Concern concentration of decisions in the science law proposal

The federal Executive has sent to Congress an initiative that aims to replace the current order of the General Law on science, technology and innovation. The proposal seeks to incorporate the concept of Humanities to the scientific sector and the organization that leads it; redirect resources to basic and frontier science; and reform the scholarship system and the National System of Researchers, among other aspects.

In an interview for the Economist, Dr. Brenda Valderrama, researcher, teacher and author of the book “360° a panoramic vision of scientific policy in Mexico 1985-2018”, and the representative of Brazil Alberto Acosta Peña, secretary of the Science Commission, Technology and Innovation, make a reflection regarding this document that will soon be in the legislative dispute.

The dismantling of the tour in CTI

For Dr. Valderrama, this is not a document that arises from society, because despite the fact that it is said to be based on a “huge series of consultations, the truth is that nothing was taken from this exercise”, this makes it a simulation. But for the researcher, the most worrying aspects of the document are, in the first instance, the verticality that it proposes. “It is exclusive and also dismantles all the governance bodies of the system, both the academic, social, and private sectors, and the governments of the federal entities.”

He explains that it is a dismantling because feedback would no longer be received anywhere, because all communication channels are cut off and the only decision-making body that prevails is the General Council, which in this proposal disappears all the current participants who they are not direct subordinates of the President (of the Republic). “In the new Council there is no feedback, because the Scientific and Technological Advisory Forum, the National Conference, the Inter-institutional Council for Innovation have disappeared, and now only the president, his employees and Conacyt remain.”

He adds that this means the concentration of power and that decision-making in science in Mexico will end up in the hands of a single person with no scientific training or appreciation for science. “This will affect at least two future generations.”

Another relevant issue, he said, is financing, where no improvement is in sight. In this version of the Law, the mention of trying to allocate 1% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to science and technology disappears, “now something quite lukewarm appears that says it will depend on the budget.” He said that in terms of mode, the funds or any mechanism to replace it were not reestablished, this leaves science without investment portfolios that fulfill specific functions, “there is no longer any organization in terms of investment, it is disjointed in a way discretionary and the law does not recover the funds”.

A next point of concern is the “threat to the freedom of research”, he explains that on the one hand they say they will be very respectful of the autonomies, but on the other, the autonomies depend on the budget, this limits management capacity, there is As an example to the INE, “if you cut the budget of an autonomous body, it ceases to be autonomous, if the budget is manipulated, it restricts the freedom of investigation and puts autonomy at risk.”

In general, Valderrama assures that there is enormous concern on the part of the scientific community about the impact that this is going to have on their activity, but above all on the future of the next two or three generations of young people. “Today we run out of arguments to give them hope.”

Valderrama also reflects on Conacyt, explaining that it was one of the few bodies that did not change its name or logo for more than 50 years, surviving many crises, this because “it continued to be permanently built, more and more strong, optimizing, more transparent, inclusive and now they dismantle it, it disappears and they create an ‘ideological monstrosity’ that starts from revenge, resentment and threats, that of course cannot go well”.

A next concern is the issue of scholarships, he points out that unlike other government programs, Conacyt’s programs were never based on the need of the person, but rather based on the applicant’s merit; now by removing the quality criteria for scholarships and the National System of Researchers are at enormous risk of becoming patronage programs, “this is a very strong deviation from the best international practices.”

Valderrama concludes that the community has been defending itself and resisting the attacks bravely for 4 years. “What has to be done at this moment is to close ranks, express with all your words the aberration that this text implies in a 21st century context” and recalled that this is not the only initiative presented, “there are three more that should be to discuss, the Chambers agreed to make a bicameral commission and discuss all the proposals, let’s see if they are sustained”, he noted that the initiative that entered by deputies headed by deputy Juan Carlos Romero Hicks is a “document that is worth comparing, that He has legislative and legal technique, knowledge of the facts and future perspective. We need to see the debate between the vision of the 19th century or the 21st century”.

A Chronicle of a Death Foretold

For his part, Deputy Acosta shares that as a “chronicle of a death foretold,” this initiative does not present anything new to what has been predicted for a long time. He explains that although for science there are no parties or glasses that are half full or half empty, history can be reviewed and if the glass was half full and went down, it is not a matter of approaches.

“In this sense, this government intends, under a banner of ‘humanist science’ against a neoliberal one, to eliminate what had been built for so many years.” He assures that there is a misconception because from the outset all science is human and that speaks of a lack of correct vision of things.

He said that what could happen with this Law is worrying, since the objective of this government is simply to “destroy everything that represents a problem for the interests of the 4T and without having made the modifications to the Law, they already did it with the budget destined for science”, he also mentioned the disappearance of the 91 trusts, “it does not matter to develop the sciences, scientific thinking, or make decisions based on science, everything today is based on what is said in the National Palace”.

He adds that this is an INE-style coup and that there is concern that this Law does not promote the sciences and that on the other hand it has government control and eliminates all critical thinking. “It is a terrible blow that they want to give to science, technology and innovation by adding, for example, the nickname of humanism.” As a doctor in economics, the deputy assures that Mexicans must do science, innovate, and within this the social sciences already fit, “with the modifications the axis of science is broken.”

He also mentioned the extinction of the trusts, “another serious mistake is their elimination, because scientific analysis projects require years for their results, and with an annual project, one is depending on the budget being approved again for the project to continue, this implies a rupture that today no longer has a new mechanism that guarantees the continuous resource for science”.

Lastly, Acosta Peña explains that the goal of reaching 1% of GDP for these purposes is abandoned, for which reason he concludes that this proposal brings “very serious errors” that also seek a misunderstood austerity “in science you must invest what you it is needed, but what this government intends is to spend less at whatever cost and obtain the same results, that is a lack of vision about science in the national palace, which is going to bring about a 50-year lag in CTI matter (…) It is a destruction that we are not reaching to appreciate. What we are going to do is make the matter visible and make Mexico and the world see the serious mistakes that this government is making.”

Background of the new Law:

• On December 29, 1970, the Law creating the National Council of Science and Technology was published.
• On February 3, 1983, the addition of section XXIX-F was published, of article 73 of the CPEUM, which grants the Congress of the Union the authority to issue laws for the item.
• On March 5, 1993, the reform to section V of article 3 of the CPEUM was published, in which the duty of the State to support scientific and technological research is recognized.
• On May 21, 1999, the Law for the Promotion of Scientific and Technological Research was issued and established Conacyt’s participation in the formulation of the Intersectoral Program, as well as the regulatory framework for the use of trusts.
• On June 5, 2002, the Decree issuing the Science and Technology Law and the Conacyt Organic Law was published.
• On June 12, 2009, the decree that reforms various provisions of the Science and Technology Law to introduce the so-called Knowledge-based Economy was published.
• On May 15, 2019, section V of Article 3 of the Constitution was modified to recognize the human right to science and the obligation of the State to support said modification was made explicit. Congress is also empowered to legislate on the matter.

nelly.toche@eleconomista.mx