RENATO DAGNINO

NIn a preliminary version of an article published in Folha de São Paulo two weeks ago, I wrote that the speech given by President Lula, on March 13, at Inpe (National Institute for Space Research), had not had the repercussion it deserved. But it did: the message contained in it seems to have been well understood by influential policy makers participating in the seminar “Brazil in the 21st century”, held 15 days later, at FEA-USP, under the coordination of Delfim Netto.

His opinions, which appeared in the Fapesp bulletin under the suggestive yet tired title of “Motors of Development”, si non é vero, é bene trovatto, respond negatively to the question asked by the president: “...it is not time for our conscience make a commitment to this country, a little beyond our own survival as human beings and researchers?”

I chose and cited six of them because they best express the agendas (beliefs, political-ideological stances and interests) dominant in current S&T Policy. The science agenda, defended by those who wanted to maintain the hegemonic orientation until ten years ago, and the private company agenda, by those who also within the research community have been trying to legitimize themselves through this route.

In fact, although they present themselves as unique and conflicting, they have proven to be negotiable. And antagonistic to the State's démode agenda (which proved compatible with the science agenda during the military period) and the latent agenda of social movements (which gains strength with the president's speech).

The first is that “publication of works in magazines with international circulation is a great boost for scientific and technological development”. It contains two ideas that are increasingly questioned, but which continue to be opportunistically repeated by supporters of the science agenda”. In reality, the publication of works is a result and not an impulse (or cause) for scientific development. And technological development, as the experience of several countries has shown, has very little to do with the publication of scientific works. Especially in peripheral countries like ours.

The second opinion is that “at the historical origin of the university is the need to solve society's problems and introduce new products into the market...”. Again, two mistakes. Anyone who works at the university should know that neither the origin nor the current mission of the university includes “inserting new products into the market”. This idea has been sold by supporters of the company's agenda who try to orient S&T Policy towards the market using the neoliberal fallacy that this would contribute to “solving society's problems”.

Linked to this, a third blames the “lack of interaction with the productive sector” (by euphemism, the private company) saying that it “... has become a logic typical of educational institutions in the country” that “.. .does not favor the dissemination of knowledge to solve economic or social problems”. As if our peripheral, dependent and imitative capitalism, which combines its primary-exporting and import-substituting aspects with a brutal concentration of income, was not characterized by an – economically rational – aversion to technological innovation. And as if “solving economic problems” was the company’s concern. What’s more, as if “social” issues could be resolved through that “interaction”.

The fourth opinion claims that “the university has a fundamental role in the creation of knowledge, but, for an innovative product or process to be accepted by the market, research must be... a subject primarily dominated by companies”. Once again there is the mistake of limiting the role of the public university (as this is what it is) to the creation of knowledge to satisfy the company's agenda. As if there were no other agendas from actors that contribute more to its existence, that demand more scientifically original and complex solutions and with greater social and economic impact for the country.

Linked to this, a fifth highlights that “we would need at least 150 thousand scientists in companies to transform our knowledge into economic development”. She reiterates a powerful compromise solution between the two currently dominant agendas: we need to offer more masters and doctors to satisfy this market demand of 150 thousand.

In this case, there is a misunderstanding of supply and demand. The equivalent of 3 masters and doctors work in R&D activities in public and private companies. If this stock increases – magically – by 10% over the course of this year, there will be an additional demand of 300; when then the supply of masters and doctors in science and engineering (which grows 10% per year) will be 30 thousand. This ratio of 1:100 shows the absurdity to which the disconnection between the agendas of our S&T Policy has led us. And the mistake would be to try to balance this imbalance by activating only those two agendas.

Especially in a country that, as the president highlighted, “has not learned the lessons of literacy, agrarian reform, income distribution” and which, therefore, has agendas from the State and social movements to be introduced into the S&T Policy decision-making process. So that, among many other things, society can take advantage of the investment it made in training its masters and doctors.

But for this to happen, it is necessary for the left-wing research community that I referred to in the previous article to oppose the compromise solution between the two currently dominant agendas (science and business) that the sixth opinion alludes to: “. ..when foreign companies are interested in partnerships with Brazilian universities, in addition to their directors looking for entities that train more masters and doctors, the list of researchers' publications is one of the basic requirements”. And engage in the construction of an S&T Policy in which “foreign companies” are not the actor to benefit at the expense of meaningless competition between public universities and their professors.

In conclusion, I highlight the distance between what the president's speech signaled and the vision of some members of the research community who, strangely, despite their faith in private companies and the market, and their ideological-political alignment with conservative forces, continue to influence a public policy that is key to achieving the goals of the current government.

Renato Dagnino is a professor at the Department of Scientific and Technological Policy (DPCT), at the Institute of Geosciences (IG) at Unicamp