of scientific advisors and building capacity and training programs across the international ecosystem.
With the recent inauguration of its European chapter, spearheaded by Claire Craig at Oxford University, the network turns its focus to the unique challenges and opportunities within the European science-for-policy landscape. The new chapter aims to strengthen connections across countries and institutions and promote responsibility and integrity in the ways advice mechanisms operate.
In doing so, INGSA is not alone. In recent years, several initiatives have been launched to map and strengthen the national and international ecosystems of scientific advice. In 2022, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) launched a series of thematic workshops focused on mapping and strengthening national infrastructures for evidence-informed policymaking and to engage with scientists, experts, knowledge brokers, science advisers, policymakers, and other practitioners across the European landscape [2].
In contrary to single-mechanism advisory bodies, a national ecosystem of science-for-policy consists of an interlinked set of institutions, structures, and functions that interact at different levels of governance to provide scientific evidence. The JRC workshops sought to showcase the national composition, covering countries such as France, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Belgium, Spain, Estonia and Denmark, but also describe cross-national similarities of advisory ecosystems connecting science with policy. The dialogue demonstrated how the European Union (EU) and its Member States use a wide variety of structures and instruments to provide evidence and advice to policymakers, connected through a complex set of institutions.
To mention a few, the process facilitated by the European Commission featured examples of complementary and cross-cutting roles, such as Chief Scientific Advisers, scientific councils, departmental science advisers, government planning and analysis units, applied research units, parliamentary offices of science and technology, public research institutes, universities, national academies, foresight units, think thanks, regional science-for-policy mechanisms, and other knowledge brokering mechanisms and bodies.
However, the mapping exercise also demonstrated the risk of fragmentation. In a diverse and uncoordinated ecosystem, weak links can slow down the translation, impact, and quality of evidence in policymaking. This immediately raises the question of strengthening and mapping the connective tissue and interplay between institutions rather than merely focusing on the performance of individual advisory bodies [3]. To review and strengthen the institutional capacity of the ecosystem, new approaches are needed to cultivate collaboration, connectivity, and joint learning in addition to strengthening the quality, rigor and integrity of the advice provided [4].
These findings prompted the European Commission to launch a Technical Support Instrument (TSI) program targeted for ‘Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policymaking in Governance and Public Administration in a Post-Pandemic Europe’. The project was facilitated in collaboration with OECD and concluded in March 2025 after involving an impressive number of representatives from seven EU countries and their respective evidence ecosystems: Greece, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands [5].
In a parallel exercise, an expert group of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Structural Reform Support piloted a set of indicators for measuring the institutional capacity for evidence uptake. This project resulted in two publications [6, 7] that show how policymaking is an iterative process involving several different inputs across ministries, planning units, parliamentarian bodies, external advisers and interest groups. Adopting evidence in policy is not a question of transferring knowledge from “A” to “B” but is a result of continuous learning and interaction, posing the right questions, identifying uncertainties, and forecasting scenarios and outcomes [8, 9].
As an integrated part of this process, the JRC together with a group of external experts developed a guidebook for establishing An Evaluation Framework for Institutional Capacity of Science-for-Policy Ecosystems in EU Member States (2023). In the guidebook, different indicators are introduced to assess the cohesion and integration of national ecosystems of science for policy in addition to a checklist of foundational principles that ensures the integrity of scientific advice, expressed by independence, transparency, responsibility, accountability, and respect for diversity [3]. With the advent of artificial intelligence and the increasing use of digital tools in science for policy, these principles are ever more pertinent [10].
This body of work forms part of a broader effort in Europe to galvanize efforts to strengthen regional, national and transnational ecosystems of science for policy. In addition to Commission-led initiatives within JRC and the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), European academies have been active in creating the SAPEA consortium, and the European Science Advisors Forum (ESAF) has seen an overhaul and renewal of its mandate.
Within this broader context of initiates and programs, INGSA is well-placed to add connective tissue and promote peer-learning and capacity-building. Learning from other countries, regions, instruments and disciplines is particularly important moving forward. While scientific advisory systems are highly dependent on the local politico-administrative culture in which they operate, science advice professionals and practitioners stand to gain a lot from international networking and mutual learning. Especially, in the current moment of geopolitical unrest, non-state actors and networks play an important role in safeguarding science diplomacy and promoting transnational calls for evidence-informed policymaking. Since its inception, INGSA has attracted 5000 members from 130 countries, making it a truly international science organization. The inauguration of the European chapter presents a real opportunity for deepening collaboration and joint learning.
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.
References
[1] The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of INGSA.
[2] https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/strengthening-connecting-science-policy-ecosystems-across-eu_en
[3] https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/blog/rethinking-evaluation-complex-ecosystems-science-policy_en
[4] Pedersen, D.B. (2023). An evaluation framework for institutional capacity of science-for-policy ecosystems in EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union.
[5] https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/news/tsi-capacity-building-eipm-project-reports_en
[6] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b673ed06-751f-11ed-9887-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
[7] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/609854ef-3200-11f0-8a44-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
[8] European Commission (2022). Staff Working Document - Supporting and connecting policymaking in the Member States with scientific research. Publications Office of the European Union.
[9] Pedersen, D. B., 2024, Mapping and Strengthening Ecosystems of Science for Policy. In: The Transformation Imperative: Expanded Evidence for Inclusive Policies in Diverse Contexts. International Network for Governmental Science Advice, s. 41-42.
[10] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02999-3
