The Science Act Initiative is reactionary, and accuses ProCienciaMx

ProCienciaMx, a network of scientists, researchers, clinicians and academics, warned that the initiative Common Law Humanities, Technologies, and Innovation (HCTI)And the Sent by the Executive to the House of Representatives for discussion, it is reactionary, does not include tools to support research, does not include basic and frontier science, and affects academic freedom.

“The presidential initiative that was introduced recently does not correspond to the scope that the Constitution gives to a common law and seems to belong to the past Instead of providing the legal framework to move towards a better future.
“The first revision of the script reveals that despite the fact that some community voices were heard and thus some changes were made to the initial draft, in the end they were minor.”

In a statement, ProCienciaMx highlighted that the amendment of Section V of Article III of the Constitution in 2019 should open the doors to move towards a common and modern law. Promoting scientific development and bringing it closer to society.

This article indicates that everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific development and technological innovation.

“The state will support scientific, human and technological research and innovation, and guarantee open access to the information derived from it, for which it must provide adequate resources and incentives, in accordance with the foundations of coordination, linkage and participation determined by state laws related to this issue; it will also encourage the promotion and dissemination of our culture”; However, they warn about it The presidential initiative does not correspond to the aforementioned scopes established by the Constitution.

by noticing it The initiative goes beyond the scope set by the ConstitutionExplain that the law should contain grounds for coordination, but no legislative powers should be assigned to the sovereign.

The common law initiative around HCTI was overridden by the creation of faculties and guidelines forState conferences and city councils (Referred to in the initiative as municipalities).

The CTI Act cannot be considered as regulating the Constitution except in aspects expressly provided for by it. Since the National Council for Science and Technology (Conacyt) is not a constitutional body, whatever it refers to is not regulated by the Constitution. The Conacyt Statute and the CTI Act are of a different nature, so they cannot and should not be combined, as the HCTI Initiative does.

They also highlighted it The initiative does not include research support toolsIt does not incorporate basic and frontier sciences into its priorities, and affects academic freedom.

The initiative does not specify promotional tools. The only promotion program it refers to is Pronaces, but it is not clear how it works. There is no substitute for funds to support science, which are gone in 2020. When you prioritize possible resource allocation, you exclude basic and frontier sciences, which restricts academic freedom to select research topics.”

According to the network, the distribution of powers is incomplete, which indicates the high centralization of the system and ignores the federal agreement. The management of the entire national CTI system is thought out and centered at Conacyt.

They have ensured that all decisions, short and long term, are taken on the Conacyt Board of Directors, where the national agenda is set and directed by the person running the Directorate General and representatives of the 13 conditional secretariats, But there is no cooperation from the orders of state and municipal governments or from the AcademyThe social sector, the private sector, and the person who occupies the General Directorate of the Consett has the authority to invite six representatives of the community, the social and the private sectors, at his discretion.

This represented an attack on the independent voices of the communities and, in particular, on federalism. In the proposed initiative, state and municipal governments It is limited to commenting and sharing or collaborating on public policyleaving Conasset the decision-making function.
“Because the Federal Charter is not observed, the initiative does not comply with the constitutional mandate. This focus in decision-making means an authoritarian regression in relation to the existing body in the existing science and technology law, which is the public law Council for Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation, in which the President of the Republic and the heads of the state ministries participate various organizations, as well as representatives from state governments, academia and the private sector.

They also highlighted that the common law principles of CTI that should underpin the rights enshrined in the Constitution are not addressed consistently; What’s more, The initiative does not propose a system of governance in which all concerned sectors participate.

The initiative radically eliminates the independence of public research centers and turn them into agencies in the service of the government.

The bill recognizes the “technical and administrative autonomy” of CPIs on a discursive level, however In fact, it completely disappears.

next to, It does not specify how much funding the state should allocate to science and technology activities does not establish mechanisms for transparency; It does not equally include all institutions in which scientific and technological knowledge is produced Vague regarding intellectual property rights It does not fully respect the rights of inventors and creators.

This initiative states that copyright and industrial property rights funded from public resources through Conacyt must be reserved for the welfare of the people of Mexico.

But, International treaties and national legislation on this issue do not establish rules For the distribution of industrial property rights, so there are no provisions to make these rights redundant and reserved for the welfare of the people.

“The initiative is confusing in interpreting inheritance law and intellectual law. In proposing the option of Consett being a co-owner of the results of the projects in which it participates in financing, it does not recognize that the institutions in which the inventors and creators dwell contribute to its infrastructure and its material and human resources, in addition to being generators of concepts and methods and the tests, processes, and prototypes that make up an intellectual activity.
“Hence the inheritance rights must be distributed in proportion to that contribution.. In order for Conacyt to take ownership, it requires legal and technical figures specialized in technology transfer, with clear and conceptually defined powers and obligations.
“In the absence of this, the rights must be administered by the institutions or persons who benefit from the subsidy.”

JLMR