A hole in the ozone layer. Pesticides poisoning the Arctic. Degraded lands. The three science committees that are the central focus of this book have influenced, and been shaped by, the political realms they were established to advise. Had the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee not adjusted its practices, would it have spelled the end of the Montreal Protocol? What if members of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Review Committee had not overcome their fixation on consensus, and misgivings about voting? How much longer would the use of endosulfan have persisted? Without the institutional innovation that fostered greater engagement of the scientific community, would the Convention to Combat Desertification have been able to advance a concept like land degradation neutrality, or, moreover, take on a leadership role in its management?

Science committees continue to frame their work, and their membership, as disinterested and “insulated” from politics. Maintaining an air of legitimacy requires preserving the narrative that they, and their work, merely convey research findings, and the state parties are the ones doing the interpreting and decision making. But the global scale at which science committees operate brings inescapable political pressures.