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

Around the world, universities are producing record numbers of doctoral graduates—over 60,000 PhDs each year in the United States alone, with similar figures across Europe. Yet academic opportunities remain scarce. In many disciplines, only a small fraction—sometimes as low as ten to twenty percent—will secure long-term university posts.

This imbalance forces us to rethink the purpose and trajectory of advanced social science training. If the majority of graduates will not remain in academia, then research must be reimagined in ways that connect more directly to the pressing challenges of our time. The future of social science, I believe, lies in its capacity to embed itself in practice—whether in humanitarian action, diplomacy, business, or the governance of emerging technologies.

This conviction took on a new depth during my time as a guest researcher at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich. What I encountered there was not a purely academic environment, but a community that actively bridged conceptual rigor with the practical concerns of those working on the frontlines of security and humanitarian policy. CSS does not treat theory and practice as separate worlds; it treats them as two sides of the same coin.

Working on digital risks in humanitarian action, in a project carried out together with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), I saw scholarship on cybersecurity, digital governance, and technological change feed directly into operational strategies and policy debates. These were not abstract discussions. They brought together practitioners facing urgent, real-world dilemmas and researchers able to turn complex ideas into clear frameworks, practical advice, and usable tools. In this environment, the boundary between academic research and problem-solving was constantly shifting—and, more importantly, it became a productive space where both sides learned from each other.

What struck me most about CSS was its ability to function as a kind of living laboratory for applied social science. Researchers were not distant observers but active participants in ongoing conversations with policymakers, humanitarian professionals, and security experts. At CSS, this ethos was clear: researchers moved between conceptual debates about digital sovereignty and the practical challenges of helping organizations navigate cyber vulnerabilities or anticipate conflicts. This interplay showed that social scientists can move beyond the confines of academia, offering contributions that are not only analytically rigorous but also practically consequential.

Looking back, this experience offered me a glimpse of what the future of social science might look like. It is not a future in which theory is discarded, but one in which theory is constantly tested, challenged, and reshaped by the realities of the world. It is a future where social scientists speak meaningfully to humanitarian actors navigating new forms of conflict, to businesses grappling with digital transformation, and to governments confronting the complex intersections of climate, security, and governance.

For me, ETH Zurich’s Center for Security Studies embodied this vision. It showed that social science can be both rigorous and relevant, both analytical and applied. It also demonstrated that preparing the next generation of researchers means preparing them not only for academic careers, but for meaningful contributions across the many sectors where knowledge and practice must come together.

In this special post for the ETH Ambassadors blog, we bring you an op-ed by political scientist and artist Lisa Yasko. She is a Member of the Parliament of Ukraine, the Founder of the NGO Yellow Blue Strategy, and currently serves as ETH Advisor for Public Policy Initiatives.

The World No Longer Has the Right Tools to Respond to Threats 

As a Ukrainian parliamentarian, a mother, and a political scientist, I have personally lived the consequences of how international systems fail to protect the most vulnerable. When our security institutions are too slow or simply incapable in practice to act, when international justice is paralysed, and when outdated rules of political institutions cannot respond to new threats, the results can be catastrophic. Technologies and critical infrastructure — energy grids, digital networks, railways, even defense systems — can collapse overnight. And yet, while our systems break down, decisions are made at a pace of months or years, when what we need are answers within hours or days.

Resilience Is Crucial to Deal With Crises

One Ukrainian military pilot told me a story I will never forget.

“My helicopter was hit during a search-and-rescue mission. I had three to five seconds to decide on a safe landing. If I had hesitated even three seconds longer, we would all have died.”

He looked at me and added:

“This is what I want to tell global leaders: stop hesitating. You have only a small window left to avert disaster… Decide. Act.” 

His words capture a truth leaders in many areas today need to hear: in times of crisis, hesitation can lead to grave consequences. 

Why Democracies Struggle

Democracies are in crisis. Around the world, polarisation is deepening, hate speech is growing and democratic systems are slow to respond. The question is urgent: How can free societies, burdened by bureaucracy and political races, meet the demands of fast-moving crises? Too often, the answer has been too late. I believe this isn’t just a problem for Ukraine. It is a challenge for the entire global order — from cyberattacks and pandemics, to climate disasters and wars. To survive, democracies must evolve. Technology evolves faster (and hence, shapes society faster) than policy can respond to it.

So maybe we can be creative and combine it? We need new ways of thinking, new tools for leadership, and new connections between science, technology, and governance.

Defining a Global Policy Mindset

The solution lies in what is possible to call a global policy mindset:

The ability of leaders, institutions, and societies to make rapid, ethical decisions in a hyper-connected world — integrating technology, security, and democracy to confront crises in real time.

In my opinion, a global policy mindset requires the following: 

Speed – the capacity to act decisively when every second matters.

Ethics – ensuring decisions are rooted in moral leadership, ensuring that decision-makers consider long term consequences. 

Technology – harnessing innovation to strengthen resilience rather than deepen division. This requires knowledge of science and technology and their ability to create impact.  

International Cooperation – because no country can face today’s crises alone and we are too interconnected. I care deeply about public policy, both in practice and academically: I hold degrees in public policy and political science, and I have been an elected politician for six years. I believe that it is possible to invest in developing the necessary mindset that would be capable of meeting global challenges. And this is where academic institutions must lead: to train the skills and knowledge needed for developing a global policy mindset.

Why ETH Can Lead This Change

This is precisely where institutions like ETH come into play. By advancing cutting-edge scientific thought and fostering resilient leadership, ETH can actually make a big difference in public policy education that answers the needs of our current reality. I want to emphasise that I believe in the role of ETH mainly because I perceive this institution as caring not only about the past, but a lot about the present and the future; this involves not only studying history, but also forward-looking science, technology, security and policy. In addition, its unique geographic location in Zurich, Switzerland, and its track record of cooperation with international organisations and global partners, puts ETH in a special position. It would be hard to find another similar institution with such an approach, ideally positioned for developing a global policy mindset in the leaders of tomorrow.

If you enjoyed this post, join us for the next ETH Global Lecture on Improving Public Policy Through Science with former Swiss Federal Chancellor Walter Thurnherr and ETH Professor Tobias Schmidt, moderated by Julie Cantalou.

Date: Tuesday 7 October, 17:30-18:30

Location: HG F30 Audimax, Rämistrasse 101

Registration is required: for more details and to register visit https://u.ethz.ch/arC0x