We also need science advisors at the local level and in diplomacy

Traditionally, the term scientific advice has conjured up an image of advisors embedded in central government structures who 'fill the gap between the scientific policy-makers and the public… distilling 'complex findings into actionable recommendations' and, by doing so, foster[ing] a culture of scientific integrity and inspir[ing] confidence in policy choices to reassure the public that decisions are rooted in rigorous analysis', rather than political expendiency.

In India, the science advisor to the prime minister and cabinet imparts this advice via committees and other mechanisms to foster system interconnectedness.

This type of centralized scientific advisory service remains a vital mechanism for informed decision-making. However, chief science advisors suggested during the roundtable that this was no longer sufficient and that their profession had a key role to play across the governance spectrum.

'We need scientific advice from the global to national and provincial levels but also at the level of cities, where this advice will be action-driven, such as in reaction to a fire or flood', opined Professor Remy Quirion, Chair of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA). 'In the Canadian Province of Quebec, he added, 'many municipalities have appointed a science advisor to the municipal council'.

Others have embedded science advisors across several ministries. Professor Charlotte Watts explained that, in the United Kingdom, 'we have a chief science advisor, as well as a science advisor in each department. I am based in the foreign office'.

She stressed the importance of science advisors being embedded within different ministries. This was necessary, she opined, in order to provide not only day to day policy advice but also advice during crises like the Covid-19 pandemic and foresight at a time when technology was evolving so fast.

Sir Peter Gluckman explained that the International Science Council he presided was keen to develop scientific advice more in foreign ministries. 'If scientific advice is strong in the foreign service, this can strengthen multilateral decision-making', he suggested.

'We need to bridge the independence of the scientific community and the dependence of diplomats, who represent their government', he said, 'in order to incorporate scientific evidence at the international level'. What better way to do this than by embedding science advisors in the foreign ministries of the world?

Professor Quirion concurred. 'I think the science diplomat is needed more and more today in our fractured world.' However, 'a diplomat cannot become a science diplomat from one day to the next, so they need training'.

Since its inception a decade ago, INGSA has been increasingly providing online training in scientific advice. Over the next five years, the priority is to develop both South-South collaboration, to learn from one another, and a South-North approach, incorporating cultural and linguistic differences in the training to ensure optimal effectiveness.

Having science advisors embedded in foreign ministries would overcome the dichotomy by which the executive function of global intergovernmental systems remains weak, whereas the executive function for governments acting at the national level is strong, suggested Sir Peter. He posited that one could create a global science advisory council, even as he wondered aloud how this would work.

'I think we have been too casual by allowing [scientific advice] to be seen as a national thing or a local thing', he mused. 'There needs to be a much more collective and honest discussion between those who have the power to influence the future'.

At this point, Maria Carosa recalled that the R7 had recently recommended to the G7 that it establish an institute on the principles of scientific advice. A former Minister of Research who now heads the Italian National Research Council, Maria Carosa is one of the chief scientists from G7 countries who make up the R7, along with large research and funding organizations.

Sir Peter Gluckman injected a sense of urgency into the discussion. 'If we don't get this right', he said, 'then with what's going on in the geopolitical frame, which is very tense, and the failure of the Sustainable Development Goals - let's be honest -, we need to get better'.