It's almost a cliché, but it's important to keep emphasizing until it's very clear to everyone: today, one of the main factors — if not the main one — for technological advancement and, therefore, for a significant part of people's well-being depends on science.
These discoveries, for example, allowed for a significant increase in agricultural productivity in Brazil, largely due to research byJohanna DöbereinerDecades ago, she was able to fix nitrogen in plants, simply removing it from the air, without needing to spend billions of dollars.
More recently,Mariangela Hungria, inEmbrapa, also brought significant advances, studying bacteria that promote plant growth.
In urban areas, the use of personal transportation apps has increased — such as private cars (Waze), rental car (Uber) — or even for food delivery (iFood), all of this depends on the phone and the networks, which also owe to science.
Our prosperity, both individual and collective, depends on science. Therefore, the question that hangs in the balance on the eve of the elections is:
Which candidate is most favorable to science?
Let's start by remembering an important fact: theBolsonaro government, the father of one of the candidates, was ruthless towards the scientific area.Withdrew a substantial portion of the funds allocated to the National Fund for Scientific and Technological DevelopmentCut funding from agencies such asCapesandCNPq.
Furthermore, almost all Brazilian science is conducted in public universities, that is, in federal and some state universities, particularly those in São Paulo, without forgetting those in Paraná and Rio de Janeiro.
Indeed, federal universities were treated very harshly by the previous government, not only with significant budget cuts, but also with insults.
One of itsministers of Education said, without evidence, that they were "areas of chaos".The other ministers disregarded how much they contribute to scientific advancement.
All of this has delayed our scientific development and, with it, our economy and, of course, the country's future.
For these reasons, the conversations I have been having in the scientific community make it clear that there is strong opposition to Bolsonaro, whom they see as having an aversion to science.
On the other hand, both the governmentsLula 1 and 2as twoDilma governments— being thatI had the honor of participating in the second, even briefly, as Minister of Education — and now the Lula government 3, have made every effort to increase these funds.
This is still not enough for Brazil to take off as a scientific power, but at least it followed the right path. Therefore, there is strong support in the community for the re-election of President Lula.
But there is an important novelty. In the previous legislature, we had for the first time a deputy – although briefly, becauseRicardo Galvão (SP)he was a substitute and only held the position for a few months – who came from the field of science.
Yes, before him, we had prominent scientists in the Chamber, such asFlorestan Fernandes, and in the Senate, asDarcy Ribeiro, but that sociologist and that anthropologist were there as politicians, more than in the name of a scientific bench.
And this time we have candidates, at least in São Paulo, where Galvão is trying for a term, and in Rio de Janeiro, where they are competingNísia Trindade, former Health Minister,Tatiana Roque, former Municipal Secretary of Science and Technology, andCelso Pansera, former Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation. We have the opportunity, for the first time, to elect a plural scientific bench; we should not miss this chance.
Renato Janine Ribeiro received, like thousands of scientists, funding from CNPq and Fapesp. He was president and is affiliated with SBPC, as well as a member of ABC and ACIESP, entities that bring together scientists.