When Scientists Take to the Streets

When Scientists Take to the Streets

[introductory music]

Voice 1: What makes us human?

Voice 2: A very beautiful day.

Voice 3: Little termite farm.

Voice 4: Things that create wonder.

Voice 5: Social media.

Voice 6: Forced migration.

Voice 1: What makes us human?

Voice 7: Stone tools.

Voice 8: A hydropower dam.

Voice 9: Pintura indígena.

Voice 10: Earthquakes and volcanoes.

Voice 11: Coming in from Mars.

Voice 12: The first cyborg.

Voice 1: Let’s find out. SAPIENS: A Podcast for Everything Human.

Eshe Lewis: How is scientific research related to our daily lives? Is it valuable or worth spending money on? Today I’m speaking with Argentine anthropologist and science writer María Pía Tavella to learn more about the multiple hurdles the scientific community currently faces in Argentina.

Hi, Pía.

María Pía Tavella (“Pía”): Hi, Eshe.

Esh: I’m really excited to talk to you today. Can you please introduce yourself?

Pía: My name is María Pía Tavella, and I have lived my entire life in Argentina. Specifically, in the city of Córdoba, which is right at the geographic center of our country. You could say I’m a biological anthropologist, but then I turned into a science communicator. After I completed my Ph.D. last year, in the history of the ancient populations of central Argentina through the study of their DNA, I decided to make a career switch. So I didn’t pursue a full-time position in academia.

Eshe: Can you tell us where you currently work and what your job entails?

Pía: Well, I’ve been working for the past year at the communications office in CONICET’s regional unit in my city, Córdoba. CONICET actually stands for National Council of Scientific and Technical Research of Argentina, which is the main science agency.

CONICET is one of the top science government institutions in Latin America. It has researchers, technicians, fellows, and administrators like myself. And it’s also recognized globally. My work there is to attend to institutional communications, press releases, and also to science communication actions. I thought that this job was a good place to gain more experience in this new field of science communication. But recently, things have taken a turn for the worst in the Argentine scientific system, especially in CONICET.

Eshe: Yeah. So I’ve been following this story a little bit on the news. But you are Argentine. You live in Argentina. Could you please explain what’s going on in Argentina right now, as it pertains to science and technology?

Pía: Yeah, so you probably heard this opinion that was featured in the news section of Nature in March, and the title of the piece was “‘Despair’: Argentinian Researchers Protest as President Begins Dismantling Science,” which may sound too dramatic, but I have actually come to realize that many scientists, graduate students, and even administrators actually feel that way.

So maybe to put that scenario into perspective, I’ll [take] one step back.

On December of 2023, the liberal economist Javier Milei took over the presidency of Argentina. He was called El loco, the madman, during his political campaign because he presented himself as the messianic leader in this crusade to cut government spending, bring down the country’s deficit, and lower inflation, which is actually really high these days.

And shortly after he assumed office, he submitted a draft bill to the Congress that basically proposed privatizing various state companies, like the national airline, energy, radio and TV companies, among others. It would also expand his powers as president to decide on urgent matters without discussing them with the Congress. He also proposed to scale back workers’ rights and the right to protest, actually. That bill is still on hold because it has faced resistance from many different sectors.

Eshe: So these seem like really drastic measures. What’s the impact been on the government, on ministries, on society?

Pía: Well, as far as 2024 goes, half of the national ministries have already been closed, including those responsible for education, the environment, and gender issues. That means less funding for those matters. And among those, the Ministry of Science and Technology has been downgraded to a secretariat with, of course, a smaller budget and less power.

Particularly for CONICET, today, March 13th of 2024, the agency doesn’t even have an approved budget for the year. It’s still working and subsisting on last year’s budget. So even if the government matched the amount of money assigned to the science and technology system in 2023, with the inflation that I already told you [about], that’s over 250 percent annually. So to put that value in context: In the past three months, from November to January, the price of a staple food, such as white rice, has actually doubled.

Also, like in this piece I talked about before, for Nature News, they interviewed an anthropologist, Nuria Giniger, from Buenos Aires, and she said that if things don’t change in the next few months, some of these research institutes will actually have to shut down because they won’t be able to pay for the basics, such as maintenance, Internet service, or electricity. And I’m hearing that in Córdoba as well.

Eshe: Wow! That sounds like a really extreme situation, especially because it’s moving so quickly. So I’m curious to know if the main issue here is the government cutting the funding for scientific research. Is that what most of the pressure is coming from?

Pía: Well, on one hand it is, and I think that for public opinion, or at least for the public discourse that the science and technology system is presenting, it is. But personally, I also think there’s a human side to the situation. And it regards the impact that science policies have on thousands of Argentine researchers, scholars, and students, especially those in the early stages of their careers. We’re talking about their lives, their livelihoods, and also their passions.

So I talked to a friend of mine from university. Her name is Melissa Rodriguez Oviedo, but we all call her Melu. And I reached out to her because I had a question on my mind: What happens to science, but especially to scientists, when a government stops investing money on it? So I asked her to describe the moment she found out about the results of Argentina’s presidential elections. And this is what she told me:

Melissa Rodriguez Oviedo (“Melu”): Y estaba con mi sobrinito, eh, y creo que él veía en nuestras caras de.. un poco de resignación porque era evidente, eh, el resultado.

English Translation: I was with my little nephew. I think he saw the resignation in all of our faces because the result was so evident.

Melu: Y lo primero que pensé por primera vez era que me tenía que poner a buscar trabajo afuera, no iba a poder a hacer ciencia y tecnología en Argentina. Digamos, todo lo que venía trabajando, estudiando, desarrollando no lo iba a poder hacer acá.

English Translation: And the first thought that came into my mind was that I would have to look for a job abroad. I wouldn’t be able to do science in Argentina. Everything I had been studying and working on, I couldn’t pursue it over here anymore.

Pía: Melu was raised in a small town at the edge of a mountain range in the province of Córdoba. When she was a little girl, like many of us, she was fascinated by the idea of digging up and finding stuff on the ground. That curiosity became one of her many passions: archaeology.

Melu: Yo soy una hija de la educación pública.

English Translation: I am a daughter of the public education system.

Melu: Cuando me tuve que venir a estudiar a Córdoba, la carrera de grado no estaba, eh en la universidad nacional de Córdoba y no tenía la posibilidad económica de irme a otros lugares. Ya de por sí era demasiado caro venirme a estudiar a Córdoba.

English Translation: When I came to the city to study, a degree in anthropology didn’t exist at the public university, and I didn’t have the means to go somewhere else. It was already too expensive to move to Córdoba City.

Eshe: So how did Melu become an anthropologist?

Pía: Well, initially, she went on to study chemistry until one day in 2010, the National University of Córdoba offered a degree in anthropology. She switched without a second thought, and that’s where we met, actually. Now, 14 years later, she’s completing her Ph.D. in the same university, thanks to a doctoral fellowship awarded by CONICET.

Melu: Mi investigación doctoral está centrada en patrimonio, en realidad.

English Translation: My doctoral research revolves around cultural and archaeological heritage.

Melu: En mi caso, la pregunta está más dada en cómo el estado concibe aquello que denomina como patrimonio. De qué manera, el estado y los profesionales hacen patrimonio también cada día.

English Translation: The main question is how the state conceives what it calls “heritage” and how state agents in museums make the archaeological heritage in their day-to-day work.

Pía: Melu pointed out during a conversation that archaeological heritage creates relationships among different social groups and between people and the past. So by studying how they select, collect, and preserve archaeological objects over time, anthropologists can reveal the ways in which nations build collective memories and identities, like “being Argentinian” or which objects are related to the Argentinian identity.

So for most scientists like Melu, their work is not only a passion but also a valuable contribution to understanding who we are and how we can move toward our goals as a nation. That’s why the Nature News piece I talked about [cannot] only be understood from an economic perspective.

Melu: Creo que todas las personas que nos dedicamos a la investigación, realmente amamos mucho lo que hacemos.

English Translation: I think all of us who are dedicated to scientific research love what we do.

Melu: Inicié el doctorado en antropología pensando en que toda la vida quiero investigar. Entonces, creo que en este momento, uno de de mis grandes dolores en ese aspecto, tiene que ver con que esa posibilidad nunca estuvo tan amenazada. Implica saber que en marzo yo me quedo sin trabajo. Es mi último mes como becaria de CONICET. Y no sabemos qué va a pasar con el organismo.

English Translation: I started my Ph.D. in anthropology thinking that I want to do research for the rest of my life. So my biggest sorrow comes from knowing that that scenario has never been more threatened. It also implies that, in March, I’m going to lose my job. It’s my last month as a CONICET doctoral fellow. And we don’t even know what’s going to happen to the institution.

Eshe: So why does Melu fear for her job at this point in time? I’m wondering if all Argentine scientists are being affected in the same way by these new and very drastic policies.

Pía: Well, actually, I think that the science system has similar features in many countries around the world. You begin your path in academia as a graduate student, you research your topic to obtain your Ph.D., and after that you go for a postdoctoral position, or even two in a row, before you apply to a stable position as a scientific researcher or as a professor.

So I think that in Argentina, in this situation we’re facing right now, young researchers or graduate students are more vulnerable at this moment of economic crisis because their positions are fixed term and finding another one afterward cannot be taken for granted.

For example, in February, CONICET announced a cut in half of the number of new doctoral fellowships to be awarded this year. Many students applied for the fellowship last year and are still waiting for the results. They haven’t heard anything. So Melu’s fears are based on that daily changing situation, the uncertainty, and even the misinformation or silence. There’s also worries in the Argentine scientific community that these curious young minds, when they’re faced with no job prospects, will probably search for academic opportunities abroad— which is something that’s called “brain drain” —or even abandon their scientific vocations altogether.

Eshe: We’ll hear more from Pía after the break.

[break with SAPIENS ad]

Eshe: I’m wondering how people in academia have responded to different threats to their livelihood, to funding, in this context of these new and really drastic policies. What have you seen in that regard?

Pía: So on January 24th, there was this massive nationwide strike against the agenda of the new government and their austerity measures. Thousands of demonstrators from different sectors, not only the science and technology system, hit the streets, shut down businesses and banks, and halted public transportation. In my city, in Córdoba, nearly 400 CONICET workers attended the protest, including researchers, fellows, and administrators. Melu was one of them, actually.

Melu: Fui porque no estoy dispuesta a que se rife el país y quedarme sentada de brazos cruzados en mi casa. Quejándome por Twitter.

English Translation: But then I went because I’m not willing to let them ruffle the country while I’m sitting at home complaining over Twitter.

Melu: Y vernos y estar ahí, poner el cuerpo y saber que eso que uno no está solo, no está sola, fue muy importante para sobrellevar, eh, anímicamente esta situación

English Translation: Seeing each other, throwing ourselves into this, and knowing you’re not alone—it was really important in order to cope with the situation.

Pía: I participated in the strike, too, and I remember it was a very hot, sunny summer day. And CONICET workers from many different disciplines and administrative officers gathered in front of the state workers’ union headquarters at around 10 a.m. I remember that when I got there, I greeted colleagues and acquaintances from the academic community. We also had these in-person meetings as a way to build support networks in these very hard times and also to exchange information in times where there’s a lot of silence, and even mixed signals, from the authorities.

We were also there to make handmade banners with political slogans and demands for the protest. And after that, we began marching while we chanted, “Yes to science, no to cuts.”

[Voices chanting, hands clapping]

I was very surprised, actually, by the turnout because you could see educators from all levels: primary and secondary schools, university professors, artists and culture agents even playing music on the streets, banks and urban service workers, feminists and LGBTQ movements. They were all gathered at the same place with the same demands and with the same slogans against this very conservative agenda from the new government. In Melu’s words:

Melu: Nos hicieron creer que vivimos en un país que no vale nada para que cuando lo vendan, no haya nadie que lo defienda. Y creo que lo que se comprobó en el paro del 24. Es que sí, va a haber un montón de gente que lo va a defender.

English Translation: They made us believe that we live in a worthless country. So when they say it’s over, no one will defend it. But I think that on January 24th, we proved that a lot of people are going to defend it.

Pía: So Argentina’s General Confederation of Labor has not organized another massive strike like the one in January, but CONICET’s workers and other people from the academic community are still meeting regularly in public spaces to voice their claims for better funding, training, and job opportunities. They’re also demanding the reincorporation of many administrators who were dismissed by the agency under this last-to-arrive-first-to-leave criteria. And, actually, I was lucky … at least for now.

Eshe: I’m so glad they missed you! I want to ask you a bit more about the protest. Tell me a little bit more about what you felt to like to see all of those people gathered together, maybe people who might not be in the same places otherwise; all of a sudden, all of these people are there. Tell me a little more about that.

Pía: Yeah, so at first, like the days before, we were a little worried because, as I told you before, this new government has these policies against protests. So we were expecting to see a lot of police presence. We were warned against doing something that was going to put our lives at risk. But then when I got there, it was actually really inspiring, and I think I felt hopeful because I saw all these different sectors from society gathered together. Even passersby were honking [their horns] in support. So it felt like we were being seen, which is something that’s not very common in in the scientific world where most of the work is backstage and very individual and isolating.

Eshe: Yeah, I totally understand. OK. So what you’re saying is that there is another perspective here, right? It seems like you and the people you work with—the people who form part of this group of scientists in Argentina—you might be realizing that not every citizen is against budget cuts and science and higher education. Is that what you’re saying?

Pía: Well, actually, yes. I think that in the U.S. it might be different, but in Argentina, the main source of economic funding for the scientific and higher education system comes from public budget lines that are annually approved by the Congress. So it’s basically the taxpayers’ money that supports the researchers’ salaries, doctoral students’ scholarships, the expenses of keeping research institutes running, and most of research project budgets, with some exceptions.

And this is not the first time that science and higher education are on the line in a country that has suffered many crises since the 1970s. Our sector also saw a similar scenario in 2018 and 2019, during another recession period. And some people say that it was at that time that this wave of hate speech against the national scientific system began. Social scientists were being called useless, a waste of money, and other very negative tags on social media by anonymous users but also by Milei’s supporters. When I talked to Melu, she thought that this attack was deliberate, and it was a strategy to justify defunding science.

Melu: Creo que es algo re interesante para mirarlo desde el punto de vista antropológico que a los organismos que principalmente está atacando el presidente actual de la Argentina, son aquellos organismos que nos enseñan a pensar y reflexionar, y principalmente a las disciplinas que ataca son a las humanidades y las ciencias sociales.

English Translation: I think it’s interesting, from an anthropological point of view, that the institutions the president is attacking are actually those that teach us to reflect and to question the way things are. And he’s mainly attacking the social sciences and humanities.

Eshe: Yeah, I think this is one of the struggles of science: constantly showing not only our academic community the value of our work but showing that value to people who are not in the sciences, right? How do you talk to people about the work you do? And then how do you highlight the impact and the importance that it has beyond me and my six group of friends who study this very highly specialized segment of social science, right? What am I contributing to the world so that when these arguments come up, people have a better sense of what scientists actually do to make it harder in some ways, for politicians in this case, to demean the work that we do, which really preys on the separation between scientists and nonscientists, right? The rest of the world.

Pía: Exactly. How do we burst this bubble we’ve been working on? Or how do we climb down from the ivory tower that science was for a long time? How do we interact and take part in the societies that we’re living in as scientists and we’re producing scientific knowledge on?

Eshe: It makes me think a lot about your protest experience, right? All the people that you are surrounded by who are there for overlapping reasons. Wouldn’t it be incredible for you to be in that kind of very heterogeneous circumstance under other pretenses, to talk to people about your work and what you do? A lot of social scientists spend time working with, or studying, these same communities that are there but so often don’t actually get involved in the discussions about research that are based on them.

What would you like the audience to take away from this?

Pía: I think that what I have come to understand is that public science communication is just as important as producing scientific research or scientific knowledge, not only for funding and policymaking but also to value it more. So if we want more people to value the scientific work we’re doing, we have to communicate it. How are we interacting with the different sectors of society, and how can we communicate better the valuable contributions that we’re already making to the work?

In that sense, I like Melu’s reflection and the social relevance of anthropology’s perspective:

Melu: Creo que lo que más me interesa de la antropología y la arqueología en este momento es cómo posibilita diálogos. Como permite la comprensión y el entendimiento entre formas de mirar el mundo, distintas posiciones del mundo completamente diferentes y cosmovisiones del mundo completamente diferentes. Y creo que ahí también hay un gran aporte de la antropología en estos contextos tan turbulentos por ahí que estamos pasando como como estado-nación.

English Translation: What interests me most about anthropology and archaeology right now is how they enable dialogues, how they facilitate mutual understanding between totally different points of the world, different positions. And I think that it’s an important contribution in the turbulent times we’re going through as a nation.

Eshe: So what would you say to scientists in this moment in your country and others around the world who are also facing this problem?

Pía: Well, first of all, I would hug them. But I would also tell them that even if it’s important for the scientific community to voice our demands and seek coverage in the media and be there for the public protests and push forward more political discourses, that also needs to be complemented with another type of communication, which is the science communication efforts. So we can highlight how our work impacts the daily lives of the people that we’re trying to get as allies in our demands and also to the policymakers and decision-makers.

So I’d like to invite the audience, especially the scientific audience, both here in Argentina or elsewhere, to reflect on what our societies would be missing if anthropologists were no longer able to continue questioning the ways in which things are and imagine more inclusive futures for all of the existing otherness.

Eshe: Pía Tavella, thank you so much for speaking with me today.

Pía: Thanks to you, Eshe.

[music]

Eshe: This episode was hosted by me, Eshe Lewis, featuring reporting by María Pía Tavella. Pía earned her Ph.D. in anthropology at the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba in Argentina, with support from a CONICET doctoral fellowship. Thanks to Melissa Rodriguez Oviedo for contributing to this episode and to Pía’s sister Victoria Vela for providing the voice-over in English for Melu’s quotes.

SAPIENS is produced by House of Pod. Cat Jaffee and Dennis Funk are our producers and program teachers. Dennis is also our audio editor and sound designer. Christine Weeber is our copy editor. Our executive producers are Cat Jaffee and Chip Colwell. This episode is part of the SAPIENS Public Scholars Training Fellowship program, which provides in-depth training for anthropologists in the craft of science communication and public scholarship.

SAPIENS is an editorially independent podcast funded this season by the John Templeton Foundation with the support of the University of Chicago Press and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. SAPIENS is part of the American Anthropological Association Podcast Library. Please visit SAPIENS.org to check out the additional resources in the show notes and to see all our great stories about everything human. I’m Eshe Lewis. Thank you for listening.