The pandemic has made us aware of the importance of institutional action to protect individual and public health not only in times of crisis. More importantly, the need for preparedness in view of possible future health emergencies. Over the past two years, awareness of the importance of prevention in healthcare has grown. We have realised that health begins before the onset of a disease and presumes the ability to prevent (and predict) the effects of the ecological crisis on our lives..

War has often been used as a metaphor for health and disease, as in the “war on cancer”. However, to my knowledge, the prevention of poor health and premature death has never been used as a metaphor for prevention of war. In this short article, I propose that the principles behind public health models can be useful for preventing and “treating” war.

The Covid-19 crisis has raised many questions about other infectious diseases and ailments that still lack appropriate medical treatments. Many of these questions involve drug discovery and development, both in the private sector and in academic settings. It is common to see questions on social networks and blogs such as, “Is it possible to develop affordable new drugs quickly?”, “Why do so many new drugs seem to come from non-EU countries?” and “What lies ahead?”

Food and energy prices are rising, economies in Europe are stretched due to the lack, or potential future lack, of fuels (particularly gas), food (particularly wheat and animal feed), and fertilisers, along with other materials, such as the metals needed for energy transition or other transition-related needs.

War is an extremely polarizing phenomenon that divides nuances into black and white. As Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, the Western response was to shut Russia out of virtually all partnerships and areas of cooperation. It seemed a justified reaction to a country seeking to reintroduce war into Europe after decades of peace. But, as inexcusable as the actions of the Putin regime are, we risk being blind to the nuances of the situation as we respond. It is difficult to employ rationality in times of war, when emotion takes the driver’s seat, but it is nonetheless crucial to ask the following questions in assessing our response: Do these actions stifle the Kremlin’s war objectives? Do they help Ukraine? What is the impact on humanity at large?

Frontiers Policy Labs spoke with Wim Thiery, an associate professor at the University of Brussels, a climate scientist who uses computer models to project how climate extremes will evolve in the future. Dr. Thiery, who was named one of Europe’s “30 Under 30” by Forbes, is a contributing author on two past IPCC reports and his research is featured in the report on climate change impacts that recently came out.

The EU is revamping its interest to get all member states to increase their Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product(GDP) from the current average of 2.2% to 3%. The rational for this policy is based on the belief that European technology industries will lag behind those in other countries unless more innovation is generated. Investment (GERD) is seen as a limiting factor and should be corrected. But is the premise for this policy as simple as the equation; money + research= Innovation? I argue that research is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient in the mix required to have better economic outcomes.

There is a long history of government intervention in energy markets. For both political and economic reasons, countries have always subsidized the production of cheap and abundant fossil energy. Over the last hundred years, the availability of inexpensive fossil-fuel energy has been a hallmark of the growth of most countries—including both the industrial growth of the last century and the information-intensive growth of our current era.

If one million scientists (approximately 10% of the world’s active science population in public service) committed two hours per week to science engagement with and for society (about 5% of their working time), this would create approximately 100 million hours/year dedicated to achieving science that engages meaningfully with policy and global decision makers. Those hours could catalyse a global butterfly effect that could carry into the future.

The question underpinning data sharing should never be whether data should be made openly accessible. The problem of data access merely distracts from the real issue with data governance, which is who decides how data is used and under which conditions. This is the key question today for both democracy and research. Answering it requires significant collective action.

In the long term, the principle of solidarity in the accessibility of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and essential medical supplies should drive the global reform of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response protocols. The EU could play a leading role in this process, through the recently established European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).

Making Sure Open Science Stays Open: 10 Years of Advocating Open Science Policy by our Editor in Chief, Jean-Claude Burgelman

We asked 15 leading experts and advocates of the Open Science and Open Access movement to share their views on the significance of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science adopted in late 2021. Here are their responses and their own recommendations for how to achieve the objectives set by UNESCO.

The internet has made it possible to both collect information from individuals in an unprecedented way and to monetize that information. Information gleaned from web browsing, online purchases, emails, and social media posts comes to mind. This information is valuable because it enables vendors to better target likely purchasers, politicians to contact sympathetic voters, and so forth. The major shift of advertising dollars into web-based ads clearly illustrates the value of this information

The existing data economy undermines the foundations of open societies: meaningful democratic participation, productive collaboration, broad distribution of benefits, and fair competition. Instead, we see power centralized in a handful of players, wasted potential, and rampant economic exploitation. Consider, for example, huge networks like Facebook and Amazon that capture the information of billions of people and place it in the service of a few shareholders’ narrow interests—when the very same technologies could be harnessed to drive shared wealth and responsible progress. What to do?

Emphasizing that the goals presented in the Paris Agreement, COP25, Fit for 55, and the upcoming COP26 are extremely ambitious and require urgent action, Vineis expressed the view that mitigating climate change will require a balance between two broad strategies. The first strategy, a big focus of recent agendas, is essentially technological, based on implementing technologies like green hydrogen or nuclear power and, in general, quick shifts towards renewable energy. The second strategy is partially non-technological, harnessing the health-related ‘co-benefits’ of certain societal approaches to climate change mitigation.

The COVID-19 pandemic, according to Morgan, has demonstrated that science can successfully contribute to policymaking during a crisis. However, there are several challenges still to face if science is to become a standard part of public policy, “not just when there’s a crisis, but as a culture.” To assure a place for science “at the table, rather than on tap”, Morgan believes that a broad, interdisciplinary approach is required, bringing together individuals with a variety of tools and skillsets.

Time will tell, but today, one and a half years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “gloom-and-doom” predictions of world-wide recession, major disruptions in international trade, and rapidly rising unemployment appear to have been exaggerated. As the International Monetary Fund pointed out, the 2008/2009 financial crisis had a much more negative impact on the economy than either a “typical” recession or past “modern” pandemics.