Fully Funded Science Diplomacy Course 2026: AAAS-TWAS Training in Trieste with Travel and Accommodation Covered

If you are a scientist who thinks papers are important but policy matters more, this is the kind of professional oxygen you want. The AAAS-TWAS Course on Science Diplomacy returns in July 2026 and will be held in person in Trieste, Italy. Organizers will fully cover travel, lodging, visa processing, meals and modest incidentals for selected “participant pairs” — that is, an early-career scientist paired with a decisionmaker. Three intense days of workshops, a welcome dinner, and a concentrated peer network could change the way you engage with government, international organizations, or funding bodies when science meets policy.

This course is not a passive lecture series. It’s designed to push scientists and policymakers into conversations they rarely have: translating technical results into persuasive policy options, negotiating across institutional boundaries, and designing collaborative approaches for real-world problems (think public health, environmental policy, or science funding decisions). If you and a policy partner want to turn research into influence — or influence into better research questions — this course is one of the fastest ways to get practical skills and a global peer group.

Read on for the full breakdown: who fits this program, why it matters, how to assemble a competitive application, the timeline you should follow, and exactly where to click when you’re ready to apply.

At a Glance

What This Opportunity Offers

This is a compact, hands-on course that merges practical training, real-world scenarios, and network building. Participants will learn negotiation tactics, diplomatic communication, and how to design science-informed policies. Trainers typically include experienced science diplomats, veteran AAAS policy staff, and international policy experts who work at the intersection of science, health, environment, and foreign policy.

Beyond the program content, there are three practical benefits worth highlighting. First, the course builds a working duo model: you and a decisionmaker practice together. That pairing is designed so neither side walks away with abstractions; your work together produces concrete next steps for your home institutions. Second, the course places you in a small cohort of peers from many countries, which accelerates cross-border collaboration — useful if you plan to apply for international grants or multi-country initiatives. Third, the financial support removes a big barrier: for selected pairs from priority countries, travel, visas and accommodation are handled by the organizers. That matters if funding or travel restrictions have kept you from diplomacy training before.

Finally, the course is short but purposefully intense. Over three days you’ll run through case studies, role-playing exercises, and practical modules on communication, risk framing, and institutional mapping. Expect follow-up opportunities — alumni networks and occasional mentorship — that mean the course can produce durable career effects, not just a nice certificate.

Who Should Apply

This program is framed around pairs. That matters because the selection committee is explicitly looking for the synergy between a scientist and someone who makes or shapes policy decisions. The early-career scientist should generally be at or under 40, hold a PhD, and have research with some connection to policy (for example, epidemiology that informs public health responses, climate modeling used by planners, materials science relevant to industry standards, or social science that guides governance). The scientist should show evidence of outreach, advisory work, or collaboration with policy actors — even small examples help.

The second member of the pair — the decisionmaker — has no age or degree requirement but must hold a role where science, technology, or innovation influence decisions. This could be a government official, diplomat, civil servant responsible for a ministry, a program officer at a national or regional funding agency, or a staff member at an international organization. You don’t need a ministerial title to qualify; a mid-level official with responsibility for science policy or program implementation is ideal.

Real-world examples:

• A young epidemiologist (PhD, 35) paired with the head of a national infectious disease unit who wants to use modeling to improve outbreak response.
• A climate modeler partnered with a regional planner from a municipal government aiming to integrate flood risk into zoning regulations.
• A biomedical researcher working on diagnostics paired with a national research funding program officer to help design translational research incentives.

Priority financial support will be given to applicants from countries that have had little recent representation in the course. If your country is on the organizers’ list, that increases your chance of receiving travel and accommodation support — but everyone can apply.

Eligibility Details (practical interpretation)

Eligibility is simple in structure but nuanced in practice: you apply as a pair, and your combined roles must demonstrate potential for mutual impact. The scientist needs a doctoral degree and demonstrable international policy relevance. The decisionmaker must be in a policy-facing or funding-facing post where scientific evidence can inform decisions.

If you’re unsure whether your institution qualifies (for example, you work for a non-governmental agency with policy influence), err on the side of applying and explain the role. If you’re a graduate student without a PhD, you should seek other professional development unless you have exceptional leadership or policy engagement to demonstrate — the program prefers PhD-level early-career scientists.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

1. Tell a single, clear story about the pair. The reviewers want to see not two separate CVs but a shared purpose. Start your joint statement with the problem you want to solve, why this pairing is the logical partnership to address it, and what specific change you will pursue after the course.

2. Show immediate applicability. Reviewers favor pairs who can translate lessons into near-term action: a policy brief, a pilot program, a new funding instrument, or a revision of guidelines. Outline a concrete next step you will take within six months of returning home.

3. Highlight prior collaboration or a clear commitment to keep working together. If your scientist and decisionmaker have previously collaborated on workshops, committees, or projects, say so. If this is a new partnership, describe why you’re pairing now and how the relationship will be sustained institutionally.

4. Use plain language. Policy reviewers may not be specialists in your technical field. Explain impact in terms of decisions, costs, population affected, or institutional change. Replace jargon with straightforward metrics and short examples.

5. Be strategic about letters and endorsements. A short, targeted letter from a supervisor or ministry official that confirms support for your pair’s post-course activities carries more weight than two generic letters.

6. Prepare documentation early (passports, institutional letters, travel constraints). Visa issues can trip up otherwise perfect applications. If passports are close to expiry, renew before applying; if a decisionmaker needs ministry approval to travel, get that signed endorsement early.

7. Practice the “elevator pitch” in your joint statement. If you can’t summarize the pair’s goal in two crisp sentences, the application will feel fuzzy. Reviewers read hundreds of short descriptions — clarity stands out.

Collectively, these tips mean you’ll spend less time polishing prose and more time aligning the pair’s objectives, which is the core of this course.

Application Timeline (work backward from Jan 29, 2026)

• January 29, 2026 (midnight CET): Application deadline. Submit at least 48 hours early to avoid portal problems.
• Mid-January: Finalize joint statement and letters of support. Confirm travel and passport details.
• December–early January: Draft bios, refine the paired project description, and secure any institutional endorsements.
• November–December: Discuss the pair’s post-course plan and budget (if you plan to carry out a small pilot). Arrange time for external review of your statement by someone familiar with policy writing.
• September–October: Identify decisionmaker partner and begin drafting the joint statement. Start gathering documentation.
• Ongoing: Check the official application page for any changes and read the participant FAQ; contact organizers only with specific, necessary questions.

Submit earlier rather than later. Application portals occasionally time out or require additional verification, and you don’t want to miss a deadline because of a last-minute technical hiccup.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them

The official form will ask for standard items: CVs or biodata for both participants, a joint statement describing the pair’s goals and the policy problem you plan to address, and letters of support or institutional confirmation. Practical items you should prepare in advance include:

• Short CVs (2–3 pages) for both participants highlighting policy-relevant experience.
• Joint statement (clear problem statement, objectives for attending, and concrete post-course actions). Aim for one to two pages.
• At least one letter of institutional support (especially if the decisionmaker requires travel authorization).
• Scans of passports or ID pages (recommended to have valid passports with at least six months remaining).
• Any supplementary materials that show prior collaboration or a recent project brief (optional, but helpful).

Write the joint statement as if you were pitching a small project: problem, current constraints, what the course will supply (skills, networks), and what you’ll do next. Don’t use it as a literature review. Organizers want to know: will this attendance lead to measurable change?

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Applications that make an impression combine clarity, feasibility, and institutional buy-in. The strongest pairs have:

• A crisp problem statement with measurable outcomes (e.g., “We will create a national brief to integrate climate projections into agricultural policy by the end of the year”).
• Evidence that both participants can act on course lessons (a decisionmaker with remit to influence policy, and a scientist with credible, relevant research).
• A follow-through plan with defined next steps, timelines, and at least one institutional commitment (a ministry memo, funding letter, or department support).
• Regional or cross-border relevance that benefits from the course’s international peers.

Concrete indicators reviewers like to see: prior advisory committee roles, involvement in drafting guidelines, participation in national task forces, or demonstration of how the pair’s activities affect a significant population or system.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Many otherwise strong applicants fall short because they miss a few predictable issues:

1. Submitting two disconnected biographies without a joint narrative. The application is about the pair’s combined potential — organize materials around that.
2. Overly technical statements with no policy translation. Translate technical outputs into policy consequences: what will change, who will be affected, and how decisions will shift.
3. Missing institutional support for the decisionmaker. If the decisionmaker’s role requires approvals, attach the proof or explain the process and timeline clearly.
4. Last-minute passport and visa problems. Renew passports early and confirm you can obtain a Schengen visa in time if selected.
5. Weak or vague follow-up plans. Avoid “we will share results.” Instead say “we will draft a two-page policy brief and present it to [agency] within three months.”

Addressing these problems upfront improves your odds meaningfully.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can pairs be from the same institution or country? A: Yes. The pair can be from the same institution or different organizations and may be domestic or international. The key is complementary roles with the potential to affect policy.

Q: Is there an age limit for the decisionmaker? A: No. Only the early-career scientist role has a preference for those roughly 40 or younger. The decisionmaker can be any age and need not hold a PhD.

Q: What if my country is not on the priority funding list? A: You can still apply. Organizers accept applications from all countries, but financial support will prioritize countries with limited recent representation. Self-funded slots exist but are limited.

Q: Do I need to have worked with the decisionmaker before? A: Not necessarily. New partnerships are welcome if you can explain why the pairing is logical and sustainable. Prior collaboration is a plus, but clarity and commitment matter more.

Q: Will there be post-course support? A: Past cohorts have had alumni networks and occasional follow-ups. Expect some informal mentoring after the course, but plan your own concrete next steps rather than relying on organizer funding.

How to Apply

Ready to apply? Here’s the immediate checklist:

1. Confirm you meet the basic eligibility: scientist with a PhD (preferably <=40) + decisionmaker in a policy role.
2. Draft a concise joint statement (1–2 pages) that outlines your shared objective and a clear follow-up plan.
3. Gather CVs, a letter of support if needed, and passport scans.
4. Submit your application through the official portal before 29 January 2026 (midnight CET).

Ready to submit? Visit the official application page and follow the form instructions: https://onlineforms.twas.org/apply/294

If you have program questions, check the AAAS-TWAS course page or contact the organizers via the links on the application portal. Apply early, write clearly, and make sure your pair’s story shows how this course will translate into concrete policy action back home. Good luck — bring conviction and a real problem to fix.