Center for Research on Science, Technology and Society

One of the main engines of the advancement of science is human curiosity, uncompromising of concrete results and free of any kind of tutelage or guidance. The scientific production driven simply by this curiosity has been able to open new frontiers of knowledge, to make us wiser and, in the long run, to generate value and more quality of life for the human being.

Through its methods and instruments, science allows us to analyze the world around and see beyond what the eyes can see. The scientific and technological enterprise of the human being throughout its history is, undoubtedly, the main responsible for everything that humanity has built up here. Their achievements range from the domain of fire to the immense potentialities derived from modern information science, from the domestication of animals to the emergence of modern agriculture and industry, and of course the spectacular improvement in the quality of life of all humanity in the world. last century.

In addition to human curiosity, another very important engine of scientific advancement is the solution of problems that afflict humanity. Living longer and healthier, working less and having more time available for leisure, reducing the distances that separate us from other human beings - whether through more communication channels or better means of transport - are some of the challenges and aspirations for which, for centuries, science and technology have contributed.

A person born in the late 18th century would most likely die before turning 40. Someone born today in a developed country is expected to live for more than 80 years and although the inequality is high, even in the poorer countries of sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy is now more than 50 years. Science and technology are the key factors in explaining the reduction in mortality from various diseases, such as infectious diseases, for example, and the consequent increase in human longevity (Cutler, Deaton, and Lleras-Muney 2006).

Despite their extraordinary achievements, science and, above all, public investments in science and technology seem to face a crisis of social legitimacy throughout the world. Recently, Tim Nichols, a renowned American researcher, even announced the "death of expertise", title of his book on knowledge in today's society. What he describes in the book is a common citizen's disbelief in technical and scientific knowledge, and more than that, a certain pride of his own ignorance about various complex issues, especially about anything related to public policy. Several recent social phenomena, such as the anti-vaccine movement or even mistrust of the fatality of global warming, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, seem to corroborate Nichols' analysis.

Living longer and healthier, working less and having more time available for leisure, reducing the distances that separate us from other human beings - whether through more communication channels or better means of transport - are some of the challenges and aspirations for which, for centuries, science and technology have contributed.

These phenomena have crossed nationalities. In Brazil, last year, the debate about the so-called "cancer pill" showed how the established scientific knowledge was neglected by the representatives elected by the Brazilian people. The recent funding crisis is also a symptom of the low esteem of science in society, or at least of the low capacity for mobilization and pressure for a larger share of budgetary resources.

In a recent editorial, Nature¹ makes a strong statement, but one that may be at the root of these phenomena: "the needs of millions of people in the United States are not well served by the agendas and interests that drive much of modern science ". For the journal, therefore, scientists and scientific organizations should get out of their bubbles, look harder at social opportunities and problems, and look for ways in which science can help solve them. The magazine cited as an example the Genome Project, whose positive impacts have already been well documented. Even so, the magazine questions the extent to which the findings of the project - and the drugs and medical treatments derived therefrom - benefit the whole society or only a few who have sufficient income to pay for these innovations.

This Nature questioning refers to another relevant problem that affects the relationship between science and society. Although the quality of life of all has improved in recent centuries, largely due to scientific and technological advances, inequality has been increasing in the most recent period. Thomas Piketty has shown a growth in income inequality in the last decades throughout the world and shows that at the beginning of this century we were as unequal as at the beginning of the last century (Piketty 2014). This is a global problem, but it is more acute in developing countries, such as Brazil, where chronic problems of underdevelopment still range from access to health and quality education to environmental and urban issues. It is therefore in this unequal society, full of problems and where much of the population does not understand what an atom is, that scientific and technological activity must develop and become legitimate. It is also this society that will decide, through its representatives, how much of its resources should be allocated to the scientific and technological endeavor.

Therefore, the relation between science, technology and society is much more complex than the simple question about what would be the practical utility of scientific production. It goes through a number of issues, such as how science and new technologies affect people's quality of life and how to make their effects the best they can? What are the social conditions that limit or impel scientific activity? How to increase the access of the population to the benefits generated by scientific and technological knowledge? To what extent does scientific and technological progress help to mitigate or deepen socio-economic inequalities? In the face of new technologies, increasingly capable of replacing the human being in his repetitive activities, how will work in the future? These are crucial issues for science and technology today.

¹ http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-should-reach-beyond-the-science-bubble-1.21514