Science advice is increasingly produced and used in political contexts marked by uncertainty, urgency, contestation and rapid change. Crises, political polarisation, rapid decision-making, low trust, and institutional contestation now shape many science–policy interfaces. For many science for policy systems, such conditions are no longer episodic disruptions but an enduring feature of contemporary governance. Understanding how science advice systems operate, adapt, and endure under these conditions is therefore essential for strengthening their future resilience. 

This scoping review authored by Nayim Patel, responds to these conditions by synthesising evidence on how science advice systems function and adapt across politically challenging contexts.

The review synthesises academic and grey literature that examines:

• how science advice is organised and delivered in challenging political contexts in Europe;
• how advice is interpreted, mediated, or contested once produced; and
• what “use” of science advice looks like when decisions are politically constrained, delayed, or symbolic.

The review does not seek to identify universal models of best practice. Instead, it outlines patterns, tensions, and adaptive strategies that recur across different contexts, while also highlighting where evidence remains limited or uneven.

Read the full scoping review by downloading the report on the right –>