The Montpellier Process @SAMConference, Vienna, Austria

After a short presentation and mapping of the three SPI cohost models to identify their synergies and differences, participants shifted into a directed fishbowl with 80 representatives from across science, policy and action. Supported by live visual sensemaking and note taking, the fishbowl probed the questions: why invest in interfacing when it’s so difficult—and what’s at stake if we don’t?

Key messages coming out of fishbowl discussion included:

• Science–Policy–Society Interfaces are not self-organized. They require careful design to recognise divergence and move to alignment and action. Rather than smoothing over differences, effective SPSIs create risky-safe spaces that surface disagreement as a starting point for deeper alignment. 

• Future-fit SPSIs rely on collective intelligence and iterative engagement across all scales. Effective interfaces don’t trickle down. They are co-constructed across levels and actors, recognising that cities, communities, and often-overlooked actors (farmers, Indigenous Peoples, youth) are not just stakeholders, but system shapers. Strengthening these ecosystems is key to connecting local traction with global transformation. 

• The conventional role of science, knowledge and expertise needs to be revisited. We need a new narrative where the role of science is not only to provide evidence, but to produce knowledge that engages with and informs transformation, is inclusive of diverse knowledge systems, and proposes ways to navigate tensions and trade-offs.

Read more about the side event on Bioagora’s page.