|
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PARADIGM
In the last forty years, scientific research in our country has made a significant leap. There were several factors and actors that contributed to this. However, there is no doubt that part of this advance must be credited to the consolidation of the postgraduate policy implemented in the sixties in the main Brazilian universities.
In order to have an idea of this progress, without the need for the abusive use of statistical data, which are available from state and federal funding agencies, we will try to mark this evolution, using the type of questions asked at different times up to the present day.
In the sixties, a professor at a public university was faced with the following question: “Do you do research?” A simple response, positive or negative, would leave your interlocutor, in a certain way, satisfied. If so, it would give the interrogated teacher a different status.
In the seventies, the question changed its focus: “Have you published 'papers'?” In that decade, the differentiated status came from the existence of publications and, of course, for those published in English (even in a national periodical), the positive difference would be even greater.
The eighties already raised the question with some specificity: “What theme are you working with? Is it basic or applied research?” In that decade, the second question was at the heart of discussions, leading to endless debates in every forum in which it was raised. It was a period in which funding agencies, mainly federal ones, began to introduce inductive mechanisms. It is worth highlighting, among them, PADCT, which had a huge impact on the areas of chemistry, physics, materials and biotechnology.
Several questions, sometimes even apparently antagonistic, marked the nineties. It started with: “How many works have you published?” It quickly moved on to: “How many papers have you published this year?” And, with even greater speed, the question began: “What is the impact factor of the journals in which you publish?”, leading from there to: “Objectively, what is your research useful for? Do you have any interaction with the production sector?”
It should be noted that all these questions, for better or worse, had to be answered within a scenario characterized by discontinuity in funding for research – mainly by federal agencies (Finep and CNPq) – by vehement attacks on the image of the public university and by a dizzying replacement of staff, motivated by the rush to retire. However, the most surprising thing is that, overcoming all these difficulties, scientific production increased, growing significantly. In the nineties, we practically doubled our production compared to the eighties, exceeding 1% of the generation of world science, measured by the number of indexed publications.
The 2000s have been marked by rapid changes in the research funding scenario in the country. There are positive signs of recovery in federal funding, via universal and inductive notices, especially as a result of the Sectoral and Non-Sectoral Funds program and the creation of networks, such as the Millennium Institutes. However, most of these new mechanisms point to an emphasis on large projects, with investment of large sums of resources in a small number of research groups. It is worth critically analyzing this change in the way research is financed, mainly due to the relative abandonment to which traditional mechanisms for financing small projects are being relegated. The so-called “balcão” allowed important advances and enabled the consolidation of the so-called groups of excellence, which today are privileged with the agencies’ new programs.
This scenario puts us face to face with a new situation that implicitly raises other questions. It seems that we are facing a paradigm shift. In the optimistic hypothesis, we would finally be gradually ceasing to create a mostly reflexive science in favor of a science with greater autonomy, relevance, local leadership and, above all, with consequential implications for the scientific, technological, social and cultural development of our state and from the country.
Admitting such a scenario, the organization of scientific research will certainly undergo changes, with the need for a new perception of the importance of scientific and technological research, which is certainly not limited to a mere question of funding, even though no one dares to deny that it has strong dependence on it. We believe that the strategic dimension will be decisive in this new phase. Hence we have to work with a vision of truly sustainable development that is not divorced from the reality of our society as a whole.
|
