Having moderated a few events for us since we connected with her in the days of the ETH Pavilion in Davos, it was high time to put Magdalena Skipper in the limelight as our special guest in the ETH Global Lectures Series. The Editor-in-Chief of Nature joined Nicolas Gruber, Head of the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zurich, to explore how an ecosystem perspective can strengthen research in our times of geopolitical uncertainty, growing complexity and the advent of AI.

Drawing on her experience as one of the most influential voices in scientific publishing, Magdalena offered a compelling analogy. Just as healthy natural ecosystems depend on diversity and interaction, so too does science:

“There is no healthy ecosystem out there that is not diverse.”

Thus, diversity goes far beyond demographics. Universities, industry, funders, publishers, policymakers and civil society all play distinct but interconnected roles. Nicolas, whose own work focuses on ocean ecosystems and the climate, immediately connected with the idea:

“It’s the interaction between the elements where the resilience comes from.”

That interaction was a recurring theme throughout the evening. Both speakers stressed that the major challenges facing society, from climate change to health and technology, cannot be solved in isolation. Collaboration across disciplines, institutions and borders remains essential.

Trust in a Fragmented World

A particularly thought-provoking part of the discussion focused on trust. As Magdalena noted, we live at a time when misinformation is increasing and confidence in institutions is being challenged. Yet scientific advances continue to shape almost every aspect of our lives. How do we maintain trust in science? Part of the answer, she argued, lies in engagement. Rather than communicating from an “ivory tower”, researchers must bring society into the conversation and explain not only what science discovers, but how it works. One of my favourite moments came when the discussion turned to curiosity. Reflecting on ETH Zurich’s recent Scientifica festival, Nicolas spoke about watching children delight in scientific discovery:

“We have a deeply intrinsic level of curiosity in us.”

To which Magdalena responded:

“We’re all born as scientists.”

Keeping Humans in the Loop

It would not be a Global Lecture in 2026 without talking about AI… Nicolas expressed concern that if researchers increasingly turn to AI for answers, they may lose some of the conversations and collaborations that often spark new ideas.

Magdalena shared an example from the world of scientific publishing. When researchers were surveyed about AI-assisted peer review, some early-career scientists said they would welcome AI-generated feedback because it felt kinder than comments from human reviewers. The comment sparked a wider reflection on research culture and professionalism. For Magdalena, the key challenge is ensuring that researchers remain in control:

“Let’s engage with it and make it into a tool that will be useful to us, but we continue to be in the driving seat.”

“Most of the time, things fail.”

The final part of the conversation focused on a topic that clearly resonated with the audience, judging by the number of question cards submitted. Magdalena argued that failure is not an exception in research: it is how research works. Experiments lead to dead ends. Hypotheses prove wrong. Papers are corrected. Yet these experiences are rarely discussed openly. Nicolas echoed this point from the perspective of research integrity, arguing that acknowledging mistakes should be recognised as a sign of strength rather than weakness. If researchers become too afraid of failure, they stop taking risks. And without risk-taking, truly transformative discoveries become less likely.

As the discussion drew to a close, I was struck by how relevant Magdalena’s ecosystem analogy felt. Diversity creates resilience. Collaboration strengthens discovery. Trust enables progress. And failure, uncomfortable as it may be, is often the path to innovation.

The future of science will depend not only on individual breakthroughs, but on the strength of the ecosystem that makes those breakthroughs possible.

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

And see the recording below:

I hope this glimpse encourages you to come to 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! The next event will be on 12 November on the Future of Universities, with WEF Founder Klaus Schwab and ETH Zurich’s Stefano Brusoni.

It’s not every day you get to meet in person a fellow Swede who happens to also be a rockstar in the world of climate science, and a generally lovely human being. Having witnessed him in action previously in grand speaking arenas including TED and the World Economic Forum, it was a bit surreal to find myself on stage next to him, co‑moderating our Global Lecture on “Taking the Pulse of the Planet.” I am talking about none other than the legend that is Johan Rockström, the man behind the Planetary Boundaries Framework and co-creator of the recently launched Planetary Health Check. My colleague Chris Luebkeman and I were joined by ETH Assistant Professor Millie Chapman to hear from and talk to the man himself on the occasion of the inaugural Climate Week Zurich.

Here are the most important things he had to say in an hour that flew by and was by no means enough to go through everything that needed to be said on one of the key topics of our time.

We are living in the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity fundamentally shapes the Earth system. Humanity and nature are now fully intertwined, co-evolving across planetary scales. This means that the stability of our societies is inseparable from the stability of the Earth’s life-support systems.

That stability is increasingly under pressure. Already today, with an increase by around 1.4°C since the pre-industrial era, extreme events are already disrupting lives and livelihoods worldwide. Beyond this, risks accelerate non-linearly: tipping points are hard-wired into the Earth system, and crossing them could trigger cascading feedback loops. This raises the possibility of a “hothouse Earth” trajectory well beyond the 2-3°C pathway currently projected, and ultimately beyond conditions in which modern societies can function.

These dynamics point to a deeper issue: the erosion of Earth’s resilience. Systems such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) illustrate how destabilisation could produce profound and uneven regional impacts, while also feeding back into the global climate system. Importantly, these processes are interconnected: disruptions in one part of the Earth system amplify pressures elsewhere.

The Planetary Health Check provides the clearest scientific diagnosis to date. It tracks the state of nine critical Earth system processes, the “vital organs” that regulate stability and resilience, and shows that seven of nine planetary boundaries have now been breached, with pressures continuing to intensify. These boundaries function as guardrails for a safe operating space: once crossed, the Earth system moves into a zone of increasing risk, where tipping points, irreversible change, and loss of resilience become more likely.

What emerges is a stark but actionable insight: the planet’s “vital signs are flashing red”, yet the framework also shows where intervention is possible. Because these systems are tightly interconnected, stabilising the Earth system requires coordinated action across climate, biodiversity, land, water and pollution; not in isolation, but as part of a whole-Earth approach to staying within a safe operating space for humanity.

Millie Chapman brought in the decision-making dimension linked to the issues highlighted by Johan to the fore, by sharing her work at the Environmental Policy Lab of ETH Zurich. She examines how policies, institutions, and digital technologies shape outcomes for people and ecosystems. The work is structured in 3 focus areas:

Cooperation across scales: understanding what drives coordinated environmental action across actors, sectors, and governance levels. 

Decision-making under uncertainty: designing robust, data-informed strategies and policies that remain effective despite complex ecological and social uncertainty. 

Justice in an algorithmic era: examining how data and digital tools shape environmental decisions, with a focus on fairness, accountability, and bias.

Her point was that how decisions are made matters; the information decision-makers have to hand, on which to base their decisions, is the key to them developing effective and equitable strategies to meet global biodiversity targets. Data and algorithms can potentially reshape our management of environmental systems, and AI can help us move towards more sustainable and just futures in the context of environmental justice.

The well-attended event could have gone way past the scheduled hour, as was highlighted by the large number of poignant questions from the audience we did not manage to get to at the end. We closed the evening with a touch of optimism to add to the sense of urgency. Climate Week Zurich is a nice example of the local community getting together with global representatives from business, research and policy to accelerate climate impact in everyday life. Our event was a fitting addition to the inaugural schedule of activities taking place around the city, illustrating ETH Zurich’s commitment to sustainability.

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

I hope this glimpse encourages you to come to 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! The next event will be on 10 September on the topic of research, with Nature’s Magdalena Skipper and ETH Zurich’s Annette Oxenius.

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!

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

“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: