“Basic scientific research is a prerequisite for development”

Helena Nader, president of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science, contests the exclusion of a key word from a proposed constitutional amendment.

By José Tadeu Arantes

Agência FAPESP – Basic scientific research, which generates knowledge that does not necessarily have an immediate application, is often viewed as a burdensome and costly activity. It is often forgotten that today’s basic knowledge is tomorrow’s applied knowledge and that no scientific and technological development would have been possible without recourse to the most basic of the disciplines: mathematics.

An article on the subject was published by biomedical researcher Helena Bonciani Nader in the March 24th issue of Correio Braziliense. A full professor at the Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp) and president of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC), Nader talked to Agência FAPESP about the subject.

Agência FAPESP – What led you to write the article?
Helena Bonciani Nader – The 1988 Brazilian Constitution was the fruit of very interesting work that involved the participation of broad sectors of society. The SBPC was extremely active in this process, and the document that was produced dedicated an entire chapter to science and technology. Paragraph one of article 218 states that ‘Basic scientific research shall receive preferential treatment from the State, with a view to public well-being and the advancement of science.’ Well then, on the agenda for voting in the House of Representatives, we now have a very positive proposed constitutional amendment, PEC nº 290/13, written by Representative Margarida Salomão (PT-MG), which changes provisions in order to improve the wording between the State and research institutions. Her objective was to encourage science and technology development and innovation, which we overwhelmingly support. However, in the comings and goings through parliamentary committees, the word ‘basic’ was deleted from PEC nº 290/13. Thus, the proposed text of paragraph one of article 218 of the Constitution reads ‘Scientific and technological research shall receive preferential treatment from the State.’ In other words, the word ‘technological’ was added, and the word ‘basic’ was taken out.

Agência FAPESP – It seems like an extraneous detail, but when it comes time for budget allocations, this detail will make a huge difference, won’t it?
Nader – Indeed it will. That is why we’ve fought so hard to correct this wording. You can’t even imagine to what lengths we’ve gone for this. When I speak, I’m not speaking on my own behalf. As president of the SBPC, I speak on behalf of one hundred member science associations. Basic science today is underrated. All anyone talks about is innovation. Innovation is not something one buys off the shelf, although it could be. However, in that case, Brazil would continue to pay royalties. Is that what we want?

Agência FAPESP – Is it a unilateral emphasis that values the end of the process while ignoring the beginning?
Nader – That’s right. If highly funded, basic research had not taken place at universities and institutes in the fields of agriculture and livestock raising, Brazil would not be the seventh largest economy in the world today. It was research that generated the technology, which in turn generated innovation. It would not have been this way if we had limited ourselves to copying models created in countries in the northern hemisphere. Our reality is different, our climate is different, and our soil is different. When we conduct research here, we have to respond to these different conditions. Look at Embrapa [Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation]. I’m very proud of Embrapa. However, I’m also proud of the schools of agronomy around Brazil that provided their support so that Embrapa could exist. Brazil didn’t just buy a package. It made a long-term investment in basic research.

Agência FAPESP – Today’s great challenge is to expand the contingent of highly qualified researchers in Brazil to be able to respond to the demands of development.
Nader – I fully agree. Why do you think China made a 50% increase in its investment in basic research? Why does the United States continue to invest in basic research? Why does Europe continue to invest in it? Some mistakenly say that the SBPC does not value technology and innovation. That is false. Our line of reasoning is clear: without education, there is no scientific research; without scientific research, there is no technology development; without technology development, there is no innovation. They’re consecutive links in the same chain. One depends on the other. It does no good to invest in only part of the chain. We need to invest in all of it.

Agência FAPESP – This is clear in the example you mentioned when you referred to Embrapa.
Nader – I’ll give you an example of another success story: Embraer. It didn’t begin by making airplanes. It began with the establishment of the ITA [Technological Institute of Aeronautics], promoting education, and then it generated science, and then it generated technology. Many are mistaken when they say that Brazilian universities only do research that serves no purpose. I disagree. Thanks to this work, we are treating cancer in Brazil and not abroad. Thanks to this work, our fleet of vehicles is, to a large extent, powered by ethanol, a renewable fuel that pollutes a lot less than fuels derived from petroleum. Thanks to this work, as I’ve said, today we are the seventh largest economy in the world. Basic scientific research is a prerequisite for development. It’s a fundamental link in the chain that begins with training individuals and it benefits society as a whole.