Recommended

Event
VIRTUAL
January 29, 2025 10:00—11:00 AM ET | 3:00—4:00 PM GMT
REPORTS
In 2024, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) took center stage at the United Nations General Assembly’s High-Level Meeting for the second time. A key decision: countries charged the Quadripartite—a coalition of four UN agencies (World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Organisation for Animal Health, and United Nations Environment Programme)—to establish an independent panel for evidence for action against AMR by 2025. This panel is envisioned as a powerhouse for evidence, helping member states sharpen their tools to combat the growing AMR crisis. In 2021 alone, AMR killed an estimated 1.14 million people annually—and if countries stick to a business-as-usual approach, it could claim 39 million lives between 2025 and 2050. Beyond the human toll, rising resistance rates could drive health costs up by US$ 325 billion and shrink the global economy by a staggering US$ 1.7 trillion by 2050.
The establishment of an independent science panel could be a major milestone—a concrete step forward in addressing a challenge that threatens global health and economies. But before we celebrate, some big questions demand answers: What will it actually do? How will it speak and be heard? What will be its goals and tools and who will make up its teams and leadership? And how can it succeed in a world with many international science panels, most of which have not successfully engaged policymakers?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often held up as the gold standard for scientific panels, but let’s be real—no panel has a flawless track record. Success depends on learning from what’s worked and, just as importantly, what hasn’t. Beyond the IPCC, panels like the Independent Monitoring Board for the Polio Global Eradication Initiative, the UN Forum on Forests, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol, among others, could offer lessons to guide the way.
To set the AMR panel on a solid footing, three key areas demand attention:
Structure and governance
Should the panel follow an intergovernmental model like the IPCC, giving it direct influence on global agreements, or could a hybrid approach—balancing intergovernmental engagement with structural independence—better ensure both credibility and impact? Funding is another critical issue—how can the panel secure sustainable resources without compromising its independence or siphoning funds from existing AMR initiatives? The panel’s role within the broader AMR ecosystem also needs clarity: how can it complement, not duplicate, efforts by the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat, the Global Leaders Group, and the AMR Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform? Representation is equally crucial. How can the panel guarantee that the voices from low- and middle-income countries —where the impact of AMR is most severe—are effectively heard, making its work relevant and appropriate to these settings. Who should be included to ensure diverse expertise, regional representation, and perspectives from civil society and marginalized groups? And who will define the membership criteria to secure the panel’s legitimacy? These structural decisions will define the panel’s ability to influence and drive meaningful action.
Content and science
What should the panel focus on? The panel needs clear scientific priorities and a well-defined scope—what it is and, just as importantly, what it is not. Also, the panel needs to decide on the right balance between addressing existing, incomplete, targets and stirring the scientific community to generate evidence to inform the creation of new, globally resonant goals. AMR doesn’t yet have a unifying, clear, and measurable target akin to the 1.5 degree Celsius benchmark that has galvanized climate action. Establishing a comparable metric for AMR—something easy to comprehend, track, and communicate—could be a game-changer in driving global commitment and accountability. Balancing the diverse scientific needs across One Health sectors—human, animal, and environmental health—is also a big challenge, as well as integrating AMR within broader global priorities, including pandemic preparedness and climate change. Equally important is ensuring scientific integrity while addressing biases and data limitations. The panel’s work must bridge rigorous scientific inquiry with actionable policy recommendations, including social sciences as well as bench science approaches.
Goals and outputs
The panel’s outputs must inform policy without overstepping. At the same time, it needs to be an articulate and respected voice. Some argue it should focus on global trends and voluntary engagement rather than dictating actions to member states. The challenge lies in translating complex evidence into clear, actionable insights that resonate with policymakers at global, regional, national, and subnational levels, and the public. Simplicity and media-friendliness are non-negotiable. If mainstream media isn’t amplifying the panel’s findings, or if policymakers do not find them credible, how can it hope to drive action? Should the panel explore innovative outputs like global scorecards, or stick to traditional reports? And should it allocate substantial resources—like the IPCC, which spends a substantial portion of its ~€8 million annual budget on communications—to ensure its voice is heard loud and clear?
The way forward
Better evidence is urgently needed to understand resistance and craft tailored policy responses. The establishment of an independent panel on AMR can be a pivotal moment in the fight against one of the greatest threats to global health. To succeed, the panel must be more than just a collection of experts—it must be a catalyst for action, rooted in robust governance, a clear and inclusive agenda, and outputs that drive change.
To support this effort, the Nigerian Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Medicine are convening a “Lessons Learned” dialogue in Nigeria in April 2025. This dialogue will focus on documenting and reflecting on what’s worked in previous international science panels and gathering insights from the scientific community on the critical questions outlined above. Chaired by the three of us, this initiative aims to ensure that the AMR panel is thoughtfully designed and inclusively engaged. With the right foundation, the panel has the potential to transform the global AMR response—turning evidence into actionable strategies and building a future where AMR no longer undermines health systems, economies, or lives.
Thanks to Damiano de Felice, Anthony McDonnell, and Rebecca Manaley for feedback and suggestions on a draft of this post.
Disclaimer
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
Image credit for social media/web: Azee Jacobs/ Adobe Stock