The scientific advice systems that had been formed over the years in developed countries, malfunctioned during the Corona Pandemic since last year. It has been observed countries with inadequate systems have been able to respond more flexibly under uncertain conditions. The International Science Council, the United Nations, the International Network for Governmental Scientific Advice (INGSA) are already working to collect cases and experiences, and redesign methods and systems of scientific advice. This is a "paradigm shift in scientific advice." The key points are "from linear model to eco-system" and "Science-Policy-Society Interface".

There is no single path for the future of scientific advice. There must be multiple paths depending on dramatic changes in the relationship between science, policy and civil society. It will be important for Japan to actively participate in these international discussions. I hope that this special issue will contribute to the deepening of discussions on the theoretical study and redesign of scientific advice system in the new era.

This paper examines scientific advice in consideration of "Science in Making" and consists from three parts. First, the concept of "Science in Making" is introduced as follows: scientific knowledge is always in making process, therefore, scientific facts that is "true" now can be re-written afterwards. However, policy makers cannot re-write their policies easily. Thus, there is a very difficult problem in scientific advice which should bridge scientific knowledge and policy making.

Second, boundary-work between scientific evidence and decision making in shown. This boundary work invites discussions on responsibility boundaries between scientists and decision makers. Third, the estimation rage of scientific facts under uncertainty is discussed. Finally, it is concluded that scientific advice under uncertainty is affected by matured relationship of citizens, scientists, and policy makers.

The relationship between science and policy remains uncertain regarding the response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. It has long been pointed out that there is a gap between science and policy, and a policy-making process based on solution-focused risk assessment has been proposed. However, except for some fields, there is no established methodology on how to connect science and policy in various fields. Trade-offs with socio-economic factors and other types of risks are ubiquitous, and decisions are made with these factors in mind. It is necessary to visualize such factors and establish a decision-making process that explicitly includes them. As with disaster response context, what you cannot do in normal times cannot be done in an emergency. That also applies to the relationship between science and policy. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with research and development of methods and tools for bridging those gaps in normal times.

Experts have played active roles in the Japanese government's efforts to respond to novel coronavirus infections. Those who participated in scientific advisory organizations not only expressed their opinions on the government's policies and measures based on their scientific knowledge, but also advised the government on the major directions and strategies to be taken, and took on public communication to encourage people to voluntarily change their behavior. However, given the current institutional framework, such actions of scientific advisors in combating novel coronavirus infections go beyond the prescribed roles and responsibilities of scientific advisors as brokers between science and the government. Public communication is an important means of fostering public trust and consent, which are essential for ensuring the effectiveness of policy responses based on scientific advice. Therefore, there is an urgent need to incorporate public communication more explicitly into scientific advice activities. This paper reviews Japan's national efforts for scientific advice, which accelerated after the Great East Japan Earthquake, as well as efforts on public communication by scientific advisors and advisory organizations, and then points out unresolved issues on the relationships between scientific advice and society, in light of Japan's recent experience with new coronavirus infection.

Under the crisis of the pandemic of COVID-19, various stakeholders should discuss not only scientific risk but also its broader social impacts, including various ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI). In this paper, I describe discussions on ELSI of the pandemic from literature reviews and extracted ELSI agendas for the further discussions. Through analysis of literatures, I will point out that social vulnerability and gender equality is the essential perspectives for academic and policy-making on COVID-19.

The use of mathematical models for policy making in infectious disease control has come true for the first time in Japan with the recent pandemic of novel coronavirus. This paper examines the Japanese government's response to novel coronavirus infection and discusses the possibilities and challenges of using mathematical models in scientific advice. Focusing on the extensive discussion in spring 2020 on the declaration of a state of emergency and its lifting, the paper describes in detail the relevant policy making processes based on close cooperation among various experts through frank discussions in an informal study group of experts, as well as close coordination between the government and experts. Such active efforts by experts have enabled co-creative policy making processes taking advantage of mathematical models that can help predict the future condition of infection and analyze infection mechanisms. On the other hand, some challenges need to be overcome in order for such co-creation processes, where people from different organizations and fields work together to deepen mutual understanding, to function properly: Constructing an effective system and securing human resources to mediate between different organizations and fields, enhancing mathematical models for effective policy implementation, and promoting understanding of the evidence of mathematical models by society and the public. These issues can have implications for the future of scientific advice.

This paper presents an overview of scientific advice on COVID-19 in four countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States. In the United Kingdom, it is a dedicated body for scientific advice in emergency situations, called the SAGE. In Germany and the United States, it is existing specialized agencies with some experts. In France, it is a newly established expert committee. Bearers of scientific advice during COVID-19 are various. On the other hand, there are something in common. These bodies provide direct advice to policy maker, such as Prime Minster or President. Each parliamentary committees point out as important issues the independence of scientific advice, transparency, and interdisciplinary including humanities and social sciences. While there is no universal successful model of scientific advice in a health emergency, the cases in four countries have many lessons in Japan.

The pandemic of COVID-19 has changed the relationship between government and academia. At first, this article outlines recent domestic and global trends in scientific advice to governments. The concept of scientific advice has been sophisticated and systemized from macroscopic views. However, there are still various practical problems in actual policy making process in governments. The article deepens the problems from the viewpoints of differences of way of thinking between government officials and academicians, and recognition on hierarchy of policies and organizations. Finally, this article implies that the problem of the scientific advice on COVID 19 was due to lack of preparation for emergency cases.

The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated that issues related to scientific advice in crises have not been adequately examined. Frameworks for discussion on scientific advice in general have also been put into question. Five major themes now seem to need reexamination: relationships between scientists and the government, relationships between scientific advice and society, integration of scientific expertise based on diverse disciplines and approaches, importance of the local, decentralized mode of scientific advice, and international cooperation on scientific advice. Overall, the future of scientific advice might be increasingly founded on formation of the science-policy ecosystem embracing local, informal interaction of diversified actors.