Photo: Leo Barizzoni
UNESCO Montevideo interviewed the Uruguayan scientist specialized in the area of biomedicine and biochemistry, current president of the National Academy of Sciences of Uruguay, member of the Honorary Scientific Advisory Group that advises the government of his country in addressing the pandemic, and the first Uruguayan highlighted by the United States Academy of Sciences as a foreign scientist associated with the organization.
The renowned scientist Rafael Radi, current president of the National Academy of Sciences of Uruguay, was one of the three panelists who had the first colloquium on science, technology, innovation and society that was held on August 12, 2020 within the framework of the Campaign #ScienceInMotion that drives the CILAC Forum, with the support of the UNESCO Regional Science Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.
In an exclusive interview for UNESCO Montevideo, Radi assessed the current state of Latin American science, its main challenges and the aspects that must be incorporated so that science can capitalize favorably on the learning that the pandemic represented.
Do you consider that COVID-19 allowed the population to become familiar with scientific knowledge?
What the pandemic brought was a strong shock. If we focus on our Latin American society, and not on Europe, which is a region with a much deeper scientific tradition, and answering from a broad perspective -because there are subsectors within society that are naturally closer to science and technology-, COVID brought a shock that affected three key parties.
First, to general society, because people were able to discover that there was a lot of scientific capital silenced within their countries. Secondly, it was a shock for scientists, because we had to attack a very serious emerging problem and quickly interact with society and with solutions. And, finally, it was also a shock for the political system, because it found that science conveys solutions to society.
What consequences does this triple shock leave for the future?
We are still in process. We must see how it decant, how much of this is transformed into a permanent way of functioning at the level of society. The positive thing is that, in any case, the decantation will leave science on a higher level than it was before. I don't think that in the future the enthusiasm and visibility will be as much as it is now, because we are currently at the peak of a very impactful phenomenon. Still, I understand that many people opened their eyes. With those doors open, added to a little collaboration from the political system, we could move on to a simpler stage to consolidate that connection between society, science and politics. We cannot say that right now science is definitively installed in the functioning of society, but there was a very significant push that we cannot ignore.
«Scientific approaches can positively impact people's quality of life, in the expansion of their rights, such as the right to health, housing, education, among others»
What depends on this relative success being sustained as a fundamental pillar?
We have all learned in this sense. All three parties must play a proactive role in the future, if we want science to remain an important aspect of society. Scientists must strive to maintain the connection with decision makers and society, to provide a part of their knowledge to address acute problems. Politicians should recognize that science has many elements to offer when making key decisions in a world that is super complex to address. And society should incorporate scientific work. Scientific approaches can positively impact people's quality of life, in the expansion of their rights, such as the right to health, housing, education, among others. They have to know it. That is the result of permanent work.
Are you optimistic about that? Will scientific consolidation be achieved in the short term?
I am moderately optimistic. In the case of Uruguay, what has happened gives the government the opportunity to take a path that, eventually, ends in the generation of a Ministry of Science, something that does not exist in our country. It would really be a step forward from an institutional point of view. It would give science maximum representation at the government level, within the council of ministers and in all areas from where the ministries do things for our countries.
Beyond the fact that they are bureaucratic structures, they allow decisions to be made at the highest level. It allows for much more intense discussion of the issue of budgeting and financing for science, in addition to generating transversal programs in different areas of activity. I believe that it is a viable path to achieve in our country. In addition, obviously, institutions for the promotion of scientific research at the national level should also be developed much more.
The colloquiums on science, technology, innovation and society promoted by CILAC and UNESCO Montevideo were designed with that same spirit, that of consolidating the scientific figure in the communities. You participated in the first meeting. What contributions did he leave you?
Yes, I agree. I found it a very valuable activity. The views presented covered multiple dimensions of the problem that had been raised: the right to science. It was very well addressed from the organization and its moderation. The elements that were shared were interesting from a theoretical and also a practical point of view. An endless number of examples were given that connected with the enunciation of the right to science, which is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to very specific examples, where the meaning of the right to science was visualized from the framework of the pandemic to through actions of science and scientists, with direct impact on the human rights of society, in particular the right to health.
It ranged from very technical and legal topics, which our Colombian colleague Rodrigo Uprimny spoke about, to aspects of instrumentation, such as those mentioned by the director of the UNESCO Regional Science Office, Lidia Brito. And also issues of what the reaction of the Uruguayan scientific system was in support of government actions and how that collaborated with the control of the pandemic in our country. It was a very interesting experience.
«Scientists are not a subsector of society with differential qualities, we simply dedicate ourselves to a task that has value, and that value should be solidly incorporated into the functioning of the entire society»
Are we facing a new scientific paradigm that communicates with society from another perspective?
There is a greater will and need to integrate science into the functioning of society. These are things that have always happened. The case of the pandemic was an example to visualize that scientists allow better-informed decisions to be made, and that impacts how an epidemic develops with all the social, human and economic costs that it entails.
I am not sure that it is a new paradigm because, in reality, the scientific basis always was and is the connection of science with the rest of society. It is true that currently there is an increasingly broad understanding about the need to incorporate the scientific dimension into all the community's work. Scientists are not a subsector of society with differential qualities, we simply dedicate ourselves to a task that has value, and that value should be solidly incorporated into the functioning of the entire society.
As we say within the advisory committee, where science assists government decisions, we provide the scientific evidence. We try to ensure that the government takes advantage of it for better decision-making, which ultimately depends on politicians, that is, on democracy. But if the representatives are better informed, better enlightened, with a better understanding of a complicated world, of permanent global change, of health crisis, of energy needs, the quality of the decisions will be better.
We must generate an opening of the political sector to science. Science must be able to dialogue fluently and everything must be connected to people's problems.
But I repeat, having said all this, I reiterate that there is a space in scientific work that must be protected and that is important as such.
What role does scientific journalism play in this fluid dialogue?
A very important one. Scientific journalism must be developed much more in Latin America. It is vital. Because we as scientists can do some dissemination, some of us do worse and others better, but it is not our role. We are not dedicated to communicating. We really must dedicate a lot of time to our projects, to our laboratories. The current situation is not normal, nor is it a situation that is permanent for the scientific community. We are in a state of emergency, but then we will have to go back to work on the projects that we all had, in my case biomedical areas and degenerative areas. So, we must not lose sight of the fact that scientists have taken an important step but we must continue building institutions that allow this to last over time.
We must work in a very professional way from scientific journalism, in the same way that we must work more in the educational field so that there is more and more incorporation of science in schools, in high schools, a process that is taking place, but it is necessary to intensify and not neglect.
Science for development?
I prefer to talk about science and development. Because when one says “stop” it can give the bad idea that we should only work on that science that, directly, shows that it serves social and economic development. But, in reality, sooner or later, even the people who study the first microseconds after the bigbang contribute very important elements. So, We must leave a protective space for scientific creation. Scientific systems must have that flexibility and that ability to accommodate people with profiles that are highly focused on what they do.
«Many places with very little things fail to change the pace of science»
Do you think that science in the region managed to position itself in a prominent place globally after the pandemic?
It is difficult to refer to Latin America as if it were a single homogeneous scenario. It is very big and its realities are very dissimilar.
If you look at Argentina, Chile and Brazil, whose scientific systems I know quite well, you find certain areas that are extremely powerful. In the last 20 years, Chile developed a set of programs and tools that significantly enhance science in that country. Argentina has had an uninterrupted tradition of at least 70 years, the same with Brazilian science, where the academy, in addition to history, has great institutes and outstanding equipment.
Personally, I believe that the region needs to connect scientific work much better with the functioning of the rest of society: from scientific advice, to the impact on productive processes, to the impact on health issues. It is still very scarce and difficult to consolidate. Latin America needs to better connect science with society.
If we compare with other regions, in this part of the world there has always been a mismatch in the countries between the production of science and the use of scientific knowledge, which, many times, led to various criticisms for scientists and science institutions. .
Science has its own endogenous work; not everything that is done in the scientific field is necessarily immediately transferred to society. There are a lot of studies that, many times, take decades until an element of social interest emerges. Obviously, for all countries, and particularly those that are developing, it is an important factor that this connection grows and that society makes more clearly visible the usefulness of taking advantage of the scientific system. I think that in Latin America we all suffer a little from this problem, but I reiterate, I understand that progress is being made to alleviate this.
Do Latin American challenges involve better capitalizing on scientific contributions and reducing the inequality of capabilities that exists between the countries that make up the region?
Yes. Inequality is not only between countries, but also internal, within each country. It is notorious that there are areas of the largest countries in the region that have a very high scientific level, and others, with a very low scientific level.
This is a major challenge because it is not possible to have the best infrastructure and the most qualified people scattered throughout the territory. There countries must make options. Very difficult options. Perhaps the distribution of scientific capabilities must be done in a very intelligent way. Don't think that you have to do everything everywhere. It would be better, if you want to have several places where science is done, that each site manages to specialize as much as possible in certain areas, and there concentrate the best people and the best equipment. Many places with very little things fail to change the pace of science.
The case of Uruguay is an example in this sense, science has been decentralized from the capital. Inland centers and groups of scientific activities were created, which are not all, those that are chosen are developed with all their potential.
How long do we have left in the pandemic until the vaccine appears?
In an optimistic scenario, I believe that in the first half of 2021 the health sector and vulnerable populations of Uruguay could begin to be vaccinated, and for the second half of the year, the rest of the population.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of UNESCO nor do they commit the Organization. The terms used and the presentation of the data that appear therein do not imply taking any position on the part of UNESCO regarding the legal status of countries, territories and cities or regions, nor regarding their authorities, borders or limits.