The presidential proposal for a science law is to “return to the past,” says the collective ProCienciaMx

The Red ProCienciaMx, which includes researchers, academics and workers in the science, technology and innovation (CTI) sector, announced a critical position on the initiative presented by the federal Executive on the General Law on Humanities, Sciences, Technology and Innovation. They assure that this document “does not correspond to the scope established by the Constitution for a General Law and seems to return to the past.”

The modification to section V of Article 3 of the Constitution in 2019 opened the doors to move towards a renewed general law.

The fraction establishes that: Every person has the right to enjoy the benefits of the development of science and technological innovation. The State will support scientific, humanistic and technological research and innovation, and will guarantee open access to the information derived from it, for which it must provide sufficient resources and incentives, in accordance with the bases of coordination, linkage and participation established by law. in the matter.

In mid-December, the federal Executive sent an initiative to the Chamber of Deputies to replace the current legislation with the General Law on Humanities, Sciences, Technologies and Innovation and transform the current Conacyt in National Council of Humanities, Sciences, Technologies and Innovation. This joins four other initiatives that have been presented since 2019 in this chamber and in the Senate.

In this regard, this group breaks down the project and gives their opinion on its scope, they have expressed it in nine points that are presented below:

1. The initiative exceeds the scope established by the Constitution for a General Law, by establishing powers and guidelines for state congresses and city councils. In addition, the Conacyt Organic Law and the CTI Law are of a different nature, so they cannot and should not be merged, as does the initiative on Humanities, Sciences, Technologies and Innovation (HCTI) presented.
2. The HCTI initiative does not contemplate research support instruments, does not incorporate basic and frontier science into its priorities, and affects academic freedom. The only promotion program to which he refers is Pronaces, but it is not clear how it operates, nor is there a substitute for funds to support science, which disappeared in 2020. In addition, it restricts academic freedom to define research topics .
3. The distribution of powers is incomplete, which shows the high centralization of the system. The Initiative contemplates an administration of the entire national CTI system centralized in Conacyt, all short and long-term decisions would be made by the Conacyt Governing Board and decides the National Agenda, based on which the initiative is structured. public policy in this regard. “This represents an attack on the autonomous voices of the communities and, in particular, on federalism (…) This concentration of decision-making means an authoritarian setback.”
4. The principles of the general CTI law that should be based on the rights enshrined in the Constitution, but are not consistently addressed. It proposes a set of principles that either do not emanate from the Constitution, or are included in a distorted way, for example, the case of the gender perspective where only inclusive language is used but equality is not promoted through affirmative actions. There is also an absence of constitutional principles.
5. The HCTI initiative does not propose a governance system in which all the sectors involved participate. The presidential initiative repeatedly mentions the concept of “participation”, but does not include it in its principles. It ignores the right to public participation by not incorporating it either in the policy formulation bodies or in the respective advisory bodies.
6. The initiative drastically eliminates the autonomy of Public Research Centers and turns them into agencies at the service of the government. They propose a vertical design and the centers remain subordinate to the Conacyt and the Governing Board that is under its control. The initiative recognizes the “technical and management autonomy” at the discursive level, but in fact, it completely disappears, for example, the general directors will be appointed by the head of the coordinating unit or entity of the sector, and the members of the External Committee of Evaluation and the Internal Consultative Councils, only have the purpose of expressing the same opinion as the Staff Assemblies, which would only be consultative.
7. The initiative does not specify the amount of financing that the State must allocate to science and technology activities, nor does it establish transparency mechanisms for its follow-up. The current law established an annual commitment of 1% of GDP. Although this was never fully complied with, the current initiative eliminates any budgetary commitment by the State.
8. The initiative does not equally include all institutions where scientific and technological knowledge is produced. The HCTI initiative discriminates against researchers, students, and projects from educational institutions and private research centers, thus affecting the human rights of an important sector of the community.
9. The initiative is ambiguous regarding Intellectual Property Rights and does not fully respect the rights of inventors and creators. The initiative is confusing in the interpretation of patrimonial right and intellectual right when proposing the option that Conacyt is co-owner in the results of the projects in whose financing it participates, it does not recognize that the institutions where the inventors and creators are housed contribute their infrastructure , material and human resources, in addition to being the generators of the concepts, methods, tests, processes and prototypes that constitute intellectual activity. In addition, it does not have legal and technical figures specialized in the matter.

nelly.toche@eleconomista.mx