Regarding the construction of a National System of Science, Technology and Innovation for life in Colombia

PhD in Social Sciences, Childhood and Youth
CINDE-University of Manizales[1]

In a recent note, published on the CLACSO website, part of a debate that arose in Colombia related to the content of the document entitled National System of Science, Technology and Innovation for a good life, a delicious life and the effective exercise of a multicolored democracy (2022), which currently guides the development of the Science and Technology policy of the elected government, led by Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez. Given that this is a topic of public interest and useful for the political, academic, and pedagogical work we carry out through the centers, Working Groups, and academic networks of CLACSO, we will present some considerations on this ongoing debate.

 The document in question contains four points that argue for the need to build a National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) at the service of life. First, by way of diagnosis, it posits the existence of a hegemonic science that, through the deepening of the modern-capitalist project, has facilitated the exploitation of nature, resulting in global ecological, climate, and food crises. The hegemonic nature of this form of knowledge is evident in its logocentric, monological, anthropocentric, and patriarchal configuration, as well as in the legitimacy it has progressively acquired through science and technology policies promoted by the State, corporations, and certain sectors of academia.

Secondly, when addressing the purpose of science in a country like Colombia, the document proposes some guiding questions. In response to the question "Science for what?", it states, "Science so that there is no hunger (...) so that there is no racism (...) to reduce inequality (...) to preserve diversity (...) to live well (p. 3)." As an answer to the question "Science with whom?", it affirms that scientific work must respond to the demands of those who have historically been subordinated to centralism and dispossession—that is, the "nobodies," as Vice President-elect Francia Márquez calls them. And, regarding the question "Science how?", the document indicates that the new government will build a National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) in dialogue with marginalized groups, who will act not only as recipients of science but also as agents capable of co-constructing knowledge and alternatives.

Third, it establishes six guiding principles for the SNCTI, as follows: i) the institutions of the SNCTI will contribute to the change towards a more just, more sustainable, more sensitive, more creative society, with greater well-being and less poverty; ii) there is no social justice without epistemic justice; iii) our science is committed to fostering epistemic pluralism; iv) the SNCTI will contribute to promoting diversity and overcoming discrimination based on gender, race-ethnicity, social class, generation and rural-urban status, through epistemological transitions, scientific-technological autonomies and processes of co-creation and social appropriation of knowledge with children and young people; v) science, technology and innovation are for women; and vi) public science with inclusive and sufficient funding for the transition.

Finally, it proposes a National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) capable of being integrated with the strategies of economic well-being, agriculture and peacebuilding, living without hunger and living well, education (primary, secondary, and higher), inclusion and equity based on cultural and natural diversity, conservation and enhancement of nature, and energy. These strategies are complemented by several cross-cutting themes that seek to strengthen the pluralistic nature of science within the SNCTI, including inclusion in science as a fundamental criterion for responding to the needs and challenges of the peoples of the Global South, and the use of situated methodologies that overcome scientific extractivism and prioritize dialogue and the co-design of alternatives with communities.

Since the election campaign, some sectors have questioned the science and technology perspective promoted by the Historical Pact. On July 15, Professor Moisés Wasserman, in his column in the newspaper El Tiempo, entitled ''Hegemonic science' and 'epistemic justice' (2022), stated that the hegemony of science is an expression of its success, given that the stability of a scientific theory arises from the consensus of a community and the overcoming of other theories. Regarding the concept of epistemic justice, he pointed out that science does not seek to distribute merit among different theories, which may even be contradictory. From his point of view, recognizing diverse forms of knowledge would lead to the collapse of science, since “a theory that is proven false falls apart, regardless of who proposed it” (sp).

In this regard, as reported on the CLACSO website, several intellectuals and journalists at both the international and national levels responded. The Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2022) stated that Wasserman defends the conventional position that was hegemonic until the 1960s, when social studies of science and epistemological conceptions emerged that demonstrated how this form of knowledge progresses not only through curiosity and experimentation, but especially through strong economic and military interests. For his part, the Colombian anthropologist Arturo Escobar (2022) argued that Wasserman's critique overlooks the fact that the Historical Pact document recommends taking into account the guidelines of the Mission of Wise Men, of which he was a member, and that the elected government's National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) proposes subordinating science, technology, and the economy to the defense of life and Buen Vivir (Good Living).

Meanwhile, social researcher Alejandro Mantilla (2022) explained that Wasserman's position fails to consider the conditions of scientific production in societies marked by inequality. He also acknowledged that the science and technology policy Colombia requires cannot separate scientific work from its social context. Finally, journalist Tatiana Acevedo (2022) argued that Wasserman caricatures the Historical Pact proposal, rejecting an equitable dialogue with experiences from Colombia's long tradition of participatory research, ignoring how development projects in some areas have been achieved through the underdevelopment of others, and disregarding the value of transparent and accessible scientific approaches in increasing the relevance of science as a response to the needs of social groups.

Based on this brief account, we present our point of view:

• We welcome the debate taking place in Colombia regarding the development of the new science and technology policy. We respect the viewpoints of those who criticize these new directions and encourage continued contributions to the discussion. We are convinced that this exercise not only informs but also fosters critical perspectives through increasing processes of social appropriation of knowledge, especially in communities that have historically been excluded from science and technology.
• Since 1967, CLACSO has examined the role of science, technology, and various forms of knowledge in building democratic, pluralistic societies that respect human rights and are guided by principles of dignity, equality, inclusion, and equity. In recent times, several centers, working groups, and academic networks affiliated with CLACSO have produced critical knowledge about the hegemonic forms of science over time, especially regarding the mechanisms of domination exerted by this type of knowledge within the context of civilizational, imperialist, developmentalist, and neoliberal projects.
• Faced with this scenario, we have also come to understand the value of the epistemic alternatives emerging in the Global South as a response to the colonial legacies that naturalize and manage classism, racism, sexism, patriarchy, adultcentrism, and ableism. Boaventura de Sousa Santos's (2022) response to Professor Wasserman illustrates the importance of these emerging perspectives:The indigenous and Afro-descendant movement of the continent played an important role in showing that there were Afro-Indigenous philosophies that started from a conception of nature different from that which underlies modern science (…) While for modern science nature belongs to us, for Afro-Indian philosophies we belong to nature” (sp).
• The principles and guidelines for a National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) based on "living well" and "Buen Vivir" (Good Living), proposed by the elected government led by Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez, constitute a fundamental shift in the role of science as a vector of social, political, economic, and cultural transformation. We value this commitment not only because many researchers in the CLACSO academic community share these epistemic principles, but also because we recognize the importance of a public science and technology policy based on this approach, especially if one of this policy's commitments is to include those who have been marginalized, as Arturo Escobar (2022) argues: "We are witnessing a broad process of civilizational challenges that seek to go beyond the dominance of the Western model, without ignoring its most important achievements, but reorienting them to the service of life and the Earth and with priority for the groups that have suffered the most from the consequences of the model: the nobodies” (sp).
• We believe that this debate and the implementation of a National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SNCTI) in Colombia, based on horizontal dialogue and complementarity between Western science and emerging epistemologies, are valuable benchmarks for the region and the peoples of the Global South. We know that CLACSO's centers, working groups, and academic networks will make their experience, knowledge, and resources available to continue the dialogue and support, if necessary, the implementation of a SNCTI for well-being, a fulfilling life, and the effective exercise of a diverse democracy.

---

Highlighted

Acevedo, T. (2022). One of the worst columns I've ever read.. https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/columnistas/tatiana-acevedo-guerrero/una-de-las-peores-columnas-que-he-leido-en-mi-vida/

Escobar, A. (2022). Brief response to Professor Moisés Wasserman. https://www.clacso.org/breve-respuesta-al-profesor-moises-wasserman/

Mantilla, A. (2022). Knowledge, public policy, and epistemic justice: A response to Moisés Wasserman. https://www.clacso.org/el-conocimiento-la-politica-publica-y-la-injusticia-epistemica-una-respuesta-a-moises-wasserman/

Historic pact. (2022). National System of Science, Technology and Innovation for well-being, a fulfilling life, and the effective exercise of a multifaceted democracy. Political vision document. https://es.scribd.com/document/582145175/SISTEMA-NACIONAL-DE-CIENCIA-TECNOLOGIA-E-INNOVACION-SNCTI-PARA-EL-BUEN-VIVIR-EL-VIVIR-SABROSO-Y-EL-EJERCICIO-EFECTIVO-DE-UNA-DEMOCRACIA-MULTICOLOR

Santos, B. (2022). Science policy under discussion. https://www.clacso.org/la-politica-cientifica-en-discusion/

Wasserman, M. (2022). 'Hegemonic science' and 'epistemic justice'. https://www.eltiempo.com/opinion/columnistas/moises-wasserman/ciencia-hegemonica-y-justicia-epistemica-moises-wasserman-687343

---

[1] CLACSO member center. Several of the researchers at this Center are members of the Working Groups and other academic networks of CLACSO.

---

See: Colombia World Power of Life

---

---