{"id":142137,"date":"2012-06-03T17:02:02","date_gmt":"2012-06-03T16:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/?p=142137"},"modified":"2012-06-03T17:04:35","modified_gmt":"2012-06-03T16:04:35","slug":"comercializacion-de-la-ciencia-riesgos-y-contradicciones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/2012\/06\/03\/142137","title":{"rendered":"Comercializaci\u00f3n de la Ciencia: Riesgos y Contradicciones"},"content":{"rendered":"

Somos muchos los investigadores preocupados por los derroteros que est\u00e1 tomando la investigaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica bajo el imperio del neoliberalismo econ\u00f3mico (ver nuestro post Ciencia y Neoliberalismo Econ\u00f3mico<\/span><\/a>). A la antigua presi\u00f3n por publicar<\/strong><\/span> cuantos m\u00e1s art\u00edculos mejor, en la revistas indexadas, que se inici\u00f3 a finales del siglo XX, se le suma actualmente una exigencia de inmediatez con vistas a que sus resultados de las investigaciones sean r\u00e1pidamente asimilados por los tejidos industriales<\/strong><\/span>. Se trata pues de extraer beneficios econ\u00f3micos lo antes posible<\/strong><\/span>. Venimos defendiendo que la denominada Investigaci\u00f3n Traslacional<\/a> puede generar m\u00e1s perjuicios que beneficios<\/strong><\/span>. Paralelamente las Retrodemocracias<\/a> propiciadas por la Escuela de Chicago<\/a> tambi\u00e9n pretenden privatizar<\/strong> <\/span>todo lo que encuentran a su paso y entre otras actividades la propia ciencia<\/strong><\/span>. Se trata de una ceguera de gran calado, como intentamos mostrar en nuestro post \u201cTecnolog\u00edas de Primera y Segunda Generaci\u00f3n (Un Riesgo Social en Ciernes)<\/a>\u201d. Las inversiones p\u00fablicas a largo lazo son\u00a0 imprescindibles con vistas a<\/strong><\/span> lograr dar pasos de gigante en la investigaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica, a partir de los cuales se desarrollan las que denominamos tecnolog\u00edas de primera generaci\u00f3n<\/strong><\/span>. Ala postre, la industria<\/strong><\/span> saca provecho de las mismas al operacionalizarlas en tecnolog\u00edas de segunda generaci\u00f3n<\/strong><\/span>. Empero sin las primeras no pueden prosperar las segundas. Y en este tesitura anda la relaci\u00f3n entre Ciencia y Neoliberalismo Econ\u00f3mico<\/span><\/a>. El 28 de mayo de 2012 la revista The Scientist<\/span><\/a> publicaba un art\u00edculo en la cual un investigador canadiense se preguntaba preocupado varias preguntas sobre este tema que podr\u00e9is leer abajo. Nadie en su sano juicio cuestiona que la ciencia no deba traducirse en prosperidad y bienestar ciudadano. Las cuestiones que realmente deben preocuparnos son otras: \u00bfC\u00f3mo?, \u00bfcuando? \u00bfPor qu\u00e9 y por qui\u00e9n?; \u00bfA que precio?, etc. Ahora bien, el mundo empresarial <\/strong><\/span>busca esencialmente beneficios econ\u00f3micos<\/strong><\/span>, relegando cualquier otro aspecto a su segundo plano. Sin embargo, a los investigadores se les coloca <\/strong><\/span>entre la espada y la pared<\/span><\/span><\/a>, mediante con una serie de directrices que atentan contra los c\u00e1nones de la indagaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica, a dem\u00e1s de ser contradictorias<\/strong><\/span>. Por un lado les impelen a publicar<\/strong><\/span>, por otro nuestras autoridades en un acto de hipocres\u00eda supina tambi\u00e9n \u201calegan desear\u201d que los resultados de las indagaciones cient\u00edficas sean p\u00fablicas y de libre acceso a todos los ciudadanos<\/strong><\/span>. Sin embargo, tambi\u00e9n presionan para que los investigadores colaboremos con la industria firmando contratos que generalmente contienen clausulas de confidencialidad, dejando al margen las patentes<\/strong>. Y al hacerlo, los tradicionales e imprescindibles criterios de objetividad y replicabilidad de los resultados tambi\u00e9n se diluyen<\/strong><\/span>. Dicho de otro modo, se obliga al cient\u00edfico que permanezca y avance cada vez m\u00e1s r\u00e1pido por la cuerda floja. El autor de la nota de prensa aparecida en The Scientist<\/span><\/a>, es decir Timothy Caulfield reconoce acertadamente que la ciencia siempre ha estado sujeta a los controles estatales, las demandas sociales y presiones del mercado<\/strong><\/span>. De este modo, ha evolucionado a modo de un<\/span><\/strong> equilibrio puntuado<\/span><\/a>, en el que alternan periodos en los cuales la investigaci\u00f3n avanza r\u00e1pidamente, con otros en las que sus progresos se ralentizan. A menudo, el tr\u00e1nsito entre un estado y otro procede de cambios sociales, geop\u00f3nicos y econ\u00f3micos siendo un caso tristemente palmario, el impulso que dan las guerras a la ciencia y la tecnolog\u00eda<\/strong><\/span>.\u00a0 \u201cTimoteo\u201d tambi\u00e9n reconoce que tales presiones est\u00e1n cambiando el vocabulario de los cient\u00edficos, la manera de redactar sus proyectos y art\u00edculos, as\u00ed como sus relaciones con los pol\u00edticos e industriales etc<\/strong><\/span>. Y todo ello sea acelerado en los \u00faltimos 10 a\u00f1os, es decir en el siglo XXI. \u00bfHacia donde nos dirigimos?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"fernando-zobel-fuente-michelle-rumney\"<\/p>\n

Fernando Z\u00f3bel. Fuente: Michelle Rumney<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\"productividad-cientifica-por-paises\"<\/p>\n

\u00bfA donde se puede observar la calidad de la ciencia en Espa\u00f1a?: N\u00famero de art\u00edculos por mill\u00f3n de habitantes. Fuente: Gobierno de Canad\u00e1<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\"ranking-de-articulos-altamente-citados\"<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00bfA donde se puede observar la calidad de la ciencia en Espa\u00f1a?: N\u00famero e art\u00edculos de alta calidad y ampliamente citados por otros investigadores<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Si bien uno pudiera considerar que tal cambio es exclusivamente cuantitativo, cabr\u00eda recordar que tales presiones puedan dar lugar a saltos cualitativos<\/strong> <\/span>de gran magnitud y calado. Si Timothy Caulfield no ve claro el futuro, francamente yo lo veo muy negro<\/span><\/strong>. Cuando los pol\u00edticos y poderes econ\u00f3micos ponen a la comunidad cient\u00edfica en posiciones dif\u00edciles que demandan de equilibrios malabaristas, cuando el cient\u00edfico debe ser tambi\u00e9n ejecutivo, gestor, comercial y empresario, la objetividad, independencia y la buena praxis cient\u00edfica comienzan a ser un obst\u00e1culo en sus carreras profesionales. Y s\u00ed e fomenta el fraude, la ciencia chapucera mal testada, y otros muchos demonios. Se trata justamente de aquellos males de los la ciencia alardeaba que hab\u00eda logrado soslayar frente a otras ramas del conocimiento<\/strong> <\/span>y la cultura. Os dejo abajo con la nota de prensa que lamentablemente se encuentra escrita en suahili.<\/em><\/p>\n

Juan Jos\u00e9 Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Opinion: Pressured to Commercialize<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Is the push for science to save the still flailing economy a threat to scientific research? <\/strong><\/p>\n

By Timothy Caulfield | May 28, 2012<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s researchers are increasingly asked to view their work as an engine of economic growth<\/strong>. Commercialization has emerged as dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant writing process. But is this push good for science? What damage might the market\u2019s invisible hand do to the scientific process?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course, it would be naive to suppose that there was ever a time when the social forces that drive research have been totally pure<\/strong>. Government research funds have often been tethered to very specific policy goals. And university researchers have long been nudged, prodded, and in rare circumstances, conscripted to perform specific tasks\u2014including facilitating economic growth<\/strong>. One of my favorite examples is the development of John Harrison\u2019s marine chronometer watch, a huge technical advance that facilitated the exploration of our planet, among other things. It was a direct product of a government funded prize<\/strong>implemented to improve the ability to navigate at sea, thereby making trade more efficient.<\/p>\n

Such social forces and political agendas have resulted in significant scientific progress in a wide range of fields<\/strong>. Indeed, dramatic historical events, war being the most obvious<\/strong>, can create a kind of \u201cscientific punctuated equilibrium\u201d\u2014<\/strong>a time when social necessity<\/strong>(perceived or actual) and the commitment of significant public resources combine to allow both scientific knowledge and technology development to leap forward at a dramatic pace<\/strong>. Think of the impact of WWII<\/strong> on the evolution of the radar, aircraft, rocketry, and the treatment of infection, to name a few.<\/p>\n

Despite these historical examples of goal-oriented research, the current commercialization pressure still feels exceptional. It has a systemic quality. It is more than asking researchers to achieve a particular goal<\/strong>, such as making a watch or landing on the moon. It is an ethos that now seems to permeates every corner of the research enterprise<\/strong>, from the justifications used to raise funds for an area of research to the language used in grant writing and the reporting of results<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Some of our own<\/strong> research<\/a>, which investigated the perceptions of Canadians involved in university technology transfer<\/strong>, uncovered an acknowledgement that commercialization pressure has hit an unprecedented intensity<\/strong>. As noted by one of our tech transfer interviewees, \u201cthere is a substantial expectation now that [commercialization] will happen, which is different than 10 years ago<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are many recent examples of how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to science<\/strong>. The UK government recently justified a \u00a3220 million investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help stimulate an economic recovery<\/a>. A 2009 policy document from Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic activity. And President Obama\u2019s 2011 State of the Union<\/a> address went so far as to challenge American researchers to view this moment in time as \u201cour generation\u2019s Sputnik moment\u201d\u2014the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such as China and India<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The impact of this commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including the possibility that this pressure could reduce<\/strong>collaborative behavior<\/a>, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the premature application of<\/strong> technologies<\/a>, as may already be happening in the spheres of stem cells<\/a> and genetic research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell research regulations<\/a>, which allow the use of experimental adult stem cell therapies without federal approval<\/strong>, be, at least in part, a result of the government\u2019s belief in the economic potential of the field<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Such pressure may also magnify the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype the potential near future benefits of research\u2014another phenomenon that might already<\/strong> be occurring in a number of domains<\/a> and could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is impossible to satisfy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, how will this trend conflict with the emerging emphasis on an<\/strong> open approach<\/a> to science?<\/strong> A range of national and international policy entities, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development<\/a>, suggest \u201cfull and open access to scientific data should be adopted as the international norm.\u201d Can policy makers have it both ways? <\/strong>Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and commercialize their work and<\/em>share their data and results freely and as quickly as practical?<\/p>\n

While working closely with industry and asking researchers to consider the future applications of their work has clear utility, it also creates both social and scientific challenges<\/strong>. Given the pervasive nature of the commercialization push, we should, at a minimum, strive to gain a greater understanding of the tradeoffs at play. To what degree does the growing push to commercialize research threaten the traditional scientific standards of objectivity and independence?<\/strong> Can researchers both commercialize and<\/em>satisfy the emerging norm of open science? <\/strong>More good research on such issues seems critical, as is research on the other side of the ledger. There is, in fact, little reason to suppose that pushing researchers to commercialize will lead to the desired outcome of jobs, profits<\/a>, and economic growth<\/a>\u2014and plenty of concern about the potential pitfalls of this approach<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Given what is at stake, one would hope that the emerging commercialization-infused science policy would, at least, be informed by, well, science<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Timothy Caulfield<\/strong><\/a> is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, and the author of <\/strong>The Cure for Everything: Untangling Twisted Messages about Health, Fitness and Happiness.<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

imothy Caulfield<\/strong> <\/span>da cuenta de todo ello.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Somos muchos los investigadores preocupados por los derroteros que est\u00e1 tomando la investigaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica bajo el imperio del neoliberalismo econ\u00f3mico (ver nuestro post Ciencia y Neoliberalismo Econ\u00f3mico). A la antigua presi\u00f3n por publicar cuantos m\u00e1s art\u00edculos mejor, en la revistas indexadas, que se inici\u00f3 a finales del siglo XX, se le suma actualmente una exigencia de inmediatez con vistas a que sus resultados de las investigaciones sean r\u00e1pidamente asimilados por los tejidos industriales. Se trata pues de extraer beneficios econ\u00f3micos lo antes posible. Venimos defendiendo que la denominada Investigaci\u00f3n Traslacional puede generar m\u00e1s perjuicios que beneficios. Paralelamente las Retrodemocracias propiciadas\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[609,591,605,615,606],"tags":[13643,17959,46698,2273,13734,15286,15287],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":4}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142137"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142137"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142137\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":142153,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142137\/revisions\/142153"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/universo\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}