Fighting Superbugs: Should a Scientific Panel Be Independent or Intergovernmental?

The world needs a solid plan to tackle the rising threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This means turning the best scientific evidence into actionable policies. In 2024, the United Nations highlighted the need for a scientific panel on AMR. This panel could fill crucial gaps in global coordination, provide real-time evidence for policy decisions, and track progress towards AMR goals. But how should this panel be designed? Looking at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we see both successes and failures. The IPCC has done well in bringing together scientists and policymakers, but it also faces challenges like slow processes and political influence. For the Scientific Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR (SPEA), we need to think about what it should do. It should facilitate global cooperation, offer up-to-date evidence, and monitor AMR targets. Two models come to mind: intergovernmental or fully independent. An intergovernmental panel would involve countries working together, which could boost cooperation. But it might also face delays and political pressure. On the other hand, an independent panel could offer quicker, unbiased insights. However, it might struggle with acceptance and implementation of its recommendations. Both models have their pros and cons. The key is to make sure the SPEA can provide reliable, timely evidence to fight AMR. The UN's recent push for this panel is a big chance to step up global AMR governance.