"Deixem-nos Trabalhar", Vasco Barreto

[Quem me conhece compreenderá que adorei o artigo pelo tom de escrita do caro investigador. Divinal durante o lanche de ontem a tarde, durante a pausa do estudo do Peritoneu, a fantática parede do labirinto que temos na Pança!!

Pois se quiserem, façam o favor de me ver ao espelho.]

D.G.

It is unlikely that my friend Rui Martinho will ever be hit
in the face with a pie at a conference, as the entomologist E.O.
Wilson was, in the 1970’s, for promoting ‘sociobiology’, the
study of the biological basis of behaviour. Due to politics and
a clash of academic corporations, the term acquired such a
bad reputation that even today most readers’ first impulse is to
connect it with “eugenics”. The reason Rui will not be hit with
a pie is that nothing controversial is likely to result from his
research. Cell polarization is not a gender or race issue, only
by a long stretch would it be considered a stem cell or human
cloning issue and one can safely say that its relevance for Israel-
Palestine relanshionships is essentially nil. Cell polarization
might trigger heated discussions within the community of
scientists, but it is non-polarizing to the layman. With the
remote possible exception of the work of our neurobiologist
colleagues, I would say that the research at the IGC is politically
unappealing and ethically unchallenging. I acknowledge that
the available funding for our work ultimately reflects political
decisions made by someone at some point. And, given the
actions of animal rights activists and the recent trend to grant
some human rights to apes, I also fear that Rui may one day
become a victim of terrorists or enter the law books as the first
Portuguese scientist convicted for mass murder of fruit flies.
Yet, this is or will be circumstantial; at its core, our work is
truly uncontroversial and the IGC remains isolated from the
excitement that resonates over social issues. While possibly less
thrilling than a pie in the face, this allows us scientists to live in
a mild state of bliss, though such a state is fragile, at best.
Controversies can be highly overrated. A controversial topic
tends to become less interesting the longer it lasts. This may be
a fun fact for a sociologist to explore, but less so for a scientist.
Having lived in France, then the US, and now Portugal, all
while same-sex marriage was at the top of the political agenda,
I have noticed that highly-debated issues boil down to the same
two or three arguments and that opinions hold strong until
evidence is experienced, not just discussed. The more relevant
it becomes, the more prone to misrepresentation a controversial
topic becomes. This may be ideal to foster judgments of
character and it makes for a good circus, but misrepresentation
adds no value to scientific discovery. In Portugal, arguments
from authority and scientism reached a climax in early 2007,
during the campaign for the referendum on abortion, with both
parties invoking “scientific arguments”, as if knowing exactly
when the heart starts beating or the brain electric circuitry is
turned on are decisive criteria. Finally, controversy often arises
when one side of an argument is based on a total farce, which is
best illustrated by the creationist/intelligent-design movement
in the US, an eccentricity that the organizers of the current and
successful Darwin exhibit were wise not to import. In light of
such attributes of controversy, it is hard to see how it could help
scientific research at all.
The uncontroversial nature of the work at the IGC is a quality
in itself, because it creates the ideal setting for an intellectual
quest and it does not allow the noise of controversy to hide the
discoveries made. On the flipside, it may actually indicate that
the work is socially, historically or aesthetically irrelevant, and
that when times get tough it will be harder to recruit supporters
(a supporter is always welcomed even if he comes hand in hand
with two detractors). This is why I see the IGC as a fragile
bubble - one that creates its own ecosystem in an arid landscape,
but which can burst due to a number of factors, with the quality
of our work being the only factor under our control.
Except for certain think tanks, the bubble metaphor describes
most research institutes worldwide. The IGC has an advantage,
however, in that, although bibliometrics cannot capture this
impression, I note that the discussions during seminars are
better here than at the Pasteur Institute and The Rockefeller
University, where I worked previously. It is hard to say what
the outcome of such discussions will be, but I believe they are,
at the very least, a symptom of a mentally healthy institution.
The IGC is a place where there is the drive to discuss, the
time and peace to think, even when there is money to spend;
a place that inspires us to do things we thought we were not
capable of. For instance, I never thought I would ever quote
President Cavaco Silva, but one of his signature remarks as
Prime Minister was “let us do our work”. This at the time was
seen as a sign of authoritarianism, but now sounds more like
the inner voice of a passionate workaholic. The uncontroversial
nature of the work at the IGC means that for now, Rui doesn’t
need to mumble “let us do our work”; he can just do it.

Vasco Barreto is the Group Leader of the “Epigenetics and Soma” at the IGC.
Quinta Grande Spring 2009
“Let us do our work”
by Vasco Barreto
Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência