In a world grappling with climate change, AI disruption, and pandemics, a quiet revolution is unfolding in the halls of power: science advisers are no longer just background consultants but essential architects of our collective future.
When world leaders face complex challenges—from climate change to artificial intelligence—they increasingly turn to a specialized group of professionals: chief scientific advisers. These individuals operate at the nexus of research and policy, translating complex evidence into actionable guidance for governments worldwide.
Their recent gatherings reveal a fundamental debate: should science prioritize global equity and cooperation or national competition and security? This article explores how these competing visions are shaping our future in real-time.
Focuses on global equity, sustainability, and shared knowledge to address planetary challenges through international collaboration.
Prioritizes national interests, technological dominance, and economic competitiveness in strategic sectors.
The growing influence of science advisers was prominently displayed at the recent 2025 Chief Science Advisers' Roundtable (CSAR) in Pretoria, South Africa. Convened under South Africa's G20 Presidency, this gathering brought together chief science advisers from the world's largest economies to address one of our time's most pressing questions: how can science and technology promote equitable human development while addressing global sustainability challenges?1
The very existence of this forum speaks volumes about science advisers' evolving role. What began as an initiative during India's G20 Presidency in 2023 has rapidly expanded into a permanent feature of international diplomacy, with the 2024 edition hosted in Paris by UNESCO before moving to South Africa in 20251 . These advisers have become essential bridges between the laboratory and the legislature, between data and decision-making.
The 2025 CSAR meeting highlighted three crucial priority areas that define the global cooperation model of science advising:
Developing a global science, technology, and innovation agenda to implement Sustainable Development Goals and enable a just energy transition1
Creating equitable global knowledge systems accessible to all1
Leveraging G20 initiatives to strengthen STI capacity-building in Africa and developing countries1
Professor Ajay Kumar Sood, Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India, pinpointed a critical divide during the proceedings: "AI development is concentrated in a few regions, leading to an imbalance in terms of systemic biases arising from narrow datasets. The AI disparities are also closely tied to energy transition and equity," he noted, emphasizing that bridging these divides demands collaborative frameworks that democratize access to AI and knowledge resources1 .
The roundtable culminated in an outcome statement recommending enhanced international collaboration to address disparities in research access and knowledge sharing, particularly focusing on supporting Africa and developing countries1 . This approach positions science as a tool for global solidarity rather than national advantage.
The United Kingdom offers one of the world's most sophisticated models of how scientific advice becomes embedded in governance. The UK's Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) Network represents a "collective force for the betterment of science in government" that "bridges departments and devolved governments across the UK on key issues in science, engineering and technology," according to Professor Dame Angela McLean, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
CSAs meet weekly to coordinate science activities across departments
Advisers are appointed through fair and open competition, typically for 3-year terms
Sub-groups address specific policy questions and emerging issues or crises
The value of structured scientific advice was also evident at Germany's Science Day 2025, where the country showcased its successful institutionalization of cross-sectoral scientific advice. Recognizing that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals required breaking down ministerial silos, Germany launched a biannual dialogue event that brings together approximately 20 scientific councils from across federal ministries6 .
According to Marianne Beisheim of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, this forum allows diverse experts "to translate our diverse expertise into integrated policy advice," though she acknowledged that "coherence at the advisory level can provide a solid foundation for, but it's no guarantee for coherence in policy implementation"6 .
This honest assessment highlights both the power and limitations of scientific advice in the political arena.
While multinational gatherings promote cooperation, a competing vision of science policy has emerged in the United States, where the Trump administration has articulated a dramatically different approach. The White House has instructed agencies to prioritize emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and semiconductor manufacturing while explicitly moving away from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives4 .
A September 2025 memo from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy declared that "following years of unfocused Federal investments weighed down by woke ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, we are realigning the Federal R&D portfolio to serve its core purposes"4 . This represents a fundamental reorientation of science funding toward what the administration frames as direct national and economic interests.
More detailed proposals emerge from Project 2025, a comprehensive document assembled by Trump-aligned think tanks that offers insight into a potential second-term agenda. Its recommendations include3 :
Prioritizing fundamental research over technology deployment and eliminating the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) as well as offices dedicated to renewable energy and carbon management3
Described as "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry," with proposals to break up the agency and transfer its functions3
Tightening visas for foreign students from "enemy nations" and expanding export controls, particularly targeting China3
The National Science Foundation has indicated it will not prioritize research on "misinformation" and has refined its approach to "broadening participation" activities5
This vision prioritizes national security and economic competitiveness over global cooperation and equity considerations, representing a fundamentally different philosophy about science's role in society.
| Policy Dimension | Cooperation-Focused Model | Security-Focused Model |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Equity-based development and global sustainability1 | National security and economic dominance3 4 |
| Approach to AI | Democratize access and address algorithmic biases1 | Maintain competitive advantage in emerging technologies4 |
| Climate Focus | Just energy transition and planetary crisis response1 | Roll back climate initiatives seen as "alarmist"3 |
| International Research Collaboration | Enhance partnerships and knowledge sharing1 | Restrict ties with strategic competitors, particularly China3 |
| Capacity Building | Strengthen STI capabilities in developing countries1 | Focus resources domestically on strategic sectors3 |
| Implementation Lever | Multilateral Approach | National Security Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Funding Priorities | Sustainable Development Goals implementation1 | AI, quantum, semiconductors, nuclear energy4 |
| Knowledge Sharing | Open access global knowledge systems1 | Tightened export controls and research security3 |
| Advisory Structure | International roundtables and cross-border networks1 | Domestic agency realignment and political oversight3 |
| Evaluation Criteria | Equity, inclusion, sustainability impacts1 | "Gold Standard Science" emphasizing transparency and rigorous evidence4 |
| Impact Area | Specific Contributions | Departmental Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Shaping Policy and Strategy | Providing critical challenge, ensuring evidence use in policy formation | All major UK government departments |
| Driving Investment | Ensuring balanced R&D portfolio aligned with national priorities | Collaboration between DSIT and HM Treasury |
| International Collaboration | Engaging with international counterparts and hosting delegations | Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office |
| Cross-department Coordination | Weekly CSA meetings to coordinate science activities | Joint initiatives across multiple departments |
What essential "tools" do scientific advisers use to transform raw data into policy guidance? While their work doesn't involve laboratory reagents, they employ sophisticated methodological approaches:
Systematic review and meta-analysis techniques that distill global research findings into actionable insights for policymakers, creating comprehensive evidence bases
Translation methodologies that convert complex technical information into accessible briefings for non-specialist decision-makers, bridging knowledge gaps6
Structured processes for combining insights across diverse fields—from climate science to economics to social psychology—to address multifaceted challenges6
Scenario planning, horizon scanning, and technology assessment tools that anticipate emerging scientific developments and their societal implications3
Systematic approaches to incorporating perspectives from industry, academia, civil society, and marginalized communities into scientific advice1
The debate between global cooperation and national competition in science policy represents more than bureaucratic squabbling—it reflects fundamental questions about what kind of future we're building. As Dr. Yensi Flores-Bueso noted at Science Day 2025, "We need to stop asking why science isn't used and start asking, what have we done to make it usable?"6
The answer to that question increasingly depends on which vision of science advising prevails. Will it be the equity-based model championed at multinational gatherings, focused on inclusive human development and planetary sustainability? Or the security-focused approach gaining traction in national capitals, prioritizing technological dominance and economic competitiveness?
What remains clear is that scientific advisers now occupy seats of unprecedented influence. Their deliberations over priorities—conducted in conference rooms from Pretoria to Washington—will ultimately shape everything from our climate response to our artificial intelligence ecosystems. In an age of complex global challenges, their work has become too important to ignore.
As the Gambia's Permanent Representative to the UN, Lamin B. Dibba, aptly summarized: "Science must be more than a driver of innovation. It must become a catalyst of justice, equity, and transformative change"6 . The ongoing conversation among the world's science advisers will determine whether it rises to that challenge.