Overview

At the 2024 World Science Forum in Budapest, Professor Helena Nader, President of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, offered a clear perspective on scientific research and its impact on society. Trust in science, she argued, is not a uniform concept, but a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in local contexts and cultural understanding.

“Trust in science depends on the community where you are engaged,” Nader noted, challenging the use of a single, global concept for scientific trust. Therefore, trust in science can increase in some countries, while decreasing in others. Prof. Nader described the fundamental misunderstanding that many people have about scientific knowledge. “Science is something that’s built continuously,” so unlike rigid belief systems, science is a dynamic process of continuous learning and evidence gathering, and many people are not used to this.

Drawing on Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Prof. Nader illustrated how scientific understanding evolves. “It was a theory based on some evidence [when it was published], but through time more evidence was gathered to prove that it is right,” she explained. This approach stands in stark contrast to static belief systems, where fundamental tenets remain unchanged regardless of new information.

The interview also touched upon the intricate relationship between science, society and political landscapes. Nader argued for a nuanced approach to scientific neutrality, emphasising the importance of professional objectivity while acknowledging the complex global context in which scientific research operates. “Scientists are supposed to not be political,” she stated, highlighting the need to balance individual perspectives and professional responsibilities. This stance became particularly evident when discussing scientific responses to global conflicts.

Prof. Nader expressed frustration about the inconsistent ways scientific communities react to different geopolitical events, pointing out the need for a more principled and uniform approach. Her criticism reflected a broader philosophical commitment to universal principles: the World Science Forum’s agenda of “leave no one behind” advocates for a comprehensive approach to human rights and scientific engagement that can transcend political and ideological boundaries.

Speaking as a representative of the S20 academies, Prof. Nader pointed out the diversity of the global scientific community. The G20 countries are anything but homogeneous, and their demographic and economic differences create unique scientific challenges for the different participant nations. The scientific needs of the aging populations in Japan and Europe, for example, differ dramatically from those of countries with younger demographics like India and the Philippines. These variations demand flexible and adaptive approaches to global scientific research and funding as well.

Despite these clear regional differences, Prof. Nader identified several universal scientific challenges that require collaborative global approaches. Artificial intelligence emerged as a critical area of concern, with researchers worldwide grappling with questions of technological control and ethical implementation. The recommendation of S20, also incorporated into the latest G20 statement, advocates for collaborative AI management. “[AI currently is controlled] by the big tech companies. So are we going to compete with them or can we, as countries, do something that’s different?” Prof. Nader asked, highlighting the need for coordinated international strategies.

Beyond technological concerns, Prof. Nader’s thoughts encompassed broader global challenges. “We need to have bioeconomy in order to solve the hunger problem globally,” she argued, also highlighting the need for approaches that prioritise nutritional health over processed food consumption. Healthcare accessibility was another crucial theme. Prof. Nader emphasised the need to develop strategies for reducing medical costs and ensuring equitable access to advanced treatments, recognising the significant disparities in global healthcare systems.

The vulnerable state of research funding

Another, sadly, global phenomenon that came up for discussion was the increasingly vulnerable state of scientific research funding. Prof. Nader expressed profound worry about the susceptibility of schemes funding scientific research to political fluctuations. “We don’t have a policy that makes it indifferent who is in power,” she lamented. Several elections in the past year have highlighted how potential leadership changes could dramatically impact science policy and research priorities.

This unpredictability creates uncertainty for researchers and institutions, potentially stifling long-term scientific progress. A poignant example of this is Argentina, once a regional and global leader in educational policy and scientific literacy, which has now dramatically reversed course, with the current government cutting funding for CONICET and universities. As Prof. Nader explained, somewhat counterintuitively, all this is supported by a young generation seeking undefined change in the status quo despite the potential long-term negative consequences for scientific research and education.

One of the most poignant segments of the interview focused on the diminishing attractiveness of scientific careers, particularly in Western countries. Prof. Nader observed a dramatic decline in graduate program enrollment, attributing this trend to reduced professional prestige and changing societal values. “Being a scientist was a prestigious profession. Being a professor was a prestige profession,” she reflected. Now, reduced salaries, limited social recognition, and the allure of alternative career paths through social media have contributed to this troubling trend.

With passionate conviction, Prof. Nader also defended the critical importance of basic scientific research, arguing against the trend of prioritising immediate innovation over foundational scientific exploration. Funding schemes concentrating only on innovation will result in a dearth of novel scientific ideas. “There will be a drought [of ideas] because the initial ingredient of innovation depends on basic science,” she warned.

She powerfully illustrated the need for long-term commitment in funding frontier research through the examples of quantum computing and mRNA vaccine development. In the first case we are investing in a technology where we will see the benefits only later (perhaps in a few decades), whereas the later is a groundbreaking technology that emerged from almost half a century of fundamental scientific research. The development of mRNA vaccines particularly resonated as a testament to the long-term value of basic scientific research. “All that was necessary [to develop these type of vaccines] was discovered through basic science that started in the 1980s.”

Towards the end of the discussion, Prof. Nader voiced a carefully reasoned plea for societal recognition of science’s fundamental role in technological and human progress. “If we don’t do science now, we’re going to have an impact in 20 years time,” she warned, underscoring the profound long-term consequences of short-sighted scientific policies and diminished public support.

Her message was clear: scientific research is not a luxury but a necessity. It requires sustained investment, public understanding and a commitment to continuous learning and exploration.

World Science Forum. (2024, November 23). Funding focused only on innovation will result in a dearth of novel scientific ideas, warns Prof Helena Nader. https://worldscienceforum.org/news/funding-focused-only-on-innovation-will-result-in-a-dearth-of-novel-scientific-ideas-warns-prof-helena-nader-110179