A science for the people?:
Comments about the science of relevance and social belonging.
Currently, the production process of science is characterized by high specialization and hierarchy. The fragmentation of scientific knowledge involves a particular form of organization of the production relations of science. There are a number of specialists working in laboratories also are specialized, which generate basic knowledge and applied research on specific problems. A biologist is not engaged in studying, for example, processes and mechanisms of mutation of all genes, but of a particular gene. A physicist does not study all the phenomena of thermodynamics but one in particular, and so on. The high level of hierarchy and specialization of science fragmented world, which the scientist is unable to integrate their knowledge and practice their individual life experience, social and collective. The fragmentation of knowledge has led to a production system alienating, in which the science is not valued for what it is but by the amount of data it produces.
Another feature of the system of scientific production is existence of relations of domination between the great hegemonic centers of science and research centers in Latin America. Remember how, until recently, only privileged Venezuelans came to the university and the richest out of the country to complete their training in many of these centers. Once trained these people in the scientific field and after the assimilation of foreign culture in which they had formed, returning to Venezuela to play the production model learned and implemented the domain structure from the North or Europe. Over time, conditions and research domain or country lines ended imposed promoter. Very few have taken the step of reinterpreting the knowledge gained in the "developed" countries, so that the benefits of this knowledge are in their own society. Therefore, when reproducing the conditions of domination, scientific activity is ideological because despite declaring a neutral, use of science or let others use it to preserve or enhance the order of capitalist exploitation. Faced with this painful situation, the social scientist must oppose a science in its knowledge and practice, in the service of people, that is, a science with social commitment that allows to reveal the relations of exploitation in which live their congeners, a science that, to help remove the shroud of mystery with other scientists and ideologues have distorted the objective reality of the capitalist system. The social scientist is opposed to the irrational use of the invention, because his conscience allows him to understand that the ultimate goal and the main reason for its practice, is the benefit of its own species without the expense of the others. The scientist is by definition socialist humanist and environmentalist.
should also be considered that much of the research done in Latin America, is funded by foreign associations, such as multinational energy, pharmaceutical, and telecommunications sector, etc. This "aid" implies that much of the knowledge produced in our countries, ending in the hands of these companies, so that beneficiaries are not our people but the huge transnational. In that sense we must distinguish the fact that the ruling class called themselves the "first world", has long adopted a commitment to science, which is based on the idea that if the science is good long term for capitalism then, what is good for capitalism "first world" is good for humanity. This commitment involves an expansion of the scientific system to our Western capitalist countries, under the slogan of development and progress for at least 500 years we have been enslaved. In this regard Venezuela taken a big step in the last ten years under the government of President Chavez, seeking scientific and technological sovereignty through the enactment of laws like the LOCTI, providing financial resources for scientific research, however this situation, many "scientists capitalists" denounce the alleged lack of support for the Bolivarian government. Venezuela is now one of the countries offering the best conditions to do science, do not tell us, tell our colleagues in other Latin American countries who really do not have the support of their governments, governments have indeed made the scientist a beggar.
Despite these important advances, today much of the results of research in basic science, is still appropriate for private companies and corporations, which develop application forms which subsequently us back in the form of product-ware. Remember that this is one of the conditions of colonialism and imperialism, buy cheap raw materials and sell them to the colonies finished products very expensive. This applies to medicines and vaccines, since not having a pharmaceutical industry itself (which should be one of the strategic tasks of the Bolivarian Revolutionary Government), there is possibility that in our country these products are produced. For many drugs, active agents from species of plants native to our region, plants that have been used by indigenous communities for hundreds and thousands of years, but to be studied and synthesized in laboratories and subsequently sold, become the property of the pharmaceutical industry. The same occurs in the field of biotechnology. For example, production of agriculture "modern" is nothing that the use of molecular biology techniques to produce a variety of "transgenic plants", has replaced traditional agriculture to a level that now occupies 90 % of agricultural production worldwide. Such is the case of cereals such as maize and GM soy, which are held by 2 or 3 multinationals that manage much of the seed germplasm for agriculture. Many of these seeds originally came from our countries, but paradoxically have gone to transnational monopolies that dominate the world market, such as Monsanto, NORVATIS, MICOGEN. Con una gran inversión en propaganda ideológica, estos monopolios han hecho creer al mundo que con el uso de estas tecnologías, van a acabar con el hambre y la miseria. La contracara de esta moneda nos indica que esto no es así. Esta tecnología es demasiado costosa por lo que los países más pobres no pueden adquirirla, quedando excluidos de este tipo de mercado y condenados a la hambruna. Así que, con la aplicación de la ciencia biogenética se reproducen las condiciones de explotación del ser humano y la desigualad en la distribución de los beneficios de la investigación científica, causado por la desigualdad en el acceso a las tecnologías, ya que el interés de estas empresas is playing its gain, increase the accumulation of capital and not the benefit of people. We should also mention that within this great business to these transnational capitalists do not care about the consequences that consumption of these foods may have on human health, nor care about the environmental impact that may cause the use of this technology. Here is an example of using science to make the balance to tilt toward the more powerful side.
Many of our scientists know that this happens but keep silent, some just a product of their alienation and many others share in the profits of mercantilism in science. An ethical question arises here. Just wondering how to make our research is for the people? A first step is to report the misuse of knowledge we produce, exploitation and domination through it is built upon our people. It is difficult for scientists to take this position because doing so would be betraying their own kind and their own interests.
Now, as the system of consumption of scientific knowledge, we must say that it is also highly localized. The results of scientific research are only disseminated to specialists through publications, conferences, seminars, forums and more. The relevance and importance of research is measured by the impact factors assigned to various publications, these indices are defined by the same scientists and the highest scores are the North American and European publications (Science, Nature, etc. .) Although post there is no guarantee of quality, for these same publications recognize that material published by them have resorted to plagiarism and falsification of data, our impact assessment schemes give priority to participation in these magazines. We have nothing against these publications as we see them as a means by which scientists can test their models and hypotheses through discussion and critique with other national and foreign colleagues. As we disagree, is that publishing in these journals is what defines the impact of research and in many cases constitutes the basis of science. So we wonder if anything would not it be more relevant to measure the impact of an investigation by the impact it has on people? How could this be? These are questions we must begin to respond. While we understand that most of the volume of publications are in English, because as they say colleagues this is the language of science, who is to say that this should remain so? In that case it would be worth thinking about the issue of regional publications, such as between the ALBA countries or between countries that are working on similar research lines. These new publications should ensure the quality of the articles and also the participation of colleagues who wish to publish in languages \u200b\u200bother than English. Doing so would be taking a big step in the decolonization of knowledge. We believe not only in the quality of our scientists, but also the greatness of our culture. It is a pity to see so many colleagues who deny and defame to their own countries, and blinded by the "American dream" only aspire to be imitation of the decadent culture of the planet. Another problem related to the distribution of knowledge has to do with the limited (if not null) scientific publication aimed at public "unskilled", ie the people. The few publications that there are no more than manuals and leaflets including scientific research only addressed superficially, this happens because many people do not understand, but is contradictory to propose this for how you will understand if you explain? Therefore departments and scientific press release should be dedicated to disclose what scientists do, so that communities can access a knowledge so far has been denied. is not fair that "the benefit of what we do get to their rightful owners, ie those who through their taxes and fund scientific research work in Venezuela?
Also need to think about who has access to scientific knowledge, ie how it is distributed. As mentioned in the article "Scientists and the Bolivarian Revolution," most people who do science from a small circle of complacency and complicity. For a person to investigate a particular problem will have to acquire the necessary knowledge to do so. This knowledge will be transmitted by those "scholars" who know the "secrets" of this area of \u200b\u200bscience in particular, allowing a hierarchy exists between the "expert" and "started." Individual private ownership of specific knowledge, then allowed into the process of emerging scientific production of power and dominance relations, ie relations of production into the space of politics.
Another feature is that scientific knowledge is surrounded by an aura of mystery that makes for most "mere mortals" is inaccessible. Rather than being science is that many of our institutions today is done is scientism, ie science and religion. To be launched in scientific knowledge, the disciple must after a series of tests that validate their vocation, linked to one of the "clerical caste" in which science is taught in all the secrets of science. The first thing to learn is the language of their respective caste, as The methods to perform the rite of science. This language and method will be banned for "mere mortals" and is practiced in the private circle of his caste. The white coats of science and scientific activity does not represent, however, those white coats really represent what is the dress of the priests of the new religion scientism. Atoms, genes, bacteria, viruses, mechanisms, vectors, forces, protocols, instruments, microscopy, redistribution mechanisms, transculturation, many of the sacred words using the "enlightened." The "believers" on the other hand, observe and abide by the designs of los sabios, pues son ellos los que tienen el conocimiento, la razón. Los “creyentes” ven en la ciencia el camino al paraíso, la solución a los problemas terrenales como el hambre, las enfermedades, el analfabetismo, la miseria, la guerra y la muerte. Los grandes “obispos” desde sus “catedrales cientificistas”, deciden la jerarquía eclesiástica, dictan los grandes nuevos designios, las verdades absolutas. Los creyentes están excluidos del ámbito sagrado: En un sistema académico como el que aún existe en Venezuela, la elección de un candidato a científico se da sobre la base de sus aptitudes intelectuales y académicas. Pero, si bien es cierto que en un inicio every human being is endowed with the same skills, the social context creates differences. Is not the same study with an empty stomach, with a full stomach. However, this condition is not conclusive as there are who, despite all these difficulties have been following the path of science, as is our case. The issue here is the principle of segregation present in the distribution system of scientific knowledge, which makes scientific practice is a matter of elites, who know nothing about the needs of his people, because only he who has endured hunger and poverty can talk about it. We make this radical statement, because for many of those who speak of defending the interests of the "weaker" and to "science for the people, poverty is just a curiosity, something only seen each morning through the windows of their cars, at kilometer three of the Pan American Highway, where turn to their laboratories at the IVIC and can choose to see or not see. The poor, the poor only have their poverty and can not avoid her.
then it is worth asking if "we do scientists really Venezuela SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE? The answer is left to their own opinion. We want to go a step further and ask, "HOW TO MAKE A SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE?
L to science and knowledge are forms of domination, that is science is power. If any doubt, just by looking which vast countries have economic and political dominance worldwide, the answer is pretty clear: those who have developed the necessary technology and knowledge to subordinate those who have been prevented. This indicates that our age is impossible to escape the political consequences that have to do science. In the crossroads that led us capitalism and scientism of capitalism (ie science as a new religion), it requires more than a simple reform, we need a revolution in science, a strategy of opposition to those who defend the capitalist model of science.
Social scientists must find ways to make their knowledge come to communities so they can make use of it. New forms of social practice of science in which knowledge will strengthen the capacity of the struggle of the oppressed and exploited, attention which reveal the degree of alienation and exploitation in which they are, so that in this way, they can take their own process of transformation. One strategy that can be implemented is that all discoveries or new techniques are freely available, both materially and financially, which would reduce their use for commercial gain by individuals or private institutions. We can also connect communities in the production of basic science through strategies to transfer the scientific knowledge we produce, so that they take ownership and make use of it. In fact, it is something that long has been done by scientific medicine, which has consistently appropriate knowledge of medicine ancestral indigenous communities, but to date has been recognition of this fact. Another action that can be taken to advance the construction of a science for the people, is the demystification of scientific endeavor, for which a large part of the work must be done within the scientific community. Researchers must expose and oppose the technocratic and elitist attitudes which are permeated our institutions (IVIC, for example). Have to overcome the fragmentation of knowledge, leading to the reproduction of "experts" unable to connect their work to the needs of their society, for this multidisciplinary work is essential and we believe, much more stimulating than one that offers a microcosm of their expertise.
The doctrine that the problems of technological nature but can not be solved through technological solutions, is an ideology that the ruling class uses to legitimize its power. As mentioned above, with the idea of \u200b\u200btechnological development have historically enslaved our people. What good is technology that does not serve the people?, What good is technology if it is used to exploit human beings? So that before a technological revolution, there must be a cultural revolution of conscience, as stated by President Chavez. It is for this reason that there is a need to "implement a socialist science policy intention is that both EU and non-authoritarian" as stated Manuel Sacristán, allowing a radical political transformation (revolution) into the production process scientific, and go beyond a simple "technological revolution." Including the people in theory and practice of science is the way, that in this way we can transform the relations of production and adapt its production to these new relationships. The creation of committees on science and technology community councils should be a priority addressed in the first instance to identify the needs of communities in this area in order to ask from science strategies that respond to them. must promote a discussion of these issues in both directions, from top to bottom and vice versa, through the establishment of working groups in which different actors are present and where equality prevails, where there may be a broad dialogue and respectful to undertake all the way to solve the problems we are faced with the use of scientific knowledge, based on a multidisciplinary and social spectrum. Here are some ideas that we discuss not only those who do science, they must also speak for those who do science: the people.
hope to further expand and contribute to this discussion. To conclude we want to reproduce a fragment of Eduardo Rothe:
"Science in the service of capital, of goods and entertainment, is not simply the capitalized knowledge, fetishism of the idea and method, alienated image of human thought. Seudograndeza of men, their passive knowledge of a mediocre reality is the justification magic of a race of slaves. "
The debate is brought forward to hearing many more voices.
Saul Flores Juan Vargas
0 comments:
Post a Comment