We cover a wide range of topics on the podcast. The best way to get a feel for it is to look through our list of previous episodes. The two main rules are that the topic needs to be related to science advice somehow (obviously), and something you can speak about with authority. But both of these can be flexibly interpreted. People who are interested in science advice might also be interested in science communication, science diplomacy, policymaking, philosophy of science, science and politics, and many other linked topics. Don’t feel too constrained. If you find it interesting, and it’s linked to science for policy, it’s probably OK. Following these guidelines, most episodes fall into one of three categories: Thematic discussion. We can discuss a current topic in science advice. Examples: Tracey Brown on data modelling; Cathrine Holst on trust and mistrust. Operational case study. We can discuss an interesting organisation, project or institution at the science-policy boundary. It should be something unusual or new. Examples: Florian Süssenguth on the innovation dialogue; Natasha Gardiner on science advice for Antarctica; Pia Kinhult on the European Spallation Source. Research paper. We can drill down into a specific piece of academic research you’ve done (or are doing) that’s relevant to the science-policy interface. Examples: Frederick Fenter and Stephan Kuster on the academic community’s response to COVID-19; Cary Funk on whether people trust science. There is also a fourth category of episode which we publish occasionally, but it’s much harder to pull off: Wide-ranging discussion. We can have a general conversation about science advice in general. Examples: Roger Pielke Jr; David Budtz Pedersen; Christina Moberg.