TOO MANY HANDS IN A BOWL ... OR WHO ARE THE IMPAIRS

The ultra-liberal tendencies that developed countries profess and impo sed upon the rest of the world threaten to reduce human beings to a me re materialistic and economical dimension. Everything is trapped in th ese trends. Science, as any other activity, falls under their command, and for the prevailing economicism - characterized by a pitiless and gaunt pragmatism-, the only thing that matters is the utilitarian aspe ct of scientific objectives. Recent publications by the President of C ONICIT and its managing director in political and strategic matters in sert themselves into this utilitarian tide by advocating that scientif ic research carried out in the country (Venezuela) should give account (in the research proposal itself) of the ''usefulness'' of the invest igation for the nation's development. The assessment of this ''usefuln ess'' would require the opinion of what the authors of the above menti oned publications labeled ''non-peers'' or ''non-experts'' (in opposit ion to ''peers'', i.e., the scientific community at large). This essay sustains a thesis which is at variance from the one adopted by the Pr esident of CONICIT and its managing director. I put forward arguments which go against this pragmatic concept of science, and I attempt to d emonstrate how material ''usefulness'' (or adverse side effects) canno t be put forth a priori in research projects. I also argue that ''usef ulness'' - a highly value-loaded concept-varies according to the evalu ators (their position in society, the interests they defend or represe nt, their personality, etc.), to the epoch when and the circumstances under which the evaluation is made.