Neuroscientist Luiz Eug\u00eanio Mello became the new scientific director of FAPESP on April 27\u2014without fanfare and in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. He is the successor of physicist and engineer Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz, who had held the position since 2005. In addition to research and management activities at the university, Mello’s trajectory also includes working in the private sector. A professor of physiology at the Federal University of S\u00e3o Paulo (UNIFESP), Mello was associate dean of Undergraduate Studies there from 2005 to 2008; he also had a hand in the expansion efforts of the institution. In 2009, he spearheaded innovation activities at the mining company Vale and established the Vale Technological Institute (ITV), made up of two research units located in Minas Gerais and Par\u00e1. He recently held the position of Director of Research and Development at d’Or Institute of Research and Teaching (IDOR). A member of the Brazilian Academy of Science, Mello was also vice president of the National Association for Research and Development of Innovative Companies (ANPEI).<\/p>\n
Mello believes that, although the pandemic falls into the \u201curgent\u201d category, affecting the short term, the new coronavirus crisis makes science seem more valuable to society, as that is where answers are coming from. \u201cWe must not create false hopes and expectations for magic bullets. We have a unique opportunity to make people understand some fundamental scientific concepts and regain some prestige. The more we rely on data, scientific evidence, and the scientific method, the more successful we will be in our strategy to regain respect for science.\u201d Over the long term, he does not foresee changes in what he deems \u201cimportant\u201d and he is clear about his goal of making the Foundation even better.<\/p>\n
He has been following, with some concern, the research-funding crisis faced by federal government agencies. In his opinion, it is causing the progressive disappearance of the system. Mello holds that collaborating with other states is very relevant to the success of S\u00e3o Paulo research. He argues that FAPESP should increase its national and international collaborations and widen its range of partners. \u201cWhen we talk about Europe, for example, we think of the usual countries: England, Germany, France… How often do we think of Bulgaria or Romania? There is certainly a lot of quality work being done there.\u201d In the same vein, he poses the following question: “Can I not work with states like Par\u00e1, Acre, Rio Grande do Norte?” He believes that the broader the set of regions or countries FAPESP collaborates with, the greater the potential for work and attracting talent, which benefits the areas of science and technology in S\u00e3o Paulo. Shortly before taking office, Mello was interviewed via video from his home in S\u00e3o Paulo. The transcript below shares his thoughts on innovation, his plans for FAPESP, the pandemic, and his views on science and technology.<\/p>\n
How do you view the role of FAPESP today and what do you think could be improved in its management?<\/strong> If development agencies like FAPESP do not fund fundamental research, nobody will<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How much of your planning has been affected by the current situation?<\/strong> Leaving aside the crisis for a moment, what concrete strategies have you planned for your term as Scientific Director?<\/strong>
\nFAPESP is one of the best\u2014if not the best\u2014research-funding agency operating in the state of S\u00e3o Paulo. This is not based on opinion, but on the regularity of its funding, the stability of its processes and regulations, the significant amount of funding, its processing times, and on a series of other aspects that allow for such qualification. There is merit and concrete evidence for this. Despite these undeniable qualities, there are always aspects that can be improved. Although processing times at FAPESP are already very good today, compared to other institutions in the country and worldwide, they could still be improved. I believe important changes could be made toward simplifying processes and reducing some of what we may call bureaucracy, which might contribute to increasing efficiency. There is a very interesting saying in the private sector, which, of course, prioritizes profitability and greater economic efficiency. The saying goes: “Expenses are like nails and hair: unless they are cut, they will just keep on growing.\u201d I would say that, in the public sector, this analogy could be applied to bureaucracy. It keeps on growing unless it gets cut. There are reasons for an increase in bureaucracy or in expenses; clearly these things don\u2019t happen without reason. But we must counter those reasons and generate more efficiency. Gaining efficiency is an important point. In short, FAPESP is already very good, and it could improve even further. Could FAPESP become the largest research-funding agency? This is not possible, not even in Brazil. Could FAPESP become the best agency? This could be a strategic goal: having FAPESP become one of the best research-funding agencies in the world. What do we need to do to get there? We will need to study and learn more about the Foundation from the inside, so we can then plan in greater detail, act, check, and adjust.<\/p>\n
\nThere are two issues here. One of them is usually separated into two words: urgent and important. Too often, what is urgent takes the place of what is important. Generally, what is important are long-term, structuring ideas. But these are often put aside on a daily basis due to the need to focus on the urgent. This goes for any organization and FAPESP is no exception. Of course, unless we take care of the fire first, we will end up with no house at all, and there will be no point in planning beautiful long-term architecture. I would say that the current pandemic situation does not affect the structuring principles in any way. It will impact the practical aspect of everyday life. Any action taken will please some and displease others\u2014this is inevitable. We still need to evaluate what will be the necessary adjustments at FAPESP. They have become urgent, so we cannot avoid them. But they should not impact our long-term strategy, which is important in the goal of making the Foundation even better.<\/p>\n
\nLet me give you some examples; a few of them have already been started by Brito [Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz, scientific director until 4\/26\/2020]. Generally speaking, the process of choosing advisors is a manual one. The Subject Boards suggest names to the Deputy Board, who validate these names; the process is then sent to an external advisor for their assessment. This whole process takes time, and it wastes time. Couldn’t we do this electronically? We certainly could\u2014in fact, the system for it is already in place. Brito began testing it with some teams and it seems to be working well. Perhaps it can be improved or enhanced; maybe there is still unnecessary human intervention in some areas. There may even be a computer that can already determine whether there is conflict of interest, assign the best advisor for a given topic considering deadlines and expertise, and automatically submit a project for analysis. We could gain efficiency, time, and possibly even quality throughout the whole process. We need to test, assess, adjust, and then\u2014if appropriate\u2014implement. We could make much more radical changes. We could check what the best practices are worldwide and carry out pilot studies to figure out what works and how we can improve. A large portion of the workload at FAPESP results from report assessments. Reports on scientific research, for instance. I, having myself been part of FAPESP as an advisor for scientific research beneficiaries, see enormous merit in requiring semiannual reports. Students take their accountability toward an external funding agency much more seriously than toward someone closer to them, like an advisor. This is unbelievably valuable for the system because it generates better students and reports\u2014and, consequently, well-trained professionals. However, this evaluation system has an impact, because each semiannual scientific research report needs to be assessed by someone. It goes through the Subject Board and the Deputy Scientific Board. Maybe they do not need to go through the Deputy Board. After they are granted, the follow-up reports could be exclusively handled by the Subject Board. We will need to check whether this works or not, but it is a small example of how several steps in the internal processes can be improved in order reduce the workload. The researchers who are members of the Scientific Deputy Board are in their prime in terms of their writing, potential, and capacity. Drowning these people in bureaucratic busy work is not the best use of the brains that are available to us.<\/p>\n<\/div>