The Library on Fire: Scientific Advice in the Age of Misinformation

Jefferson's library offers a good founding myth for scientific advice on public policy. After the Capitol was burned by British troops in 1814, Thomas Jefferson bequeathed his personal library to the United States Congress: more than 6,000 books, carefully selected and classified, that would help congressmen make decisions based on the best knowledge of the time. This decision marked the young American institution: it was the seed of the current Library of Congress, which has more than 50 million books and 400,000 visits per year.

Let's do a little imagination and project the subsequent influence of that library. Consider what explains a pragmatic culture obsessed—at least among its elites, and at least until recently—with evidence and facts and figures . Consider what made it inevitable that the United States became the first country to create, in 1972, a parliamentary scientific advisory office, the Office of Technology Assessment . And consider how this inspired many other countries to create similar institutions: this is the case in France (1983), the United Kingdom (1989), Germany (1990), and even the European Parliament (1987). Few remember that Spain could have also had its own in the 1980s, at the proposal of Miguel Ángel Quintanilla , president of a joint Congress-Senate committee that was key to institutionalizing our science policy. But we all know that since 2021, we finally have the support of FECYT, the Office of Science and Technology of the Congress of Deputies .

It is true that advising parliaments is only one side of the coin. The executive branch needs, and more urgently, evidence to make decisions. Here too, we have arrived later than leading countries, which have had offices and networks of scientific advisors for decades. But the National Scientific Advisory Office (ONAC) was created in early 2024 and, since then, has launched significant initiatives: a network of scientists in ministries ; a support unit in the CSIC, with a broader purpose; and a program to connect scientific advice and public innovation, which funds projects in specific areas , from health to social policies and addressing urban challenges.

Additionally, the Permanent Scientific Advisory Group on Crisis Management has just been created as part of the National Security System and a response mechanism for crises such as blackouts, pandemics, or floods. This is a significant milestone that invites us to take stock. What have we achieved? What challenges remain? My impression is mixed: one of success and one of fragility.

It's a success because in just a few years, a fairly comprehensive system has been established in parliament and the executive branch: new administrative structures; researchers incorporated into an institutional advisory role; and an incentive program to spark interest among research groups and public decision-makers who are exploring these practices for the first time. A system that has also benefited from the input of scientific societies and universities, making it independent and robust.

But the impression is also one of fragility. Because institutionalization is neither complete nor can it be considered complete. The Congressional office is actually a structure operated by the FECYT (Federal Council of Science and Technology), not by the Cortes, the result of an agreement between the two. It is true that this solution allowed for a rapid response to the Science in Parliament and Cotec Foundation initiative, and it secured the support of the President of Congress as early as 2018. In this sense, it has the advantage of having survived two legislative terms.

The ONAC, however, was born during this political mandate and has yet to become institutionalized in the long term. Its creation during the presidency of the Government has given it a cross-cutting vision, beyond the Ministry of Science, and has provided it with the necessary power for rapid deployment. But this power can turn into weakness during a change of government, when the presidency's structures are ephemeral.

To survive, it must, paradoxically, be simultaneously depoliticized and repoliticized . It must be depoliticized to become a state initiative, worthy of incorporation—like so many others in recent decades—into the collective heritage of R&D&I policy, born in 1986 with the first Science Law. And it must be repoliticized because, in times of post-truth and disinformation, scientific consulting is on the way to becoming an act of democratic resistance.

The January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. State Capitol is not only a tragic prequel to the second Trump administration: it is also an assault on Jefferson Library, an attack on the Enlightenment values that connect evidence to political action. The incident did not end in a fire, but the library burns whenever ideology overrides scientific consensus, as in the recent case of the vaccine advisory committee .

The fire is not confined to the United States: it is spreading throughout the rest of the world, including countries that share the values of liberal democracy. Therefore, repoliticizing scientific culture is a collective responsibility: an act of democratic resistance that will require the scientific community, in addition to academic rigor, a good dose of activism.

Diego Moñux Chércoles is a founding partner of the Science & Innovation Link Office and a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council.