The social sciences and humanities play a renewed role in the Latin American context marked by a re-engineering of concentrated sectors of the economy that seek - and in countries like Argentina have succeeded - to reinstate the political right in governments. Currently, there have also been attacks against democratic governments, such as in Brazil and along borders in Bolivia. In other countries, such as Honduras, repressive policies have led to the murder of leaders like Berta Cáceres, and in Mexico they have endorsed the disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa, as well as the onslaught that Donald Trump has developed as a discriminatory and exclusionary horizon in the US and the European policy of closing borders. This scenario challenges us, the members of the proposed Working Group who live in the aforementioned countries, to understand the complex present and our participation in designing future actions. The beginning of the millennium has been marked by sharp curves that have expressed significant advances in social rights, demonstrating the challenges that still remain. Among the advances in negotiations, Colombia and Cuba have taken significant steps to expand previously closed dialogues, while Paraguay has succumbed to blows to its democracy. This brief reference to recent actions concerning the countries to which we, the members of the proposed working group, belong, impacts the specific topic of interest: Latin American politicized and dynamic social science. Each new historical period finds itself facing the fundamental questions about the purpose and for whom the social sciences and humanities should be oriented. Questioning and interrogating in this way is vital to understanding which political and social project corresponds to the preferred options of science policy. On this basis, we postulate the notions of politicized social science and mobile social science in order to try to analyze the options of our present time. The concept of politicized social science is inspired by the debates present in the so-called Latin American School of Thought on Science, Technology and Development in the region during the 1950s and 1970s. The purpose of this group —researchers, technologists, engineers and other thinkers— was to investigate the possibilities of establishing a proposal for technological development of our own —Latin American— based on the insertion of sectoral and national policies, as a fundamental variable of integral economic and social development (Martínez Vidal, C. and Mari, M., 2002). Rooted in the particular historical context that Latin America was going through, starting from the detection and understanding of the phenomenon of the deterioration of the terms of trade (as a process that marked its dependent and underdeveloped character), the effort was oriented towards the attempt to encourage local industrialization of a substitution nature, to the detriment of specialization in the production of raw materials. Thus, from the contributions of various thinkers, such as Amílcar Herrera, Jorge Sábato, Osvaldo Sunkel, Luisa Leal, Gustavo Bayer and Francisco Sagasti, among others, scientific-technological policies were proposed for the development of industrialization in the context of dependent countries (Dagnino et al.). al, 1996; Albornoz, 1997; Rietti, 2002). From this effervescence of Latin American thought, the postulates of Oscar Varsavsky have aroused our interest for several years due to the validity and strength of his proposals, particularly within the framework of a conflictive relationship that occurred around the debates on science, technology, development and dependency. Varsavsky's criticisms of what he called scientism—characterized as a way of doing science detached from politics and, ultimately, from society—establish propositions about politicized science: that which is linked to social commitment and willing to methodologically review the parameters that are part of the scientific edifice in relation to social change. Based on the characteristics assumed by politicized science, we attempt a definition of politicized social science (Naidorf, Perrotta, 2015) that we have addressed in years of collaborative work that precede the GT proposed here. The topic is novel for the current discussion on science policy, not only by revisiting the politicized category to highlight a science committed to social change, in an autonomous and emancipatory key, but also and especially for the social sciences that are in processes of permanent revision within the particular scenario that begins in the 21st century. Likewise, secondly, we propose to link, tension and complicate the category of politicized social science with that of knowledge mobilization. The mobilization of knowledge emerged in the year 2000 (Levesque, P., 2009; Sá C., 2011, Levin, 2011; Qi & Levin, 2013; Naidorf, 2014, Fischman, 2014), framed within the discussion on the need for social science research policies to adapt to a new requirement: to have the production of a type of social knowledge "ready for action". This implies going beyond the traditional stage of dissemination: an additional function of the social science researcher would be to find ways to link the production of social knowledge with the use of that same social knowledge produced. We highlight its reflective richness insofar as it motivates us to link the need for a social science oriented—epistemologically, methodologically, and ontologically—to social change in those peripheral, unequal, and dependent societies (politicized social science). We have considered the mobilization of knowledge as a proposal aimed at reviewing research agendas in social sciences and humanities and the actions projected towards promoting the use of their results and based on their “usability”. The neologism usability (from the English usability -ease of use-,) which is not part of the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), refers to the ease with which people can use a particular tool or any other object manufactured by humans in order to achieve a specific goal. Usability can also refer to the study of the principles underlying the perceived effectiveness of an object.

The Working Group at this stage must confront adverse situations for Latin America that we must highlight and strive to incorporate into current debate. On May 14, 2019, Brazil suffered one of the most aggressive attacks on its development as a social institution. Brazil's university history, colonized in its origins and very young in terms of autonomy (the first state university is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2020), had already been the target of attacks by the military dictatorships that subjugated it, but in times of democracy, no measure had ever gone so far as to eliminate university autonomy by decree: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019 2022/2019/decreto/D9794.htm 

The measure provoked rejection from the international university community and several Latin American universities, which spoke out against it: the National University of the Littoral: https://www.unl.edu.ar/noticias/news/view/rechazo_al_decreto_contra_la_autonom%C3%Ada_de_las_universidades_en_brasil#.XQAue3uvHx4, the National University of La Plata: https://unlp.edu.ar/institucional/comunicado-en-defensa-de-la-autonomia-universitaria-en-brasil-16107, among others; as did the Association of Universities of the Montevideo Group: http://grupomontevideo.org/sitio/noticias/comunicado-de-augm-en-defensa-de-la-autonomia-universitaria-brasilena/

We posit that neoliberalism imposes new fissures on the role of the modern university, though without displacing it. University autonomy and the practice of science are reconfigured, as the State itself is reformed under competitive, market-driven criteria. The core narrative is reconfigured within the framework of the neoliberal university: science and technology translate into a private outcome that will result in increased corporate profitability and new funding for the University. public It is replaced by market competition. This contradictory process is what results, in Brazil, in Decree no. 9794 and which results in the challenge of strengthening –even more strongly– the GT's commitment to the development of a politicized social science that can face these attacks.

On the other hand, with the change of government in Argentina in 2015, it was ensured that 50 percent of the vacant research positions would be allocated exclusively to strategic topics, while the remainder would be assigned to general topics without any federal distribution criteria, contrary to the positive analysis we had presented in the previous period. Later, the 2017 budget reflected a significant annual cut in investment to 0.5 percent of GDP, down from between 0.7 and 0.8 percent. Simultaneously, the number of researchers entering the CONICET research career track was drastically reduced: 60 percent fewer researchers were able to gain access. The State proved incapable of supporting and retaining researchers at CONICET, suggesting they should seek opportunities in the private sector. (NAIDORF; PERROTTA, 2016)

Currently, funding for the Ministry of Science and Technology has been reduced by 58,8 percent. In the case of universities, according to the latest update of the Ministry of Economy's Open Budget on August 22, 2018 (www.presupuestoabierto.gob.ar/sici/), only 83 percent of the budget that should have been spent by that date had actually been executed.

Finally, in 2016, amidst inflation, a fiscal deficit, and a lack of investment in social programs, the aforementioned cuts to science and technology funding were implemented. Ultimately, in 2018, the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Productive Innovation (MinCyT) was downgraded to a Secretariat (SinCyT), and a lack of budgetary resources for scientific conferences was announced.

In Mexico, progress in research remains slow and continues to present serious challenges and tensions. The first of these is the inequality of opportunity between men and women. In the National System of Researchers (SNI), women represent 37 percent, with 10.683 female scientists out of 28.630 members (CONACYT, 2019). Gender bias impacts women's opportunities to advance within the system. Mexico continues to lag far behind developed countries, a situation attributed to the low investment in science, technology, and innovation (STI) by the government and the private sector. In 2015, 0.55 percent of GDP was invested in STI research, and this percentage remained the same in 2018 (INCYTU, 2018). An important characteristic of investment in Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SRI) is the government's contribution of 71 percent and the private sector's contribution of 21 percent, which is completely contrary to international trends. (INCYTU, 2018).

Having successfully highlighted the critical placement of this issue within the context of Latin American and Caribbean public policy and its relation to global dynamics during a period of great dynamism and the deepening of a regionalism rooted in popular movements—a regionalism distinct from the exclusionary policies initiated by the dictatorships of the Southern Cone—we commit to continuing and deepening the approach of politicized and mobile social science as the axis of an inquiry that is simultaneously comprehensive of the changes and transformative in its capacity for intervention. In this sense, we agree to maintain, in order to deepen and strengthen, the main emphases placed on an inquiry that began in Working Group 6 (GT 6) 2013-2016, entitled “Politicized and Mobile Social Science in and for a Latin American Research Agenda Oriented to Priorities from the University,” and continued in the 2016-2019 edition, this time with the expansion and enrichment of new and renowned colleagues and researchers in training. We have shared previous work in order to sustain a genuine exchange project that allows us to achieve this understanding and transformation from the countries in which we live, but with a perspective focused on Latin America, its science and its politics.

The theoretical relevance of the topic is justified by the resurgence of this type of questioning regarding the position of the social sciences and the humanities and their pronouncement in the current context, which again takes on the appearance of an epochal change, this time again oriented towards exclusion, adjustment, new forms of attack against the redistributive policies of the states and an attempt to weaken and break regional solidarity policies. In this sense, the proposed axis on politicized and mobile social science that we had analyzed and published collectively in the special issue of the Cuban Journal of Higher Education in 2015, focused on understanding the relevant policies and priority issues in each of the countries that make up GT 6, marks the foundation of this continuity project. In addition, the publications of the Working Group from 2019 in Dossier Eccos, a journal of the 9 de Julio University, Brazil, have been included, in which the progress of the topic and the current situation regarding the proposal of a national Science model are analyzed. We had considered that although it is inappropriate to homogenize the scenario of the Latin American region in terms of science policy, it is possible to identify some trends after the year 2000 that run through it and update the challenges for the social sciences. First, the establishment of priorities and priority issues. There is a trend towards reinforcing priority issues or problems, geared towards local needs, in addition to open issues and those that scientists consider relevant (either due to vacancy or because they are geared towards the trends of international agendas). Prioritizing involves promoting a particular area of ​​knowledge, topic, or problem (Naidorf, 2011; Emiliozi, 2012). In the post-2000 context marked by the renewal of the role of Latin American states that seems to have concluded in 2015 and their orientation towards inclusive development models (Perrotta, 2010) —which has been characterized by some as post-liberal (Sader, 2009; Sanahuja, 2012) or post-hegemonic (Riggirozzi and Tussie, 2012)—, the function of science has become a priority and strategic discussion that has led to the creation and reorientation of the actions of the Ministries of Science and Technology, as well as the reorganization of the scientific policies of the universities themselves. In this sense, both the Ministries and the universities have established priorities and promotions for the development of areas of knowledge considered strategic for the solution of the most pressing social problems that they identify, with more or less success, and with more or less resistance and/or support, from the scientific communities. While we can recognize an initial distrust of claims of "relevance", having identified it as an adjustment to the market or as part of an alleged social irresponsibility of academics (hence the appeal to responsibility so present in neoliberal discourse), current trends seem to show an acceptance of the consideration of aspects linked to the social relevance of what is researched. The appeals to priority themes or axes vary in relation to their more or less specific (or more or less general) definition, whether by reference to the establishment of specific socio-productive centers or by a general appeal to themes that produce results, that lead to greater social inclusion or to the solution of national problems. Secondly, the formation of a new researcher profile oriented towards problem-solving. Some countries that have increased resources in science and technology had begun to outline policies linking science, development and social inclusion. The desire to define a new type of researcher was clearly expressed, one that differs from a traditional model that, under a supposed motto of "freedom of choice" of research topic, establishes submission to the research agendas of central countries. However, this requirement has been hampered by the imperative of accountability and evaluation of academic work based on parameters that do not capture this priority-oriented scientific activity, as they rely on measurements disconnected from the social application of the knowledge generated. In this context, the debates and demands structured around the concept of knowledge mobilization become central. The category assumes different perspectives and definitions, for example —and to begin with—, one referring to the use of evidence and research results for decision-making in public policy (Nutley et al. al, 2007); other perspectives understand it as a method or tool that facilitates the translation of research results into action (Bennet et al. al, 2007); it is also defined in terms of efforts to share research results with potential users (Levin, B., 2011); and, finally, as the actions that allow knowledge to be made ready for action and its intervention through interlocutors (Levesque, 2009). The notion of knowledge mobility or mobilization, which we opt for here, refers to the fine-tuning of knowledge for its practical application (Levesque, 2009; Sá, 2011). Unlike dissemination, where there is no commitment per se to responsibility in the process that leads to the channel of arrival of the elaborated knowledge, the mobility or mobilization of knowledge involves an intermediate step between the result reached and its practical application. The metaphor used to differentiate diffusion or dissemination, on the one hand, from mobility or mobilization of knowledge, on the other, is the one that can be likened to the achievement of the growth of a plant and the simple distribution of seeds in a plot of land. While diffusion or dissemination simply involves scattering seeds on the ground, mobility or mobilization involves other processes linked to tilling the land: fertilization, irrigation, and the commitment to ensuring that—in the end—what is planted flourishes. It is possible to suggest that in science policy, Latin America is traversed by two models: one tending towards an emancipatory social science and another that measures its impact from a narrow and reductionist view of productivity. To a large extent, the coming years will be marked by the dispute between these two trends. We believe that the concept of mobile and politicized social science has the potential to broaden the understanding of these renewed development styles, providing tools for debate and the definition of public policies.

In this sense, we base the formation of the GT that we propose here on the results of our past work, the relevance imposed by the understanding and transformation of the critical present, and the need to sustain and reinforce collective discussion spaces such as the one formed here and its multiplications in the other spaces of exchange, training and dissemination in which each of the members proposed here actively participates and on which we intervene daily.

Today, politicized social science manifests itself through the public intervention of scientists in understanding the options presented as inevitable, in demonstrations alongside other sectors, actors, and social movements that protest and reclaim the social gains that are threatened with dismantling, as well as the future prospects in Latin America that are threatened with being diluted in discourses. Ceocratics and managerial practices, all of which are legitimized in public opinion by the hegemonic media (public and private).

We believe that the collective organization of these spaces and their interrelation could become vanguards and benchmarks of a new alternative future project that will have to be configured in dialogue with various progressive sectors, although divergent among themselves. 

Therefore, these categories mentioned allow us to understand the present, with a perspective of historicity, they challenge us to recognize and recover the “classic” neoliberal theoretical and conceptual tools as well as, especially, to create new analytical categories to understand this that masks the new direction of science policy.