Some Global Lectures stay with you long after the Audimax has emptied and the final applause has faded. The recent special edition of the ETH Global Lecture Series, Choices, was one of those evenings. Conceived as a tribute to our colleague Chris Luebkeman on the occasion of his retirement from ETH Zurich, this lecture also became a thoughtful reflection on agency, foresight and how the future is shaped by the choices we make.

Chris Luebkeman: choosing to matter

In his lecture, Chris invited us to see choice not as a single decisive moment, but as a continuous and cumulative force shaping individual lives, institutions and societies. Moving between historical moments, professional inflection points and personal stories, he argued that while we do not control all the forces acting on us, we are never without agency.

Drawing on examples ranging from the mid‑19th century to his own journey across engineering, architecture and strategic foresight, Chris showed how many of today’s realities emerged from decisions taken without certainty of outcome. Futures, he reminded us, are rarely inevitable; they are the result of layered choices, made consciously or unconsciously, inherited or hard‑won.

A recurring theme was the idea of “normal”. What we experience as normal, Chris suggested, is deeply contextual; it is shaped by geography, culture, history and circumstance. There is no single baseline from which the future unfolds. This insight lies at the heart of his approach to foresight: not as prediction, but as a disciplined practice of paying attention, identifying weak signals and expanding the range of possible responses.

He also spoke movingly about the role of universities. Beyond advancing knowledge, institutions like ETH Zurich serve as compasses for society: places where difficult conversations about uncertainty, responsibility and long‑term impact can be held thoughtfully. Through the Strategic Foresight Hub and the Global Lecture Series, Chris has helped open such spaces, encouraging more courageous engagement with what lies ahead.

On foresight, bias and collective agency

In conversation with Aaron Maniam, Fellow of Practice and Director of Digital Transformation Education at the University of Oxford, these ideas were sharpened and expanded. Together, we explored what foresight really entails, and what it does not.

Both stressed that foresight is firmly rooted in the present. It is not about forecasting or crystal‑ball gazing, but about creating awareness and preparedness. One idea that resonated strongly was that good foresight should help leaders and institutions avoid being shocked by change. Surprise often triggers reactive decision‑making; preparation preserves optionality and enables more deliberate action.

We also spoke candidly about bias. Neither choice nor foresight is neutral. The goal is not to eliminate bias but to surface it, question it and counterbalance it through collective reflection. Productive discomfort, as Aaron noted, can be a sign that futures work is doing its job.

Finally, we touched on one of the defining choices facing societies today: how to navigate the unequal effects of technological change, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence. While new technologies promise significant gains in productivity, those benefits will not be evenly distributed. Choosing to engage with these tools without addressing their social implications risks deepening existing inequalities.

Chris closed our exchange with a reflection that felt both personal and universal: time is the most finite resource we have. How — and with whom — we choose to spend it shapes not only our own futures, but the world we help bring into being.

Choices was not a farewell, but an invitation: to remain attentive, collaborative and intentional about the futures we continuously co‑create, one choice at a time.

Check out the pictures from the event here: Meet ETH Flickr

And in case you missed it, watch the talk here:

I hope this glimpse encourages you to join us at a future event. I find that with our Global Lecture Series, we begin a new journey every time, giving ourselves pause to reflect on key topics on the global agenda and learning from individuals with remarkable clarity and foresight. I invite you all to come and join us!

In November 2025, during the final edition of the long-standing public dialogue series Treffpunkt Science City at ETH Zurich, I had the opportunity to listen to a deeply personal and moving talk by Daniel Albertin, the mayor responsible for the small mountain village of Brienz in the canton of Graubünden. His story stayed with many in the audience that afternoon. Today it resonates even more strongly. The residents of Brienz can finally return to their homes after more than a year of evacuation. The danger of a major rockfall has eased for now. It is a moment of joy for the community and for the authorities who carried this responsibility.

When a mountain begins to move

Albertin opened his talk with a simple yet powerful question: What does a mayor do when his entire village must leave its homes?

Brienz is a small village of around 80 residents in the Swiss canton of Graubünden. For generations the mountain above the village moved slowly. A few centimetres per year felt normal to those who lived there. Monitoring began around the year 2000 to observe the slope. The situation changed in 2017 when the speed of the landslide suddenly increased. Movement that once measured six or seven centimetres accelerated to forty centimetres per year. Later it reached more than two metres annually.

Scientists and authorities realised that something unusual was happening. Beneath the mountain lies a massive sliding layer around 150 metres deep. Millions of cubic metres of rock move slowly across this surface. Over time, measurements, drilling projects and geological studies helped experts understand the scale of the phenomenon.

Researchers from ETH Zurich played an important role in analysing this complex situation. Using advanced computer simulations and hazard modelling, scientists helped authorities better understand how the mountain might behave and what risks the village could face.

Still, knowledge does not remove uncertainty. It only helps people prepare.

The difficult decision to evacuate

Albertin described the moment when theory turned into reality. In 2023 authorities ordered the first evacuation of Brienz. Residents had to leave their homes within a strict deadline. The mayor walked through the village with local firefighters to confirm that everyone had gone.

A place filled with familiar faces suddenly felt empty. Closed shutters replaced daily life. For Albertin it was one of the most difficult moments of his public service.

A massive rockfall soon followed. Nearly two million cubic metres of debris rushed down the slope and stopped about fifty metres before the village school building. The evacuation had been the correct decision.

Scientific modelling helped guide these critical decisions. Jordan Aaron, an expert in engineering geology at ETH Zurich, ran thousands of simulations using a computer model he developed to assess how far and how fast a potential rockfall could travel. The results were incorporated into the risk assessment used by authorities in Graubünden and the municipality of Albula/Alvra when deciding whether evacuation was necessary.

A second evacuation began in 2024 as the situation remained uncertain. Residents lived away from their homes for more than a year. Some families found temporary housing elsewhere. Children moved to different schools. The community learned to live with waiting.

Science, monitoring and difficult choices

Throughout the crisis, cooperation between scientists, engineers and local authorities proved essential. Monitoring systems track the movement of the slope day and night. Sensors measure ground displacement and provide early warning if conditions change.

Another important contribution came from the research of Johan Gaume, professor of Alpine Mass Movements at ETH Zurich and the WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF. Together with his team, Gaume developed simulation software to estimate how far landslides and rock avalanches could travel. Shortly before the major rockfall in 2023, his team produced a blind prediction of where the sliding mass might come to rest. When the event occurred, the outcome closely matched the model’s forecast. The result provided rare empirical confirmation of the model’s accuracy.

Such research highlights how scientific expertise can support communities facing natural hazards. Data, simulations, and field observations help decision-makers evaluate risks and prepare for events that cannot be controlled but can sometimes be anticipated.

Albertin spoke with great respect about the role of research and scientific advice. Experts from universities and geological institutes worked closely with cantonal authorities and the municipality.

A major technical solution also emerged. Engineers constructed a drainage tunnel designed to reduce water pressure inside the mountain. Early results show that the movement of the landslide has slowed significantly. What once moved more than two metres per year now moves only a few centimetres.

Even so, Albertin emphasised caution. Technical structures can stabilise a slope for decades or perhaps longer. No solution can control nature forever.

Between staying and starting again

One of the most sensitive questions concerns the future of the village. Some residents want to remain in Brienz and rebuild their lives there. Others prefer to start again somewhere else.

Authorities therefore created an additional option. Residents who do not wish to return permanently can move to a new location with financial support before disaster strikes. This preventive relocation model recognises that safety and peace of mind mean different things to different families.

Albertin explained that both choices deserve respect. Those who stay must feel that their home still has a future. Those who leave must receive support and dignity in their decision.

A day of return

Today the story of Brienz enters a new chapter. Geological assessments show that the immediate threat of a major rockfall has decreased. The movement of the slope has slowed to millimetres per year. Authorities have lifted the evacuation order.

For many people the moment is emotional. Some homes reopen after months of silence. Others remain closed for now while families consider their next steps. Life does not return overnight. Communities need time to rebuild routines, restore services and rediscover the rhythm of daily life.

Albertin described it as a day of joy for the people of Brienz and for the authorities who guided the village through years of uncertainty.

Lessons from a mountain village

The story of Brienz offers lessons far beyond one Alpine valley.

• First, it shows the importance of trust between science, authorities and citizens. Research from institutions such as ETH Zurich helped authorities evaluate risks and prepare for potential disaster.
• Second, it highlights the human side of natural hazards. Evacuation is not only a technical measure. It touches identity, home and belonging.
• Finally, it reminds us that resilience grows through cooperation. Engineers, geologists, researchers, local officials and residents worked together to face a challenge that none of them could solve alone.

During his talk, Albertin spoke with honesty about uncertainty, responsibility and hope. Now, as the village opens its doors again, those words feel even more meaningful.

For the people of Brienz, the mountain remains part of daily life. Yet today the village breathes again. And that alone is a reason to celebrate.

Watch the talk below in German:

Co‑moderating our Global Lecture last week on “The Search for Life in the Universe” felt a bit like opening a window onto the cosmos. Together with my colleague Chris Luebkeman, we had the pleasure of welcoming two exceptional guests: Sir Pete Worden, Executive Director of the Breakthrough Initiatives, and Professor Sascha Quanz of ETH Zurich, who leads the visionary LIFE Space Mission.

In an hour that passed at orbital velocity, we explored what may be the most compelling question of all: 

“Are we alone?“

Pete Worden’s Cosmic Perspective

Sir Pete brought the kind of perspective only a career spent at the frontiers of astronomy, space policy, and technological disruption can provide. With characteristic wit, he framed the central dilemma quoting Arthur C. Clarke:

“Either we’re alone in the universe, or we’re not, and both possibilities are equally terrifying.”

Pete walked us through why the coming decades may finally allow us to resolve this dilemma. His work with the Breakthrough Initiatives spans the search for technosignatures, the development of next‑generation telescopes, and even early concepts for interstellar probes. A few of his points stayed with me:

• The nearest stars matter most. Alpha Centauri remains a scientific and symbolic target, close enough that one day a probe might realistically get there.
• Not all signals are created equal. He told the story of a supposed detection from Proxima Centauri: champagne briefly opened, only for the signal to be revealed as interference. A reminder that discovery requires rigour, patience and humility.
• The technological landscape is shifting fast. Private investment, falling launch costs, and rapid iteration are transforming space science. As Pete put it, much of what once looked like science fiction “now simply looks like a very ambitious engineering project”.

He also emphasised the value of asking daring questions. Could we one day use the Sun itself as a gravitational lens to image a distant world in detail? The idea sounds wildly futuristic, yet it is grounded in real physics. Listening to him, one had the sense that the horizon of the possible is still expanding.

The LIFE Mission: Reading the Heat of Other Worlds

Professor Quanz introduced LIFE, ETH Zurich’s bold proposal for a space observatory designed to detect the heat signatures of exoplanets in the mid‑infrared.

This technique would allow scientists to probe atmospheric composition, surface temperature and pressure, and other factors essential for assessing habitability. As he explained:

“Thermal emission lets us look much deeper into an atmosphere than reflected light ever can.”

If even one planet shows the right combination of gases or thermal patterns, it could point to biological processes. This would be a milestone that could reshape science and society.

When Finding Nothing Still Teaches Us Everything

One of the most thought‑provoking themes came from Professor Quanz: the scientific value of a “null result”.

Searching dozens of planets and finding no biosignatures would still tell us something profound about Earth’s rarity, resilience, and fragility.

“If you look at enough planets and still find no signatures of life, at some point you are no longer just unlucky; you have learned something fundamental.”

Pete agreed, noting that truly alien life may be so different from anything we can currently detect that we will only recognise it in hindsight.

A Journey That Outlasts Us All

Both speakers insisted that the search for life is more than a scientific challenge; it is a civilisational one. It spans disciplines, cultures, and generations. Sir Pete phrased it simply:

“This is our future… and we need everyone’s help.”

Moderating this conversation was a reminder of how powerful curiosity can be. In looking outward to the stars, we inevitably reflect inward on our own place in the universe, and the responsibilities we carry here on Earth.

Whether Earth 2.0 turns out to be just next door, or impossibly rare, the search itself is a unifying journey. And it has only just begun.

Check out the pictures from the event here: Meet ETH Flickr

And in case you missed it, watch the talk here:

I hope this glimpse encourages you to join us at a future event. I find that with our Global Lecture Series, we begin a new journey every time, giving ourselves pause to reflect on key topics on the global agenda and learning from individuals with remarkable clarity and foresight. I invite you all to come and join us!

What does it take for organisations and individuals to keep innovating when technology cycles speed up, hype multiplies, and AI can generate “answers” in seconds?

Those were the questions at the heart of the ETH Global Lecture “Empowering Innovation: Thriving in the Age of AI”, where ETH alumna and executive Petra Ehmann and ETH Professor Stefano Brusoni explored how innovation actually happens in practice, and what changes when AI enters the picture. The conversation was moderated by Chris Luebkeman, Head of ETH Zurich’s Strategic Foresight Hub.

Innovation is not a vibe. It’s staying power.

Petra Ehmann offered a definition that cuts through the buzzwords: innovation is not about novelty for its own sake — it’s about longevity.

“To me, innovation is giving longevity to a company, making it invincible so that it will thrive in the future.”

She also dismantled a few familiar myths:

“Innovation is not a bunch of geniuses who sit in the room and they tinker something crazy… Innovation is not a fun, colourful park with nice cushions… It’s hard work.”

The subtext is important: real innovation is less about theatre and more about customer value, iteration, and the discipline to keep going when outcomes are uncertain.

The winners aren’t occasional innovators, they’re systematic ones.

Stefano Brusoni highlighted a difference many organisations underestimate: the gap between having one good idea and building the capability to innovate repeatedly.

“Very few companies are really good at becoming systematic innovators.” 

And he described the unglamorous reality of how that capability is built:

“It’s this process of trial and error and then error and then again an error where you stay persistent… that really set apart the occasional innovators from the systematic innovators.” 

Petra echoed this, adding that innovation is fundamentally a learning process — and learning is rarely “efficient” in the short term because it involves mistakes.

Culture change starts at the top.

One of the most concrete practical lessons came through in the discussion about culture: if leaders demand innovation but punish missteps, experimentation dies.

“Permission to fail… is super important and it has to come from… the board.” 

This matters even more in the age of AI, when output is cheap and prototypes appear instantly. Evidence becomes the antidote to building impressive things nobody wants.

AI won’t change the fundamentals, but it will change the speed.

Both speakers agreed: innovation still depends on building something people need, but AI changes the velocity.

“What will change is the velocity, how fast you’re getting to that point.”

Petra also predicted a shift towards hyper-personalisation, to which Stefano added a thoughtful distinction: unlike older tools (such as calculators), generative AI works best when humans share the why, not just the what, which turns problem-solving into a dialogue.

“Suddenly we are engaged in a conversation… that is actually shaping the problem.” 

But with speed comes risk: the internet can fill with “cringe” content at scale, and organisations can confuse quantity with impact. Petra put it bluntly:

“The big question is not how much you do, but what is the impact of it.”

The real competitive edge: skills, critical thinking, and the courage to upskill.

A recurring theme was that thriving in AI-era organisations requires more than familiarity with the latest tools. Petra’s advice: cultivate depth and judgement.

“The most important one is having some very deep knowledge that AI cannot have… [and] critical thinking.”

Stefano broadened that into a challenge for universities:

“Our job is… making sure that… our students have more opportunities than at the beginning of their studies.” 

In the end, the lecture made one thing feel refreshingly clear: AI can help you move faster, but it can’t tell you where to go. Direction still comes from a North Star, from critical thinking, and from teams that have the permission and the desire to be curious and continue to learn.

Check out the pictures from the event here: Meet ETH Flickr

And in case you missed it, watch the talk here:

At the latest ETH Zurich Global Lecture, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, Estonia’s Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, and incoming Vice President for Knowledge Transfer and Corporate Relations and digital ethicist Professor Effy Vayena, joined Chris Luebkeman to discuss how trust, transparency, and practical regulation are shaping the future of AI governance in Europe. Drawing on Estonia’s digital transformation and Switzerland’s sectoral approach, the panel explored the challenges and opportunities of implementing the EU AI Act.

How do we govern artificial intelligence in a world where technology evolves faster than regulation? This was the central question at the recent Global Lecture, “The EU AI Act in Practice: Cross-Border Perspectives on AI Governance,” hosted by Chris Luebkeman, Head of the Strategic Foresight Hub at ETH Zurich. At the start of the event the room was packed, making it one of the most well-attended lectures of the year, with a strong Estonian delegation and Estonian students keen to show support for their country’s inspiring representative, in addition to a curious ETH audience.

Liisa shared Estonia’s journey as a digital pioneer, explaining, “After regaining independence in 1991, we had to build an efficient state with limited resources. We chose a digital path, making transparency central to our approach.” Estonia’s investment in universal internet access and digital literacy laid the groundwork for a government where citizens own their data and can see exactly who accesses it—a model that has fostered deep public trust. “Trust is fundamental. People own their data and control who accesses it. This transparency builds trust and security,” she emphasised.

Effy reflected on the broader European context, noting that while many countries have the technical capacity for digital transformation, “regulatory and citizen engagement challenges remain.” She highlighted that transparency and clear benefits are key to building trust, regardless of a country’s starting point.

As AI systems become more embedded in daily life, the question of trust extends beyond government to technology itself. “We typically trust people, not machines,” Effy observed. “For AI, we seek reliability, safety, accountability, and transparency. Citizens want assurance that systems are safe and that someone is accountable.”

Liisa described Estonia’s evolving AI strategy: “We realised the need for full government control over sensitive data. We oppose backdoors in systems, even for law enforcement, to maintain trust and security.” She also stressed the importance of defining what AI should not do: “Declaring what is off-limits is crucial for maintaining trust.”

The EU AI Act aims to regulate AI in line with European values, but its complexity and the challenge of keeping pace with technological change were recurring themes. “The Act is complex, and simplification efforts are already underway,” Effy explained. In contrast, Switzerland, not an EU member, has opted for sectoral rather than horizontal regulation.

Liisa added, “Estonia advocated for more sectoral rules and a better balance between innovation and regulation. While rules are necessary for trust and clarity, the Act’s implementation is unclear, especially regarding prohibited and high-risk areas. Regulatory burdens often fall hardest on small and medium enterprises.” To address this, Estonia is developing a law to guarantee compliance for companies, shifting the burden from businesses to the state, and offering a compliance sandbox and state guarantees for AI products.

To close the discussion, Chris invited the speakers to a series of rapid-fire questions, offering concise insights on some of the other pressing dilemmas in AI governance:

• What builds trust faster: strong regulation or strong transparency?
  “Transparency,” said Liisa.
• How do you manage security and backdoor access?
  “Use separate, secure architectures like X-Road.”
• How will Estonia navigate differences with the EU?
  “With courage.”
• Why is there a discrepancy between attitudes toward pharma and AI regulation?
  “Pharma regulation has a longer history. We’re still defining our goals in AI,” Effy noted.
• Do we need a UN convention on AI?
  “Statements exist, but implementation and enforcement are key.”

Looking Ahead

The Global Lecture made clear that responsible AI governance is not just about rules—it’s about building systems that earn and deserve public trust. As Liisa concluded, “Despite technological possibilities, regulation must enable innovation while protecting individual freedom and imperfection. Estonia welcomes collaboration and research in this area.”

The conversation underscored that while the EU AI Act is a significant step, the journey toward trustworthy AI is ongoing—and will require courage, transparency, and a willingness to learn across borders.

Chris closed the event by thanking the panel for their “clarity, depth, and inspiration,” adding, “It’s been a joy, and I’ve learned a lot.” His words captured the spirit of the session: open dialogue, shared learning, and a commitment to shaping a trustworthy digital future.

Check out the pictures from the event here: Meet ETH Flickr

And in case you missed it, watch the talk here:

On 30 October 2025, ETH Zurich hosted a compelling edition of its Global Lecture Series: Powering Change – The Energy Transition in Practice. Moderated by Chris Luebkeman from ETH Zurich’s Strategic Foresight Hub, the discussion brought together two inspiring women speakers: Bettina Bachmann, a veteran energy executive with over three decades of experience at Shell and an advocate for Women in Tech, and Lint Barrage, ETH economist specialising in climate and energy policy.

The conversation went far beyond technicalities. It explored the realities behind the energy transition, challenging assumptions and highlighting what truly matters: adding energy to meet global demand, driving innovation beyond technology, and ensuring equity across nations. Here’s more in the shape of 5 key takeaways and stand-out quotes from our guest speakers:

Energy Transition: More Than Replacement

“Adding energy is often forgotten in this conversation,” Bachmann reminded the audience. “We cannot just replace fossil fuels; we have to grow at the same time.” Her point was clear: with global energy demand rising, the transition is not a simple swap—it’s an expansion.

Urgency and Continuum

Barrage offered a sobering perspective: “We’ve been too slow for decades. If we had started gradual action earlier, the same level of climate protection could have been achieved at a much lower cost.” Climate action, she stressed, is not binary. Every tonne of emissions avoided today reduces future harm tomorrow.

Innovation Beyond Technology

Both speakers agreed that technology alone won’t solve the problem. “We’re not waiting for a silver bullet,” Bachmann said. “We have the technologies—we need to scale them up and integrate them.” Barrage added that innovation must extend to finance, policy, and behaviour: “People respond to incentives. We need to make clean tech massively more profitable to redirect R&D.”

Global Equity

The panel underscored the ethical dimension: developing nations must leapfrog polluting paths. “We have a duty to ensure they don’t have to go the same hard, slow path that we did,” Bachmann said. Barrage pointed to creative financial instruments as key: “We need smarter ways to leverage private investment and reduce risk.”

No-Regret Actions

Both experts closed with practical advice. Bachmann urged: “Think hard before you replace something—whether it’s clothing or heating systems. Avoid waste.” Barrage’s top three? “Invest massively in innovation, provide better information on energy use, and price carbon where feasible.”

Check out the pictures from the event here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/meeteth/albums/72177720329550116/

And in case you missed, watch the talk here:

If you enjoyed this post and the lecture, you may be interested in the upcoming Energy Week at ETH Zurich: https://esc.ethz.ch/events/energy-week.html

In an era of turbulence, policymakers and scientists must collaborate to strengthen multilateralism and rebuild trust in science. At the UN-ETH Forum, UN policymakers and ETH researchers came together to drive this agenda forwards.

On 20-21 October 2025, ETH Zurich hosted the inaugural UN-ETH Forum, a two-day conference held under the theme “Science and Policy in Turbulent Times.” The event assembled policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from both institutions and beyond. Panels and workshops across three thematic tracks – Strengthening Global Peace and Security, Ensuring Responsible Digitalization, Reaching the Sustainable Development Goals – explored how science and policy can work together to address the world’s most pressing challenges.

The Forum is part of the UN-ETH Partnership, which was launched in October 2023. At the opening plenary of the Forum, Professor Joël Mesot, President of ETH Zurich, and Guy Ryder, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Policy, reaffirmed their shared commitment to strengthening collaboration between their organisations and underscored the urgency of this task.

Over the past two years, the Partnership has moved from intention to action, with several new programmes having been created and launched. The UN-ETH Incubator, a programme that sources use cases from UN teams and pairs them with relevant ETH research groups, was launched earlier this year. Five new project-based collaborations were presented at the Forum, along with six additional proposals from the Incubator showcased at a dedicated poster session. 

Another important programme is the UN-ETH Student Team, an extra-curricular initiative that connects ETH students with UN practitioners to collaborate on real-world projects. Launched in summer 2025, it has already initiated one project – a data-analysis platform developed in collaboration with the UN Digital Library – and is preparing to launch two more. 

The Forum attracted considerable interest. Policymakers and practitioners from UN agencies headquartered in New York, Rome, Quito, and Addis Ababa joined counterparts from the Swiss government and from Swiss-based institutions. From the scientific community, early-career researchers from ETH Zurich, Cambridge, King’s College London, and several Swiss universities participated in the debates and presented their latest findings—spanning topics such as food security, artificial intelligence in mental health, and sustainable urban development.

A highlight of the event was the level of interest and engagement of students and young researchers. Members of the UN-ETH Student Team hosted a session with UN and ETH representatives to showcase how students can get involved and what to expect from working at the science-policy interface. Workshops such as the one led by the Swiss Delegation to the FAO World Food Forum Youth Assembly further underlined the importance of youth engagement in shaping sustainable futures. Overall, the UN-ETH Forum helped build momentum for new and ongoing collaborations, forged fresh ties between science and policy communities, and created a strong sense of common purpose. Moving from intention to action to impact, we are all curious to see what the newly initiated collaborations will deliver.  

To find out more about the UN-ETH Partnership and get involved, visit the “Engage” tab at https://un-eth.ethz.ch

Get to know the Center for Security Studies at https://css.ethz.ch/en/

It all started with a tiny chip making its way into the biology laboratory and into my curiosity as a bioengineer: a microfluidic chip. This small device manipulates fluids through microscopic channels. Within this chip, I cultured human cells under flow and pressure, giving life to an organ-on-a-chip. This technology mimics the functions of an organ in the body. From 2018 to 2023, I developed these in vitro (cell-based) models, which, alongside in silico (computer-simulated) models, have the potential to address certain research questions without requiring the use of animals. In Switzerland, animal studies are permitted only when no suitable alternative exists. For me, advancing such alternative methods felt like pursuing sustainability in the life sciences by seeking innovative, ethical, and responsible solutions for both research and animals.

Working at the 3Rs interface today, I design training concepts so that Replace, Reduce, Refine becomes a routine principle for the use of animals in research. The role brings me into conversation with researchers, regulators, and the public sphere, and has confirmed a truth I already sensed as a non-animal method developer: evidence matters, but rules, incentives, and societal values often determine whether good ideas and promising technologies truly take root. Navigating this multi-actor landscape sparked my curiosity about how evidence informs decisions, and how technology and policy can jointly shape more sustainable futures. This curiosity inspired a personal initiative to enrol in the continuing education programme CAS ETH in Technology and Public Policy: Policy Process in Spring 2025.

When the programme began, I immediately delved into a rich module in political science. I started to understand how decisions take shape across different levels, mapping Swiss, European, and global governance, and revealing how policies are made. I could connect the dots in the context of drug testing on animal models, reflecting on how Swissmedic (Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products), the EMA (European Medicines Agency), and the WHO (World Health Organization) function and intersect. This perspective now helps me identify where to monitor international developments and regulatory changes.

As the programme unfolded, I found myself exploring sectors far beyond health, such as mobility and energy. I could recognise familiar patterns in how technology, society, markets, and the state interact. Why do some innovations flourish while others stall? I realised that context, incentives, and beliefs, especially in ethically charged topics like animal use in research, often set the pace. A class on long-term socio-technical transitions gave me a new lens to recognise the signs of change: how technological, social, and institutional shifts gradually align before a transformation truly unfolds. This was an eye-opener, helping me analyse the ongoing adoption of alternative technologies to animal models and reminding me that change often builds quietly, long before it becomes visible.

These lessons resonate in my daily work, where I see firsthand how change is cumulative and built through many small steps by dedicated minds and hands driven by a commitment to more humane science. Thanks to the programme’s focus on stakeholder engagement and communication, I’ve refined how to listen, analyse, and translate between communities: technology developers, end-users, policymakers, and the wider public – each with its own hopes, language, and pace.

One of my favourite parts of the programme was designing a public participation process on animal use in research. It challenged me to think not just as a scientist or educator, but as a facilitator of dialogue. Together with my peers, we imagined a deliberative space where citizens and experts could learn from one another, carefully considering transparency, expectations, and power dynamics. The key takeaway stayed with me: participation should be a two-way learning journey, not a technocratic exercise.

Reflecting on this step into the policy world, I highly value the CAS as an enabler for understanding how technology and policy interact in a world where both technological breakthroughs and sustainability challenges grow increasingly complex. Just as in biomedical and health research, many areas of public policy today are deeply shaped by scientific and technical knowledge, calling for more “bilinguals” who can navigate both worlds with fluency and empathy. I see such interdisciplinary learning as essential to help close the loop between discovery and society, fostering evidence-informed dialogue and strengthening our collective ability to understand options and make thoughtful choices.

“I agree to disagree” is a common phrase among policy experts, though at the ETH Global Lecture on Improving Public Policy Through Science on 7^th October, there was remarkable alignment on one key point: bridging the worlds of science and politics is both essential and challenging.

Attending the Lecture was both enlightening and thought-provoking. The event brought together Walter Thurnherr, former Federal Chancellor of Switzerland, and Professor Tobias Schmidt, Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Policy at ETH Zurich, in a conversation moderated by Julie Cantalou, former Co-Secretary General of the Swiss Green Liberal Party, whose background made the discussion especially relevant and insightful. Together, they explored one of the most crucial and complex questions of our time:

How can science truly inform and improve public policy?

From the very start, it was clear that bridging the worlds of science and politics requires more than just good intentions, it demands mutual understanding, patience, and trust. Thurnherr reminded us that while “science goes for truth,” policymakers often aim for what aligns with the majority’s will. This inherent tension, he argued, doesn’t make collaboration impossible, in fact it simply makes it essential. Without scientific evidence, policies risk losing direction; without political pragmatism, science risks losing relevance.

Professor Schmidt provided a complementary perspective, emphasizing that public policy is not a sprint but a marathon. Building trust between scientists and policymakers takes time, consistency, and empathy. He encouraged researchers to communicate without jargon, to make their findings understandable to those outside their fields, and to create long-term “policy cycles” that ensure science is continuously integrated into decision-making. His message was clear: it is not just about producing knowledge, but it is about making knowledge usable.

The discussion also introduced the exciting vision behind the new ETH School of Public Policy to be launched soon, led by Schmidt, which aims to become a leading hub for dialogue between research and governance. Its mission is threefold: to educate the next generation of scientists about policymaking, to conduct cutting-edge research that supports evidence-based decisions, and to foster ongoing dialogues between academia and government. Thurnherr described it as an ambitious but vital initiative – one that will require not just more science, but structures, incentives, and strong institutional support for those willing to operate at the science-policy interface. He noted that many of the world’s challenges, from managing AI and digital transformation to addressing complex national and international challenges, are deeply rooted in technology, making ETH’s role more relevant than ever.

One of the most striking reflections came when Thurnherr posed a question to the audience:

“Would we be better off if we had seven Nobel prize laureates in the Federal Council (Switzerland) to solve the problems of public policy?”

His point was profound – while science provides facts and evidence, policymaking also involves ethics, values, and societal priorities. Both worlds must work hand in hand, respecting their different but complementary roles.

As I listened, I found myself reflecting on the importance of communication and humility in this process. It’s not enough to have the right data; what truly matters is how we convey it, how we listen, and how we collaborate. The future of good governance lies not only in innovation and technology but also in building trust between experts and citizens.

My key takeaway from this inspiring evening is that evidence-informed policymaking is, at its core, about people — scientists who step beyond their laboratories, policymakers who are open to listening, and institutions like ETH Zurich that foster spaces for genuine dialogue. Thurnherr also reminded us that ETH’s original mission in the 19th century — to educate engineers who directly served the needs of the country — remains just as relevant today. Back then, science and policy were closely intertwined, and perhaps it’s time to reclaim that spirit. As he aptly noted, it is often the challenges themselves that bring science and politics together — and through that exchange, meaningful solutions can emerge.

Leaving the event, I felt hopeful. ETH Zurich is not only advancing scientific excellence but also nurturing a culture of responsibility, one where knowledge serves the common good, and where collaboration between science and society is seen as a shared journey toward a better future. I found myself reflecting on the role ETH Zurich can play in this transformation. With its long-standing reputation as a trusted source of knowledge and a culture rooted in integrity and innovation, ETH is uniquely positioned to lead the way in connecting science with the societal good.

Check out the pictures from the event here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/meeteth/albums/72177720329550116/

And in case you missed, watch the talk here:

How can science make policy more effective? What is science diplomacy? How can policymakers engage with academia?

These are the questions explored by the ETH Policy Fellowship, which also reflect the mission of the future School of Public Policy, which ETH will launch next week. Science strengthens policy by grounding decisions in evidence and reducing uncertainty. Science diplomacy uses research and collaboration as tools to build trust and address global challenges across borders. In the spirit of knowledge transfer in the service of society, ETH Zurich aims to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers through programmes such as the ETH Policy Fellowship, thereby helping them to address societal challenges through sustainable, effective, and evidence-​informed solutions. As Marco puts it:

“Now more than ever, we need strong bridges between science and policy – this programme helps to build them.”

More information about our Policy Fellowship programme can be found here: https://policy.ethz.ch/en/policymakers/policy-fellowship.html