GRF · Research Nexus
The science-policy interface
The science-policy interface is the set of institutions through which evidence reaches public decisions: chief scientific advisers, academies, advisory committees, parliamentary offices and intergovernmental assessments such as the IPCC and IPBES. Its governance decides who is asked, how independence is protected, how uncertainty is stated and who remains accountable for the decision. This page sets out how those arrangements work, where they come under strain, and which institutions hold each responsibility.
The science-policy interface on the record.
The science-policy interface: how the risk develops.
Evidence and public decision responsibilities. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Roles blur
When advisers are expected to decide, or decision-makers present choices as purely scientific, accountability shifts. Science is blamed for value judgements, and value judgements are hidden behind science.
Independence erodes
Advisory bodies depend on government for appointment, funding and access. Pressure on timing, scope or wording can be subtle, and its effects show only when advice and decisions diverge in public.
Crisis compresses process
Emergencies demand advice in days. Review, dissent and transparency are often cut first, and the trust lost when early advice changes can outlast the crisis itself.
Assessment meets negotiation
Intergovernmental assessments combine expert authorship with government approval of summaries. The process confers legitimacy and also creates points where wording is negotiated, which readers need to understand.
Evidence synthesis workspace.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Evidence synthesis workspace
The science-policy interface · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-65
- Records found2443
- Screened2685Active
- Included64Normal
- Reviewer agreement0.68kappaNormal
Systematic review
- QuestionPICO
- Protocolregistered
- Search4 databases
- Screentwo reviewers
- Extractform v2
- Appraisecertainty
- Briefpolicy owner
Certainty of evidence
| Reduced losses | 14 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 5 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 3 | Very low | Unclear |
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal science advisory mechanisms in government | presence by type | periodic | Government records and INGSA mapping | DECLARED |
| Committees publishing membership and interest declarations | percent of committees | annual | Committee registers | DECLARED |
| Advice published with minutes or reasoning | percent of advice items | annual | Advisory body publications | OBSERVED |
| Time from advice to public release | weeks | per advice item | Advisory body records | REPORTED |
| Government responses to advisory reports within the stated period | percent of reports | annual | Parliamentary and ministry records | Published statistics |
| National participation in intergovernmental assessments | nominated experts and government reviewers by country | per assessment cycle | IPCC and IPBES records | Published statistics |
| Legal or charter basis of the advisory function | presence and type | periodic | Statutes and terms of reference | Published statistics |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Research Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Research Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Data and Evidence in Standards
- Published in Research Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Risk Science and Methods in Academy
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| IPCC procedures and assessment reports | Principles governing IPCC work, author selection, review and approval of summaries | Free to read, IPCC terms |
| IPBES procedures and assessments | Assessment rules, expert nomination and approved summaries for policymakers | Free to read, attribution |
| INGSA resources | Case studies and practice guidance on government science advice systems | Free to read, terms per resource |
| OECD Global Science Forum reports | Comparative analysis of scientific advice, including advice in crises | Free to read, OECD terms |
| European Commission Scientific Advice Mechanism | Opinions of the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and supporting evidence reviews | Free reuse, attribution |
| Parliamentary technology assessment offices (EPTA network) | Reports and briefings prepared for legislatures | Terms per office |
| National academies' reports | Consensus studies and statements prepared for governments | Free to read, terms per academy |
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Research Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Research Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Data and Evidence in Standards
- Published in Research Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Risk Science and Methods in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Research Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Heads of government and cabinet offices | Whether to establish or reform a chief scientific adviser role or advisory council, and on what mandate | Comparative mandates, legal bases and reporting lines from other systems |
| Chief scientific advisers | How to publish advice, membership and dissent, and on what timetable | Practice documented by INGSA and the OECD Global Science Forum; known effects of transparency choices |
| Parliaments and their science committees | How to scrutinise the use of evidence in government decisions | Records of government responses; practice of parliamentary offices |
| Member governments in IPCC and IPBES plenaries | How to approve summaries while keeping them faithful to the underlying assessment | Procedures and their documented points of negotiation |
Outputs this topic produces
- Comparative briefs on science advice arrangements and their legal basis
- Dialogue records on advice under crisis conditions, including what was cut
- Methods seminars on communicating calibrated uncertainty to decision-makers
- Peer learning briefs for newly established advisory functions
How the science-policy interface is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on the science-policy interface, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
What the interface must resolve.
- How can scientific advice remain independent while being relevant to the decision at hand?
- Who is responsible for the decision when advice is uncertain or divided?
- How should advice be made public, and when?
- How can advice draw on diverse disciplines and on local and Indigenous knowledge?
How the interface works and fails.
Most failures at the interface are failures of role clarity rather than of science. Problems arise when scientists are asked to make value judgements that belong to elected representatives, or when public servants present a choice as dictated by science when it was not. Why now: new science-policy bodies are starting work, including the UN scientific panels on AI and on chemicals, waste and pollution established in 2025, alongside the IPCC's seventh assessment cycle. Research Nexus compares how such interfaces keep independence while staying useful, and convenes the institutions that rely on them.
Advisers advise, authorities decide
Clear separation protects both the independence of advice and the accountability of decisions.
Published advice
Publishing advice and its uncertainties builds trust; withholding it invites suspicion.
Pressure and politicisation
In emergencies, advice can be blamed for decisions or used to deflect responsibility.
Instruments of the interface.
- 01
Scientific assessments
Periodic, structured reviews of the state of knowledge by expert panels. Limits: slow, and consensus processes can understate uncertainty or dissent.
- 02
Standing advisory bodies
Committees and advisers with defined mandates. Limits: depend on independence and diversity of membership.
- 03
Policy evaluation
Assessing whether decisions achieved their aims, using causal inference and impact evaluation. Limits: counterfactuals are hard to establish.
- 04
Decision analysis
Making trade-offs and values explicit, using policy, institutional and decision science. Limits: requires willingness to state values openly.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceComparing science advice systems · Mapping integrity proceduresApplied here
- 02Probability and statisticsBuilding bibliometric indicators · Detecting selective reportingApplied here
- 03Causal inference and impact evaluationEvaluating funder policy changes · Assessing knowledge brokerage schemesApplied here
Where this page leads across the Consortium.
Questions and answers.
What does a chief scientific adviser do?
Who approves an IPCC summary for policymakers?
Should advisers recommend a decision?
Does Research Nexus give science advice?
Should scientists tell governments what to do?
Does Research Nexus act as a scientific advisory body?
Why publish scientific advice?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.