As I write this letter, I do not know the identity of the addressee. But as a scientist by training, author and professor of science for public policy, I know that a president-elect, if he truly cares about the fate of the country and the well-being of its people, will face significant challenges, the solutions of which depend on the good use of scientific evidence, and a dose of courage to use it.
Calling for “respect for science” is not just a cliché to try to secure public funding for research, which is essential. It’s not just about respecting the scientific community either. It’s about respecting the use of scientific evidence in public policy, a slogan that unfortunately runs the risk of becoming an empty buzzword, a popular catchphrase. Telling people to “believe” in science and/or scientists is not necessarily educational. It is important to make clear that the power of science does not lie in the white coat, but in the process of empirical investigation, open to corrections in the face of new evidence and qualified criticism. This process allows us to understand reality and responsibly assess the consequences of our actions and omissions.
Mobilizing this process in the formulation of public policy is the best conceivable practice of respecting science. Mr. President, the country that elected you is reaping the bitter fruits of continued denial of science and reality. The rate of deforestation in the Amazon was 80% higher in 2022 than it was in 2018.
Vaccination coverage has never been so low. Child vaccines are well below target, putting the country on the brink of seeing a resurgence of diseases such as polio, measles and whooping cough. The National Immunization Program (PNI) urgently needs to be rebuilt, with an adequate budget for national campaigns. The growing frequency of vaccines and the emergence of networks and associations that cultivate terrorism threaten what was once considered one of the best immunization programs in the world.
You receive one health system, our SUS, which has demonstrated extreme efficiency during the Covid19 pandemic, but also brings challenges in finance and logistics, and carries a heavy burden for practices that have no scientific backing.
Agriculture, embroiled in an ideological dispute where one side believes that environmental responsibility is a luxury, and the other believes that we can ensure productivity without biotechnology or pesticides, urgently needs sober science-based regulation that ensures much less predatory activity while making better use of the natural resources that It is clearly limited.
Large-scale animal husbandry, which is responsible for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, must be gradually replaced by biotech-based alternatives. Antibiotic resistance from indiscriminate use in poultry farming also requires attention. Finally, the pandemic has demonstrated the need to invest in strategies to deal with outbreaks of infectious diseases: surveillance, detection, response and risk reporting.
The Brazilian government does not have a position as an advisor or scientific advisor to the president, a position already filled by Nobel Prize winners in the United States. Changing the country’s view of science – as well as the need for public policy for science, and the need for science for public policy – can determine the future of the nation. I don’t know, but the reader of O Globo knows to whom these words are directed. Thus, it is the reader who must decide whether or not I am wasting my time (and newspaper space). You, there on Monday, who knows if there is hope. I hope so. The country has suffered enough.
source: the scientist
“Wannabe internet buff. Future teen idol. Hardcore zombie guru. Gamer. Avid creator. Entrepreneur. Bacon ninja.”