RRI National Case Study Brazil 20aug2018

REPORT FROM NATIONAL CASE STUDY Brazil Deliverable 13.1 Work Package 13

Project title: Grant Agreement no: Funding Programme: Project Coordinator: Project website: Organisation responsible for the deliverable: Author(s): Date of delivery: Dissemination level: Abstract

Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-Practice) 709637 Horizon 2020 Oslo Metropolitan University - Norway www.rri-practice.eu State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Luis Reyes-Galindo; Marko Monteiro 27.07.18 PUBLIC The report presents an analysis of the current Brazilian national perspectives on responsibility in science, technology and innovation policy, and empirically contextualises it through two organisations: the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

1

Contents 1

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 4

2

Introduction: about the report ................................................................................................... 6

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Analytic approach ............................................................................................................... 7 3.2 National mapping ............................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Document analysis ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2.2 Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 National workshop ............................................................................................................ 9 3.3 The organisational studies ................................................................................................ 11 3.3.1 Document studies ....................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2 Interviews for Reviews (including justification of sampling strategy) ................................ 11 3.3.3 Focus group ................................................................................................................ 12 3.3.4 Outlook process .......................................................................................................... 12 4 The context for RRI: the national science policy system ............................................................ 12 4.1 General country information ............................................................................................ 13 4.2 Legal and other binding normative frameworks ................................................................ 14 4.3 Political and cultural values and discussions related to STI ................................................ 20 5 Aspects of responsibility in national science policy ................................................................... 21 5.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in national science policy .................................... 21 5.2 The notion of ‘RRI’ in national science policy discussions .................................................. 26 5.3 Ethics in the national science system ................................................................................ 26 5.4 Societal engagement strategies in research ...................................................................... 27 5.5 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the science system ......................................... 28 5.6 Open access and open science strategies in the national science system .......................... 29 5.7 Science education as integrated in research...................................................................... 30 5.8 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into science policy discussions ..................................... 31 5.8.1. Diversity and inclusion .................................................................................................... 31 5.8.2. Anticipation and reflexivity ............................................................................................. 31 5.8.3 Openness and transparency............................................................................................. 32 5.8.4 Responsiveness and adaptation ....................................................................................... 33 5.9 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related aspects ............... 33 6 Organizational reviews and outlooks: Research conducting organisation....................................... 34 6.1 Mapping of the organisation .................................................................................................. 34 6.2 Aspects of responsibility in organisational policy and practice ................................................ 36 6.2.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in the organisation............................................. 40 6.2.2 Ethics in the organisation ............................................................................................ 41 6.2.3 Societal engagement strategies in organisation ............................................................... 44 6.2.4 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the organisation ............................................ 47 6.2.5 Open access and open science strategies in the organisation ........................................... 50 6.2.6 Science education as integrated in research..................................................................... 53 6.2.7 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into policies ................................................................ 55 6.3. Reflection on Review findings, Outlooks developed and ways forward .................................. 60 2

6.3.1 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related dimensions ........ 60

7

6.3.2 Common barriers or drivers ............................................................................................. 60 6.3.3 Final reflections and plan for follow-up ............................................................................ 60 Organizational reviews and outlooks: Research funder ............................................................. 61

7.1 Mapping of the organisation .................................................................................................. 61 7.2 Aspects of responsibility in organisational policy and practice ................................................ 64 7.2.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in the organisation............................................. 64 Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 65 Public accountability ........................................................................................................................ 65 7.2.2 Ethics in the organisation ............................................................................................ 68 7.2.3 Societal engagement strategies in organisation ............................................................... 71 7.2.4 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the organisation........................................ 74 7.2.5 Open access and open science strategies in the organisation ...................................... 78 7.2.6 Science education as integrated in research .................................................................... 81 7.2.7 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into policies ............................................................... 83 7.2.8 Other concepts used to characterise responsibility in the organisation ........................... 87 7.3 Reflection on Review findings, Outlooks developed and ways forward .................................. 87 7.3.1 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related dimensions ........ 87 7.3.2 Common barriers or drivers ............................................................................................. 87 7.3.3 Final reflections and plan for follow-up ............................................................................ 88 8 Summary of findings on each responsibility dimension ............................................................. 88 8.1 The concept of responsibility .................................................................................................. 89 8.2 The notion of ‘RRI’ ............................................................................................................ 89 8.3 Ethics ................................................................................................................................ 89 8.4 Societal engagement ........................................................................................................ 89 8.5 Gender equality and diversity strategies ........................................................................... 90 8.6 Open access and open science strategies .......................................................................... 90 8.7 The inclusion of science education into research .............................................................. 90 8.8 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions ..................................................................................... 90 8.8.1 Diversity and inclusion ..................................................................................................... 90 8.8.2 Anticipation and reflexivity .............................................................................................. 91 8.8.3 Openness and transparency............................................................................................. 91 8.8.4 Responsiveness and adaptation ....................................................................................... 91 9 Discussion of findings ............................................................................................................... 91 10 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 92 10.1 Policy recommendations to national policy makers........................................................... 92 10.2 Policy recommendations to European policy makers ........................................................ 93 10.3 Recommendations to research conducting and funding organisations .............................. 94 10.4 Best practices scalable to European or national level ........................................................ 94 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 96

3

1 Executive summary This project sought to reflect about the potential drivers and barriers to implementing RRI – Responsible Research and Innovation in different national and cultural contexts. This report details the findings from the Brazil team, engaged with mapping two important Brazilian institutions: The University of Campinas (UNICAMP) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). Our central findings can be summarised here in two points: the centrality of autonomy and the potential synergies between RRI and local understandings of responsibility. One presents a challenge for RRI, the other an opportunity. The first point relates to the importance that the institutions we observed give to their institutional autonomy, and the autonomy to define and conduct research in general. Brazilian science exhibits a resistance to the involvement of wider publics into the policy framework and fiercely defends autonomy of research, which can be seen as also a resistance to any kind of outside interference. This poses a dilemma for RRI: how to establish concrete institutional and policy tools for making science more responsible without interfering with research freedom? In Brazil, autonomy is also a value used to position institutions against the type of political intervention and wider undemocratic influences that plagued Brazilian history in the 20th century and continue to be present to this day. Thus, autonomy of science as resistance also helps contextualise this dilemma in broader movements that are unique to Brazil, and which present a barrier to any governance initiatives that may be perceived as undue interference. The second point is a reflection on the potential for RRI to synergise with debates internal to Brazilian science and technology policy, even as it is not a term that is recognizable to the local context. RRI emerged mostly from Western European discussions, political movements and policy debates, so can it have any relevance to contexts like Brazil? Our response here is positive, in the sense that RRI can be, if introduced in the right manner, a legitimate locus to initiate dialogue on issues about academic and scientific governance which are broadly perceived as needed in Brazilian institutions. How to carry out this balancing act between applying a foreign framework that seeks to have real-world policy impact, versus the need to negotiate the political normativity in a context alien to RRI, has been one of the biggest challenges but also positive opportunities in the project. Finally, an important question is what the study of Brazil can bring to RRI. We consider that it is the differences to the original source of inspiration that is the key. In areas such as Open Access implementation and debating inequality and imbalances in a wider sense than is currently understood by European RRI, Brazil and Latin American in general have developed creative means and innovative viewpoints to tackle these problems, mostly related to how public science funding and performing is institutionalized (and also disputed). Thus, as much as RRI can inspire discussion about changes in governance in Brazilian scientific institutions, it is our conviction that RRI can also be enriched by the positive actions that have defined the unique character of Brazilian science, technology, innovation and culture.

Broader policy recommendations: •

Invest in strong public research institutions: Brazil’s successes in science and technology have been mostly connected to strong public research institutions and public research ethics, which have guaranteed a solid and stable arena for the production of knowledge with positive social impact;

4

•

• •

More democratic deliberation: Priorities for science and technology policy should be decided through processes involving a broader base of stakeholders beyond academic experts/university professors, in order to become more diverse and democratic, besides gaining political legitimacy in a context of crisis; Sustainable funding in the long term: Science should become a more central concern in policy agendas, nationally and locally (both state and municipal levels); Make public research more inclusive and agile: Less stifling bureaucracy, increased transparency and more democratic governance can help public institutions increase legitimacy and become more attuned to social perceptions and needs. Specific policy recommendations:

•

•

•

Work towards greater gender equity/diversity/inclusion: Policies to promote more diversity achieve much more than include minorities or excluded majorities (e.g. women and nonwhites): they also can help foster a richer and more diverse environment for science and innovation, promoting potentially better and more responsible solutions, research projects, ideas and indicators. Establish clear open access policies: repository led policies for open access should be incorporated into national policies for scientific publications. The current CAPES investment in paying for private publishers should be critically assessed also as part of a broader discussion of access to knowledge. Diversify and broaden evaluations: evaluations, both of individual researchers, graduate programs and institutions have become overly focused on narrow indicators (i.e. papers published, impact factors). Other variables should be included in evaluations, related to broader social impacts, like patents, concrete engagement in local communities, media and communication materials produced and disseminated, among other potentially more diverse indicators.

5

2 Introduction: about the report This report aims to illustrate the meanings and enactments of responsibility in research and innovation at two major research institutions in Brazil: the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP). As part of the Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice (RRI-P) project, the project is embedded in a comparative study approach of other partner institutions in Europe and around the world where parallel research is being carried out. Each partner country has the similar task of exploring how responsibility is brought to bear on the practices of one research-conducting and one research-funding institution. The overarching aim of the project is to understand how the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and AIRR policy frameworks can be used in the partner institutions to improve science, research and innovation policy and practices. Although the RRI framework now forms a major part of European science policy through the Horizon 2020 programme, it remains mostly unfamiliar for Brazilian institutions. For the Brazilian team, we soon became aware when starting the initial stages of the RRI-P project that the country’s sociocultural and scientific conditions required more than just looking at implementation opportunities. Rather, as the project progressed it also became clear that the local conditions and idiosyncrasies of Brazil, as well as some marked differences with many of the consortium partners’ institutions, required the more basic questioning of whether RRI was in fact capable of adapting to the needs and qualities of Brazilian institutional life. In this sense, two major issues could be said to be the backbone of the research findings. The first is the importance that the institutions we observed give to their autonomy. The RRI framework, when examined historically, is an offshoot of a wider European cultural movement to increase citizen and societal involvement as well as democratic mechanisms in scientific and technological governance. This was, in part, a response to the consolidation and growing autonomy of the scientific establishment in developed nation-states, which had begun since at least the 19th century. Brazil, in contrast, has a relatively young scientific system, lacking sustained funding through time and highly dependent on political tides. While Brazilian science at times does exhibit a resistance to the involvement of wider publics into the policy framework, we also came to understand that autonomy is also a value used to position institutions against the type of political intervention and wider undemocratic influences that plagued Brazilian history in the 20th century and continues to be a controversial topic to this day. The second issue regards the possibility for RRI to be relevant for Brazil even if it is not, ab initio, a policy framework that takes Brazilian cultural life into easy consideration. Our response here is positive, in the sense that we have realised that RRI can be, if introduced in the right manner, a legitimate locus to initiate dialogue on issues about academic and scientific governance which are, in the opinions of many of our interviewees and our own, desperately needed in Brazilian institutions. How to carry out this balancing act between applying a foreign framework that seeks to have realworld policy impact, versus the need to negotiate the political normativity in a context alien to RRI, has been one of the biggest challenges but also positive opportunities in the project. Finally, an important question is what the study of Brazil can bring to RRI. We consider that it is the differences to the original source of inspiration that is the key. In areas such as Open Access implementation and debating inequality and imbalances in a wider sense than is currently understood by European RRI, Brazil and Latin American in general have developed creative means 6

and innovative viewpoints to tackle these problems, mostly related to how public science funding and performing is institutionalized (and also disputed). Thus, as much as RRI can inspire discussion about changes in governance in Brazilian scientific institutions, it is our conviction that RRI can also be enriched by the positive actions that have defined the unique character of Brazilian science, technology, innovation and culture.

3 Methodology 3.1 Analytic approach The analytical approach for this report is based on a qualitative, interpretive analysis of documentation, interviews and focus group data emerging from the last 2 years of research, with data mostly collected by Luis Galindo and analysed with collaboration from Marko Monteiro. Theoretically, it involves the RRI approach and the conceptual basis of this debate within wider STS – Science, Technology and Society studies. But it also derives from a need to discuss organisations and how change can be both detected and driven by interventions such as the one we engaged with in the RRI-P project. As a project, RRI-P is not purely research, as it also asked us to engage local actors with the framework and reflect on the potential of it to be adapted and implemented locally. This was welcomed by the research conducting institution (UNICAMP), but mostly rejected by the funder (FAPESP), as will be detailed below. Thus, the project’s theoretical framework involved thinking through science and society relationships, as well as through how organisations work and change. We conducted document analysis and interviews with key actors within the institutions under study. We developed prior contacts with the institutions through people already in contact with the Principal Investigator (PI) and Professor Phil Macnaghten, who also collaborated with the Brazilian study1. During the process of research, UNICAMP went through a change in leadership, so contact people had to be re-negotiated. Interviewees were chosen due to their potential connection to RRI topics within institutions, but this was differed in each institution: at UNICAMP, we chose people based on the RRI keys and how analogous activities and topics were being developed within the university, as there were no RRI actions or prior knowledge of the framework. Thus, we chose people involved in work with gender, open access, ethics, and so forth. At FAPESP, we chose interviewees based on their connection to key topics, but also through networks of relationships, beginning with out institutional contact, for the same reason: there are no RRI programs in FAPESP, but there are many actions which are analogous to or similar to those considered as RRI in Europe. In both cases, we tried to interview people from different levels within the institution, including the highest levels. In both we were able to talk to a relevant and significant number of people and had contact with programs connected to all RRI keys.

3.2 National mapping 3.2.1 Document analysis Given the size and complexity of the set of actors involved in the Brazilian research system, it was first necessary to concentrate the documentary efforts on three types of documents which roughly map out to the rational, open and natural system approaches in the research protocol, which

1

Prof. Macnaghten was a key moderator and collaborator for the National Workshop and cooperated with us in debates and informal discussions throughout the research period.

7

focused on us trying to obtain data about and understand how organisations work in practice and not just in their formal or codified aspects (see figure 1): •

•

•

•

•

Official national policy documents, legal frameworks, national directives, institutional regulatory frameworks. This corresponded mainly to the rational system dimension in the research protocol, the explicit and formalised ways through which institutions organise themselves. By and large this yielded the largest sample of documents, but also generally the poorest in terms of material for content analysis. Brazil has a highly bureaucratised, Roman Law approach in the production of institutionally-sanctioned documentation (e.g. federal and state laws, institutional constitutive frameworks) that offer very little opportunity for deep content analysis. In many cases we relied on scholarly analyses of legal and policy frameworks to draw out relevant information. Where used, these references are included in the footnotes. International development and non-governmental agency reports. In particular, the UNESCO and the OECD ST&I reports were fundamental in gaining an insight into the position of Brazilian science at a global scale, as well as a more critical insight in the longitudinal development of ST&I policy. These were the main point of documentary access to the open system dimension at the international level. Learned society statements, manifestos and position papers. These types of documents, though not very common, were important in understanding RRI-relevant discussions such as the ongoing debates on research ethics procedures at the national level, Open Access implementation, and the science funding crisis. These corresponded mostly to the open system dimension as internal to the Brazilian context. White papers, position papers, institutional perspective documents. At the federal level this type of documentation is rare, with the exception of the ‘National Conference Books’ which are more similar to the ‘white’ and position papers in the European national contexts. Some individual organisations produce books, compilations and monographs which are useful to illustrate national perspectives on specific keys, for example, a recently-produced volume by Fiocruz on Open Access and the FAPESP Code of Good Practices. The Revista Pesquisa FAPESP was also an important source of analysis on key-specific subjects, both at the national level and for probing the case study sites. We take the first type as the most representative of institutional positions along the natural system dimension, but care must be taken to take this documentation as more than an idealised approach to them. We also note that while the Revista Pesquisa FAPESP reports offered valuable sources of information, they cannot be taken as comprehensive, politically neutral studies on extremely complex subjects of national interest. Institutional websites, online mission statements. A comprehensive trawling of some of the main actor’s websites was carried out, which included a search for mission statements, institutional histories, organisational descriptions, internal reports, etc. However, institutional documentation which laid out explicit values was found to be generally scarce and dispersed when it existed. We found most institutions to be particularly poor in their publication of comprehensive institutional perspectives and analyses, statistics and program analysis beyond the most basic numerical analyses. Institutional websites were nevertheless important in signposting some relevant programmes to be identified as forms of good practices which could be further developed during interviews.

8

Figure 1: Main actors in the Brazilian ST&I system. The rational system documentation corresponds mainly to documents from the first and second rows (executive and legislative documentation); the natural system documentation to the third row (research conducting and funding institutions, local ST&I actors) as well as the, ‘society’ column in the first row (learned societies, industry agencies); the open system perspective was mainly captured through comparative international NGO studies. Source: MCTIC 2016:14.

An important consideration, discussed in more detail in the country description, are the differences in Brazil at the federal and the state levels. For example, while mostly focusing on internal regulation and financial accountability, FAPESP produces a larger number of documents and reports than most other institutions. This in fact was marked during interviews as a particularly troublesome aspect of institutional life in Brazil: there is a generalised lack of middle- and lower-management formal planning and an over-reliance on top-down frameworks, while there is also a lack of reflexive exercises that make it to paper and gather public view.

3.2.2 Interviews Interviews with one top manager and two professional working staff were carried out in Brasília regarding national strategies for Open Access and Open science national policy, societal engagement through IT and electronic dissemination strategies for science communication. Two interviews were carried out at a major federal science-funding institution concerning gender and racial equality at the national level with recognised experts in the field. This was crucial in order to complete information not available in the document mapping carried out.

3.2.3 National workshop The workshop was carried out on 16 February 2017 at FUNCAMP’s Casa do Professor Visitante, located at the research-conducting institution, the University of Campinas (UNICAMP). Workshop invitations were extended to cover a wide range of stakeholders from major institutions in the Brazilian national ST&I system, which included PI and RO contacts within FAPESP, UNICAMP and 9

Brasília. A representative sample of organisations were chosen to include academic, industry and policymaking representatives, including government ministries, federal and state funding agencies, university academics, federal institute research staff, and private sector cooperation and funding agencies. The final list included all the actors that responded to the invitation. The institutions that took part in the workshop, beside the case study institutions, were the following2: •

•

•

• • •

CAPES is linked to the Ministry of Education and manages the evaluation of all graduate programs in the country, runs a major portal that makes scientific production “open” to all public universities, and overall has a crucial role in all public universities (and thus most of Brazilian scientific research). Embrapa is a major publicly-funded company that develops agricultural research and has presence across Brazil. We approached the Embrapa central administration in Brasilia, but only managed to bring 3 researchers from a unit based in Campinas. It was a significant achievement to include a representative from the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC)3, who expressed particular interested in maintaining post-workshop contact. CNPEM is a major national laboratory with research in nanotech, biotech and condensed matter and particle physics, currently building the Sirius light synchrotron. Finally, Fiocruz is a major player in health research, with units all over the country and significant contacts also with industry and the public health system. ITS Rio, a think tank dealing in IT innovation topics, particularly Internet and data governance.

The biggest lack of participation came from industry, as stakeholders could not be recruited despite repeated invitations (FIESP and CNI, both major organisations representing industry in the country). The absence of the private sector from activities and debates around science and technology is a longstanding intellectual debate in Brazil, the lack of innovative industries and interest from companies to invest in innovation (Cavalcanti, 2014; Esteves & Feldman, 2016). While we cannot cover this debate here, it should be mentioned that it was always on people’s minds and it is a huge part of intellectual debates around science and technology policy in general. One important obstacle was the calendar: January and February are months where academics are on vacation in many cases, as it is Summer in the Southern Hemisphere, so many contacts were travelling or were not as available as they would normally be. The single biggest obstacle was that Brazilian institutions are extremely hierarchical and formal, and invitations first had to be sent to the highest ranks in the organisations (e.g. presidency) and only then could specific members of the organisation be contacted. This made recruitment depend on first receiving a formal reply from the Head of the organisation (or most often, their secretaries), which can be slow when dealing with the larger, government institutions. 2

We invited and set up the participation of Embrapii, a new public company modelled on Embrapa, whose mission is to promote innovation through bridging research and the private sector, but the representative had to cancel last-minute. A key government organisation and science funder, the National Council for Scientific Research (CNPq), did not reply to request for representatives. Invitations were made to CGI.br, the organisation that manages internet governance for Brazil, but were unsuccessful in the recruitment despite having good contacts. 3 The current Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC) was a fusion of the old ministries of Communications and of Science, Technology and Innovation, done in 2016 when Michel Temer rose to power. This was a much-criticised move, as it effectively extinguished the old Ministry of Science and Technology (later renamed to Science, Technology and Innovation) created in 1985 by then president Sarney and symbolised a loss in prestige of science and technology in federal policy.

10

Presentations were more formal than expected and went on for more than 10 minutes. This made discussions harder to steer during the process. There was widespread interest from participants in both learning more about RRI and in the possibility of organising future events of a similar nature. Several participants also expressed interest in continuing to work with the Brazilian RRI team on topics of common interest and organising future joint meetings.

3.3 The organisational studies 3.3.1 Document studies An initial trawl through both of the institutional websites was carried out in the early stages of the project, in search for documents of several types: •

•

• •

• • • • •

• •

General mission statements, institutional historical descriptions and similar web-based documents dealing with ‘responsibility’ in science and research; or similar documents addressing one of the RRI keys. Legal frameworks, reports, white papers, internal regulations and any other such institutional documents that mentioned ‘responsibility’ in science and research or that expressed institutional values that could be interpreted as forms of responsibility in the RRI sense; similar documents relevant to any of the RRI keys. Institutional reports, monographs or programme descriptions dealing with the RRI keys. Historically relevant documents such as statutes and legal constitutive acts that mentioned RRI-relevant values that could be interpreted as dealing with ‘responsibility’, or relevant for any of the RRI-keys. Organisational charts and description of governance and internal regulatory practices. Internal assessment reports and quantitative analyses related to the RRI keys. Institutionally sanctioned and community webpages that were relevant to the RRI keys. Historical, historiographic and critical academic articles and books concerning both institutional partners. Institutional newsletters, press releases, top management interviews in the popular press, manifestos and journalistic articles both from and about the institutions that dealt with topics relevant to RRI or specific keys. In the case of FAPESP, an analysis of available documentation used for project assessment and descriptions of the assessment process. Financial reports and internal regulations.

3.3.2 Interviews for Reviews (including justification of sampling strategy) We relied on three basic strategies to recruit interviewees: personal contacts, key informants at the partner institutions, and directly approaching high-level management at institutions where no direct contact was available. It is important to note that Brazilian institutional life is extremely hierarchic, and non-mediated approaches are harder to accomplish, even at a familiar institution like UNICAMP. We therefore turned to key informants, workshop participant and existing contact with topmostlevel management to both carry out initial institutional mappings, and to provide lists of potential interviewees for specific keys. We observed some important consequences of this during the focus groups, as we realised that middle-management and ground-level perspectives would at times be out of synch with top-management perspectives from that of suggested interviewees’.

11

As an overall strategy, we aimed to carry out at least two general interviews with top management at the partner institutions; and one interview at each institution with top or mid management that was considered an expert in each specific RRI key. These were supplemented with both specialist and general interviews with mid management, academic personnel, and professional working staff where appropriate. Given the overlap between UNICAMP and FAPESP, as well as the difficulty for finding experts for some RRI keys, there were both overlaps and minor gaps in the strategy which we sought to cover by further probing during the focus groups and through the documentary analysis. The sample consisted of 13 interviewees at FAPESP/UNICAMP with all but one audio-recorded, at the request of the interviewee. The top management interviews (4) had both the PI and RO present. Interviews were carried out at the UNICAMP campus, the FAPESP central offices and the Revista Pesquisa FAPESP headquarters in São Paulo. The interviews were transcribed and analysed for posterior analysis.

3.3.3 Focus group The focus groups were organised directly with the help of top management representatives who took part in a project-sponsored RRI workshop in Berlin4 and who by that time were already familiar with the main points of the project and preliminary drafts of the institutional mapping. The participants were handed a working version of the institutional mapping and were asked to read critically and comment. The focus groups started with a short presentation by Monteiro on the basics of the RRI project, and were followed by a directed discussion about participant’s opinions on the draft reports, issues that had been missed, suggestions for improvement, unlisted resources, etc. The discussions lasted around one and a half hours and were recorded and later transcribed. Comments from participants were particularly useful in incorporating opinions from mid management perspectives and ground-level institutional views that complemented the draft reports. An updated version of the reports was sent some weeks back after the focus groups were carried out and further minor additions were made on the basis of some participant’s comments.

3.3.4 Outlook process The outlook writing proceeded in several stages with a preliminary draft being given to our main top management contacts at both institutions prior to the Berlin meeting. In the case of UNICAMP there was a strong interest in receiving the outlooks as a document that could synergise with existing actions and plans that have been considered or implemented by the Dean’s Office. FAPESP was more reserved, and the team worked extremely close to FAPESP top management to draft a version of the outlook that was in synch with the institution’s vision of RRI and would not be perceived to impose actions. FAPESP was critical of the approach used in the project, as detailed below, and felt that committing to specific actions was not productive for the RRI agenda.

4 The context for RRI: the national science policy system

4

In this workshop, aside from conducting a consortium meeting for the RRI-P project, representatives from all research conducting and funding institutions involved in the project were invited to discuss RRI and how it made sense (or didn’t) in their own national and institutional contexts.

12

4.1 General country information With over 8.5 million km2 and 209 million people, the Federative Republic of Brazil is the largest and most populous country in Latin America and the 5th largest and 6th most populous worldwide. With a population density of 25/km2, there are large disparities in the population distribution, with high concentrations in the Northeast and South/Southeast regions compared to the rest of the country (see Figure 2). The urban population consists of 87%, with the cities of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Brasília being the core centres of economic, cultural and political power (respectively). The Amazonian region, around 60% of the country’s area, is a peripheral yet rich frontier of natural resources increasingly the target for development.5 Brazil’s is the world’s 8th economy measured by GDP (PPP) and until 2010 was one of the world’s fastest growing economies. It is a founding member of the UN, the G20, BRICS, Mercosul and the OAS, amongst other international organizations, with a determinant influence in South and Latin America, and has a middle power/potential superpower status internationally. It has a Human Development Index (HDI) Figure 2: From World Regional Geography: People, Places, and Globilization, Section 6.3: Brazil. URL: of 0.79 (high). http://open.lib.umn.edu/worldgeography/chapter/ 6-3-brazil/

Brazil gained its independence from Portugal in 1882 becoming the Kingdom of Brazil, and as a result Portuguese is the official language and there is a strong influence of Portuguese and European culture and Catholic religion as in other Latin American ex-colonies. There is, however, a large number of indigenous and minority languages spoken throughout the country because of a rich PreColumbian cultural history, the mixing brought on by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and a traditional openness to immigration. Official estimates classify around 47% of the population as ‘White’, 43% as ‘Pardo’ (a mixed-race category that includes African, Asian and Amerindian ancestry), 7% as ‘Black’, 1% as ‘Asian’, and less than 1% ‘Amerindian’.6 Brazil is considered one of the most ethnically diverse countries, but also one with very high indices of racial, social and regional inequality. According to World Bank estimates, 3.4% of the population lives below the extreme poverty line and 19.4% under the Upper Middle-Income Class poverty line, which increased sharply after 2015, reaching particularly high indices in the peripheral regions (e.g. 45% in the North-East).7 Race, social class, gender, income level, religion and ethnicity are strongly intertwined into national political, cultural and social debates, which affect Brazilian society and politics from top to bottom.8 Brazil is a federal, presidential, constitutional republic with a two-chamber legislature located in the capital Brasília. Nevertheless, an important historical and cultural marker for contemporary Brazil is 5

World Regional Geography: People, Places, and Globalisation. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, 2012. Accessed 4 June 2018. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2701 6 These correspond to the categories used by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), which have been contested by social movements. 7 US$1.9 and US$5.5 (2011 PPP) per day per capita. See Poverty and Equity Brief: Brazil. World Bank, April 2018. URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/poverty/33EF03BB-9722-4AE2-ABC7AA2972D68AFE/Global_POVEQ_BRA.pdf 8 Brazil has a Gini (inequality) coefficient of 51.3 (2015), one of the world’s highest. See 2018 United Nations World Inequality Report, United Nations, pg. 138. URL: http://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-fullreport-english.pdf

13

the military dictatorship (1964-1985). The regime was both responsible for grave human and political rights violations including political executions and torture, while simultaneously the country experienced the so-called ‘Brazilian Miracle’ period of exceptional economic growth and State infrastructural investment and planning, raising Brazil’s international profile and influence. The Brazilian science, technology and innovation system As of 2016, 9 Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) totalled $37,705 million (2013 purchasing power parity - PPP), with a GERD/GDP ratio of 1.24%, well below levels exhibited by highly-developed nations and regional leaders like China, but above the Latin American average and comparable to some Western European countries. The government’s share of GERD (0.71 GDP) is high compared to highly developed nations, with the private sector providing less than half (0.53 GDP) of the contribution. Brazil has around 1.4 FTE researchers per 1000 population, which is one order of magnitude lower than leading nations like the USA, with around 54% of researchers working in higher education, 40% in the private sector and the rest in government. 61% of government R&D spending goes to higher education, with 10% of spending going to agricultural and non-oriented research each, 6% to industrial technology, 5% to infrastructure, 1% to defence, and other objectives such as environmental control, civilian space science, energy, exploration and social development capturing less than 1%. According to the most recent comprehensive government ST&I report10, the main actors in the science, technology and innovation system are: •

• •

•

•

Executive branch: Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications and related Ministries; regulatory agencies such as the National Petroleum Agency, The Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency and the National Electric Energy Agency; state and municipal secretariats; CONFAP (National Council for State Research Funding Agencies) and CONSECTI (National Council for State Secretaries for ST&I Topics). Legislative branch: National Congress, State Assemblies. Society: Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science; National Industry Confederation; Entrepreneurial Movement for Innovation; National Association for Research and Development in Innovative Businesses; and national syndicates. Funding Agencies: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq); Agency for Quality Assurance in Postgraduate Courses (CAPES); Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (FINEP); Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES); Brazilian Enterprise for Research and Industrial Innovation (EMBRAPII); ST&I ‘operators’: universities, federal and state ST&I institutes; science and technology institutions; technological parks; Ministry research institutes; national science and technology institutes; incubators; and innovation enterprises.

4.2 Legal and other binding normative frameworks General National Policy Documents It is widely considered that some of the most important documents for analysing science, technology and innovation policy at the national scale are the National Conferences on Science, Technology and Innovation ‘books’ carried out after nation-wide stakeholder R&D exercises: comprehensive national policy white-papers produced more or less every presidential cycle.

9

OECD (2016). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, Country profile: Brazil. OECD Publishing. Accessed June 23, 2018. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-49-en 10 MCTIC (2016).

14

• • • •

C. G da Silva, L. C. P. de Melo, coord. (2001). Livro Verde: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Desafios para a Sociedade Brasileira. Brasília: Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT). MCT (2002). Livro Branco: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília: Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT). MCT (2006). 3a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação : síntese das conclusões e recomendações. Brasília: Minstry of Science and Technology (MCT). MCTI (2010). LIVRO AZUL: 4a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI).

The current national guidelines are set out in the equivalent National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation: 2016-2022, with the caveat that these were drafted by the interim government of outgoing president Temer and may possibly be replaced after the 2018 elections. The Strategy, unlike the previously cited ‘books’, was not the result of a national stakeholder meeting: •

MCTIC (2016). Estratégia Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, 2016-2022: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Brasília: Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (MCTIC).

Ethics key Research ethics regulation in Brazil11 is markedly top-down and has as its basis previously existing systems for biomedical research. It is also highly centralized and local procedures must be homogenized to procedures dictated from the capital Brasília. The Ministério da Saúde (Ministry of Health) maintains the SISNEP – National System for Information on Ethics Involving Human Beings (Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Ética em Pesquisa Envolvendo Seres Humanos).12 The Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa –CONEP (National Commission on Research Ethics), a commission created in 1996 and connected to the Conselho Nacional de Saúde – CNS (National Health Council) centralizes and organizes registers for nationwide research involving human subjects and keeps a public record of approved projects. It also produces publicly accessible documents on research ethics for both specialists and wider publics. The Conselho Nacional de Saúde – CNS (National Health Council) holds multiple official and unofficial documents relevant to the RRI ethics key, such as the Resolução do CNS 196/96 which officially creates the National Commission on Research Ethics (CNEP), information related to resolutions, technical documents, procedural norms, ethics related FAQs, etc. It also publishes the magazine Cadernos de Ética em Pesquisa which is an informational magazine with articles, interviews, etc. that importantly also publishes official, national-level ethics norms and resolutions.13 A full list of resolutions from CNS, the overarching governing body on ethics, can be located within the Plataforma Brasil government site which is a general and centralized site for accessing bureaucratic procedures at the federal level, evidencing the top-down nature of ethics. 14 An important document is CONEP’s technical analysis of an initiative for the creation of a national law on research ethics, Projeto de Lei (PL) nº 200/2015. The project was controversial. and some thought it misunderstood the relationship between research autonomy and responsibility, 11

A supplementary research brief on national outlooks on ethics committees can be found in Batista et al (2012). 12 http://portal2.saude.gov.br/sisnep/pesquisador/ 13 http://conselho.saude.gov.br/Web_comissoes/conep/aquivos/materialeducativo/publicacoes.htm 14 http://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/login.jsf;jsessionid=EA53E3DC4A1F1EA0984C11DD09DD9943.serverplataformabrasil-srvjpdf132

15

undermining local scientific autonomy and introducing interests external to the research process by including special-interest groups (e.g. pharmaceuticals) as well as uninterested general publics.15 Open Access (OA) & Open Science key There is currently no official overarching position from the federal government on Open Access and no policies or mandates at the national level. There have been two attempts to create nationwide policies for Open Access to scientific information by the Brazilian Institute for Information on Science and Technology (IBICT) which is part of MCTIC and is technically responsible for OA implementation. These were the bills PL 1.120/2007 and PLS 387/2011. Given Brazil’s overwhelmingly top-down approach to science policy, the lack of a federal mandate was consistently positioned as a major barrier to increasing OA uptake and support at all levels nationwide.16 The Ministry of Education’s Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) agency maintains a Periodicals Portal since 1990, an important site for open access to scientific literature, but only for accredited institutions. Its general mission is to provide access to the most important scientific literature for participating federal institutions, but it is generally considered an insufficient resource for all academic areas despite the high costs of providing such access.17 Recent debates of the current national scenario have argued for a conflict of interests between IBICT’s generally progressive OA policy and CAPES’ conservative and commercial publisher-friendly position (Monaco 2017), as CAPES provides access to universities by paying private publishers, usually having to pay for many products the community does not use in order to get access to publications of interest. CAPES however has mandated the establishment of institutional repositories, an important initiative that IBICT also underscores through a number of IT support programs throughout Brazil. CAPES Portaria No. 133 makes mandatory the establishment of institutional repositories for postgraduate theses which agency funding support. 18 Concerning learned societies and research institutes outlooks, there are two notable examples: one is the influential public document known as the Brazilian Manifesto Supporting Open Access to Scientific Information.19 Secondly, the important biomedical research institution Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz) foundation now also has an Open Access mandate which can be considered a paradigmatic example of local mandatory policy.20 We finally mention that Brazil is also recognized as one of the leading Latin American nations in the global Open Access implementation movement that advocates for non-commercial initiatives, largely in part because of initiatives that include IBICT’s and Fiocruz’s advocacy and implementation actions, as well as the importance of the FAPESP-funded Scielo portal for Latin American scholarship.21 Gender key

15

http://conselho.saude.gov.br/Web_comissoes/conep/aquivos/Analise-tecnica-Lei200-2015.pdf Projeto de Lei 1120 de 21 de maio de 2007. http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=352237, Projeto de lei do Senado nº 387 de 2011: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/101006 17 http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/index.php?option=com_pcontent&view=pcontent&alias=missaoobjetivos&Itemid=102 18 https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/legislacao/Portaria_013_2006.pdf 19 http://livroaberto.ibict.br/Manifesto.pdf 20 https://portal.fiocruz.br/sites/portal.fiocruz.br/files/documentos/portaria__politica_de_acesso_aberto_ao_conhecimento_na_fiocruz.pdf 21 http://www.science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/sciencemetrix_open_access_availability_scientific_publications_report.pdf 16

16

Although in some respects Brazil can be considered a good example in terms of gender equity, because of the high numbers of women in undergraduate course or in researcher positions, this can be a misleading indicator if not contextualised within the country’s still very sexist culture. Because most research in Brazil is performed in public universities, and because entry into this career is through public selection processes, this may help explain why there are so many women researchers: as a public service career, university professors do not suffer the same pressures as private researchers, and there are more solid instruments in place to protect women and equity in general. This does not mean that women are equally present in positions of power, as several studies have shown, and also does not mean that there are no sexist pressures within these public institutions. Therefore, data like the presence of women in science, as published authors or in graduate education must be understood in context. There are a number of governmental programs to promote women in science in all levels of government. Aside from gender, it is also worth noting the recent growing concern with diversity in science (racial, ethnic). Key government agencies include the Secretaria Nacional de Políticas para Mulheres (National Agency for Women’s Policy),22 and the federal government’s Mecanismos de Gênero nos Órgãos do Governo Federal (Gender Mechanisms for Federal Government Branches), though there is no specific agency looking at ST&I issues.23 Since 2000, universities have been implementing racial quotas for entry, and in 2018 the policy reached UNICAMP, a latecomer in this trend. The federal government has also implemented policies to promote diversity in science, but this is still a controversial and disputed topic in the country. Many believe enacting quotas and other affirmative action policies is an attack on meritocracy and could subvert academic excellence24, and the topic is still divisive within academic circles and in broader Brazilian society. Agência FAPESP has featured gender-equality assessments that are vital given the lack of other resources, such as the report, Mulheres na ciência brasileira (Women in Brazilian Science).25 In recent times, due to the publication of an Elsevier comparative bibliometric report on gender in science, which is claimed to show the extremely high level of women’s participation in Brazilian science,26 the popular press has pushed views that Brazil has a gender-equal ST&I system. One of the typical claims of gender-equality based on publication indicators is Huffpost Brasil’s report, ‘Brasil é o País com mais igualdade entre os gêneros na ciência, diz estudo.’ (Brazil is the country with the highest gender equality in science, study claims)27 A similar Brazilian Academy of Sciences article highlighted the role of women in Brazilian science28 and the view was uncritically repeated in other Academy releases.29 More critical views, however, do appear, such as in Jornal da USP.30

22

http://www.spm.gov.br/ http://www.spm.gov.br/mecanismos-de-genero 24 See for example: Moreira, M. S. (2012). Uma tipologia dos argumentos no debate acadêmico sobre as cotas no Brasil. Cadernos do LEME, 3(2); Moehlecke, S. (2004). Ação afirmativa no ensino superior: entre a excelência e a justiça racial. Educação & Sociedade, 25(88). 25 http://agencia.fapesp.br/mulheres_na_ciencia_brasileira/622/ 26 Gender in the Global Research Landscape: Analysis of research performance through a gender lens across 20 years, 12 geographies, and 27 subject areas. Elsevier’s Research Intelligence series, Elsevier. http://elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/gender-report 27 http://www.huffpostbrasil.com/2017/03/10/brasil-e-o-pais-com-mais-igualdade-entre-os-generos-naciencia_a_21879490/ 28 http://www.abc.org.br/article.php3?id_article=3181 29 http://www.abc.org.br/article.php3?id_article=8383 30 http://jornal.usp.br/ciencias/ciencias-humanas/desequilibrio-de-genero-afeta-mulheres-cientistas-no-brasil/ 23

17

At the federal and local levels, there have been various efforts to implement gender-equality actions. CNPq’s until recently carried out actions such as the program Mulher e Ciência (Women in Science)31 and the Meninas na Ciência (Girls in Science) program, though these and others have been undermined by severe budget cuts by the current government’s austerity measures.32 Other notable actions include the Para Mulheres na Ciencia prize (Women in Science),33 the Brazilian Physics Society working group on gender (Grupo de Trabalho sobre Questões de Gênero da SBF),34 historical reports from the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science,35 the Federal Government’s Programa Pró-Equidade de Gênero, Raça e Diversidade (Programme Pro Gender Equality and Racial Diversity Programme),36 and pro-equality statements and policy positions such as Embrapa’s37 and statement Fiocruz’s.38 These programs tried to educate the scientific community and the public about getting more women into science, especially the “hard” sciences, trying to counter pervasive ideas about these areas as markedly masculine. However, such efforts also lost funding and especially prestige after 2016 in Temer’s government. Science education key The UNESCO (2010, 2016) reports and perspectives on science policy and education, which include Brazil as one of the in-depth case studies, offer a comprehensive study of ST&I that includes data on science education. Brazil has many programs in science education, centred for the most part on at public research and science funding institutions. Some of these include science fairs, prizes organised by major research conducting and funding organisations, basic and middle science bursaries, amongst others, but there is no centralised Science Education effort and science features little in the National Education Plan; at the federal level it is mostly based on one-off efforts39 or larger public events.40 Leaned societies are important voices in promoting scientific education. Examples include the Brazilian Academy of Sciences perspective on science education in Brazil,41 a Brazilian Association for Research in Science Education42, the Brazilian Association for Biology Teaching.43 Science crisis in Brazil

31

http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/acoes/ https://www.ufrgs.br/meninasnaciencia/ 33 https://www.paramulheresnaciencia.com.br/ 34 http://www1.fisica.org.br/gt-genero/index.php 35 http://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/publicacoes/ciencia-e-mulher/ 36 http://www.spm.gov.br/assuntos/mulher-e-trabalho/programa-pro-equidade-de-genero-e-raca/6-edicao 37 https://www.embrapa.br/programa-pro-equidade 38 https://portal.fiocruz.br/pt-br/content/pr%C3%B3-equidade 39 http://portal.mec.gov.br/projovem-campo--saberes-da-terra/195-secretarias-112877938/seb-educacaobasica-2007048997/13566-estrategia-para-o-ensino-de-ciencias 40 National Science and Technology Week http://snct.mctic.gov.br/portal 41 http://www.abc.org.br/article.php3?id_article=4098 42 http://abrapecnet.org.br/wordpress/pt/ 43 http://www.sbenbio.org.br/ 32

18

Figure 3: Drastic funding cuts challenge the sustainability of scientific institutions in Brazil. Source: https://www.nature.com/news/brazilianscientists-reeling-as-federal-funds-slashed-by-nearly-half-1.21766

Although still the leading Latin American nation in terms of scientific and technological development, to understand the current ST&I landscape it is important to note that economic (the worst recession in recorded history) and political factors (the anti-left and anti-Worker Party sentiment that helped topple Dilma Rousseff and led Michel Temer, her Vice-President to power and shifted the political spectrum drastically to the conservative right) have led to a major fall in federal support for academic and scientific activities when compared to the period between 2010-2015. There has been intense fluctuation (and thus severe uncertainty) through time for science funding in Brazil overall since redemocratization in 1988, but the current cuts have been perceived widely within the scientific community as especially harsh. Learned societies such as the Sociedade Brasileira de Física have, for example, warned about the general discontent with the current policy,44 and critical voices have arisen throughout the science system.45 Revista Pesquisa FAPESP has tackled the issue of funding cuts critically,46 though also highlighting the fragility of an over-reliance on public funds and the sometimes-uncritical use of federal funding programs.47 Learned societies,48 academies49, universities and even federal agencies50 have unambiguously argued that with the ongoing cuts Brazilian ST&I progress could be drastically affected.

44

http://www.cienciahoje.org.br/noticia/v/ler/id/4909/n/ciencia,_tecnologia_e_educacao:_situacao_critica http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/pesquisa-e-inovacao/noticia/2017-01/apos-mobilizacao-da-comunidadecientifica-governo-recomp%C3%B5e-or%C3%A7amento-da-area 46 http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/020_financiamento_256.pdf 47 http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2017/06/19/experiencia-encerrada/ 48 http://jcnoticias.jornaldaciencia.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Carta-conjunta-ao-Presidente-daRep%C3%BAblica-1.pdf 49 http://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/noticias/orcamento-de-cti-para-2018-tragedia-anunciada/ 50 https://www.cartacapital.com.br/tecnologia/a-ciencia-e-a-primeira-a-ser-cortada-diz-presidente-do-cnpq 45

19

Figure 4: The recession affects science funding. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/brazil-s-lost-decadethe-invisible-costs-of-an-epic-recession

4.3 Political and cultural values and discussions related to STI Brazil’s science and technology system is relatively young compared to industrialized countries, with its first modern university dating from the 1930s, and it was only in the second half of the 20th century that more relevant investments were made to build scientific capacity and achieve greater technological independence, especially through the national security doctrines of the military dictatorship post 1964. After the 1988 constitution and with democratization, Brazil has undergone several cycles of crisis and economic boom, which reflect on the economic cycles and on national agendas and debates on science and technology policy. While the country opened up its economy and implemented neoliberal reforms after the 1989 election and during the two terms of the Cardoso presidency, investment in science and research was stagnated and the public system suffered with funding restrictions. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, however, a discussion on the need to invest and promote innovation as a means to achieve more sustained growth became more central in policy and academic circles. This debate coincided with several policies to promote innovation and improve funding mechanisms, such as the 2004 Marco Legal da Inovação51 (Innovation Law), which was followed by state laws regulating cooperation between academic institutions and private companies52. The push to develop national capacity and technical independence especially during the military regime was thus followed by a trend to seek better synergy between public academic research and the market. This trend continued throughout the two terms of the Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff presidencies, which saw important increases in science funding, coinciding also with robust economic growth. This was a change in policy from the previous period, which was more focused on privatization and liberal principles. It marked a period of renewed investment and growth of the system as a whole53, right up until the deep political and economic crisis that followed the

51

http://www.poli.usp.br/pesquisa/pad-poli-empresas/47-os-beneficios-das-leis-de-inovacao.html https://www.senado.gov.br/noticias/Jornal/emdiscussao/inovacao/leis-federais-estaduais-incentivo-cienciatecnologia-e-inovacao-no-brasil.aspx 53 https://www.nature.com/news/brazil-s-science-investment-reaches-record-high-1.13495 52

20

2013 street protests and the 2014 presidential election, culminating in a deep recession and the 2016 impeachment of president Dilma Rousseff54. Currently, with the recent recession and funding crisis, there is a heated debate about the place for science in the present and future of Brazil’s development. Politically, while the current government has promoted deep cuts in funding, the scientific community has been insistently resisting this through national organizations like ABC – the Brazilian Academy of Science and SBPC – the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science. While they have been lobbying with the federal government for more sustainable funding for science, this has not materialized into changed policies. Since 2016, the approval of a constitutional cap in spending for 20 years has been widely criticised for its potential to freeze science spending for a generation. Institutions such as Fiocruz55, representatives in Congress56 and most high-profile researchers and scientific organizations57 have joined in to critique this as a serious impediment to the possibility of strong research in the country.

5 Aspects of responsibility in national science policy Although research activities have existed in Brazil since the 19th century, it was only after the 1930s that, after a series of modernisation reforms,58 the country could initiate a robust public university system that would pave the way for developing a national scientific policy. This began in the 1950s, with the creation of two key funding agencies: CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and CAPES (Agency for Quality Assurance in Postgraduate Courses). The 1960s saw nationalistic discourse and higher education reforms aimed towards moving away from a state of ‘technological dependence’, while the 1970s were marked by the dictatorship-era economic boom and an incorporation of science and technology policy within the government’s National Plan for Economic Development launched in 1972. The FINEP (Funding Authority for Studies and Projects) agency was created in 1971 to address the need for funding research specific to national priorities geared towards technological autonomy, and both CNPq and CAPES were instrumental in the professionalization and growth in scope and quality of the R&D system. While the 1980s were a period of contraction and increased bureaucratization, the 1990s gave way to economic openness and external competition which created a demand for “steering research toward economic and societal relevance.” 59 The creation in 1985 of a national Ministry of Science centralized federal R&D funding in parallel to the creation of regional (state) funding agencies in the 2000s, which previously had only existed in São Paulo State (FAPESP).

5.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in national science policy An important science and technology policy landmark are the national strategic meetings known as the National Conferences of Science and Technology. The first one, held in 1985, helped create the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Second National Conference of Science and Technology,

54

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/01/02/irredeemable https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2016/12/03/pec-dos-gastos-e-ameaca-a-saudee-a-ciencia-diz-presidente-da-fiocruz.htm 56 http://www2.camara.leg.br/camaranoticias/noticias/CIENCIA-E-TECNOLOGIA/537867-TETO-DE-GASTOS-VAIAFETAR-SETOR-DE-CIENCIA-E-TECNOLOGIA,-DIZEM-DEBATEDORES.html 57 https://epocanegocios.globo.com/Economia/noticia/2016/10/orgaos-cientificos-criticam-pec-do-teto.html 58 M. F. C. de Paula (2002). USP e UFRJ influência das concepções alemã e francesa em suas fundações. Tempo Social, 14(2). pp. 147-161. 59 Id, pg. X. 55

21

held in 2001, helped produce the so-called White Book60 and Green Book61 that put in explicit form a stakeholder-consensus and market-driven Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. This was materialized mainly through the strategic ‘sectoral funds’ program, aimed at promoting integration of R&D with business and privatized strategic-resource industry (mainly energy and communications).62 These national meetings, albeit important, are not held at regular time intervals, and have been comprised mostly of scientists and stakeholders from the scientific community itself. A National Innovation, Technology and Foreign Trade Policy (PITCE) was also published in 2004, which sought to promote development through improving innovation capacity of private companies. It delimited key national priorities for action as “semiconductors and microelectronics; software; capital goods; pharmaceuticals and medication; biotechnology; nanotechnology; and biomass” 63 The 2000s gave Brazil a new economic boom, with significant growth in both GDP and GERD, but with significantly less increases in the GERD/GDP ratio than the 2.0% goal. Although tax incentives64 and funding programs were put in place to increase links between R&D and the private sector,65 private R&D spending did not grow, and to this day Brazil still remains highly dependent on public funds for R&D financing. The follow-up 3rd and 4th National Conferences would deliver similar overarching R&D national outlooks, with a 3rd Conference Book66 and a Blue Book67 being published in 2006 and 2010. Currently, the main national R&D policy document is the 2016 National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation published by the new Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (MCTIC), 68 after the fusion of the MCTI and the Ministry of Communications. The Strategy mentions as its main pillars “promoting research; laboratory infrastructure; funding of activities; human resources; and entrepreneurial innovation.”69 As it was published by an interim president, under intense questioning and accusations of a coup d’etat, it is hard to gauge how concrete the strategy actually is (given the deep cuts in funding already mentioned) and the political turmoil that persisted throughout the Temer presidency, currently Brazil’s least popular president in recorded history. Information on how it was drafted and who was in fact consulted for the document are not clear, but the document mentions consultations with experts from the scientific community, suggesting a continuity with previous documents. It is worth mentioning that one of the only projects mentioned here which were not severely affected by funding cuts is Sirius70, the new Brazilian Synchrotron Light Source, Brazil’s most complex scientific infrastructure to date, which is set to be one of the more advanced of its kind in the world.

60

MCT (2002). Livro Branco: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). 61 C. G da Silva, L. C. P. de Melo, coord. (2001). Livro Verde: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Desafios para a sociedade brasileira. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). 62 UNESCO (2010). UNESCO Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 63 UNESCO (2010), pg. 104. 64 Law 8248/91, Law 11196/05, Law 10332/02. 65 Mainly, the Policy on Productive Development and the Bigger Brazil Plan. See documentation on Industrial Policy, Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development. Accessed 13 June, 2018. URL: http://www.abdi.com.br/Paginas/politica_industrial.aspx 66 MCT (2006). 3a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação : síntese das conclusões e recomendações. Brasília: Minstry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). 67 MCT (2010). LIVRO AZUL: 4a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). 68 MCTIC (2016). 69 MCTIC (2016), pg. 10. 70 https://www.lnls.cnpem.br/sirius-en/

22

The continued centrality of government funding and relatively low private R&D participation has had important consequences. Most researchers continue to be full-time academics at public universities with publicly-funded civil servant work contracts, eating up a significant percentage (when not the totality, or beyond) of university budgets. Patenting continues to be low given the limited participation of universities in patent-development and despite a number of success stories in Brazilian technological innovation (such as EMBRAER aircraft manufacturer; a strong agribusiness sector led by EMBRAPA funding; the ProAlcool ethanol bioenergy program) the Brazilian national R&D system remains patently vulnerable to macroeconomic instabilities and internal political turmoil. Additionally, the ‘Brazil cost’ associated to excessive bureaucratic red-tape in business and policy regulation is seen as a strong detracting factor for technological investment in the country. 71 The 2008-2009 global economic crisis has caused an ongoing recession in Brazil (especially after 2011) after a decade of growth, while a number of corruption scandals and the impeachment of expresident Rousseff have created a radicalisation of politics and internal instability that have had a real effect on science policy. Most visibly, in 2017, the Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications (MCTIC) saw decreases in funding of 44% (compared to 2014 levels).72 Although only representing around 8% of total government investment in R&D, the deep cuts to MCTIC were expected to have a negative impact on the country’s scientific system.73 Other federal sources of scientific funding such as the Ministry of Education (21% of total R&D funding), though facing smaller cuts (12%), are part of a visible downturn in critical state R&D funding. Main themes in national R&D policy documents As explained in the previous section, there was a major re-orientation of R&D policy from its start during the military-dictatorship as a source for developing nationalist science and technology autonomy, to a driver of technological appropriation and local economic development, to the current focus on innovation as a source for economic prosperity and societal good through innovation-driven science and technology. The term ‘responsibility’, on its own, rarely appears within the most relevant policy documents cited above, which aside from the National Conference books and National strategies are, for the most part, legal frameworks, decrees and bureaucratic guidelines. In general, the few mentions of ‘responsibility’ frame it as societal or social responsibility, which is mostly understood as either financial accountability to society for public monies spent on scientific and R&D activities, or a morally-orientation discourse about the role of bringing socially-desirable outcomes from scientific and research activity. The earliest National Conference (White) book thus describes how science, technology and innovation policy can reflect “social responsibility” through a sufficient number of: “…research projects, development activities and direct actions aimed towards the resolution of social demands, either in traditional areas like health or the environment, or in vanguard areas like nanotechnologies, space technology applications of IT.”74 (MCTI 2001, pg. xiii) In tune with the general project of involving private investment in national science policy, it also importantly describes the government’s development of partnerships, under responsibility of the private sector, of: 71

UNESCO (2015). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. C. Angelo, ‘Brazilian scientists reeling as federal funds slashed by nearly half’, Nature News, 3 April 2017. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2017.21766. 73 F. Marques, ‘Financiamento em crise’, Revista Pesquisa FAPESP, 256, June 2017. 74 All quotes from the National Conference books are translated from the Portuguese original. 72

23

“…assuming the leadership of investment in R&D, as happens in developed countries and also in some developing countries.” (MCTI 2001, pg. 29) On improving and widening access to technological development, it also describes the shared responsibility of “many segments of public administration, the private sector and civil society, which transcend – but still require –specific scientific and technological developments in some areas.” (MCTI 2001, pg. 69) We finally note that the concept of environmental sustainability is also introduced therein, framed as Brazil’s national responsibility towards an international community of protecting its natural heritage. The Conference follow-up Green Book resulted in a much more limited responsibility discourse. For example, it is only after introducing science and technology’s importance of acting as ways of knowing, understanding and acting in the world, that it refers to the “ethical-political-social responsibility of those who do Science, Technology and Innovation” (MCTI 2002, pg. 52). There is some discussion of the need for addressing “society’s claim of correcting imbalances and improving everyone’s quality of life; and the private sector’s need… of new modes of organization, management and financing of ST&I in Brazil” (MCTI 2002, pg. ix). This tone is found throughout the rest of the Book, which defends the idea that, on its own, “a knowledge society will be a more just and equal society” (MCTI 2002, pg. xviii). The ‘Great Challenges’ for the new R&D policy framework are then introduced as: i) the advance of knowledge, ii) quality of life, iii) economic development, iv) strategic challenges and v) institutional challenges. Unlike the White Book, which posited a much more integrated model of ‘societal responsibility’ into all R&D actions, the Green Book posits social challenges such as inclusion, poverty, environmental challenges and energy issues into the ‘quality of life’ segment, and in particular it stresses the role of the social sciences as the adequate framework to address social issues. This is not completely surprising, given that the Green Book coordination was carried out by a traditional learned society – the Brazilian Academy of Sciences – during a historic period in which the role of ST&I in society was still being framed in such a manner even in scientifically advanced nations. The idea that science can be divorced, at least in theory, from ‘the social’, was still found in many of the interviews, particularly with senior scientists and high-level managers. For example, a senior manager explained about the influence of societal issues and a funding agency’s role in improving science: “the moment that it becomes clear that, in order to improve the quality of science we need to deal with gender issues, this will become a talking point. As of now it isn’t… Inclusion, no, it isn’t a talking point… because see, that there… we don’t have a way to deal with that.” The same manager, however, explained the way in which public financing was linked to responsibility in R&D: “… [at this institution] we have financial conditions that are much better than in the federal institutions similar [to us]. We see that as a benefit… but also as higher responsibility.” Finally, we point out that as in many of the interviews and the RRI national workshop, the Green Book mostly avoids the term ‘responsibility’ and instead focuses on specific actions that do however bear on RRI keys (e.g. science communication, science education).

24

The next volume, the Blue Book (MCTI 2010, pg. 17) was issued during the second government of left-centre ex-president ‘Lula’ da Silva, and the discourse on the societally-relevant role of ST&I, as “engines of social and economic development”, naturally features strongly and departs from the ‘socially neutral’ tone of the Green Book. The National Conferences are therein described as “offering society a democratic space for manifesting proposals and aspirations for the sector” (id), and particularly the 2005 3rd Conference as “a strong call for showing the importance of science, technology and innovation in generating wealth and distributing it throughout society using mechanisms of social inclusion, whose main pillar is education” (MCTI, pg. 18). In tune with its general politics, the government’s main strategic objective for the country was named as ST&I development framed within a programme for reducing regional and social inequalities, sustainable use of natural resources and the strengthening of ties with industry and the private sector through technology and international standing. The main lines of action were traced as: i) treating innovation as a strategic goal in both public and private R&D, ii) increasing participation of the private sector in R&D efforts, iii) increasing total (private and public) GERD to developed country levels of 2-2.5% of the GDP, iv) diversifying financing options, v) stimulating regional science, vi) creating innovation-friendly environments, vii) creating early-stage innovation opportunities for enterprise, viii) prepare Brazil for a global competitive market, ix) increase R&D support for middle-sized enterprises, x) give special attention to development within the poorest regions and states, xi) make improvements to existing R&D legal frameworks, xii) revise and expand the goals of the Innovation Law. The ambitions of the Blue Book Action plan, however, were cut short by the economic downturn and the beginning of Brazil’s recession period. In fact, critical goals such as the rise of total GERD to 2% levels and increased integration of the private sector into R&D were not nearly reached, as was described in earlier sections. Furthermore, the impeachment of president Dilma Rousseff completely derailed the pro-inclusiveness and prowealth distribution political agenda and gave way to interim president Michel Figure 5: HDI of Brazilian municipalities in 1991, 2000, and 2010. Source: Temer’s political restructuration, strong da Silva (2018). austerity measures, and conservative policies. Although the new 2016-2022 Strategy is subtitled “Science, technology and innovation for social and economic development”, in fact the austerity actions and deep cuts to federal science and education budgets do not reflect preoccupations with tying ST&I development to social and

25

economic welfare, particularly as compared with previous governments.75 There does not appear to be a cohesive concept of responsibility in the document, but rather only a general priority-setting outlook for further planning on key strategic areas and actions. Brazilian R&D policy and regional inequalities: The State of São Paulo It is important to point out that the prosperity characterising the State of São Paulo (home to the project partners) as compared to other regions in Brazil, means that care must be taken to frame the case studies presented here as representative of Brazil as a whole. While the South and SouthEastern regions that include SP State exhibit high development indices, the West-Central and NorthEastern regions are significantly less prosperous, with the Northern region having extremely low development indices.76 The State of São Paulo, one of the 27 territories that conforms the Brazilian Federal Republic is the country’s economic powerhouse and responsible for around 33% of the country’s GDP.77 It’s state capital has more than 20 million inhabitants and is one of the largest urban agglomerations in the world. The state is the most populous in Brazil, with around 45 million inhabitants, and also has the highest Human Development Index (HDI) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of all Brazilian territories. It is a cultural, infrastructural, educational, scientific and industrial hub, with over 578 universities including some of Brazil’s top institutions and research centres, as well as hosting major technological hubs. Indicators for R&D also exhibit these disparities, with SP State capturing 46% of the national GERD and 66% of business R&D expenditure, SP State Universities producing 41% of Brazilian PhDs, 44% of all published papers having at least one author from SP and the State receiving 86% and 73% of R&D higher education funds and total public R&D funds, respectively78; but this disparity is strongly influenced by the State’s local scientific policy, and not exclusively by pre-existing infrastructural differences – given the relative prosperity of São State and the inclusion of a constitutionally guaranteed fixed-percentage investment of the State's tax income into the State’s funding agency, this provides for stable federally-independent income and policy goals that are tailor made to fit SP’s strong industrial and business communities.

5.2 The notion of ‘RRI’ in national science policy discussions Nota bene: the term ‘RRI’ as such was not found within any of the national policy documents which were consulted during the case study, nor during the interviews carried out at national science policy centres.

5.3 Ethics in the national science system A. Brazil research ethics works on two levels: a local level focusing mostly on assessment through research ethics committees (primarily at research conducting and medical institutions, but recently also through a legal frame of ethics in humanities and social science) and a national regulatory level that coordinates and publicly diffuses ethics resolutions and developments through the Health Ministry. The Brazilian conception of ethics does not encompass RRI 75

See for example the controversial move to open the Amazon region to further agricultural deterioration, J. Tollefson, ‘Brazil’s lawmakers renew push to weaken environmental rules’, Nature, 557: pg. 17 and the series of academy and learned society manifestos listed in the documentation section on ‘Science Crisis in Brazil’. 30 April 2018. Nature News, doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05022-2 76 SA da Silva (2018). Regional Inequalities in Brazil: Divergent Readings on Their Origin and Public Policy Design, EchoGéo, 41. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/echogeo/15060 77 http://www.internationaloffice.unicamp.br/english/international-visitors/about/sao-paulo-state/ 78 UNESCO (2015).

26

conceptions of a citizen- and stakeholder-inclusionary, democratic, upstream decision-making version of science. In Brazil, ethics is understood and formulated as a matter internal to institutionalized science, which is often wary of non-scientific intrusion. Ethics is therefore framed mostly as ‘good scientific practices’ and ethics reviews are not inclusive of wider publics. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The main barriers are the top-down and highly centralised nature of ethics assessment, as well as a biomedically-centred system which is generally unacquainted with ethics considerations in other areas (although that is changing now with the approval of a specific norm for human and social science ethics review). Although there is a growing momentum for a wider understanding of ethics in the top institutions and universities (i.e. the growing concern with social inclusion, racial diversity and gender issues), outside of the biomedical areas ethics best practices are very much discussed but still unregulated. For RRI-specific purposes, the limitation of ethics to ‘good scientific practices’ can be seen as a significant barrier. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There are increasing institutional pressures for researchers to comply with CONEP’s ethics requirements, which has driven a national discussion on ethics in research in academic conferences, universities and among professors. There is also a perception that without such adherence, Brazil may lag behind the rest of the world, by not being able to publish in top journals for example. D. Best practices (or bad practices). FAPESP’s Code of Good Scientific Practice and the related education programme is an exemplary effort to introduce ethics and good practices at a State level, particularly given the agency’s importance. Albeit binding only for the state of São Paulo, it has national relevance due to how concentrated science is in this state.

5.4 Societal engagement strategies in research A. Societal engagement has not been a very common practice in developing national science and technology strategy. Even in exercises where there have been debates on the future of science, such as the White, Green and Blue books (MCT 2001, MCT 2002, MCTI 2006), what is very clear is the lack of other participants from outside of academia or the scientific community, which is a characteristic of Brazilian science policy according to studies.79 In most cases, it is the scientific community itself that defines and develops the principles around which science policy is thought out and implemented, leaving out other stakeholders from broader society. This is true, authors have debated, even as the push for innovation becomes more relevant to the agendas of science policy; it has been mostly scientists themselves and not private enterprise that have been pushing for a greater centrality of technological innovation in policy80, for example. There is a lot of engagement but is has had little support from universities themselves (i.e. extension work, not as valued as publications), or it has depended on individuals’ dedication and effort with little institutional support. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The culture of intense scientific self-regulation of Brazilian scientific institutions. We have observed, however, that this is also tied to academic spaces’ and scientific institutions’ fight for political autonomy. There also seems to be a large gap between citizen interests and those of a scientific culture that is markedly divorced from wider social participation. 79

Dagnino, R., & Dias, R. (2007). A Política de C&T Brasileira: três alternativas de explicação e orientação. Revista brasileira de inovação, 6(2), 373-403; de Brito Dias, R. (2012). Sessenta anos de política científica e tecnológica no Brasil. Campinas: Editora UNICAMP; 80 Dias, R., & Serafim, M. (2014) A política científica e tecnológica brasileira nos anos 2000 e a “agenda da empresa”: um novo rumo?. Abordagens em Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade. Santo André: Editora UFABC, 141164.

27

C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Despite the top-down nature of how scientific research ir organised and the generalised disinterest in citizen involvement, there is a growing awareness that science, technology and innovation at the national policy level should be ‘socially relevant.’ This may have multiple meanings, from helping reduce inequalities to promoting strong economic growth through innovation, but it is a discourse that can be mobilised towards responsibility in the RRI sense. D. Best practices (or bad practices). There are many examples where science has failed to engage with broader society, as mentioned above with the exercises of debating the future of science promoted by different governments. The current and drastic defunding of science is a good example of a bad practice, which has ignored demands and complaints by the scientific community. The lack of channels between science and society is also a bad practice, although the Brazilian university does much in terms of extension work. There are several also good practices, stemming from the idea of a public university which is inherently responsible to broader society: an ethics of engagement stemming from a public service career is present in many groups and has materialized, for example, in times of crises (i.e. the Mariana disaster81 or the Zika outbreak82), where scientists step in and donate their time and effort to seek solutions, sometimes with institutional support (as was the case with Zika). There is engagement here through, for example, mobilizing affected populations and local stakeholders (i.e. health professionals from affected areas) in order to seek solutions. Another example is through engaging in ad hoc citizen science, as in the case of the Mariana disaster in Minas Gerais, where a large-scale spill of mining waste83 destroyed several small cities and ruined the Doce river basin with still uncalculated damage to the environment. Many scientists promoted data collection and analysis of environmental impact with local populations in order to also seek social impact beyond the laboratory.84

5.5 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the science system A. Although there is a general agreement that gender balance, protection against discrimination and legal expansion of women’s rights have seen improvements since the Lula government, Brazil is far from being a gender-equal society. The situation has been aggravated by the current political climate and a swing to political conservatism sweeping the country since Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, with across-the-board pushes against socially progressive policy. Brazil is characterized by mismatches between real formal advances in gender policies, and their actual, practical implementations. For example, while Brazil is sometimes lauded for having some of the world’s most progressive women’s protection and gender balance laws, this can be used to obscure serious gender inequality issues. The implementation of gender laws and policies, like other political instruments, can have very limited impact. Regarding science, the situation plays out similarly. The much-disseminated Elsevier international study looking at women’s participation in scientific publishing has been widely advertised to argue that Brazil is the most scientifically gender-balanced country globally, because women now outnumber men in scientific posts. The report is thus cited to argue that gender-imbalance is a 81

http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2016/08/12/open-science-o-futuro-da-ciencia-e-o-desastre-de-mariana/ http://agencia.fapesp.br/rede-zika-elenca-prioridades-e-define-estrategias-de-operacao/22706/ 83 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/28/brazil-dam-collapse-samarco-fundao-mining 84 http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2016/05/19/aguas-mortas/. For a video on this initiative, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhnjrZGE680&t=31s 82

28

non-issue for Brazil. More detailed studies show, however, that gender imbalance issues remain through many of the well-known structural problems that limit women’s participation (e.g. ‘glass ceilings’, ‘leaky pipes’, ‘sticky floors’, imbalances in traditionally male-dominated STEM fields, etc.). This leads to having reduced spaces and conversations on gender imbalance and decreased opportunities for creating institutionally sanctioned programs that address these issues. Finally, an issue important to the Brazilian context is the strong intersectionality that gender issues exhibit with other social inequality and stigmatization categories that include race, socioeconomic inequality and LGBT discrimination, regional differences, amongst others. While gender remains an important issue in and by itself, gender it is only part of a greater discussion on discrimination that, to be well understood in Brazil both at ground and at policymaking level, must consider how gender is part of a greater national discussion on equality and antidiscrimination issues. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The generalised inequality regarding gender, race, socioeconomic status, LGBT issues and other elements of stigmatisation intrinsic to Brazilian society, as well as the stronger, well-known gender imbalance issues in areas like STEM and philosophy. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Despite the existing imbalances, there are numerous examples of grassroot movements, politically progressive policies and increased civil awareness for potential actions to be possible. Brazil’s more globalised universities and research institutes also are in dialogue with scientific cultures where gender-equality issues are more openly discussed as part of an understanding of scientific social responsibility. D. Best practices (or bad practices). Although the current political climate has swung to less progressive positions, the past years have seen a number of significant pro-equality actions particularly in federal, public universities such as affirmative action quotas, many stemming from a push from below to put these topics in the agenda. UNICAMP, for example, has begun establishing policies to curb sexual harassment85, leading the way to greater concern with the topic in the near future.

5.6 Open access and open science strategies in the national science system A. Open Access (OA) policymaking in Brazil can be subdivided into three types: national, state-wide, and local implementations (within single institutional settings). Although there cross-cutting elements, an important part of the interview material has pointed out that there is a deep chasm between national efforts and local implementations. An important distinction must also be made between OA policymaking and OA implementation, which relate to each other differently at each of the levels. For example, interviews at the Brazilian Institute for Information on Science and Technology (IBICT), a key institution for implementing OA frameworks, mapping OA uptake and disseminating technological solutions for implementations, has only a limited direct effect on national policymaking practices, which are led in practice by ministerial agencies, law-making bodies and the executive branch (IBICT, nevertheless, plays an important consultancy role). At the state level, initiatives like FAPESP-funded Scielo have nationwide and, indeed, international impact, but appear disengaged with Brazilian national policymaking. At the local level, policymaking and implementation are mostly centred on institutions’ central library systems.

85

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2018/06/unicamp-comeca-a-implementar-acoes-contra-assedio-eviolencia-sexual.shtml

29

B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). A lack of general awareness of the importance of OA at the federal policymaking level that has translated into the impossibility to have a national mandate has been singled out as the largest policy hurdle. Lack of significant funding for commercial open access means that Brazil is more interested in selforganised (e.g. ‘green’) OA, but infrastructure implementation is still rather slow. Copyright considerations, a historically thorny issue in Brazil, also carry some weight in faster development of repository-led OA. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Brazil has a strong tradition of open source and localised OA actions such as the Scielo portal and local, in-house developed academic journals. There is also significant OA activism and opportunities for growth. D. Best practices (or bad practices). The Scielo portal is a case in local OA implementation which could be scaled up at a global scale.

5.7 Science education as integrated in research86 A. Brazilian science is currently undergoing a grave crisis as a result of extended budget cuts to research and education programs, as implemented since the arrival to power of Michel Temer and the deepening of an economic recession starting in 2014. The crisis has been recognized and criticized across the national and international community and has affected science and education at all levels. The current crisis illustrates two deep macrosocial problems recognized (including by international NGOs) as characteristics of the Brazilian science and education system: a lack of long-term science and education development goals; and political and economic instability that, matched with a low prioritization of science as a national priority, can nullify advances in the very short term. As a consequence, this impacts implementation in different ways, such as a lack of qualified personnel and material resources for scientific education, a lack of up-to-date pedagogical material and insufficient financial stimuli for choosing a scientific or science educational career. Nevertheless, and despite the budgetary crisis, there is still marked interested from the scientific community to halt the deterioration of the science and educations system and to make science an integral part of Brazilian education. Learned society and national agencies like CNPq and CAPES run a wide gamut of scientific educational programs and universities support similar efforts. There are also now numerous graduate programs on scientific education across the country. It is significant, however, that the Ministry of Education itself does not appear to have any position or long-term approach to scientific education as an integral part of its strategic vision. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The deep cuts to scientific and education programmes make long-term strategies difficult at the moment, except for local efforts by singular institutions. This makes science education particularly important at a more localised level, but activities tend to be formally unrecognised in career progression assessments. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Science education is generally perceived as an important element of academic life as the large number of available programmes and activities show. D. Best practices (or bad practices). CNPq has some interesting initiatives such as the basic and middle education science initiation programs.87 Other notable examples for teacher training and student involvement are CAPES elementary science teaching programs88, Fiocruz, Scientific 86

See http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf for an explanation of what is meant with this key. 87 http://cnpq.br/pibic, http://cnpq.br/pibic-ensino-medio/ 88 http://www.capes.gov.br/educacao-basica

30

Vocational Programme for middle schools89, Instituto Santos Dumont’s Science Education Centers90, the Programa ABC na Educação Científica – Mão na Massa91, SciBr’s Science Clubs92, the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas science education programme.93

5.8 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into science policy discussions 5.8.1. Diversity and inclusion Note that some of the information here will already have been reported under ‘public engagement’ above. A. Diversity and inclusion were important agendas in national policy for the Worker Party governments and led to globally recognised advances in Brazil. The current outlook is not positive, as the political landscape has receded into markedly less-progressive tendencies and it is unknown what the outlook will be after the 2018 general elections, for which an extreme rightwing candidate is currently poised as leading the presidency polls. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Despite the advances in recent decades, Brazil remains one of the most unequal countries in the world and discrimination and social imbalances are still marked. The de-funding of many of the existing programmes for social mobility and inclusion puts in peril the advances of the last governments. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The continuation of some of the federal socially progressive programs as well as the initiatives in individual institutions, such as affirmative action quotas, offer hope for the diminishment of inequality in academia and science. Nevertheless, it is considered that despite increased participation of black and indigenous populations, the structural mechanisms of inequality have hardly been touched.94 D. Best practices (or bad practices). Racial affirmative actions are now beginning to produce quantitative positive results95 and have reached even Brazil’s most conservative public universities.96

5.8.2. Anticipation and reflexivity A. National policy evidences anticipation and reflexivity through, for example, the importance of sectorial funds in focusing R&D efforts into areas that are considered strategic to national interests and that have created important successes in science and technology97, as well as there being a general awareness that ‘social issues’ have a legitimate place in science and technology policy.

89

http://www.sigaeps.fiocruz.br/portal/curso/dadosCurso.do?codC=136 http://www.institutosantosdumont.org.br/unidades/educacao-cientifica/ 91 https://www.abc.org.br/IMG/pdf/doc-5838.pdf 92 http://www.scibr.org/clubes-de-ciencia-brasil/ 93 http://portal.cbpf.br/pt-br/educacao-cientifica 94 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/brazilian-admission-quotas-successful-not-enough-alone 95 http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/educacao/noticia/2018-05/cotas-foram-revolucao-silenciosa-no-brasilafirma-especialista 96 https://jornal.usp.br/artigos/o-sistema-de-cotas-etno-raciais-adotado-pela-usp/ 97 UNESCO, 2010 90

31

B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Although national agendas have been responsive to stakeholder interests, the definition of who are the relevant keyholders can be a controversial topic in Brazil. While we observed elements of reflexivity during our research at partner institutions, the relevance of research still remains an affair closed into the scientific community and its existing power structures. Likewise, the development of an innovation agenda is a two-sided affair, as opportunities are created for industries which show innovative potential but many of which are also linked to closed commercial interests and traditional oligarchies. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The idea that science has the ‘social responsibility’ to answer to society’s needs was generally held by almost all interviewees and project participants, with the caveat that scientists are still best poised to understand what society’s needs are. D. Best practices (or bad practices). The National Conference books, albeit still limited, exhibit interest in long-term planning of national strategies to respond to a changing global landscape.

5.8.3 Openness and transparency A. Brazilian political institutions have been strongly marked, particularly in the last couple of years, by a crisis in transparency and openness, with the unfolding of a large-scale investigation on corruption in all government levels. Scientific institutions, however, do not seem as affected by this type of political scandals, with notable (and infamous) exceptions like the suicide of a public university rector accused of corruption in spite of lack of evidence98. Partly as a result of constant – often excessive – bureaucratic monitoring, transparent accounting seems to be the general norm. Transparency has been on the agenda since the approval of the Brazilian law on Access to Information in 201199, which opened up access to most information produced by public institutions and governments. Most scientific institutions, as they are funded by public money, offer information on general expenses and are open to Freedom of Information requests and scrutiny. Regarding openness, Brazilian scientific and academic institutions still remain relatively closed and are ‘ivory towers’ to the more general population, both in terms of societal engagement and in terms of institutional governance, although public universities do offer more engagement opportunities between local communities and academics. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There is a general attitude toward accountability to society as intrinsic to spending of public money in science, but in a selfdeterministic way in which the public is only a passive observer. This self-regulation of science and an extreme closure to expert participation is still an important driver of science policy. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Accountability to society, while narrowly framed, nevertheless still means that there is a commitment to publicly demonstrating the value of science and innovation in an open and clear manner. D. Best practices (or bad practices). Despite generally being considered an elite social, space public university like UNICAMP are aware that they have a mission to open their doors to society and local populations, with actions to reflect this that include engagement with publics. Transparency is a value both in institutional missions and in people’s discourses, tied to the need for public institutions to be as transparent as possible as a matter of principle. 98

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2017/12/1945252-dias-antes-de-suicidio-reitor-da-ufsc-disse-a-pfque-nao-protegeu-ninguem.shtml 99 Ventura, Miriam. (2013). The Brazilian Freedom of Information Act, privacy, and health research. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 29(4), 636-638. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2013000400002

32

5.8.4 Responsiveness and adaptation A. Changes in macro-politics of science and innovation do show adaptation to national interests and changing landscapes of science and technology as well as ‘grand challenges’. At the institutional level there are interesting initiatives of responsiveness to society, as the Zika Network created by the Dean of Research at UNICAMP in 2016.100 The network involved experts from different institutes working with pregnant women, research in new biological products, immunological responses and clinical research, and also included a digital library offering access to literature on the virus. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Bureaucracy is a big part of Brazilian institutional life and is often a significant barrier to adaptation and change, thus also hindering responsiveness. Also, the emphasis on autonomy and self-determination means that existing frameworks are hard to change unless there is already immediate institutional, top-down interest. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). An important driver for Brazilian responsiveness and adaptation at the national level is the perceived importance of innovation as a way to produce wealth and respond to social needs. While in practice this may not be as strong a driver as it is talked about, the partner institutions showed varying degrees of awareness that responsiveness and adaptation can be institutionally sound values. Also, times of national crisis like the Zika epidemic can provoke quick institutional responses which show potential to be mobilized for RRI. D. Best practices (or bad practices). At the national policy level, some of Brazil’s more ambitious programs such as the move to a biofuel industry or the role of Brazil in the climate change science landscape can be seen as important examples of responses to global and local problematics.

5.9 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related aspects In general, when discussing ‘responsibility’ through RRI, managers often tried to align existing institutional programmes to what they understood as RRI’s goals or implemented actions relating to the 5 key topics. There was also a constant framing of responsibility as ‘accountability to society’, or to the pursuit of established national interests and grand social challenges. A common opinion across the national workshop presentations, for example, was that although the institutions were not “doing RRI”, most of the institutions had long-standing programmes which could be read as “RRI by other means”. In general, workshop and focus group participants and some top-level managers also showed a lot of interest in using RRI as a new way to engage with these problems more comprehensively, given that similar issues were already considered important within the organisations. The concept of responsibility in and of itself is not a major part of policy documents, and it was not extensively discussed in the group activities, which gravitated more towards a ‘common-sense’, pragmatic approach to responsibility. We noted that for a good number of the workshop participants, for example, ‘responsibility’ had strong resonances with ideas of ‘relevance’, i.e. relevance of scientific and technological activity to issues of national interest. Some actors framed the question of national interest as “producing innovations for industry”, through a mostly economic view of innovation. Others were very keen on making research public and available as a key issue within what RRI would mean in Brazil (i.e. Fiocruz). Opinions also seemed based on personal nuances, 100

http://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2016/02/15/rede-zika-unicamp.

33

as we could see that people tended to be opinionated based on pre-existing interest in RRI-related issues. Only one of the participating institutions and one of the interview subjects was aware of the term ‘RRI’. Workshop participants asked about the terminology when accepting the invitation, and most of the interviews were started with a brief explanation of RRI requested by interviewees themselves, a “briefing” that might have influenced them to use the term in this way. Specific uses of ‘responsibility’ varied depending on organisations. During the national workshop, for example: •

• • •

Participants from federal and state level organisations tended to illustrate how the keys were used in the contexts of established policies, or how the values underlying the keys were being promoted within the organisations. Participants from institutions specialising in local actions and local industry tried to link the concepts to operationalisation in local contexts. Scientific and educational institutions tended to focus more on how the keys could be linked to interactions with their communities, or of communities with the general public. One interesting viewpoint was the mostly economic view of innovation present in a commercial-enterprise funding agency, as opposed to the ‘public good’ interests from a research institute member.

We generally perceived that the AIRR dimensions were the least present in most discussions, and maybe the most difficult to be debated locally. ‘Responsibility’ was generally posed as something naturally related to what science could mean in contemporary societies, as in being socially relevant, pursuing national interests, leading to societal benefits, etc. But being anticipatory or reflexive were hardly discussed.

6 Organizational reviews and outlooks: Research conducting organisation 6.1 Mapping of the organisation UNICAMP, the State University of Campinas, is one of three state-funded universities in the state of São Paulo, Brazil’s richest and most populous state. UNICAMP stands out among the three in its focus on post graduate education, publication and patent outputs, making it recently the best-ranked university in Latin America. It is one of Brazil’s most important and renowned universities despite being a relatively young institution. It is located in the northern Barão Geraldo neighbourhood of the city of Campinas, which is a major technological hub in the ‘interior’ (middle) region of the State of São Paulo. While in close proximity to São Paulo city which also has a number of top ranked universities, UNICAMP still accounts for 8% of the entire country’s research output. It had 34,652 graduate and postgraduate students enrolled in 2016 (within a total of around 8 million university students in the country), spread amongst 66 higher education courses in the natural, social and human sciences and the arts, as well as 153 postgraduate programs. The major campus is in Campinas, with three other minor campuses located in nearby cities. Academic activities are distributed into 24 teaching and research units; two university hospitals; 23 interdisciplinary centres; two technical colleges and a number of minor support units, and over 50 thousand staff are directly involved in research activities. For Brazilian legal purposes, UNICAMP is institutionally defined as an ‘autarchy’ – a public, autonomous institution created by decree, self-regulating and with financial and administrative 34

autonomy, but subject to the regulatory framework of Brazilian public institutions. Staff, including academic staff, gain entry through highly competitive civil service exams (concursos) and become civil servants when hired. Bureaucracy level and impediments are high, as happens typically inside any Brazilian public institutions (Vessuri 1988). UNICAMP is dependent mainly on São Paulo State government subsidies, complemented by smaller contributions from national and international funding agencies. It was created as a ‘planned’ university on 5 October 1966, unlike many other major Brazilian universities which are historical aggregates of previously independent academic centres. UNICAMP was specifically conceived to address the increasing need for qualified personnel in the interior regions of São Paulo State in the 1960s, which at the time already accounted for around 40% of total industrial capacity and 24% of the economically active population of Brazil. Although planning for a major university in Campinas was started by civil society, pre-dating the military regime, the drive to create UNICAMP resonated with the regime’s stress on Brazilian technological development as a national project and the university was in fact finally founded in the first years of the military regime.101 Basic and applied science, medicine and engineering, as key interests in military policy, were therefore particularly important in UNICAMP’s first years, with the university fanning out to other knowledge areas in the following decades. Its general bylaws currently state that the University’s missions include: the creation of scientific, liberal arts, artistic, teaching and cultural personnel; stimulating research in all manner of fields; studying the community’s socio-economic problematics and providing adequate solutions; placing academic output in the reach of the local community; integrating all manner of technical and social groups into the university.102 Given its initial mission as a university to answer to the needs for addressing local scientific and technical needs and for developing highly-skilled personnel for Campinas businesses, societal engagement remains a major institutional driver, primarily through building links with local technological industry, e.g. through provision of technical and scientific services and contracts. Since 2003, an Innovation Agency (Inova)103 was created specifically devoted to building links with local Campinas business and industry (many of these being themselves spinoffs from UNICAMP entrepreneurial programs). Societal engagement is also enacted through what is locally known as ‘extension’ activities, including extra-curricular classes, paid courses, services to the community and artistic activities. Despite its links to applied science, high academic quality is nevertheless a major institutional value, with 99% of teaching staff possessing a PhD. Academic staff perform both research and teaching activities, although UNICAMP is one of the few Brazilian universities which also allows for a research-only career pathway. UNICAMP is consistently ranked in international surveys within the very highest positions in Brazil and Latin America and is also highly ranked in Brazilian teaching and research assessments as one of the top universities in the country. The University receives the majority of its funds directly from the São Paulo State government, which it sources from local taxation. All three state universities receive a fixed percentage of taxes, varying according to growth or decline in the state’s revenues. This translates into a strong dependency on São Paulo State economy and politics, but also into a relative independency from fluctuations in the federal government budget, which is an unusual advantage for Brazilian public universities.

101

‘A História da UNICAMP’, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozhR3gBEP90 Regimento Geral da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo State government, April 2018. URL: https://www.pg.unicamp.br/legislacoes_estatutos.php 103 http://en.inova.unicamp.br/ 102

35

UNICAMP, though affected by the most recent financial crises, has not been as affected as many federal universities which have generally faced tremendous cuts to budgets and services. Politically, the university has fought intensely for increasing its de facto autonomy along its short history. Major conflicts in the late 1970s and early 1980s during the military regime saw the State government trying to exert undue influence on the university’s autonomous internal organization, which ended in a prolonged university strike answered by direct military intervention (which still echoes in internal politics within campus). Post-conflict, an internal governance code was written up to reflect the democratization processes that were arising in contemporary Brazil. The university’s highest authorities are the University Council (Consu) and the Rector’s Office (Reitoria) headed by the rector as the highest executive officer. The Council is made up of the rector, institute and school directors and pro-rectors, academic and non-academic community representatives, student representatives, and external (local and state) community representatives. Currently, the university rector is directly appointed by the State governor, but only after a university-wide democratic vote is held. This vote nominates a list of three candidates, out of which the state government chooses the rector. Although not bound by this election, governors tend to respect the vote. The rector holds the position for four years, with no immediate re-election being possible. An overarching topic that recurred during interviews was that UNICAMP is perceived to be a ‘fragmented’ institution, in the sense of there being an active campus where a lot of activities happen and plenty of RRI-notable programmes can be carried out, but that there are few tools available for the community to organise or inform themselves and others. This was consistent with our experience in having a relatively difficult time finding documentary information, but also a relatively easy experience in finding programmes that were RRI-noteworthy.

6.2 Aspects of responsibility in organisational policy and practice The concept of ‘responsibility’, though not explicitly termed as such, is embedded into UNICAMP’s general mission statement. The University foundational Statutes104, though not naming ‘responsibility’ directly or in the RRI sense, provides a thorough description of the University’s goals and ends. These include clearly RRI-mappable concepts such as: • • • • • •

Taking part in scientific training and teaching Promoting and stimulating research Taking up and searching for solutions to the local community’s needs in a democratic fashion Putting the university’s academic production in the hands of the local community Integrating different social and cultural groups into the university life Promoting ethical thinking within the University’s community.

These same directives are reiterated in the University’s General Rulebook.105 In general, we found that ‘responsibility’ as a whole was enveloped by a discourse related to “returning to society” the resources it allocated to the university; transparency and accountability in actions; and good scientific practices promoting excellence in research. The new rector has also publicly framed the concept of responsibility as including the maintenance of a healthy financial outlook in a time of deep cuts and budgetary limitations, while keeping the university’s standing at

104 105

Estatutos da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2018 version. Regimento Geral da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2018 version.

36

both national and international levels.106 The severe condition faced by public universities, even in a relatively rich State as São Paulo, have been remarked upon elsewhere as being a challenge to the advancement of Brazilian higher education and UNICAMP’s leading position in Latin American rankings. In real terms, it must temper its social mission between the poles of financial sustainability, a right to autonomic governance, and its need to unequivocally answer to the public.107 A. As a fragmented and complex institution, the actual application of values that encompass ‘responsibility’ are rather delegated to individual institutes, agencies and programmes, more than centrally enacted. Indeed, we found no trace of a central ‘responsibility hub’ nor an institutional priority to enact such a program, although many of the University’s outreach programs will oftentimes include ‘social responsibility’ as part of their description. We did not find nor made aware of any reports dealing specifically with ‘responsibility’. RRI as understood by the EU is widely unknown as well, despite the individual keys referring to ideas and practices sometimes well-known and established, such as ethics, gender or open access. Our mapping, therefore, benefitted from the dialogue between how RRI is defined in Europe and the local understandings of the aspects or RRI and individual keys. On the other hand, some centres do showcase their sense of ‘social responsibility.’ The University Hospital – widely considered one of the University’s flagship forms of societal engagement– frames ‘social responsibility’ as a show of how the University support programs that are of “benefit for society and valued by citizens.”108 Although not mentioning ‘responsibility’, the University’s Continuous education program also mentions in its missions the development of virtuous relationships between the institution and society.109 ‘Responsibility’ is then better understood in the UNICAMP context in terms of specific goals and actions, not precisely as an overarching institutional discourse, except as the mission of ‘answering to public good.’ Another aspect that comes to the fore when understanding how responsibility is framed locally in terms of the role of public research institutions in Brazilian society is the idea that science is part of a mechanism that will bring economic and social development to the country. Therefore, maintaining excellence as a crucial mission is tied to local understandings of how that science will foster economic growth (through interfacing with the market); provide solutions in health or agriculture (which will benefit society through the public health system or promote growth in the country’s powerful agricultural sector), and also promote a better educated workforce. As UNICAMP’s rector recently stated, without a public university, the country “has no future”. 110 B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics)

106

M. Nobel, T. Atvars, ‘Gestão pública e responsabilidade’, Correio Popular, 7 November 2017. URL: https://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2017/11/07/gestao-publica-e-responsabilidade 107 M. Knobel, ‘Fôlego para manter a liderança’, Estadão, 27 July, 2017. URL: http://opiniao.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,folego-para-mantera-lideranca,70001907328 108 Responsabilidade Social, URL: https://www.hc.unicamp.br/node/183 109 http://www.extecamp.unicamp.br/historiaextecamp.asp 110 “’Sem universidade forte o país não tem futuro’, diz reitor da UNICAMP”. Folha de São Paulo, May 21st 2018. Available at: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/educacao/2018/05/sem-universidade-forte-o-pais-nao-temfuturo-diz-reitor-da-unicamp.shtml

37

a) The lack of a ‘responsibility discourse’ appears to be a cultural barrier for an institutional placement of a framework such as RRI, as it would potentially not resonate directly with specific, existing goals. In fact, neither during interviews nor during the focus groups or workshop was ‘responsibility’ a word that was used extensively. Interviewees and participants, when questioned about responsibility, would go to the more constrained context of ‘social responsibility’, or refer to specific keys. b) The ‘fragmentation’ of university life is a structural barrier in terms of actual RRI implementation, unless there is a strong institutional commitment from top management. This can be seen as an institutional barrier to any planning action in the university. c) Culturally, we have clearly noticed that it is very difficult to start off any activity involving institutional change or impact without the support from top management. It would be hard to produce a ‘grassroots’ RRI movement without involvement from the Dean’s office. d) The importance of autonomy in terms of researcher’s right to self-regulate their academic activity can also become a strong cultural barrier, if RRI were seen as a topdown imposition. There is an extremely high degree of university bureaucracy which already severely limits a lot of the de facto freedoms of university life, and some aspects of RRI, if imposed, would likely only be seen as another bureaucratic barrier. e) In terms of institutional autonomy, there can be noticeable suspicion of RRI as a form of European, ‘colonialist’ influence that would not be sensitive to either Brazilian needs nor those specific to UNICAMP. Although there was a spectrum of positions regarding this point, in general there seemed to be hesitation to simply take RRI and ‘apply’ it to Brazil. Some of the keys were also seen as only dealing with a small sample of the problems that were applicable to the Brazilian context (such as the lack of a general discussion on cultural or racial diversity when discussing gender). C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) a) There was quite a positive response during the focus group from participants, many of whom remarked that this type of freer, deliberative exercises involving members of the community one would not typically talk to led to rich reflections. In this sense, RRI could be marketed as a tool for introducing a wider culture of responsibility. b) As remarked, RRI-related topics are very much embedded in the university’s missions as an ‘implicit’ form of social responsibility. In this sense, RRI synergises with these institutional goals. Thus, RRI could also be seen as a model to structure and organise existing programs and dialogues already part of the UNICAMP core mission. c) When institutional support does exist, change or policy impact can happen relatively quickly. For example, our project received strong support from the rector and the Dean of Research’s office, and a researcher from the RRI-P team was invited to an internal working group which will help rethink best practices in research for the University. The Dean explicitly mentioned RRI as part of how this could be rethought. Key contacts or networks can become very powerful in promoting RRI initiatives in Brazil. d) On the positive side, the fact that RRI is a research-led, internationally-reaching, framework, could be used to foster UNICAMP’s international standing. There was also awareness, particularly with researchers that have strong international careers, that being RRI-compatible is of growing importance for developing partnerships with the EU.

38

D. Best practices (or bad practices). The discussion around gender led to the debate around diversity, which is very intense in the country and at UNICAMP. The current policies related to racial and ethnic quotas in the country are practices that should be considered for the EU context, and the wider global context as well. Although the gender key was often seen as secondary to academic and scientific excellence, the discussion around the need for diversity is becoming a national and institutional priority. Broader RRI debates should take this into consideration. E. Current indicators (if any). None dealing with responsibility directly. F. All points of improvement a. Respondents were curious and interested about RRI as a framework, and many suggested that open access, for example, could be improved based on the relevance of this in the concept of RRI. They suggested that the University needs to be more responsive to societal needs, as is at the core of the AIRR dimensions, albeit the way this was framed by them was more in the direction of socioeconomic development, economic growth, intensified innovation as a catching-up with developed nations. Also, the adoption of RRI was perceived as way to become more internationally connected to the global research system, especially the EU system. b. We believe it is important for the University to start discussing responsibility in broader terms, which go beyond economic growth or intensified innovation in firms. We believe there needs to be a more explicitly and better codified framework for increased diversity (including gender) in the university community, and for more democratic governance within the decision-making processes at the institution. Current forms of evaluation, for example, should be more open to RRI-related indicators, and not be centred solely on publication metrics (e.g. extension activities or communication initiatives to reach the wider community). G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success UNICAMP is seeking to strengthen its investment in diversity and gender, making explicit how the university understands the relevance of this for the actions of the university. This is underway through the code of good practices and sexual/moral harassment and can be traced by how the code is constructed and implemented. UNICAMP is constructing indicators around these topics. This can be traced by minutes from meetings, documentation produced and possible indicators that are potentially created and adopted. UNICAMP has had for decades an ethics board for research in biosciences and has established in 2017 the Ethics Board in Human and Social Sciences. This can be traced through increase in number of projects being evaluated by ethics boards; production of internal norms and documents on ethics. H. Resulting matrix

UNICAMP and RRI

Structural issues

Cultural issues

Interchange related

39

Aspects of organisations

University Statutes, University General Rulebook, individual institutional descriptions of ‘social responsibility.’

Responsibility relates to giving back to society as part of public science ethics

As a public institution, being accountable towards State government and local citizens and State taxpayers.

Potential drivers for RRI

Existing documents include RRI-compatible descriptions of University’s goals

Management and staff are already sensitive to ‘responsibility’ in research and for university as a public institution.

University must answer to social needs as its founding mission, programs exist answering to ‘social responsibility’, importance of international good practices.

Potential barriers to RRI

Top-down structure means that impact would be limited without strong commitment from the highest management. Formal implementation would not necessarily translate into action.

Seeing RRI as a bureaucratic framework given the importance of professional autonomy, RRI as insensitive to the Brazilian context.

RRI as an external ‘colonial’ influence vs importance of institutional autonomy.

Most important potential organisational actions

Create interest from top management to see RRI as a tool for selforganisation. Draw up formal documents concerning RRI interests.

Rally top and middle management to support RRIrelated activities and programmes that could impact staff directly. Making RRIrelated topics more visible.

Making more visible existing programs linking the university to wider society.

Indicators for success

Number of RRI-related discussions and activities with institutional support.

Increased actions and programmes addressing wider concepts of responsibility and RRI keys.

Higher visibility and support for existing programs as a clear and explicit part of institutional responsibility.

[Example gender]

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-Increasing the number of formal and informal documents addressing responsibility and RRI related topics. - Increased number of internal debates, media and events raising awareness of gender and diversity issues - Increased number of projects being evaluated for ethics - Presence of clear and explicit information on ethics, gender, diversity and other RRIrelated elements in website. - Increased access to open access publications - formalisation of open access policy

6.2.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in the organisation As outlined in the previous section, the most pervasive mention of ‘responsibility’ is a discourse of ‘social responsibility’ as the university is supported by public money which makes the institution 40

accountable to the taxpayer. There were no significant explicit mentions in formal documents or in our interviews which explicitly dealt with ‘responsibility’ as such. RRI was only known by name to a handful of the interviewees or participants in the project activities, because of previous links to European projects. We did not find an equivalent term to RRI, but during the workshop and focus groups participants did tend to ‘align’ themselves positively to RRI, and to frame their practices as compatible with RRI. Innovation is a strong concept within the university, with dedicated research, outreach, engagement and entrepreneurial programs aided by specially dedicated agencies. It is also part of UNICAMP’s foundational directives given its historical links to local technological development through industry. The institutional model is mostly a one-directional, linear one, with the mission to “extend the impact of UNICAMP’s education, research and extension through the development of partnerships and initiatives that stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship in benefit to the society” through the values of “Respect for people, commitment, excellence, cooperation and integrity.”111 Inova, UNICAMP’s Innovation Agency, focuses on tech transfer with private and public partners, research partnerships with outside actors and an incubator program, external human resources development, and intellectual property management guidance, that is, by “Identifying opportunities and promoting activities that stimulate entrepreneurship, growing the impact of teaching, research, extension, in favour of socioeconomically sustainable development.”112 However, an explicit understanding of responsibility in the RRI sense, other than engagement with society through industry and entrepreneurs in a ‘sustainable fashion’, is not found in the agency’s formal documentation.113 During interviews the topic of responding to ‘grand challenges’ did come up as a form of doing responsible research, or in policies responding to structural and cultural challenges to run the university in a more socially reflexive fashion.

6.2.2 Ethics in the organisation A. UNICAMP develops activities related to ethics in research, mostly focused on the ethics review activities conducted by ethics committees (Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa – CEP)114. It now (since 2018) created a central coordination for ethics, and offers initial training programmes for ethics compliance for researchers and is developing websites for each CEP. There are several CEPs: one is located within the university’s medical school and has for some years structured research in accordance with Res. 466 from CONEP (National Health Council) that outlined ethical compliance in research with human subjects. 115 Interviewees also mentioned the Ethics Committee for Research with Animals116 as an activity developed and maintained by the University. UNICAMP had the first ethics commission for use of animals in research in Brazil, and also actively cooperated to help build the national legal framework for use of animals in research, the Arouca Law117, signed in 2008. We found that 111

‘How Inova UNICAMP Innovation Agency promotes innovation’, URL: http://www.internationaloffice.unicamp.br/english/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Inova_empresasINGLES.pdf 112 Inova Mission Statement, URL: https://www.inova.unicamp.br/sobre-a-inova/ 113 https://www.inova.unicamp.br/legislacao/ 114 https://www.prp.unicamp.br/pt-br/cep-comite-de-etica-em-pesquisa 115 Resoluçao No. 466, 12 September 2012, URL: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf 116 http://www.ib.unicamp.br/comissoes/ceua_principal 117 https://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2017/12/20/uso-de-animais-no-ensino-requer-metodosvalidados

41

ethics is a concern, related both to ethical practices of research and to best practices related to, for example, plagiarism. UNICAMP is currently at a crossroads in terms of its ethics committee: it has created the CEP for Human and Social Sciences, following the publication of Res. 510 from CONEP. Although related to social sciences and humanities, it remains under the CONEP and the Ministry of Health, due to how Brazilian legislation structured ethics in research. This CEP is now located at the Education College and has held its first meetings. Many in the social sciences however are not used to undergoing ethics review within the university, and this segment is resisting change: many see the CEP as an unnecessary bureaucracy in an already adverse context for researchers. Others are scared that they will face consequences for not complying, or have become concerned about lawsuits from research subjects, reflecting wide misinformation. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) Structurally, there is not yet a code of good practices or similar document to serve as a formal guideline for ethics practices, or to enact sanctions for breaches. Top management remarked on this as a top concern for a university that aims to be an international player. The main barriers seem to be resistance from ‘outsider’ intrusion inside the traditional researcher space and the very real danger of ethics leading to an intense bureaucratisation of the ethics due process. There is also strong cultural resistance in areas other than biomedical research – historically more accustomed to dealing with ethics committees – in seeing ethics as part of the ‘normal’ research program structure. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). UNICAMP highly prides itself as being a top ranked institution not only in Brazil, but internationally. Setting RRI as a form of ‘international best practices’ framework has been suggested by management as a good way to match RRI ethics outlooks with institutional discourses. Also, because of its strong links to funder FAPESP, which already has an ethics code in practice, it is a prime concern that ethics compliance be fostered seriously within the organisation. More generally, we could perceive awareness of ethics both in terms of research integrity and responsibility to the public as motivating factors. D. Best practices (or bad practices). Structurally, the most important initiatives are the creation of ethics committees and compliance codes, as well as the promotion of the FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practice as a model for the university. There have been significant improvements recently, as noted above. Probably RRI’s role could be more as a gauge of effectiveness and as a guide for international standardisation within an existing institutional interest. E. Current indicators (if any). Number of projects evaluated by ethics review boards; numbers of articles retracted from journals due to lack of ethics clearance. F. All points of improvement. UNICAMP should create a unified and clear policy on how it sees ethics in research. This policy should be concise and publicly available; it should be made available to incoming students and staff/professors. It should define how UNICAMP sees its own ethics committees, and state whether all research needs to undergo ethics review by its CEP 42

system. The positive aspects of ethic compliance should always be put at the forefront of policy. Members of CEP should be valued internally, and participation should be incentivized as not another pointless bureaucracy, but as a vital part of research. Participation should count towards career evolution. The Dean of Research’s office should work closely with CEP to inform its community about procedures. Information on the CEP could become clearer, a step-by-step guide can be developed and informed to professors and other research staff. Care should be taken with placing excessive burdens on researchers to comply with ethical requirements, as we have anecdotal evidence of ethical permission procedures at times becoming stifling on research activities. Compliance with ethical good practices should therefore include mechanisms for self-reflection on the effectiveness of policy, particularly for research that might only require ‘light touch’ review. Talks by CEP members should continue to happen but should be coordinated and rely on a more organised set of information and rules developed by the Dean of Research. This can help better inform the community about what the CEP does and how relevant it is. Information on how UNICAMP deals with lawsuits related to its activities should become more organised and be available to professors and students. Not as a means to scare them but to make them realise consequences stemming from bad research practices. A clear policy on best practices (e.g. plagiarism and other issues) should be developed and made widely public, possibly in dialogue with existing policies such as the FAPESP guidelines. Consequences for not following research best practices should also be defined and informed to students and professors. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success. UNICAMP is producing clearer internal norms around ethics in research; the university is investing in making this information more explicit and available to the community. This can be traced by the publication of the more current norms on ethics, and the increased use of the new ethics board in human and social sciences. H. Resulting matrix ETHICS

Structural issues

Cultural issues

Interchange related

Aspects of organisations

National Ethics Code (Resolução No. 466, No. 510), FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practice.

Experience of researchers going through ethics committees, ethics board problematics, ethics cultures vary across disciplines and are unusual in Brazil.

There are national frameworks for ethics in research with human subjects and FAPESP now demands compliance to CoGP.

Potential drivers

Creation of Ethics Boards with dedicated committees to the Natural and the Social and Human Sciences.

Good practices and ethics are already a concern for many researchers even if no informal rules exist, growing awareness and institutionally-sanctioned education of good practices.

Pressure to conform to external guidelines, accountability to citizens as a public institution.

Potential barriers

Lack of an official UNICAMP ethics code.

Seeing RRI as a bureaucratic framework given the importance of personal

RRI as an external ‘colonial’ influence vs importance of

43

autonomy, RRI as insensitive to the Brazilian context.

institutional autonomy.

Most important potential organisational actions

Create an institutional Ethics Code.

Stabilise ethics committee practices; grow community awareness of positive aspects of research ethics practices.

Communicate to outside actors the advances of ethics programs in the university.

Indicators for success

Have a formal code of ethics in place.

Increase efficiency and streamline ethics committee practices; put in place ethics education programs.

Increased awareness of UNICAMP as an ethics-aware institution.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/program mes

Formalizing and publicizing documents which codify what ethical research means for the University Implementation of central institutional body organising ethics review in the university Increase in % of projects undergoing ethics review in humanities and social sciences

6.2.3 Societal engagement strategies in organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. The university has a range of programs to directly engage with the public such as open-days (e.g. UNICAMP de Portas Abertas), science fairs, and other which are public access such as conferences and events, cultural programmes, and the science museum, amongst others. UNICAMP also provides classroom space for free ‘cursinhos’ (extracurricular university-entry courses) and has a pre-university interdisciplinary course (ProFIS)118 to attract top-ranking high school students to UNICAMP with a guaranteed undergraduate offer after completion. Although they are also connected to science education, they are mentioned here due to the aspect of engaging with lower class students who have a much harder time getting through entrance exams. There are also a group of chairs for Human Rights and refugee engagement conferences, and CAPES is currently mapping human rights initiatives across the university system. There are also dedicated human rights periodical columns in the university newspaper. The general feeling is, however, that the university is still seen as a closed and isolated space and that most of the local community still regards it as an ‘ivory tower’, with a notable exception being the university hospital. Most community engagement activities therefore seem to be organised through small-scale initiatives and programs with specific communities, but not at an institutional level. This was, however, positioned not only as a problem within UNICAMP, but with a cultural crisis in Brazil that has failed to produce strong engagement between universities and public and civil interests. 118

https://profis.prg.unicamp.br/

44

There was also general perception that the university’s academic community is deeply ‘fragmented’. This fragmentation was described as occurring both across schools and institutes, but also inside them. A constant complaint was that generally it was hard to know ‘what is happening’ outside academics very immediate community. Academics with experience in foreign universities pointed out the lack of a centralised, institutional dissemination channel for activities within the university. This shows that the perception by the UNICAMP community about this lack of engagement can affect how they work and their well-being. This can reflect negatively on their work, and on the quality of teaching and research. Thus, the idea that the university is detached or isolated from broader society may reflect on how much it accomplished its mission as a public university; and the perception that it does not may become a factor in how the community sees UNICAMP from within, as well as how the external public sees the university. An important engagement program comes from the links to industry through the various forms of innovation actions, which have been highly integrated into the university’s structure. These include the Inova agency that manages tech transfer programs, strategic partnerships, an innovation park and a start-up program. Other notable programs include a range of entrepreneurship initiatives available to the community, and incubators.119 B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The predominance of students from economic and cultural elites in university spaces is a major topic in recent discussions of higher education policy at UNICAMP (and in Brazil in general). Another noteworthy barrier is the perception of extension as an undervalued activity within the institution, which currently values mostly high-impact research and publications. The absence of clear cultural and institutional incentives for engagement is thus one major barrier for increased activities related to this key. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There is a keen awareness that social engagement ought to be a key element of public university life, and there are already existing programmes that do this in important ways. There are many professors already engaged with extension activities, both with industry and with marginalised or vulnerable populations. This tradition can be used as a way to value engagement within the university, broadening its reach beyond what is already present. D. Best practices (or bad practices). A number of programmes could be highlighted as leading initiatives for the university, addressing different kinds of stakeholders. Better communication of existing programs both within and outside the university would be ideal. Extension activities are becoming more valued as a way to interact with the wider community, with ongoing revisions on how engagement activities can be made to count towards the career advancement of professors and students.

E. Current indicators (if any) Inova has the best-developed set of indicators, consistently updated and with detail about results, including number of patents, number of daughter companies created and income

119

http://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/empreendedorismo

45

generated through them.120 Some of the other larger programs like Extecamp also produce indicators which include student statistics and briefs.121 The smaller programs tend to only report previous activities. There is no centralised gathering of the entirety of programs related to engagement. F. All points of improvement. Increase publicity of activities developed within the university. The wide scope of research and engagement activities developed are sometimes unknown by publics not directly related to them. The broad spectrum of activities done under the label of “extensão”, or outreach are sometimes not well known, or well understood by the research-focused community. Also, these activities are usually one way (UNICAMP reaching out to the community), and not usually dialogical. The interface between engagement and research should become more accessible to the public. All activities developed should produce some sort of public statement of their activities to a broader audience, research as well as outreach. This can feed official channels of publicity (Radio, TV and web), and can also help the campus and the wider community to become aware of all that UNICAMP is actually doing. Other ways UNICAMP engages with outside publics, such as through INOVA, could be more public and better publicized. Though fragmentation is a deeper cultural problem that goes beyond the RRI perspective, there are possibilities for institutional intervention that could mitigate the problems reported by the university community. University webpages could be used to better effect not just to report on past events as is currently done in the Portal UNICAMP, but rather to promote participation in future events and programmes. University-wide institutionally sanctioned mailing lists could also be part of a wider community-engagement strategy. The main aim is not to create RRI-related initiatives from scratch, but to use existing programmes and infrastructures to highlight this ongoing work and the university’s commitment to providing visibility to RRI issues. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success -

Study ways to improve public communication of research activities done at UNICAMP (traced by minutes and documents on the topic).

-

Creation of an executive office for human rights, to centralise actions related to human rights in campus (traced by the creation of executive office)

H. Resulting matrix SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT

Structural issues

Cultural issues

Interchange related

Aspects of organisations

Documentation for specific programs including information pamphlets and brochures such as Inova’s.

Understanding of engagement as part of university life; role of engagement in staff and student life; engagement from a managerial perspective.

Perceptions of university’s role in the local community and in strategic partnerships for the innovation branch.

120 121

https://www.inova.unicamp.br/sobre-a-inova/indicadores/ http://www.extecamp.unicamp.br/estatisticas.asp

46

Potential drivers

Formally integrating engagement activities into career advancement criteria,

Increasing visibility of engagement activities within the community; increase the status of engagement within community.

Diversify the number of channels used to communicate university activities to local, non-university community.

Potential barriers

Lack of formal recognition and reward of engagement actions; engagement is highly dispersed.

Lack of interest in engagement activities as an intrinsic part of university life.

Perception of university as an inaccessible ‘ivory tower’ and an elitist space.

Most important potential organisational actions

Develop plan for increase publicity of activities developed within the university, possibly through existing media or through new institutional channels. Formally value engagement.

Revise how engagement is valued within the university.

Communicate extension activities more intensely to local community.

Several actions can be included

Indicators for success

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/program mes

Increase in activities Increased visibility and where engagement valuation of engagement happens with outside within the university. publics; recognition of activities towards career development.

Increased participation of nonuniversity persons in engagement activities.

-

Changes in how engagement activities are valued within the university.

-

Increase in events directed to the public.

-

Increase in number of participants (professors, staff, public).

-

Creation of executive office for human rights.

6.2.4 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. When queried on institutional positions on gender, the main reference was the research center PAGU, an autonomous research nucleus connected to the central administration.122 While there 122

https://www.pagu.unicamp.br/

47

are no explicit gender equality policies, there are important efforts such as the recent initiatives to define and implement policies to curb sexual harassment on Campus123, including informing incoming students124 and the creation of a specific instance within the university to deal with the problem. There is also a “panic button” app which is used to help track and avoid ongoing attacks, which has been used since 2015125. There are also a number of student-led activities and groups that act both inside the university and engage with local communities. Interviewees tended to frame gender problems within UNICAMP as a reflection of well-known and widespread gender problems within the Brazilian university as a whole, but also mentioned some successes within the institutions such as increased participation and visibility of women at all levels of academic life, including top managerial and directive positions. An important difference with the RRI framework is that UNICAMP engages with topics not just of gender, but of inequality and discrimination in a much wider sense. A salient and very positive example is the recent introduction of racial admission quotas a UNICAMP, despite these not being mandated by law, and an indigenous quota program. Racial quotas were intensely debated within the university and were also a demand from student organisations, albeit being a still controversial topic in the wider community. We feel that the broader scope of diversity is something that UNICAMP can contribute to RRI as a whole. Some interviewees felt that a focus on gender excluded the broader dimension of diversity and this makes this key problematic and limited, according to some. However, many saw gender as a non-issue, given the broad presence of females on campus and in the research and student populations. We feel that this may be problematic and masking problems related to gender that could be addressed. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics. Although there were visible improvements for women’s rights in recent years and particularly after the Lula government, the situation after Rousseff’s impeachment has deteriorated, politically. Although legally Brazil would appear to be a very progressive country in terms of diversity, it remains a factually unequal and discriminatory country not only in terms of gender but also regarding race, ethnicity, class and sexual diversity.126 The idea that gender is not necessarily an issue, due to the presence of women in research is also a barrier, as many see this as not a priority in face of much more acute problems (such as funding or innovation). The idea that gender is a “non-issue” may stem from numbers that show women are present as graduate students and professors, albeit the absence of women in powerful positions is glaring. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). As a public, academic and relatively liberal space, it is easier to introduce and discuss diversity issues within the university than in other spaces of Brazilian society. The university already has visible academic and grassroots activist groups that have tackled diversity issues head. The increasing concern with lack of diversity in universities is also a driver, as debates around race and gender usually are done together and perceived as part of the same problem. International concern with gender oppressions are also a driver here, as administrators are usually sensitive to international trends. The presence of an important gender studies centre is a driver, as they 123

http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2018/06/26/unicamp-discute-discriminacao-de-genero-e-violencia-sexual/ https://www.calouros.sae.unicamp.br/images/FINAL_Violencia_Sexual_Campinas.pdf 125 https://www.ccuec.unicamp.br/ccuec/servicos/botao-de-panico 126 https://www.oxfam.org/en/even-it-brazil/brazil-extreme-inequality-numbers https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/brazil 124

48

generate intellectual debates that resonate within the community and end up also helping put this topic in policy agendas locally and nationally as well. D. Best practices (or bad practices). The existing role of UNICAMP as a research site for gender studies is an important point of departure, as is the involvement of many UNICAMP members of staff and student bodies in inequality debates, NGOs, political actions, etc. In terms of more general inequality issues, the recent adoption of affirmative action quotas alongside a special entry exam for indigenous populations is a significant landmark. Regarding other inclusiveness issues, the Central Library has an Accessibility Laboratory for special needs students.127 E. Current indicators (if any). The Dean of Research produces its own statistics and steps could be taken to further probe gender and other diversity issues with hard numbers. PAGU could also form part of such an effort. F. All points of improvement. UNICAMP could produce more hard data on gender and diversity. This includes not only the presence of men and women, but also quantitative data on gender related aspects of research such as: women in the University’s power structure; women acquiring PhDs by subject area; gender disparities in staff, by area or by hierarchical position; women in top research positions; women and prizes awarded to the university. Produce qualitative data on how gender affects life on campus. This can be done as a partnership between the PRP and PAGU, with cooperation from other concerned parties within the campus community, with a solid and visible backing by the Reitoria to place it squarely as an issue of interest to the university as a whole. Do women feel excluded from any activities or spaces on campus? In courses where males predominate (as in some engineering), do women feel welcome? How do men feel in courses where women predominate (e.g. Pedagogy?). How do transsexuals and other minorities feel on campus? What about gender-related violence on campus? A clear policy on gender and diversity could be produced, thus expanding on the RRI outlook. This policy should state the values of tolerance; and the university should make explicit its commitment to welcoming diversity. UNICAMP could better embrace its recently created policy on quotas as part of this, but also state clearly to incoming students and staff how it sees and values diversity, and how gender equity is perceived within campus. This policy could be constructed in conjunction with the already existing activist groups, at PAGU and beyond: student groups and collectives; professors and staff; and other organized groups within campus. These already run some spontaneous activities to welcome LGBT students, but this could be embraced by the University more explicitly. Again, we recommend this not only be carried out as independently structured efforts, but as part of a cohesive institutional programme looking at diversity and inclusion. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success - Development of a code of good practices where gender and diversity are present as clear and explicit values of the university. This will be implemented through a work group already 127

https://www.sbu.unicamp.br/portal2/laboratorio-de-acessibilidade/

49

in place, which is debating best practices and will present a final report with policies to be adopted by the University. This can be traced by the publication of the code and its implementation. H. Resulting matrix GENDER EQUALITY Aspects of organisations

Structural issues PAGU documentation, UNICAMP news portal, documentation on new quotas, working group documents.

Cultural issues Exploration of university attitudes and perceptions of diversity and discrimination within the university.

Interchange related University activities related to gender and diversity that include non-university members.

Potential drivers for RRI

Synergy with increase in institutional awareness and actions on diversity issues.

As a public university, there is more freedom to carry out diversity debates and involve stigmatised populations.

There are a number of grassroots actions already in place dealing with diversity.

Potential barriers to RRI

Lack of formal gender and diversity politics, as well as hard statistics.

The generalised climate of discrimination that pervades Brazilian society is still influential within the university.

The university as an ‘ivory tower.’ Distance between gender studies and institutional actions within the university.

Most important potential organisational actions

Create statistics on diversity, formalise programs.

Create programmes for also understanding diversity qualitatively within the university.

Increase institutional actions with local communities in Campinas.

Indicators for success

Statistics on diversity, diversity briefs, formal policies and statements.

Document diversity issues faced by stigmatised populations within the university.

Higher visibility and institutional support for diversity-related programs.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

Creation and publication of a code of best practices which includes provisions for gender and diversity as part of university values, and outlines actions and ways to promote more diversity Data on diversity based on impacts from racial and ethnic quotas implemented in 2018/2019.

6.2.5 Open access and open science strategies in the organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. The UNICAMP Central Library is the focus point for open access (OA) implementation at UNICAMP, with several ambitious programmes either in place or in development to increase OA. The strategy is divided into two main streams: the UNICAMP main repository, holding theses, scientific literature and patents; and the e-journal electronic platform that hosts journals edited by UNICAMP. The Zika portal was also mentioned by interviewees as an important project. The 50

Central Library staff is very active in the Brazilian OA community and generally uses up-to-date open source technology. However, there are still two important barriers to full-OA implementation: The first is a lack of an institutionally sanctioned position on the desirability and necessity of UNICAMP academic production to be published as OA. Although library staff reported that the first university OA ‘portaria’ is now in the last stages of completion, it was also acknowledged that it was an equivalent to a ‘weak’ mandate that would only suggest research to be published as OA, and not require it. Second, library staff reported that as of now there has not been an assessment of what percentage of the university’s production is and is not available as OA, and therefore no way to critically assess whether the current implementation has, can or will have concrete results. Regarding Open Science, we are aware of one large scale Open Science project (The Structural Genetics Consortium) operating at the vanguard of its field, which has a potential for high impact in both academia and industry. There are ongoing discussions about developing a scientific data repository and a data management policy. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Although there is interest to make strong mandates from local OA ‘champions’, the autonomy of researchers who “cannot be told what to do” (as one interviewee put it), as well as deep worries about copyright violation (a historically heated topic in Brazil) are major barriers to implementing hard mandates that make deposit non-optional. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There is a general management consensus that OA is an important element of modern academia and the Central Library staff are generally well regarded by top management. A lot of the written production is already in Open Access as it is submitted to non-paywalled Brazilian journals, many hosted in the Scielo platform. Many academics are aware of the advantages of OA. D. Best practices (or bad practices). The existing OA technical infrastructure is reasonably kept up to date and conforms to international standards. There is strong dialogue with the Brazil-wide and international OA community. The most significant weakness is the inability to apply strong directives at a university-wide level and the lack of statistics to showcase improvements or gauge weaknesses. There is also no formal policy on how OA could be handled when dealing with publication in commercial journals (e.g. embargo periods, payment of Article Processing Charges). E. Current indicators (if any). None that we are aware of. Statistics on OA seemed to be a particularly weak point in the institution, even when interested management is aware of their importance for promoting positive OA practices. The bureau in charge of producing the statistics is vastly underdeveloped for OA related actions. F. All points of improvement. UNICAMP could produce more extensive and publicly available data on the extent of OA practices at UNICAMP, so the current situation of OA practices can be better gauged. We have 51

carried out interviews with the department that is in theory responsible for this data production at the Central Library and while some data exist and is publicly available, there is not yet a full understanding of OA uptake university-wide. The Reitoria and the Pró-reitoria de Pesquisa could gather more nuanced numbers on how OA is being practiced and how much repositories are used, and by whom, and could give closer scrutiny to the resources currently assigned for a university-wide assessment. UNICAMP could also develop a clear university policy on OA that functions as an effective mandate to define what UNICAMP understand as OA and suggest in a simple and concise language how the UNICAMP community (researchers, staff, students) should act related to OA. Once the university defines how it understand this institutionally and what place it has in the day-to-day workings of UNICAMP, a longer-term strategy can become more effective. A longterm strategy for full OA implementation of all research published at UNICAMP should be developed along these lines. Although an institutional position embracing OA is a first step, once an OA ‘portaria’ is approved there should immediately begin further efforts to create a strong mandate that includes both mechanisms to promote OA institutionally, but also that clearly sets out a roadmap of compliance goals with clearly stated uptake percentages and dates, such as: “X percentage of all new published research at UNICAMP should be made OA within a 6-month period by 2019”). Resources should be provided for the adequate implementation of OA through repositories and other tools (i.e. software) for UNICAMP. Implementing OA requires adequate financial backing as well. Any longer-term strategy should be matched by a strong support system that includes the mechanisms to gauge uptake as well as promote OA positively within the university. A specific type of Open Access should never be enforced and deposit of all published research within the UNICAMP repository should be highly encouraged. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success. - Produce more data on OA at UNICAMP. This can be traced by publication of data on the state of OA at UNICAMP. - Publicize the document once completed. This can be traced by the news articles, websites and other outlets used. - Creation, along with FAPESP and all public universities in SP, of a data management policy and data repositories (metadata instructions). - Creation of data repository cyberinfrastructure. - Data literacy courses and training for researchers, faculty, students (academic and nonacademic staff). H. Resulting matrix OPEN ACCESS Aspects of organisations

Structural issues Position documents and information pages from Central Library, future mandates.

Cultural issues Researcher’s practices and understanding of OA and its importance. OA education programs.

Interchange related Impact measures of university OA production.

Potential drivers

Central Library and highlevel management are aware of importance of OA and related policies.

Internationalisation of research culture, positive effects of OA research products, young researchers are already part of

Increased access and citation of university production that is OA.

52

Infrastructure exists for theses and journals.

an online-research culture in many areas.

Potential barriers

Difficulties with implementing a strong mandate: researcher autonomy and copyright worries.

No comprehensive education programs on OA, lack of a strong evaluation program.

No strong pressure yet from funders or government to mandate publicly funded research to be OA.

Most important potential organisational actions

Create statistics on OA, create a roadmap with specific goals for achieving OA uptake and having a strong mandate.

Create a positive perception of OA in the community, educate community.

Link up with other OA actors and champions in Brazil that could help organise institutional actions.

Indicators for success

statistics on OA uptake; presence of repositories; number of documents deposited under OA mandates

Increased number of staff and students reached by OA training and promotion activities.

Increased impact of publications.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

Public statistics on OA uptake by university community Documentation on internal debates on OA on campus Publicization of OA as it is being performed by the University SP data management policy Infrastructure for OA

6.2.6 Science education as integrated in research A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. As a higher education institution, UNICAMP is naturally engaged in science education programmes and has a wide diversity of institutionalised activities to engage both its community and wider publics (lectures for non-specialist publics, university-staff led off campus events such as ‘science cafés’, cultural events linked to science, the UNICAMP Exploratory Science Museum, hands-on science events such as “Astronomia a Céu Aberto”, amongst many others). UNICAMP also has research clusters and institutes that have general education topics as their central research interests. UNICAMP has a research nucleus fully dedicated to scientific journalism, The Laboratory of Advanced Studies on Journalism (Labjor)128; this nucleus develops a host of different and rich initiatives related to science education, making science more public and bringing results from science to a broader audience (what is known in Brazil as ‘divulgação científica’). There is also a diverse number of scientific public engagement activities including: professional and research programmes on science communication and journalism, science-art fairs and open-door days (UPA), and internationally inspired events as the recent Pint of Science activities129. Labjor, however, works many times like a regular research unit, and there were mentions of a lack of a clear and unified channel between UNICAMP and broader publics within and beyond the university community. Although there are many channels and people involved in 128 129

http://www.labjor.unicamp.br/?page_id=1142 https://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2018/04/17/pint-science-divulga-programacao

53

actions potentially related to science education, they seem to be dispersed and lack communication. There is also a continuous education school (EXTECAMP). EDUCORP is a continuous education programme for academic and non-academic staff and non-faculty. There is also significant investment in middle-education programmes like Ciências nas férias (vacation science programmes) and PIBIC Ensino Médio (scientific initiation bursaries for high school students). B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). No major barriers we are aware of. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There is a widespread consensus that science education is crucial to Brazilian society and an important aspect of university activities. There is strong interest from both community actors and from the Dean of Research to continue nurturing science education as a major part of university life. D. Best practices (or bad practices). There is a large portfolio of science education programmes to draw examples from. E. Current indicators (if any). Statistics on outreach activity and open-door participation can be used to probe the effectiveness of existing programmes. F. All points of improvement. We see no major barriers in the science education key, as there are many existing programs already in place. UNICAMP however could promote stronger synergy between the different media channels and research activities related to science education and communication. UNICAMP could invest in a plan to unify its communication tools and develop a more ambitious plan to communicate better with society. This plan should rely on the many communication professionals already part of the community (within Labjor but also in the several media outlets run by the University). The Reitoria could work with them to develop a clearer, more unified and cohesive strategy of communicating with broader publics; a Communications Secretariat exists, but science communication strategies could be significantly improved. Efforts could also be made to have more direct engagement and communication links with schools and media outlets. An updated ‘expertise directory’, for example, could help signpost the particular skills and expertise in areas of interest to journalists or publics external to the university in a simple manner. Also, the myriad of science education and communication events could be collected into a single community ‘ad board’ where activities could be advertised and seen by the community and the public. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success -

Discuss with internal media outlets potential ways of improving synergy and integration. This can be traced by minutes of such meetings, and potential changes in how such outlets synergize their activities, in the direction of making knowledge available to a wider range of interested publics.

H. Resulting matrix SCIENCE EDUCATION

Structural issues

Cultural issues

Interchange related

54

Aspects of organisations

Position and research documents and reports from existing programs like Labjor.

Position on science education as an integral part of the university’s actions.

Presence in local community of science education activities.

Potential drivers

Upper-management sees science education as an indispensable part of the university’s mission.

Good number of academics already involved in science education.

Science education activities are wellattended by the local and university communities.

Potential barriers

Some fragmentation of ongoing activities means there is no centralised science education plan.

None we are aware of.

None we are aware of.

Most important potential organisational actions

Create a comprehensive science education strategy that includes greater outreach and communication channels

Unify existing efforts and showcase science education.

Create engagement with specific community targets like schools or media outlets.

Indicators for success

Having a clearer institution-wide strategy for science education

Increased awareness in the community of science communication opportunities.

Increased contact with external actors and development of clearer communications channels.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/program mes

-

Published data on science education from the point of view of the university (activities performed, potential areas to be explored in the future)

-

More integrated channels of communication through University media outlets, higher cooperation between existing channels

-

Increase in readership/web access/views on videos

-

Increase in news pieces directed to wider audience outside UNICAMP.

6.2.7 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into policies The AIRR dimensions generated much discussion in our UNICAMP focus group: some of the ideas stemming from the dimensions were seen as potentially controversial, as interpretations of them varied widely, but overall the dimensions were perceived as potentially relevant to the University, albeit perceived through the lens of promoting socioeconomic development and growth. There were 55

common complaints about the lack of planning and integration between science done at the university and economic activities outside which could generate a more virtuous growth on both ends, as a focus group participant explained: “Sometimes people have this myth, about the transference of scientific knowledge to society, as if we could go out, walk through the streets, walk through the neighbourhoods, and give access to the research on drug development being done here [in the university]. That’s a myth, it doesn’t exist. The research on drug development is going to be transferred to society in the shape of a drug. There’s no other way. Except that, someone has to develop the drug! Transference is always done through other social actors until it gets there [to society]. Nothing is going to be gained by me trying to go and explain things. Regardless, I do it in public schools, etc. I try to transmit the scientific process, but that’s another thing.” Many also remarked about how simple actions could be incorporated into everyday campus practice and potentially make a real difference. For example, the lack of knowledge about women entrepreneurs by Inova, the innovation agency, meant that specific policies were hard to describe or imagine as a participant described in her own innovation-management work: “I think we… can think of specific actions on [issues of innovation inclusiveness]. If I tried to find the number of [university entrepreneur firms founded by women], they would be a small, small, minority. Most of the people involved are men from IC [Computer Sciences Institute] or from Engineering. White men, at that. We can off-the-cuff think of actions that, once we identify specific cases… […] we need to map whether there are more cases in which specific actions can be implemented to increase participation… If I identify an example of an indigenous student with an enterprise, we can do it so that similar students with that profile can see they have opportunities they didn’t know about. For example, by highlighting it in the University newsletter.” A more explicit focus on gender in the innovation policies, for example, would potentially generate interesting results and allow for planning to become more attuned to other needs not anticipated by usual practice. We witnessed an urgent demand for a university that is more open, more responsive to global research and that promotes more clearly societal benefits, and not just produces publications. This perception that the University needs to change is a powerful driver for institutional change, and could well be mobilized in Brazil, as it is common place in other universities. But the most common argument we hear is about a potential for the university to accelerate innovation, and also to become more similar to their counterparts in the Global North, in terms of flexibility, support for research and connectedness to economic activity, especially innovation in industries such as big pharma or material science. There are many perceived barriers: institutional barriers related to how the public university is organized (how it is funded and the problems arising from that; how bureaucracy impedes internationalization or makes it very difficult; how internal political dynamics also create cultural barriers for more innovation and high-performance research to occur), and how it is underfunded when compared to high-performing global universities. The common comparison to global research universities means there is a lot of internalized pressure to perform at increasingly competitive levels, while also promoting a driver for institutional innovations which allow for a more responsive university. Anticipation and reflexivity 56

A. Anticipation occurs through formal and informal channels: formally, all institutes within the university are obliged to do periodical planning, where objectives are set, priorities discussed, and actions are planned for a period of 4 years. How this is done depends on each institute, and how open, reflexive or effective each planning exercise is also depends on their local conditions. Informally there is a demand for action that allows the university to become more reflexive, and higher management is very concerned with promoting change. The focus is much more on accelerating research and innovation, creating synergies with global research and local industry and less on anticipating possible negative effects of science and technology. Actions which could be perceived as potential dangers to excellence or increased impact in science and innovation are not well received, and this could significantly impede any actions related to anticipation. Discussing ethics or potential dangers of specific technologies, for example, was usually not well received, and quickly associated with groups which were critical of scientific activities. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) There are institutional barriers to promoting reflexivity or anticipation, derived from heavy bureaucracy and institutional set up of the university. Lack of adequate funding is always an issue, which becomes worse in recent years due to deep recession and defunding of national institutions (though less so in the state of São Paulo). One important barrier is the perception that anticipatory debates on potential risks are a danger for a perceived need to increase and accelerate science and innovation. Management and top-level scientists are defensive of such debates and would rather discuss ways to promote science in a country where such activity is still at risk and not fully valued by broader society. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There are many drivers, such as the presence of institutional channels for planning which could be mobilized towards reflexive actions. Perceived demand for change can also promote more reflexive and anticipatory policies, if they are seen as not a danger to increasing science and innovation outputs. D. Best practices (or bad practices). There is a Directorship for Integrated Planning created in 2017 to aid in developing physical space and infrastructure planning and an international hub for sustainable development. There is a plan on how to increase in new campus areas and in developing new forms of governance as UNICAMP is a signatory of the Magna Charta Universitatum observatory, which promotes principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy as a guideline for good governance and self-understanding of universities in the future.130 E. Current indicators (if any). None we were made aware of. F. All points of improvement. Internal workshops should continue to happen and become more publicized. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success 130

Continue with Magna Charta related activities and make them more public.

http://www.magna-charta.org/magna-charta-universitatum

57

Openness and transparency A. Openness and transparency are at the heart of how the university perceives itself. As a public institution, responsible to the public, it seeks to constantly improve transparency practices. But in practice, openness is limited by hierarchies, decision-making processes that are still top-down and opaqueness in how processes work (although this is changing, as university central deliberative body, the CONSU needs to approve many decisions). There are many institutional channels to promote transparency at all levels, and they are very open on paper, but this is not always matched by practical decision-making. These are cultural dynamics which are hard to change simply through institutional decisions. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) There are cultural barriers to openness related to how the institution is autonomous from wider societal dynamics, how it responds to demands from the state government and to demands for excellence and not to wider societal demands (even though that is its main mission). While defence of these values is near unanimous, not all parts of the university practice this as much as they should; and while there are institutional channels to promote this, the university many times responds with seeking and practicing autonomy in contrast to becoming more open. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There are many institutional channels that are drivers: government directives that demand transparency; the already consolidated culture of public servants and public service as open and transparent; the channels already in place to enact openness. D. Best practices (or bad practices). We perceived the presence of institutional channels for making information and practices public a good practice, linked to the perception of being a public university, answerable to and accountable to broader society. While this is not always the case in practice, the institutional set up of the public university allows for rich and interesting ways to enact transparency which would be impossible otherwise. E. Current indicators (if any). None we are aware of. F. All points of improvement. UNICAMP could always improve on the already existing initiatives to make public its activities, indicators, knowledge produced and impact it has in broader society. Initiatives like UNICAMP de Portas Abertas, museums and cultural activities available on campus could be better publicized and their impact better tracked and made public. UNICAMP could better inform broader society about its internal activities and the relevance of UNICAMP for development, which would mitigate lack of understanding about what is done at the university, in a climate where public university is under questioning. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success -

UNICAMP agrees to study ways to make research activities better known by broader publics, beyond what it already does.

-

Better document and track impacts from events which promote openness and interaction (number of people visiting, activities developed, etc.). This can be traced by documentation on these events which show the impact. This can also help trace increase in interaction with broader community. 58

Responsiveness and adaptation A. As with previous sections, we can detect a myriad of institutional channels that would in theory promote responsiveness and adaptation, which are not always mobilised to their full extent. There are many ways the university is responsive: by having internal elections, for example, the community periodically reflects and responds to broader concerns when the time comes for the governor to name the rector. But there are important barriers to responsiveness related to the institutional set up of the university as a part of government and following specific rules. While the autonomy gained by the university has promoted broader responsiveness to society, this autonomy is also a potential barrier to more engagement with societal needs. There is a clear demand within the community for broader and more intense responsiveness, be it to the market, to innovation, to economic growth or to social inclusion, and this is a powerful force to be channelled for institutional change. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) Institutional autonomy sometimes translates as a barrier between the university and societal demands. A cultural perception of the university as an elite space, where only a few people are allowed in can also be seen as a barrier, as sometimes the wider community refrains from associating with the university. The way research answers mostly to itself, meaning to federal and state evaluation schemes and to the state budget means also lessened responsiveness. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). There is a deep discontent among many about the lack of responsiveness, related to the disconnection from innovation dynamics or from societal demands (especially from the poor and marginalised sectors of society). This is a strong force to promote change, as has happened in the case of racial and ethnic quotas. There is a myriad of already in place channels that can be better mobilised, as well as a very established culture of public service that can be directed to promoting responsiveness. D. Best practices (or bad practices). No specific institution-wide practices currently fall under this category. E. Current indicators (if any). None we are aware of. F. All points of improvement – UNICAMP could better document outreach activities and ask from such projects more concrete advice related to its internal workings, gaps, possible points of improvement. Such documentation could aid in making the institution more responsive through already existing channels of interaction. There could also be more data produced on how the surrounding community perceives the university, which could also aid in detecting bottle necks, gaps and points of improvement. G. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success -

Start debating internally how to obtain data from extension and engagement projects related to concrete advice which can feed into management and policy on campus activities. This can be traced through minutes and documents produced from meetings and from extension and engagement projects already in place. 59

6.3. Reflection on Review findings, Outlooks developed and ways forward 6.3.1 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related dimensions Some issues to consider: -

-

-

The separate RRI keys are seldom addressed together and it was common for interviewees and participants to be much more informed about some keys than others. In term of responsibility, there is a general tendency to frame it as slightly different shades of ‘social responsibility’, ‘productive science and/or innovation’ and ‘public accountability’ by most actors. We did not notice large variations across time, but a more detailed probing would be necessary than the project could account for. UNICAMP’s general historical mission to increase links to local industry and innovation is consistent with this portrayal. Science education is the most integrated dimension, with ethics and open access becoming increasingly important. Gender and equality issues, though existing, are being increasingly addressed by management. Societal engagement, though not centrally administered, is also an important part of UNICAMP activities. Gender, ethics and engagement actions that synergise with existing priorities were highlighted by UNICAMP contacts. Generally speaking, the barriers are the same across the keys: lack of explicit policy and results, bureaucratic rigidity and community fragmentation.

6.3.2 Common barriers or drivers A common driver here is the perception the university community has of itself as a public institution, therefore necessarily transparent and accountable to the public it serves, the broader society. The idea of public that pervades the institution is a powerful driver to seek institutional innovations towards more inclusion, more intense engagement, and increasing transparency. It is also a political discourse used when disputing resources or agendas around engagement with society. Common barriers are lack of resources, and lack of sustained financial support. Also, the bureaucratic nature of the university makes many actions harder to begin or to change.

6.3.3 Final reflections and plan for follow-up UNICAMP has many actions which could be understood as related to RRI, and the institution welcomed the project and our suggestions. In some cases, they synergize with already ongoing discussions, like the debate around a code of good practices and the idea to establish an office of research integrity and a chair of human rights. UNICAMP is a leading university in Latin America in terms of academic excellence and innovation performance; therefore, any direction taken by the university will likely inspire and impact other institutions in the region, beyond Brazil specifically. UNICAMP has solid actions in most keys, as was clear from our mapping, and has research in areas like gender and diversity which can inform further actions to be taken in the future. It has a structured system for ethics review, many media outlets with which to communicate with broader society, several science education initiatives and a strong community performing outreach in the community. While it does have a leading gender studies centre with international impact, it has yet

60

to internalize fully concerns around gender inclusivity in research. But it has taken important steps, like recently establishing actions to curb sexual harassment on campus. The university has agreed with several actions which align with its own objectives, including developing protocols for data storage and management in line with ethical practices; it is developing an office of research integrity and a code of best practices, hoping to make explicit values around diversity and gender equality. It will create a chair in human rights and is structuring its ethics system to also include human and social sciences. They agreed to seek more data on how to make outreach more impactful, and how to also communicate better their actions with the broader community.

7 Organizational reviews and outlooks: Research funder 7.1 Mapping of the organisation The São Paulo Research Foundation131 (FAPESP), São Paulo State’s research funding agency, is one of the main research funding organizations in Brazil and has been recognised, along with its top-rated university system, as one of the “two key factors [that] explain São Paulo’s success in scientific output”. 132 It is an autonomous institution linked to the São Paulo State’s Ministry for Economic Development, Science, Technology and Innovation.133 It’s creation was authorized within the State’s Constitution in 1947 and it was formally created by decree and began operations in 1962 (Motoyama 1999). Detailed documentation related to the organization, which given its public nature includes documents from the SP State Government, can be found online in the FAPESP website.134 Official announcements and regulations are all made available online and centralized.135 Funded directly from state taxes, it was initially granted a fixed 0.5% of the total SP State Tax Income, and is currently allocated 1%: R$1,111 billion in 2018 (approximately USD$ 300 million), in addition to federal contributions and self-sourced funds. 136 Although this tax-percentage-based policy represents a certain stability in income even in times of economic turmoil, Brazil’s current generalized crisis and a controversial measure to move FAPESP funds to other Ministry programs meant that even in SP the current recession and resulting funding crisis in science has had significant effects. In 2017, for example, movement of FAPESP funds to other ministerial programs mean that the legally mandated 1% goal was not reached.137 138 Though FAPESP plays a fundamental role in the SP state science system, it is also a thermometer and an exemplar for Brazilian science system as a whole, both in its positive and negative aspects. Turning to the implementation of its funding actions, FAPESP funds research through two main mechanisms: ‘bolsas’ or bursaries for undergraduate and graduate students; and ‘auxílios’, grants for researchers holding a PhD degree and with links to institutions in the State of SP. The Linha Regular, which includes open calls for undergraduate, graduate and doctoral researchers totalled R$477 million. Auxílios Regulares à Pesquisa, research grants, totalled R$425 million. The Special Programs 131

http://www.fapesp.br/en/ Id. 133 http://www.fapesp.br/sobre/ 134 http://www.fapesp.br/28 135 http://www.fapesp.br/portarias/ 136 http://www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/balancos/balanco_publicado_DOE_26042018_pg34.pdf 137 http://agencia.fapesp.br/alckmin_garante_repasse_do_orcamento_da_fapesp/24837/ 138 http://www.fapesp.br/9250 132

61

funding line, which includes specific moneys for developing infrastructure, supporting young researchers and advancing frontier topics, awarded R$166 million. Finally, the Programas de Pesquisa para Inovação Tecnológica includes programs focused on applied science and innovation such as BIOTA 139 (a biodiversity-mapping ‘virtual institute’ focusing on sustainability, economic utility and public policies concerning Brazil’s rich flora and fauna), Public Policy development programs140, PITE141 (a Technological Innovation Programme that promotes and funds links and R&D cooperation between publicly and privately funded research institutions) and PIPE142 (a Small Enterprise Innovation Programme that supports R&D in micro, small and middle-private enterprises within the State of São Paulo), with R$118 million funded. Research is supported across the entire spectrum of academic research but is particularly strong in the natural sciences. Proposals are judged by peer review commissions which include voluntary researchers from Brazil and abroad who are considered experts in their subject area. Research is judged on “scientific or technological merit, and compliancy with FAPESP’s norms”143 by ‘ad hoc’ advisors who are experts in their area. FAPESP prides itself on efficient review processes, with many types of proposals being judged in an average of two months’ time.144 The review process is clearly marked and assessment formularies and further information on the judgement processes is clearly signposted in its website. According to online documentation, around 15,000 proposals are judged each year.145 FAPESP’s internal governance system is comprised of a Superior Council and a TechnicalAdministrative Council. The Superior council is made up of 12 members with 6-year terms. They are chosen by the State Governor from three-candidate lists provided by academic institutions from the State. The SC’s mission is the taking of major political, scientific, administrative and planning decisions. The SC president is chosen by the State Governor from a three-member list drawn up by councillors, and acts as President of the Foundation as well as its legal representative. The TechnicalAdministrative Council acts as the executive directorship, and is made up by the President, a Scientific Director, and an Administrative Director. Serving three years with possibility for re-election, the presidents are chosen by the State Governor from lists drawn up by the Superior Council.

139

http://www.biota.org.br/?lang=en http://www.fapesp.br/2083 141 http://www.fapesp.br/61 142 http://www.fapesp.br/pipe/ 143 http://www.fapesp.br/sobre/ 144 http://www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/analise 145 http://www.fapesp.br/assessores/ 140

62

Figure 6: FAPESP organisational chart. URL: http://www.fapesp.br/7182

63

7.2 Aspects of responsibility in organisational policy and practice Although RRI is not mentioned as such by FAPESP, aspects of RRI are practiced locally, in specific ways. As FAPESP is the leader of research in the São Paulo and because both the region’s and the agency’s reputations as paragons for Brazilian development, any programmatic impact at the agency has a national impact. Apart from this, FAPESP has established itself as a standard of high quality research funding vis-à-vis the federal and other state agencies and their practices. Importantly, FAPESP has developed this reputation through markers that are highly compatible and can synergise with an RRI outlook: the stability of funding, total R&D spending per year, the high academic and practical impact of research funded by FAPESP, the national and international impact FAPESP-funded research usually has, the agency’s support for innovation and business with local impact, and the rest of the practices outlined below.

7.2.1 The conceptualisations of responsibility in the organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works In general, we did not find ‘responsibility’ in and of itself as a highly visible part of institutional discourse, except as enveloped by a discussion related to “returning to society” what society had invested in the organisation. In this sense, ‘responsibility’ is put across as the way FAPESP must answer to the citizens and especially the taxpayers that supply the resources for its operation. This also entails transparency and accountability in its actions as a public institution which is led by good scientific practices. We identified two particularly important RRI-compatible institutional values, found either explicitly or latently in FAPESP’s institutional discourse, which strongly shape actions within the agency: quality and accountability. In both these cases, these values are present in both explicit form within the relevant documentation, and in the cultural practices within the organisation. Quality is mentioned throughout FAPESP documentation as a guiding principle and is given explicit markers in its project evaluation forms, such as a project’s originality, innovativeness, methodological adequacy and other ‘technical’ scientific markers.146 Submissions are first sent to Area Coordinators147 where the submissions are then sent for revision by ‘ad hoc’ evaluators. The anonymous, ad hoc evaluators are not expected to provide an opinion on whether proposals should be funded, but only an objective assessment which FAPESP will use to provide a decision using a publicly available format sheet.148 Final evaluation results are returned by the ad hoc evaluators to the Area Coordinators, who with the support of Adjunct Coordinators emit a recommendation on acceptance to the Scientific Directorship, which has the ultimate decision on whether a project is funded. There is a re-evaluation mechanism in place for rejected proposals.

146

The evaluation forms for all of FAPESP’s funding lines can be found at: http://www.fapesp.br/assessores/. The section also includes descriptions of the bases on which project evaluators are chosen, expected timeframes, details on the evaluation processes, and related details. 147 Area Coordinators support the work of the Scientific Directorship and are selected based on a number of academic competence criteria through a complex internal procedure. See http://www.fapesp.br/11127 148 http://www.fapesp.br/6090

64

It was stressed to us by both upper and middle management that the evaluation work is essentially a ‘bottom up’ judgement approach in which the peer review system was a fundamental part of FAPESP’s success. It is also important that the agency makes all decisions public and the processes transparent. The bottom up image also refers to how FAPESP answers to society, and was linked in conversations to the AIRR dimensions, especially to responsiveness. This will be discussed in more detail below. Quality Concerning the values that drive FAPESP, the strongest emphasis by far is on excellence, quality and particularly scientific quality, with all policies, actions and decisions at FAPESP being subordinated to scientific quality.149 Making sure science funded by the organisation is of the highest quality is one way management perceives it is being responsible: producing high quality, high impact science is the best way to make sure public investment is being well managed, and will return to society in the form of new knowledge, innovations and solutions to societal problems and challenges. We found that ‘quality’ is used at FAPESP in two related, but different ways: 1) Quality understood as the results of activity that conforms to common standards of accreditation by scientific peers, viz. peer review processes. 2) Quality as the result of a quantified, comparative methodology to scientific activity. Some examples of indicators used to assess quality, but not all, include the number of citations to publications for individual researchers or projects, the impact factors of journals considered alongside the indirectly perceived impact of research as a social and intellectual good, percentages of minority groups’ participation, amongst others. One important exercise in which FAPESP and the RRI-P team can work as partners is the joint, critical assessment of quantified ‘impact’ as a probe for understanding the Brazilian context, as journal impact factors, for example, are being widely criticised as being too narrow as indicators of quality. Public accountability FAPESP is a publicly funded organization, in which accountability and public transparency strongly shape institutional practices. Accountability is framed as a moral obligation to the public, but also as a channel to prove FAPESP’s worth to citizens and politicians. Accountability is framed in two ways: 1) Scientific ‘internal’ accountability: linked to generally accepted notions of scientific qualityassurance, in which following the rules and norms of good science is seen as the best way to assure the proper use of public money. 2) Public ‘external’ accountability: objectively demonstrating to institutional outsiders how outcomes, products, activities are both good value-for-money to São Paulo State. B. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works FAPESP’s procedures are generally regarded to be efficient and fair both within the organisation and without. FAPESP seems to generally be open to change if it can be clearly shown that it will lead to increasing the ‘scientific quality’ of decisions. For example, in

149

http://www.fapesp.br/6090

65

evaluating projects, it was mentioned that advisors are asked to judge publication records on the merit of content and not on questionable metrics like impact factors. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) In general terms, the main driver is first and foremost ‘quality’ as explained in the previous sections. Other drivers include value-for-money and social good when these do not compromise on scientific quality. An external relevant driver is the way FAPESP values international connectedness to global practices. If RRI becomes part of a global discourse and is adopted as a global standard by internationally renowned funders, this would be a strong incentive for RRI to become more explicitly present in internal practices; more explicitly that is, as managers generally perceive that RRI keys as already being present in existing practices, albeit in local specific ways. D. Best practices (or bad practices) We did not find major complaints within the organisation regarding existing procedures, except for the fact that evaluations sometimes are not carried out within the expected timeframes. To give one paradigmatic best practice example from FAPESP at an international level, we mention its engagement with Open Access through the funding of Scielo the database. As Europe and the World still struggle to define and implement national and regional policies for Open Access, Scielo has represented a viable, sustainable, efficient and high-quality alternative not only for Brazil but for the entirety of Latin America. While Scielo does not ‘solve’ the problem of Open Access, it is a mature, continuously developing and historically innovative project that focuses on local scientific ecosystems through international standards. E. Current indicators (if any) FAPESP keeps a number of general indicators on the success of its programs and on its evaluation procedures. The agency website has a separate section that lists a number of periodic indicators and metrics results to contextualise the development of science and technology within SP and the Brazilian context, but comprehensive indicators have not been actualised since 2010.150 A series of institutional reports are published each year, with the latest one being from 2017. These provide detail on financial and other organisational matters. Comprehensive evaluations of specific programs and funding lines are also made publicly available.151 There are general financial statements online relating expenses to specific program lines and funding, but these are not grouped according to any markers explicitly relevant to RRI (e.g. number of women vs men funded).152 Some information relevant to the RRI keys can be drawn out of these (e.g. spending on the Public Policy Programme, spending on Scientific Journalism) but RRI-compatible indicators could also be made explicitly part of agency-wide future reporting practices. Although the Revista FAPESP institutional magazine releases interesting information relevant to the RRI keys from time to time, and programmes such as the Scielo portal produce their own metrics, most of the 150

http://www.fapesp.br/indicadores/ http://www.fapesp.br/avaliacao/ 152 http://www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/ 151

66

easily accessible and centralised reporting is done for purposes of financial accountability. Where metrics and markers for specific keys have been found, these are specified in each section below, but one of the ways to make RRI relevant to FAPESP could be to introduce more open types of explicit reporting into the explicit organisational culture. F. All points of improvement a. Some points of improvement which were identified were the implicit nature of some of the practices identified as RRI- friendly or RRI-related, such as: the concern with science’s impact or risk to society, or the concern with gender equality, and how those values are transmitted internally in São Paulo and Brazil, but also externally to global institutions. b. We consider it would be ideal to make even more explicit some values relevant to FAPESP which relate to RRI in some way: responsivity; engagement with societal needs and values; and broader dialogue about those values with national and international S&T actors. A more nuanced sense of accountability that included markers and metrics suggested by RRI and already used by many internationallyrenowned funding agencies could make more publicly palpable FAPESP’s engagement with society and with societal concerns specific to Brazil. Although we realise that it is not easy to produce these markers, we believe that it is important to bring to the foreground debates that already naturally occur within FAPESP, also as a matter of internal socially-engaged reflexivity. c. Agreed points of improvement, with action plans and indicators for success In relation to specific goals or actions to be agreed upon by FAPESP, it was unambiguously communicated to us that this approach, as proposed by the project, for incorporating RRI was not productive or adequate for FAPESP as a publicly funded institution, which protects and values its institutional autonomy. On the contrary, the institution feels that this approach caused a negative perception of RRI as a “ready-made” formula, created and brought in from the outside, and that wants to impose itself as ‘the correct way’. FAPESP made it clear thus that agreeing on specific targets or actions and agreeing to be ‘supervised’ from the outside (through action plans or indicators) would feel too much like an imposition or an unwarranted external interference in an autonomous institution. FAPESP was clear that it would only adopt and promote changes which they feel would increase impact of the science and innovation funded, therefore change which would promote the further development of science and technology in the State of São Paulo. For FAPESP, the best way to promote change would be through showing and promoting successful examples, and not through a theoretical framework or a number of abstract principles. There is, then, a problem in the approach in their perception, as it does not work towards convincing the institution, but asks it to accept goals and indicators without seeing previous concrete cases where such approaches were proven to have worked.

67

Yet they also made clear that FAPESP has no problem in reflecting on or even changing internal practices and in fact does this on a regular basis. They made clear that they would gladly adopt RRI approaches that were successful in other places, but they feel that adopting theoretical principles as such would not be acceptable. They feel that other institutions might have the same reaction in terms of feeling imposed on or interfered with, and that funders would only adopt actions on their own terms, and actions which have shown to be robust and successful in other places. I.

Resulting matrix

FAPESP and RRI Aspects of organisations

Structural issues Legal frameworks, decrees, statutes, laws.

Cultural issues Upper and middle management practices, ‘ground level’ work of commissions and evaluators.

Interchange related SP State Constitution, external communications, new reports and releases.

Potential drivers for RRI

Values underlying FAPESP’s formulation of responsibility are compatible with RRI.

Management and evaluators are sensitive to aspects of social responsibility.

FAPESP has extensive international links and is amicable to adapting ‘good practices’ when relevant to its scientific mission

Potential barriers to RRI

Highly bureaucratised and somewhat inflexible framework. Narrow focus on ‘responsibility’ compared to RRI.

Practices driven by ‘Republic of Science’ value system means limited interest in ‘democratising’ internal procedures.

Wary of influence from international agents insensitive to Brazilian reality. Top management mentioned bad experiences with enforced international cooperation.

7.2.2 Ethics in the organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works Ethics is considered an integral element of research in FAPESP. It is understood as vigilance over scientific malpractices (research integrity), plus the promotion of ‘good practices’. Both types of ethics are outlined in formal, publicly available documentation and are fully integrated into the research lifecycle of FAPESP research proposal and outcomes.153 Specifically, FAPESP has framed ethics using three pillars: education, prevention and just but effective punishment in cases of proven ethics violations. FAPESP is thus concerned with not only the quality of its ethics codes, but also with an adequate implementation of it. The elaboration of Code of Good Scientific Practice (FAPESP 2014), an education program and follow-up procedures compose a concerted effort spearheaded by FAPESP’s scientific 153

http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/

68

director as an answer to recurring conversations about good practices. There does not appear to be widespread resistance to the topic. The dissemination, education and prevention dimensions are key aspects of the ethics bundle. While FAPESP has a well-developed system for the promotion and vigilance of good practices integral to the research process that is consistent with a sizeable part of the RRI framework, on the other, the possible (including negative) social impacts of research and innovation are currently not considered as part of the institution’s ‘ethical’ research framing. Instruments like precautionary principle reflections on science and technology risks, and wider societal impact and stakeholder engagement, which are now an integral part of RRI ‘ethics’, are considered by FAPESP under the category of ‘social impact’ which is separate from ethics reflection and is delegated to the institutions where the research is carried out. FAPESP considers that those concerns end up being incorporated at FAPESP filtered through these institutional demands and its bottom up approach to funding. As one member of top management commented in an interview: “Good practices for us are different to Research Ethics. Because Ethics can include whether a scientist will want to do research on atomic bombs, right? … For us, good scientific practices are a matter of the integrity within scientific research, whichever type it is, [if done with integrity] then it is good… without us telling researchers what type of research it is right to do, and which type isn’t right.” Nevertheless, interviews with researchers participating as ad hoc evaluators showed that in practice ‘social impact’ is considered, albeit informally, within the assessment process. FAPESP heavily monitors ethics breaches and publishes sanctions publicly in the agency’s official magazine (Revista Pesquisa FAPESP).154 The organization keeps a careful record of related statistics which are well-known to and used by top managers. FAPESP has currently established a policy of actively influencing research institutions to establish good practices in research, through effectively demanding universities to have offices for good practices in order to be able to get access to FAPESP funding. The funder has since 2017 warned it will stop accepting projects from universities without offices of research integrity.155 Ethical procedures are internally enacted in working groups consistent with FAPESP’s collegiate organization. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) The biggest barrier at this point is educational, as the Code of Good Practices is only beginning to be known in the community. From the UNICAMP case study, we are also aware that even in the more advanced institutions the delegated ethical issues are not yet widely part of Brazilian academic culture. UNICAMP, for example, is in the process of establishing its own code of good practices and this was in part a response to FAPESP’s demands, which shows the great impact of FAPESP’s policies as a push towards specific forms of regulating science at the highest levels.

154

The document Portaria PR Nº 05/2013 establishes guidelines for the public announcement of breaches and sanctions. 155 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2017/04/1878564-fapesp-bloqueara-verba-de-instituicao-que-naoadotar-medidas-antiplagio.shtml

69

C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) The main driver appears to be the drive for improving ‘quality’ and responding to its responsibility as a manager of public resources. D. Best practices (or bad practices) As a leading funding agency nationwide, FAPESP’s lead in creating an ethics framework is of extreme importance. Additionally, its ethics education activities reach not only researchers, but also the institutions where FAPESP funds are channelled. FAPESP also requires by default that cooperation agreements include an ethics clause.156 E. Current indicators (if any) - The organisation keeps careful track of ethics breaches and sanctions. They also make public cases that have been confirmed to be breaches in research integrity157, as an incentive against such practices by other institutions. An ethics section also features prominently in the agency’s website.158 F. All points of improvement FAPESP might be interested in considering actions such as the European Research Commission’s policy of including social impact reflections as part of ERC research-funding submissions. Researchers and groups applying for funding could specify and anticipate ways in which the research design complies both with ethical standards and with wider social concerns, where applicable. In some cases, researchers could be called to anticipate or reflect on potential ethical pitfalls (in cases like research on nanotechnologies, or in field trials with unknown technologies). This would enable reviewers to assess ethical issues in research as a part of the usual peer review, but also to bring FAPESP closer to the concerns of the populations it aims to benefit and serve. FAPESP could also create specific funding schemes for ethics in research, in order to foment a wider public debate on ethics, controversial technologies, among other topics to inform wider debate on the ethics of research in SP. For example, participatory exercises on ‘controversial’ technologies (e.g. cloning, GM foods) can both sensitise the public to more nuanced view on the science, as well as approach FAPESP to the public that it aims to benefit in its wider institutional goals. G. Resulting matrix ETHICS Aspects of organisations

Structural issues FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practices, Portarias 05/2103, 09/2013, online documentation.

Cultural issues Framing of ethics as ‘good scientific practices by top management’ and application of principles by lower levels.

Interchange related National ethics debates, international good practices from partner agencies.

Potential drivers

FAPESP’s formulation of ethics are compatible with RRI indicators.

Growing importance of ethics discussions within Brazilian academic cultures.

FAPESP is an international agency and has followed the development of similar discussions globally.

156

Portaria PR nº 09/2013. http://www.fapesp.br/8577 158 http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/ 157

70

Potential barriers

Scope of the meaning of ethics is narrower than RRI and there is resistance to widening this definition.

Most important potential organisational actions

Generalised lack of awareness of following formal ethics procedures in many Brazilian academic cultures. Danger of over-bureaucratising ethics procedures.

None that we are aware of.

Suggesting social impact reflections and anticipation as part of ethical thinking.

Indicators for success Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

Support for public debates on ethical aspects of FAPESP funded research, if deemed relevant; Studies of best practices and examples from leading global funders regarding the adoption of practical policies on ethical impacts and anticipation; If deemed relevant, the adoption of one or more of those practices.

7.2.3 Societal engagement strategies in organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. Societal engagement is performed through various channels at FAPESP, including press agencies, public outreach events, and specialised publications, websites and other media channels, communication requirements for large-scale projects, with an overall positive balance.159 FAPESP also has a number of research and innovation programmes to engage with industry and incorporate them into the science and innovation process.160 There appears to be a good awareness of the need to inform diverse types of publics of research outcomes in a responsible manner, as a channel for public accountability of publicly funded research. FAPESP’s engagement strategy nevertheless seems to be mostly directed to the academic community, through the aforementioned bottom-up approach highly valued by the organisation. When compared to the wider RRI framework, our observation is that there is a difference between the RRI addition of citizen- and public-inclusive strategies as an important point of engagement which actively seeks to involve public stakeholders, and FAPESP’s general strategy. As a top manager explained: “FAPESP invites researchers, when there is an opportunity within their research projects, to develop and use opportunities for public engagement, for example through science 159

Notable outlets include: News agency Agência FAPESP: http://agencia.fapesp.br/inicial/, Public reference site for FAPESP-funded research, Biblioteca Virtual da FAPESP: http://www.bv.fapesp.br/pt/, External media impact: http://www.bv.fapesp.br/namidia/, General interest publications: http://www.fapesp.br/publicacoes/, Official Magazine: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/. 160 See, ‘Programas de pesquisa direcionados à aplicação (empresas e governo)’ http://www.fapesp.br/programas/

71

popularisation or interaction with schools… but we neither punish [when lacking engagement actions] nor make it mandatory… You should not tell a scientist what to do. Scientists know more than bureaucrats from São Paulo or Brussels, right? They know what their science is like, and how it can have more effect and they do it. Except for special programs [with specifically implemented impact and engagement agendas], this is often [spontaneously] generated.” FAPESP considers this strategy as successful in terms of it being a “bottom up” institution: 80% of funding comes from demands by the scientific community. Interviewees considered that societal demands were ‘filtered’ through scientific institutions and then debated internally, and that this had proven a successful means to tackle relevant problems. Some specific cases were mentioned where FAPESP performed an active engagement with societal demands, emerging from public concerns that translated into research funding: one is the Zika network, where the institution quickly mobilized to support and fast track research related to the Zika crisis; another example mentioned was the BIOTA program, which has had great impact in mapping biodiversity in the state and also influencing environmental legislation and policies. From the RRI perspective, societal engagement is therefore embedded into the internal, informal cultural practices, even if it is not explicitly within the found documentation or is packaged into the good practices/ethics dimension. As a participant in the focus group explained: “It’s’ not that we [FAPESP scientists] are not concerned with risks, or social questions. We do have it, directly within our programmes. It might be that it’s just not explicitly in the documents, no?” B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The main barriers revolve around FAPESP’s understanding of how engagement should happen, and the perception that it already happens through demands emerging from the research community. FAPESP already sees itself as very engaged with society and is sceptical of external models becoming imposed onto the institution. Societal demands and values are understood to affect FAPESP directly through its bottom-up approach and the way funding is implemented by researcher demand. At ground level we nevertheless did see instances of reflexivity on this point. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). RRI can directly synergise with FAPESP’s interest in being accountable to publics and taxpayers, as well as to nurture broader definitions of what ‘scientific excellence’ (another important institutional value) could mean. Another driver is its desire to participate in global conversations and learn from international best practices, many of which now include more inclusive forms of engagement. A focus group participant explained as a counterpoint to the point presented above: “…in projects for an international agency, ‘risk’ appears several times. Risk… is a word that does not appear in our project assessment forms, in our discussions. Risk has to be analysed. The project has to analyse risk. Mainly scientific risk… risk of getting it wrong… There are things that we could bring to FAPESP, if the point is made through international examples of almost unquestionable reputation, to bring it into the discussion.” 72

D. Best practices (or bad practices). We detected a considerable number of programmes at which FAPESP can be considered to be performing at excellent levels. FAPESP for example funds special programmes that specifically address national problematics and that importantly have a direct engagement with public policy issues, such as BIOEN161 (a program focused on Bioenergy), the Climate Change program162 (a network of projects addressing climate change), BIOTA163 (a groundbreaking and large scale effort to map biodiversity in the state of São Paulo) and the CEPID program, or RIDC – Research Innovation and Dissemination Centers164 and aimed at funding longer term (up to 11 years) and larger scale projects, with more ambitious goals and impacts including innovation, technology transfer and science education and dissemination to wider publics. Similarly, there are programmes that specifically fund innovative research in private companies such as PIPE and PITE, which fund research connected to private companies or universities associated with them.165 Public engagement, now an integral part of large-scale FAPESP funded programmes, is also framed and supported as another form of societal engagement. FAPESP is also promoting a wide evaluation program, led by a UNICAMP researcher with wide experience in management and evaluation of research institutions. This shows a constant practice of self-reflection and attempts to produce data for regular improvements. All reports are publicly available166 and cover a wide range of programs, which offer an interesting way to also respond to societal demands, albeit in an indirect way. E. Current indicators (if any). We did not find any indicators purposely made for this key by the organisation. F. All points of improvement. FAPESP could consider engaging more publics in these already existing programs, including a wider range of voices in thinking about priorities and formats. For PIPE and PITE, for example, FAPESP could consider engaging with the companies themselves in order to assess how they see the program, how they perceive the value of FAPESP funding to their own activities, and how FAPESP could improve the programs. FAPESP could consider opening up parts of its strategic planning processes, as in large-scale funding programs, like the FAPESP program for Global Climate Change (http://www.fapesp.br/pfpmcg/). Invitations could be made to NGOs, civil society representatives and other experts to debate with climatologists and scientists the ongoing activities and the priorities of the program as happens in other international contexts. This could be done in short, one or two-day workshops which would yield valuable insight on such programs beyond academic excellence: it could indicate ways for FAPESP to achieve greater social impact with its research, without surrendering strategic control of how these programs are run or decreasing the weight of excellence. International experiences such as the incorporation

161

http://www.fapesp.br/en/472 http://www3.inpe.br/mudancas_climaticas/# 163 http://www.fapesp.br/en/4662 164 http://cepid.fapesp.br/en/home/ 165 http://www.fapesp.br/61 166 http://www.fapesp.br/avaliacao/ 162

73

of “broader impacts” by the NSF is an example which could be evaluated as being of interest to FAPESP in its mission to engage with international best-practices.167 G. Resulting matrix SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT Aspects of organisations

Structural issues

Cultural issues

Interchange related

Specific agency descriptions and reports. Revista Pesquisa FAPESP reports.

Top and mid management framing of engagement and publics. Communications director, officers and practitioner opinions at FAPESP agencies.

Perceptions of FAPESP research outside the academic community. Impact on publics, private sector and government.

Potential drivers

There are numerous institutional programs already in place for outreach and engagement.

Valuation of outreach and visibility of programs. Revista Pesquisa FAPESP has an excellent model of communication.

Various efforts exist to make research visible to the general public and engage with industry and government,

Potential barriers

Understanding of engagement based on bottom-up demands from research community

Engagement of public on FAPESP internal issues is generally regarded very negatively. Self-regulation and autonomy are highly valued.

Few channels for nonacademic publics to impact FAPESP.

Most important potential organisational actions

Institutionally engage with a more diverse type of actors particularly in programs with high social relevance.

Promote a more inclusionary vision of engagement that does not stray off into scientific populism.

Involve non-academic stakeholder in existing programs where there is clear relevance.

Indicators for success Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

Explicit codes, policy on how engagement with publics is understood and practised by FAPESP Support for engagement exercises with publics outside of academia Better publicization and formalization of already existing engagement actions such as Zika Network or how Biota and other programs impacted policies and wider publics.

7.2.4 Gender equality and diversity strategies in the organisation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. Gender issues were considered by some top-level management to be a ‘non-topic’ at FAPESP, while others pointed out already existing actions involving concern with gender imbalances. There is no formal institutional position on the subject of gender imbalances, but there are 167

http://www.fapesp.br/avaliacao/manuais/nsf_impacts.pdf; for the basic principles, see: https://broaderimpacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nabi_guiding_principles.pdf

74

specific policies, such as support for maternity leave.168 Gender awareness was pointed out as enacted through internal practices and discussions, in funding of gender studies programs and other specific actions (i.e. growth of scientific careers in public universities). Workshop participants gave several interesting examples: “[Gender] is a topic that we have talked about here, in the very definition of how evaluation commissions are organized, the idea of including women. The idea of having women in Engineering, of including more women in different areas. These are worries that… maybe what is needed is… a Letter of Intent.” “And so, if we are in need to designate an area coordinator, particularly in Engineering or the hard sciences, if we have a man and a woman who are equally qualified, we will pick the woman.” Many in top-management nevertheless stated that, in terms of ‘scientific quality’, there is no outstanding evidence that investing in gender-specific policies increases the quality of research, which is FAPESP’s main mission. There were, however, differences in opinion by individual interviewees whether this was a positive or negative stance. Compare the above quotation on the informal practices to that by top managers: “FAPESP analyses projects without taking into account the participants’ gender. […] No, gender is not an issue of relevance. Our main focus is to have better research in São Paulo, which will have better and more benefits for the State’s taxpayers.” It is generally difficult to gauge gender imbalance in institutions without a devoted research program on the subject, particularly at large and diverse institutions like FAPESP. According to some indicators such as ‘overall participation of women’ (as measured by, for example, numbers of published papers, assigned bursaries, and research support), FAPESP would appear to be a world-leading institution regarding gender balance.169 However, closer scrutiny of other indicators (e.g. participation of women at higher managerial levels and directorships; participation within certain subject areas) and using a qualitative perspective drawn from women’s lived experience would seem to point to a more complex situation in which gender imbalance is indeed present. Some indicate that concern with gender should not be necessarily internalised, but that the bottom-up approach would help filter those demands through research funded by the institution. There is an internal awareness that FAPESP is part of a structurally sexist society, and that such topics need to be handled with care, in order to defend the institution prestige and position gained through difficult work in the last decades. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). Brazilian society is understood to be structurally sexist, which naturally impacts FAPESP to some degree. FAPESP staff understand this and also perceive the institution as taking steps towards mitigating this, which can also be debated in terms of its effectiveness. We have heard some interesting critiques from FAPESP of the RRI framework being exclusively focused on ‘gender’ and not on wider issues of ‘inequality’ which could be just as important in the Brazilian context, such 168 169

http://www.fapesp.br/8484 http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2017/04/19/em-busca-de-equilibrio/

75

as race and poverty, an important topic in our own research agenda. A top manager thus remarked: “Why does the European Union think gender is more important than poverty and richness? […] In Brazil, it is much more of a problem if the poor participate in science than if women do […] Or in education. Or in being able to take the bus. […] It should rather be ‘inclusion’ as a general category and not just gender.” C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics). The idea of following international best practices, and an intuitive understanding of sexism as a problem in society are probably the best drivers to a broader discussion of gender within the institution. This was pointed out during focus group discussions of RRI gender recommendations: “In [the Internal Report draft] you are drawing attention to an issue of communication, isn’t it? … Maybe we have to think a little about it, to reflect upon it, if it is of interest to us, and if there is a way we can align ourselves to that global discourse about science.” D. Best practices (or bad practices). The adoption of paid maternity leave for student bursaries can be mentioned as good practices. Also, reported informal attention to gender in hiring practices. The lack of more formal or explicit attention to gender inequity can be mentioned as a bad practice. E. Current indicators (if any). There are indicators for the participation of women in FAPESP-funded projects170 and publications. Revista Pesquisa FAPESP discusses gender issues occasionally but using mostly secondary data.171 F. All points of improvement. Although receptiveness to dealing with gender is mixed, since it is perceived by many to be separate from its main mandate (supporting high quality research), we are of the opinion that it would be of interest for FAPESP to reflect further on the topic, given the availability of Brazilian research (much of it supported by FAPESP) which has developed analyses of how gender and science are interrelated beyond the mere presence of women in research careers, or the presence of women in universities. We feel that there could be a more explicit perception of the intrinsic links between gender and scientific performance and quality/excellence, as is the case in other funders. Indeed, one could envisage that the possible links between quality and inclusiveness – not limited to gender – might be a productive way to engage with the subject. We point, for example, to recent research of affirmative action policies in Brazilian public universities that show how increasing inclusivity does not impact quality negatively and in fact has a positive impact (Walter and Melguizo 2018). One possible way for FAPESP to start addressing the issue of gender-balance would be to consider conducting an internal debate on how gender is perceived by its own management: how do scientific leaders from the institutions perceive gender as an issue? This should include researchers (men and women) from different fields (natural, social and other sciences) in order to gain a broader perspective. 170 171

http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2017/09/22/mulheres-na-ciencia-8/ See for example: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2018/03/20/mulheres-docentes-do-ensino-superior/;

76

Given FAPESP’s importance as an international funding agency, there could also be interest to consider how the agency’s policies match to those of other leading agencies around the world. FAPESP could, for example, look into how gender has been incorporated by funding agencies based in leading-science countries (European Commission172; NIH173; NSF174, UKRI175) or in international agencies devoted to social and economic development (UNESCO176, OECD177), in order to begin an internal debate on the possible need to be attentive to gender in some form for the betterment of Brazilian science and society. While we do not suggest that FAPESP needs to follow the example of other agencies that, of course, function in cultural settings different to those of Brazil and Sao Paulo state, gender and other types of inequality are topics that we feel should be set on the table for consideration with research communities. FAPESP could also consult with leading experts on gender in Brazil in order to get a more informed sense on how gender can affect research output and performance in the state of SP. Beyond the already well established quantitative indicators (how many women are performing research, etc.), other indicators might be of interest: average years women take to finish PhDs vs males; presence of women in leading power positions within FAPESP and other funding agencies; proportion of males and females in research careers (progression, prizes, funding awarded by gender, etc.). Some of those might be of relevance to help think how FAPESP funds its own projects and may indicate possible adjustments in review schemes in order to continue producing the top-quality research that is the agency’s central aim. G. Resulting matrix GENDER EQUALITY Aspects of organisations

Structural issues Gender/equality policy documents do not currently exist.

Cultural issues Top-level management opinions, compared to midand ground level operationalisation of gender balancing in practical actions.

Interchange related FAPESP lacks an explicit policy compared to international partners.

Potential drivers for RRI

There are existing concerns and internal discussions; also, some policies are already in place (e.g. maternity leave).

FAPESP already funds genderrelated research and is at least open to dialogue on the relationship between scientific quality and gender/inequality.

FAPESP could be nudged to consider gender issues more explicitly following best practices of other leading funding agencies worldwide. RRI is a potential driver for starting a dialogue.

172

Promoting gender equality in research and innovation, European Commission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/promoting-gender-equality-research-andinnovation 173 National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. URL: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/ 174 National Science Foundation, ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers. URL: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383 175 UK Research and Innovation, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. URL: https://www.ukri.org/about-us/policiesand-standards/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/ 176 UNESCO, actions for gender equality. URL: https://en.unesco.org/genderequality/actions 177 OECD Gender Initiative. URL: http://www.oecd.org/gender/

77

Potential barriers to RRI

High scepticism from top management as to how gender-balance policies could positively affect the primary objective of funding scientific quality.

Gender-imbalance and other inequality issues affect Brazilian society strongly and to some degree permeate FAPESP actions.

No external pressures to adopt gender or diversity policies.

Most important potential organisational actions

Formally interact with leading gender/diversity experts in Brazil. Create more refined indicators for gender and diversity issues.

Promote internal debates on gender and diversity issues as perceived by mid-level management and FAPESP researchers.

Initiate constructive dialogues with communities for whom diversity issues are at stake.

Indicators for success

Number of women in the top deliberative bodies; number of women leaders of CEPIDs and other large scale projects; explicit policies related to gender equity.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

A more explicit policy on how gender and diversity integrate research funding activities Internal documents where the internal debate could be made more public

7.2.5 Open access and open science strategies in the organisation A. There was an overall positive outlook to our queries on the importance and relevance of open access publication in FAPESP-funded research. FAPESP has now steered towards the full openness of the research it funds by including actions such as the payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) to make individual articles OA published in international, English-language commercial journals. We note, however, that given the changing landscape of OA publishing worldwide, not only FAPESP but indeed all funding agencies worldwide face large uncertainties on whether the payment of APCs at current costs is sustainable. In addition to payment of APCs, FAPESP’s has sought and funded important OA alternatives, such as its support for the historically important and innovative Scielo178 journal platform (Scientific Electronic Library Online). State-wide and institutional repositories are important achievements that show institutional commitment to open research.179 Nevertheless, it is also the case that Scielo only captures a limited amount of FAPESP-funded publications and there is, as yet, no formal institutional position or guidelines on how to increase non-Scielo openness, for example through a mandate of deposit in repositories. Scielo staff also pointed out a mismatch between FAPESP’s desirability to increase the production of international publications and Scielo’s catering mostly to a regional (Brazilian and Latin American) readership community. Thus,

178

http://www.scielo.org/php/index.php?lang=en A. L. Packer et al, editors. (2014). SciELO – 15 Anos de Acesso Aberto: um estudo analítico sobre Acesso Aberto e comunicação científica. Paris: UNESCO, 2014. 179

78

though Scielo is an important publication outlet, it only functions in a limited role within the general open publishing ecology. Finally, it is now widely recognised within the open access community and backed up by copious research that funding institutions are by and large the premier sites for the implementation of ‘strong’ mandates that not only suggest but require that new research be made open access through the many possible channels within a fixed timeframe, and no instrument like that yet exists at FAPESP. On open science, we are aware of FAPESP-funded projects that utilize novel mechanisms of scientific production that are fully compatible with open science paradigms and are innovative at an international scale, but as is the case internationally, these are still very limited in numbers (e.g. the Structural Genetics Consortium). B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) A lack of institutional urgency to create hard mandates, but no other institutions outstanding barriers that we are aware of. Culturally, Brazilian researchers in general are still unaccustomed to OA being a de facto dissemination method and the task of educating researchers is not currently a major part of the FAPESP agenda. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) FAPESP is interested in the creation of high quality and high impact research, for which Open Access and Open Science represent possible pathways for achieving this mission. FAPESP top management are well aware that OA represents the future of research dissemination and the advantages associated with it. Also, in funding Scielo there is a keen desire to be a major player in the OA global ecology and a voice for disseminating Latin American quality scholarship. As a public institution, making its research OA is also aligned with making FAPESP funded products a publicly accessible good. D. Best practices (or bad practices). The Scielo portal is a major landmark in open access history and is a leading example of best practices globally. On the other hand, the lack of any kind of institutional mandate for making FAPESP-funded research Open Access – or a clear roadmap for its implementation – is a negative marker, given the known importance of funding agency mandates in producing significant Open Access uptake. E. Current indicators (if any). Scielo operates its own internal indicators based on usage and other more traditional metrics (e.g. citation rates) which reflect the particularities of their regional nature.180 However, no overarching indicators were found for agency-wide monitoring. F. All points of improvement.

180

J. Alperin et al (2014). Open Access Indicators and Scholarly Communications in Latin America. Buenos Aires: CLACSO/UNESCO. Scielo indicators: http://www.scielo.org/php/level.php?lang=en&component=42&item=24

79

FAPESP may consider creating a roadmap of full OA implementation and monitoring. Current international best practices and research in OA implementation strategies consider that institutional goals should be to clearly aim for full OA implementation and within a definite timeframe, for policy to be effective.181 We recommend this course of action, although FAPESP ought naturally to weigh and balance whether full OA implementation is in the agency's best interest. Several strategies are suggested here: 1) Gauge and empirically assess the current state of OA uptake in FAPESP-funded research to have an initial benchmark. Create a monitoring strategy to assess OA uptake across time. 2) Identify existing barriers for implementation: lack of knowledge about OA and its benefits, uncertainties about copyright infringement, disciplinary differences on OA uptake, necessary infrastructure to be OA compliant, etc. 3) From our studies on the current landscape of OA in the Brazilian setting, we highly recommend a repository-led strategy where researchers take an active role in self- archiving their own production. Repositories, we believe, deliver the best value-for-money and with proper considerations for copyright and embargo periods can be quickly populated by introducing and promoting selfarchiving practices. 4) Create a communications strategy to promote OA, i.e. a Revista FAPESP feature and incentives for self-archiving FAPESP-funded research. Initially, self-archiving should be framed as a positive incentive to increase access and visibility of research that is of benefit to researchers themselves. This should nevertheless be coupled with a clear roadmap towards mandatory OA publication. Research has shown that until OA policies are mandatory in research organisations, they remain highly ineffective. 5) Establish dialogue with research communities, including Scielo personnel, in order to understand the pressures and need that scientific communities face regarding OA implementation. Scielo's upcoming preprint server (Scielo Preprints) may offer the best option for commencing a working roadmap to spread self-archiving practices. 6) Create a realistic roadmap to achieve full OA implementation, with the establishment of a strong mandate as the ultimate aim. G. Resulting matrix OPEN ACCESS Aspects of organisations

Structural issues Scielo documentation and indicators, outsourced OA uptake studies. No existing mandates.

Cultural issues Top-level management consultation, Scielo staff positions.

Interchange related FAPESP’s position in an international knowledge ecology in constant exchange.

Potential drivers

Interest from top management in developing an institutional OA policy.

Positive effects on visibility and accessibility of OA research. New generations are more familiar with benefits of OA.

Increased visibility of FAPESP funded research in international science and Scielo’s international reputation.

Potential barriers

Focus on Scielo as unique solution to OA is insufficient to increase uptake.

Benefits of OA still relatively unknown in Brazilian academia. Historical issues with copyright infringement in Brazil and researcher autonomy may

Pressure from commercial publishers and existing ‘big deals’ from national agencies have been known to hinder previous efforts

181

See https://roarmap.eprints.org/

80

curtail the application of strong mandates.

to implement mandates.

Most important potential organisational actions

Assess the state of existing OA uptake. Create a viable roadmap for mandate creation and implementation compatible with FAPESP values and goals.

Educate scientific community on positive aspects of OA and how to make research OA in simple steps.

Create discussions around OA publishing both through Scielo and commercial journals. Look at similar policies in other internationally renowned funding agencies.

Indicators for success

Create definite goals oriented towards implementing mandatory OA policies. Create indicators for FAPESP beyond Scielo.

Increased publication of FAPESP-funded research as OA.

Mandatory deposit policies that are in line with existing embargo periods.

Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programmes

Creation of a program for assessment of Open Access uptake at FAPESP that includes but goes beyond Scielo usage, for example: how much of the totality of FAPESP-funded research is being published as OA? How much money is being spent on Article Processing Charges, if any? How much is being deposited in institutional repositories? Creation of discussion around the need for mandatory Open Access policies and community education to increase uptake. Decide on a roadmap and timeline for implementing such a program.

7.2.6 Science education as integrated in research A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. As a research and innovation funding-focused agency, FAPESP’s most direct impact on science education is through the direct funding of research related to education itself, as well as education-research initiatives. The general outlook appears to be that benefits to science education will come as spill-overs from high quality research. FAPESP additionally funds scholarships in higher education institutions, but these do not directly address science education as a topic in and of itself. There are, however, programs that could be of direct benefit to science educators and that indirectly create science education resources, such as the science journalism Mídia Ciência and its production of publicly accessible science resources. There are also occasional calls for more integrated ‘education plus research’ activities within specific programs, such as BIOTA.182 Since 1996 there is a specific program for supporting research that aims for the improvement of elementary education in SP public schools.183 A similar program is run, since 1998, on research related to bringing public policy closer to societal needs.184 B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics)

182

http://www.fapesp.br/9823 Public School Teaching Program: http://www.fapesp.br/46 184 Public Policy Programme http://www.fapesp.br/60 183

81

As FAPESP is primarily a research funding agency, science education per se is not a primary objective within the agency except as connected to research itself. However, there were no intrinsic barriers we could identify to hinder education related goals. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) FAPESP seems well aware that science education has potential to make research more impactful, though at the moment this is done mostly through funding research that is connected to teaching. There is a dedicated program aimed at improving public teaching185 and developing innovative pedagogies and methodologies for teaching. This program invests in research done in partnership with public schools and aims to have a direct impact on the school itself. D. Best practices (or bad practices). During the focus group several programmes were indicated that relate to science and policy education interests for the development of basic education personnel and for contacting policymakers.186 E. Current indicators (if any). Amount of research funds allocated to public education programs. F. All points of improvement. FAPESP could systematically produce data on how many programs it funds that relate to science education. Beyond publicizing its own research (through vehicles like the magazine, or FAPESP channels at YouTube), FAPESP could get to know in an organised fashion how much money it invests in education projects, and how many programs target this sort of activity as well as gauge concrete results. FAPESP could also produce data on materials produced by such programs: textbooks, videos, podcasts, blogs, media texts, etc. A wide evaluation of what is produced and how would be of great value for strategic decision-making within FAPESP. FAPESP could direct in more explicit ways such programs to produce materials related to science education. Based on previous data-gathering, FAPESP could consult with education experts in order to include in its funding schemes explicit points related to education and impact to a wider audience: certain projects should produce specific materials, for example educational videos or educational texts. Funding schemes related to education could include specific funds for those activities G. Resulting matrix SCIENCE EDUCATION Aspects of organisations

185 186

Structural issues Documentation on existing programs that have an education dimension

Cultural issues Management and researcher perception on role of education in research cycles

Interchange related Possible impact of engaging FAPESP research in educational spaces outside universities

http://www.fapesp.br/46 See above footnotes.

82

Potential drivers

FAPESP has existing programs related to education and research

Many researchers already participate in engagement and educational activities, though not necessarily as part of their research activities

FAPESP has already carried out actions for implementing research directly impacting education and public policy

Potential barriers

No concerted efforts at this point to make education an integral part of the research cycle

Education is not considered as a formal obligation of research or academic culture

Formal links to education at this time appear to be quite weak

Most important potential organisational actions

Production of data on education program impact and more organised efforts on communication and promotion of media products for education.

Give higher value to education initiatives as part of research cycle

Build closer links and participatory exercises with specific education goals

Indicators for success Potential indicator for improved performance of the dimension in the research activities/programme s

-

Better publicize the research performed with schools and interesting results which had positive impact in public schools; Produce more data on how much research with schools was funded, which results emerged and which impacts were most interesting, as a tool for planning.

7.2.7 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions into policies Anticipation and reflexivity A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. Anticipation: We have seen clear evidence of anticipatory practices at FAPESP. The Code of Ethics, for example, was positioned as a tool for anticipatory governance within the organisation and as a tool for balancing uncertainty inherent to independent scientific practice. In the case of open access and open science, there was a clear understanding that while future developments in scientific publication and data practices are uncertain, changes were expected at a global level and as such FAPESP needed to anticipate how they would impact the agency. This was also historically demonstrated in the creation of the Scielo portal, which was funded long before open access was a topic of global concern. In science communication, professionals were also aware that changing practices in communication IT required, for examples, switching from paper-based and traditional mass-media strategies to a stronger online presence. Also, there is a general awareness that given its importance for cooperation with European projects, the agency would benefit from an anticipatory outlook on the implementation of RRI itself. FAPESP investment in themes such as climate change and biodiversity research also point to anticipatory outlooks within the research context itself.

83

Reflexivity: The agency performs regular and publicized evaluation procedures, and management actively uses these and other elements in a constant reflexive practice within the institution. The FAPESP Code of Ethics is a good example of a reflexive exercise in which scientific regulation can be tied to wider debates in which FAPESP’s role as a public institution could then be developed into wider debates of reflexivity in a wider societal sense. In other areas such as gender, affirmative action and other issues on ‘equality’, we consider there is still room for further discussion within FAPESP itself. Also, there is room to engage reflexively with wider publics (outside of the research community) in questions of how research affects society (e.g. broader impacts framework). B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) Although we have evidence that anticipation and reflexivity practices are present in the cultural dimension, structurally there does not seem to be official or explicit mechanisms to implement either principles. Similarly, these practices are limited to the problematics perceived by the FAPESP community and do not necessarily match to the needs of wider publics. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) The collegiate, ‘bottom-up’ approach to governance can be seen as a driver for the incorporation of reflexivity and anticipation in FAPESP. D. Best practices (or bad practices) Elaboration of a clear and complete Code of Good Practice which has had local and national impact; Open Access through Scielo. E. Current indicators (if any) Public reports from evaluations done of FAPESP programs show a constant effort to reflect on its own practices and the impacts actually achieved by the institution, albeit in a manner more attuned to quantitative indicators. The presence of a Code of Ethics and FAPESP demands that research funded by the agency needs to be ethical and in institutions which have good practices policies in place are also indicators of a institutional drive to foster ethical practices beyond its own practices. F. All points of improvement. FAPESP could consider engaging directly with publics outside of research and academia in order to gauge ethical and other concerns emerging from its activities and the research it funds, in partnership with institutions and programs already in place (such as climate change or Biota). These exercises could provide valuable data on future programs and become more explicit and structured anticipatory practices. Openness and transparency A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works As a public institution that sees itself as answering to a mandate for the development of SP, openness and transparency are well institutionalised at FAPESP. The institutional website offers a lot of information and available stats, markers and measures for many of the programs.187

187

http://www.fapesp.br/en/evaluation/

84

Financial information is clearly signposted and detailed188 and the procedures for project evaluation are explained in fine detail.189 The governance model is also well explained.190 Additionally, there are two channels for communicating directly with FAPESP which are considered to be efficient: a formal mechanism for citizens to send complaints, suggestions and enquiries; and a dedicated channel for internal administrative processes and queries.191 There are also directives to enable freedom of information requests for the Foundation. 192 B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) There does not appear to be any major barriers with respect to these points as consistent with FAPESP values, barring the limited role of more general stakeholders in the processes. However, we understand that there are clear and unambiguous reasons why FAPESP does not wish to open up these processes, as communicated to us during the focus groups. In a context of unstable funding and lack of long-term political and public support, FAPESP feels that it needs to protect its autonomy against political interventions or opportunistic meddling in its core activities. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) Both transparency and openness seem well established values and practices within the institutions, related also to its character as a publicly funded organization. D. Best practices (or bad practices) See first section. E. Current indicators (if any) FAPESP offers numerous clear and open financial reporting of its funding activities but lacks a centralised reporting outlet on non-financial matters. The Revista Pesquisa FAPESP is a good community/popular outlet for highlighting results of particular programs, along with other media productions. The public and community communication channels appear effective for both public individuals and the community to communicate with FAPESP about specific needs. F. All points of improvement We consider that through its current practices FAPESP performs very well in the transparency and openness dimensions. FAPESP could consider making this information still more accessible and easy to find in their website, for example, building on the already existing practices. Responsiveness and adaptation A. Description of the practice and its development and an assessment of how well it currently works. 188

http://www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/ http://www.fapesp.br/analise 190 http://www.fapesp.br/gestao 191 http://www.fapesp.br/ouvidoria http://www.fapesp.br/converse/ 192 Portaria PR No. 06/2012. 189

85

Responsiveness was mainly described as FAPESP’s bottom-up approach to funding: most funding was given based on demand from the research community, thus values and demands from society would influence FAPESP through such demand. Seen thus as a permeable institution, management agreed this was relevant, but sought to point out the very specific place FAPESP has in Brazilian society. Also, other specific examples given were the immediate response to start a research agenda soon after the Zika outbreak escalated. The sense is that when an issue is flagged as important by top management there is a strong responsiveness that translates into direct action. Particularly in the ethics and communication keys, responsiveness has seemed to be key for implementing specific policies. Open access is being increasingly viewed as important and this momentum could be built up to translate into actual policy. B. Main barriers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) Albeit relevant, the idea that FAPESP is permeable to societal values and responsive to them through strategic programs or bottom-up demand driven research funding does not contemplate other ways to effectively engage which are used by other agencies. Engaging directly with societal actors (such as public schools in education programs) are crucial elements that could be more valued and publicized within the institutions. C. Main drivers (structural, cultural or related to interchange dynamics) FAPESP management is very keen on learning from global reference institutions and best practices from relevant funders would definitely be important ways to start a conversation on any RRI programs to be implemented. D. Best practices (or bad practices) FAPESP is very permeable to the scientific community, as already expressed by its top management. This translates into quick action when this stakeholder sees urgency or prioritizes certain topics, as the funding responds rapidly to changing priorities within the community and institutions. E. Current indicators (if any) There are no explicit indicators as far as we were able to detect. Already existing funding indicators could be interpreted to show specific responsiveness topics, as for example the Zika network and all Zika related research funded by FAPESP. F. All points of improvement FAPESP could consider integrating more explicit and organized planning for parts of its research funding, to achieve a mix between funding freely demanded by the community and the achievement of specific goals sought by the institution. Other publics and stakeholders (private companies, NGOs, policy actors) could be invited for consultation in specific cases, where responsiveness would demand more voices to be heard.

86

7.2.8 Other concepts used to characterise responsibility in the organisation There is a heterogeneity of views that impinge or have influence on institutional practices at FAPESP, including the wider society in which the agency acts. Firstly, FAPESP’s focus on scientific quality translates, primarily, into a merit-based, hierarchical organisation. There are also internal mechanisms for decision-making consultations with relevant scientific communities. While initial interview with top-management made it seem to be a mostly ‘top-down’ process, workshop participants also pointed to the importance of bottom-up participation by scientists in planning and evaluation of the research agenda. In some issues, there is a wider involvement of non-scientific stakeholders (government, industry). It appears that the vision of direct inclusion beyond the boundaries of scientific community (e.g. exercises in public consultation, ‘town hall’ meetings and other similar participatory activities) does not, however, resonate with FAPESP procedures.

7.3 Reflection on Review findings, Outlooks developed and ways forward 7.3.1 The integrated or fragmented nature of different responsibility related dimensions Some issues to consider: -

-

-

-

The different keys are often separated, though instantiations of how each of the practices reflects aspects of responsibility varies slightly for each key. FAPESP’s conceptualisation of responsibility is much more rigid than in the research conducting case study, hinging very strongly on its stress on ‘scientific quality’ as the main institutional value. We do not have sufficient information to probe temporal changes. FAPESP prides itself on being a highly autonomous and quality-focused agency. Although national priorities and grand challenges also affect FAPESP policy, it is also likely that as a paradigm of Brazilian science FAPESP is also important in defining national policy. Ethics and open access are the strongest keys, while engagement is only indirectly present. Science education is not a primary concern due to FAPESP’s research-oriented mission, and gender/equality issues have a very low or negligible priority. Due to FAPESP’s request to draw back from a strongly normative perspective, no areas were given particular stress in the outlook.

7.3.2 Common barriers or drivers A common barrier for the implementation of RRI at FAPESP was the perception of the framework as a ready-made formula, too theoretical, thus without actual evidence of it producing desired results in terms of making science better, increasing impact or producing benefits to wider society as a whole. Also, the perception that it is, aside from theoretical, produced outside of Brazil and wanting to impose itself was also a barrier to this debate with the institution. Common drivers are some structural characteristics of the institution. FAPESP, like UNICAMP, perceives of itself as a public institution, thus fully accountable to wider society. The close ties it has with the São Paulo scientific community and its concerns with producing excellent science and 87

positive social impact are drivers for all keys. FAPESP’s bottom-up approach to funding can, therefore, become a driver if RRI principles emerge as a concern among researchers in São Paulo universities. Also, FAPESP’s wish to engage with other global funders of relevance can be a driver is RRI starts to become a language through which other global institutions deal with science-society relationships and “impact”. The OA key was clearly more recognized as a priority and was on the agenda well before this was put forth by RRI or became an issue globally. This has to do with local specificities, but it also speaks to how this can become a driver for other aspects of RRI.

7.3.3 Final reflections and plan for follow-up The process of working with FAPESP was extremely enriching and a mutual learning experience. As already stated, FAPESP was not keen on binding itself to specific outlooks or work plans. It feels it already performs extensive evaluations of its activities, all of which publicly available. Also, it feels that adopting a theoretical value-based framework originating from outside Brazil was not adequate. There is a myriad practice within FAPESP that could be framed as RRI by other means, and which come close to what such practices would look like if “adapted” to the local context (i.e. good practices code and the FAPESP approach to research ethics), and there are initiatives which could be scaled up globally (i.e. the Scielo portal). A main finding here is that a funder like FAPESP will not adopt, or even pay attention to any form of RRI framework if it is not seen as a tool to further their mission of delivering high quality science with positive impacts to broader society. Although explicitly RRI states that as its goal, it was not clear to the agency concretely how adopting what we may call European RRI (the 5 keys) would lead to concrete and measurable results.

8 Summary of findings on each responsibility dimension In sum, we found that RRI as such, albeit largely unknown, generated great interest in the Brazilian research community. This was perceptible both through our direct contacts through this project, but also through the interest in talks and public events related to RRI in which we were able to participate. We believe the principles of RRI have a great potential to start a conversation in Brazil around what responsibility and social impact can mean, as it has done in academic debates, but also that RRI has limited potential to have direct impact if it remains a set of theoretical or moral principles which are perceived as foreign. Although in Brazil there is an urgency to discuss the place of science in society, and to rethink that relationship (therefore, there is a wide window of opportunity to start discussions on RRI-related principles and institutional actions), there is also a mistrust in foreign models or anything that would seem like an imposition from the outside. It is important that any action to take RRI to institutions be able to show how it will further the institution’s mission, and how it relates to local concerns and objectives. There are many points of convergence between local needs and perceptions with the RRI framework, and the idea of making science more aligned with societal values and needs has a great acceptance in the local research community. Especially in the sense that science is perceived to be a public endeavour (both publicly funded, and developed in public institutions), it is also seen as very important that is has the most impact in terms of societal benefit. But the ways to arrive at those

88

impacts can become a barrier depending on how any RRI project approaches local institutions and stakeholders.

8.1 The concept of responsibility The idea of responsibility is not discussed as such in the terms put forth by European RRI, albeit the idea of being responsible to society was immediately understood and accepted by local actors. Being responsible has local meanings, however, not always in line with specific policies related to European concepts or practices. Regulation from above imposing specific views are largely rejected, especially if seen as theoretical, abstract or foreign (thus dissociated from local needs and practices). There is already a much-consolidated idea that public science and public institutions need to be responsible to society, in terms of producing benefits and positive impact. But the idea of somehow incorporating specific policies upstream of already in place protocols was not always perceived positively. There is a widespread view that “quality” science would by itself produce positive impact, but there are pressures from different places to widen this view of science, through demands for more inclusion and diversity, for example. RRI would benefit from engaging with these local movements and perceptions in order to become part of current meanings and practices of sciencesociety in Brazil

8.2 The notion of ‘RRI’ The notion of RRI is largely non-existent and widely unknown in Brazil, but it did generate a lot of interest, and was received positively when presented to scientists and other audiences within institutions and in wider publics. It generated special interest in terms of its perceived potential to offer practical, concrete ways to quickly implement actions that would increase (positive) social impact, which would be also traceable and measurable. But it also generated negative perceptions of being too theoretical and lacking real-life experience or examples of success.

8.3 Ethics Ethics in Brazil thus far is practiced and understood through widespread ideas of international ethics protocols which should be followed in order to guarantee protection for human and animal subjects. There is a solid institutional framework to guarantee ethical research practices in the country, and there are codified and clear definitions of how this works. But there is little debate about ethics in science outside of these strict protocols. Wider ideas of the ethics of specific technologies (nano or biotec) are not as common and are discussed in specific communities (such as STS scholars) or by very few institutional actors. There is a fear of such debates becoming a barrier to science (in terms of slowing down innovation or putting unwanted pressure on scientists) or impinging on institutional and individual autonomy. This has to be understood in the local context, where science is being defunded in recent years and historically does not enjoy a central place in political or social agendas. In spite of constant efforts by the scientific community to establish itself as a relevant part of the national budget, there are clear swings correlated with political tides which make it difficult for longer term projects and have hurt the prospects of Brazil’s scientific and technological effort.

8.4 Societal engagement Perceived as important to science, engaging with publics is not a common practice in general. The more common modus operandi is protecting the ‘republic of science’ approach, whereby scientists and their institutions enjoy and value a large quantum of autonomy and freedom to define priorities and pursue their interests. Decision-making on the national level usually does not engage publics 89

beyond the scientific community, and sometimes ignore even scientists against their interests. However, institutions like universities have a wide array of actions (outreach and other channels) to engage with society on a regular basis, which are not always perceived as efficient or well explored or valued internally. Engagement sometimes evokes fears of letting in publics which are contrary to science and its institutional and social norms, which refers back to the long dispute to establish science as a sustained effort within society and political priorities. Widening engagement depends on consolidating more open and democratic institutions (and social values), but also on the idea that this would not lead to more challenges to science and scientists.

8.5 Gender equality and diversity strategies Gender was a controversial topic in our research and was sometimes perceived as a “non-issue”, other times understood to be central to current science and its challenges. Brazil is a structurally sexist and racist society, besides being one of the most unequal countries in the world in socioeconomic terms. There are therefore important pressures on universities specially to become less elitist and more inclusive, less sexist and safer for women and minorities. There is a recent push to institutionalize affirmative action, after decades of public controversy, and racial diversity is becoming more accepted and perceived to be a priority. There was rejection by many of the idea that gender by itself should be a central concern separated from other diversity issues, but this topic is also sometimes seen as exogenous to science and its practices and norms.

8.6 Open access and open science strategies Open Access is widely valued and accepted as crucial by Brazilian scientists and institutions. It is perceived as a way to practice in full the ideal of a public science that is democratically accessible; but it also is seen as s strategy to increase Brazil’s visibility worldwide. It has established internationally recognized examples such as Scielo, but in terms of laws and norms it is still being discussed and is not fully implemented.

8.7 The inclusion of science education into research Although widely perceived as important and relevant, science education as part of research is not as common as it could be. This stems from lack of resources, but also from a vision that, like gender, education is wholly separate from research (which should be kept separate and have its autonomy protected).

8.8 Incorporation of AIRR dimensions AIRR dimensions were the most difficult to discuss, but which also generated some of the more interesting debates with the institutions. They were sometimes hard to grasp or understand but were also sometimes seen as close to how Brazilian institutions saw themselves and thought their values were.

8.8.1 Diversity and inclusion These are values which are currently emerging as increasingly important in Brazil, due to pressures to make universities more diverse and more inclusive. Many universities have begun to adopt affirmative action policies, and the idea of a more inclusive university has endured the swing to more conservative social values since 2016. But this is a disputed dimension of science in Brazil, as many see science as a realm that should be kept separate from social disputes and politics. There are many intellectuals and activists in Brazil which for decades have fought and thought about a more inclusive science and technology landscape, but official and established institutions are usually more top-down and technocratic. 90

8.8.2 Anticipation and reflexivity There are many instances where reflexivity is practiced and seen as relevant, but in different terms than those of how RRI is understood and codified in Europe. There are very few instances of these values being practiced in full, or in a manner close to what RRI discusses (e.g. open access is a good example), but there are groups which have called for more reflection and more anticipation in science and technology (including critical intellectuals, unions and groups connected to outreach and work with marginalised populations). The disputes here are less marked than with the issues of social inclusion and diversity, as they sometimes evoke the danger of letting anti-science sentiments contaminate an already fragile undertaking. In a country with very unstable and uncertain support for science historically speaking (but also on the short term), any attempts that could be perceived as posing a danger to institutional autonomy can also be read as posing a danger to scientific activity itself, through political meddling and other interventions which could deviate research from producing high quality science.

8.8.3 Openness and transparency These are values fully supported and perceived as crucial to science, understood and practiced sa a public endeavour, accountable to wider society and with one of its missions to produce knowledge and positive impact.

8.8.4 Responsiveness and adaptation Responsiveness was an aspect of science which was more practiced than codified: there were several instances where one could see the potential for Brazilian scientists and institutions to rally around specific topics or a crisis (like the Zika outbreak) and quickly mobilize resources and act in a manner more flexible than usual everyday situations. But on paper, Brazilian science looks very rigid and hard to adapt, and there are many indications of the difficulties researchers face in trying to keep up with other more agile institutions (usually in industrialized countries and with much more resources). The values held by many about what it means to be a public servant or to be at the service of public science help explain many examples of adaptiveness, but these many times depend on specific people or circumstances are not always a structural aspect of institutions.

9 Discussion of findings To finalize the report, we wish to reiterate the perception that while RRI may face important challenges and barriers to become relevant in contexts outside of Western Europe, due to local specificities and cultures, it does present relevant points of contact with already existing “responsibility cultures” and perceptions of how science and technology can become more aligned with societal values and needs. These can be both explored to further expand the reach of the discussion and to implement concrete policies in order to promote institutional change in Brazil. However, any changes or discussions perceived to be undue interference, especially coming from foreign institutions and groups, will be resisted and have a more difficult time engaging with local institutions and researchers. This is due to both the idea that research needs autonomy to thrive and produce good results, and also to the local disputes around the place of science and innovation in Brazilian society. Historically, the country has seen drastic fluctuations in funding and loss of prestige of science and technology in national politics, which make it hard to produce sustainable and impactful science and innovation. Also, the uncertain place science and technology have had as priorities for national and regional policy-makers and politicians places an extra 91

challenge on any frameworks which may be perceived by some as a threat to independent and strong science. For RRI to have any meaningful engagement with local institutions and stakeholders, it will need to make clear that it will not open up the country’s institutions to undue meddling, exogenous interference and parochial interests. One important ally of responsibility in general is the ethics around public research, public institutions and the need to answer to society through promoting positive impacts. Brazil has a strong, consolidated structure of public research, albeit currently under threat by recession, political turmoil and a generalised rise of anti-left sentiment in parts of the population. This strong culture of public research is also a culture of responsibility: researchers and funders understand that, as public institutions, they need to answer to society through excellent performance, promoting positive impacts (be they economic development through more innovation, or better inclusion through more appropriate technologies, or better health, among others) and promoting a wider public good that goes beyond immediate results and careers. This sense of a necessary accountability to society is a strong set of values which, in our understanding, align well with RRI’s broader philosophical goals of helping steer research and innovations towards greater responsibility for the present and especially the future. Public research in Brazil is far from perfect, as is true in any country. But it has demonstrated important results in terms of producing excellent science and technology; promoting open access solutions that have become global examples; helped alleviate gender inequality in research in a structurally sexist country and region; helped establish concrete policies to begin making research institutions more diverse and inclusive (e.g. through racial quotas); promoted engagement through outreach activities; established a strong structure for promoting ethics in science; and have helped produce billions of euros in revenue through concrete impact in the Brazilian economy. Therefore, it promotes a stable and concrete basis for the construction of local, binding perceptions and policy tools to enact actual responsibility in locally relevant terms.

10 Conclusions 10.1 Policy recommendations to national policy makers The recommendations below include a set of general principles, and a set of more specific ideas related to the RRI keys. The general recommendations are relevant here in order to respond to the more general AIRR dimensions of RRI, without which the keys remain, in our perception, excessively narrow and potentially less effectively in their potential to steer science and technology towards greater responsibility. -

-

Strengthen public research institutions: Brazil’s successes in science and technology have been mostly connected to strong public research institutions and public research ethics, which have built a solid and stable arena for the production of knowledge with positive social impact. The values and practices associated with and fostered by public institutions in the last decades have enabled technical progress, human resource training and increased knowledge invaluable to confronting the challenges posed by present and future demands. We believe responsibility is more achievable in Brazil through strengthening already existing public research ethics and modes of governance; More democratic deliberation: Priorities for science and technology policy should be decided through processes involving a broader base of stakeholders beyond academic 92

-

-

experts/university professors, in order to become more diverse and democratic. Actors from inside and outside academia should be able to contribute and be heard. Planning should discuss priorities and viewpoints from institutions and publics interested in and/or affected by science and technology in order to make decisions more democratic and also more legitimate politically; Sustainable funding in the long term: Science should become a more central concern in policy agendas, nationally and locally (both state and municipal levels). Science and technology need more stable and sustainable funding in the long term, permitting more ambitious projects with more impact to be developed which do not depend on negotiating through parochial interests and short-term priorities; Make public research more inclusive and agile: Less stifling bureaucracy, increased transparency and more inclusive governance can help public institutions increase legitimacy and become more attuned to social perceptions and needs. Institutions should be better able to mobilize resources to face emergent social problems and have closer contact with broader society in order to be able to detect and respond to such challenges, always within their scope of action and without risking their autonomy.

Some more specific recommendations are: -

-

-

Work towards greater gender equity/diversity/inclusion: national institutions could establish concrete and measurable goals to include more women in leadership positions, as women are already present in the student body and in publications. Also, racial/ethnic quotas have become established and proven to be effective in increasing diversity and making research institutions more diverse. Policies to promote more diversity achieve much more than include minorities or excluded majorities (e.g. women and non-whites): they also can help foster a richer and more diverse environment for science and innovation, promoting potentially more innovative and more responsible solutions, research projects, ideas and indicators. Establish clear open access policies: repository led policies for open access should be incorporated into national policies for scientific publications. The current CAPES investment in paying for private publishers should be critically assessed also as part of a broader discussion of access to knowledge. Diversify and broaden evaluations: evaluations, both of individual researchers, graduate programs and institutions have become overly focused on narrow indicators like number of papers published and other outputs. Notwithstanding the importance of quantitative indicators related to such outputs, evaluations should take into account in a clearer way other variables. These may include indicators related to broader social impacts, like patents, concrete impacts in local communities (technologies transferred, courses taught, or other activities developed), media and communication materials produced and disseminated, among other potentially more diverse indicators. A broader and more diverse evaluation process which balances quantitative outputs with more qualitative indicators can offer more robust ways to assess impacts and increase responsibility.

10.2 Policy recommendations to European policy makers For European policy makers, some recommendations are:

93

-

-

Diversify evaluation procedures: Europe should lead in including more diverse criteria than publication metrics into evaluations, both for careers and for institutional reviews. This can help implement RRI more concretely in institutions, mitigating a major barrier in many contexts, which is that RRI-related activities are not especially valued or do not allow for career progression. Also, an European lead would help legitimize this principle to other countries, which would tend to look at more established institutions before adopting institutional innovations. Especially in Brazil, it would be difficult to be inspired by abstract principles which are not linked to practices which can demonstrate palpable results. Implement concrete open access/open science policies: Europe should also lead the global conversation on both open access and open science, by implementing policies like institutional repositories and establishing a counterpoint to powerful private publishers, as some countries have already started doing. European universities have more clout and can exert more influence over such private actors than those of other countries, especially those in the Global South; thus Europe-wide pressure (as opposed to individual countries) can also help to lead a more global movement towards enabling freer access to knowledge and scientific data.

10.3 Recommendations to research conducting and funding organisations -

-

-

Produce more (and better) data: recommendations made above relating to gender, diversity, open access, and science education pertain to having a clearer vision of the problems facing institutions: indicators such as presence of women in leadership positions; quantity of science education programs and their reach; quantity of documents available in open access, etc. are all valuable data that would enable a better picture of what the state of the art is in each area, thus helping to find better solutions to these problems. The choice of what to measure and how to do so are deeply significant and political, and so producing more data on variables such as gender/diversity, or engagement can help bring forth issues that were not on the radar without such data being available in the first place. Engage with wider publics: Another set of recommendations pertain to how decisions are made and who is consulted about them: conducting engagement workshops, consulting a wider set of publics beyond academia to establish priorities in science policy; working closer with publics in measuring impacts beyond papers and academic products, among others. Brazil’s reliance on the scientific community exclusively to make decisions on science has left out of the conversation the private sector, organized civil society, and citizens concerned and interested in science and technology. A broader set of stakeholders could help arrive at better and more democratically accepted solutions. It would also help to make them much more legitimate, mitigating a very clear and pressing problem of public support for expenditures in science and for the values of scientific curiosity and debate. Make values and policies more explicit: many times, actions and practices exist which are unavailable to wider audiences, unseen or undetected. Better communication of institutional values (through explicit codes of ethics, for example) would help accountability and democratic debate; also, better communication with wider society (through public communication channels) would help a legitimacy issue around the high costs of maintaining public research institutions in a context of deep inequality and political-economic crisis.

10.4 Best practices scalable to European or national level We feel that the Scielo portal, or a similar solution to making scientific knowledge available is the most consolidated policy that could be scalable to European or global level. A portal that makes available all scientific production that is publicly funded, manages to also create a space for increased 94

quality in local publications (through standardised procedures and measures of impact) could be used for country specific cases within the EU, but also could become an EU-wide portal for such production. The EU produces massive amounts of data and scientific papers and invests much more public resources in science and research than Brazil. Such a tool would make this investment more available to the scientific and the broader community, helping to also make such science more publicly accountable and more able to circulate through the EU and globally. Another value (and not a specific policy or practice) that could be scalable at the EU level is diversity in its many levels: sexuality, race, ethnicity, national origin, etc. Brazil’s population is ethnically and racially diverse, and this diversity is part of how the country understands itself as a nation ever since the 19th Century, as in other places in Latin America and even in North America. Dealing with the drastic inequalities that are inextricable from this racial, ethnic and cultural diversity has been a point of dispute in Brazil since at least the 1960s, and since the year 2000 there has been concrete implementation of policies to try to mitigate the absence of large portions of the Brazilian populations from spaces where science and technology are produces, crucially in public universities. Albeit in very different terms, the EU also deals with intense social and political conflicts that relate to diversity: the recent rise in xenophobic sentiments in many European countries is associated with the rise to power of conservative and extreme-right wing politicians and parties. How to incorporate diversity into European cultures and how to reimagine the European public beyond traditional ideas of homogeneity are a deep challenge in the present and in the near future. Research institutions in the EU wuld gain from expanding concerns with responsibility beyond gender inequality, incorporating more explicitly ideas of actively promoting diversity (including racial, ethnic, national origin, and others). As a culturally diverse transnational space, the EU can become much more inclusive and responsible in science and technology through incorporating debates and policies related to tolerance to and promotion of diversity.

95

REFERENCES Batista, K. T., Andrade, R. R. D., & Bezerra, N. L. (2012). O papel dos comitês de ética em pesquisa. Rev Bras Cir Plást, 27(1), 150-5. Cavalcanti, M., & Neto, A. P. (2014). Inovação tecnológica no Brasil: há uma pedra no meio do caminho│ Technological innovation in Brazil: it has a stone on the way. Liinc em Revista, 10(2), 726-41. C. G da Silva, L. C. P. de Melo, coord. (2001). Livro Verde: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Desafios para a Sociedade Brasileira. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). Esteves, K., & Feldmann, P. R. (2016). Why Brazil does not innovate: a comparison among nations. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(1), 29-38. FAPESP (2014). Code of good scientific practice (English translation). São Paulo: São Paulo Research Foundation. http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESPCode_of_Good_Scientific_Practice_2014.pdf MCT (2002). Livro Branco: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI). MCT (2006). 3a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação : síntese das conclusões e recomendações. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). MCTI (2010). LIVRO AZUL: 4a Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT). MCTIC (2016). Estratégia Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, 2016-2022: Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Brasília: Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications. Monaco, C. A. S. L. (2017). Desafios e controvérsias na proposição de uma política mandatária de acesso aberto (AA) no Brasil. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. State University of Campinas, UNICAMP. Motoyama, S. (1999). FAPESP: Uma história de política científica e tecnológica. São Paulo: FAPESP. Vessuri, H M. C. (1988). The universities, scientific research and the national interest in Latin America, Minerva, 24: 1-38. Wainer, J., & Melguizo, T. (2018). Políticas de inclusão no ensino superior: avaliação do desempenho dos alunos baseado no Enade de 2012 a 2014. Educação e Pesquisa, 44, e162807. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1517-9702201612162807

96