In Brazil, one of the biggest difficulties when discussing science and its role in areas such as health, agriculture and energy is knowing where the data is. How can you tell if the evidence behind public policies is the most solid available? Are lobbies in certain sectors weighing more than good studies when it comes to applying public resources?
With the aim of answering these and other questions, the Science Policy Observatory will be launched in March. This is an initiative of the IQC (Instituto Questão de Ciência), supported by the Serrapilheira Institute and other partners.
The IQC is an organization founded in 2018 that defends the role of science in decision-making in the public sector. Serrapilheira, launched in 2017, is the first private institution in the country to promote science, and also finances scientific dissemination initiatives.
THE sheet had first-hand access to the details of the project. For the first 12 months of operation of the new observatory, the total contribution will be R$ 1 million.
“Information about science has always been the flagship of the IQC, but with the creation of the observatory, we balance this activity by giving more weight to the area of ​​public policies”, microbiologist Natália Pasternak, president of the organization, tells the report.
In practice, the observatory must produce thematic reports, audiovisual resources, such as videos and podcasts, and dashboards (virtual panels with metrics and indicators) on scientific policies.
At the start of the dashboard, there should be information on federal investment in science and technology, year by year, in corrected values, among other graphs and scores. The expectation is that, by bringing a “common language” to society, the scientific community and politicians, discussions and debates involving science will gain fluidity.
“The project was born from a proposal by IQC, an organization that brings together important skills, such as scientific knowledge and communication skills, a very powerful combination that is difficult to find”, says Natasha Felizi, director of scientific dissemination at Serrapilheira.
“The observatory will contribute to many agendas, in different themes. We will get to know the problems better and qualify the discussions, making them more purposeful and evidence-based”, he adds.
In the pilot’s seat of the new observatory is Paulo Almeida, executive director of the IQC. He has a background in law and psychology and is a professional in the area of ​​public management of science.
“In Brazil, there is a great institutional permeability to nonsense; bad evidence is consolidated through official bodies, not through correct public debate, with evidence. Take the example of phosphoethanolamine: a bill ran over health authorities. with other things —ozone therapy, family constellation and others. An evaluation filter is lacking”, he says.
In Almeida’s view, the interaction of society, scientists and scientific entities with politicians on topics of interest to the country is often ineffective. “There are always notes of repudiation, but it is rarely possible to change what is going on in Parliament, for example.”
One example, he recalls, is the Biodiversity Law (13,123/2015). The requirements of the final text took many researchers and even companies by surprise.
A strict control mechanism for the exploitation of biodiversity has made many scientists considered traffickers, for example, when obtaining and cataloging new species. Even representatives of the chemical and cosmetic industries criticized the rule.
“Governmental relations were lacking, there was no follow-up scheme so as not to be taken by surprise”, says Almeida.
In Brazil there is a great institutional permeability to nonsense; bad evidence is consolidated through official instances, not through correct public debate, with evidence. Take the example of phosphoethanolamine: a bill ran over health authorities. Missing a rating filter
To build dashboards, reports and other products, the director of the IQC will have the support of a dozen professionals within a fixed team, with political analysts, statisticians, lawyers and data scientists.
For each topic studied or report, other specialists will join the class, on a temporary basis. And all the work will be accompanied by a council of experts, still in training.
The Science Policy Observatory should also promote courses, both for scientists with the intention of becoming advisors within the public sector and for managers who want to learn how science works, in order to guide decisions according to the evidence (or lack of from them).
There will also be a glossary within the scope of the observatory, a kind of Wikipedia of scientific policy with terms that are important for these discussions: PPA (multi-annual plan); LDO (Budget Guidelines Law), LOA (Annual Budget Law), FNDCT (National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development), among others.
