Let’s look into the future. It’s the mid-2030s. Approaches to and perceptions of science and scientific research look very different from today, and the implications for associations could be profound.

To develop the updated ASAE ForesightWorks “Changing Science” driver of change, two groups of association professionals met earlier this year to explore new forecasts, trends, and strategic insights and to provide guidance for associations. Their perspectives are captured in the themes, risks, and considerations below.

As we look into the future, many scenarios are possible. Let’s explore two of them in detail.

Scenario 1: AI Acceleration

In 2036, many areas of scientific research and innovation have entered a period of extraordinary acceleration driven by AI. In data-rich fields like biotechnology, materials science, and pharmaceuticals, AI systems generate hypotheses, simulate outcomes, and design experiments with minimal human intervention. Breakthroughs that once took years now unfold in weeks or months.

But this acceleration is uneven. Jurisdictions with lighter regulatory oversight have become global hubs for high-risk, high-reward experimentation. Meanwhile, more regulated environments struggle to keep pace. Their emphasis on safety, ethics, and validation slows deployment, even as their scientists contribute foundational knowledge.

The result is tension within scientific fields, and the associations that represent them, between moving fast and maintaining trust.

Scenario 2: Scientific Cold War

In the mid-2030s, the global scientific enterprise has split into two dominant spheres: a Western research network anchored by North America and Europe, and an East Asian ecosystem led by China. What began as gradual geopolitical tension in the 2020s has hardened into structural separation. Scientific collaboration across these regions is rare, heavily regulated, and often politically sensitive. The fierce competition for highly trained workers is reflected in governments offering aggressive incentives to retain domestic researchers and attract global experts.

East Asia accounts for the largest share of global investment in research, and a rapidly expanding scientific workforce drives momentum across the region. Meanwhile, the West lags behind, largely due to reduced collaboration, shifts in research funding and focus, and political polarization. The result is a more complex environment with regional variations and friction over where knowledge is created and how it is shared.

Strategic and Operational Implications

While both scenarios describe a future in which science is advancing rapidly, they diverge on what most disrupts the system. One is defined by AI driving the pace and structure of research and discovery itself. The other is defined by geopolitical fragmentation. For association leaders, the distinction matters because it shapes where you are most vulnerable and where you have the greatest opportunities to create new value.

In both futures, their are some similarities:

• AI is the primary accelerator, with automation optimizing data to speed innovation.
• Enabled by technology, an increasing number of citizen scientists and nontraditional contributors participate in the scientific process.
• With speed and an increased volume of new research, traditional peer review comes under strain.
• Trust and confidence in scientific findings decline.

These changes could push associations to double down on their role in interpreting and validating scientific findings rather than simply distributing them. That means approaching your convening and publishing programs in new and different ways. It also opens opportunities to solidify your association’s role as the arbiter of truth.

Associations’ convening function will need to center on welcoming a broader array of participants and building multiple participation pathways that encourage all contributors to get involved. Look for ways to showcase established experts alongside vetted citizen scientists, pair professionals and nonprofessionals in programs to explore emerging topics, and bring people together around shared challenges.

The traditional peer review and publishing model will likely not survive in these future scenarios. Now is the time to start testing alternatives. Pilot rapid-review formats that are shorter and time bound. Introduce complementary products that layer in additional insights. These might include quick fact sheets, videos, and infographics to support the more thorough “deep track” papers. If you don’t evolve your approach to publishing, it is likely that others will, and they may not adhere to the same tenets of high-quality, evidence-based research.

Helping consumers to interpret and evaluate research findings will be an indispensable role for most associations. Your members and other stakeholders don’t need more information. They need help in deciding what to trust. Teach people how to read and question reports and findings. Show them how to verify sources. Develop “trust certificates” for verified works that your association has validated.

Regardless of how the future of science unfolds, associations face a strategic risk of losing their relevance in an AI-driven and fragmented global system with multiple definitions of what is credible and factual. Organizations that thrive will be those that can

• translate complex, fast-moving science into practical insight
• establish and communicate clear standards of credibility
• convene diverse stakeholders
• adapt their peer review and publishing models.