By FELIPE APL COSTA*
There is a good dose of elitism in academia, without a doubt, but the Brazilian university has never been an ivory tower, much less an ivory tower.
In memory of ME (1965-2023), whose advisor one day complained that she was a student with initiative.
The President of the Republic was in Campinas (SP), on July 2, 2024. He participated, among other things, in the launching of the inaugural stone of the Orion Project (see here). It was a pleasant surprise for me, as I had no idea that a project of this nature and magnitude was being implemented.
Readers unfamiliar with the subject may not know, but the best and safest laboratories in the country today do not exceed the so-called safety level 2 (BSL-2, in its conventional acronym in English). There has never been anything like levels 3 or 4 (BSL-3 and BSL-4) here.[1]. Ensuring the functioning of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories is a delicate undertaking; It depends, among other things, on rigorous protocols whose level of demand is far beyond the level that BSL-2 laboratories are capable of meeting. BSL-4 laboratories, for example, handle potentially lethal organisms against which we do not yet have any type of defense (eg, vaccines).
I dare say that the risks arising from the operation of these laboratories are comparable to the risks associated with the operation of a nuclear power plant. I suspect — I just suspect — that there still aren't enough qualified people to successfully carry out an enterprise of this magnitude on Brazilian soil. Contrary to what some people imagine, graduating masters and doctors is not equivalent to producing scientists. And what we do today is distribute diplomas.
Strictly speaking, taking into account that (i) the number of postgraduates graduated each year continues to grow; and (ii) the training time for new graduates is increasingly shorter; We should be more concerned about the opposite effect: there is a progressive deterioration in the training of new masters and doctors, as well as in the quality of the academic work produced by them. The situation seems delicate and worrying to me. As current circumstances continue, and in the event that the Orion Project installations are completed, I predict that it will be necessary to recruit people (Brazilians or not) who currently work outside the country.
Scientific literature
Countless scientific articles are published every year, whether in printed or electronic versions. Few of them, however, are destined to acquire weight and relevance; An even smaller number will become instructive references (albeit for a limited time) for other authors.
The scientific community is home to a diverse range of authors, from Nobel laureates to people incarcerated in prisons. Good scientific literature works like a gigantic irrigation system. Full of ramifications and interconnections, this system nurtures and stimulates the development of new ideas, especially in the case of pure science.[2]
Publishing articles in technical journals is how scholars announce their findings. It is the way to attest and claim priority over a particular finding. It has been this way since the beginnings of modern science. Furthermore, it is also the opportunity that authors have to demarcate a small territory, leaving their mark there, even if none of these marks can claim the definitive label for themselves.
Three types of search
The scientific community evaluates the relevance of a publication based on the impact it has on the already established body of knowledge. This impact generally does not go beyond the limits of a specific area. Sometimes, however, the novelty goes beyond conventional limits and reaches neighboring areas.
Depending on the nature and scope of the results, we can identify at least three types of research: (1) Firstly, we have research that promotes conceptual advances; (2) Next, those that promote methodological innovations; and (3) Finally, case studies — ordinary research that confirms or helps to consolidate some existing concept or method.
These categories differ from each other in more than one aspect.
Research that promotes conceptual advances, for example, usually has a broad, deep and lasting impact. It is thanks to this type of advancement that we learn to differentiate the wheat from the chaff, which allows us to climb a little higher on the slope of knowledge.
Ruptures are exceptionalities
Consider, for comparison purposes, the magnitude of the historical changes that occurred due to the work of the following authors: (1) Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1553) and the replacement (a posteriori) of the geocentric model by the heliocentric one; (2) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) and the (a posteriori) emergence of genetics; (3) Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) and the Estrodão model [3] to explain the origin of our Universe; and (4) Francis Crick (1916-2004) and James Watson (born 1928) and the double helix model to describe the structure of the DNA molecule.[4]
Ruptures of this magnitude are exceptionalities capable of changing the course of history. Precisely for this reason, such ruptures are admittedly rare. The vast majority of research is appropriately described by the label case studies. In the context of pure science, this research does not intend to change the world. Their purpose is almost always protocol: to test an idea or method already proposed by other authors. Sometimes surprises occur, of course, and things take a somewhat unexpected turn.
Obtaining unexpected results (I mean: results that do not fit into any of the existing explanatory models) can be promising. It turns out that these twists and turns depend a lot on the preparation and skill of those who are in charge of the research. Most of the time, there are no surprises and the results only serve to confirm what is already in circulation. The catch phrase serves well to describe the impact of ordinary science.
Multiplying irrelevance
Scientific literature continues to grow, characterizing what we could call a bibliographic avalanche. In fact, as said in the opening paragraph, a lot of new things are published every year. It turns out that the relevance of this primary literature (eg, articles and theses) is very uneven. A few publications become mandatory reading in their area of research, so that they are read by almost everyone who works in that area. Many publications, however, are read by very few people or are not read at all. This means that much of the so-called scientific literature remains hidden, with little or no impact on the advancement of knowledge.[5]
In the case of theses, specifically, we are talking about works that are produced within the scope of so-called postgraduate programs (master's and doctorate).[6] Their relevance is equally uneven, with the aggravating factor that in this case the total number of readers is even smaller.[7] Therefore, the importance of theses for the advancement of knowledge tends to be equally minor.
Cover vs. crumb
To a greater or lesser extent, the theses suffer from what we could label here as planned obsolescence. The factors that contribute to this can be divided into two categories: formal and content.
In the first case, it would be appropriate to draw attention to the excessive weight that is sometimes attributed to editorial standards that define the appearance of theses. Formalists often argue that rules are intended to standardize and make reading easier. It's a valid concern, but it shouldn't carry all the weight it usually does. After all, it is something absolutely secondary.
Furthermore, following the rules is no guarantee that the thesis will contain a coherent and consistent text. I say: following the rules may even generate a visually clean and pleasant work, but it doesn't even prevent the text from being tortuous, long-winded and full of inconsistencies. As content experts argue, no matter how intelligent the standards are — and this is not usually the case — they are incapable of guaranteeing consistent, quality content.
It's good to remember that we, Brazilians, have a tendency to overvalue the appearance of things.[8] However, at least in the academic sphere, this is a harmful custom that should be fought more vigorously.
Quantity vs. quality
What should really come first in the list of concerns of our teachers is the level of training of their supervisees, including the quality of the work that students are producing.[9]
Judging only by the samples that I have been able to read over the years, the average level of theses is in the opposite direction: while the number of postgraduate students continues to grow,[10] the weight and relevance of the theses seem to go in the opposite direction.
With specific regard to the universe of basic research (notably in areas such as physics, chemistry and biology), I present below three generalizations (strictly speaking, three hypotheses subject to examination) about the current state of affairs, namely: (i) Throughout In recent decades (from 1990 onwards, let's say), the themes and subjects covered in the theses are proving to be increasingly provincial and trivial.
(ii) The majority of theses are devoid of innovative or even audacious ideas, the type that can mobilize attention or inspire the work of other researchers; and (iii) As the number of theses grew a lot, the number of journals supported by the postgraduate programs themselves grew a lot. The main objective of this type of initiative is to release a growing volume of articles (extracted from those theses) that would be unlikely to be accepted for publication in reputable international journals.
Instant theses
In addition to the proliferation of protocol theses, there is an even more worrying aspect: the training and level of new generations of masters and doctors. The general climate seems to be one of accommodation and leveling down.
The origin of the problem may have to do with the calendar: the average duration of courses is increasingly compressed — it takes two years to complete a master's degree and four to complete a doctorate. If the student is unable to complete everything within the deadline, they lose their financial support (scholarship) and the postgraduate program to which they are linked will be penalized.
During the postgraduate course (master's or doctorate), it is worth noting that students must meet some requirements, three of which would be the following[11]: (1) Take a minimum number of subjects; (2) Conduct original research work (read: not worth plagiarism or theft, as is common in the business world); and, finally, (3) Write a reliable and minimally understandable report (at least by colleagues in the area) regarding the research carried out.
It is in this context that (i) scholarship holders run to avoid losing their scholarship; and (ii) the programs are against penalization and demotion.
The result of this double race, the result of the double pressure exerted by funding agencies, is the state of affairs we are witnessing: reducing the load of subjects to a minimum and simplifying the theses as much as possible, so that the student is freed from his obligations as quickly as possible. And so it has been, to the delight of managers who prioritize quantity, caring little or nothing about the training of students or the quality of the theses that are being produced by them.
The side effects are bitter and harmful. More complex topics or longer procedures are left aside. The practical part of the research (laboratory or field) is abbreviated or simplified as much as possible. The situation is particularly worrying — and risks becoming caricatured — in areas that require field work, an activity that used to take months or even an entire year (sometimes more).
Collecting data is indeed a risky activity (the reagent has not arrived and the experiment will be delayed or the rain has not come and the tree has not blossomed), which is why this step has been reduced to the bare minimum. Thus, what used to last months or even a year, but generated significant data, is now a matter of hours or days and is generating almost merely decorative data.
Beans with rice
An informal law seems to be in force today in all postgraduate programs: the law of beans and rice — “Let's opt for the shortest path, don't want to complicate things, don't want to embrace the world; Let’s respect the deadlines, fill out the forms and defend our thesis immediately.”
Projects that have worked or been praised in the recent past are now being adopted as models. Today's candidates are no longer challenged like those of the past. Many advisors, especially younger ones (themselves poorly trained) have taken care of the pedagogical work and are now content with pointing out shortcuts to their advisees. These, in turn, are happy to know that they can finish everything in the blink of an eye.
There is no spirit or vocation that can resist: creativity is inhibited, bold ideas are banned and originality is combated. In the end, there is no way to prevent the level of research from declining year after year. In this context, it is possible to understand how even the weakest theses become worthy of certification — just respect the program's editorial standards.[12]
The strength of agencies
Amidst a series of fallacious arguments[13] and, above all, due to strong financial pressure, postgraduate programs across the country joined in and ended up adopting the guidelines of funding agencies; starting, of course, with those that are more deeply embedded in higher education (CNPq and Capes).
Over the years, agencies (federal and state) acquired political density — in addition to technical staff — and today they practically rule and rule in the day-to-day running of postgraduate programs. As the bulk of scientific research conducted in the country is linked to master's and doctoral programs, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the agenda and agenda of Brazilian science are defined by sponsors.
I don't think the situation is at all comfortable. It's as if we were all on a bus crossing an extensive desert; inside the bus, conditions are uncomfortable; Outside, however, death is almost certain, which is why it is unlikely that anyone will jump out and continue the journey on their own. In the case of the scientific community, the crux of the matter is more or less this: it is unlikely that researchers or research groups that depend on funding — even the most veteran ones — will raise their voice and announce that the king is naked. It is best to remain seated and comply with the rules imposed by the driver. The passengers will continue to argue and fight among themselves, but the journey will move forward, on a journey that seems to take us from nowhere to nowhere.
Rusty ratchet
Brazilian postgraduate studies do not train scientists. Strictly speaking, the initial purpose was to minimally qualify undergraduate course teachers. My undergraduate professors, for example, with one exception or another, didn't know what postgraduate studies were. But that was at the end of the 1970s. Since then, as I have tried to show throughout this article, things have changed a lot. Some things have changed for the better, of course, but others have not. In my opinion, the direction of the post began to decline from the 1990s onwards (read: FHC I and II governments). That was when quality was pushed under the rug and quantity took over the game.
Under normal conditions of temperature and pressure, the purpose of the powder should be to form a new generation of well-thinking people. Part of this concern should be focused on the training of new scientists. I'm thinking of real scientists, people with autonomy and critical sense, to the point of being able to conduct innovative research on their own, whether in the area in which they were trained or in related areas.
What we see today, however, is not exactly that.
Unintentionally or not, what the postgraduate program is doing is serving as a turnstile for entry into the public service, notably higher education. From the moment that teacher selection competitions began to require one or more postgraduate diplomas (master's and, soon after, doctorate) as a prerequisite, the demand for these courses grew and consolidated.[14] The situation today is more or less this: postgraduate programs are distributing tickets to future candidates for higher education.
Strictly speaking, the programs are producing only graduated people (read: people trained in a hurry and in any way, who live repeating the cake recipe that was imposed on them during their postgraduate studies, but who may not be able to plan and conduct research independently and on your own). A testimony to the absurd situation we are experiencing is the growing number of unemployed doctors (here).
So it is. Many postgraduates are leaving university thinking about how to return as quickly as possible, but now to receive a professor's salary, not just a PhD or postdoctoral fellowship. There are also those who leave university imagining that they will soon embark on a career as a scientist at a research institution or company.
In the first case, what happens is that institutions dedicated to research are relatively rare and the few that exist, with one exception or another, were forgotten or even attacked by the two previous governments (2016-2018 and 2019-2022). Others dry up in a historical trajectory of abandonment and scrapping, as if they were comets fleeing from the Sun. See, for example, the history of shortages in our natural history museums (eg, Nacional and Goeldi) or the situation of some departments that provide a service of obvious and immediate relevance (eg, Inmet, Inpe and Embrapa).
Inmet, for example, accumulates a growing number of inactive or abandoned meteorological stations (here). At the state level, in addition to the general situation being even more dire, the lack of prospects is a desolate thing. Take the case of the Zoobotanical Foundation, for example, which the government of Rio Grande do Sul saw fit to destroy once and for all (here).
Tail
One of the oldest fallacious ideas I know about the Brazilian university is the allegorical image of an ivory tower. Personally, I would really like there to be some tower. It didn't need to be made of ivory, it could be made of wood or bamboo, it just needed to have some solidity.
There is a good dose of elitism in academia, without a doubt, but the Brazilian university has never been an ivory tower, much less an ivory tower. We have always been a society based on an extractive and agro-export economy.[15] It is not surprising, therefore, that the ruling classes are so backward — as well as deeply corrupt and lazy. Brazilian universities, of course, reflect this, as do other institutions that deal or should deal with the world of ideas (eg, Academia Brasileira de Letras). Either because the university interacts with the ruling class, or because it is forging members of the next generation.
Over the past four decades, what I have found to be the best in our academic world looks more like a warehouse.[16] A wooden shed; simple, but sober and spacious. In the final analysis, our higher education institutions — with emphasis on traps of a private nature — make me think, not of the inappropriate allegory of an ivory tower, but rather of a pile of dry straw in the open air. Straw so dry and thin that any wind blows it away.
*Felipe APL Costa is a biologist and writer. Author, among other books by What is darwinism.
References
Balbachevski, E. 2005. Postgraduate studies in Brazil: new challenges for a successful policy. In: Schwartzman, S & Brock, C, eds. The challenges of education in Brazil. RJ, New Frontier.
Bunge, M. 1987 [1980]. Epistemology, 2nd ed. SP, TA Queiroz.
CGEE. 2024. Brazil: Masters and Doctors 2024. Brasília, Center for Management and Strategic Studies. (Available in: https://mestresdoutores2024.cgee.org.br.)
Costa, FAPL. 2017. The flying evolutionist & other inventors of modern biology. Viçosa, Author's Edition.
Costa, FAPL. 2019. What is Darwinism. Viçosa, Author's Edition.
Garrett, L. 1995 [1994]. The next plague. RJ, N Fronteira.
Inep. 2024. Technical summary of the 2022 Higher Education Census. Brasília, National Institute of Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira / MEC. (Available here: https://www.gov.br/inep/pt-br.)
Koestler, A. 1989 [1959]. Man and the universe. SP, Ibrasa.
Larivière, V. & mais 2. 2008. The declining scientific impact of theses: Implications for electronic thesis and dissertation repositories and graduate studies. Scientometrics 74: 109-21.
Losee, J. 1979 [1972]. Historical introduction to the philosophy of science. BH, Itatiaia & Edusp.
Romeiro, AR. 1998. Environment and dynamics of innovations in agriculture. SP, Annablume & Fapesp.
Singh, S. 2006 [2004]. Big Bang. RJ, Record.
Soares, DSL. 2002. The translation of Big Bang. Author's website. (Available here.)
Schwartzman, S. 2022. Research and postgraduate studies in Brazil: two sides of the same coin? Advanced Studies 36: 227-54.
Watson, J.D. 1987 [1968]. The double helix. Lisbon, Gradiva.
Notes
[1] A comparative guide to the four types of laboratories can be read here. For an instructive reading (in English) on the importance of high security laboratories, see Garrett (1995).
[2] Applied science does not differ from pure or basic science in terms of intellectual quality, epistemological precedence, or historical priority. The difference is one of focus: applied science aims to meet specific needs. For details and discussions, see Losee (1979) and Bunge (1987).
[3] Here I adopt the proposal of Soares (2002), according to which the most appropriate translation of Big Bang would be Estrodão; for an introduction to the model, see Singh (2006).
[4] On Copernicus, see Koestler (1989); about the others, Costa (2017, 2019). The case of Watson and Crick is particularly illustrative: the two were awarded the Nobel Prize (1963) for a discovery whose initial report occupied just two pages of an edition of the magazine Nature (1953; 171: 737-8). For a first-person account, see Watson (1987).
[5] Let there be no doubt: It is not exactly the fact that it is not read that explains why an article remains in the shadows. The crux of the matter is relevance. The correct meaning of the cause-effect relationship here would be the following: Many articles remain in the shadows because they are little or not relevant and, therefore, matter little or nothing in terms of support or inspiration for other authors. In terms of those who live and breathe the competitive race that characterizes the scientific arena, reading articles that are little or not relevant at all is seen simply as a waste of time.
[6] Postgraduate studies in the country are a relatively recent experience. In the words of Schwartzman (2022, p. 228-9): “The system of postgraduate courses in Brazil was created in the 1970s through two relatively independent stimuli, one coming from the area of education, from the Reform University of 1968 and its developments, and another in the area of science and technology, especially from the Ministry of Planning and its development agencies, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Financier of Studies and Projects (Finep) . In the area of education, the origin of this system was Law no. 5.540, dated 28.11.1968/XNUMX/XNUMX (University Reform Law), which established that the admission and promotion of professors in universities should be based on their qualifications and scientific production and that universities should progressively increase the number of professors hired on a dedicated basis exclusive.”
[7] Theses are being cited less and less as bibliographic references. Furthermore, traditional monographic theses are being replaced by other models. For example, some programs (in Brazil, including) encourage the thesis to be divided into minimally coherent and autonomous chapters, each of which would then be written as an independent manuscript to be submitted for publication in some journal. In the words of Larivière et al. (2008, p. 110; free translation): “Although the doctorate has existed since the Middle Ages, it was only at the beginning of the 19th century, when the Prussian Minister of Education, Wilhelm von Humboldt, established a new university model at the University of Berlin , that the Doctor's degree has become a degree associated with the production of original scientific research and the training of new researchers.”
[8] It is no surprise, for example, that Brazilian publishers are willing to spend much more money on the cover than on the core of the books.
[9] Some professors look at their students and see in them nothing more than cheap, minimally qualified labor to be used in certain stages of research. Another thing: professors who do not have their own line of research are not uncommon; Thus, if the students fail to produce a thesis, this class will have nothing to publish.
[10] From 1980 onwards (the year I entered postgraduate studies), I witnessed a significant increase in all statistics — eg, number of postgraduate programs and number of students enrolled in master's and doctoral courses. To get an idea of the speed and magnitude of this growth, here is a numerical example. In the United States, throughout the 20th century, the number of doctors graduated each year increased almost uninterruptedly. Between 1900 and 2000, the order of magnitude of the numbers jumped from +500 to +50.000 (Larivière 2008), which would be equivalent to an annual growth rate of 4,7%. The only years of decline coincided with the First and Second World Wars. In Brazil, although the historical series is much shorter (here, the first programs only began in the second half of the 20th century), growth has been much faster. Between 1996 and 2021, for example, the number of new doctors jumped from 2.854 to 20.679 (CGEE 2024), an annual growth rate of 8,2%. It's an exaggeration. To me, it sounds like a giant pumpkin that you can't eat. Consider the following: at the Brazilian pace, the USA would have reached the year 2000 with the graduation of ~1,4 million doctors each year, a number much higher than the +50 thousand mentioned before.
[11] Or, to quote Balbachevski (2005, p. 279): “As postgraduate studies became institutionalized, the dominant model became one that requires the candidate to complete a minimum number of specialized subjects, their qualification along with to a panel of professors and the public defense of a thesis in front of a panel in which the presence of at least one professor from outside the department is the norm, in the case of a master's degree, and two, in the case of a doctorate.”
[12] An example of the kind of nonsense that the editors of some of our technical magazines are keen to trumpet: “In scientific articles, we do not use the first person singular [I did] but rather the first person plural [We did ], even when the article has only one author”.
[13] Litany such as: “Brazilian doctors are graduating at an advanced age”, “The country is poor and is wasting resources on time-consuming postgraduate programs”, or “We need to accelerate the training of our doctors, just this way the country will become a world power.”
[14] For a recent review, see CGEE (2024).
[15] On the history of Brazilian agriculture, see, eg, Romeiro (1998).
[16] In 2022, the country was home to 2.595 HEIs, 312 of which were public and 2.283 private (Inep 2024). Among the public ones, 115 were universities (37% of the 312); Among the private ones, only 90 were universities (4% of the 2.283). From 1977 to today, I have been to 29 HEIs (18 public universities and four private ones; one public university center and six private colleges or university centers). I studied at three of these public universities (UFJF, Unicamp and UnB).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
