'Due to a lack of vision, policy and resources, there are many challenges to creating scientific culture'

In the following interview, the president of the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science (SBPC), Ildeu de Castro Moreira, addresses fundamental points of Brazil's scientific and technological policy, gives his opinion on the challenges faced with drastic funding cuts and points out ways for science supports the country's growth and development. Ildeu de Castro Moreira is a professor at the Institute of Physics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and works in the areas of theoretical physics, history of science and scientific communication.

HIs it an ideal speed for science? How far are we from this ideal and what challenges do we need to face to get closer to it?

Speed ​​is the variation of something in relation to time, and this something needs to be measured. What indicators do we use for science? We can list three. The first would be in terms of the number of articles published. Brazil has grown a lot compared to the rest of Latin America, but the rate is still lower than countries like China and South Korea. It has also grown in the training of qualified human resources. Each year, Brazil graduates around 16 thousand doctors, although training in the areas of exact sciences and engineering has not grown enough. We train, proportionally, more in the areas of law and administration. They are important, but there are distortions, as Brazil trains more lawyers than Europe. But with the restriction of resources, scholarships and research projects, it is almost certain that the number of highly qualified people will decrease in the coming years.

The qualitative aspect of productivity must also be considered, measured by some indicators that are also not perfect, but which reflect the degree of impact on the scientific community itself. Brazil has grown in this aspect, but is well below in general – with the exception of tropical agriculture. One of the reasons is that Brazilian science is poorly internationalized. Another factor is financial resources, which had been growing in recent decades, but began to fall from 2014 onwards. In 2013, there were 0,7% public investments and 0,5% private investments. In other countries the contribution of the private sector is very significant, close to 3%.

The third factor is the social impact of the research produced, that is, how knowledge is divided into products, patents, innovation. The innovative capacity in the Brazilian industrial sector is small compared to other countries. There is a serious gap, which is reflected in the low economic impact of national science, with the exception of some areas – aeronautics, agriculture, petrochemicals, mechanical industry, etc. In these areas, science played a significant role, which changed productivity and innovative capacity.

Overall, there is low appropriation of science by the production chain, which results in enormous technological dependence, such as in the areas of chemical, electronics and pharmaceutical industries. We import and pay a lot for products from these areas, and export others with much lower added value.

Publish so you don't perish, and quickly. Does this expression reflect current scientific production?

I would say yes, it is a norm that has spread throughout the world, and is dangerous. It is important to draw attention to the need to publish, for people to be active and in a competitive, stimulating environment, so that production can occur. But this breakneck pace, in which often only the number of published works counts, generates distortion. It produces a lot, but without quality, and also becomes an obstacle to the emergence of new ideas, as people tend to do what they already know.

Many of science's new ideas have emerged through a difficult and slow process. It takes time for more elaborate, integrative, interdisciplinary ideas to emerge and mature. A fruit that is artificially ripened ahead of time is not as good or as tasty. We need a system that allows longer-term work to be valued.

Brazilian science is going through a delicate moment in terms of financing, both in terms of research grants, inputs and equipment, and in relation to funding for universities. Why is it important to defend this funding?

Science and technology are essential for a country's sovereignty. Whoever dominates them controls many sectors of the world economy, such as the pharmaceutical industry, telecommunications, energy, and public environmental, individual and collective health policies. A country that gives up having a reasonable level of science and technology will be a buyer of foreign products.

Brazil has riches, immense biodiversity, the Amazon and other biomes, drinking water. Without science and technology, you cannot take advantage of them and fail to improve the lives of Brazilians, improve the economy, and generate a new cycle of development. Furthermore, the natural greed of the world – see the oil wars – will come. Does anyone have any doubts about where they will look when there is a lack of drinking water in the world?

From a social point of view, it has implications for public policies on health, energy, the environment, coping with and reducing natural disasters and hunger – which unfortunately is once again an issue in Brazil today. To feed the world's immense population, it is necessary to have well-developed agriculture. Science also contributes to increasing the qualifications and average income of the population.

Finally, it is important for the individual citizen. Scientific culture is essential for him to understand the world in which he lives, to gain insight into the great theories – which are achievements of humanity. And the Brazilian people support their science. The latest survey carried out by the Center for Management and Strategic Studies (CGEE) of MCTIC [Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications] revealed that 80% support the allocation of more resources in this area. This percentage is high across all income levels and education levels. In other words, the Brazilian people are defending science more than the National Congress, which is cutting resources for science and technology in half.

What paths can we take to avoid a collapse in the national science and technology system?

The main thing today is to maintain a stance of resistance and opposition to drastic cuts. These movements need to gain more strength and first incorporate the scientific and academic community itself. We have between 100 thousand and 200 thousand doctors, an even greater number of university professors, more than 2 million students in public universities and federal institutes. All hit hard by these cut policies. If 10% of this group held public discussions and demonstrations, we would have a significant impact.

Furthermore, it is necessary to involve other sectors of society. There are actions by different groups, but localized and disjointed. There is a need to create a broader movement, with greater repercussion. The media, which sometimes only defends the interests of certain sectors, has supported the discussion about science.

In the coming years, it is important to discuss proposals for the country, for the academic community to build, present and convince candidates and political parties. It is important that society mobilizes so that these politicians incorporate or commit to some major basic issues for science and technology. Countries that developed had, for decades, investment policies in science. In Brazil, governments rarely use science and technology to define public policies, such as in the areas of sanitation, environment and public health, with exceptions.

The current crisis has required increasingly frequent demonstrations by scientists in the country, but there is a common criticism that this demonstration should not disturb the population (as occurred in the last March for Science, in São Paulo) and that it should be non-partisan. What do you think about this?

I believe there are two main reasons for this difficulty in participating in political events, and we have to change that. The first is that there is no culture of political participation, and not just in relation to science. Our society has never had democratic practices at its base, which has always experienced a history of exploitation by elites. To give you an idea, it was forbidden to have books or the press for 300 years of our history (with the arrival of the Portuguese as a reference), and afterwards there was still a lot of censorship. Thus, Brazilian civil society is fragile and this is also reflected in science and technology.

In addition to this issue, it is important to recognize that acts are often called by partisan sectors. It is fair for parties to call for demonstrations, but some do not feel comfortable. We have difficulty doing more integrative acts. A polarized or narrow union discourse is what normally predominates in demonstrations. And this needs to be changed, we need to understand that to incorporate new sectors we need to have a broader practice. We must be non-partisan – not in the sense that sectors of the media and the right say, of being against organization and demonstrations. But it is important to realize that a struggle for education, science and technology runs through various sectors of society, across a broad ideological spectrum.

It is a challenge that these party sectors need to face, have greater openness, new convening practices. If we don't think about this, it will always be the fault of those who don't come, and we stop thinking that those who organize often have a narrow stance. It is easy to point out those who do not get involved, but the question is whether civil society associations are renewing themselves, whether they are more open to incorporating other sectors of society, or not.

Parties can and should participate, but collective demonstrations must overcome, be above these ideological-partisan divisions, because they incorporate broader issues, which need to involve more people and more sectors of society to avoid collapse. The sectors that are promoting this dismantling may have little expression in society and high rejection of their ideas, but they are strong. To counter this, a broader movement is needed, and for that it is necessary to overcome these other divisions that are natural, but that should not be predominant at this moment.

Has the Brazilian university fulfilled its role in overcoming economic crises and in the country's development?

In parts. The Brazilian university has a very recent trajectory, having been founded around 100 years ago, and whose research is even more recent, starting in the 1930s. During this period, it experienced two dictatorships, one in the Estado Novo and another in 1964, which lasted around 20 years each, and which has the impact of repressing the circulation of ideas.

At the time of their foundation, universities served to form an elite, associated with the interests of the dominant people in society. Only in recent years have they been opening up. My classmates and professors at university were all white and middle class. Today I have many students from popular sectors, such as black people and women, who rarely came to physics. This process of expanding the university student base and tackling regional inequalities, spreading fields through the interior of Brazil, it was very positive, it included and allowed access to many.

But we're still far away! Brazil is one of the countries in Latin America with the least higher education among its population. This is an important indicator of our delay. We still need to greatly increase higher education rates, and at the moment, with these restrictive policies, this is threatened to decrease.

It is also necessary for the university to be aware of its autonomy, but to interact with the productive sector. This has an impact on society. If the country develops economically, people's employment and living conditions improve.

How does the dissemination of science fit into the demand for a certain pace of production and the challenge of contributing to the development and emancipation of society?

Scientific education needs to make a revolution, especially in basic education, which is very bad. And the problem gets worse, because the changes that are being made come in the opposite direction.

In non-formal education, science communication is essential. In Brazil, there was a significant improvement in visits to museums, science houses and planetariums, but they remain few and poorly distributed across the country's regions. There is a huge challenge in continuing this work and having a public policy for this area – and we are facing many setbacks. The responsible sectors in the ministry have been downgraded, have significantly reduced funding and have distorted direction, as they sometimes place unqualified people to assume such positions. As a result, important activities are compromised.

We once again have notices for science fairs, but with reduced value; we are not having notices for science dissemination, for science spaces; the National Science and Technology Week is suffering many setbacks; we have a very small presence in the media; and there is a lack of more intense policies and actions on the internet. Due to a lack of vision, policy and resources, there are many challenges to creating a scientific culture in society.

This text is part of the Rhythms of Knowledge dossier of the electronic magazine ComCiência, whose content can be accessed here:

http://www.comciencia.br/confira-aqui-todo-o-conteudo-do-dossie-ritmos-do-conhecimento/