Background

In November 2015, the XXV General Assembly of CLACSO, meeting in Medellín, Colombia, issued the Declaration of Open Access to Knowledge Managed as a Common Good, based on the conviction that in most countries of Latin America and the Caribbean a substantial part of the research and production of scientific knowledge is financed with public funds and, therefore, should be available in an open format. 

Ten years after that pronouncement—which fueled and heralded discussions and consensus that deepened in the following years—a plethora of relevant international documents followed (manifestos, declarations, agreements, principles, among others) that put forward recommendations regarding the necessary transformation of scientific evaluation and the need to transition to open science. Among them we find: the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto, the Panama Declaration on Open Science, Manifesto on Science as a Global Public Good, Librarian's Manifesto for Latin American Open Science, Manifesto of Open and Collaborative Science (OCSDNet), the ALAEC Manifesto for the responsible use of metrics in science assessments in Latin America and the Caribbean, the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scientific Communication, Hong Kong Principles (HKP), the update of the Budapest Declaration (BOAI20), and the most recent ones, such as the Manifesto for socio-territorial metrics of Science, Technology and Innovation (Latmetrics), the Toluca-Cape Town Declaration on Diamond Open Access, the Barcelona Declaration on Open Information in Investigations, the Leticia Declaration: A manifesto for science with social impact in Latin America and the Caribbean (Global Young Academy), The Agreement for Research Assessment Reform (CoARA), Open Science: The Challenge for Universities (IAU) and the recommendations contained in the reports entitled: The future of research evaluation (GYA-IAP-ISC) and Transforming Assessment (RORI-GRC-RRA); among many others. Along these lines, it is possible to add a series of tool kits that have been developed to implement these transformation processes, for example, the recent ones: A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations (DORA) and the set of practical tools prepared by FOLEC (Rovelli and Vommaro, 2025).

All these documents have contributed to expanding the openness approach beyond access to publications, driving structural transformations in science and technology complexes in areas such as data management and open access policies; the development of infrastructures, open software, and non-commercial collaborative platforms; the design of responsible evaluation frameworks and qualitative metrics; the adoption of inclusive and multilingual communication models; the implementation of licenses and governance of common goods; the creation of spaces for training and developing critical capacities; and the incorporation of ethical, diversity, and inclusion principles at all stages of the research cycle, challenging the concentrated power of publishing corporations that profit from data and publications while conditioning and shaping scientific and academic evaluation processes worldwide in their own image, that is, responding to their interests and business models.

To these declarations and manifestos—propositive texts that challenge the academic and scientific community to transform its practices—we can add a series of critical essays and research papers published in recent years. These analyze, from a reflective and often forceful perspective, the current state of the social worlds of scientific, technological, and academic production in diverse geographical contexts. Far from being isolated discourses, both phenomena constitute two sides of the same coin: if the manifestos issue a call to action and outline new horizons of meaning that enable change, the essays operate as rigorous diagnoses that reveal the contradictions and structural malaise inherent in contemporary academic and scientific work. Without aiming to be exhaustive, among them we can name:Slow Science Manifesto”(Slow-Science.org, 2010), “Innovation, Sustainability and Development: A new Manifesto“(STEPS, 2010),Chart of the desexellence“(LAC-ULB, 2014),Het acade-misch manifest: they are not at all published by universiteit”(Halffman and Radder, 2015), “Saving Science“(Sarewitz, 2016),Besieged Academies” (Basail Rodríguez, 2019), “University in dark times” (Pecheny, 2020), and “Bridging the Gap: Localizing Open Science for Asia's Research Realities” (Sayab, 2025). 

These studies agree in diagnosing a structural crisis of global scope in scientific and academic institutions, caused by the imposition of productivist logics – inherited from managerial and economic management. New Public Management—, the obsession with quantitative indicators that reduce research to mere performance metrics and positions in international rankings, the increasing precarity of teaching and research work, and the commodification and privatization of scientific and technological knowledge. They firmly denounce the closed models of publication and evaluation, dominated by publishing corporations and standardized assessments, which subordinate review processes to decontextualized numerical criteria and obscure the social function of science. They also point to the homogenization of knowledge, the exclusion of non-hegemonic epistemologies, and the imposition of Eurocentric models that ignore local realities and ancestral knowledge.

Among them, we are particularly interested in highlighting how Sayab (2025) also incorporates the infrastructural and linguistic barriers that marginalize researchers in Asia and the Arab world (the lack of robust repositories, limited connectivity, and the hegemony of English in open science channels), limitations that are not foreign to the Latin American and Caribbean context. In response, he proposes replacing the approaches top-down through collaborative and contextualized strategies that respect the diversity of research ecosystems: designing participatory incentives and metrics, investing in decentralized digital infrastructure, and providing training in locally adapted open access practices. Likewise, it advocates for the integration of local languages ​​and knowledge as cornerstones of inclusive science, in line with international recommendations that promote multilingualism in scientific communication. Under this vision, universities and research centers are reconfigured as co-created public spaces where research, teaching, outreach, engagement, and other forms of social knowledge mobilization regain their transformative power and are oriented toward the social and epistemic challenges of each community and territory. Our proposals, which aim for fundamental change, arise from this diagnosis and scenario.

El open science paradigmOpen science, understood as a public science policy oriented towards the common good, transcends the traditional formats of production, circulation, use, and evaluation of scientific and technological knowledge. According to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, this approach is defined as a An inclusive construct that combines diverse movements and practices so that multilingual scientific knowledge is openly available and accessible to all, as well as reusable by all; scientific collaborations and information exchange are increased for the benefit of science and society; and the processes of creation, evaluation, and communication of scientific knowledge are opened to social actors beyond the traditional scientific community. (UNESCO, 2021). This approach implies a paradigm shift in the way science is done, which involves opening up all stages or phases of scientific and technological research (design, data production, review, publication, evaluation, among others), transforming what is done and how it is done, which redefines scientific and technological research. 

Along the same lines, the Manifesto on the science as a global public good It maintains that science is the heritage of humanity and a universal right, which must be available, accessible, and reusable by all people everywhere in the world, without commercial restrictions or language barriers, and that its production must serve collective development. This approach emphasizes the need to strengthen open infrastructures, non-commercial means of publication, and collaborative networks among institutions, researchers, communities, and territories. Thus, the notion of science as a global public good converges with the open science paradigm, promoting inclusive, multilingual, collaborative scientific production oriented toward social needs. In this way, open science integrates a plurality of languages, cultures, practices, and knowledge, and promotes more horizontal forms of collaboration among diverse social actors, guiding scientific and technological production toward equity, sustainability, and social justice. This orientation seeks to address historical inequalities in the production, circulation, and access to scientific knowledge, promoting values ​​such as equity, sustainability, cognitive justice, and epistemic diversity. Since its founding in 1967, CLACSO has promoted these perspectives, drawing on traditions from the Global South, such as participatory action research, the dialogue of knowledges and critical epistemologies, in order to consolidate more democratic, supportive and transformative sciences.

In line with the previous approaches, the Declaration of Principles “A new academic and scientific evaluation for a science with social relevance in Latin America and the Caribbean”, promoted by the Latin American Forum for Scientific Evaluation (FOLEC)  belonging to CLACSO and approved at its XXVII Ordinary General Assembly in June 2022 in Mexico City within the framework of the ninth Conference, represents a significant step towards a paradigm of responsible and situated scientific evaluationDiscussed by numerous specialists throughout the region and endorsed by hundreds of signatories, this Declaration has become a regional and international benchmark. This framework proposes evolutionary, self-reflective, transparent, and participatory evaluation processes that foster dialogue, mutual learning, and continuous improvement. Among its fundamental principles are: the alignment of scientific and academic evaluation with human rights, the social relevance of knowledge, the appreciation of multilingualism, the inclusion of university outreach, the recognition of diverse career paths, the participatory and evolving nature of evaluation, and a challenge to the uncritical use of restrictive metrics based on geographic, disciplinary, and linguistic criteria.

Within this framework, the categories of politicized and mobile social science that we have collectively developed in previous CLACSO work are consolidated as analytical keys for thinking about sciences committed to the urgent problems of our peoples. politicized science –in the Varsavskian sense– recognizes its inescapable involvement in disputes over common sense and the direction of development; while a mobile science —in dialogue with Fals Borda's thinking— shifts toward territories and communities, connects with other social actors, and seeks to influence the transformation of material conditions of existence. These categories allow us to understand and challenge the competing models in the field of science policy in Latin America and the Caribbean: one centered on productivity under decontextualized global logics, and another that prioritizes social relevance, epistemic sovereignty, and the democratization of scientific and technological knowledge. In this sense, we propose moving toward deeply committed and democratic sciences, understood not only as accessible, but also as the result of a collective construction, with agendas and priorities defined in dialogue with the needs of the people and not exclusively by the interests of the market or internationalized scientific elites.

Based on this background and collective learning, this declaration – prepared collaboratively and signed by the CLACSO Working Group “Open Science as a Common Good”, the Working Group “Mobile and Politicized Social Science” and FOLEC – reaffirms and updates a shared horizon: Open, democratic, fair, inclusive and sovereign sciences, understood as common public goods and tools for social transformationDrawing on the critical and emancipatory traditions of the Global South and incorporating contemporary debates on open access, open science, responsible evaluation, and epistemic pluralism, this declaration offers a common framework—or roadmap—for rethinking science and technology policies in the region. This framework is structured around three interconnected pillars, which are further developed in the transformative proposal below. The dimensions that comprise it express an ethical and political commitment to democratic sciences, collectively constructed, linked to social struggles and needs, and dedicated to scientific sovereignty, technological independence, cognitive justice, and the well-being and happiness of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Pillars of the transformative proposal

Latin America and the Caribbean urgently require a structural and radically democratic transformation of their science and technology sectors. This transformation cannot be reduced to technical adjustments or the incorporation of new tools; it implies a profound redefinition of the ends, means, and meanings that guide the production of scientific and technological knowledge in the region. Ultimately, it is about challenging the hegemonic model of production, circulation, evaluation, use, and appropriation of scientific knowledge, in order to advance toward a paradigm that places science at the service of peoples, communities, territories, and the expansion of democratic life. Within this transformative horizon, it is essential to situate the discussion within a normative framework that recognizes the right to science as a human right and a universal common good.

The regulatory framework that guides this transformation is based on the concept of science as a human rightas stated by UNESCO and the United Nations system in documents such as Right to science: a human rights perspective (UNESCO, 2020) and Right to science and knowledge systems (UNESCO, 2022). This approach recognizes that all people and communities have the right to access, participate in, and contribute to the production and use of scientific knowledge, as well as to benefit from its results. Science, understood as a common good and an essential component of democratic life, must be developed under principles of freedom, equity, inclusion, and respect for cultural and epistemic diversity. From this perspective, guaranteeing the right to science entails promoting policies that eliminate structural barriers—economic, technological, linguistic, or institutional—that limit its exercise, and strengthening social participation in defining its aims and priorities. In Latin America and the Caribbean, recognizing science as a human right implies orienting its development toward cognitive justice, sovereignty, and the collective well-being of the region's peoples. The three pillars that guide the transformative proposal presented here are based on this foundation.

The first pillar of this transformation is the Open science as a public and common goodThis concept transcends the narrow view of open access to publications, proposing a comprehensive approach that encompasses all dimensions of the scientific process: from data generation to evaluation, governance, social participation, digital infrastructures, and ethical frameworks. Open science promotes equitable access to knowledge, collaboration among diverse social actors, recognition of pluralistic knowledge, and the elimination of economic, linguistic, and technological barriers that limit the right to conduct research and participate in knowledge production.

The second pillar is the construction of a new model of scientific evaluation with social relevanceAs FOLEC-CLACSO has been proposing, this model rejects the uncritical reliance on commercial metrics and rankings and promotes evaluation criteria that recognize the diversity of research trajectories, the multiple contributions to human and environmental development, the commitment to local contexts, and the capacity to influence the transformation of social realities, for example, through participatory action research or public policies based on scientific evidence. It is not just about measuring better, but about transforming what is considered valuable in scientific work.

The third pillar is the epistemic and technological sovereigntyThis requires regaining public, democratic, and regional control over the infrastructures, platforms, and processes that make science possible. This entails strengthening institutional repositories, developing open and accessible tools, guaranteeing multilingualism, and ensuring that digital technologies—including artificial intelligence—are designed and used according to ethical principles, with the active participation of the scientific community and without being subordinated to market forces.

Together, these pillars form a transformative architecture that transcends sectoral or institutional boundaries. These three pillars are interrelated and can only be fully realized through robust public policies, sufficient economic resources, sustained political will, and institutional leadership and dialogue that foster cultural change; only in this way will it be possible to achieve a truly democratic science, oriented toward the collective well-being of our people. These pillars are also the result of a historical process of struggle, reflection, and collective creation by the region's scientific and educational communities, which today are expressed in numerous initiatives, networks, and declarations aimed at democratizing knowledge.

In short, transforming science in Latin America and the Caribbean is not just an institutional challenge: it is a political, cultural, and ethical task that must be undertaken with a sense of urgency and a strategic vision. The future of scientific knowledge in our region depends on our ability to reconfigure its foundations based on a commitment to scientific sovereignty, technological independence, cognitive justice, and the well-being and happiness of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Guiding principles 

The transformation of the science and technology ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean must be based on a series of ethical, political, and operational principles that guide public policies, institutional practices, and daily decisions in the scientific and academic fields. These principles are not merely technical or normative; they constitute meaningful commitments that allow for the reconfiguration of the relationships between science, technology, society, and power, in order to establish a coherent and common framework oriented toward the aspirations for justice, inclusion, and sovereignty that permeate the region.

I. Fundamental principles: towards an ethical, democratic and committed science

1. Social justice, ethics of knowledge, and expanded impact

To guide the processes of production, circulation, and validation of scientific and technological knowledge toward principles of social justice, ethical relevance, and commitment to human rights and collective well-being. This implies recognizing and valuing the impact of knowledge on territories and communities, on public policies, and on processes of social transformation. It proposes broadening the notion of “impact” beyond citation or academic productivity indicators, incorporating social, cultural, productive, environmental, pedagogical, and community dimensions, paying particular attention to public problems and the production of common goods.

2. Linguistic and cultural diversity as a condition of epistemic inclusion

Actively promote multilingualism and cultural diversity in the processes of production, dissemination, and validation of scientific and technological knowledge. Public science policies should encourage the use of the native languages ​​of countries and regions of the Global South, including indigenous languages, through strategies of publication, translation, and academic recognition. This implies valuing the diversity of formats, knowledge, and modes of knowledge dissemination, recognizing the importance of regional, local, and ancestral expressions as an integral part of the scientific and cultural ecosystem.

3. Recognition of the co-production of knowledge and collective work

Revaluing the collaborative nature of scientific and technological production, properly recognizing teamwork, inter-institutional networks, and interdisciplinary approaches. Likewise, the processes of co-producing knowledge with social actors, local communities, Indigenous peoples, social movements, productive sectors, and public policy managers must be made visible and valued. The dialogue of knowledge and collective construction should be considered central elements of scientific and technological work and should form part of the criteria for academic evaluation and recognition.

4. Right to participate in scientific progress and its benefits

Recognizing participation in science as a fundamental human right implies ensuring that all people and communities can actively engage in the production, dissemination, and use of scientific and technological knowledge, and benefit from its results. This requires public policies that guarantee accessibility, inclusion, and effective participation at all stages of the scientific process, from defining agendas and priorities to evaluating, mobilizing, and promoting the social appropriation of results. This principle is based on international frameworks promoted by UNESCO and the United Nations system, which affirm the obligation of States to create enabling environments for freedom of research, open cooperation, and equitable access to knowledge. In the Latin American and Caribbean context, exercising this right means democratizing science, strengthening epistemic and technological sovereignty, and promoting a fair distribution of the benefits of knowledge and innovation for the common good and the development of peoples.

II. Democratization of knowledge and digital sovereignty

4. Open, free and non-commercial access to publicly funded scientific knowledge

Promote unrestricted open access to all publicly funded research outputs, eliminating payment or subscription barriers. This access must be guaranteed through interoperable open access repositories (green route) and by strengthening scientific journals that operate under the diamond model, meaning without charges for readers or authors. Priority should be given to the use of non-commercial infrastructures, supported by universities, public networks, or cooperative open science systems, to guarantee the sovereignty of scientific and technological knowledge and prevent its privatization and commodification.

5. Development and sustainability of open, interoperable and cooperative infrastructures

Strengthen open and public digital infrastructures that enable the production, circulation, visibility, preservation, and reuse of scientific and technological knowledge. This includes open access repositories, non-commercial journal platforms, book portals, institutional archives, and digital libraries. These infrastructures must operate with open standards, guarantee regional and international interoperability, and ensure the long-term preservation of content. They must also facilitate the development and dissemination of open educational resources (OER), promoting free, open, and reusable access to knowledge for educational purposes.

6. Building inclusive and representative academic information systems

To design and maintain public, open, federated, and up-to-date scientific, technological, and academic information systems capable of representing the institutional, disciplinary, and territorial diversity of scientific and educational systems. These systems must make visible research agendas, the actors involved, and the modalities of knowledge production, dissemination, usability, and appropriation. It is essential that these systems be aligned with open science principles and digital rights, and that they be governed democratically by public and community actors.

III. Transformation of evaluation models

7. Open, participatory and contextualized evaluation systems

Promote systems for evaluating scientific, technological, and academic activity based on open, public, and cooperative platforms that allow for transparency, traceability, and democratic control of the evaluation process. These systems must adapt to institutional, disciplinary, linguistic, and territorial diversity, recognizing different trajectories and modalities of scientific and technological knowledge production. Evaluation processes should be designed to be open, evolving, participatory, and cooperative, actively involving academic communities and relevant social actors, instead of reproducing opaque, hierarchical, competitive, closed, and standardized models.

8. Use of qualitative and contextualized indicators, and surpassing commercial metrics and international rankings

The hegemonic use of commercial metrics such as the impact factor or the H-index, as well as rankings, must be replaced with evaluation models based on qualified expert judgment, qualitative criteria, and alternative metrics developed in regional and non-commercial environments. It is essential to promote the use of systems such as Latindex, SciELO, RedALyC, AmeliCA, LA Referencia, and other regional repositories for the evaluation of publications. Specific, contextualized indicators relevant to the institutional, territorial, and disciplinary realities of the Global South must be developed to overcome dependence on international citation indicators and dominant languages.

9. Evaluation with gender equity, inclusion of diversities and support for emerging pathways

Actively incorporate a gender and diversity perspective into evaluation processes, promoting the visibility, recognition, and appreciation of the contributions of women, gender and sexual minorities, and historically underrepresented groups in science and technology. Likewise, it is essential to establish specific support for training pathways, including young researchers and scholarship recipients, through systems that consider their specific needs, training periods, and initial contributions, promoting mentorship, support, and differentiated recognition.

IV. Training and culture of open science as a public and common good

10. Critical training and pedagogical strategies to establish open science as a public and common good based on socially relevant evaluation

To promote training spaces and pedagogical strategies that foster a critical and collective understanding of scientific evaluation and open science as tools for institutional and social transformation. The sharing of knowledge is a prerequisite for building communities of practice committed to epistemic justice, equity in the production and circulation of scientific and technological knowledge, and the questioning of hegemonic and corporate models. To establish a culture of openness, it is essential to complement training programs with institutional guidelines and spaces for dialogue that empower all academic stakeholders in the principles, tools, and values ​​of open science, encouraging its adoption in teaching, research, university outreach, and community engagement.

These principles, taken together, allow us to build a new social contract for scientific knowledge in Latin America and the Caribbean, where science ceases to be a privilege and becomes a tool at the service of social transformation, equity, and the sovereign development of our Latin American and Caribbean peoples.

Call to action

In a world where the concentration of economic and technological power deepens, inequalities worsen, and the neoliberal and authoritarian rhetoric of the far right threatens our democratic institutions, defending free, pluralistic knowledge oriented toward the common good becomes a political and ethical imperative. From Latin America and the Caribbean, we issue a clear, decisive, and collective call to all actors involved in science, technology, and higher education: it is time to act, to imagine, and to build a model of knowledge production that is truly just, democratic, sovereign, and rooted in the transformations that our people demand.

We urge states and regional integration bodies to recognize science as a human right and a public and common good, and to design public policies that guarantee scientific sovereignty, technological independence, and epistemic justice. To this end, it is essential to invest in open and sustainable infrastructures, strengthen and fund local scientific journals, guarantee non-commercial open access to knowledge, and foster solidarity-based cooperation among the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Global South. At the same time, we urge universities, research centers, and funding agencies to critically review their evaluation and incentive systems, abandoning competitive logics based on bibliometric metrics and international rankings, and embracing an academic and scientific culture that values ​​collaboration, epistemic diversity, social relevance, and the collective production of knowledge.

We call upon the scientific, academic, and student communities to assume a leading role in this transformation. It is not enough to superficially adhere to slogans like “open science”: it is essential to contest their meanings, politicize them, and critically appropriate them. Resistance to neoliberal and technocratic models arises from organization, solidarity, and joint regional action. Likewise, we urge social movements, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, feminist, peasant, and grassroots movements to actively participate in building a situated and emancipatory science that recognizes that knowledge is produced not only in laboratories and classrooms but also in territories, in struggles, and in the ancestral practices of our peoples.

In line with our commitment to transforming evaluation systems and promoting open and democratic science, we presented two initiatives to the CLACSO Assembly that focus on disseminating these proposals, recognizing the fundamental role of pedagogical strategies as tools for change and as a prerequisite for building and developing communities of practice. The proliferation of training opportunities on these topics is essential to fostering a critical and collective understanding of open scientific practices based on responsible evaluation practices. These opportunities allow us to question hegemonic models, promote equity in the production and dissemination of knowledge, and build an academic community committed to epistemic and social justice.

On the one hand, we present the “FOLEC School of Evaluators,” an initiative resulting from years of research, which began its activities in 2024 and was consolidated in 2025. It reflects the maturity achieved after a long period of Latin American dialogue with actors from around the world regarding scientific evaluation and the open science paradigm. Its central objective is to strengthen training and critical knowledge about contemporary debates in responsible evaluation and open science, promoting reflection on and questioning of hegemonic evaluation practices through innovative theoretical and methodological tools that facilitate inclusive, transparent, fair, and appropriately situated evaluation methods within our regional context and a global framework for open science. We begin with the understanding that transforming evaluation requires simultaneous action in multiple dimensions: the political, to review power relations and generate strategic consensus; the axiological, to redefine the values ​​that underpin it; The School employs two levels: the institutional and normative, to reformulate rules and procedures through situated and bidirectional change processes (bottom-up and vice versa); and the praxeological, to translate these consensuses into everyday practices that truly impact both those who evaluate and those who are evaluated. Within this framework, the School adopts a pedagogical strategy—seeking to influence the aforementioned levels—that socializes the principles of the new paradigm among all audiences and social actors, constructing new meanings as alternatives to the hegemonic model and fostering innovative practices capable of driving the institutional changes we need. With a critical and participatory approach, the School disseminates knowledge and conceptual, ethical, and practical tools to realize a more inclusive, democratic, and socially relevant science: an open science mobilized to solve the problems affecting our communities and promote a real social impact in its work. Throughout the two editions of the FOLEC School for Evaluators, 26 teachers from 21 different institutions and 8 different countries participated, sharing their knowledge and experiences in scientific and academic evaluation. This diversity enriched the discussions and promoted a pluralistic and contextualized view of evaluation practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Furthermore, and complementing the previous proposal, the online course "Open Science as a Public Good: Reflections and Necessary Actions from a Non-Commercial Perspective" was developed between October and December 2024. This initiative arose in response to regional debates on the commodification of knowledge and the need for alternative models of scientific communication. The course aimed to delve into the dynamics and best practices of open science, focusing on dismantling prevailing commercial logics and fostering more inclusive and transparent publishing processes. Through an active methodology that combined theoretical modules, discussion forums, and practical activities, the course sought to disseminate the principles of open science among researchers, librarians, and editors. With a participatory approach, the content was delivered by 16 specialists from 12 institutions in 8 countries, who facilitated discussions and coordinated collaborative activities in free virtual spaces with prior registration, culminating in the issuance of a certificate of completion. This experience helped to mobilize a critical and committed community for a more inclusive, democratic and socially relevant science, willing to translate the open science paradigm into concrete actions that confront the commodification of knowledge and promote a real impact on our societies.

Finally, we call upon international networks and forums, especially those in the Global South, to forge horizontal alliances, share experiences, and build a common agenda to address civilizational crises from the perspectives of social, environmental, and epistemic justice. This is a time for political imagination, collective action, and the construction of shared horizons. 

The sciences we dream of are possible, but they require courage, organization, and commitment. From Latin America and the Caribbean, we embrace this challenge as part of a broader struggle for the dignity, autonomy, and sovereignty of Our America.

---