Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 July 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/454143b
Scientists rally to Mexican researchers' plea
Dispute threatens to tear physical-sciences institute apart.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
As a Mexican physician who has done research on nanotechnology and the developing world, I commend the international support shown to the Terrones brothers, both of whom are world-renowned scientific leaders. I must point out an incorrect statement in this News feature: Mexico is, geographically and economically, part of NORTH America; socially and culturally, Mexico is part of Latin America; from the point of view of language Mexico is part of Iberoamerica. However, Mexico is definitely not, under any criteria, part of South America. I expect Nature editors to be much more careful with these issues, as mistakes like the one shown on this news feature are unforgivable in such a leading science journal.
IPICYT wouldn't be on the map if it were not because of the work of the Terrones brothers. The problem in this country is that most people don't like anyone who is successful by their own means. Finally, I also agree with Fabio Salamaca, Mexico being at north of central America belongs to North America, South America is south of central America
I´m shure the Terrones brothers are two of the best Mexican scientist, but this conflict is about administration and political ambitions (they have shown themselves very ambitious indeed). I think they are not being politically persecuted, but instead they are using their academic prestige to make an internal political war, criminalizing the institution authorities. Since the very beginning of this conflict, the internal relationships and structure at IPICYT are becoming worst and worst. They should really start thinking in less destructive ways of helping young scientist in Mexico and how to make a better use of their academic and political influence. This conflict is a pity and should be ended inmediatly.
I have a bit of difficulty imagining how a person might advance in any profession without ambition. If we make a practice of condemning initiative we will soon run out of persons of ability and drive. While I am sure that we would all feel more comfortable surrounded by our relatives and friends it would be a poor situation from which to expect any actual accomplishment. The integrity of any effort will suffer too greatly to achieve anything of worth. Perhaps a thorough and open examination of the facts, performed in a timely manner, would do more for the field than simply denying that a problem exists, or even refusing to point it out. I am sure that we would all be better served if the facts are laid bare and a solid determination for the case were forthcoming.
I'm not part of the physical sciences, and I know that Mexican scientific politics can behave pretty badly but I consider that for the non physicist community to show only one side of this issue doesn't help at all and gives a very partial story for those non familiar with the issue, and recently Nature's editorialist have been not particularly unbiased in their coments. On the other hand as a Mexican I found very disturbing the ignorance shown by this editorial, MEXICO IS NOT SOUTH AMERICA, in fact the distance between Mexico and the equator is around 1600 km! Mexico is North America and that's only geography
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!! Here is a very important issue dealing with the typical disdain of Mexican authorities to recognize scientists whose contributions are meaningful and you get upset because Mexico was located in South America! Focus people!!! I think it is great that these researchers are giving a fight, but I also think it would be helpful to provide a deeper background on this issue so the rest of the scientific community can understand the sources and full extent of the problem. There are many researchers around the world that would like to return to their home countries but when cases like this arise, it exposes the little warranties one can expect in places where patronage is more important than hard work. I love Mexico and I would really like to see this problem solved in the best interest of science.
As a mexican scientist, I was interested in learning more about the Terrones-Maldonado brothers' plea, of which I had heard nothing. I found some information (in spanish) from local newspapers: http://www.lajornadasanluis.com.mx/2008/06/05/wtunal.php and http://www.elexpres.com/recursos/pdf/expres75.pdf, which might be useful to people wishing for more information. Regarding the geographic blunder made by Rex Dalton, I agree with the views expressed above. It is quite sad to see that when it comes to "third-world", "developing" (or any other euphemism for "invisible") countries, many people from non-invisible countries have serious misconceptions and -quite frankly- some level of ignorance in even basic topics, such as geography. While our language, cultural affinity and values are certainly not North American, geographically, Mexico is located well above the equator, even if that seems strange to people who like to think of North America as one conveniently homogeneous region.
As a Mexican scientist, I feel ashamed for this problem being public. The persons that initiated this argument should have though more on Mexico and less on themselves before making their dispute an international concern. They should also have though more before inducing world acknowledged and admired scientists to write or sign unfounded and damaging documents. Regarding the role of David Rios as the founder of CIMAV, in approximately ten years he created the most important materials science scientific center of northern Mexico, starting from zero, thanks to his hard work and his personal devotion to the CIMAV project. On behalf of the overwhelming majority of CIMAV personnel: we are proud of him, of the work he did, of his ethics. Luis Fuentes. Physicist, Senior Researcher, CIMAV
As a young scientist, I would be glad if an unbiased panel is allowed to settle down the dispute. That would be perhaps the first case in a Mexican research institute. Why are people afraid of this? This is usually how serious administrative problems are solved in world-renowned research institutes. We must avoid the interference of personal cults, total support without knowing the facts, and people speaking on behalf of institutions from senior positions, they just self-perpetuate the establishment. Accusing other scientists of damaging a country or institutions? This is just the argument used by Lysenko to solve most of his disputes with other scientists. What kind of scientific environment do we want? We are scientists; we should never jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. Let’s analyze the problem, this is what a committee should do, and regardless of the conclusions, would be a great advance in Mexican science policy.
Humberto and Mauricio Terrones have made great contributions to the field of carbon nanostructures. Any administration always tries to keep mistrtreatmet of great scientists closed from the scietific community. No matter what went down on a personal level, if it hurts a successful scietific program it means administration is wrong.
It is a sad affair when strife and pettiness rear their heads in a most promising research center. It is certainly silly to pretend that scientists are above human frailty, in Mexico or any other country. The problem is that, just as Mexico is often mistakenly viewed as part of South America , it is also often assumed that these conflicts necessarily arise from the corruption, nepotism or traffic of influence that ostensibly characterize developing countries. This is a common stance among individuals in industrialized nations who, from this comfortable position, can then eschew their own responsibility in the creation of an unfair world. One would expect that the scientific community would refrain from espousing any type of opinion before the conflicting points of view had been studied and assessed, even if the only request was an endorsement for a written letter. It is a sad day when highly regarded scientists and scientific institution act swiftly based on bigotry and raw prejudice.
I would like to point out that these events are reminiscent of what occurred in UNAM, Mexico City in 2004. Dr. Jaime Lagunez-Otero, a researcher in the Instituto de Quimica, was abruptly discharged from his post and his grant support terminated. Dr. Lagunez and others have suggested that his participation in human rights activism was at the core of the issue and a lengthy but successful litigation, which re-instated Dr. Lagunez's right for the University post, affirmed this notion. Despite a broad support from international scientific organizations including American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://shr.aaas.org/aaashran/alert.php?a_id=332), American Chemical Society (http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=476&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1) and American Physical Society (http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/cifs/upload/CIFS_Annual_Report_Final.pdf), it took the Court over three years to reach decision in 2007 and now, nearly a year later, Dr. Lagunez's access to his laboratory space and funding has still not been granted. It should be emphasized that such events are not only immediately debilitating to the research activities of the affected scientists, but they also have a potential to incur a long-lasting damage to their scientific reputation regardless of whether the legal system eventually re-instates their rights, precluding them from re-establishing their research programs. A greater transparency of the decision-making by Universities is required to safeguard scientists and Universities themselves from such potentially damaging consequences.