The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Some risks are under-studied because no institution is responsible for asking about them: they fall between disciplines, ministries or borders, lack a funder, or concern people with little voice in priority setting. This page sets out how knowledge gaps arise and persist, how they can be mapped and tracked, and which institutions set the research agendas that could close them.
Institutional knowledge gaps · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-56
| Reduced losses | 6 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 6 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 5 | Very low | Unclear |
Fig.Evidence synthesis workspace. Design wireframe with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
A research gap is a question that decision-makers need answered but that existing studies do not address. In risk, gaps persist when no institution owns the question, when it falls between disciplines, ministries or borders, or when the people affected have little say in priorities. Evidence and gap maps make them visible; funders and agencies decide which to close.
For institutional knowledge gaps, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, night lights and flood water with place names and borders from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For institutional knowledge gaps, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, night lights and flood water with place names and borders from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Research agenda and unresolved questions. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Risks that span sectors, such as cascades through infrastructure or slow environmental change, have no single mandate holder. Without an owner no one commissions research, and absence of evidence is read as absence of risk.
Research agendas reflect where money and markets are. Diseases, hazards and regions with less purchasing power receive less research, and the gap widens as capacity follows funding.
Where monitoring is thin, studies are fewer, models are less tested and the case for future funding is weaker. The lack of data becomes self-reinforcing across successive funding rounds.
Unresolved questions raised in assessments, dialogues and inquiries are seldom tracked. They are rediscovered after each crisis instead of being carried into the next research agenda.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Evidence and gap map | A visual matrix of interventions and outcomes that shows where studies exist and where they are missing on a topic. |
| Research agenda | A stated set of priority questions, usually adopted by a funder, agency or network, that guides what research is commissioned. |
| Priority-setting exercise | A structured process that ranks research questions, often with the participation of users and affected communities. |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government budget allocations for R&D by socio-economic objective | national currency, constant prices | annual | Government budget data under the Frascati Manual | OFFICIAL |
| Research output by risk theme and region | count of outputs | annual | Bibliometric topic classification | ESTIMATED |
| Knowledge gaps stated in assessments | count per assessment | per assessment cycle | IPCC, IPBES and national assessments | REPORTED |
| Stated gaps with funded follow-up | percent of stated gaps | periodic | Funder award records matched to gaps | ESTIMATED |
| Priority-setting exercises with public participation | count per period | periodic | Funder and ministry records | REPORTED |
| Evidence and gap map cells without studies | share of cells | per map | Evidence and gap maps | ESTIMATED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| OECD government budget allocations for R&D | Public R&D budgets by socio-economic objective | Open, attribution under OECD terms |
| Eurostat government budget allocations for R&D | Public R&D budgets by objective for European countries | Free reuse, attribution |
| IPCC and IPBES assessment reports | Knowledge gaps identified by authors in each assessment | Free to read, terms per body |
| OpenAlex | Research output by topic, region and institution | Open, CC0 |
| James Lind Alliance priority setting partnerships | Published method and priorities from partnerships of patients, carers and clinicians | Free to read |
| Campbell Collaboration evidence and gap maps | Where studies exist and where they do not, by intervention and outcome | Open access, attribution |
| UNESCO Science Report | National research priorities and capacity | Free to read, CC BY-SA IGO |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Ministries responsible for science and research councils | Which gaps to name as national research priorities | Gap registers; budget allocations by objective; assessment gaps not followed up |
| Public and philanthropic funders | Whether to fund research on risks that have no institutional owner | Gap maps and records of where questions were raised and not taken up |
| Intergovernmental assessment bodies | How to record knowledge gaps so they can be tracked between assessment cycles | Comparative practice on stating and following up gaps |
| National statistical and monitoring agencies | Where to extend observation to close data gaps | Records of gaps that trace back to missing data |
Some gaps exist because the research is hard: rare events, long time scales, complex interactions. Others exist because no discipline owns the question, because research funding follows academic rather than institutional priorities, or because the people who face the problem are not in contact with the people who could study it.
Many apparent gaps are not gaps in knowledge but in synthesis or access: the evidence exists but is scattered, paywalled or written for specialists. Distinguishing these cases matters, because the remedy for a synthesis gap is very different from the remedy for a research gap.
Visual maps of where research exists and where it does not. Limits: reflect indexed literature.
Structured processes in which researchers and users jointly rank questions. Limits: outcomes depend on who takes part.
Estimating how much a decision would improve with better information, using probability and statistics. Limits: requires a well-defined decision.
Recording questions that recur in dialogues without answers. Limits: depend on who participates.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. 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.