In INGSA-Europe’s blog, ‘Incentives, Training, Opportunities: Empowering the Next Generation of EMCRs in Science for Policy and Diplomacy’, the authors eloquently describe barriers limiting systematic engagement of Early and Mid-Career Researchers (EMCRs) in science advisory mechanisms, barriers both structural and practical. They elaborate on lack of awareness, of appropriate academic incentives, training and career opportunities and limited access to established networks of senior scientists and science advisory systems.

But what if those systems themselves – those containers of the past – are not future-fit anymore? What if the longstanding call for equal and fair representation of EMCRs will only be possible by transforming current science advisory systems? What if the systematic engagement of EMCRs is an enabler towards opening old and shaping new containers? Inclusion rather as a necessity than a favour?

Many containers relevant to policy development may already have lost their ability to serve for the present and even less so for the future. International treaties, norms and standards are disregarded without any consequences, violence becomes the message and dehumanization in wars and conflicts seems a legitimate tool towards one’s own ends. Democratic checks and balances tilt lopsidedly towards more autocratic governance approaches, and science is fine if it serves the autocrat’s agenda.

The global science enterprise and other relevant stakeholders in policy development are confronted with unusually high and wide barriers. Sound and forward looking advice towards just and equitable policies, ideally based on a human rights-oriented agenda and aware of planetary boundaries: still a realistic option? 

One is tempted to ask whether any of the containers created since WWII will be fit to face uncertainty and unpredictability or the proactive undermining of trust reigning these days.

Yet, despite doom and gloom, there is a real opportunity upon which we can seize, a container which we can jointly reshape: it is labelled ‘juniority’. If, as mentioned above, systematic inclusion of EMCRs offers a way towards developing future-fit science advisory systems, we must consider juniority as equally important as seniority. Why? 

EMCRs are often closest to the current research frontier. This proximity allows them to spot emerging evidence, methodological shifts, and unresolved uncertainties earlier than many senior colleagues whose roles may be more managerial or strategic. This immediacy is critical for timely and relevant advice. 

Junior scientists are typically trained in an era of open science, reproducibility debates, and interdisciplinary critique. As a result, they often bring a strong awareness of limitations, biases, and uncertainty in evidence. Their familiarity with digital tools supports the translation of complex evidence into a diversity of communication tools.

EMCRs represent the experience of the larger scientific community rather than of a narrow elite. Senior-dominated advisory systems can unintentionally reinforce groupthink or deference to authority. When supported, EMCRs are likely to question dominant framings, creating a constructive dissent. If advisory roles are accessible only at late career stages, many capable scientists may never be included.

Seniority offers depth, perspective, and institutional authority. Juniority offers immediacy, adaptability, critical scrutiny, and future capacity. Effective science advice depends on the interaction between both. Systems that treat juniority as complementary rather than subordinate are better equipped to navigate uncertainty, complexity, and change. 

We may not know much about the future, many scenarios are on the table, predictions are difficult to make. Opening science advice mechanisms so that inclusion is not seen as a favor to EMCRs, but as a mutual learning process will strengthen entire advisory systems. This requires a cultural shift from hierarchy toward collaborative and pluralistic models of expertise.

We might not even need new containers. Breaking down containers of hierarchy and tokenism might open space for genuinely diverse, resilient, and future oriented science advisory mechanisms.