Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Stefaan Verhulst: “We are entering a data winter-a period marked by the growing inaccessibility of data critical for science, governance, and innovation. Just as previous AI winters saw stagnation in artificial intelligence research, today’s data winter is characterized by the enclosure of data behind proprietary, regulatory, and technological barriers. This contraction threatens the capacity for evidence-based policymaking, scientific discovery, and equitable AI development at a moment when data has become society’s most strategic resource. Eight interrelated forces are driving this decline: government open data cutbacks, shifting institutional priorities toward risk aversion, generative AI-induced data hoarding, research data lockdowns, scarcity of high-quality training data, risks of synthetic data substitution, geopolitical fragmentation, and private-sector closure. Together, these trends risk immobilizing data that could otherwise serve the public good. To counteract this trajectory, the paper proposes five strategic interventions: (1) shifting norms and incentives to treat data as essential infrastructure; (2) translating openness commitments into enforceable action; (3) investing in professional data stewardship across sectors; (4) advancing governance innovations such as digital self-determination and social license mechanisms to restore trust; and (5) developing sustainable data commons as shared infrastructures for equitable reuse. The technical means exist, but the collective will is uncertain. The paper concludes by arguing that the coming years will determine whether society builds an open, collaborative data ecosystem-or succumbs to a fragmented, privatized data order…(More)”.

Paper by Federico Bartolomucci & Gianluca Bresolin: “The use of data for social good has received increasing attention from institutions, practitioners and academics in recent years. Data collaboratives are cross-sectoral partnerships that aim to foster the use of data for societal purposes. However, the proliferation of initiatives on the topic of data sharing has created confusion regarding their nature and scope. To advance research on the topic, using existing literature, this paper offers a refinement of the concept of data collaboratives ten years after their first definition. This enables the distinction between data collaboratives and other forms of initiatives such as open platforms and data ecosystems. Through the analysis of a dataset of 171 data collaboratives, the paper proposes an enhanced categorisation that identifies five clusters of data collaboratives. Each cluster is described with a focus on its individual characteristics and development challenges. The holistic approach adopted and the maturity of the field allowed us to gain valuable insights into the domains and scopes that these types of partnership may serve and their potential impact. The results highlight the heterogeneity of initiatives falling under the concept of data collaboratives and the necessity to address their development challenges by either concentrating on a specific cluster or conducting comparative and horizontal studies. These findings also enable comparability and improve the identification of benchmarks, which is a valuable resource for the development of the field…(More)”.

Paper by Francis Gassert, et al: “AI for Nature examines the transformative role of artificial intelligence in understanding and protecting the natural world. The paper outlines how AI can be applied to environmental monitoring, biodiversity mapping, and land-use planning, while also identifying the social, ethical, and governance challenges that accompany these technologies. It calls for collaboration across science, technology, and policy to ensure AI benefits both nature and people…(More)”.

Article by Alonzo Plough and Joel Gurin: “Data-driven, reality-based health science saves lives. Without it, we could not protect people from disease, cure them when they’re sick, or ensure that the places where they live promote good health. In America today, however, an anti-facts movement is eroding the data needed to protect lives. 

Already, the Trump administration has dramatically changed how health data is gathered and reported, removed federal websites and datasets, cut staff and funding for health agencies and health research, and diminished our ability to track traditional health outcomes and social determinants of health. The public health community has lost critical data for tracking flu, COVID, sexually transmitted diseases, women’s and children’s health, and more. Thousands of staff at the Department of Health and Human Services have been let go.  

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has made protecting America’s essential health data a priority. To that end, the foundation supported an expert roundtable in July hosted by the nonprofit Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and the National Conference on Citizenship. CODE has synthesized the results of that roundtable and extensive additional research in a new report, Ensuring the Future of Essential Health Data for All Americans. The report is a timely and comprehensive summary of the sweeping shifts endangering both the health of Americans and the capacity to measure how everyday conditions — like access to food, safe neighborhoods, and jobs — shape health outcomes. It presents five recommendations and several tactics to protect and improve critical health data…(More)”.

Series by UNECE: “The purpose of the Policy Briefs series is to highlight the opportunities and the challenges that AI poses to PPPs and infrastructure throughout the lifecycle of projects. Lower transaction costs for governments and an expedited PPP process would represent a transformational leap in the efficiency and effectiveness of PPPs in support of the SDGs. But such efficiencies need to be measured against the risks associated with the implementation of AI in PPPs and infrastructure projects. 

The Policy Briefs are drafted by leading experts under the auspices of the UNECE secretariat and are supplemented by regular webinars or podcasts organised by the UNECE secretariat, engaging various experts from governments, private sector, academia, civil society, and international organisations.

The Policy Briefs series will address both the pros and the cons in implementing AI in PPPs and infrastructure projects, including how AI is already utilised in projects and its potential to predict infrastructure needs, generate reports and analyses data…(More)”.

Report by By Kathrin Frauscher and Kaye Sklar: “Public sector organizations are accelerating their investments in AI technology, and spending big: In the UK, government contracts for AI projects hit £573 million by August 2025, exceeding all of 2024. In the United States, federal agencies committed $5.6 billion to AI between 2022 and 2024. But it’s not just what they buy, it’s how they buy it that will have a huge impact on outcomes. 

1. Off-the-shelf AI is winning over custom builds.
Organizations aren’t rushing to buy complex, custom-built AI systems. Instead, right now they are purchasing off-the-shelf licenses for lower-risk efficiency-driven use cases, such as AI-powered writing assistants, data analysis tools, or automated document management systems. Public sector organizations can often use these tools through their existing cloud or productivity platforms.

2. Centralized buying is on the rise.
We see a clear shift toward enterprise-wide AI procurement. Central IT or digital transformation agencies now negotiate contracts for all government departments. The United States, among others, has moved to this model. While central purchasing can promote efficiency and interoperability, this also means that decision-making power is concentrated in fewer hands.

3. AI is sneaking in through side doors.
Not all AI used by the public sector goes through procurement. Government agencies often access AI through free pilots, grants, features built into existing tools, or academic partnerships. This “shadow AI” can help teams move fast, but it means less opportunity for accountability and oversight.

Together, these trends create a growing gap between AI procurement and AI adoption…(More)”.

Book by Kevin Hartnett: “The inside story of Lean, a computer program that answers the age-old question: How do you know if something is true?

It began as an obscure bug-checking program at Microsoft Research developed by a lone computer engineer named Leo de Moura. Then an unlikely crew of mathematical misfits caught wind of it and began to adopt it with messianic zeal. Their goal was to create a truth machine that could provide the rarest of all commodities in life: a complete, 100 percent guarantee that something is true. Its name: Lean.

As the movement grew and strengthened the program’s capabilities, it drew in two of the world’s most prominent mathematicians: Peter Scholze and Terence Tao. Google DeepMind, Meta AI, and other tech firms started using the program to supercharge computer reasoning. Now it’s remaking the multi-thousand-year history of how mathematicians work, collaborate, and assess truth, while charting a new path in the march toward machine intelligence.

In The Proof in the Code, Kevin Hartnett tells the definitive story of the birth and rise of Lean, and how a growing movement is transforming the enterprise of mathematics and ushering in a new era of human–computer collaboration. An engrossing, character driven narrative filled with insights about the future of math, computers, and AI, this brilliant work of journalism from one of the world’s leading math writers offers a profound answer to the question: Can computers reveal universal truths?…(More)”.

Article by Vincent Barry: “It’s mid-2016 in Adelaide. It’s been raining for days. Wind relentlessly buffets the city. 52 random people are picking their way around a swarm of raincoated protestors and into a room brimming with journalists. Cameras and boom mics are thrust in their faces. There’s Stanley, a 35-year-old software engineer from Torrensville. There’s Jenny, a 56-year-old screen printer from Port Augusta and Khatija, 38-year-old business owner from Adelaide. The list goes on. They’re all here for one thing: to discuss the prospect of establishing an international nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia. They’re here for a citizens’ jury.

A strange, confused tension reigns. Nuclear things are a touchy topic in South Australia. Rural parts of the State, Maralinga and Emu Field, were used for nuclear weapons testing in the ’50s and ’60s, and the land there—home to multiple First Nations peoples—remains contaminated and uninhabitable today. South Australia has the world’s largest known single deposit of uranium which supports an industry for mining, milling and exporting it. Over the years, a political forever-war has raged between those wanting to exploit this natural resource and those wary of the stakes and costs. Indeed, as the citizens’ jury on nuclear waste deliberated, a once-in-50-years storm caused widespread blackouts, for which many blamed an overreliance on renewable energy and pointed towards nuclear power as an alternative. It’s a complex, generational issue that has increasingly polarised the people of South Australia. Partisan positions are set. Consensus seems impossible.

So, you can understand why, as 52 random citizens arrive to report on the opportunities and risks of the nuclear fuel cycle, onlookers aren’t quite sure what to make of the scene. What good could this do? What could Shane, a retiree from Brompton, know about the nuances of storing, managing and disposing of high-level nuclear waste? The process is championed by people touting mini-publics and deliberative innovations that will put the ‘people’ back in ‘people power’. But can lay people really command such a vexed issue?..(More)”.

Press Release: “The Commission has presented today the European Democracy Shield, setting out a series of concrete measures to empower, protect, and promote strong and resilient democracies across the EU. An open civic space is at the core of our democracies, and this is why the Commission has also put forward an EU Strategy for Civil Society, for stronger engagement, protection and support to civil society organisations who play essential roles in our societies. Both initiatives had been outlined in the political guidelines and this year’s State of the Union address by President von der Leyen.

The European Democracy Shield and the EU Strategy for Civil Society present measures to protect the key pillars of our democratic systems: free people, free and fair elections, free and independent media, a vibrant civil society and strong democratic institutions…

The actions under the European Democracy Shield will further boost our collective capacity to counter information manipulation and disinformation and strengthen our resilience through a whole-of-society approach. The European Democracy Shield will present actions across three main pillars: 1) safeguarding the integrity of the information space; 2) strengthening our institutions, fair and free elections, and free and independent media; and 3) boosting societal resilience and citizens’ engagement.

An important deliverable from the European Democracy Shield will be a new European Centre for Democratic Resilience to bring together EU and Member States’ expertise and resources to increase our collective capacity to anticipate, detect and respond to threats and build democratic resilience. With Member States at its core, the Centre will act as a framework to facilitate information sharing and support capacity building to withstand evolving common threats, in particular foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation...(More)”.

Article by Daniela Blei: “Alex Dildine used to run the digital organizing program for the nonpartisan group Organizing for Action (OFA), an offshoot of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. During her tenure at OFA, Dildine managed the former president’s digital assets, using email lists and social media to organize communities that had become civically engaged by joining the campaign. In her work helping create leaders remotely, Dildine encountered an array of problems: decades of declining social capital, volunteers in far-flung locations struggling to find meaning online, and low response rates on digital platforms.

Dildine is now a doctoral candidate in political science at Johns Hopkins University, and her dissertation research asks how organizers can build a sense of community in ways that sustain long-term engagement.

“When Trump was elected in 2016, I watched as volunteer participation rates skyrocketed,” Dildine says. “But I knew that without the organizational infrastructure and an intentional effort to create a sense of community, virtual or otherwise, people were not going to know how to continue their engagement.”

What tools, Dildine wondered, could help practitioners turn online enthusiasm into offline action? Was there a way to assess the depth and quality of engagement online, and whether people found meaning, community, and purpose in organizing?

To answer these questions, Dildine’s dissertation delves into historical cases; draws on interviews with organizational strategists; and mines organizational databases, training materials, and annual reports to chart the patterns of volunteers over time, spanning an earlier era of optimism about the internet to the more pessimistic present, thanks to years of accelerated data gathering and online surveillance. Microtargeting campaigns have offered one easy way to find supporters to back a particular cause, for example. But moving those individuals targeted by campaigns to fight or even take risks for a political cause remains an unsolved challenge. Most organizations lack proven online strategies and must compete with a barrage of emails and notifications to capture people’s attention…(More)”