Editorial

According to the IBGE, the Brazilian national census bureau, chemistry is responsible for 11.9% of the total production of the Brazilian manufacturing industries, or for 15.7% if related industries such as those of pharmaceuticals, perfumes, soaps, and candles are included, which is equivalent to 3.6% of the GNP. In the United States these same manufacturing industries are responsible for 1.9% of the GNP.

Even with such significant numbers placing it at the top in the manufacture of industrial products, the Brazilian chemical industry, in the face of the process of the globalization of the economy and commercial opening, is presented with a set of unfavorable factors which impede its competitive insertion into the international economy (as stated in a recent document from ABIQUIM - the Brazilian Association of the Chemical Industry). These factors range from the excessive taxes and elevated costs of raw materials to questions related to health, security, and environmental protection.

Significantly, the ABIQUIM document does not show any intention on the part of the Brazilian chemical industry to have the University as a partner in a way which contributes to our competitiveness at the international level. The inverse is also true: the University, even in its pre-autonomous phase, seems little interested in interacting with industry.

As we enter into the 21st century and with so many challenges to overcome, it is difficult to understand why the University and the Brazilian chemical industry are so distant from one another. Perhaps with the entrance of Brazil into the group of countries that recognize the law of intellectual property (law of patents) this situation will be reversed. After all, some of the research already done at Brazilian universities may lead to products which may be commercialized in both the internal and the external markets, but few industries seem to have perceived this. What mechanisms of interaction can be implemented to reverse this apparently conflicting trajectory? Do the interlocutors who are in the key positions have an interest in dialogue, and do they recognize the need for dialogue? Is there political will among the parties involved to change this situation? These and other questions must be discussed in depth.

Each of the participants in this scenario can and should take the initiative in both discussion and action. We cannot continue fleeing from this process of learning and construction. Like all processes, this will also have difficult aspects, but will bring with it great satisfaction.

Angelo da Cunha Pinto

Fernando Galembeck

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 Jan 2011
• Date of issue
  June 1997