In times of rapid technological transformation and growing pressure for sustainability, science and technology play an even more central role in overall development and in addressing national and global challenges. When we talk about technology, we refer to the practical application of scientific knowledge for the benefit of society.
Despite the unanimity regarding the importance of science, the relationship between the scientific community and the Brazilian productive sector continues to be marked by distance, misunderstandings and, often, a mistaken expectation that scientists are at the service of specific interests – as if they were consultants hired to validate previously made decisions.
This confusion between the roles of scientist and consultant is not trivial. Scientists are committed to producing new knowledge based on rigorous methods, critical peer review and intellectual freedom. Consultants, on the other hand, apply existing knowledge to solve specific problems and provide practical answers, often at the request of clients with clearly defined objectives. Both roles are legitimate and necessary, but it is essential that they are clearly differentiated – and, more importantly, that they are recognized as such by society and the productive sector.
When these roles are confused – whether because the scientist wears the hat of a consultant without declaring it, or because he or she engages in political or ideological causes under the authority of science – a noise is created that undermines public trust and makes honest dialogue with the productive sector difficult. The result is a vicious circle: the private sector distances itself from science, supporting only initiatives that echo its beliefs and expectations, and research centers, in turn, find themselves restricted in their investigative freedom and dependent on public funding, which is always scarce and vulnerable to political contingencies.
This distancing is detrimental to everyone. The productive sector loses access to strategic knowledge and cutting-edge innovations. Science loses opportunities for application and funding. And society is deprived of sustainable solutions, designed based on robust evidence and public commitment. There is no sustainability without science. But there is also no living science without freedom and stable funding. When the private sector fails to understand or recognize this difference, it stops supporting science and, consequently, reduces its own capacity to innovate and lead markets.
The prevailing model in our country still considers investment in science to be almost exclusively the responsibility of the State. This view is limited and detrimental to progress. In countries that are leaders in innovation, the private sector invests significantly not only in applied research, but also in basic science – the kind of science that, at first glance, does not yield immediate results, but which constitutes the foundation on which future solutions are built.
These nations have understood that science is a strategic asset, not a cost, and the private sector is more actively involved in funding science and seems to recognize that this investment returns in the form of efficiency, competitiveness, and innovative and sustainable solutions. Brazil has notable examples of success, such as Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation), whose advances have helped transform tropical agriculture and make the country one of the largest agricultural producers and exporters in the world.
It is true that this success resulted mainly from public investments, but there are also experiences of successful public-private partnerships, such as those developed by institutes linked to the sugar and alcohol sector, especially in the 2000s, with programs aimed at the genetic improvement of sugarcane and the development of industrial biotechnologies.
Unfortunately, a utilitarian and reactive view still prevails among us: science is sought only when it “helps” to support a certain position. Little is invested in permanent structures, long-term lines of research or genuine partnerships with academic centers. The result is a system that is vulnerable and susceptible to interference, including political interference.
This view affects both universities and public research institutes as well as civil society initiatives that have difficulty obtaining funding. I cite, as an example, the Scientific Council for Sustainable Agriculture (CCAS), which brings together scientists from different areas and backgrounds, who work pro bono with the aim of demonstrating how scientific knowledge can contribute to the sustainability and competitiveness of Brazilian agribusiness.
The plurality of views and experiences of the advisors favors qualified technical debate and the collective construction of science-based solutions. It also allows intervention in public debates, many of which are riddled with prejudices and narratives that have little to do with reality, contributing to the dissemination of scientific information to society in general.
Two points need to be clarified: the vision of scientists and science does not always coincide with the interests of private actors, and not all scientific information reflects the truth of the facts; if this were the case, science itself, which is based on questions that arise from doubts and the desire to clarify and learn, would be paralyzed. However, the difficulty of obtaining funding and the skepticism on the part of segments of the private sector – who only like science when it confirms their points of view – limit the potential for initiatives of this nature, highlighting the challenge of consolidating a culture that values independent science.
The crisis of confidence in science observed in many parts of the world, including mature democracies, also sheds light on this problem. The recent episode in the United States, during the Donald Trump administration, highlighted the extent to which scientific institutions can be attacked and exploited for political interests.
The consequences of the attacks on universities like Columbia and Harvard, restricting academic freedom and cutting funding that could compromise the ability to generate knowledge and solutions for society, are unimaginable. The rise of denialism in areas like climate change, vaccination, and public health has exposed the risks of weakened science, sometimes associated with ideological militancy – even when well-intentioned. The politicization of science, on the one hand, and deliberate skepticism, on the other, form a dangerous combination that undermines the credibility of scientific knowledge and its ability to guide public policies and strategic decisions.
This logic needs to be reversed. The private sector needs to understand that investing in science – with freedom and autonomy – is a strategic decision. It is not about philanthropy or marketing, but about a vision of the future. A vision that requires mutual trust, clarity of roles and a willingness to dialogue and listen.
Brazil has excellent human capital, internationally recognized research institutions and productive sectors with global ambitions. But there will be no sustainable leadership without a solid scientific base. Science and technology cannot continue to be treated as convenient accessories. They are structural pillars of national development.
The invitation is made: it is time to transform the relationship between science and the private sector. To abandon the reactive stance and take on a leading role in funding, valuing and actively listening to science. Only then will we be able to build a consistent agenda of innovation, sustainability and inclusion.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp
Antonio Márcio Buainain He is a professor at the Institute of Economics (IE) at Unicamp, a researcher at the Center for Studies in Applied, Agricultural and Environmental Economics (CEA/IE) and the Institute of Science and Technology in Public Policies, Strategies and Development (INCT/PPED) and a member of the Scientific Council for Sustainable Agriculture (CCAS).
