translated from Spanish: Scientists to Parliament? Presence of researchers in U.S. Congress sparks debate in Chile

the recent elections of me dio term in United States, where renewed part of the Senate and the House of representatives in its entirety, left among other innovations the presence of 11 legislators with scientific background in the lower House.
Some of them renewed their banking and others made their debut, in a context where many members of the scientific community critical of President Donald Trump to deny facts as climate change.
In Chile the fact caused an intense debate in the scientific community. Has some scientist there been in Congress? Is it possible ever? What do you need the country researchers in the legislature?
“While more diverse is the representation, better”, celebrated astronomer José Maza, national prize of Sciences. “Science is a thing so inseparable from the twenty-first century”, and although 11 among more than 400 “is not to make a big revolution, somewhat against the scientific development can fight”.
Scientific denial in United States, the election of researchers is given in a country where there is movement to publicly advocate issues as that the Earth is flat or that deny the theory of evolution, and they are backed by the current Government .
“The scientist”negationism”trump caused, among others, on 28 April, the earth day, thousands of scientists to come out to the streets in the North American country to criticize his Government with posters as”research is the cure against the alternative facts”,” The facts matter”or”Prepare to see a few angry scientists”.
The choice of scientific legislators was highlighted by the own Nature magazine, which warned that “controversial policies scientific and weather Trump” will suffer an additional pressure.

He added that among them there are specialists with training in science, technology, engineering and medicine. Others include Elaine Luria, a veteran of the Navy and nuclear engineer; the engineer Chrissy Houlahan; Lauren Underwood, former adviser of the Department (Ministry) of health; and Sean Casten, an entrepreneur of clean energy with a background in engineering and biochemistry. The physicist Bill Foster, the only lawmaker with a doctorate in science, has stood by promoting the election of Congress scientists.
“Part of the supervision that can be found in the lower House (by majority) Democrat will focus on restoring scientific integrity, and to highlight the lack of the use of scientific information when generating Trump Administration’s policies”, noted Elizabeth Gore, Member of the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group based in New York.
“In United States 11 new parliamentary election occurred probably because this community felt that there was a threat to the Government of Trump and Evangelical churches against the scientific and technological progress,” agrees Economist Álvaro Díaz, ex Undersecretary of economy.
“But these are not the only nor the first. Note that there also there are parliamentary constituencies where high-tech and universities are seated industries. They defend these industries because they know that they give jobs and generate tax revenue relevant for their States”.
Parliament without scientists Chile, by the way, is light-years from a similar situation. According to an investigation of 2018, in the Parliament only 2.5% of the legislators has a PhD. Another, from 2013, found among the most common professions lawyers, engineers, teachers, doctors, political scientists and administrators public and veterinarians. “I don’t know any hard-nosed, scientist that physicist or biologist, which is part of the Congress,” said Mace, who admits that politics and the Academy “are not much”.
One of the main promoters of scientific development is currently Senator Guido Girardi, also a doctor by profession. As architect of the future Conference, the premier event of scientists held every year at the former National Congress, and which begins on January 15. But scientists as such, there are none.
“The policy is completely illiterate with respect to the twenty-first century”, regrets Girardi. “A way to face this is that politics enters the science”, something that also drives from the Commission of the future of the Senate, which is constantly advised by national and academic awards. They provide “vision, intellectual and scientific reflection to address challenges with magnitude” futures and are fundamental to discuss “public policies”.
“Having high-level scientists at the Congress would be extraordinary, but is difficult, because scientists are dedicated to something else, not to be involved in active politics, and that is clearly a limitation,” says the doctor Martin Zilic, former Minister education in the first Government of Bachelet.
He added that if there were more scientists in the Parliament, Chile does not invest just 0.38% of GDP in science, the worst record of the OECD, led in the field by Korea of the South, with 4.3%.
What do we need scientists in Congress?
And yet, scientists are key to many of the issues facing the country, as says John Ewer, interdisciplinary centre de neuroscience de Valparaíso (CINV). These include climate change.
“This is an issue that has become critical and is of enormous complexity,” it stresses. “To develop a policy to cope with this disaster, no doubt that they will have to be involved scientists, meteorologists and hydrologists to biologists”.
Ewer States that a scientific opinion is is also essential to know how to respond to earthquakes and tide red to how to handle the “sea lice” the salmon farms and contamination in Windows “a which is the relevance of protecting some tree, River, bird , etc. “.”
You have scientists and scientific also is key to the anticipation. Ewer puts a 2009 publication, with Chilean authors, who warned that there would be an earthquake of 8.0-8.5 “in the near future” by an accumulation of power “between Constitution and conception” as an example.
Why there are so few scientists politicians?
By way of conclusion, to some, as the own Diaz, there is an ideological issue that explains why so few parliamentarians and political leaders with training in science, engineering and innovation.
First, Diaz believes that part of the problem comes from the scientific community that tends to assume that the need for investment in science is obvious by itself.
“Many believe that society should be grateful for its very existence, without understanding that they must continually show how the investment in science, technology and innovation can find notable or partial answers to big problems as the growing” water shortages, desertification of the Norte Chico, the problems of aging and chronic diseases, as well as the increase in productivity with more safety and welfare of workers”.
He adds that many do not understand criticisms and controversies that actually exist. “In fact, almost every field of scientific or engineering activity are marked by controversy: genetically modified food and human health, the risks of nuclear energy, Robotics in the employment impacts, etc.” To overcome these fears, more transparency, more dialogue and more agreements is required. But above all requires a story that shows future for the country which is understandable by the Chilean society.”
Second, this Economist pointed out that the worlds of science, engineering and innovation has not built a strategic agreement.
“I see too much Division and little dialogue. Some economists and engineers are talking that scientists could ‘capture’ the new Ministry of science for their corporate interests and continue operating the horizontal funds FONDECYT type opaque and little transparent “, he says.
“Some scientists accuse economists and engineers of trying to divert the r & d towards purely economic and not social interests. Other scientists do not believe in priorities, what find me very curious because it completely rejects global experience in r & d driven by scientific-technological mission and innovation”.
And thirdly, it alludes to that right and center-left economists are arguing 30 years ago the need or not of a productive development policy based on Science, technology and innovation.
“Economists that we take as a reference the experience of the OECD believe that Chile should boost in knowledge intensive development policy, representing priorities and strategic plans. The economic centre-right wrinkle the nose, believe that it brings us to the past (CORFO 1939-1973) and systematically insist that the market is the best allocator of resources and that the State must be subsidiary. We, on the contrary, we think that the State should be entrepreneur although not necessarily entrepreneur. This persistent dispute has hindered the ability of Chile to build long-term agreement. This explains why this Government initially reduced budget for innovation of CORFO in 25%, froze the of CONICYT and delayed the formation of the Ministry of science and technology. “I emphasize the positive that was the response of the opposition: managed much of the budget reduction is repusiera”, says.
Position themselves how scientists and engineers in this controversy of public policy? “The response that I usually find is the silence. “This is me apena, because in the end do not participate in a debate that is relevant to science, technology and innovation”.
Diaz concludes that, to have parliamentarians and leading politicians with training in Sciences and torquingerias, key is that the community understands that the time of converting their concerns on matters of public policy.
And “not to defend corporate interests, but to ensure the future of Chile”.

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment