Science and Society | Opinion

Talking about science policy in its various aspects becomes repetitive, with similar texts being written in the same places by different people with years of experience, just because the basic issues remain the same. From the national to the international context; from the way science is conducted and financed, to the strategies for its dissemination and the criteria for its evaluation.

It is true that there are always adjustments to be made, and in addition to the main topics already mentioned (climate change, artificial intelligence, microplastics), there is an emerging trend that reflects the current situation in Europe, where research will be carried out, regardless of personal positions. Giving greater priority to defence, security or dual-use projects (“Double Use of research“, in English), that is, research whose results may have both civilian and military applications.

But apart from the inevitable ups and downs, it is increasingly important to include the citizens whom science is supposed to serve. This does not mean in any way neglecting basic research, the results of which are impossible to predict, and which is essential precisely for this reason. But it must, in addition to being supported, be explained properly. Above all, it must be explained in a way that includes society, and not in a professorial tone for passive recipients, which in scientific communication is called the “deficit model”. No matter how well-intentioned one is, there is always a sense of some arrogance in this type of initiative, which can alienate the people it is aimed at, and end up crystallizing into a bubble that includes only those who have already converted.

It is important to understand that this connection to society goes beyond technological solutions, which, even when proven successful, must have a lasting (and global) social integration that makes them effective in the long term. Especially since the so-called scientific “magic bullet” to solve problems immediately is not only very rare, but also tends not to be decisive.

A good example of this is the discovery of penicillin and other similar molecules, which, thanks to their success, led to their indiscriminate use (the false safety implied by the concept of a “magic bullet”), which led to the emergence of the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance, the creation of pathogens that are increasingly difficult to control microorganisms and pose a serious challenge to public health.

It may not be easy or linear. Not only are there researchers who don’t have a career for this type of task (that’s okay, we don’t all have to do the same thing), but there are problems that are difficult to break down into short-term, solvable tasks, where one can see the immediate impact of specific actions (starting with combating climate change).

But there are steps that can be taken. From now on, make these activities part of the training of young researchers. Then, involve companies, citizens’ associations, local and national governments (forming a so-called “quadruple helix” in collaboration with academia) in concrete, logical projects. And involve them not only, and this is crucial, as implementers, but as co-creators, helping to design solutions and evaluate their impact.

For example, in the projects on nutrition and metabolic diseases “PasGras” and Mushrooms: From the Meadow to Dish”Both are conducted at the University of Coimbra. Eating habits from kindergarten onwards are studied by sociologists and psychologists, while athletes and sports science researchers monitor exercise regimes; and doctors, biologists and biochemists evaluate diets or the nutritional value of less common, promising foods.

But it is also necessary, in parallel, that producers frame this information through their experience on the ground (separating utopia from what is achievable), or that new recipes are disseminated with the participation of chefs and canteens, with campaigns planned with the help of food associations, teachers, artists, cultural agents and local authorities. In a permanent dialogue that recognizes the importance of disciplinary boundaries and goes beyond them.

From these activities, even a “Fraternity of Mushrooms and Truffles” (headquartered in Melhada) could be born organically, with the participation of scientists, producers and other citizens, which would perhaps prolong dialogues and projects, creating what we should all want: sustainability beyond tangible money, always uncertain and unpredictable.

It is true that these projects can also produce (and do produce) “classic” scientific articles, but that is not the main goal. Science should be a permanent and integral part of a wider community, not an obscure tool behind a glass that says “don’t break unless you’re in an emergency.” The old idea that we shouldn’t neglect the local, especially when our ambition is global, and it should be global.

The author writes according to the new spelling convention.