Gap in Techno-Scientific Activity: The Iberoamerican Context

THE SOCIAL STUDIES of science and technology are relatively new in Latin America. The first reflections, in the 1960s and 1970s, were very promissory and they even gave place to the idea of a ‘Latin American thought of science, technology and society’. Those works, written mainly by scientists and engineers, had a main political concern to find ways and instruments to develop scientific and technological knowledge locally, so that it could be suitable for the needs of the region. The objective of that generation, which was partially reached, consisted in making science and technology an object of public study, as a topic bound to a social and economic development strategy. Besides, there was an emphasis on the fact that science and technology are not neutral and universal, but that are processes with specific features according to the context in which they are introduced. Thus, as it was then said, there was a paradox: while the lesser developed countries try to produce scientific knowledge locally, they are subject to a dependence relationship of the knowledge— particularly technological—produced in industrialised countries. One of the main achievements of this Latin American thought was the criticism of the linear model of innovation and the proposal of analytical instruments as ‘national project’, ‘social claim for S&T’, ‘implicit and explicit policy’, ‘technological styles’ and ‘technological packages’ (Dagnino et al. 1996). Represented by emblematic characters and real ‘fighters’, whose commitment to scientific and technological development exceeded intellectual concern, the field constituted a whole political cultural practice. They were Oscar Varsavsky, Amílcar Herrera, Jorge Sábato, Máximo Halty and Marcel Roche, among others.

The paper deals with the emergence and development the STS field in Latin America, from the sixties on. After an introductory section containing some considerations on the maturation of and approaches to STS in the region, the paper delves into cognitive, institutional, political and social dimensions of the development of this field. It gives then some background, mentioning policies as drivers of knowledge generation, the institutionalization of social studies of science and technology, and STS training. An individual section deals with journals and congresses as spaces for interaction. A chronology of the STS field’s development in Latin America is followed by a brief examination of the role of the STS field in contemporary Latin America. It is argued that researchers belonging to this community are in a good position to critically analyze the current relations between science and society, to assist decision-makers and help the public understand the implications of present-day technoscientific change, as well as to support the development of fairer, more equitable solutions to combat the challenges of today’s changing world. It goes without saying that, far from having reached maturity, this is a space in a permanent state of construction.

This article deals with the concept of progress, its development throughout recent history and how it can modify our perceptions by providing new guidelines to understand the world around us, especially once we are devoted to design a theoretical and scientific framework to discuss the idea of globalization. Moreover, a proposal to take a closer look to the concept of progress from the field known as Analogic Hermeneutics is presented, trying to overcome the love or hate dichotomy that the concept of progress usually arises when considered by different sectors of the academic world. Resumen Este artículo se ocupa del concepto de progreso, su desarrollo a lo largo de la historia reciente y cómo puede modificar nuestras percepciones dándonos nuevas líneas de trabajo para entender el mundo a nuestro alrededor, espe-cialmente al querer diseñar una estructura científica y teórica desde la que discutir la idea de globalización. Además nos proponemos ver con deteni-6 Revista Real Academia Galega de Ciencias. Vol. XXXV miento el concepto de progreso desde el campo conocido como Hermenéutica Analógica, intentando así superar la dicotomía amor-odio que el concepto de progreso a veces produce cuando es considerado desde diferentes sectores del mundo académico.

Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 2021

Periphery" is a politically incorrect word in current science and technology studies (STS). Scholars do not want to be accused of intellectual colonialism in a new guise. However, avoiding the P word does not prevent participating in tacit epistemological colonialism. In his book, Pablo Kreimer revisits the center-periphery question from an empirical and analytical standpoint. "Peripheral modernities" is not an oxymoron, he states from the start. Perhaps he is not original in pointing out that modernity is not a monopoly of the "centers" nor backwardness the essential definition of "peripheries." However, the book is refreshing and necessary because it revisits the center-periphery problem from a perspective that acknowledges 50 years of debate about the meaning, use and misuse of the term; a discussion in which Kreimer has been a protagonist. Thus, this is an original book of an ambiguous but still powerful issue: the unresolvable tension between "centers" and "peripheries." This work shows things we have learned about, and those we have not. Kreimer is one of the most reputed, rigorous and prolific sociologists of science in Latin America. So, it begs a crucial question: Why is he writing now a book about Latin America in English? Kreimer explains that some of the chapters have had a narrower circulation because they were originally written in other languages (Spanish, Portuguese or French). The question goes deeper into the scope of this work, though. What other audiences he wants to reach? I do not believe Kreimer needs any further recognition in Europe and the US, in contrast to young scholars in peripheral countries enslaved by the dictum "publish in English or perish" and the concomitant dictatorship of the h-index. Indeed, he is not seeking for an applause from the North; any scholar concerned with Latin American science and technology knows, uses and values his work. On the other hand, although US and European STSers have shown very little interest in how science is produced beyond their frontiers, the very success of Tapuya suggests that they are becoming more cosmopolitan. Kreimer's audience is mainly, I suggest, the other "peripheries": Africa, Asia (including, despite its central position, China) and Eastern Europe. Their lingua franca is English too. So, if Latin American scholars wish to dialogue with, for instance, Vietnamese, Kenyan or Rumanian peers, English is the only channel. Empires divide but also unite. Colleagues in the canonical "centers" must read this book too. STSers in the North will find powerful reasons, starting with a model that shows how to avoid the widespread prejudice of believing that they are "the" center and the rest is a far and esoteric world, and, therefore, dispensable. If the "centers" take this book seriously, they shall learn about their own place in the world system. Indeed, this book is an essential contribution to the global history of science and technology. Kreimer is not interested in writing "a singular case through which there emerges a grid of analysis that could be applied to other cases of knowledge production." The central actor of the book seems to be the Chagas disease, which only exists in Latin America. However, he is not interested in the disease per se. He wants to use the Chagas disease as a "model" to identify and explain structural mechanisms that might be applied to understand the co-

2019

In the form of a sociological pilgrimage, this book approaches some topics essential to understanding the role of science in Latin America, juxtaposing several approaches and exploring three main research lines: First, the production and use of knowledge in these countries, viewed from a historical and sociological point of view; second, the reciprocal construction of scientific and public problems, presented through significant cases such as Latin American Chagas disease; and third, the past and present asymmetries affecting the relationships between centers and peripheries in scientific research. These topics show the paradox of being "modern" and "peripheral" at the same time.

2014

The essays in this volume study the creation, adaptation, and use of science and technology in Latin America. They challenge the view that scientific ideas and technology travel unchanged from the global North to the global South--the view of technology as “imported magic”. They not only describe alternate pathways for innovation, invention, and discovery, but also how ideas and technologies circulate in Latin American contexts and transnationally. The contributors’ explorations of these issues, and their examination of specific Latin American experiences with science and technology, offer a broader, more nuanced understanding of how science, technology, politics, and power interact in the past and present. The essays in this book use methods from history and the social sciences to investigate forms of local creation and use of technologies; the circulation of ideas, people, and artifacts in local and global networks; and hybrid technologies and forms of knowledge production. The essays address such topics as the work of female forensic geneticists in Colombia; the pioneering Argentinean use of fingerprinting technology in the late nineteenth century; the design, use, and meaning of the XO Laptops created and distributed by the One Laptop per Child Program; and the development of nuclear energy in Argentina, Mexico, and Chile.

World Development, 1990

This paper examines the development of the S&T research agenda in Latin America from the 1940s to the 1970s, the recent changes in the international context, and their implications for current thinking on the role of endogenous scientific capabilities in development. National experiences from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses in the region's research capabilities. Problems posed in specific areas of application (agriculture and mining) and the current condition of universities in the region highlight the difficulties in dealing with political and institutional realities. The achievements of the 1960s and 1970s in building up research capabilities were significant, but insufficient to radically alter the social and productive systems which are at stake today.

The Reform of Cordoba reinforced the social function of the university, allowing the development of its third mission (the Extension). In this article, urgent global socio-environmental problems and the situation of the productive structure of Latin America are discussed, and the most outstanding elements of the development of disruptive technologies and the emergence of the 4i are analyzed. All of them will have serious socioeconomic implications for the region. The analysis of information from different sources shows that despite technological advances, unsustainable forms of production and consumption prevail. In this region, these problems are exacerbated by the predominance of an economic structure that still depends on the intensive exploitation of natural resources, which, if appropriate measures are not adopted , will worsen with the irruption of the new technological systems, this because it demands natural resources that abound in the region. An effective approach of socio-environmental problems requires the re-elaboration of generation forms of knowledge, assuming approaches that overcome the traditional ways of research incorporating diverse knowledge and social actors. It is proposed that the extension works as a conveyor belt for exchange information between communities and researchers to generate new agendas and contribute to develop spaces that allow the implementation of alternative ways of carrying out the activity. To this extent, the second mission of the university is also transformed.

Science Studies During The Cold War, 2016

The first generation of science policies in Latin America were inspired by the linear model of innovation based on Vannevar Bush’ Science: the endless frontier and UNESCO postwar stance on freedom of research. Informed by these ideas, during the late 1940s and the 1950s, research councils focused on basic research were created throughout the region. During this first phase, prominent scientists, such as Argentine Nobel Laureate in Physiology Bernardo Houssay, were explicit advocates of these policies. The configuration of science studies during the 1960s were a reaction to these policies. Thinkers with different backgrounds criticized especially the emphasis on basic research and the lack of attention to Latin American knowledge needs. The reflections of these authors and their intervention in international organizations, usually referred as part of a movement of Latin American Thought in Science, Technology, and Development (PLACTED), preceded other meta-scientific reflections in sociology or anthropology of science. The chapter focuses especially on the works of three authors of the movement: Jorge Sabato, Amílcar Herrera, and Oscar Varsavsky. They had few points of agreement and many ideological differences, related to their differential involvement with Marxism and a “revolutionary way” of political action. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the link between science and development in the context of the global “radicalization” agenda of the late 1960s and early 1970s.