Science-Based Policy Advisory Panels

The UN established an Independent Scientific Panel on AI. What should be its goals and structure? In Sep 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the Global Digital Compact, which mandated the creation of the Independent Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. 🔭 The Simon Institute for Longterm Governance’s recommendations for the Panel (PDF below) aim at balancing inclusivity, scientific rigor, and practical efficiency by creating three sub-parts. 1️⃣ National focal points: all Member States should be able to join the Panel, with one government-designated expert as a focal point. Non-Member States can also participate as Observers. 2️⃣ Scientific Steering Committee + Working Groups: the Committee would be a senior expert group providing oversight to the Panel’s scientific work. Experts would be nominated by Member States. The Working Groups, guided by the Committee, would perform the research and drafting. Simon Institute recommends WGs on Capabilities & Risks, Macroeconomics, SDGs, Foresight & Forecasting, and a Global AI Policy Observatory. 3️⃣ Secretariat: an administrative body to coordinate logistics, comms, and budgeting. Could be independently-financed or under the UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies. I like this approach because it ensures both inclusivity and scientific rigor are covered while separating these functions to dedicated groups that can accomplish them effectively. A common shortcoming of such panels is trying to accomplish everything with a single body, limiting the depth or speed of its scientific analysis or keeping it too closed or unrepresentative. 🏛️ Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute’s recommendations for the Panel (link in comments) follow similar principles of scientific assessment & independence, political legitimacy & inclusion, and policy relevance. They also recommend a Scientific Steering Committee and Working Groups, emphasizing the need for a WG on AI Safety. They look at analogous examples to identify design options, which highlight the shortcomings I mentioned above: 1️⃣ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: widely recognized, inclusive, independent, and rigorous, but very slow. Assessments take 5-7 years. 2️⃣ EU’s Scientific Advice Mechanism: covers a broad range of scientific topics but only on questions asked by the EU Commission, maximizing policy relevance. To cover those many topics, it works with a distributed scientific network. 3️⃣ International AI Safety Report: with a multidisciplinary group of experts, it put together a rigorous, comprehensive report in ~1 year. Challenge is ensuring broad representation (it had experts from various countries but was commissioned exclusively by the UK government). The UN Scientific Panel on AI is an excellent opportunity for international cooperation on AI – I hope it takes into account the recommendations above.

🌍 Bridging Science and Policy: A Vital Endeavour 🌍 Over the past two years, as Chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on Science and Technology I've led the development of a toolbox to aid parliamentarians in leveraging science and technology. Yet, a significant challenge persists: many parliamentarians are unsure who to ask or what to ask regarding scientific advice. Speaking at Geoscience 2024 in Dublin Castle I have pointed out that engaging the public is a fundamental duty for scientists, especially with publicly funded research. Communicating the societal benefits of scientific advancements is essential. Historically, the relationship between science and policymakers has been reactive, waiting for questions rather than proactively offering solutions. This approach is too slow for urgent issues. Building trust in science means translating complex concepts into accessible language. This task is increasingly challenging in our fast-paced world. Many have failed to realise that the policy formulation process in Ireland has evolved, with the Parliament gaining more power through mechanisms like Pre-Legislative Scrutiny and the Lisbon Treaty, which facilitates the input of external evidence. The Houses of the Oireachtas Library & Research Service is another valuable avenue for feeding evidence into the policy process. To identify the areas of science needed by policymakers, the knowledge community should consider the Programme for Government, the legislative programme, as well as party manifestos. The European Commission and foresight tools like GESDA - Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator are also valuable indicators as to what is likely to be on the political agenda over the term of the next Government. The IPU toolbox as recommends that at the start of the parliamentary cycle, parliament could identify and publish a short statement on Areas of Research Interest (ARIs). ARIs would highlight specific policy areas where research evidence is sought. Parliaments should also encourage the Government to cite more research evidence in policy papers and facilitate open consultations. Read more about my contribution here: https://lnkd.in/eKPd5SKS Geoscience Ireland Geological Survey Ireland

🔍 Bridging the Science–Policy Divide in Europe From June 2024 to Feb 2025, 15 EU & associated countries participated in a Mutual Learning Exercise to explore how science can better inform policymaking. The final report highlights key insights and 8 actionable recommendations for more effective Science-for-Policy (S4P) ecosystems. 📌 Key Takeaways: Move beyond linear knowledge transfer—embrace S4P 2.0: collaborative, trust-based, anticipatory, and inclusive. Recognize science as part of a dynamic learning ecosystem, not a one-way advice pipeline. Embed foresight and public engagement in policymaking. Realign incentives to value policy-relevant research. 🔧 Top Recommendations: 1. Govern S4P at the ecosystem level 2. Institutionalize collaboration & public engagement 3. Integrate foresight into policy processes 4. Reward policy engagement & redefine success metrics 5. Build S4P capacity across stakeholders 6. Increase transparency & trust 7. Ensure scientific integrity & quality control 8. Evaluate ecosystems—not just individual inputs #SciencePolicy #S4P #ResearchAndInnovation #EvidenceInformedPolicy #PublicEngagement #HorizonEurope #Foresight #TrustInScience #EUResearch

By now it should be no surprise to anyone that workers and programs that are part of the U.S. Federal Government are being eliminated arbitrarily. There is no business case to be made for eliminating most of the programs that have been cut out. The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) that have both been eliminated are relatively low-cost advisory bodies that provide significant benefits to public health and food safety. Here are some relevant points to consider: 1. Both committees operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures transparency and cost-efficiency. Members often serve as non-compensated special government employees, minimizing direct costs. (A) NACMCF provides scientific advice on microbiological criteria, helping prevent foodborne illnesses caused by pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. These illnesses cost the U.S. economy billions annually in healthcare expenses and lost productivity.   (B) NACMPI ensures the safety of meat and poultry products, which are critical components of the American diet. Its recommendations help reduce contamination risks and improve inspection protocols. 2. Preventing foodborne illness outbreaks directly contributes to direct cost savings to businesses, cost of recalls, costs from legal liabilities, and healthcare. For example, the annual economic burden of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. is estimated at $15.6 billion. Even a small reduction in outbreaks due to these committees' work justifies their operating costs by orders of magnitude above the costs. 3. The committees enhance trust in the U.S. food supply, which is vital for both domestic consumption and international trade. A loss of confidence could lead to reduced demand and economic losses for the food industry. 4. Both committees provide guidance on emerging technologies, such as genomic testing and automation in inspections, ensuring that the U.S. remains a leader in food safety innovation. Both committees are vital to public health because they provide impartial, science-based recommendations that guide federal food safety policies and are made up of centuries of experience and expertise spanning the range of operations and expertise, and scientific knowhow. Trust is a vital factor when selling to consumers. When trust is lost the real losers in this game are anyone and everyone who consumes food.

The InterAcademy Partnership has released its 2025 Highlights for Policymakers, a concise synthesis of how science academies worldwide are informing evidence-based decision-making on climate action, urban health, gender equity, and sustainable development. As a policy advisor, I find this report particularly valuable in bridging the science–policy interface. It demonstrates how coordinated academy efforts can translate scientific evidence into actionable policy insights across regions. Importantly, it reinforces the role of global science advisory mechanisms in supporting governments to respond to complex, interconnected challenges with credible, context-relevant knowledge. The report is a useful resource for policymakers, researchers, and institutions working to strengthen the use of science in decision-making.  #SciencePolicy, #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #ScienceDiplomacy, #GlobalScience, #SustainableDevelopment, #ClimateAction, #UrbanHealth, #GenderEquity, #ScienceAdvice, #PolicyAdvisory, #ResearchImpact, #AfricaScience Academy of Science of South Africa, ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES OF NIGERIA, International Science Council, TWAS – The World Academy of Sciences, The Nigerian Academy of Science https://lnkd.in/eGgh7b7G

Policy without scientific grounding is risk. Regulation without multidisciplinary input is fragile. The Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) is the highest statutory technical body under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, advising both Central and State Governments on drug regulation in India. Its mandate is clear: ensure that decisions on drug standards, quality, safety, and compliance are technically sound and nationally aligned. The structure reflects that responsibility. DTAB consists of 18 members serving a 3-year term: • 8 Ex-Officio Members • 5 Nominated Members • 5 Elected Members Chaired by the Director General of Health Services, and including the Drug Controller of India, along with heads of national laboratories and representatives from pharmacy, medicine, pharmacology, and professional bodies, the Board integrates regulatory authority with scientific expertise. This multidisciplinary composition is not administrative design — it is strategic architecture. It ensures that policy decisions are informed by laboratory science, clinical realities, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and public health priorities. In a country with one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical sectors, that balance is critical. Strong regulatory systems are built not just on laws, but on the depth of expertise behind them. The question is: as healthcare evolves, how should advisory bodies like DTAB continue to adapt? #PharmaceuticalPolicy #DrugRegulation #HealthcareLeadership #RegulatoryAffairs #PublicHealth #IndianPharma #HealthcareGovernance

Science–policy interfaces matter more than ever.   The launch of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) this week in Geneva underlines again the key role science plays in global environmental governance. By expanding the science-policy architecture alongside the IPCC, IPBES and the International Resource Panel (IRP), the new panel will help close a long-standing gap on chemicals, waste and pollution. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gDKikMTF   This development strongly resonates with the messages of our 2022 report on science policy interfaces related to Food Systems. “Everyone at the table – Transforming food systems by connecting science, policy and society” highlights the need for inclusive, credible and independent science-policy-society interfaces to address complex sustainability challenges related to food. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/ggkGZn4Z Whether we talk about food systems, pollution, biodiversity or climate, the lesson is the same: effective global solutions require 👉 shared evidence based on sound science, 👉 strong multilateral cooperation, and 👉 trust in independent science to inform policy choices.   🇪🇺 In this context, the EU’s continued commitment to science-based multilateralism is both timely and essential. Pollution, like climate change and biodiversity loss, does not stop at borders, and neither should our knowledge systems. Strengthening these interfaces enables better decisions for prosperity, people and the planet.

🌍 From rivers to ocean - a new era in pollution governance begins💧 Yesterday marked a major milestone in global environmental governance with the adoption of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution – a long-overdue step in confronting the toxic legacy of pollution that jeopardizes ecosystems, economies, human health, and water security worldwide. The goal of the panel is to equip policymakers with the best available science and knowledge to make informed decisions and develop effective policies. In my view, this breakthrough signals a turning point. Just as the IPCC catalyzed climate action, this new panel can galvanize evidence-based policy to tackle the often overlooked but deeply interconnected threats of chemical contamination and waste – especially in our ocean, rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers. 💼 What does this mean for businesses and financial institutions? ➡️ Stronger global standards and regulations on chemicals production, sale, use and management - #transition risk anyone? ➡️ Increased scrutiny of supply chains, particularly in manufacturing, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and mining - #scope3 transparency! ➡️ Sound business frameworks expanding to incorporate pollution risks more directly ➡️ Investment signals that reward proactive pollution prevention and penalize inaction 🟢 If you're a financial institution, it’s time to stress-test portfolios not just for carbon exposure, but also for pollution liabilities and clean water dependencies. 🟢 If you're a company, this is a chance to lead – to innovate toward cleaner production, circular models, and safer chemicals. 🟢 If you're an NGO, now the hard work begins. While the panel will provide scientific advice, it will not prescribe policies. These instead, are determined at the national level. We must therefore keep our eyes on implementation. 🥳 I'd like you all to join my colleagues at UN Environment Programme in celebrating this progress and their herculean contributions to getting it over the line. 🧪 Science is now even more firmly on our side. 🔗 You can read more here: https://lnkd.in/ekthjStD Sheila Aggarwal-Khan, Jessica Smith, Romie Goedicke den Hertog, Peggy Lefort, Kavita Sachwani, Jan Raes MBA CMA, Paris Z. Song, Karen Sack, Melissa Walsh, PhD, Angelique Pouponneau, Torsten Thiele, Blue Bond Accelerator, Blue Marine Foundation, Titia Sjenitzer, Nick Silver, Karthik Iyer, Martin Koehring, Karla Martínez Toral, Prashant Vaze, Berta Nadal, Kerry Moss #PollutionPrevention #WaterSecurity #SustainableFinance #ESG #ChemicalsManagement #NaturePositive #UNEA #EnvironmentalGovernance #CircularEconomy #FutureReady #makesciencegreatagain #finance

The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors has been asked to make evidence-based policy recommendations to support the EU's position on One Health. One Health is defined by the United Nations as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises [that] the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent”. Given the complexity of the issues related to the potential application of One Health related policy in the European context, the EU should consider its strategy carefully. Policy makers need to take stock of all appropriate risks and potential opportunities, as well as of the implementation of appropriate governance structures to facilitate its application throughout the European Union. The main question to be answered by scientific advice from the SAM is: “Considering a complex policy area, i.e. One Health, what forms of management and cross-sectoral collaborations are best suited to ensure that synergies, possible trade-offs, and unintended consequences are taken into account?” The scientific advice will support the successful implementation of policies deriving from a One Health approach. https://lnkd.in/dnP_-BXE