Wildfires, deep-sea mining, the use of pesticides: on many pressing issues, the European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC) has provided scientific foundations for EU policy — and in 2026 it celebrates its 25th anniversary. EASAC unites the national science academies of EU member states as well as those of Norway, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland — including the Royal Society, the Académie des sciences, and the Austrian Academy of Sciences — and develops scientific statements and recommendations for EU institutions, without accepting external commissions. What this independent, knowledge-based model achieves, where it reaches its limits, and which topics are currently most urgent is explained by President Lise Øvreås in this interview.

Our published reports are regularly consulted by scientists and decision-makers alike.

For the past 25 years, EASAC has been providing scientific advice to inform European Union decision-making. Can you give a specific example of where this has been particularly successful?

Lise Øvreås: One very successful example is our report on the use of neonicotinoids in agriculture. It was a long process, but the evidence was clear: these substances are harmful to insects and to biodiversity. Eventually, the European Union acted on this – the EU remains the only jurisdiction with restrictions on these chemicals in farming. The communication with decision-makers was crucial throughout, especially given the competing pressures from the industry wanting to continue using these products. It was a challenging process, and it started before I came on board, but it remains one of EASAC's landmark achievements.

A more recent example is our Changing Wildfires report, published last year – just as Europe was literally on fire. It was perfectly timed. It not only captured the urgency of the moment but also offered concrete recommendations on how to prevent such events, how to prepare for them, and how to respond when they occur. Another strong recent example is our statement on Deep-Sea Mining, which came at exactly the right moment – when European countries were weighing whether to open up the deep seabed for extraction. We raised important questions about whether we truly need all those elements for the green transition, and whether the costs are justified. These are just the examples that come to mind immediately, but our published reports are regularly consulted by scientists and decision-makers alike.

Independent Expertise

What sets EASAC's recommendations apart from the many other scientific reports that EU institutions receive?

Øvreås: The key difference is that our process is entirely bottom-up. We don't receive requests from the European Parliament or other institutions telling us what topics to examine. Instead, we work through our network of national academies to identify knowledge gaps ourselves – areas where we believe rigorous scientific input is missing. We then choose a topic, conduct a thorough review and evaluation, and present the results. Crucially, we are completely independent. No one has commissioned our opinion. We produce what we believe needs to be said.

The scientific community generally aligns, because the conclusions are grounded in actual data.

How does consensus-building work across twenty-nine national academies? Do you notice different scientific cultures?

Øvreås: Of course, twenty-nine academies bring different cultures. That became especially visible during the pandemic, when countries approached problems in quite different ways. We are a heterogeneous group. That said, we share the same fundamental commitment to scientific independence and quality. We try to include experts from as many academies as possible. Once a report is drafted, it goes through a peer review process, and all academies must endorse it before publication. Disagreements do occur occasionally, but we almost always find a way to adjust the language so that everyone can stand behind the conclusions. The scientific community generally aligns, because the conclusions are grounded in actual data. We don't conduct new research ourselves; we synthesise and evaluate what already exists.

Water, Biodiversity and Energy

Which themes or programmes do you see as most urgent right now?

Øvreås: We are just launching a new project on water scarcity and retention in Europe. Water – having enough of it, keeping it clean, and managing excess – is critical for every country, and it is high on the EU's agenda. I'm very eager to see where that work leads.

Our recent commentary on nature restoration also stands out for me. When you look at the scale of the climate and biodiversity crises, it can feel overwhelming. But this report offered a detailed, evidence-based picture of the current state of our natural environment, alongside real examples of successful restoration. What struck me most was how often biological systems – wetlands that are vital for carbon capture, for instance – are sacrificed for short-term convenience, like shaving a few minutes off a commute. That tension between economic pressure and environmental value was brought into sharp focus.

We have also produced several reports on energy demand and the intersection of energy and economics, which I find increasingly important. In April 2026 we launched a commentary on Energy System Integration. The work is becoming more interdisciplinary than it was even a few years ago, and that's an important development. The reports are reaching a broader audience as a result.

AI Under the Microscope

And EASAC also has a report on AI in the pipeline?

Øvreås: Yes, it's a report on artificial intelligence in healthcare, and it will be launched in September. This joint report with the Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM) will use case studies to explore how the added benefits of AI-incorporated health products and services can be evaluated for adoption into healthcare use.

Apart from that, EASAC has also been steering a wider reflection on the use of AI in the domain of science advice, on the possibilities and pitfalls involved, and on what to watch out for. What I find most important is understanding the rationale behind AI tools: how to use them well, and how not to misuse them. As a professor, I see this challenge directly with students. Artificial intelligence can never replace the human brain or human creativity. It works by recombining existing data and information. That's an essential limitation to keep in mind, both when using these tools and when educating the next generation of scientists. We will be able to share more on this mentioned reflection in due course.

We need to work harder to earn trust.

Do politicians still trust science? Or is evidence increasingly being used selectively for political ends?

Øvreås: The information landscape has changed enormously. In the past, someone with a specific question might consult an expert and receive a clear answer. Today, we are all flooded with information from countless channels, and even straightforward scientific conclusions are met with more scepticism than before. Social media amplifies this, giving fringe voices the same reach as established expertise.

As scientists, we have to adapt to this reality. We need to work harder to earn trust – and I believe that working collectively, as EASAC does, is part of the answer.