record is one worthy of celebration. It stands today as a relatively

successful model of what an independent national academy can

achieve, having made itself both highly regarded in the corridors

of power and prominent in public debates on major science-related

issues (see pages 1002 and 1009).

Such success cannot be taken for granted. In many parts of the

world, scientific academies either lack real independence from the

state (as in China) or else struggle to make themselves heard within

it (as in Italy). And even where academies have established an independent

voice — other notable examples include those in the United

States, the Netherlands and Sweden — they must still maintain the

difficult balance between taking stances that are full-throated enough

to make the news, yet not so rash as to tarnish their reputation for

impartiality.

As the Royal Society has demonstrated, however, scientific academies

able to navigate these treacherous waters can offer authoritative

input on contentious public-policy issues such as climate change, or

the regulation of human embryonic stem-cell research, and can thus

enrich public debate by ensuring that science is properly heard.

Sometimes that input will be articulated through technical reports,

such as those produced in large numbers by the US National Academy

of Sciences through its operating arm, the National Research

Council. Academies also exert influence through informal consultation

with government officials, and by influencing the selection of

their government’s scientific advisers.

But these traditional avenues are only part of what academies can

do to exert influence today. They can also issue more concise statements

for wider audiences. And they can proactively engage with

the public and the media in the same way that corporations and

environmental pressure groups do — by anticipating or responding

rapidly to events, and making sure that science’s voice is heard amid

the general cacophony.

The Royal Society has, in recent years, used this kind of engagement

to good effect. Academies that are seeking similar impact, such

as new and reconstituted ones in Africa and the Leopoldina, which

assumed the official status of Germany’s national academy only three

years ago, need to be similarly bold and outward-looking in their

approach.

Their memberships should note, however, that in order to have an

independent voice, at least some of their funding must come from

non-government sources. To exert influence, they must also carefully

nurture connections with people and institutions inside government

who genuinely want independent scientific input — and who can tell

the difference between such advice and propaganda. Without that

audience, no amount of earnest objectivity will establish a place for

a scientific academy inside the framework of a state.

And even successful academies need to keep an eye on their own

processes, and resist the opaqueness and cliquishness that can afflict

any self-appointed club. Ten years ago, for example, the US National

Academy of Sciences staunchly resisted what it now concedes were

positive advances in the transparency of its processes. And just recently

it has noticed that Asian-Americans, who have become ubiquitous in

American universities, are largely absent from its own ranks.

Academies can still have a crucial role in taking scientific truth to

the public, and to the heart of government. But to do so, they must

constantly strive to properly represent an increasingly diverse scientific

community. And they must adapt their processes and actions to

a political and media landscape that doesn’t sit still for 350 minutes,

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved