Can science overcome the Chávez legacy?

It isn’t easy to understand how Venezuela has found itself in the midst of a serious economic, political and social crisis being, as it is, an oil-rich country which, between 2003 and 2014, received a huge amount of money as a result of high oil prices.

The election of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez as president of the Republic in 1998 marks the beginning of the process that has resulted in this crisis because, from the beginning of his administration, Chávez pledged to establish a governance model based on old communist ideas, which he called the ‘Bolivarian revolution’.

This kind of government model is based on military power and loyalty to the leader, something which is considered much more important than the experience and knowledge that people who hold positions in government should have.

The consequences of this type of leadership are improvisation, incapacity and corruption.

Setting aside its political impact, such as the lack of independence of public services and the lack of respect for democracy and the constitution, after 17 consecutive years of 'revolutionary' government the negative effects of a style of management characterised by incapacity and corruption have resulted in the crisis in which we now find ourselves in this country.

It cannot be said that the cause of this crisis in Venezuela resides solely in the falling price of a barrel of oil.

With regard to science and higher education, the effect of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’ has been very negative.

Science as an organised activity began to be recognised in Venezuela in the late 1950s and over the course of 40 years a very respectable scientific community emerged due to the quality of their work and via a higher education system where scientific study attained a good level.

With state resources science, technology and innovation institutions, new universities, scholarship programmes for doctoral studies and post-doctoral internships were created, funding programmes for peer-reviewed research projects were established and lines of investigation were advanced.

During the ‘revolution’ all this changed. Those responsible for planning and funding science proposed a “critical review of the conceptual and epistemological bases of science... of how we understand scientific and technological creation... of how we consolidate a scientific, technological and innovative style... that contributes to the construction of a Socialist Production Model... and to popular participation in the overseeing of science, technology and innovation”.

The application of these principles resulted in significant erosion of the scientific and technological system.

Plan of the Nation

This new vision and practice of science favours ideologically oriented research projects, as mandated by the ‘Plan of the Nation’, which is the document that guides government policy. The system of peer review for financing research projects is no longer important and the awarding of scholarships and equipping of research laboratories are also subject to politics.

The result is a decrease of 40% in scientific and technological production, a lack of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office since 2008 and a rising number of professionals leaving the country.

The autonomous universities, which produce most of the country's research and offer the best postgraduate programmes in the fields of science and technology, have been affected the most. The budget allocated by the State is only enough to pay very low salaries to teachers and employees. To be clear, the monthly salary of a full professor, after the price of everyday products is taken into account, is US$40.

The most harmful effects for universities are the elimination of lines of research, the resignation of teaching faculty, the deterioration of infrastructure and laboratory equipment, the weakening of postgraduate programmes and a lack of resources to maintain up-to-date collections of scientific journals.

Reversing the brain drain

The government has displayed total indifference to the problem of brain drain. According to sociologist Tomás Páez, in the past 17 years almost two million Venezuelans have emigrated.

In 2003 President Chávez fired more than 18,000 workers of the oil company, PDVSA, including 260 geologists, about 400 engineers, 26 geophysicists and a considerable number of chemists and chemical engineers who are currently working in various parts of the world.

The biologist Jaime Requena recorded that 1,676 science and technology professionals have left the country, 61% with doctorates and 25% with masters degrees, and by 2015 it was estimated that 13,000 doctors had left the country.

Universities have lost a considerable number of teachers. Approximately 700 have left the Central University of Venezuela, about 300 left the Simón Bolívar University and the same is true in other national universities.

As for the future, I think it will be possible to reconstruct the Venezuelan scientific community over a reasonable time period, with a government that understands the importance of science and uses the best professionals to plan and direct it.

If good living and working conditions are created, surely many young people will devote themselves to science and some colleagues who have emigrated will return to the country. And, if the true importance of universities is recognised, they can rebuild.

The country has people with experience and the knowledge to succeed.

Claudio Bifano is professor of chemistry at the Central University of Venezuela and president of the Latin American Academy of Sciences, or ACAL.