The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
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.
GRF · Established · service level R0
The science-policy interface is the set of institutions through which evidence reaches public decisions: chief scientific advisers, academies, advisory committees, parliamentary science 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 stays accountable for the decision.
For science policy interface, 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 science policy interface, 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
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
The science-policy interface · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-65
| Reduced losses | 14 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 5 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 3 | Very low | Unclear |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Science advice | Evidence and expert judgement provided to decision-makers on a question of public policy, through individuals, committees or institutions. |
| Chief scientific adviser | A senior scientist appointed to advise a head of government or a ministry and to oversee the use of evidence in its decisions. |
| Summary for policymakers | The section of an IPCC or IPBES assessment approved line by line by member governments, which keeps the authors' scientific content. |
| Honest broker | A science adviser who sets out the range of options and their evidence without advocating one, a role described in the science-policy literature. |
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 | OFFICIAL |
| National participation in intergovernmental assessments | nominated experts and government reviewers by country | per assessment cycle | IPCC and IPBES records | OFFICIAL |
| Legal or charter basis of the advisory function | presence and type | periodic | Statutes and terms of reference | OFFICIAL |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 |
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 officials, or when officials present a choice as dictated by science when it was not.
Clear separation protects both the independence of advice and the accountability of decisions.
Publishing advice and its uncertainties builds trust; withholding it invites suspicion.
In emergencies, advice can be blamed for decisions or used to deflect responsibility.
Periodic, structured reviews of the state of knowledge by expert panels. Limits: slow, and consensus processes can understate uncertainty or dissent.
Committees and advisers with defined mandates. Limits: depend on independence and diversity of membership.
Assessing whether decisions achieved their aims, using causal inference and impact evaluation. Limits: counterfactuals are hard to establish.
Making trade-offs and values explicit, using policy, institutional and decision science. Limits: requires willingness to state values openly.
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.