The exhibitor will be the Italian researcher Tatiana Bazzichelli, who studies the relationship between artistic manifestations and the business of social media. The conference will be held in Italian with consecutive translation by Massimo Canevacci, visiting Professor at IEA.

At the event, Bazzichelli will talk about the conditions for hacker and artistic practices on Web 2.0 and how social networks can develop and incorporate these digital culture practices. Examples of network art and hacking in California and Europe that challenge the notions of power and hegemony will also be presented.

Bazzichelli is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center of Digital Media’s Innovation Incubator of the Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany, and holds a PhD in Media Studies and Information from Aarhus University, Denmark. She is also a member of the curatorial team of Transmediale Festival Berlin and author of Networking. La rete come arte (2006) /Networking. The Net as Artwork (2008).

Canevacci is Professor of Cultural Anthropology and of Digital Art and Culture at Università Degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza', Italy. His studies focus on ethnography, visual communication, art, and digital culture. The research he has been developing at IEA, situated among these themes, includes four main conceptual frameworks: self-representation, ubiquity, visual fetishism, and critical and experimental theory.

At the conference, Rapchan will talk about the relationship between humans and other primates focused on ethnographic records. The researcher will discuss the controversial idea of the existence of specific ‘cultures’ among these animals and the consequent formation of a new otherness of non-human nature.

Rapchan studies the relationship between nature and culture and between sociocultural anthropology and life sciences, with emphasis on primatology, biological anthropology, and ethology. Her most recent research deals with the relationship between humans and animals based on the ethnography of the behavior of capuchin monkeys, as well as the possibility of a ‘culture’ among chimpanzees.

Cycle

The cycle covers the origins, legitimacy, and ethical-political consequences of differentiation of living beings in humans, animals and sub​​-humans (this last case defined by the prejudiced view of certain groups of individuals of certain ethnicities, body types or gender, considered inferior humans).

The aim is to discuss the most relevant philosophical and epistemological fundamentals to what is meant by human from an interdisciplinary approach, encompassing various perspectives, including those of anthropology, biology, and ethics.

The cycle comprises five meetings. The last two are scheduled for June and August. The organization is from IEA’s Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group, the Philosophical Scientiae Studia Association and Fapesp’s Thematic Project ‘Genesis and Meaning of Technoscience: On the Relationship between Science, Technology, and Society’.

The panelists will be the teachers Gustavo Caponi, of the Center for Philosophy and Human Sciences of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Maurício de Carvalho Ramos, of the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH) of USP, and Hernán Neira, of the Universidad de Santiago de Chile (UCS). Mediator will be Baravalle Lorenzo, researcher of a postdoctoral program at FFLCH.

Themes

In his exhibition 'Typology and Phylogeny of the Human', Caponi will address the misconceptions that result from the mixture of typological and phylogenetic definitions (related to the genealogy of a biological group) to determine whether a living being belongs to a zoological or botanical species, especially when the opposition between animality and humanity enters the scene.

Ramos will speak on ‘The Relationship Between Animals and Humans Designed as a Biocultural and Ethical-Epistemic Continuous’. The aim of the teacher is to debate a theoretical continuist perspective that takes into account the inseparability between epistemic and ethical judgments and between the biological and the cultural dimensions in the understanding of differences and similarities between humans and animals.

Neira will reflect on ‘Sensitivity and Sovereignty: Descartes and Condillac in Relation to Animals’. The researcher will consider the ideas of these two philosophers to discuss the central role of comparison between animals and humans in the understanding of humanity and to discuss issues on animality faced by modern Zoophilosophy.

Cycle

The cycle covers the origins, legitimacy, and ethical-political consequences of differentiation of living beings in humans, animals and sub​​-humans (this last case defined by the prejudiced view of certain groups of individuals of certain ethnicities, body types or gender, considered inferior humans).

The aim is to discuss the most relevant philosophical and epistemological fundamentals to what is meant by human from an interdisciplinary approach, encompassing various perspectives, including those of anthropology, biology, and ethics.

The cycle comprises five meetings. The last two are scheduled for June and August. The organization is from IEA’s Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group, the Philosophical Scientiae Studia Association and Fapesp’s Thematic Project ‘Genesis and Meaning of Technoscience: On the Relationship between Science, Technology, and Society’.

Related news

Meeting discusses the ‘culture’ of other primates

The conference entitled ‘The Concept of Style in Art and Science’ will be Bueno’s way to explore what is distinctive and common in applications of the concept in both fields. He comments that science historian Alistair Crombie (1915-1996) believed that in science there are well-defined styles that feature forms of specific investigation (deductive, experimental, hypothetical, taxonomic, statistical and evolutionary). Bueno compares this observation to the fact that well-defined pictorial styles (considering only painting), such as naturalism, impressionism, cubism and abstract expressionism, have set major movements in art history.

Bueno is full professor and head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Miami. He dedicates his research to the fields of philosophy of science, philosophy of logic and philosophy of mathematics. More recently he has been involved with aesthetics. He is one of the editors of the epistemology and philosophy of science journal ‘Synthese’.

The conference is an initiative of IEA’s Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group.

On October 14, at 9.30 am, Wylie will speak on gender research in archaeology at the meeting ‘Feminist Research from the Standpoint Theory Perspective’. The opening will be in charge of philosopher Hugh Lacey, professor emeritus from Swarthmore College and visiting professor at the IEA.

Wylie will defend that a feminist perspective, explicitly critical and constructivist towards knowledge production, can serve as a fundamental epistemic resource in empirical research. From this argument, she will re-conceptualize ideals of objectivity.

The second event, to be hold on October 15, also at 9.30 am, will be a conversation with Alison Wylie, dedicated to the discussion of the work and ideas of the philosopher.

Wylie is a professor of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Washington and co-editor of the feminist philosophy journal ‘Hypatia’. She was chosen Philosopher of 2013 by the Society for Women in Philosophy. She develops research in the field of philosophy of social science and history, particularly archaeology, and feminist philosophy of science, with a focus on the ideals of objectivity and the ethical and political dimensions of scientific practice.

Organized by IEA’s Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group, the event will take place in Auditorium 2 of the Institute of USP’s Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences (IAG).

Video of the first event

Photos of the first event

Photos of the second event

The invasion and occupation of the buildings by the students ended after 42 days when the courts determined repossession. It all began on October 1, after an unsuccessful attempt by students to invade the meeting of the University Council (Co), which approved the new rules for the electoral process for President and Deputy President of USP.

Shortly after entering the lobby of the hall in which the Co holds its meetings, the scene was of utter devastation, including broken and piled furniture, walls and floors filled with “pichação” (a sort of graffiti), broken glass, used fire extinguishers, destroyed models of USP’s future buildings – such as the one where IEA’s headquarters will be located - mattresses, clothes and shoes, plus lots of garbage. The situation was the same all over the ground level. Other spaces showed the violation of doors, cupboards and drawers, not to mention all the scattered official documents on the floor, most of which crushed and trampled.

When climbing the stairs to the 5th floor of buiding K, place of IEA’s headquarters, signs of further devastation were everywhere: more “pichação” in the lobbies of each floor, destroyed electronic devices and surveillance cameras, dirt and more scattered documents.

Upon arriving at the IEA, the worst expectations were confirmed. In a vase at the beginning of the floor, three modern keyboards were stacked among scattered computer memories. What was seen next was the result of the action of a band of criminals: doors broken into, equipment stolen, all cabinets and drawers open, papers on tables and the floor.

It is important to point out that not only material damage has happened. Leaders, researchers and the institute’s staff suffered moral damages by the degradation of their working environment and the violation of their private properties and computer content.

On this day after, the IEA is trying to return to normalcy, which will not happen anytime soon. It is time to organize whatever is possible and count for losses, including broken and stolen equipment, in order to make a police report and also to, once again, prepare an acquisition list to replace what has been destroyed and taken away. In the last 42 days we had to conduct our activities in disrepair and this way we will go on until we equip ourselves again and are able to use our main event room, the most affected by theft and vandalism.

There is something very wrong, absurd and unacceptable when a university has to deal with losses such as stolen equipment and damaged assets due to events led by students.

The IEA vehemently repudiates everything that has happened and asks: how was this possible? Why? Until when will we be subject to facts like these?

The IEA, as USP's platform for interdisciplinary scientific, institutional and socio-cultural criticism, is at the disposal of the community and society at large to reflect, analyze and discuss the situation, wishing for dialogue, understanding and the stability of this university.

USP, November 13, 2013

Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of São Paulo

Related material

According to Hogan, facing up to this problem requires a transversal and comprehensive approach to provide a unified theoretical framework to the study of human and animal behavior. That is the aim of The study of behavior, the book that he is writing during his sojourn as a visiting professor at the IEA, which he hopes will systematize the concepts and results obtained in the various specialties of ethology. This, in turn, will open the way for improved dialogue between researchers and for the emergence of new insights in the field.

In the following interview, given to journalist Flávia Dourado, Hogan looks back at the emergence of ethology and at how the fragmentation of this field of knowledge began. He also talks about the importance of communication between the various research specialties of animal behavior, and explains the proposal of the book he is working on.

Why do we need to integrate into a single framework the concepts and facts of the various subfields of ethology?

In the late 19^th and early 20^th century, when the study of behavior was in its infancy, numerous concepts and ideas were proposed to think about this new area of ​​knowledge. In psychology, particularly in North America, many of these ideas coalesced into a field called behaviorism, which concerned itself with problems related to learning. In biology, particularly in Europe, these ideas coalesced around a field called ethology, interested in the behavior of animals in their natural habitat. For these early ethologists, one of the most important concepts was instinct.

Later, in the mid-20^th century, many behavioral scientists turned to the relationship between learning and instinct, and in 1970, the English ethologist Robert Hinde published Animal behavior: a synthesis of ethology and comparative psychology, a book that was an excellent summary of the literature in both fields, but did not provide a general framework. So psychologists and ethologists continued struggling to understand each other.

In the late 20^th century, many psychologists were no longer interested in the processes of learning, and had begun to study cognitive processes or economic issues. At the same time, ethologists became either more molecular [reference to molecular biology, the study of physiology and the genes] – raising questions concerning neurophysiology and genetics – or more interested in ecology and matters related to populations [the study of groups of animals]. In both cases, the effort to understand the behavior of individual animals was compromised.

Furthermore, behavioral scientists ask different types of questions about behavior, and about the causes and consequences, or the development and evolution of a particular behavior. Many of the current controversies found in behavior literature arise because quite often researchers do not realize that these issues are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

What might a general framework look like that copes with such fragmentation?

The framework I am proposing derives from classical ethology, but it is much broader and can easily incorporate concepts and data from experimental psychology, neurophysiology and evolutionary biology. Its main feature is an emphasis on defining pieces of behavior – those related to patterns and perceptions – and their organization into a system of behavior. In other words, the framework begins by defining the structure of behavior. With a consistent notion of structure, one can see how these pieces of behavior are activated, what consequences their activation has, and how they developed. And one can also investigate how they evolve.

Why is communication between the various subfields of ethology so important? What problems arise from gaps in this communication?

Communication between the subfields is very important because solutions to problems that interest one group of scientists often require knowledge available to other groups. For example: what issues would each specialty raise regarding the fact that many bird species show annual patterns of migration? Ecologists would ask what is the yearly pattern of availability of food or of suitable nesting sites in areas used by a particular species. The answers might explain why birds migrate at certain times of the year and why they choose specific habitats for feeding and building nests. But if one is interested in understanding how birds are able to fly such long distances, it is necessary to investigate the physiology of the species. And if one is interested in understanding how birds know where to fly and how they recognize a suitable habitat when they arrive, one must seek information on the sensory capacities and perceptual abilities of the species. And that information is obtained either from ethologists or psychologists

Could you give an example of a concept established in one subfield that is being misinterpreted by another subfield, or of some controversy generated from such misrepresentation, or of any instance in which the lack of communication has hindered progress in the area?

Controversies arise when, for example, one group of scientists says birds migrate because they need different habitats for feeding and nesting, while another group argues that birds migrate because prolonged periods of sunlight stimulate the hormones that provide the animals with energy needed for long flights. Both hypotheses are true and necessary to understand why birds migrate. Historically, one of the greatest controversies in ethology was whether a particular behavior should be considered innate or learned. Many American and English ethologists held that every behavior requires experience to develop, which undermined the concept of instinct in the study of development. On the other hand, several Continental ethologists insisted that the concept of innate was useful and necessary. In this case, the controversy arose from differing definitions of the word “innate” and from the choice of research problems by the two sides.

What is your specialty in the field of ethology? Why did you decide to work toward the integration of all the fields?

My research and my interests are focused on understanding the structure, the motivation and the development of behavior. I have used tropical fish [a type of aquarium fish] and jungle fowl, a wild ancestor of domestic chickens, as my primary models for studying these questions. I chose a wild species because it was believed that its behavior would be more “natural,” but actually, there is not much difference between jungle fowl and most domestic breeds. Based on the observation of these animals, I have investigated aggressive, feeding, grooming, sleep and fear behaviors, including the effects of circadian rhythms in these behaviors. Because my own interests are very broad, I am often confronted with misinterpretations and controversies as the one I just mentioned.

According to your project, the book was not conceived as a compendium or a work to review the literature of the field. How should it be understood?

The proposal is to present my ideas about behavior. Although I have been citing relevant papers that provide evidence for these ideas, the book will not be a review of the literature. It will not be a textbook in the ordinary sense, but I hope it will provide material for discussion in graduate seminars and among professional scientists.

Is the book geared toward experts in the field of behavior or will it also be accessible to a lay audience?

The book should be accessible to a lay audience as well, but I think it will only interest those who already dedicate themselves to reflecting on the issues it discusses.

How will the contributions of the students you have taught be incorporated into the book?

I have just given an graduate seminar on the topic of the book, and the students’ reactions have been very helpful in many ways. It became clear to me that some topics are more interesting to students than others, and also that some ideas are particularly difficult to grasp. I will use these observed reactions to improve my presentation of these various topics as I write.

The analysis of the impacts of these facts is essential to the understanding of Brazilian and world history in the 20th century, but not less important are the activities scheduled to discuss dilemmas of the present and prospects for the coming decades in several areas.

Two initiatives will deal specifically with institutional aspects of USP and the IEA. One of them is the University Governance and Culture of Excellence programme proposed by former rector of USP and former director of the IEA Jacques Marcovitch. It will be a study on ten universities from ten different countries to which it is worth comparing USP.

The other initiative is the creation of the Group for Institutional Situation to debate the most relevant aspects of academic and management policies of the university and the IEA. The first meeting of the group took place on November 19 with the participation of members and former members of IEA’s board and research groups of the institute. At the time, they gathered to discuss the effects of the invasion and occupation by students of USP's administrative complex where the IEA is located.

A series of discussions organized by IEA’s Direction and visiting professor Bernardo Sorj will deal with the production of meaning in the current sociocultural context, which transfers a constant decision-making process to the individual in an environment where he or she confronts multiple values, many of which are contradictory. The series is entitled ‘Em Busca do Sentido Perdido: Diálogos Interdisciplinares sobre Ciência e Transcendência’ (‘In Search of Lost Sense: Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Science and Transcendence’) and foresees five meetings to be hold throughout the year: ‘A Ciência e o Politeísmo de Valores’ (‘Science and the Polytheism of Values’), ‘O Indivíduo no Ocidente’ (‘The Individual in the West’), ‘O Ser Humano e a Natureza‘ (‘The Human Being and Nature’), ‘O Ser Humano e a Técnica’ (‘The Human Being and Technique’) and ‘O Lugar das Artes na Produção de Sentido’ (‘The Place of the Arts in the Production of Meaning’).

The issue of Brazilian industrial competitiveness, a sensitive topic to economic performance and development of the country, will be discussed in a cycle with a still undefined format. The proposal was brought up by IEA’s board in 2013 and will be coordinated by advisors Roberto Mendonça Faria, from IEA’s São Carlos Center, and Guilherme Ary Plonski, from USP’s Polytechnic School (POLI) and the Faculty of Economics, Business and Accounting (FEA).

Two initiatives involve partnerships with foreign IASs, both of them members of the University-based Institute for Advanced Study network (UBIAS). Together with the Institute for Advanced Research (IAR) of the University of Nagoya, Japan, the IEA-USP will start the Intercontinental Academy project, which will bring together around 15 young researchers from different areas of knowledge and universities to a collaborative and interdisciplinary study, under the guidance of three senior scientists, with workshops in São Paulo and Nagoya in 2015. The laboratory ‘Interdisciplinary Approaches for Global Challenges: Transatlantic Dialogues’ will be a partnership between the IEA-USP and the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Advanced Studies. The project will bring together British and Brazilian experts in studies to identify possible solutions for the challenges that cities and their residents will face in the coming decades.

Still in the international context, this summary of the agenda could not fail to highlight the possible presence of the renowned linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who has been invited to give a conference at the IEA in April. It could be the second visit of Chomsky. He participated in the celebrations of the institute’s 10th anniversary in 1996. Back then, he gave two conferences, one on Linguistics and another one on the application of the Washington Consensus in developing countries, published in issue 29 of ‘Estudos Avançados’.

The main scheduled activities for 2014 set by research groups, chairs, visiting professors and the journal are listed below.

RESEARCH GROUPS

Amazon Transformation: History and Perspectives - Coordinator: Maritta Koch-Weser

In 2014 the group will continue to establish contacts with a view to developing the project of creating the Rainforest Continent Business School. The project schedule includes visits to the state of Amapá, after invitation by the state government, to the BNDES (national bank for development) in Rio de Janeiro, and to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, after invitation by Charles Noble, Secretary of Policy and Programmes for Research and Development at the ministry. The group will also continue the discussions originated in the meeting sponsored by FAPESP in North Carolina, as well as arrange meetings for the scientific committee and the work group of the project.

Nuclear Astrophysics - Coordinator: Mahir Saleh Hussein

From April 14 to 16, the group will promote the ‘Neutrino and Nuclear Astrophysics Workshop’, with the participation of group members and guests. From the group, the participants will be Pierre Descouvemont (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium), Carlos A. Bertulani (Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA), Leandro Gasques (USP’s Institute of Physics - IF), Elcio Abdalla (IF), Michael Wiescher (University of Notre Dame, USA) and Ani Aprahamian (University of Notre Dame, USA). The guests will be Akif Baha Balantekin (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA), Alexis Day-Torres (Università di Trento , Italy) and Beatriz Barbuy (USP's Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences - IAG).

Logic and Theory of Science - Coordinator: Jair Minoro Abe

The group will hold another edition of the ‘Intelligent Computing Systems Workshop’, in addition to continuing with monthly seminars on paraconsistent annotated logic in Biomedicine, Robotics and Automation at USP’s Faculty of Medicine Oscar Freire Institute.

Quality of Democracy - Coordinator: José Álvaro Moisés

In February, the group will host Mino Vianello, from the Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Italy, who will give a lecture on Gender, Power and Quality of Democracy. In the second semester, an international seminar on Access to Justice, Public Security and Quality of Democracy will be hold in partnership with the University of North Carolina, USA. The group will continue to organize events on research topics and books of some of their participants, and to publish texts at www.qualidadedademocracia.com.br. Another activity that will continue in the website is the series of interviews ‘A Qualidade da Democracia em Questão’, which has already set several personalities to be interviewed 2014: Mino Vianello, Francisco Weffort, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Celso Lafer, Bolívar Lamounier and Simão Schwartzman.

Intercultural Dialogues - Coordinator: Sylvia Dantas

The group plans to hold a series of conferences on ‘Challenges of Multiculturalism: Reality and Perspectives’. The goal is to initiate dialogues in the interdisciplinary field of pursuit of dialogue, expansion and articulation of outbreaks, contextualizing and strategies that enable greater rapprochement regarding the complexity of the factors that result from the contact between cultures and the dynamics of increasing intercultural contact, addressing ethnic minorities in the university and among exchange students, migrants, refugees and descendants, and mobility and internationalization of Brazilian universities.

Public Policies, Territoriality and Society - Coordinator: Neli Aparecida de Mello-Théry

The group will hold two international workshops in 2014: ‘Environment and Geomatics: Compared Studies France-Brazil’ in November 12-15 in Rennes, France, and ‘Climate Change, Energy Planning and Public Policy’, in partnership with the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) in October.

Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology - Coordinator: Pablo Rubén Mariconda

In 2014 the group will continue the activities of the FAPESP’s Thematic Project ‘Genesis and Meaning of Technoscience: the Relations between Science, Technology and Society’. Four seminars are already planned: ‘Humans and Animals: the Limits of Humanity’, under the coordination of Lorenzo Baravalle (UFABC) and Pablo Mariconda (IEA-USP); ‘Climate Change, Climate Panels and Economic Growth Model’, with six to eight meetings and coordination of Jose Correa Leite (IEA-USP) and Marcos Barbosa de Oliveira (IEA-USP); ‘Sustainable Forest Management and Stakeholder Values in the Relationship between Scientific Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge: the Value of Cooperation and Competition System’, with four to six meetings and coordination of Ana Teresa Reis da Silva (IEA-USP) and Pablo Mariconda (IEA-USP); and ‘Style of Scientific Thought’, having as coordinators Valter Alnis Bezerra (IEA-USP) and Otávio Bueno (University of Miami, USA). From March 10 to April 9, the group will host Helen Jerônimo, from the University of Lisbon, Portugal , who will give four conferences on Technological Risks: ‘Questioning Concepts of Risk and Uncertainty Regarding Issues of Scientific and Technological Base’, ‘The Scientific Examination: Specificities of Knowledge and Action’, ’When uncertainties are reduced to Risks: The Controversy Around the Hazardous Wastes in Portugal’ and ‘The Continuing Catastrophe: The Fukushima Accident and the uncertainties of Nuclear Power Plants’.

Environment and Society - Coordinator: Peter Jacobi

The group has proposed the following research topics for 2014: ‘Solid Waste’ (in March) - discussions on the need to oppose the incineration responses; ‘Water Governance and Transparency’ - presentation of research results; ‘Environment and the Frontiers of Knowledge’ - interdisciplinary debates; ‘Environment and Post-Normal Science’ (in May) - visit of a researcher of the Dutch Environment Agency; ‘Climate Change’ - monitoring of the situation on controversial topics in Brazilian environment policy; ‘Innovation in Environmental Governance’ - various themes regarding government, productive sector and society; and meetings with authors of books on environmental issues.

Nutrition and Poverty - Coordinator: Ana Lydia Sawaya

In 2014 the group will focus on the inclusion of content in their section on IEA's website. Another guideline is to deepen activities in partnerships with public bodies, in particular with São Paulo City Hall, whose first lady Ana Estela Haddad joined the group. Ana Estela is a professor of USP’s School of Dentistry and coordinator of the City Hall’s Early Childhood Policy. She has launched the ‘Cidade Carinhosa’ programme, aimed at children up to 6 years old.

Innovation and Competitiveness Observatory – Coordinator: Mario Salerno

The activities that have already been planned by the group are the preparation of a new edition of the EngenhariaData report, and the planning and execution of the ‘Trajetória’ project, which aims to recover and systematize information on the trajectory of engineers in the labor market, from studying to current activities. Four events are intended to be hold: the release of the EngenhariaData report and the launch of a new website; a seminar on public and private funding for the productive sector and innovation; a seminar on evaluation criteria in bidding for funding; and a seminar with the new Provost for Research on management project.

CHAIRS

UNESCO Chair on Education for Peace, Human Rights, Democracy and Tolerance

Throughout the year, the chair will hold the ‘City of Human Rights’ project in partnership with USP’s Maria Antonia Center. The project has been given a fund of R$ 180.000,00 after approval by the Provost for Culture and University Extension. In addition, the chair will hold discussions on three topics: Memory and Democracy, the 50th Anniversary of the Military Coup in Brazil, and Dignity and Intolerance.

Bernardo O'Higgins Chair

The chair, newly restructured, has already scheduled a workshop on Memory, Society and Culture to be organized by the IEA-USP and the Center for Social Sciences of the Universidad de la Frontera (UFRO), Chilean partner of USP in the agreement of the chair.

VISITING PROFESSORS

Massimo Canevacci, from the Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Italy, will continue his project ‘Self-representation’.

Hugh Lacey, professor emeritus from Swarthmore College, USA, will work on the conclusion of the dossier ‘Technoscience’ and the Model of Interaction between Science and Values​​.

Bernardo Sorj will continue his research project ‘Middle East Conflict: Scope and Limits of Brazilian External Politics’ and will coordinate, together with the direction of the institute, the series of debates ‘Em Busca do Sentido Perdido: Diálogos Interdisciplinares sobre Ciência e Transcendência’ (‘In Search of Lost Sense: Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Science and Transcendence’).

‘ESTUDOS AVANÇADOS’ JOURNAL

In March, the launch event of issue 79 will take place. Its main dossier with be on public transport. In April, issue 80 will be released with a dossier on the 50th anniversary of the military coup in Brazil.

This is the first in a series of four meetings of the 25th International Seminar on Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology (see schedule below), which will feature Portuguese sociologist Helena Mateus Jerónimo as exhibitor. The first meetings will focus on the theoretical discussion of the concepts of risk and uncertainty, while the last ones will analyse different case studies.

Jerónimo holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, is a professor of the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) at the Technical University of Lisbon (UTL) and a researcher at UTL’s Centre for Research in Economic and Organizational Sociology (SOCIUS), where she develops studies in Scientific, Technological and Environmental Sociology.

Organized by IEA-USP’s Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group, the seminar is coordinated by philosopher Pablo Mariconda, professor at USP’s Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH) and coordinator of the group.

The event will be broadcast live on the web.

FIRST MEETING

In the seminar's opening conference, Jerónimo will explain the concept of risk and uncertainty with a focus on the impacts generated by the phenomena of scientific and technical bases. From this point, she will make the theoretical questioning of these concepts, highlighting aspects that distinguish them.

According to the researcher, "to defend a conception based on risk or uncertainty is not an indifferent option, particularly in controversial cases involving serious hazards, unforeseen consequences and a technological solution. Risk and uncertainty point to specific interpretation and orientation, therefore triggering different policy implications. Risk is associated with prevention, while the various types of uncertainty are related to caution."

Among the issues to be addressed by Jerónimo at the meeting are:

• Is the concept of risk clear enough to characterize contemporary societies and the environmental problems that have, in general, extensive, lasting and comprehensive characteristics?
• Can this concept be used as a key tool for a model of evaluation and orientation of these new environmental problems?
• Can one rely only on the experts of science and technology to assess, predict and resolve these problems?

At the event, Menninghaus will present the results of a research project that is being developed with the goal of establishing "being moved" and "being touched" as concepts of genuine emotion and revealing their role in aesthetic appreciation. According to the researcher, “this includes a novel perspective on the time-honored issue of aesthetic pleasure associated with negative emotions."

Full member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, Menninghaus is founding director of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, created in 2013 with the proposal to use scientific methods to investigate the psychological, sociocultural and neural bases of aesthetic perceptions, preferences and reviews. His research focuses on the philosophical, evolutionary and empirical / psychological aesthetics; models, boundary phenomena and aesthetic functions of mythology and lifeworld, and literature since 1750, with emphasis on German Romanticism and literature of the 20th century.

The opening of the conference will be in charge of Helmut Galle, professor of German Literature at the Department of Modern Languages of USP’s Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH).

The event will be broadcast live on the web.

At the meeting, Jerónimo will discuss the interface between the world of knowledge and the world of decision with focus on the concepts of risk and uncertainty. To do so, she will address the tensions between science and policy brought out by scientific expertise. There will be three main topics:

• to show how scientific expertise amplifies the complexity of the relations between science, technological system, and political and social values
• to illustrate from case studies the multiplicity of formats in scientific expertise
• to analyze the tendency of experts to underestimate the uncertainties inherent in many of the phenomena they are called on to evaluate and to confine themselves in a probabilistic language of risk.

The conferencist holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, is a professor of the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) at the Technical University of Lisbon (UTL) and a researcher at UTL’s Centre for Research in Economic and Organizational Sociology (SOCIUS), where she develops studies in Scientific, Technological and Environmental Sociology.

SEMINAR

The conference will be the second in a series of four meetings of the 25th International Seminar on Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology (see schedule below), all featuring Jerónimo as exhibitor.

Organized by IEA-USP’s Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology Research Group, the seminar is coordinated by philosopher Pablo Mariconda, professor at USP’s Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH) and coordinator of the group.

The event will be broadcast live on the web.

The debate has been organized by a partnership between two of IEA-USP’s research groups: Environment and Society, and Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science and Technology. They had the support of the Center for Studies in Social and Environmental Governance of USP’s Institute for Energy and Environment (IEE). The meeting has comprised two roundtables, both mediated by Pedro Jacobi, coordinator of IEA’s Environment and Society Research Group.

The exhibitors were Wagner Ribeiro Costa, professor at USP’s Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH), Maurício de Carvalho Ramos, also a professor at FFLCH, Daniela Libório Di Sarno, professor at PUC-SP’s Faculty of Law and vice president of the Brazilian Institute of Urban Law (IBDU), Marcio Automare, organizational development analyst at the Institute of Land of the State of São Paulo (ITESP), and Susana Prizendt, coordinator of the Paulista Committee of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and for Living.

The meeting has addressed the water problem from an interdisciplinary perspective, considering environmental, legal, socio-political, philosophical and food safety aspects. According to Jacobi, the idea was to reflect on the problem of water in the RMSP, but covering broader issues involving, among others, inequalities in access to water, changes in rainfall rates caused by the phenomenon of climate change, institutional barriers and the posture of the government in relation to the prevention and remediation of the problem.

Photos of the event

MEASURES OF THE STATE

The debate has been heated up by recent measures that have been studied and taken by the state government of São Paulo in order to try to circumvent the critical situation of the Cantareira reservoir, which currently operates at approximately 15 % of its capacity. Among these measures is the proposal of using water from the Paraíba do Sul River reservoirs to supply the RMSP. When asked about the matter, Ribeiro said that he does not consider the proposal timely, since the suggested river is also undergoing a situation of water stress.

Ribeiro has criticized the emergency works of the state government, which began on March 14 to pump the volume of "dead water" from the bottom of the dams that form the Cantareira reservoir. According to him, this means "to remove the last drop of a water that has been stored for 40 years, stagnant, whose quality is questionable due to the unknown factors associated with it."

Besides, he said that it was a risky move, which can lead to resource depletion in the region. “That is because to saturate the soil again to the point for the dam to refill, much more than the average rainfall rates in the region will be needed, and those were not achieved this summer."

FRAGMENTED MANAGEMENT

Sarno has pointed out the incongruity of the Brazilian legal system in relation to water resources management as the top reason for the shortage in the country. According to her, although the Federal Constitution provides that the management should be shared between the federal government, the states and the municipalities, there is little dialogue between the parties and the administration of water resources ends up getting fragmented.

"To meet the challenge of shared management, the three [federal, state and municipal] parties need to sit down and discuss. But this step has still not been taken. There are neither vertically talks between the parties nor horizontally ones between institutions," she said.

This fragmentation gets compounded by the mismatch between the division of the federal system, that obeys political criteria, and the division of watersheds, which follows geographic criteria. The watersheds are important because they put another actor in the scene: the Watershed Committees, which comprise the National System for Water Resources Management. Composed of representatives of the various water user sectors, civil society and government organizations, the committees approve the Water Resources Plan for each watershed, arbitrate conflicts over water use, suggest values ​​for the charging of consumption, among others.

According to Sarno, the problem is that none of the management models adopted in the country - municipal management and state management by autarchies or contractors - is consistent with the watershed divisions. "The Committees even do part of the management, but who puts the distribution of water into practice is not them, but managing institutions.”

PUBLIC X PRIVATE

As for Ribeiro, the biggest obstacle to equate the issue of water in Brazil is the private management of water resources. In the RMSP, for example, the management is done by SABESP, a mixed economy company, publicly listed and traded on the stock exchange, which operates according to the logic of a private institution.

"Is it the function of the state to pay up, profit and speculate based on the commercialization of water resources? No, it is not the function of the state to make money from the water, as done by SABESP," warned Ribeiro, noting the lack of transparency in the management of the company. "Besides the water flows, there should be transparency in relation to financial flows," he pointed out.

As Ribeiro, Automare pondered that a government-linked company as SABESP should not behave like a private company, treating water as a product. He also cited the industry of water sold in gallons, whose growth was affecting groundwater, as an example of the commercial exploitation of water resources.

Sarno also addressed the conflict between public and private interests. According to her, Watershed Committees treat water as a commodity, whose distribution should be equal and the charging should happen only to regulate the consumption. The companies that put management into practice, such as SABESP, treat water as a product for sale.

According to the lawyer, the managers of metropolitan regions and municipalities do not take into consideration the willingness of the watershed in allowing, for example, the expansion of an industrial district that could endanger the water supply on site. "It takes measures to reconcile urban expansion and the infrastructure for distribution of water in terms of quality and quantity," he warned.

ETHICAL DIMENSION

Taking a philosophical approach, Carvalho said that the water can be considered from two sets of properties: material ones, linked to biochemical principles, and symbolic ones, related to its immeasurable value to life, making it a symbol of power.

According to him, when considering the symbolic properties, water can be conceived both as a resource - a product to be exploited economically -, as well as a good - something free and not marketable in any way. And it is this conception of a good that should be adopted to tackle the problem of water stress from an ethical perspective.

"Addressing the issue rationally and responsibly involves not putting into practice technoscientific possibilities related to water use that may jeopardize the availability or the material properties of water resources," he said. "If the ethical stance prevailed, there would be no need for rationing and an appeal to the conscience of people would be sufficient," he added.

PARTICIPATION

The panelists drew attention to the low involvement of society in discussions on the management of water resources. According to Automare, water has achieved the last place in the priority list of the citizens of the State of São Paulo: "We have been induced to credit the discussion on the subject to the representatives and forgot to get involved." He also emphasized that "the public has no forum for debate, so the situation is in the hands of technocrats."

Ribeiro has also warned about the paradox that involves the lack of popular participation on the one hand and excess of institutions to manage water on the other. For him, "we have more institutions dealing with water than water itself. There are too much institutions for very little water. And civil society is under-represented within them."

FOOD SAFETY

The water problem has also been addressed from the point of view of quality. Addressing the contamination of water resources by pesticides, Prizendt said that the issue should be discussed with a view to replacing the agribusiness, model of conventional production and based on intensive use of pesticides, by agroecology, an alternative model, whose practices intend to maintain the balance of ecosystems and preserve the sources of rivers and the water system as a whole.

According to her, pesticides are the second leading cause of contamination of rivers, a fact that becomes particularly worrying considering that Brazil is world champion in the use of these substances, accounting for one fifth of what is consumed in the world. Moreover, the agricultural sector accounts for about 70 % of freshwater consumption in Brazil, said the environmentalist.

Lacey’s model is unique because it includes, in the same analytical framework, epistemological issues and concrete implications of science in contemporary society. In his studies, Lacey questions the idea that domination over nature is an intrinsic ethical value of scientific practice and argues that scientific institutions – and the scientists themselves – must take into account social, ecological and human contexts when choosing the strategy of their research. “Scientific work has been treated more like a business and scientists are subject to pressures of productivity that often leave them with no time to reflect on and discuss their responsibilities as scientists,” he stressed.

In the following interview to journalist Flávia Dourado, Lacey explains some of the assumptions of his model, criticizes the growing subordination of science to economic interests, and calls attention to the importance of developing alternatives to today’s hegemonic currents by investing, for instance, in studies on agroecology as a way of highlighting the risks involved in transgenesis. According to him, “contemporary scientific institutions are dominated by the notion that science aims to generate technoscientific innovations that contribute to economic growth and, more generally, to technological and economic progress.”

1) The model of interaction between science and values that you propose assumes a distinction between epistemic/cognitive values and social and ethical values. What characterizes each of these value groups in their relationship with the scientific endeavor?

In the model, several logically (not temporally) distinct moments (or stages) of scientific activities have been identified, including: M₁ – adoption of a research strategy; M₂ – undertaking the research; M₃ – cognitive evaluation of theories and hypotheses; M₄ – dissemination of scientific results; an M₅ – application of scientific knowledge. The epistemic/cognitive values concern the criteria for the cognitive evaluation of theories and hypotheses (i.e., evaluation of them as bearers of knowledge and understanding of phenomena) at M₃. They include, among others, the empirical adequacy, explanatory power and consistency of theories and hypotheses.^[i] Social and ethical values may have various (proper, as well as sometimes improper) roles at the other moments. These values concern, respectively, ideals of a good (or desirable) society (e.g., progress, social justice) and of acceptable and obligatory human behavior and relations (e.g., honesty, autonomy, solidarity).^[ii] The distinction between cognitive and the other kinds of values underlies the ideal of impartiality (or objectivity), that (at M₃) judgments about scientific knowledge should be based only on the cognitive values, and that they neither presuppose not imply any commitments concerning social and ethical values.^[iii]

2) Is it the distinction between these two value groups ​​that allows us to make an ethical and political critique of science without necessarily questioning scientific objectivity?

Yes. Political/ethical values may play roles at all the moments, except M3, without impartiality being impaired. E.g., at M₁, social values may have an integral role in the adoption of strategies for research, where strategies involve (1) constraints on the kinds of theories and hypotheses that will be considered in a research program, and (2) criteria for the selection of empirical data to procure and record – of what phenomena, in what (often experimental) conditions – for the sake of gaining knowledge of selected phenomena, or aspects of them, and identifying the possibilities open to them.^[iv] The constraints limit the kinds of phenomena (and possibilities open to them) of which we gain knowledge in a research project, and so social values may play a role in determining what phenomena are investigated. However, the knowledge we gain of them should be established at M₃, in the light only of the empirical data, and whether or not the knowledge claims (theories, hypotheses) being evaluated manifest the cognitive values highly in relation to these data. The impartiality of this knowledge, therefore, is not impaired. Remember, however, that it is knowledge of the selected kinds of phenomena; and gaining knowledge of them (rather than of other kinds of phenomena) may serve especially well interests informed by certain social/ethical/political values. So, one may make political/ethical criticism of the adoption of these strategies rather than other ones, without challenging the impartiality of the knowledge gained and without implying that this knowledge (qua knowledge) should be challenged on political/ethical grounds. The political/ethical criticism would lead to engaging also in research that is conducted under other strategies that would enable knowledge of phenomena (of interest in light of the political/ethical values in play) to be gained.

This point is of great significance in my discussions of the controversies connected with using transgenics.^[v] [Throughout this interview, I will frequently make use of the case of transgenics and its competitors, e.g., agroecology.] The knowledge that has informed developments and innovations of transgenics (gained under strategies deployed in molecular biology and biotechnology) accords with impartiality; but it tells us little about the environmental and social risks that are occasioned by using transgenics, or about the alternatives (e.g., agroecology) that might be used in agricultural practices. Political/social/economic considerations lie behind emphasizing almost exclusively the research conducted under the strategies of molecular biology and biotechnology, and downplaying research on the other phenomena just referred to. Likewise, different political/social/economic considerations lie behind questioning the relative inattention given to research conducted under strategies that could inform issues of risks and alternatives. Either way, political/ethical values influence judgments made at M₁, but (in principle, for all parties) this leave impartiality unchallenged at M₃.

3) Does a criticism focused on ethical and social values include scrutinizing the submission of scientific activity to economic values, particularly to the ideals of development and progress?

Yes. Contemporary scientific institutions are dominated by the notion that science aims to generate technoscientific innovations that contribute to economic growth and, more generally, to technological and economic progress. This has several problematic consequences. They include:

a) The criteria for evaluating scientific contributions, and the productivity of individual scientists, have become intertwined with (in some cases subordinated to) economic considerations. E.g., gaining patents to discoveries has become an indicator of scientific success. The intertwining of scientific and economic considerations can create conflicts of interest (e.g., downplaying evidence of potential risks of using a new drug, in order not to endanger its profitable use; and keeping empirical data pertaining to risks secret).

b) Scientific work has become treated more like work within a business, and scientists have become subjected to productivist pressures that often leave them with little time for reflection and discussion about their responsibilities as scientists. Marcos Barbosa de Oliveira, co-director (with Pablo Mariconda) of the Theme Project Genesis and Meaning of Technoscience: On the Relationships between Science, Technology and Society, in which I am a participant and which is located in IEA, has written important articles on these consequences.

4) Has science prioritized values linked to private interests, to capital, to the detriment of those associated with public interests and social welfare?

Following up my response to the previous question, the notion that underlies “private-interest science” – that science aims to generate technoscientific innovations that contribute to economic growth and, more generally, to technological and economic progress – entrenches the almost exclusive role given in scientific institutions to research strategies (like those of molecular biology [see response to question 2]) that constrain the theories investigated to those that can represent the underlying law and structure of phenomena in a way that dissociates them from their ecological, human and social contexts. I now call them decontextualizing strategies.^[vi] It is a consequence of adopting decontextualizing strategies almost exclusively that environmental and social effects of introducing innovations (such as those connected with climate change) tend not to be well investigated in advance of their introduction.

I have argued that private-interest science, not only conflicts with the ideal of the modern scientific tradition that scientific knowledge belongs to the common patrimony of humanity, but also weakens democratic institutions.^[vii] In several recent writings,^[viii] I have proposed that this approach to scientific research should be balanced by strong support (including appropriate levels of funding) for research that is framed by the following question:

“How should scientific research be conducted, and by whom, with what priorities and using what kinds of strategies, and how should technologies be developed and administered, so as to ensure that nature is respected, that its regenerative powers are not further undermined and restored wherever possible, and that the rights, well being and conditions for constructive participation in a democratic society, are enhanced for everyone everywhere?”

Obviously, asking this question is motivated by ethical/social values, by interest in public interests that are not subordinated to commercial ones. However [see answer to question 2]), this does not imply that impartial knowledge of phenomena (e.g., linked with environmental risks, and approaches to practical activities like agriculture that are not based on technoscientific innovations) cannot be obtained in research conducted under the strategies adopted – just as aiming to foster economic growth and progress (also social values) is consistent with gaining impartial knowledge of phenomena and their underlying laws and structures.

5) How do you see the tensions between the public and the private that underlie contemporary scientific controversies, such as those related to climate change, transgenesis and nuclear power?

I find it difficult to address these three cases together; so, in order to give a sharper answer, I’ll just focus on the transgenics case. I have argued in several writings that public interests can be well served (and the question [posed in the response to question 3] answered in concrete terms) only if agricultural innovations and policies are responses that arise in research that addresses the question of “the space of agricultural alternatives”:^[ix] “Which agricultural methods – ‘conventional,’ transgenic, organic, agroecological, biodynamic, subsistence, indigenous, permaculture and others, including those adapted to urban environments –, in which combinations and with which place-specific variations might be sustainable (even in the current situation of global warming and climate change), relatively free from harm and from the risk of doing harm, and productive enough, when accompanied by viable distribution methods (taking into account the largest population concentration in urban environments), to meet the food and nutrition needs of the world’s population for the foreseeable future?”

Transgenics were introduced, not after receiving confirmation from research, which dealt with the space of alternatives, that transgenics were indeed needed for meeting the world’s food needs. Instead, the research and development of the transgenics that are currently being used responded more to the question: “Using the methods of genetic engineering, what traits can crop plants be modified to have; and which ones might be able to be commercially exploited?” Having recognized the potential of using transgenics for commercial (private interests, agribusiness corporations went ahead with developing and implementing varieties of transgenics with the traits that they deemed desirable (e.g., resistance to herbicides that the corporations themselves produced). Putting resources into investigating the question of the space of alternatives would be contrary to their interests – for, antecedently to its being conducted, that research could not guarantee that a major role (or, indeed, any role at all) for transgenics would be supported.

6) Are the values of objectivity, neutrality and autonomy, so dear to scientific endeavor, being jeopardized because of the growing influence of the private sector in science through research funding?

In the seminars I gave at  the IEA in 2013, I stated the ideal of neutrality in this way:^[x] “In principle, (1) each value perspective (viable and sustainable in today’s democratic societies) is embedded in practices that may be informed by some items of the established corpus of scientific knowledge (or that may use some applications of scientific knowledge), and (2) the body of scientific knowledge (as a whole) serves all value perspectives more or less equally, without favoring some over others.” Neutrality is undermined when scientific institutions become dependent on private sources for their funding (or public sources that prioritize research that is intended to contribute to economic growth). Then the outcomes of research are likely to serve especially well the interests of capital and the market often at the expense of those that may reflect values connected (e.g.) with social justice and environmental sustainability. Research, development and innovation of transgenics (e.g.) has served the interests of agribusiness very well, but transgenics have no place in (e.g.) agroecology, an approach to farming that responds to such values as social justice, maintaining the well-being of local communities and strengthening their cultural values, democratic participation and sustainability; and, where private interests have influence over scientific institutions, research that would be potentially relevant to agroecology (e.g., research pertaining to the space of alternatives) is thoroughly marginalized.

Where neutrality is weakened, so too is autonomy, where autonomy refers to the ideal that there be no interference from non-scientific interests (religious, political, economic) in setting the agendas and methodologies of scientific research.^[xi] However, autonomy is difficult to characterize precisely, for scientific institutions depend on outside bodies for their funding, so that outside influences cannot be eliminated even in principle. The difficult issue is how to reconcile a role for outside influences but not to permit outside interference. “Private-interest science” has little interest in exploring such reconciliation.

Note that issues about neutrality are especially pertinent at M₅, and those about autonomy at M₁. Those involving impartiality (objectivity) are especially pertinent at both M₃ and M₅. At M₅, questions about both the efficacy of an innovation and the legitimacy of using it need to be considered. Usually matters of efficacy are settled at M₃; the knowledge that underlies the claim that an innovation works (and how it works) is expected to be confirmed in accordance with impartiality. Legitimacy, however, involves issues of benefits, harm caused, risks and possible alternatives. These are all matters with ethical implications, and usually none of them are adequately addressed in the scientific research that leads to impartial claims being made about efficacy. E.g., the efficacy of using certain transgenics in certain conditions is explained by reference to the theories of molecular biology and biotechnology that enabled the development of transgenics; but this research tells us nothing about the social and ecological conditions needed for, and effects of, using transgenics in actual agricultural practices. Private interest science is well served by insisting on the ideal of impartiality at M₃ (although it does open up possibilities for conflicts of interests [see response to question 3); but by not providing support for research on the crucial issues about legitimacy, any claims made about, e.g., there being no serious risks that cannot be dealt with adequately in the light of enforced regulations, are likely to be discordant with impartiality.

7) According to the model you propose, social and ethical values operate mainly in the choice of a research strategy. The way this choice is made explains why science prefers research problems that are relevant from the standpoint of interests associated with economic growth and the policies that emphasize it, but less auspicious to the interests of popular movements, family farmers and, overall, marginalized people and groups?

In discussions of the model, I emphasize the role of social and ethical values (at M₁) in choosing the strategies to be adopted in a research project. This is the most distinctive feature of the model. However, these values also have roles at the other moments (except at M₃). The role they play at M₅ is especially noteworthy, and it is closely connected with the role they play at M₁: frequently strategies are adopted anticipating applications that would serve interests that embody specific values. In contemporary scientific institutions, research projects tend to be chosen that require the adoption of strategies [the ones I called decontextualizing strategies in my response to question 3] that have mutually reinforcing relations with the values of technological progress and those of capital and the market, the values desired to be especially well served by applications (innovations) that arise from the research. But these values conflict with those articulated in the popular movements (e.g., social justice, participatory democracy, sustainability), which are not well represented in scientific institutions, and so little support becomes available to engage in research under the strategies (strategies that do not involve decontextualization) that might produce results that would serve their interests.

The role that social and ethical values play in the adoption of research strategies makes it highly likely that the results of the research, on application, will serve especially well interests that embody these values, often at the expense of interests that embody competing values. This implies that neutrality cannot be approximated, unless scientific institutions become open to supporting a multiplicity and variety of research programs that can be responsive to the range of value held in a democratic society.^[xii]

8) Among the values that influence scientific endeavor, do you include values linked to ambition for academic prestige, to the desire for power and to the political game that often pervades scientific activity?

Yes, values like these are often in play at M₂, the moment of carrying out the research, and the influence can be quite positive when it provides motivation to engage with really difficult questions – the aspiration to gain the Nobel Prize is generally thought to be an appropriate one for scientists to have. These values can also have negative influence. For example, at M₁ today, they may contribute to strengthening the idea of science as investigation aiming to produce technoscientific innovations that contribute to economic growth, and the unfortunate consequences connected with this [see response to question 6]; and, at M₃, they may lead to personal interests over-riding judgments that should be supported by the evidence alone, and create conflicts of interest in various other ways. The so-called “scientific ethos” described by the sociologist Robert Merton is intended to counteract the negative effects of these values. I, myself, have not written much on this question.

9) You associate the Baconian principle of control over nature with the decontextualized approach to science, distinguished by a disregard for the ecological, social and human contexts that underlie the phenomena being studied. What values predominate in this approach?

Yes, I have argued that there are mutually reinforcing relations between adopting decontextualizing strategies and holding a value-outlook that contains what I now call the values of technological progress, In this value-outlook, the exercise of control over natural objects – or, in Bacon’s terminology, “the domination of nature” – becomes in itself a social value that is not generally or systematically subordinated to other social values, while high ethical value is attributed to innovations that increase human ability to control natural objects; to the evergrowing penetration of technologies into more and more domains of daily life,  human experience and social institutions; and to the definition of problems in terms that make for technoscientific solutions. Pablo Mariconda’s articles on this topic are very good. Furthermore, in present-day technoscience, holding the values of technological progress is reinforced by (and reinterpreted in the light of) the fact that today institutions that embody values of capital and the market (especially economic growth and the centrality of property) are the foremost bearers of these values.

10) Is it the prevalence of these values that hinders the advancement of research aimed at social inclusion and sustainability? What are the challenges to carry out alternative research programs that do not adopt the decontextualized approach to science?

The values of technological progress (especially when interpreted in the light of those of capital and the market) are in all sorts of ways in conflict with those of social justice, social inclusion, the well-being of everyone, and environmental sustainability. Where they predominate (and they predominate in most countries today) there is likely to be little public or private material, financial and other support for engaging in research conducted under strategies that have mutually reinforcing relations with the competing values. E. g., using my earlier example, there is little support for agroecology, or for the investigation of risks that have socioeconomic mechanisms that may be occasioned by introducing technoscientific innovations, or for research concerning programs of public health that integrally involve the participation (in both research and delivery of services) of local groups, or for research on the possible fruitful interaction between modern scientific studies and indigenous knowledge and methods of its acquisition, or in social technology – to mention just a few areas of significance. (Incidentally, I refer to the strategies needed for research in these areas as involving “alternative strategies.” By this, I intend to convey that it requires the use of strategies that are not reducible to decontextualizing ones; but it also makes use (where appropriate) of results obtained under decontextualizing strategies. The alternatives strategies could not replace decontextualizing ones for all research purposes. The model allows for pluralism of strategies; it does not challenge the central importance of decontextualizing strategies.)^[xiii]

The great challenge is to gain more space for conducting research under the alternative strategies, and to continue to expand it. This involves many dimensions.

Philosophers of science (like myself) have an important role: to show (among other things) (1) that the virtual exclusivity of the decontextualizing strategies in contemporary natural scientific research is not soundly based in the ideals – impartiality, neutrality and autonomy – of the scientific tradition; (2) that, in fact, the predominance of these strategies is owed more to the mutually reinforcing relations between adopting them and holding the values of technological progress; and (3) that, when research as a whole is conducted under a plurality of strategies, the possibility of moving towards realization of the traditional ideals becomes apparent – more generally, to show that science does not have to be conducted in the way in which it is largely conducted in mainstream scientific institutions, and that there are good reasons (based in the ideals of the tradition) why these institutions should open up space to the alternatives.

But that is only a beginning step. The challenge requires drawing input from many parties, each one engaged in efforts in its own space and practices. The prospects for success will depend on achieving successes, initially small-scale ones, in many spaces and practices that, in turn, open up possibilities for expansion when put into dialectical interaction with the others. It requires the unfolding of a very complex dialectic, which would require – cooperatively, simultaneously and in interaction – expanding successful achievements connected with each of the following matters (and, no doubt, others):^[xiv]

a) Taking advantage of the space that is available in institutions, like universities, that are not completely dominated by the values of capital and the market and that see themselves as having responsibilities to further democratic interests, and develop research projects that use some of the alternative strategies (e.g., in agroecology, public health and preventive medicine, alternative sources of energy, free computer software, etc).

b) Taking steps towards claiming and strengthening autonomy in research institutions: towards freeing them from the disproportionate influence of the values of capital and the market in setting the priorities of scientific research and determining appropriate methodologies, from the interference derived from holding these values in the conduct of science (e.g., via legal imposition of regimes of intellectual property rights), and from impositions that are being made on the character of scientific work and its regimes of operation [see response to question 3].

c) Aiming for more widespread adoption of the Precautionary Principle in research institutions,^[xv] and its incorporation in public science policies, so that technoscientific innovation becomes more subordinated to the values expressed in it, and the kinds of research on risks and alternatives, which its use shows to be needed, become conducted more extensively.

d) Working for the growth of – and active collaboration among – movements that aspire to democratic values, including the protection of human rights, the full range of economic/social/cultural as well as civil/political rights recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and to strengthening of the values of democratic participation, so that consciousness grows about the plurality of research strategies that are needed to provide knowledge that would enable all democratic projects to become informed by scientific knowledge.

e) Organizing for the growth of movements, institutions and programs in which researchers, practitioners and citizens collaborate, including programs for educating citizens to be able to be intelligent participants in deliberations on science policy matters, for scientists to learn from citizens what they consider to be the principal problems and interests that need to be addressed, and how they experience the problems and perceive the causal networks that bring them about and maintain them. There is needed the participation of scientists, industry and the public to work out how to re-institutional science, and to create examples showing how democratic and multicultural participation might enhance science.

11) In your research proposal to the IEA, you mention ethical, economic and social values that, on one hand, maintain scientific objectivity against postmodern arguments, but, on the other, reject characterizations of this objectivity derived from Positivism. What are the disputed postmodern arguments and characterizations with a Positivist tint, and what results from excluding both these extremes?

“Positivism” and “postmodernism” are widely used terms, but rarely are they used precisely or univocally. So I’ll just refer to aspects of these views, without attempting to characterize them completely.

Regarding positivism, I criticize the view, which we find in many of the intellectual descendants of the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle of the 1930s, that (in my terms) there is no legitimate role for social/ethical values at either M₁ or M₃. This is the core of the widely held “positivist” claim that “science is value free.” In practice these positivists rarely made a distinction between these two moments, or (as I do) between adopting a strategy and accepting a theory; for them, what I diagnose as constraints on theories under decontextualizing strategies are built into their characterization of scientific theories. This had the consequence that the relationship between adopting decontextualizing strategies virtually exclusively and holding the values of technological progress remained effectively invisible.

The “postmodernist” view I criticize is highly sensitive to the role of the values of technological progress and their links with those of capital and the market in shaping contemporary science. It maintains that there is not a sharp distinction between cognitive and social/ethical values, and thus that social/ethical values can play legitimate roles at M₃, and it has the consequence that even well made evaluations of scientific theories and hypotheses are essentially marked by relativism. It denies that a significant distinction between objectivity and subjectivity can be upheld. Sometimes, this has been taken to justify rejecting much of established science simply on the ground that it has strong links the values of capital and the market.

My position, which avoids the two extremes, recognizes a legitimate role for social/ethical values at M₁, but not at M₃. It upholds the distinction between cognitive and other kinds of values, but recognizes that social/ethical values do play many legitimate roles in the conduct of research, and shows how this need not lead to relativism or subjectivism. It enables there to be a social/political critique of actual scientific practices without thereby making the cognitive appraisal of scientific theories (as distinct, e.g., of their being objects for research and their results being applied) a matter for social/political critique.

12) Still according to your research proposal, the seminars you held at the IEA might help to expand the theses included in your model. Could you give an example of this expansion?

The model of the interaction of science and values allows the possibility of there being a range of fruitful strategies (not limited to the decontextualizing strategies) each of which bears mutually reinforcing relations with holding a particular value-outlook. The seminars aimed to show that this is not just a logical possibility, by discussing alternative strategies that have already proved their fruitfulness in promising, if currently limited, ways. I myself have examined the case of agroecology in considerable detail.^[xvi] Its strategies bear mutually reinforcing relations to the value outlook of “social justice, democratic participation and ecological sustainability.”^[xvii] The strategies enable the empirical/theoretical investigation of agroecosystems dealing simultaneously with their productivity, sustainability, capacity to maintain biodiversity, their contribution to health of the agricultural community, and how they affect local culture, agency and values, often with a view to generating what the community itself determines to be a suitable and viable balance of these dimensions. Proponents of transgenics, e.g., often dismiss agroecology as simply expressing an ideological desire.^[xviii] The model represents that, although holding particular social/ethical values (that contest those of capital and market dominant in the mainstream) has close links with adopting agroecological strategies, this leaves untouched that judgments made at M₃ in agroecological research may accord with impartiality [see the  response to question 2). The significance of the model depends on the fruitfulness of cases like agroecology (and many others) being demonstrated in actual practice.

13) What is the content of the dossier on science and values that you and professor Pablo Mariconda are organizing with contributions obtained in the seminars?

The dossier begins with an article, jointly written by Pablo and me, that contains what we consider a mature and standardized version of the model of the interaction of science and values. We hope this will be useful, for – although the model dates back to the mid 1999s^[xix] – it has been refined and developed (and a lot of the terminology deployed has been changed) over the years in the course of numerous seminars organized by Scientiae Studia [philosophical association of scholars associated with the IEA research group that publishes the Scientiae Studia journal] here in São Paulo. The standardized version that we offer takes into account all these refinements and developments (and uses what has now become settled terminology), and points to places where further work is needed. In a second article, based in the model, I argue that how scientific research is to be understood today is open to two interpretations that I call “commercially-oriented technoscience” and “multi-strategy research.” This claim provides the structure for most of the dossier: several articles criticizing commercially-oriented technoscience, but in a way that recognizes the positive value of many technoscientific innovations; and others that aim to show the promise of multi-strategy research in the areas: social technology, agroecology, public health, and potential interaction between modern scientific research and traditional (indigenous) knowledge-gaining practices. (We hope that others will develop examples in many other areas of research, e.g., energy and communications.) Finally, in response to the fact that the model suggests limits to common conceptions of the rationality of science (that tend to be connected with positivism), there are a series of articles on the rationality of science, all in different ways attempting to explore how rationality marks scientific practices, but with different types of considerations coming to the fore at the different moments.

REFERENCES

Lacey, Hugh (1998) Valores e Atividade Científica. São Paulo: Discurso Editorial and Fapesp. (First edition of VAC-1)

––––  (1999) Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London & New York: Routledge.

––––  (2006a) A Controvérsia sobre os Transgênicos: questões científicas e éticas. São Paulo: Editora Idéias e Letras.

––––  (2006b) “O Princípio de Precaução e a autonomia da ciência.” Scientiae Studia 4: 373–392.

––––  (2008) Valores e Atividade Científica 1. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientiae Studia/Editora 34 –VAC-1.

––––  (2008a) “Ciência, respeito à natureza e bem-estar humano.” Scientiae Studia 6: 297-327.

––––  (2008b) “Aspectos cognitivos e sociais das práticas científicas.” Scientiae Studia 6:83-96.

––––  (2008c) “Crescimento econômico, meio-ambiente e sustentabilidade social: a responsabilidade dos cientistas e a questão dos transgênicos.” In Gilberto Dupas (ed.), Meio-ambiente e Crescimento Econômico: Tensões estruturais, pp. 91-130. São Paulo: Editora Unesp.

––––  (2010) Valores e Atividade Científica 2. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica Scientiae Studia/Editora 34. VAC-2

––––  (2011a) “A imparcialidade e as responsabilidades dos cientistas.” Scientiae Studia 9: 487-500.

––––  (2011b) “A interação da atividade científica, visões de mundo e perspectivas de valores,” in Eduardo R. Cruz (ed.), Teologia e Ciências Naturais: Teologia da criação, ciências naturais e tecnologia em diálogo, pp.127–147. São Paulo: Editora Paulinas.

––––  (2011c) Preface to Márcia M. Tait, Tecnociência e Cientistas: Cientificismo e Controvérsias na política de biossegurança brasileira, pp. 13-29. São Paulo: Editora Annablume.

––––  (2012a) “Pluralismo metodológico, incomensurabilidade, e o status científico do conhecimento tradicional.” Scientiae Studia 10 : 425–453.

––––  (2012b) “Las diversas culturas y la práctica de la ciencia.” In F. Tula Molina & G. Giuliano (eds.), Culturas Científicas y Alternativas Tecnológicas, pp. 133-169. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva.

––––  (2013) “Rehabilitating neutrality.” Philosophical Studies 162: 77-83.

Lacey, Hugh & Mariconda, Pablo (2013) “The Eagle and the Starlings: Galileo’s argument for the autonomy of science – how pertinent is it today?.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43: 122–131.

Mariconda, P & Lacey, H. (2001) “A águia e os estorninhos: Galileu sobre a autonomia da ciência.” Tempo Social 13: 49-65.

^[i] VAC-1, cap. 3.

^[ii] VAC-1, cap. 2; VAC-2, cap. 11

^[iii] VAC-1, cap. 1; VAC-2, cap.1; Lacey (2006a: introdução; 2008b; 2011a)

^[iv] VAC-1, especialmente cap. 5; VAC-2, parte 1.

^[v] Lacey (2006a; 2008c; 2011c); VAC-2, parte 2

^[vi] VAC-2, parte 1; Lacey (2012a; 2012b)

^[vii] Lacey (2008a; 2011b; 2012b).

^[viii] E.g., Lacey (2008a).

^[ix] Lacey (2006a; 2008a; 2008c; 2011c)

^[x] My most detailed discussions of impartiality, neutrality and autonomy are in Lacey (1999: ch. 10; 2008a); VAC-2, cap.1. On neutrality, see also Lacey (2013).

^[xi] On autonomy, see my collaborative articles with Pablo Mariconda (Mariconda & Lacey, 2001; Lacey & Mariconda (2012).

^[xii] Lacey (2013).

^[xiii] VAC-2, cap. 2; Lacey (2008a)

^[xiv] Lacey (2008a; 2012b)

^[xv] Lacey (2006b)

^[xvi] Lacey (2006a); VAC-2, parte 2.

^[xvii] Lacey (2008a; 2011b; 2012a)

^[xviii] Lacey (2011c)

^[xix] Lacey (1998; 1999).

Special attention will be given to the imagery documentary record, seen as an inventory of social and cultural practices that contributes to human and social sciences in the mapping and interpretation of Amazonian realities.

According to the organizers of the debate, "science and the technology perspective associated with it tend to understand the Amazon as a repository of natural resources, biodiversity and genetic 'bank', which must be harnessed to meet human needs, specifically to answer the hegemonic model of progress."

However, the researchers warn that "science and technology, as drivers of rational development and of the ideals of human flourishing behind it, oppose the traditional knowledge, meaning knowledge and ways of life of people and local communities, considering that they constitute an obstacle to modernization."

Given the possible tensions arising from the meeting of these narratives, some questions arise:

• Are traditional knowledge and science competing rationalities?
• In spite of their differences, is the cooperation between these rationales a viable alternative?
• Are there rational justifications for the human to be separated from their environment and for biodiversity to be separated from human cultures?

According to organizers, cooperative dialogue between the two sides find support in the theoretical framework of the model of interaction between science and values ​​which is developed by the research group [read the interview with Hugh Lacey on this model]: "The arguments of the model in favor of strategic pluralism point to the need of a research based on methodological complementarity and the possibility of adopting unconventional alternative practices for biodiversity conservation."

Three central issues will be addressed by the two debates of the event:

• The imagery documentary record and field survey: from image to translation of realities
• Dialogue between science and traditional knowledge: from the model of interaction to methodological pluralism
• Communication and polarization between scientific and popular narratives in biodiversity conservation

PROGRAMME

April 9 from 9.30 am to 12.30 pm

Exhibitors: Antonio Carlos Diegues (NUPAUB-USP) and Sylvia Caiuby Novaes (FFLCH-USP)

Discussant: Stelio Marras (IEB-USP)

Mediator: Ana Tereza Reis da Silva (FE-UNB and IEA-USP)

April 10 from 9.30 am to 12.30 pm

Exhibitors: Mauro William Barbosa de Almeida (IFCH-Unicamp) and Ana Tereza Reis da Silva (FE-UNB and IEA-USP)

Discussant / mediator: Stelio Marras (IEB-USP)

According to Canevacci, "the event aims to try an innovative way to present a book that develops an ethnographic research on contemporary arts and therefore it will merge languages ​​and narrative forms in a compositional polyphony." Specialists in art, philosophy and anthropology will present reflections on the work.

Minimum Monument

Azevedo’s project has been presented in cities of different countries and cultures. The work is described in the artist's website as below:

"There are numerous ice sculptures placed to melt in public spaces where they attract the attention of passersby, causing a suspension of their everyday path. Acting in a few minutes, the work subverts the official canons of the memory record in public monuments, reducing the size of the monument to eight inches high, making it mobile and fleeting and honoring ordinary people instead of leaders and heroes. It carries with it a concrete, poetic and political seizure of space, of the body within the city and of the monument in the collective space."

During the launch, the book "SincrétiKa - Ethnographic Explorations of Contemporary Arts" (Studio Nobel, 2013, 296 pages) will be for sale at promotional price. The meeting has been organized by the IEA- USP and by USP’s Tenda Cultural Ortega Y Gasset, linked to PRCEU, Dean of Culture and University Extension.

Photo: Néle Azevedo