Sir — As David King reveals in his Feature “The scientific impact of nations”(Nature 430, 311–316; 2004), Brazilcompares unfavourably with most othercountries. It produces a meagre 1.2 % ofthe world’s publications, despite havingroughly 3% of the world’s population andincome. If Brazil is to have any chance ofimproving its status, the current trend ofdecreasing financial support for sciencegraduates should be reversed, as a matterof urgency.

During the past few decades, manymore people have taken part in Brazil’sgraduate programmes. Brazil has a formalsystem for evaluating these courses, anddespite many flaws (as noted by L. de Meis,M. S. do Carmo & C. de Meis, Nature 424,723; 2003), this has allowed some progressin science and technology.

Such progress has become evident inthe increasing number of contributionsmade to international science by Brazilianscientists — up from 48,800 authorsappearing in publications indexed by theISI in 1998 to 58,000 in 2002. A closer

analysis reveals that this increase was dueexclusively to the work of postgraduateauthors (who increased from 11,300 to21,800 during that period), while theparticipation of career investigators has decreased. Thus, the significance ofpostgraduate students in the production ofscientific knowledge is unquestionable.

However, in a country where sciencefunding is mainly public, the resourcesallocated by the Brazilian government toscience and technology have decreasedover this same time period. Between 1998and 2002 the National Council for Scienceand Technology Development (CNPq), afederal agency, cut the amount of moneyallocated for postgraduate fellowships by50%. This loss of funding is even moredrastic when you consider that the numberof postgraduate students increased by 36%during the same period. Sadly, this down-ward trend has also been followed by otherBrazilian agencies, such as CAPES (whichfunds graduate programmes in Brazil andBrazilian postgraduates studying abroad)and FAPESP, which mainly supports

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 431 | 7 OCTOBER 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 627

innovation in science and technology.Inflation has further eroded the value

of the remaining fellowships; in 1994, aPhD fellowship provided the equivalent of US$1,000 a month, whereas today it isworth a mere US$350.

Given these numbers, it is not far-fetched to say that these students are being exploited. How long can even themost motivated student be expected tosurvive on just US$350 a month?

All of these factors are seriouslyjeopardizing Brazilian science. Surprisinglyand contradictorily, the Braziliangovernment has historically emphasizedthe importance of science in thedevelopment of the country. It is time toconvert those words into actions.André Frazão Helene*, Verónica S. Valentinuzzi†*Departamento de Fisiologia, Instituto deBiociências, Universidade de São Paulo,São Paulo 05508-900, Brasil†Departamento de Fisiologia, Centro de Biociências,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte,Natal 59078-970, Brasil

No mistake in Berkeley’sbiotechnology deal Sir — I still do not understand why thefunding deal between the Swiss firmSyngenta and Berkeley’s department of plant and microbial biology wasconsidered “a mistake”, as the Busch reportclaims (Nature 430, 598; 2004).

Let’s look at the balance sheet. On theup side, Berkeley got $25 million, whichfunded 26 researchers. These researchersmade 12 patentable discoveries withSyngenta funding, and the company ispursuing six of these. Moreover, there wasno harm to the quality or freedom ofacademic research. On the down side, anindividual faculty member may or may nothave had problems separating his personalinterest from his duties on a tenurecommittee, and the Berkeley researcherswere not especially productive with theSyngenta funding.

Where is the mistake here? It looks to me as if Berkeley got a pretty good deal, and the negatives seem to be theresponsibility of individuals in the Berkeley community.

Is there more to the story? Does thereport show that Syngenta’s fundingsomehow caused the disappointingproductivity of the research?

Judging from what I have read, it

seems that the deal was a “mistake” onlybecause the critics have decided that allsuch deals must be mistakes.Philip G. HultinDepartment of Chemistry, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2

Scientists and teachersshould ignore politicsSir — We read with interest your Newsstory “Nobel laureates spearhead effort to put Kerry in the White House”(Nature 430, 595; 2004) about scientistscampaigning in the United States.

Nobel laureates have more productiveways to benefit society than entanglingthemselves in the chaotic web of politicalcampaigns. The expertise of the AmericanNobel laureates is in physics, chemistry,physiology or medicine — otherwise theywould have received their Nobel Prizes forpeace efforts. Why should their expertise intheir chosen subjects make them masters inthe sphere of politics?

We witnessed an example of thisactivity in Taiwan’s 2000 presidentialelections, and we find reasons for concern.Taiwan’s only Nobel laureate, the chemistLee Yuan-tseh, supported the DemocraticProgressive Party nominee, Chen Shui-bian,before Chen’s election to office in 2000.

After that election, Lee continued to speak out on political matters, withsometimes mixed results. Lee has beeninvolved in educational reforms in Taiwanfor more than a decade, but last yearuniversity lecturers launched a signaturecampaign, asking him to take responsibilityfor what they considered to be failures ineducational reform.

Yet Lee’s scientific achievements have been rightly acclaimed. He has also beenhonoured as a Chinese scholar by thePeople’s Republic of China. Perhaps hisgreatest skill is in inspiring a youngergeneration to become teachers themselves.Lee’s reported words at a recent awardceremony for teachers in Taipei are worthrecalling: “It is teachers, not politicians,who control the lifeline of society.”

We recently heard that the 82-year-oldChinese scientist Yang Cheng-ning, whoreceived the 1957 Nobel Prize in physicsand has lived for many years in the UnitedStates, now teaches physics at TsinghuaUniversity in Beijing as well as continuinghis research. This is what laureates shouldbe doing, not taking part in politics.Minna J. Hsu*, GovindasamyAgoramoorthy†*Department of Biological Sciences, National SunYat-sen University, Kaohsiung 40424, Taiwan†Department of Applied Foreign Languages,Tajen Institute of Technology, Yanpu,Pingtung 907, Taiwan

Brazil needs action rather than wordsThe downward trend in support for postgraduates could reverse recent improvements.

7.10 corres 627 MH 4/10/04 6:31 pm Page 627

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group