Spring Quarter 2005-06 News
Science Policy in Latin America Symposium
On May 18, 2006 in Stanford’s Bolivar House an expert panel from Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Peru discussed science policy in Latin America.
The panel was introduced by the Center for Latin American Studies Director Herbert S. Klein. The panel consisted of two commentators and four presenters who gave talks on aspects of science policy in their countries.
The commentators were Alfredo Caro, Argentine research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and Simon Schwartzman, president of the Instituto de Estudos do Trabalho e Sociedade in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The speakers were Ruy de Queiroz, Tinker Visiting Professor and associate professor of computer science at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil, Gustavo Buscaglia, Tinker Visiting Professor and associate professor of nuclear engineering at Cuyo National University in Mendoza, Argentina, Marcos Cueto, Tinker Visiting Professor and professor of sociomedical sciences in the School of Public Health at the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Lima, Peru, and Rodolfo Dirzo, Bing Professor in Environmental Science at Stanford University and formerly at UNAM, Mexico.
Session One:
Ruy de Queiroz gave an overview of the history of science policy in Brazil and the status of the Brazilian information technology bill. He analyzed the federal (CAPES and CnPq) and state agencies which fund scientific research and graduate education in Brazil and the size of funding currently available to Brazilian scientists. He also stressed that not all of the state research organizations, which are funded with local taxes are as professional as FAPESP, the São Paulo state research organization. While praising the overall state involvement in subsidizing scientific research he also indicates areas where problems had occurred and needed to be addressed. He also talked about the problem on digital inclusion. In Brazil there are 180 million inhabitants, and 150 million of them do not have access to information and communication technologies, and the recent still incomplete information technology bill hopes to address this problem.
Gustavo Buscaglia began his talk by saying in his country usually economists or journalists talk about science policy, but not scientists. He focused his talk on the rapid growth in the field of science and technology in the last ten years in Argentina as a result of systematic IDB and other external support. He thought that some of the changes which had occurred, such as the introduction of new concepts, including management of science research and the accreditation of universities, had some very positive effects. The accreditation of the country’s science program has led to much higher standards for academic teaching positions; a significant increase in available funds for university scientific research programs; and the creation of government regulatory agencies to encourage transparency and accountability; and the promotion of the intersection of universities with outside research centers to create a society of knowledge.
A negative effect of the institutionalization of Argentina’s science program is the bureaucracy (or technocracy) in scientific institutions. Buscaglia says that in scientific institutions, everyone’s talking about organization charts and changing organizational structures and salaries. Institutions are made up of scientists and management experts, and people in management positions decide who will earn more. He referred to the squares in organizational charts as “pasta” or “ravioli,” and how in scientific institutions scientists can be found asking who the ravioli of X went to. The introduction of new concepts, such as management science and competitive advantages, and the influx of image and strategy consultants have led to more managers and not enough researchers. Buscaglia says this dynamic hurts institutions, because promotions are often viewed as unfair, especially when, as a scientist and professor, your worst student ever is the ravioli on top of you.
After de Queiroz and Buscaglia spoke, commentators Alfredo Caro and Simon Schwartzman gave some comments and information on the topics that were presented.
Caro added to Buscaglia’s history of Argentina by emphasizing that during the 80s, 1100 professors left the country and it has taken 20 years to build up the universities again. Caro highlighted some of the Argentine scientists who have contributed to the advancement of science around the world. For example, Bernardo Houssay who made discoveries regarding diabetes, and Luis F. Leloir, who worked with Houssay on diabetes research and who later became Director of the Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas, Fundación Campomar. He also commented on the Argentine atomic energy export industry as a pride of the country. Caro concluded his comments by giving an overview of the funding roadmap of Argentina showing that Argentina has received financial assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Organization of American States (OAS), and loans from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Some of this money was used to update laboratories in universities. But he also stressed two fundamental issues, especially compared to the Brazilian experience. The funding for scientific research has not been made a basic part of government expenditures but relies much too heavily on foreign loans, most recently from IDB. He also suggested that until Argentine scientists took a more pro-active position to promote scientific research, funding would remain precarious.
Schwartzman began his comments by talking about how in Brazil after WWII science became part of national development and the mastering of atomic energy became a priority. At the time, there were good physicists but not good atomic energy specialists. Following this was a period of big expansion of the scientific establishment. There was lots of money and the economy was booming. As a result, the national research council became a huge bureaucracy, big interest groups made up of scientists pressured the government to get money for themselves, and big national projects emerged, such as the space and nuclear programs.
During this time, the amount of money and scientific agencies kept growing because of pressure from scientific associations. Schwartzman raised the questions: How useful is this? What’s the impact for the country?
The rapid number of new agencies raises a question of quality and the need for assessments to be done to determine how the money was spent. Schwartzman said an evaluation system hasn’t been adequately developed, because the government has been unable to do this research. He said there needs to be sector research done that looks at revenue to the sectors, such as energy, telecommunications, and oil.
Brazil, a minor player in the world of science and technology has increased its production of academic papers from 1% to 1.2% and an innovation law was created to link universities with the private sector. Schwartzman raised the question: Does the private sector have this kind of demand? Schwartzman believes that the main user of scientific knowledge should be the public sector.
Session Two:
Latin American medical science historian Marcos Cueto talked about science development in Latin America. He began his PowerPoint presentation with a photo of Bernardo Alberto Houssay, who was an international leader in the field of physiology who made an important discovery concerning diabetes. Houssay is in the center of a photo surrounded by doctors at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Cueto made the point that Latin American scientists have made positive impacts on the advancements of global medicine and health.
Looking at patterns of cases of scientific excellence in the life sciences, he cited examples of concentration, utilitarianism, nationalism, technology, and networks. He mentioned in Brazil the concentrated talent of medical doctors at the Institute O. Cruz (named after Oswaldo Cruz), including Carlos Chagas who studied under Cruz and discovered Chagas disease while working at the Institute. Peruvian medical doctor Monge took advantage of his environment to study the effects of high altitude on the indigenous population in the Peruvian Andes. He immediately received recognition for his work and was interviewed in TIME Magazine. Nationalism helped to justify Latin American science. Cueto argued it is difficult to survive in a country where equipment, chemicals, and supplies, usually produced abroad, are hard to find. Optimistically, he followed this up by quoting Houssay that poverty is a quality of a good scientist, because it makes you be creative and take advantage of what’s around you. Finally, international networks of science are important. You can’t have a triangle without a base. For example, Mexican Arturo Rosenblueth worked with WB Cannon in his physiology labs at Harvard University. Rosenblueth’s work attracted talented Latin American medical scientists. In 1944, he returned home to Mexico and opened a new field of medicine, cardiology, in Mexico.
Cueto concluded by saying the history of life sciences cannot be described solely in terms of inferiority or control. Patterns exist that present the probability of maintaining first-class scientific institutions under adverse conditions, but involved risk. Latin America’s biggest challenge is to make science an essential part of the cultural life of poor countries. There needs to be an emphasis on the public utility of science. Cueto observed that a different approach to technology appears more intensively in Latin America.
Rodolfo Dirzo talked about the Mexican National System of Researchers (SNI) and the Mexican National Commission on Biodiversity. Throughout his talk he illustrated the need to be ready to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.
Dirzo said in the early ‘80s the socioeconomic and political landscapes of Mexico were in need of improvement. The creation of the SNI in 1984 brought with it increases in researchers’ salaries and scientific advancements, however, the system is highly centralized with the vast majority of researchers concentrated in Mexico City.
Speaking from a personal experience about opportunities and readiness, he described how the national commission on biodiversity (CONABIO) came about in 1992. President Carlos Salinas gathered top biologists in Mexico to learn about biodiversity so that he could hold an international conference and make a good impression on the world. The result was that the same scientists who made him look good asked for a favor in return, to create CONABIO. A main function of CONABIO is to assemble and use data to generate intelligence for biodiversity management. Dirzo ended his talk by saying the solutions to most problems require interdisciplinary research and both social and economic components.
Following Cueto and Dirzo’s talks, commentators Caro and Schwartzman shared some insights.
Caro began by giving an overview of Latin America’s science and technology roadmap. He talked about Latin America’s advancement with influence and assistance by the CNRS in France, the NSF in the U.S., UNESCO, the OAS and the IDB. He agrees with scientist and author Ernesto Sabato of Argentina that for science programs to develop they need the three legs of the state, industry, and scientific institutions. Caro argued that science has to be funded by local sources and not through foreign loans. In Argentina, Caro said the connection between the science and technology system and national needs for development are still quite weak.
Schwartzman concluded the event with comments on the inherent tension that exists between the development of a scientific tradition and the opportunities that exist to influence science policy. He argued that without an already existing scientific tradition countries are unable to take advantage of opportunities for scientific advancement when they arise. He agrees with Cueto that science needs to be made part of the cultural life of a country. Directing his comment to Dirzo regarding the concentration of Mexican researchers in Mexico, he quoted Morton that where there is science, you have more science, where there isn’t science, you have less science.
It’s not often that scientists have the opportunity to spend the afternoon thinking about and discussing science policy with other scientists and experts in the field. The afternoon proved to be beneficial for the panel and audience members, allowing for a provocative and stimulating exchange of information and ideas on the existing state and future of science policy in Latin America.