A scientific bipolar law was passed, with dubious maneuvers. On the one hand, there are advanced general statements. It is commendable that the human right to science is enshrined. There are also general statements regarding freedom of research and teaching.
It is suggested that public policy should promote all forms of knowledge, thereby promoting epistemological pluralism, recognizing the diversity and value of traditional knowledge, as well as the use of its special categories, modes of production and multiple social uses.
It is said that a democratic definition of the National Agenda will be implemented to meet and address the contemporary needs, problems and challenges of Mexican society. This identification should take place through community participation at the local, regional, and national levels, as well as within universities, higher education institutions, and research centers. There is talk of a fair and proportionate distribution of public resources intended to support research, as well as their optimal and transparent use; As well as the maintenance and continuous improvement of the infrastructure and equipment essential to research.
But, beyond the rhetoric and quintessential nominalism that word-putting solves problems, there is no firm landing on how all this can be achieved in practice. There are statements and promises without elements to translate into action. On the other hand, there are many fixed points that point to government control, verticality and exclusive positions that do not guarantee, but rather diminish, the exercise of rights. Research and publication are invited to a very democratic dynamic.
However, this momentum is at odds with the proposed structures which are not about public announcements without landing. There can be no complete freedom of research or teaching if bureaucratic obedience to what can be imposed by the head of the sector is demanded. The horizontal and collegial action typical of the scientific ethos contrasts with the generation of vertical decisions by bureaucracies.
It has been specified that researchers in public research centers should observe the principles that govern the public service where there is discipline and hierarchical structure. It should be borne in mind that freedom of investigation is about self-determination and non-subordination.
Another very worrying issue is the existence of a National Council structure where outside votes are not created but left to the discretion of those who invite them. There is talk of freedom of investigation, but certain topics can be discerned at the expense of others. The dual track is viewed with a large focus: basic sciences and applied sciences.
But the operational model favors the latter, where cases are decided from above and the former is sidelined. Another issue concerns the tendency towards standardization and standardization, which are not necessarily beneficial, but tend to limit the richness of the collection. There can be a very good convergence of many different convergences and not a single paradigm imposition.
It may seem good to specify that the annual amount devoted to research is not less than what was adopted in the previous year, but this would be subject to inflationary damage and science would not have a specific goal to achieve, otherwise it would remain stagnant. Another concern is that it was opened up to the dangerous militarization that was advancing. In short, it’s legislation that has some progressive elements in advertising, but is exhaustingly recessive in process.
It will be necessary to break free from what the leadership imposes on the company and the state. To be sure, the relationship between science and politics is very complex and problematic. Science needs financial support that is not required by the state to implement its dictates, because the state’s resources that come from the social group must be put in the service of that group. It would be desirable to seek societal science in real horizontal dialogue rather than simulated or deceptive from below. If it is really about people’s needs, and not rhetoric, then science is progressing, and its results are beneficial to society. In the relationship between science and society, scientific freedom, independence and creativity must be protected. Science must serve the vital problems of humanity and carefully respect the well-being of the planet.
& p; Jorge Alonso is Professor and Research Emeritus at CIESAS.