Rethinking the Genomic Diversity Problem: Rejecting Inclusion in Defense of Indigenous Sovereignty.

The Belt and Road Initiative, proposed by the Chinese government in 2013, has exerted great influence, not only on geopolitics and the economy but also on scientific research. This paper investigates the relationship between scientific collaboration and knowledge production of the countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative project. To this end, we used 314,678 co-authored papers and 6,226,577 paper publications in these countries from 2009 to 2018 to measure scientific collaboration and knowledge production, respectively. Additionally, we selected the country’s economic level, the number of specialized disciplines, and political stability as influencing indicators. Methodologically, we established a dynamic panel model and used the generalised method of moments to empirically analyze the relationship between the two and the influencing factors. The results reveal that the scientific collaboration and knowledge production of the countries along the Belt and Road Initiative are mutually reinforcing and show accumulative effects. The number of specialized disciplines and political stability are major influencing factors for scientific collaboration and knowledge production. Knowledge production can facilitate scientific collaboration by increasing number of specialized disciplines, economic development and political stability. Scientific collaboration can weaken the promotion of knowledge production in a similar way, exclusive of economic development.

Worldwide, the production of scientific knowledge (or simply search) has increased exponentially in recent decades. In Brazil, this increase has occurred, mainly, because of the creation of new programs for post-graduate (masters and doctorate) in scientific journals. However, it has not been even and universities in different regions of the country: it is concentrated in centres of excellence. This text seeks to characterize the differences in scientific production centres of excellence as opposed to other types of institutions, called peripheral and emerging. Thus, the principle considers the origin of these terms in Economics and Geography and its translation into other areas of knowledge. Then, with support in terms of concepts about 'know-how' and 'time to do' search, featuring Postgraduate Programs and universities as centers of excellence, peripheral and emerging. In sequence, indicates the limitations of the institutions and emerging Post-graduate programs to achieve scientific parameters of reference (data by financing agencies) that focus the international insertion of the search. Thus, shows that the emerging universities, as they take care of issues unrelated to their surroundings closest (to obtain resources of the agencies), tend to lose the opportunity to contribute in the resolution of local demands of regional development. This study, based on bibliographic data, concludes with considerations about the difficulty of measuring the social commitment of scientific production, debating the need to rethink criteria for the evaluation of financing agencies and establish ways to measure its impact on society, and policies for funding stimulate the production of knowledge with local insertion. Keywords: Emerging Universities; Peripheral Universities; Production of Knowledge; Regional Development.

Hablar de la enseñanza de la metodología de la investigación científica en la formación profesional es hablar de la formación en y para la producción y difusión de conocimiento científico, a través de la investigación científica y la interacción social universitaria. Asumiendo que esta es la misión de la Universidad, desde la denominada sociedad del conocimiento, en Bolivia se nos remite al modelo educativo que se ha propuesto encarar como política estatal denominado Socio Comunitario Productivo (MEC, 2009) 
 Lo dicho no resulta novedoso, puesto que el Sistema de la Universidad Boliviana, en su VIII Congreso Nacional (CEUB, 1995) resuelve asumir el paradigma productivo, como respuesta a una de las mayores preocupaciones de la sociedad con referencia a la calidad de la Educación Superior cual es la producción del conocimiento desde la investigación, manifestando con ello que es su responsabilidad crear las bases de un nuevo poder, que es el conocimiento y la racionalidad científica. Si bien esta resolución empieza a concretarse con la creación de Institutos de Investigación, la inclusión de la asignatura de Metodología de la Investigación en los Planes Curriculares de todas las Carreras y la implementación de modalidades de titulación que impliquen tanto la investigación cuanto la interacción social, no se ha avanzado en la difusión de trabajos de investigación realizados por los estudiantes durante su formación profesional. Esto quiere decir que tampoco se han desarrollado procesos de enseñanza aprendizaje orientados a la formación de competencias para la producción y difusión de conocimiento científico.

The literature analyzing the spatial distribution of scientific and technological production in Brazil identifies differences in the regional distribution of scientific and technological resources. In this paper, we contribute to this discussion, by analyzing the dynamics of the production of new scientific knowledge in the states that contributed the most to national scientific production in the period 2000–10: Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Rio Grande do Sul, also known as the ‘scientific quartet’. Our hypothesis is that even with federal policies aimed at the expansion and decentralization of the production of new scientific knowledge, this production is still strongly anchored in the ‘scientific quartet’. We further identify a concentration of scientific production in three major areas of knowledge: agricultural, biological and health sciences.

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Frédéric Cailliaud ran the Natural History Museum of Nantes from 1836 to 1869. An explorer, Egyptologist, geologist, and public political figure, Cailliaud’s profile resists any attempt at categorization, yet a common denominator of his activities is the production of knowledge about nature. As an employee of the Nantes municipality, Cailliaud’s activities, especially fieldwork, intersected with administrative demands. This did not make him the puppet of standardizing bureaucratic forces. Rather, the term bureaucracy is used in this article as an epistemic category to reassess the role of instrumental changes in scientific knowledge production as it was increasingly integrated into public administration. Focusing on Cailliaud’s papers (notes, manuscripts, publications) and the place of fieldwork in them, this article seeks to cast light on the material and relational dimensions of knowledge production in a nineteenth-century provincial museum. In doing so, I seek to reassess the place of bureaucratic work in the production of geological knowledge and argue that the field and the office were not “separate worlds.” Instead, the exploration of their entanglements complexifies our understanding of knowledge production in the nineteenth century.

Samoa’s independence in 1962 came with high expectations for sovereignty and freedom from colonial domination. The continued struggle against material and social dispossession during fifty-four years of independence, however, suggests that the tentacles of colonialism are hard to dislodge. Against the backdrop of neoliberal globalization (contemporary capitalism), structural reforms target Samoa’s financial and agricultural sectors with a sole emphasis on promoting the economic use of customary land. The current project of colonial capital moves to privatize and commodify customary land tenure, which for many matai (chief) threatens alienation of customary land and has deep implications for fa’aSamoa (Samoan way) and fa’amatai (political system of matai). These intrusions have been contested by matai in and through spaces of learning and social action, reindigenizing fa’aSamoa and fa’amatai to rearticulate power relations and engage in struggles to protect customary land and Samoa’s sovereignty. The primary purpose of this research was to critically examine the continuities and the mechanisms of accumulation by dispossession (ABD) or the colonial capitalist infiltration of Samoa’s political economy and traditional governance systems and ways of life. The study also sought to elaborate on modes of traditional organization, resistance, and learning in social action or the struggle for control of customary land, labour, food production, and political sovereignty in Samoa. A critical ethnography, informed by an anticolonial and Marxist analytic, guided the analysis of colonial capitalist domination and attempted disarticulations of Samoan ways of knowing and doing, including the spaces of learning in struggle and social action to re-indigenize fa’aSamoa and fa’amatai.

The present article evaluated the State of Knowledge of the concept of Integrative Pedagogical Practices. The purpose of this evaluation is to contribute to debates that connect to the perspective of praxis in Vocational and Technological Education. In view of the above, the following guiding question is established: How does the field of Integrative Pedagogical Practices present itself in the scientific and knowledge production? Methodologically, this research is classified as being of a basic nature, with a quali-quantitative approach, supported by the assumptions of the analyses of the "production of knowledge" type. This methodological delineation allowed the survey and mapping of data, as well as their categorization. The analysis made it possible to describe the conceptual trajectory of Integrative Pedagogical Practices in the scientific production and knowledge about the theme. The analysis indicated that the concept of Integrative Pedagogical Practices epistemologically connects to the concept of emancipatory praxis and consequently to the assumptions of integrated human formation.

On the Production and Use of Scientific Knowledge About Ocean Sequestration

No Place like Home

Scientific production studies help describe the progress of scientific knowledge in a discipline. Therefore, those who hold director positions should promote scientific production and publication of scientific knowledge to address health problems. The objective was to identify the scientific production of psychology program directors from Peruvian universities. A search was made for all psychology programs in Peruvian universities. Thus, psychology program directors’ scientific production was identified and analyzed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 2019. The search for the directors’ scientific production was conducted through ORCID, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, CTI Vitae (former DINA), Scopus and Web of Science. Thirty-eight psychology program directors were identified, five of them conducted a scientific publication, all of them from private universities. Of the articles assessed, 50% and 60% had a psychology program director as first author or corresponding author. In addition, 70% were original articles, 40% of which were analytical studies. Psychology program directors’ scientific production is limited. The articles published are mainly original and are concentrated in Latin American journals. It is likely that, since they have no experience in scientific production and publication, their leadership in promoting research is vulnerable.

This article considers the institutional and political background to the life of Organization associated with continuing debates about ‘modes of scientific knowledge’ and the supposed rise of Mode 2. It suggests that Organization should provide space for a more fully theorized and politically aware position of the new—and old—production of knowledge. It does so by, first, critically exploring the substantial volume of work that continues to insist that Mode 2—and its many variants—have tended to displace more traditional, so-called Mode 1, forms of scientific knowledge production. But its main contribution lies in suggesting that what has lurked behind scientific knowledge production for centuries is a more insidious and underlying mode of knowledge production—one which we label Mode 0—that corresponds to knowledge production based upon relations of power and patronage. We argue that not only does this notion allow us to develop a more penetrating critique of the claims made by proselytizers of Mode 2 but that Mode 0 has proved a more enduring form of knowledge production than Mode 1 and may well have greater longevity. Rather than becoming too embroiled in questions raised by the Mode 1/ Mode 2 debate about the utility of knowledge for managers, we suggest that readers may wish instead to pry further into the hidden world of Mode 0 patronage of knowledge production.

A large body of scientific careers literature explores the experiences of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields and why they exit the academic pipeline at various stages. These studies commonly address how to improve racial diversity in science but provide little discussion of why that diversity is important for science research. Feminist science studies scholars, on the other hand, have theorized about the importance of diversity in knowledge production for decades but provide little empirical work on how to address current disparities. My research bridges these literatures by examining how diversity programs in the sciences justify their continued funding, and how these justifications map onto contemporary theories of knowledge production. Do diversity program directors seek to increase diversity in science because of political motives, like equality and justice for racial minorities, or because they believe that racially diverse workforces will produce better science? Based on interviews with federally-funded diversity program directors at universities and archival data from these programs, I find that program directors’ responses can be classified into three categories: diversity is important politically, diversity is important pragmatically, and diversity is important epistemically. About half of the respondents found diversity to be important for the content of scientific knowledge. I argue that studying diversity in scientific knowledge production is different than studying the impacts of diversity in other fields due to current conceptions of scientific objectivity. Scholarship on scientific knowledge production can help diversity program directors and science careers scholars better articulate the need for diversity programming in STEM fields.

Australia in Maps is a compilation of cartography taken from the collection of over 600,000 maps held at the Australian National Library. Included in this collection are military maps, coastal maps and modern-day maps for tourists. The map of the eastern coast of ‘New Holland’ drawn by James Cook when he ‘discovered’ Australia in 1770 is included. Also published is Eddie Koiki Mabo’s map drawn on a hole-punched piece of paper showing traditional land holdings in the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait. This map became a key document in Eddie Mabo’s fight for native title recognition, a fight which became the precursor to native title rights as they are known today. The inclusion of these two drawings in a collection of maps defining Australia as a country illustrates the dichotomies and contradictions which exist in a colonial nation. It is now fifteen years since the Native Title Act 1994 (Commonwealth) was developed in response to the Mabo cases in order to recognise Indigenous customary law and traditional relationships to the land over certain (restricted) parts of Australia. It is 220 years since the First Fleet arrived and Indigenous land was (and remains) illegally possessed through the process of colonisation (Moreton-Robinson Australia). Questions surrounding ‘country’ – who owns it, has rights to use it, to live on it, to develop or protect it – are still contested and contentious today. In part, this contention arises out of the radically different conceptions of ‘country’ held by, in its simplest sense, Indigenous nations and colonisers. For Indigenous Australians the land has a spiritual significance that I, as a non-Indigenous person, cannot properly understand as a result of the different ways in which relationships to land are made available. The ways of understanding the world through which my identity as a non-Indigenous person are made intelligible, by contrast, see ‘country’ as there to be ‘developed’ and exploited. Within colonial logic, discourses of development and the productive use of resources function as what Wetherell and Potter term “rhetorically self-sufficient” in that they are principles which are considered to be beyond question (177). As Vincent Tucker states; “The myth of development is elevated to the status of natural law, objective reality and evolutionary necessity. In the process all other world views are devalued and dismissed as ‘primitive’, ‘backward’, ‘irrational’ or ‘naïve’” (1). It was this precise way of thinking which was able to justify colonisation in the first place. Australia was seen as terra nullius; an empty and un-developed land not recognized as inhabited. Indigenous people were incorrectly perceived as individuals who did not use the land in an efficient manner, rather than as individual nations who engaged with the land in ways that were not intelligible to the colonial eye. This paper considers the tensions inherent in definitions of ‘country’ and the way these tensions are played out through native title claims as white, colonial Australia attempts to recognise (and limit) Indigenous rights to land. It examines such tensions as they appear in the media as an example of how native title issues are made intelligible to the non-Indigenous general public who may otherwise have little knowledge or experience of native title issues. It has been well-documented that the news media play an important role in further disseminating those discourses which dominate in a society, and therefore frequently supports the interests of those in positions of power (Fowler; Hall et. al.). As Stuart Hall argues, this means that the media often reproduces a conservative status quo which in many cases is simply reflective of the positions held by other powerful institutions in society, in this case government, and mining and other commercial interests. This has been found to be the case in past analysis of media coverage of native title, such as work completed by Meadows (which found that media coverage of native title issues focused largely on non-Indigenous perspectives) and Hartley and McKee (who found that media coverage of native title negotiations frequently focused on bureaucratic issues rather than the rights of Indigenous peoples to oppose ‘developments’ on their land). This paper aims to build on this work, and to map the way in which native title, an ongoing issue for many Indigenous groups, figures in a mainstream newspaper at a time when there has not been much mainstream public interest in the process. In order to do this, this paper considered articles which appeared in Australia’s only national newspaper – The Australian – over the six months preceding the start of July 2008. Several main themes ran through these articles, examples of which are provided in the relevant sections. These included: economic interests in native title issues, discourses of white ownership and control of the land, and rhetorical devices which reinforced the battle-like nature of native title negotiations rather than emphasised the rights of Indigenous Australians to their lands. Native Title: Some Definitions and Some Problems The concept of native title itself can be a difficult one to grasp and therefore a brief definition is called for here. According to the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) website (www.nntt.gov.au), native title is the recognition by Australian law that some Indigenous people have rights and interests to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs. The native title rights and interests held by particular Indigenous people will depend on both their traditional laws and customs and what interests are held by others in the area concerned. Generally speaking, native title must give way to the rights held by others. Native title is therefore recognised as existing on the basis of certain laws and customs which have been maintained over an area of land despite the disruption caused by colonisation. As such, if native title is to be recognised over an area of country, Indigenous communities have to argue that their cultures and connection with the land have survived colonisation. As the Maori Land Court Chief Judge Joe Williams argues: In Australia the surviving title approach […] requires the Indigenous community to prove in a court or tribunal that colonisation caused them no material injury. This is necessary because, the greater the injury, the smaller the surviving bundle of rights. Communities who were forced off their land lose it. Those whose traditions and languages were beaten out of them at state sponsored mission schools lose all of the resources owned within the matrix of that language and those traditions. This is a perverse result. In reality, of course, colonisation was the greatest calamity in the history of these people on this land. Surviving title asks aboriginal people to pretend that it was not. To prove in court that colonisation caused them no material injury. Communities who were forced off their land are the same communities who are more likely to lose it. As found in previous research (Meadows), these inherent difficulties of the native title process were widely overlooked in recent media reports of native title issues published in The Australian. Due to recent suggestions made by Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin for changes to be made to the native title system, The Australian did include reports on the need to ensure that traditional owners share the economic profits of the mining boom. This was seen in an article by Karvelas and Murphy entitled “Labor to Overhaul Native Title Law”. The article states that: Fifteen years after the passage of the historic Mabo legislation, the Rudd Government has flagged sweeping changes to native title to ensure the benefits of the mining boom flow to Aboriginal communities and are not locked up in trusts or frittered away. Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin, delivering the third annual Eddie Mabo Lecture in Townsville, said yesterday that native title legislation was too complex and had failed to deliver money to remote Aboriginal communities, despite lucrative agreements with mining companies. (1) Whilst this passage appears supportive of Indigenous Australians in that it argues for their right to share in economic gains made through ‘developments’ on their country, the use of phrases such as ‘frittered away’ imply that Indigenous Australians have made poor use of their ‘lucrative agreements’, and therefore require further intervention in their lives in order to better manage their financial situations. Such an argument further implies that the fact that many remote Indigenous communities continue to live in poverty is the fault of Indigenous Australians’ mismanagement of funds from native title agreements rather than from governmental neglect, thereby locating the blame once more in the hands of Indigenous people rather than in a colonial system of dispossession and regulation. Whilst the extract does continue to state that native title legislation is too complex and has ‘failed to deliver money to remote Aboriginal communities’, the article does not go on to consider other areas in which native title is failing Indigenous people, such as reporting the protection of sacred and ceremonial sites, and provisions for Indigenous peoples to be consulted about developments on their land to which they may be opposed. Whilst native title agreements with companies may contain provisions for these issues, it is rare that there is any regulation for whether or not these provisions are met after an agreement is made (Faircheallaigh). These issues almost never appeared in the media which instead focused on the economic benefits (or lack thereof) stemming from the land rather than the sovereign rights of traditional owners to their country. There are many other difficulties inherent in the native title legislation for Indigenous peoples.

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of highly specialized research teams, which have become an increasingly prominent means of knowledge production. This study examines data from 1,415 experiments conducted by scientific teams at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) to examine how the diversity of science teams along several key variables—including institutional diversity, disciplinary diversity, gender, seniority, and the network position—impacts overall team productivity as measured by peer reviewed journal publication. The results from correlation and quantile regression analysis indicate high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity in team membership; team cohesion also positively related to productivity. Teams with members in central structural positions performed better than other teams. A better understanding of the factors that impact scientific teams, as determined by this and future research, may enable key stakeholders to facilitate more effective and efficient team operations and increase overall scientific productivity.