For cohesive solutions, scientific advice must be accessible and widely drawn

The G20-Chief Science Advisers Roundtable (G20-CSAR) hosted by India this year ended with calls for an inclusive global science advisory mechanism in which evidence-backed advice can easily draw on a global span of knowledge and expertise, linguistic and cultural diversity — and equitably benefit all countries.

The G20 group of nations represent 85% of global GDP and 75% of international trade, producing approximately 85% of scientific knowledge. Most challenges faced today – climate change, public health crises, food and security, resource depletion, biodiversity loss or ocean pollution – are complex, transboundary, multidisciplinary, and interdependent. International cooperation to find solutions to these challenges is essential and often relies on shared scientific understanding and advice. Overcoming these challenges need synergistic science advice as well as interoperability of policy choices among national, regional and international systems.

The G20-CSAR proposed that such advice should be institutionalised. With the African Union joining the G20, there was more compelling motivation to build a truly inclusive global science advice framework.

The G20-CSAR initiative was launched with science advisers of the G20 and invited countries. The roundtable decided to work together on ‘One Health’ for better disease prevention, control and pandemic preparedness; join global efforts to expand the access to scholarly scientific knowledge; promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the science and technology ecosystem and create an institutional mechanism for inclusive, continuous and action-oriented global science advice.

Why science advice is crucial

Science advice ensures that policies are grounded in evidence-backed understanding rather than opinion or ideology. Science advice has a far-reaching mandate, responsibility, and impact, across various sectors, institutions, departments, ministries, and international agencies. The nature of science advice may vary according to the sector or discipline involved, but its process, application and significance remains the same – whether it is for health, energy, climate or foreign affairs.

Science advice helps policymakers navigate complexities and ethical dilemmas in issues related to biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. It ensures that ethical considerations are integrated into policy decisions and solutions. Most importantly, science advice helps in assessing and managing risks associated with policy options.

Scientific knowledge from theories, frameworks, case studies, expert opinions, and data form the repertoire of evidence that inform policy. This is what the phrases ‘evidence-driven policy making’ or ‘science for policy’ mean. On the other hand, a policy made with an aim to advance, apply, and regulate science for anticipated socio-economic outcomes is a ‘science policy’. In the Indian context, Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958, Technology Policy Statement of 1983, Science and Technology Policy of 2003 and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy of 2013 are some such examples.

A historical example of lack of science advice leading to dire consequences is the use of dichloro- diphenyl-trichloro-ethane (DDT) as pesticide in the mid-20th century1¹. Insufficient scientific research on DDT’s long-term environmental and health impacts and a lack of appropriate scientific advice resulted in severe damage to the environment and human health. Only after substantial research on the ill effects of DDT, governments across the world banned the harmful insecticide 1972 onwards.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic brought to fore the critical role of science advice in responding to public health emergencies. Such advice helped people and governments understand the evolution of the virus, plan interventions, and make policy decisions to protect public health and minimise the impact of the pandemic. Policy makers relied on scientific advice from experts in epidemiology, virology and public health to decide on lockdowns, travel restrictions or school closures.

How science advice is evolving

The understanding and institutional arrangement of science advice delivery is not homogeneous across the world. Countries follow diverse approaches to embed science advice in their policy and governance. This has also evolved significantly over the years, reflecting changes in scientific understanding, societal needs, and political dynamics.

Historically, national science academies played the role of bridging the gap between science and policy and providing advice to governments and communities. Alongside fostering public understanding of science, and contributing to the advancement of knowledge and society, science academies are also seen as critical stakeholders in the overall science advice ecosystem. In some countries, the elected president of the national science academy doubles as the government’s chief science adviser.

In India, the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser spearheads science advice. The Prime Minister's Science Technology and Innovation Advisory Council (PM-STIAC) and Empowered Technology Group (ETG) are two key instruments through which this office provides science advice to various departments, ministries, and agencies of the government.

Groups such as the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), the group of seven Chief Scientific Advisers and the ASEAN Permanent Committee on Science & Technology (PCOST), provide science-led direction in regional matters. At the international level, there are continual efforts by various multilateral intergovernmental organisations and groupings such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) on providing science advice to global policy matters. OECD’s Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP) and Global Science Forum (GSF) provide platforms to member states to share scientific evidence and deliberate on common policy priorities. In 2013, APEC members initiated the Chief Science Advisors and Equivalents (CSAE) as a point of dialogue within the APEC community on the role of science in policy formation. The August 2023 announcement on creation of a new UN Scientific Advisory Board will strengthen intergovernmental science advice.

Specialised multilateral intergovernmental organisations and structures such as World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have broadened the circle of global science advice. At the community level, international non-governmental organisations such as the International Science Council (ISC) and International Network of Government Science Advice (INGSA) have also built science advice capacity to support international policy.

With the seeds of an inclusive global science advisory mechanism sown, India is hoping that countries will benefit from a wider pool of evidence to back policy.