Governança e prioridades da ciência brasileira
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.i135p163-182Keywords:
science governance, quality indicators, social engagementAbstract
The purpose of this article is to present and discuss science governance, what it encompasses and what challenges are most important today at national and global levels. The topic is approached from two dimensions: strict governance, which examines the internal canons of how science works; and expanded governance, which looks at the interfaces and interactions of science with society. Above all, it discusses what is changing in these dimensions and what impacts and initiatives have on “science institutions”. Topics such as open science, prioritization and selection biases, quality indicators, social engagement, mission-oriented research, among others, are discussed as the “spirit of the time” and its two-way effects on the strict and expanded governance of science. This discussion is extended to Brazil in its 200 years of Independence, posing some of the challenges that we will have to face.
Downloads
References
ANLI, Z.; BERGMANS, J.; WEIJDEN, I. Van Der. Career pathways in research : the current data landscape, 8, 2022 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19609512).
BALBACHEVSKY, E. “Governança na pesquisa científica: reflexões sobre a prática da pesquisa contemporânea e a experiência brasileira”. Sociologias, 19 (46), 2017, pp. 76-101.
CARAYANNIS, E. G.; CAMPBELL, D. F. J. “Smart quintuple helix innovation systems”. Springer, 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01517-6).
CONCEIÇÃO, C. P. et al. “European action plans for science-society relations: changing buzzwords, changing the agenda”. Minerva, 58 (1), 2020, pp. 1-24.
COSENS, B. et al. “Governing complexity: integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (36), 2021, pp. 1-9.
CURRY, S. et al. The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles and the way ahead. (Issue 3), 2020 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914).
GARCIA, J. A.; RODRIGUEZ-SÁNCHEZ, R.; FDEZ-VALDIVIA, J. “Confirmatory bias in peer r e v i e w ”. Scientometrics, 123 (1), 2020, pp. 517-33.
GIBBONS, M. et al. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, 1994GRC - Global Research Council. 2019
GRC Statement of Principles Addressing Expectations of Societal and Economic Impact, 6, 2019 (https://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/fileadmin/documents/GRC_Publications/GRC_2019_Statement_of_Principles_Expectations_of_Societal_and_Economic_Impact.pdf).
HICKS, D. et al. (2015). “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifest for research metrics”. Nature, 520 (7548), 2015, pp. 429-31.IBGC - Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa (https://www.ibgc.org.br/conhecimento/governanca-corporativa).
JONG, L.; FRANSSEN, T.; PINFIELD, S. (2021). “‘Excellence’ in the research ecosystem: a literature review”. Research on Research Institute Working Paper No. 5. (Issue 5), 2021.
KHUN, T. S. A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo, Perspectiva, 2017.
LEE, C. J. et al. “Bias in Peer Review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2013, pp. 2-17.
LINDER, F. et al. “Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty”. Contemporary Sociology, 32 (2), 2003.
MACNAGHTEN, P.; CHILVERS, J. “The future of science governance: publics, policies, practices”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32 (3), 2014, pp. 530-48.
MERTON, R. K. “The ambivalence of scientists”, in R. S. Cohen; P. K. Feyerabend; M. W. Wartofsky (eds.). Essays in memory of Imre Lakatos. Boston, D. Reidel Publishing, 1976.
McMANUS, C. et al. “Profiles not metrics: the case of Brazilian universities”. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 93 (4), 2021, pp. 1-23.
POLANYI, M.; ZIMAN, J.; FULLER, S. “The republic of science: its political and economic t h e o r y ”. Minerva , I (1), 2000, pp. 1-32.
REIS, V. M. S. dos; VIDEIRA, A. A. P. “John Ziman e a ciência pós-acadêmica: consensibilidade, consensualidade e confiabilidade”. Scientiae Studia, 11 (3), 2013, pp. 583-611.
REYES-GALINDO, L.; MONTEIRO, M.; MACNAGHTEN, P. “‘Opening up’ science policy: engaging with RRI in Brazil”. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6 (3), 2019, pp. 353-60.
SALLES-FILHO, S. et al. Trends in STI Funding Agencies. Report prepared for the São Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp), 2022.
TOLLEFSON, B. J. “What the rise of ‘arpa-everything’ will mean for science”. Nature, 595, 2021, p. 45.
UNESCO. Science Report. Unesco, 2021.
VAN KERKHOFF, L. E.; LEBEL, L. “Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world”. Ecology and Society, 20 (1), 2015.
WANG, D.; BARABÁSI, A-L. The science of science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
WILSDON, J. et al. “The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management”, 2015 (https://doi.org/10.13140/RG . 2 .1.4929.1363).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista USP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
|
Pertence à revista. Uma vez publicado o artigo, os direitos passam a ser da revista, sendo proibida a reprodução e a inclusão de trechos sem a permissão do editor. |
