The Chasm of Communication

April 2002

One of my roles involves being a researcher supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT). I have coordinated two applied research projects (PPDs) under the auspices of the MCT. These projects are part of the Pilot Program for the Protection of Brazilian Tropical Forests, known as PPG7, which is funded jointly by the Brazilian Government and G-7 countries. PPG7 has become the keystone of Brazil's public policies for Amazonia. A primary goal of the program is to test new ideas that can become part of government policy for the region, i.e., applied research. But the research is typically done by scientists, and, as became evident at a recent meeting, scientists have an image problem.

The first phase of PPG7 has come to a close, with external investments of over 100 million dollars, primarily from Germany and the European Union. (The U.S. and Japan have been minor players in this program.) The second phase is about to begin and recently the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and MCT organized a seminar with about 200 participants to establish priorities for the coming years. The stakes are high with another 100 or so million dollars to be allocated.

The MCT asked sixteen researchers to participate in the seminar in Brasilia, and I received an invitation. The Brazilian government reorganized PPG7 into six thematic lines: 1) Community and Public Administration of Protected Areas; 2) Sustainable Production; 3) Monitoring, Prevention, and Control of Fires and Deforestation; 4) Territorial Development; 5) Municipal Environmental Administration and Local Sustainable Development; and 6) Science and Technology for Sustainable Development.

Some colleagues have the impression that because I live in Acre, I'm privy to the politics of Amazonian development. Amazonia is huge and Acre is so far out in left field that we are beyond the fence. Typically, colleagues in Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Woods Hole know more about what is going on in Amazonia than I do. I didn't realize the implications of our participation until Isabel Canto, the PPG7 coordinator within MCT, called the researchers together for a pep talk at 8:00 AM on the opening day. Then I understood that scientists were the underdogs going into this meeting, with opposition not only from representatives from civil society, but also from representatives of donor countries.

The opposition became clear during the opening ceremony. While Amazonia is continental in scope, those active in any given field are a mere handful. Of the eight authorities at the table, I had worked with four of them in the past. Maria de Aquino, also known as Laide, spoke first. She is now head of GTA (the Working Group of Amazonia), a consortium of institutions that represents organized civil society. She began her life as a rubber tapper and now represents the groups that PPG7 is supposed to benefit. Laide is also a co-author of an article we wrote for Cultural Survival Quarterly and of a handbook on the use of satellite images for community development. Later she told me that she had indicated me for the third thematic line.

Laide asked permission to read a short statement from GTA that called for a reorganization of the thematic lines. The central recommendation was to extinguish the sixth thematic line-Science and Technology for Sustainable Development-and incorporate its activities in the other lines. With this warm and friendly greeting for the scientists present, we began the work of defining priorities.

Carlos Nobre, director of CPTEC, INPE's center for weather forecasting and climate studies, and I were the MCT representatives in the third thematic line on monitoring and prevention of fires and deforestation. The discussion focused on the application of what the State of Mato Grosso had done to reduce deforestation. The State had given the task to a consulting firm whose representatives could be easily identified in the group-they were the ones in suits.

The State of Mato Grosso had apparently reduced deforestation due to a new system of using satellite imagery of individual properties for licensing. This system is important not only for Mato Grosso; nearly half of the recent deforestation of Amazonia has occurred there. It was hard to completely evaluate the system, because they applied it almost exclusively to large cattle ranches. In spite of the caveats raised by many of us, this method is a big step forward.

Hows versus whys

Carlos Nobre helped give focus to the group's recommendations, asking for suggestions concerning the research priorities for science and technology. Our group had representatives from monitoring agencies, environmental groups, law enforcement, and legal departments. The suggestions focused on research to define how to monitor deforestation and burning. At the end of the session Carlos put forth the question, "what are the causes and dynamics of deforestation?" This was the only why-type question on our list.

After each group had set up its basic outline, there was an idea-marketing session. Each group visited the other groups to seek common themes and make suggestions. Group 6 of Science and Technology had two bulletin boards covered with suggested research topics. The most important topic often is not what is, but what is not. I asked Paulo Artaxo, the coordinator of Group 6, if his group had listed innovation or something equivalent as a topic. He said that his group had been so concentrated in anticipating demands that it had omitted the topic, the raison d'être of science. As the S&T representatives in the meeting, we seemed like a band of whipped dogs, so worried about attending the demands of other groups that we neglected our central role: to be out in front and learn new things that affect the world. As an example, I saw no reference to what climate change might mean to the efforts for sustainable development of Amazonia.

When I returned to the group of the third thematic line, the facilitators talked about the contributions that had come from the visits of other groups. They said rather disparagingly that the "researchers" had come through and made suggestions. While all recognized science as important, the others of the PPG7 felt that "scientists/researchers" were aloof from the real problems of Amazonia and were only interested in pursuing our own objectives. In short, they were questioning our ethics.

While there are elements of truth in their evaluation, several researchers in PPG7 have large components of socially relevant activities. There is also a struggle within PPG7 over funding, and science is competing with many other activities. My impression, however, is that one of the biggest problems is an elitist image of science, as practiced in Brazil and the U.S. This image has generated its own backlash.

While I whole-heartedly agree that scientists must do more to consult with society and to make their results more easily accessible, I worry when I see the pendulum swing to the other side where scientists concentrate on the "hows" and don't justify the need to figure out the "whys." We need to bridge the chasm of communication between scientists and society. If we do not succeed, society will be the poorer for it.

©Woods Hole Research Center, 2008