Give evidence real power: What an Independent Panel on AMR can and should do

2025-10-15

In this Opinion Editorial, Daniel Carelli and Otto Cars highlight the urgent need for stronger evidence-based oversight in the global fight against antimicrobial resistance. As drug-resistant infections continue to rise, the authors argue that the coming Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR must empower independent experts to lead and establish a strong bridge from evidence to policy and global action. Member states must act now to secure rigorous accountability, clear mandates, and transformative ambition so that evidence finally drives the response to this escalating threat.

The IPEA could help reverse today’s negative trajectory

Global efforts to manage AMR have struggled to sustain momentum and accountability; a well-mandated, independent IPEA can supply both. The months leading to the panel’s formal inauguration are therefore decisive. The stronger this process is now, the lighter the burden on countries later, and the clearer the foundations for long-term global AMR governance. A weak and hasty design would entrench the very problems it aims to solve.

A well-designed IPEA can be decisive because it addresses the core coordination failure in evidence-based AMR governance: converting an overwhelming and fragmented literature-where the average number of scientific outputs per year exceeds 25,000 – into clear, actionable guidance. Governments stand little chance with this flood of evidence. Even AMR specialists struggle to keep pace, but IPEA can provide the platform for evidence for mitigation and informed decision-making within the broader global AMR governance, and function as an important steppingstone towards an urgently needed global agreement on sustainable access to effective antibiotics.

Put experts in the core

A poorly designed structure risks creating inefficiency and weak legitimacy and therefore becoming an expensive missed opportunity. The process to date has raised concerns, most notably that the role of experts-the only actors with the capacity to lead an independent evidence panel appears to be sidelined. If experts are given a secondary rather than primary role, the scientific community is unlikely to support the IPEA, let alone contribute pro bono to its work.

Success and broad legitimacy will depend on the panel’s ability to accommodate AMR’s breadth of expertise and ensure their pivotal independent role in the IPEA. In the current draft zero of the founding document, the power balance is far too weakly expert-weighted relative to the political and bureaucratic side. It also appears the design process has relied heavily on a small set of intergovernmental models, while overlooking others that may fit the IPEA well-such as the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition.

Along the same lines, the procedures for expert recruitment-both for the committee and the ad-hoc working groups where the real work will happen-needs a much clearer description. For instance, selection criteria, term limits, conflict-of-interest rules, and regional balance must be clarified in the founding document.

Clarify the function

The products the panel will issue, for whom, and how often must be more clearly defined. Concrete examples should be given, such as annual reports providing comprehensive global and regional synthesis of the status of AMR, trends, impacts, and policy options for mitigation. Additionally, the terms “accept”, “adopt”, and “approve” need to be defined and justified. We strongly advice against giving the Plenary the authority to “approve”, since this entails full consensus on every detail of the report, which may lead to delays while undermining the focus on scientific independence.

Define the role of the Plenary

The core activities are currently only vaguely described, as is the role of the proposed 40 members of the Plenary elected by UN Member States. It should be specified who sits in the Plenary, and passive tasks (such as “fostering dissemination”, “reviewing and approving rules”) should be re-casted into active functions, such as setting annual priority agendas, brokering cross-agency coordination and triggering implementation reviews.

Implementation

The Plenary and Secretariat should be mandated to drive uptake by translating expert reports into clear actionable packages and secure formal commitments from Member states. The Plenary should interface all relevant existing global mechanisms and act as a bridge from knowledge to action.

We are, once again, at a crossroads. Designed with clarity, authority, and transparency, the IPEA can make global action on AMR genuinely evidence-based. Designed poorly, it will become a costly missed opportunity. The moment for UN Member states to choose is now.

Daniel Carelli
Postdoctoral researcher, Political Science
Chalmers University of Technology
Centre for Antibiotic Resistance Research, CARe

Otto Cars
Professor emeritus, Infectious Diseases
Uppsala University
Founder of ReAct – Action on Antibiotic Resistance