Science for Action. But where is their action?
In April 2023, a new science-policy mechanism at the UN was announced by Belgium, India, and South Africa: The Group of Friends on Science for Action. An interesting initiative as a functioning international science-policy interface is essential for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
A promising initiative at the right moment
Shortly after the launch, I wrote a blog post asking if this new group be able to find the right voice, timbre, and tone to make an impact?
For many years, I have been arguing for a stronger position of science at the UN, both in the sense of science as a form of knowledge, and in the sense of science as an essential stakeholder in the policy processes. I made this point on the stage of the UN High Level Political Forum (2018, Leaving No One Behind (a Paywall)), in critical reflections on the science-representatives in the process (2017, The scientific and technological community in the Sustainable Development Goal process), by recommending feasible incremental interventions (2015, Fine tuning the Science and Technology Major Group), by counting words in policy documents (2015, How much science is in the Sustainable Development Goals zero-draft?), or hidden in academic articles (Schneider et al. 2021, Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations).
Add to that my rants, monologues, arguments, coffee chats, at countless meetings of the HLPF, UNEA, UNFCC COP, and STI Fora. Sometimes I did so ex-officio as the then executive director of the Earth System Governance Project, as interim director of Stakeholder Forum (which I recently joined again as a fellow) or as a freelance mercenary for science policy. In short: it is an issue I cared and still care about a great deal.
Why this initiative seemed different
Thus, when the Group of Friends on Science for Action was launched in April 2023, my hopes were high. I based my positive assessment on two aspects of this initiative that were distinct from other science-policy efforts and could make a difference in my opinion:
First, the procedural genesis of the group: Going through member-states is clever. Whatever one thinks about the role of stakeholders, the reality is that they can be ignored when it matters (or when it is convenient) - even their formal representation like the Major Groups System (which anyway was fundamentally flawed). The launch by member-states thus could help to anchor this initiative more firmly. Inversely, talking truth to power might become an insurmountable challenge.
Second, the connection to the academic community: Using the International Science Council (ISC) as connector to the scientific community is clever too. Many science groups at the UN are made up of individual scholars (of varying quality), selected on diversity quota (though not scholarly schools of thought), and with narrow product-oriented mandates. Do not get me wrong, some of these groups delivered excellent reports. However, they lack a constituency to draw legitimacy and authority from, and to be accountable to. They also can not represent science as such. The ISC could organize constituency and legitimacy.
Searching for traces of impact
A functioning international science-policy interface is essential for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Does this Group of Friends on Science for Action make an impact? After the launch my answer was: Too early to say. At that time, very little was known about the aims, governance, and method of work of this group.
And now, one and a half years after the launch? Crickets.
From my own experience, I know that developing science-based policy positions takes time. That science advice to policy processes often happens in the background. That academia is not (and should not be) overly focused on communication campaigns. And that the messages are often too nuanced to gain traction in (social) media. Due to the lead in this by member states, even less is to be expected when it comes to publicity.
However, acknowledging all that, the publicly available datapoints on the activities of this group are few at best.
Starting with the website of the ISC, the secretariat of the group: there is a short but informative overview, a point of contact, and two announcements related to the launch. Then there are a few posts on the UN Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), in which the Group of Friends is mentioned as a supporting mechanism, without any further detail on how that support was provided.
The ISC also reports on its participation in various UN events: the 2024 and 2025 STI Forum, the 2025 HLPF, the UN Summit of the Future, and the 2025 UNESCO Global Ministerial Dialogue on Science Diplomacy. In these accounts, the Group of Friends is again mentioned, but only in passing, as one of the initiatives the ISC is involved with. There is also information on the very interesting study Strengthening Science Advice at the United Nations General Assembly, commissioned by the ISC, where the group appears once more, but again, just mentioned.
But wait. In a post on UNOC-3 it reads: “Moreover, the ISC, in collaboration with UNESCO, supported a scientific briefing organised by the Group of Friends on Science for Action.” Some more online searching resulted in one more concrete activity: a statement by the co-chairs of the group at the 9th Assembly of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science.
A good idea it was
Maybe the group has been active and influential in the corridors and behind the scenes of the UN. However, the very limited information available in the public domain suggests otherwise. One briefing and one statement in a year and a half is, frankly, disappointing.
While looking for any evidence of activity or impact by the Group of Friends on Science for Action, I was reminded of a situation many years ago. I was involved in closing down a science-policy organisation about which a renowned scientist, also involved, said: “If this organisation didn’t already exist, we’d have to invent it. But now that it exists, it’s time to let it go.”
That sentiment captures my conclusion here as well. I have long believed that we need stronger, more effective science–policy interfaces and have advocated for them for years. At its launch, the Group of Friends on Science for Action seemed well positioned to make a difference. But now... it feels like it was just a good idea.