By EDWARDO HENRIQUE BARBOSA*
Is it possible to create a history of science in Brazil that includes a multiplicity of times, spaces, subjects and experiences?
In 1956, the sociologist from Minas Gerais who lived in São Paulo, Fernando de Azevedo,[1] published the book Science in Brazil,[2] The result of a commission made by the Larragoiti Foundation, an institution created in 1950 by Sul América Companhia de Seguros de Vida (SulAmérica). Fernando de Azevedo's work was the third book published by this foundation.
The first publication was Visual arts in Brazil, by Rodrigo Melo Franco de Andrade; the second, Literature in Brazil, by Afrânio Coutinho; the fourth and last printed work was Medicine in Brazil, which was under the responsibility of Leonildo Ribeiro, doctor and director of the Larragoiti foundation.[3] It is worth noting that the name of the function was a tribute from the company's controlling family to its creator and family patron: Dom Joaquim Sanchez de Larragoiti Lucas.[4]
It is clear that Fernando de Azevedo's book and the other works published under the same heading were not just simple works published in yet another of the many editorial collections in vogue in Brazil motivated by the publishing boom of the 1940s and 1950s. By selecting renowned and recognized authors in their respective fields, the objective was to create a reference work, a work of synthesis that would guide its readers to what was most characteristic of the cultural and scientific advancement of the time.
Imbued with this spirit, Fernando de Azevedo organized a collective work, in two volumes, with 14 chapters,[5] where he stated that science in Brazil, following all scientific requirements, is the exclusive fruit of the University of São Paulo (USP), founded in the capital of São Paulo in 1934. It is necessary to emphasize that Fernando de Azevedo was one of the educators who participated in the movement to create USP and it is not surprising that he defended this understanding.
A more assertive response to the proposition that determined the beginning of science in Brazil[6] with the founding of USP it came to light 21 years later with the Brazilianist researcher Nancy Leys Stepan, who published in 1976 the book: Beggins of Brazilian science: Oswaldo Cruz, medical research and policy 1890-1920.[7] In this work, the author asserts that science in Brazil began in the 20th century, but not with the creation of USP, as Fernando de Azevedo stated.
For Nancy Stepan, the creation of the Federal Serum Therapy Institute[8] It was the beginning of academic science in Brazil. It is no coincidence that the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, itself, took steps to provide the translation and dissemination of Nancy Stepan's book in Brazil, back in 1976, with the title Genesis and evolution of Brazilian science: Oswaldo Cruz and the policy of scientific and medical investigation[9].
Subsequently, in 1978, José Murilo de Carvalho, a doctor in sociology and professor of history, published a very significant work, The School of Mines of Another Black Man: the weight of glory.[10] The great merit of José Murilo's book is that it goes beyond the limits of the 20th century and sheds light on a scientific activity that took place in the second half of the 19th century and beyond the Rio-São Paulo axis. In this way, the spaces for scientific activities in Brazil began to encompass, in academic-scientific works, the Minas-Rio-São Paulo triad.
It is worth noting that in this work, the young author who would gain prominence and notoriety among Brazilian historians in the 1980s, was still a recent doctor in political science with a thesis defended at Stanford University, in the United States, in 1974, on the “Elite and the construction of the State in imperial Brazil”,[11] having been invited by fellow sociologist Simon Schwartzman, who was coordinating a research project at the time Financier of Studies and Projects – Finep,[12] on the history of science in Brazil, a work that would record the “glories” of the traditional Minas Gerais school.
Soon after, another work was published on the history of science in Brazil. Simon Schwartzman published, in 1979, the book Formação da comunidade cientifica no Brasil (Formation of the Scientific Community in Brazil).[13] Commissioned by Finep, Brazilian state agency dedicated to supporting scientific and technological development, the work was carried out with the consultancy of sociologist Joseph Ben-David.[14]And, according to Marcia Regina Silva, the Brazilian author in question “also worked based on a functionalist sociology derived essentially from Robert Merton and Thomas Kuhn”.[15]
Unlike his predecessors, the author was not concerned with determining where true scientific knowledge (meaning logical, rational, pragmatic and European) “was born or developed in the country”. In this project, the author had more freedom to develop a certain general vision and address what he called the “18th century heritage”,[16] presenting scientific activities in the 19th century with greater acuity, with an emphasis on naturalists; higher education; engineering and mining; medicine and surgery. Simon Schwartzman's book drew attention to scientific practices that had been ignored until then.
The final years of the 1970s were a very fruitful period for the development of historical knowledge in the country.[17] and for the development of the history of science in Brazil. In addition to the works of Nancy Stepan, José Murilo de Carvalho and Simon Schwartzman, a collection on scientific themes was published. With the title History of Sciences in Brazil, Mário Guimarães Ferri and Shozo Motoyama organized a work in three volumes, printed respectively in 1979, 1980 and 1981. The collection was financed by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and published by University of Sao Paulo Press (Edusp)), in close partnership with University Pedagogical Press – EPU.
Given this scenario, we open a quick parenthesis to mention the research carried out by professor Margarida de Souza Neves, published in 1986, under the title: The showcases of progress[18] which, in addition to the usual FINEP funding, was supported by CNPq and Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC/Rio)), the latter being an institution with which the professor is affiliated. In this text, Margarida Neves draws attention to the importance of Universal Exhibitions as authentic arenas of political, economic and cultural influence in which participating countries should show themselves and present themselves in the “concert of nations” through the best they had in terms of technique, objects and their industrial, scientific and technological production.
Even though it was not published in book format, Margarida Neves' research circulated among her peers within the scientific community of human sciences in Brazil. Thus, in a pioneering way, she pointed out to researchers material culture and exhibitions as important arenas of social and scientific action in Brazil (but not only) in the 19th and 20th centuries.
In the 1990s, Lilia Katri Moritz Schwarcz defended her doctoral thesis in the anthropology course at the University of São Paulo, giving rise to the book: The spectacle of races: scientists, institutions and the racial question in Brazil (1870-1930).[19] In this work, the author focuses on the scientific discourses and practices developed in the institutions where science was practiced in Brazil. The author's institutional focus is formed by historical institutes, medical institutions, law schools and natural history museums. By observing the tensions and contradictions existing in the practices constituting each of these “areas” of activity, based on the institutions investigated, the author shows how the science practiced was permeated by a priori, preconceived ideas and prejudices, which manifested, among other problems, an enormous social and racial gap between the people and the “men of letters and science”.
It is important to emphasize that in this work, Lilia Schwarcz includes natural history museums and material culture in the dynamics of production, dissemination and circulation of scientific knowledge, something that had been done timidly by the researchers who preceded her. But while she does include them, she does so with reservations, since when studying natural history museums, she focused only on the National Museum, the Paulista Museum and the Emilio Goeldi Paraense Museum.
In the second half of the 1990s, Maria Margaret Lopes' book, entitled Brazil discovers scientific research: museums de natural sciences in the 19th century.[20]The result of her PhD in history, with an emphasis on the history of science, at the University of São Paulo, under the supervision of Professor Maria Amélia Mascarenhas Dantes. In this book, Margaret Lopes is categorical in stating that before universities and laboratories, it was in natural history museums that science was carried out in Brazil throughout the 19th century. In addition to going back in time, “to the beginning of science in Brazil in the 19th century”, the author also specifically demarcated natural history museums, which until then had received little or no attention from historians of science in Brazil, as loci par excellence of scientific practices.
Throughout the text, Margaret Lopes analyzes the creation, constitution of collections and scientific activities carried out by five museums: Museu Nacional, Museu do Ipiranga (Paulista), Museu do Paraná (Museu Paranaense) and Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Three museums in the southern axis and one in the north of the country. If, as the author claims, science in Brazil began and was practiced in natural history museums, were the museums she studied the only ones that existed until then? Or is it possible that there were other museums, in other spaces where science was practiced in Brazil, that were simply not studied?
Before we conclude this list of authors and works, it is necessary to address the book Science spaces in Brazil, a work organized by Maria Amélia Mascarenhas Dantes and published by Fiocruz in 2001.[21] The book, which covers the period from 1800 to 1930, contains several articles that deal with different scientific institutions, such as the Faculty of Medicine of Rio de Janeiro, the Botanical Garden, and the National Industrial Aid Society (SAIN)).
Although the time period up to the beginning of the 19th century is fully covered in the work, the scope of the “scientific spaces” was restricted to the traditional regional binomial Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo. In other words, even expanding the scope of the research to the 19th century, it does so by limiting itself to the same spaces covered by other previous research, ratifying as “more relevant” the subjects, institutions and scientific practices of the major economic, political and urban centers of Brazil. In effect, once again, the slow process of growth and expansion of scientific activities developed up until the publication of Margaret Lopes’ work was disregarded by her advisor, Maria Amélia Mascarenhas Dantes, in an explicit process of involution.
One possible explanation for the non-inclusion of other “scientific spaces” in the book is the limitations imposed by the publisher. It would certainly not be possible to include all the institutions that developed scientific practices in Brazil over the course of 130 years. When we look at the curriculum of professor and researcher Maria Amélia Dantes,[22] one of the main researchers on this topic in Brazil and Latin America, we noticed that she supervised work in the postgraduate History course at USP.
However, in the book Science spaces in Brazil, this “broad Brazilian reality” was not addressed. This problem would be fully solved if instead of just one volume the professor had published two or three, reserving for subsequent volumes an appropriate focus on these “other realities” not covered in the single volume published in 2001.
After this presentation, it becomes clear that there is a historiography of science with an emphasis on works and authors more focused on or related to studies of natural history museums in the country, whose orientation demonstrates a valorization of the activities developed in the southern region of Brazil. We also note that the production analyzed seeks to legitimize the actions carried out almost exclusively in the Minas Gerais-Rio-São Paulo tripod, covering with less emphasis Minas Gerais in the 18th and 19th centuries and with greater emphasis Rio de Janeiro in the 19th century and São Paulo in the 20th century.
The result is the exclusion of the other constituent areas of the country, such as the North, Northeast, South and Central-West in the creation of the “genealogy of national knowledge”. This leads the reader to understand that if it is not included in these works it is simply because there was no significant scientific activity in the other areas of Brazil.
In the specific case of Dr. Alves Ribeiro,[23] the inability of this historiography to understand and deal with scientific practices of a “transnational” nature,[24] beyond the European reference, it is quite significant in an intellectual production guided only by the European reference of science and centered on the recurrent construction of myths even in Brazilian science.[25]
We thus perceive that the historiographical production presented carries within it elements analogous to what historian Manoel Salgado Guimarães criticized as being a disciplinary memory: “…belief in a history that seems to be confused with the account of past events, ensuring a dose of naturalness to the task of giving meaning to human actions, caused this past to come to inhabit the spaces of the sacred, preserved from the exercise of criticism, thus constructing a memory of the discipline”.[26]
Taken together, this production is presented as a memory that is not only disciplinary, but totally disciplined, which only accepts a certain way of reading, writing and producing history, excluding other forms and/or possibilities.[27] based exclusively on the processes of so-called formation of the national State with an exacerbated emphasis on the economic and political aspects that made possible and still make possible the scientific and didactic production carried out by the official institutions of the established power, sharing and intensely disseminating this world view with the various areas that constitute the country.
As an interesting example of the aspects indicated above, concerning the great valorization of state action in national scientific production and consequently in the history of science in Brazil, we have the words of Margaret Lopes who, in a well-known summary article, listed the following institutions as the most significant: “National, Paulista, Goeldi, Amazonas Botanical Museums, Curitiba Museum, the National Observatory, the Botanical Gardens of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Belém do Pará, the Schools of Engineering and Medicine, Minas Gerais and Ouro Preto”.[28]
When registering the museums recognized as spaces for the production of science in Brazil, the author completes her list with more institutions whose main purpose is identical: “Agronomic Institutes of Campinas, Biological Institute of São Paulo, Manguinhos, Scientific Exploration Commission, Imperial Fluminense Institute of Agriculture”.[29]
Objects of a large number of research projects since 1980, all the listed institutions share four characteristics: (i) almost all of these scientific institutions are located in the current Southeast region – formerly part of the South region of the country; (ii) these science centers were created, organized or managed by qualified professionals within the “European scientific tradition” and/or had their activities or actions recognized within this tradition; (iii) all are official institutions, established, financed and linked to the current public power and at the expense of the public treasury, be it imperial/provincial or federal/state; (iv) both the entities and their agents believed that as privileged continuers of European science, they make a universal and neutral science.
In this context, what is understood as “science” is the activity carried out by a certain group of men with training and/or experience based on the “European tradition”, linked to or subordinate to the State and who work in an official institution capable of offering material and symbolic conditions to justify the full development of their activities. When commenting on the official collections of museums and other spaces of study and research, Margaret Lopes demonstrates that she is aware of the great sociopolitical importance and broad State power in this sector, as she stated: “The State, by revealing the order of nature, became part of this natural order. Ordering was the function of administrators, curators, teachers, doctors, anatomists, scientists…”.[30]
In Brazil, it is clear that the element of greatest weight and density to characterize science, according to the academic production made by historians in the area, was and continues to be the identification of state funding, whether in the Colonial, Imperial or Republican political regime. Which still intended to carry out a “universal and neutral” science[31] in the same way practiced by the rich European tradition. Otherwise, science and scientists can only be thought of as a direct or indirect concession of the Reason of State, submissively serving the reasons and “unreasons” of their respective political regime.
In this way, we literally have the legitimization of The bureaucratic utopia,[32]in this specific case, the scientific bureaucracy. But the question remains: thinking diachronically, was there only science financed by the State? Could individual researchers or scientists – with or without scientific training, who had no direct ties to the State or official institutions, who paid all the costs of their activities, who maintained communication and exchanges with other scientists inside and outside Brazil – not do science? State action is a condition sine qua non for the existence of science?
Another structuring aspect of Brazilian historiographical production on the history of science is the mobilization, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, of the so-called epistemic virtue.[33] This stance legitimizes the importance of certain scientific productions and spaces, which in turn are taken as representative of the nation. Therefore, when speaking of these practices and spaces, one speaks, by metonymy, of Brazil, substantiating the mistaken idea that if there was science in Brazil in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries, it was necessarily in the places and in the forms presented by the dominant historiography.
Aware of this situation, it is necessary to ask how to practice other ways of understanding and writing the history of science in Brazil, beyond the “disciplinary memory”, so that the many experiences of the country’s diverse realities are incorporated. Such problematization is necessary, since it is still being done incipiently by a few researchers in the area. Moema Vergara, for example, who positions herself in this sense when concluding the review of the book Espaços da Ciência no Brasil, where she raised the following question: “But the challenge still remains: is it possible to write a history of science in Brazil outside of the institutions?”?”.[34]
Expanding the questioning of Moema Vergara, we problematize: is it possible to make a history of science in Brazil that includes a multiplicity of times, spaces, subjects and experiences? More specifically, is it possible to make a history of science in Brazil that absorbs and presents the North, Northeast, South and Central-West of the country, presenting alternatives to the current writing of history centered on the antithetical pairs “center/periphery”, “developed/undeveloped”, “true/false”, “presence/absence”?
Maintaining this framework is nothing more than the reproduction, within national borders, of a practical action developed by international scientific powers to legitimize the existing gap between the political/economic interests of nations that produce science in order to convince nations that consume science.
Questions like this are good to think about, as is the observation made by Max Weber when he stated that “The historian is too easily dominated by the idea that the victory of the more evolved elements is evident and that defeat in the struggle for existence is a symptom of “backwardness”.”[35]
*Eduardo Henrique Barbosa de Vasconcelos is a professor of history at the State University of Goiás (UEG).
Notes
[1] For a broader understanding of Azevedo's life and work, see: GOMES, Wilson de Sousa. Fernando de Azevedo and History from Brazilian Culture. Thesis (Doctorate in History). Federal University of Goiás. Goiânia-GO, 2021.
[2] In 1943, Fernando de Azevedo wrote Brazilian Culture (3 volumes), a work in which the author had already made observations concerning science in Brazil, some of these considerations being taken up again in the new book of 1956.
[3] OLIVEIRA, Raiany Souza de. Sciences in Brazil (1956): history and historiography. In: BENTIVOGLIO, Júlio; et al. [9th] Brazilian Seminar on History and Historiography: the Brazilian historian and his audiences. Ouro Preto: Press of the Federal University of Ouro Preto, 2016. p. 496.
[4] See: . Accessed on 12/03/2021. At the end of February 2022, it was announced that the group D'Or carried out the acquisition of Sul América, See: accessed on 1/2022/02.
[5] The book's chapters cover: “Mathematics in Brazil”; “Astronomy in Brazil”; “Physics in Brazil”; “Meteorology in Brazil”; “Geology and Paleontology in Brazil”; “Mineralogy and Petrography in Brazil”; “Geography in Brazil”; “Chemistry in Brazil”; “Zoology in Brazil”; “Botany in Brazil”; “Biology in Brazil”; “Psychology in Brazil”; “Political Economy in Brazil”; “Anthropology and Sociology in Brazil”.
[6] We chose to select works that deal with the history of science in the sense side, thus enabling a greater approximation with the so-called human sciences. That said, productions that specifically address the history of science in the so-called exact sciences are not included here. tout court:Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics.
[7] STEPAN, Nancy Leys. Beginnings of Brazilian Science: Oswaldo Cruz, Medical Research and Policy, 1890–1920. New York: Science History Publications, 1976.
[8] Created on May 25, 1900 as the Federal Serum Therapy Institute; on December 12, 1907, it changed its name to Manguinhos Experimental Pathology; Another name change on March 19, 1918, in honor of Oswaldo Cruz, becoming the Oswaldo Cruz Institute and in May 1970, it became the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. See:https://portal.fiocruz.br/historia> Consultado em 18/02/2022.
[9] STEPAN, Nancy Leys, Genesis and evolution of Brazilian science: Oswaldo Cruz and the policy of scientific and medical research. Rio de Janeiro: Artenova / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, 1976. In an article about the work of the retired Columbia University professor, Simone Petraglia Kropf and Gilberto Hochman attest that the book was published in Portuguese in the same year as the original in English, with omissions of notes and the original bibliography. See: KROPF, Simone Petraglia & HOCHMAN, Gilberto. From the Beginnings: Debates on the History of Science in Brazil. In: Hispanic American Historical Review. 91 (3), 2011. p. 391.
[10] CARVALHO, José Murilo de. The School of Mines of Ouro Preto: the weight of glory. Rio de Janeiro: FINEP/Cia Editora Nacional, 1978. It is interesting to note that 37 years before the founding of the School of Mines of Ouro Preto, founded on October 12, 1876, the School of Pharmacy of Ouro Preto was created on April 04, 1839. José Murilo de Carvalho chose to extol the “glories” of the School of Mines and said nothing about the School of Pharmacy, the oldest higher education institution in Minas Gerais.
[11] Original English title: Elite and state-building in imperial Brazil. In Brazil, José Murilo de Carvalho's doctoral thesis was initially published separately in two books: The Construction of Order: The Imperial Political Elite. Rio de Janeiro/Brasília: Ed. Campus/Ed. of the University of Brasilia, 1980; Shadow Theater: Imperial Politics. São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro: Vértice/University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro. 1988.
[12] According to researchers Pirró and Longo and Derenusson, in 1965, FINEP – Fund for Financing Studies, Projects and Programs was created, “with an accounting fund and managed by a Coordinating Board, its purpose was to provide resources to finance the preparation of feasibility studies for programs and investment proposals.” However, in 1967, FINEP – Financing Agency for Studies and Projects was created, a public sector company, which succeeded the fund [created years earlier in 1965] assuming its rights and obligations, and also having to evaluate the feasibility of investment projects for the Ministry of Planning.” PIRRÓ and LONGO, Waldir; DERENUSSON, Maria Sylvia. FNDCT, 40 years. In: Revista Brasileira de Inovação, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), 8 (2), July/December 2009. p.517. For the relationship between Finep and BNDE, see: BERNARDINO JUNIOR, Claudio. Innovations or copies? Brazilian gambiarras in technological development in information technology (1975-1984). Dissertation (Master's in Social History) – University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2019. pp.60-64.
[13] SCHWARTZMAN, Simon. Formation of the scientific community in Brazil. São Paulo: FINEP/Cia. Editora Nacional, 1979. In 2015, the book had its 4th edition, and was published with another title: A space for science and the formation of the scientific community in Brazil. In this way, the publication in Portuguese now has the same title as the work in English.
[14] EDLER, Flávio Coelho. The History of Science and its Audiences. In: [Magazine] Maracanã, n. 13, December 2015, p. 29. Accessed on 20118/23/10.
[15] SILVA, Márcia Regina Barros da. History and Historiography of Latin American Sciences: Journal Quipu (1984-2000) In: Brazilian Journal of History of Sciences. V. 7, 2014. p. 49. Available at: Accessed on 231/183/28.
[16] Here, Schwartzman merely reproduces the idea of “18th century heritage” forged and disseminated by Fernando de Azevedo to justify Brazil’s scientific backwardness.
[17] FREIRE, Diego Jose Fernandes. The past of History: historians from the University of São Paulo and Brazilian historiography in the 1970s. Thesis (Doctorate in History). Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre-RS, 2020.
[18] NEVES, Margarida. The showcases of progress. Rio de Janeiro: PUC-Rio/FINEP/CNPq, 1986.
[19] SCHWARCZ, Lilia Katri Moritz. The Spectacle of Races: scientists, institutions and the racial question in Brazil (1870-1930). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1993.
[20] LOPES, Maria Margaret. Brazil discovers scientific research: museums and natural sciences in the 19th century. Hucitec Publishing, 1997.
[21] DANTES, Maria Amélia Mascarenhas. Spaces of Science in Brazil: 1800-1930.New York: Routledge. 2001.
[22] <http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4783109H0> Accessed on 13/12/2020.
[23] Here I make direct mention of the interesting case of Joaquim Antonio Alves Ribeiro (1830-1875), who obtained his medical degree from Harvard (1853), returned to Brazil (understand Ceará) and had his scientific activities completely disregarded because he was from the North of Brazil (current Northeast), for having done science many times without the subsidy of the public treasury and for North American science only becoming visible to the eyes of Brazil and the world in the late 2024th century and early XNUMXth century. See: VASCONCELOS, Eduardo Henrique Barbosa de. The peculiar Science of Joaquim Antonio Alves Ribeiro: Ceará – Harvard – Ceará. Teresina – PI: Editora Cancioneiro, XNUMX.
[24] According to Crawford, Shinn & Sörlin, transnational science is “defined as activities involving persons, equipment or funds from more than one country”. See: CRAWFORD. Elisabeth; SHINN, Terry; SÖRLIN, Sverker (Edts). Denationalizing Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice. Kiuwer, Norwell, MA, 1993. p.4 (Sociology of the Sciences, vol. 16)
[25] BRITTO, Nara. Oswaldo Cruz: the construction of a myth in Brazilian science. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FIOCRUZ, 1995. Despite the title suggesting otherwise, the author makes a lucid and fruitful critical reading of the “myth” of Oswaldo Cruz.
[26] GUIMARÃES, Manoel Luiz Lima Salgado. Nineteenth-century historical culture: the constitution of a disciplinary memory. In: PESAVENTO, Sandra Jatahy. (Org.). Cultural History: research experiences. Porto Alegre: Press of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 2003. p. 10.
[27] TURIN, Rodrigo. A noble, difficult and useful enterprise: the ethos of the nineteenth-century historian. In: History of Historiography, Ouro Preto-MG v. 2, 2009. pp.79-80 Available at: Accessed on 4/07/01.
[28] LOPES, Maria Margaret. Natural sciences in the 19th century: historiographical views are no longer so new. In: ARAUJO, Valdei Lopes de., et al. The Dynamics of Historicism: revisiting modern historiography. Belo Horizonte-MG: Argumentum. 2008. pp. 199-200.
[29] Idem.
[30] Idem.
[31] On the alleged universality and neutrality of science, see: MARQUES. Ivan da Costa. Ontological Politics and Latin American Local Knowledges. In: MEDINA, Eden; MARQUES, Ivan da Costa; HOLMES, Christina. Beyond imported magic: essays on science, technology, and society in Latin America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014. p. 87.
[32] A direct reference to a literary work that weaves an interesting critique of state bureaucracy. See: JACOB, Dionisio. The Bureaucratic Utopia of Máximo Modesto. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2001.
[33] See footnote 37.
[34] VERGARA, Moema de Rezende. Review of the book Spaces of Science in Brazil. In: SBHC Journal. No. I/2003. p. 81.
[35] WEBER, Max [Maximilian Karl Emil Weber] The National State and Economic Policy. In: COHN, Gabriel (Org.). Max Weber: sociology. São Paulo: Ática, 1986. p. 72.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
