Attend the AAAS TWAS Science Diplomacy Course 2026 in Italy With Travel Covered: How to Get Selected as a Scientist Policy Pair

Some career moves are loud: a new job title, a big paper, a grant with more zeroes than you want to admit. And some are quietly powerful—like learning how decisions actually get made when science meets politics, trade, security, climate, and public health.

The AAAS-TWAS Course on Science Diplomacy 2026 is one of those quietly powerful moves. It’s a short, intensive, in-person program in Trieste, Italy (20–23 July 2026) run by two names that carry real weight: AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences). And here’s the part that tends to make busy scientists sit up straighter: selected participant pairs can have their major costs covered—travel, accommodation, visa fees, meals, the basics that usually make international training opportunities impossible.

But this isn’t a solo trip. The program is built around a simple, smart idea: science diplomacy works best when scientists and decisionmakers learn together. So you apply as a pair—an early-career scientist plus someone from the policy side. If you’ve ever complained that “policymakers don’t understand the evidence” (and if you’re human, you probably have), this course is an antidote: it puts the two worlds in the same room, working through real issues with real tools.

It’s also not a casual acceptance-rate opportunity. This kind of program attracts ambitious applicants who want to operate where science and international policy collide. Tough to get? Often, yes. Worth the effort? Absolutely—especially if you’re trying to turn your research into influence without turning yourself into a full-time bureaucrat.

At a Glance: Key Facts for the AAAS TWAS Science Diplomacy Course 2026

What This Opportunity Actually Offers (Beyond a Nice Week in Italy)

Let’s be blunt: plenty of “international trainings” are glorified conferences with fancy lanyards and vague networking promises. This program is different because it’s built to teach you how science moves through international systems—and how to move with it.

You should expect a curriculum that treats science diplomacy like a working discipline, not a buzzword. That means you’re not just discussing climate, health, tech, and environment in the abstract. You’re practicing the kinds of conversations that happen when, say, evidence conflicts with ideology, or when a country wants innovation but fears the political costs of change.

And then there’s the pair structure, which is the secret sauce. If you’re the scientist in the duo, you’ll learn how your work can be framed so it survives contact with reality: budgets, timelines, elections, trade-offs, and international relationships. If you’re the decisionmaker, you’ll learn how scientists think, why uncertainty isn’t ignorance, and what “the evidence says” really means (and doesn’t mean). Together, you learn a shared language—like getting two musicians to agree on tempo before the concert starts.

Finally, the funding matters. For funded pairs, the organizers say they’ll cover transportation, accommodation, visa processing fees, meals, and incidentals. That turns this course from “nice idea” into “actually feasible,” especially for applicants from countries where professional development budgets are mythical creatures.

Who Should Apply: The Ideal Candidate Pair (With Real Examples)

This course is designed for two people who can realistically keep talking after Trieste. Not just a convenient co-applicant you met yesterday. The strongest applications usually read like this: “We already work near the same problem, from different sides, and we want to get better at working together.”

Participant 1: Early-Career Scientist (ECS)

The scientist in the pair should generally be 40 or under (the wording suggests preference rather than an absolute cutoff), must have earned a PhD, and should be doing research with international policymaking implications.

That last phrase is crucial. “International implications” doesn’t mean you have to be a climate negotiator. It can mean your research touches issues that cross borders, such as:

• infectious disease surveillance, vaccine delivery, antimicrobial resistance
• water security, drought forecasting, food systems
• AI governance, cybersecurity, digital infrastructure
• energy transitions, air pollution, climate adaptation
• biodiversity, oceans, environmental monitoring
• science education and research capacity building with cross-border relevance

A strong example: a computational biologist studying pathogen evolution who collaborates across countries and wants to understand how evidence informs cross-border health agreements. Another: an engineer working on clean cooking technologies who needs to understand standards, trade constraints, and regional policy coordination.

Participant 2: Decisionmaker (DM)

The decisionmaker does not need a PhD. There’s no age limit. But they must be in a role connected to science, technology, and innovation policy—such as a government official, policymaker, diplomat, civil servant, research funder, or someone working with an international organization (including UN-related work).

Strong examples include: a ministry official overseeing national research priorities; a diplomat handling environment or technology portfolios; a civil servant building innovation policy; a program officer at a public research fund; an adviser supporting international cooperation on health or climate.

The best part? If your decisionmaker is brilliant but not formally “science-y,” that’s not a disqualifier. This course is about building bridges—just make sure your DM genuinely has influence over or proximity to policy decisions, not just a general interest.

Countries and Funding Priority: Read This Before You Assume You Are Funded

The call is open to all countries, but the organizers say that limited slots mean they will prioritize countries with no representation in the past five years. They also specify that financial support is limited to successful applicants from their priority list (which includes many countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean—among them Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Eswatini, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, ليبيا, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Zambia, and many more).

If your country is not on that list, don’t close the tab. You may still be selected as a self-supported pair, and the organizers note that meals and transport within Trieste may still be provided for those participants. Translation: you might need to bring your own travel budget, but you still get the training and the room.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application (The Stuff People Learn the Hard Way)

This application lives or dies on one thing: credibility of the pair. Here are practical ways to show it.

1) Write like a duo, not two strangers stapled together

The easiest way to lose is to submit two parallel biographies with no shared story. Your application should explain how you know each other, what issue connects you, and what you’ll do differently after the course.

A good mental test: if someone swapped your co-applicant out for another person, would your application still read the same? If yes, it’s too generic.

2) Pick one policy-relevant problem and stick to it

Science diplomacy is broad. Your application shouldn’t be. Choose a single theme—health security, regional water governance, AI standards, disaster risk, research collaboration—and show why it matters internationally.

Think of it like a camera lens: narrow focus makes a sharper picture.

3) Translate your research into consequences

Scientists often describe what they study. Reviewers want to know what it changes. Instead of “I model coastal flooding,” say: “My work informs where governments place infrastructure, how they negotiate regional adaptation funding, and what happens when displacement crosses borders.”

You’re not dumbing it down—you’re making it usable.

4) Make the decisionmaker role concrete

“Works in government” is not a role. What do they actually touch? Briefings? Drafting policy? Negotiations? Funding programs? International cooperation?

If your DM can point to specific responsibilities—without violating confidentiality—you instantly become more believable.

5) Show that you will bring the learning home (and name the vehicle)

The best applications don’t promise vague “capacity building.” They name the mechanism: a joint workshop for your ministry and university, a policy brief series, a cross-agency working group, a new advisory process, a pilot collaboration with a regional body.

Even better: include a rough 3–6 month plan after July 2026.

6) Demonstrate openness, not certainty

Science diplomacy is full of trade-offs. Reviewers tend to like applicants who can say: “Here’s what we know, here’s what we don’t, and here’s how we’d communicate that responsibly.”

If your application reads like a manifesto, it may come off as inflexible.

7) Treat the deadline like a time zone trap (because it is)

The deadline shown in the official TWAS online form is 4 February 2026. If you’re in Africa, the Americas, or Asia, don’t assume “end of day” means your local midnight—check the form’s time zone and submit early.

Application Timeline: A Realistic Plan Backward From 4 February 2026

If you want to submit something that feels calm and intentional—rather than frantic and glitchy—work backward about six to eight weeks.

By mid-January 2026, you should have your narrative nailed down and be polishing: final wording, clarity, and making sure both parts of the pair sound like they’re speaking with one voice. This is also when you double-check passport validity, likely visa needs for Italy, and any institutional approvals (some government staff need permission to travel, even for training).

In late December 2025 to early January 2026, do the heavy lifting: align on your shared problem statement, agree on what each person wants from the course, and draft your “after Trieste” plan. This is the phase where you ask a brutally honest colleague to read it and tell you where it sounds vague.

In November to mid-December 2025, choose your partner and define the partnership. If you don’t already have a policy counterpart, start now—finding the right decisionmaker is like dating with calendars. It takes longer than you think, and the best matches are busy.

Required Materials: What to Prepare (And How to Make It Shine)

The official form is hosted via TWAS online forms, and requirements can vary slightly year to year. Still, you can safely prepare the essentials most selections depend on:

• A clear description of the pair: who you are, what you do, and why the partnership makes sense.
• Short bios or CV-style summaries for both applicants, emphasizing policy relevance (for the scientist) and policy responsibilities (for the decisionmaker).
• A motivation statement that explains what you want to learn and why now—not in five years when it’s convenient.
• Evidence of fit: international collaborations, cross-border relevance, stakeholder engagement, interagency work, advisory roles, regional initiatives—anything that shows you already operate near the science–policy boundary.
• Logistics details typically requested in application portals: contact information, nationality, institutional affiliation, and similar basics.

Preparation advice: write your main narrative in a separate document first. Application portals are where good writing goes to die if you try to draft inside tiny text boxes.

What Makes an Application Stand Out (How Reviewers Likely Think)

While the organizers don’t publish a detailed scoring rubric in the snippet you provided, programs like this reliably look for four things.

First, pair credibility: do you actually represent two sides of the bridge—science and policy—and can you realistically keep collaborating?

Second, relevance: is your work connected to international policy issues in science, technology, environment, or health? The closer your example is to real cross-border challenges, the better.

Third, multiplier effect: will you take the skills back to your institution, ministry, or network in a way that benefits others? A pair that can influence a team beats a pair that only benefits themselves.

Fourth, readiness: are you at a moment where this training will change what you do next year, not just someday? Reviewers can smell “nice-to-have” applications from a mile away.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (And Simple Fixes)

Mistake 1: Choosing a co-applicant for prestige instead of practicality

A famous name who never has time to meet is not a partnership. Fix: pick someone you can actually work with, and show proof of that working relationship.

Mistake 2: Writing a scientist-only application with a policy accessory

If the decisionmaker feels like an add-on, reviewers notice. Fix: give the DM a real learning agenda and a real post-course role.

Mistake 3: Being abstract about “science diplomacy”

If your application reads like a definition, it will blur into the pile. Fix: anchor it in one problem, one region or international mechanism, and one realistic outcome.

Mistake 4: Overpromising outcomes you cannot control

You can’t promise a treaty. You can promise a briefing series, a pilot committee, a structured stakeholder consultation. Fix: keep commitments modest, specific, and doable.

Mistake 5: Ignoring the funding rules tied to country priority

Some applicants assume funding is automatic. It isn’t. Fix: state clearly whether you seek organizer support and confirm your eligibility based on the country guidance.

Mistake 6: Submitting at the last minute (and losing to the clock)

Portals crash. PDFs misbehave. Time zones bite. Fix: submit 48–72 hours early, especially with a two-person application.

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Do we have to apply as a pair?

Yes. This program explicitly invites applications from participant pairs: an early-career scientist and a decisionmaker.

2) Does the scientist need a PhD?

Yes. The early-career scientist applicant must have earned a PhD.

3) Is there an age limit?

For the scientist, the program says preferably 40 or below. For the decisionmaker, no age limit is specified.

4) Can applicants from any country apply?

Yes—open to all countries—but with priority and financial support focused on a specific list of countries identified by the organizers.

5) What costs are covered for funded pairs?

The organizers state they will cover transportation, accommodation, visa processing fees, meals, and incidentals for selected pairs who qualify for funding support.

6) Is there a self-funded option?

Yes. A limited number of self-supported pairs may attend if selected. Those participants generally cover their own costs, though the organizers indicate they will still provide meals and transportation within Trieste.

7) What are the course dates and structure?

The timeline provided is: 20 July 2026 welcome dinner; 21–23 July workshop days; 24 July return travel.

8) When exactly is the deadline?

4 February 2026 (see the official TWAS online form for the exact cut-off time and time zone). Convert it to your local time and aim to submit early.

How to Apply (And What to Do This Week)

Start by choosing the right partner and agreeing on your shared policy-relevant problem. If you’re the scientist, don’t pick the most senior official you can name—pick the person who actually works on the topic and can stay engaged. If you’re the decisionmaker, pick a scientist who can explain their work without hiding behind jargon.

Next, draft a short “pair statement” (half a page is fine) answering three questions: Why this pair? Why this issue? What will you do together within six months after the course? That mini-document becomes the spine of your application.

Then complete the official application form carefully, paying attention to the CET deadline and any portal prompts that imply additional documentation.

Apply Now: Official Link

Ready to apply? Visit the official opportunity page here: https://onlineforms.twas.org/apply/294