Latin America Rising > Argentina feeding the people rather than political scientific research

 

Argentina's science, technology budget falls to lowest level since 2002

By Francisca Orellana

   

Argentina's science and technology budget has dropped to 0.156% of gross domestic product, its lowest level since 2002, according to a July report from the EPC, a group of researchers, analysts and consultants specializing in science, technology and innovation policy. Photo by ckstockphoto/Pixabay

Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Argentina's scientific expedition "Talud Continental IV," which live-streamed the Mar del Plata submarine canyon using the remotely operated vehicle SuBastian, became a cultural phenomenon.

The recently completed mission averaged 500,000 viewers per broadcast and drew more than 17.5 million views in three weeks.

The mission, led by scientists from Argentina's National Scientific and Technical Research Council (Conicet) in collaboration with the Schmidt Ocean Institute, showcased the potential of Argentine science on the international stage.

However, that success contrasts sharply with the difficult situation facing scientific research in Argentina.

Related

• Argentina raises death toll from tainted fentanyl to more than 100
• Latin America's 2025 growth forecast rises slightly
• U.S. signs agreement to help Argentina re-enter Visa Waiver Program
• Argentina makes economic recovery, but opposition to Milei grows
• Argentine lawmakers debate emergency bill on child health crisis

The country's science and technology budget has dropped to 0.156% of gross domestic product, its lowest level since 2002, according to a July report from the EPC, a group of researchers, analysts and consultants specializing in science, technology and innovation policy.

The sector's share of GDP fell 48% compared to 2023. Spending in the first half of 2025 was down 19% from the same period in 2024, marking a decline of more than 40% in two years.

This is the lowest level recorded since 2002, when the country was in the midst of one of its worst economic crises.

Although the figure stood at 0.30% of GDP when President Javier Milei took office, severe cuts to science and technology have been made over the past two years as part of broader austerity measures to fund social programs.

The Ministry of Science was downgraded to a secretariat, while major research agencies faced steep reductions. Conicet lost 41% of its funding compared with 2024, the I+D+I Agency saw its budget cut by 67%, the National Institute of Industrial Technology fell 46%, the National Institute of Agricultural Technology lost 39.6%, the National Commission on Space Activities dropped 40%, and the National Genetic Data Bank saw its resources reduced by 50.4%.

The adjustment marks an unprecedented cut in government investment in science. In 2024, the state financed 59.5% of the country's research and development, while private companies contributed just 20.7% and universities 1.2%.

In research and development specifically, 61% of funding came from public agencies and universities.

Useful research as opposed to political research

The government, however, has prioritized other areas it considers key to development, including agribusiness, energy and mining, the knowledge economy and innovation, and health, while sidelining programs tied to climate change, the environment and social sciences.

The effects are already visible: insufficient resources for research, lack of equipment and supplies, suspended contracts, wage cuts and a growing brain drain of Argentine scientists abroad.

The effect on scientific employment is clear. An estimated 4,148 jobs have been lost in Argentina's National Science, Technology and Innovation System, a third of them at Conicet, which now has only 11,868 researchers.

For Guillermo Durán, dean of the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, the problem goes beyond economics.

"There is a political decision to dismantle Argentina's science and technology system and the high-quality public university system that has always set us apart as a country," he said. His faculty lost 13% of its teaching staff in 2024 due to budget cuts and salary reductions.

"These people decided to end a series of very good programs for Argentina. The damage they are causing could take many years to recover from," Durán warned.

Agustín Campero, president of the Alem Foundation and former secretary of Scientific and Technological Articulation under President Mauricio Macri, agreed on the seriousness of the situation.

"It is dire and will have severe consequences for Argentina's development," he said.

The Science System Financing Law, approved by Congress in 2021, set a schedule for the gradual growth of state investment in science and technology to reach 1% of GDP by 2032. That is what the scientific community and universities are now demanding.

Deep State - Controlling the Narrative > Social engineering and deception by USDoD; Disinformation (read outright lies) about Tulsi Gabbard cleared up; Ukraine atrocities ignored by western media

 

US govt paid Reuters millions for 

‘social deception’ – Musk

The billionaire claimed that the agency was running a “total scam” in plain sight

Co-founder of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk. ©  Apu Gomes/Getty Images

A subsidiary of Reuters has received millions in US government funding for “large scale social deception” projects, Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has claimed.

In a post on Thursday, Musk weighed in on data from the website USAspending.gov stating that Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, had contracts with government agencies.

One of the publicly available documents stipulated that the US Department of Defense had committed more than $9 million on two projects called Active Social Engineering Defense (ASED) and Large Scale Social Deception (LSD).

Commenting on the document, Musk wrote: “Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for ‘large scale social deception’. That is literally what it says on the purchase order! They’re a total scam. Just wow.”

Read more

 Trump will terminate ‘woke’ policies – Musk

According to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the ASEAD program aims to develop automated defenses against social engineering attacks, which could involve deceptive tactics to manipulate individuals into divulging confidential information. Neither the Pentagon nor USAspending.gov elaborates on the purpose of the program, but both LSD and ASEAD are listed as activities within the realm of engineering and research and development.

Reuters was awarded another Pentagon contract that provides the Department of Defense with unidentified advanced development services. The agency has also received around $500,000 from the State Department for access to news services.

Both Musk and US President Donald Trump have vowed to fight corruption and wasteful spending in the US government. In light of this, several federal agencies have terminated contracts totaling $8 million with Politico magazine following Musk’s criticism of these agreements as a “wasteful” use of taxpayer funds.

Musk calls for complete overhaul of NATO

Trump has also suggested that billions of dollars have been misappropriated within agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington’s primary agency for funding political projects abroad, to pay for favorable media coverage of Democrats. The claim was rejected by several US media outlets, including Politico and the Associated Press.

=============================================================================================

Kiev backtracks on Tulsi Gabbard claims

Ukraine’s ‘anti-disinformation’ center has admitted to spreading disinformation about the new US director of national intelligence

US President Donald Trump swears In Tulsi Gabbard as director Of national intelligence @ Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) has publicly recognized that it previously disseminated unverified information about Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic lawmaker who now serves as the US director of national intelligence.

Established in 2021 under Ukraine’s security council, the center was designed to combat perceived information threats, primarily those attributed to Russia.

The news site Strana.ua reported in November that the CCD took down four of its bulletins mentioning Gabbard from social media, including one from April 2022 that described her as someone who “for several years, has been working for foreign audience for the Kremlin money.”

A June 2024 bulletin accused Gabbard of spreading disinformation about Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and a February 2023 post claimed she was “espousing pro-Russian rhetoric,” according to the outlet.

On Thursday, the center admitted to past misjudgments concerning Gabbard, who has just been confirmed by the US Senate as the national intelligence director. The statement added that in 2022 and 2023, the Ukrainian organization released content about her that “had not been properly verified and thus fell short of the Center’s standards.”

Do the Center's standards include taking a year to admit the lies?

READ MORE: Tulsi Gabbard confirmed as US director of national intelligence

An internal investigation initiated by a new CCD head last year uncovered these errors, although the center did not clarify why the findings clearing Gabbard’s name were not disclosed sooner. The CCD said those responsible for the inaccuracies were dismissed around a year ago and can no longer be penalized.

How convenient! Nor can they be pressured into revealing their sources and their permissions/directions from above.

Gabbard, who previously represented Hawaii in the US Congress, rose to prominence in 2016 when she resigned as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to endorse Bernie Sanders for president.

She pursued the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, advocating against American military interventions abroad, which she described as harmful for both service members like herself and national interests. At the time, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disparaged Gabbard as the candidate favored by Russia.

As her discord with the Democratic Party deepened, Gabbard resigned from it in 2022. After two years as an independent, she switched to the Republican Party and endorsed Donald Trump during last year’s presidential campaign.

Critics raised the alarm over Trump’s selection of Gabbard as the director of national intelligence, labeling it a significant security risk. Nevertheless, her nomination was confirmed this week by a 52-48 vote, with only one Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, opposing her appointment.

That miserable old coot!

Ukrainian ‘anti-disinfo’ agency scrubs criticism of Trump’s intel chief pick

In Ukraine, Gabbard was also featured on Mirotvorets, a semi-official database of perceived enemies of the state. This website highlights personal information about targeted individuals, and some public figures in Ukraine have been murdered after their profiles were made available, leading critics to condemn Mirotvorets as a ‘kill list’.

==============================================================================================

Western media ignores Kiev’s war crimes

in Kursk Region – Moscow

Foreign outlets do not provide balanced coverage of alleged atrocities by Ukraine in the occupied Russian territory, the Kremlin spokesman has said

Kursk Region, Russia © Getty Images / Anadolu / Contributor

Western media outlets have been deliberately ignoring reported atrocities by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk Region, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said.

Accusing the Western media of biased reporting, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday condemned what he called a lack of balanced coverage of alleged atrocities by Ukrainian forces. Responding to a TASS inquiry about the purported massacre in the recently liberated village of Nikolayevo-Daryino, he criticized the media for ignoring these incidents.

Almost all of the male residents of the village near the Russian-Ukrainian border have been killed since Ukrainian forces took control during a cross-border offensive in August 2024, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. People were held hostage for more than six months until Russia recaptured the settlement on January 27, the ministry reported.

Despite the severity of these allegations, Peskov said the Western media has largely remained silent.

“They are not willing to provide balanced, truthful information even on such monstrous atrocities,” he stated, adding that this reflects a broader trend of selective reporting on the conflict.

Russian officials claim similar crimes may have occurred in other villages in Kursk Region. Senior diplomat Rodion Miroshnik, who is tasked with investigating alleged Ukrainian war crimes, told RIA Novosti last week that Ukrainian forces were attempting to destroy evidence in occupied settlements.

Local residents in liberated areas reported “whole streets being burned, homes deliberately set on fire” by retreating Ukrainian troops, according to Miroshnik.

Last month, Russian investigators alleged that Ukrainian troops raped, tortured, and murdered Russian civilians in Russkoye Porechnoye, another recently reclaimed village. They published gruesome videos of bodies piled in cellars in some of the homes inside the settlement. Several captured Ukrainian servicemen admitted under interrogation that they committed the crimes, saying they were acting on the orders of their commanders.

Read more

 Kiev trying to hide war crimes in Kursk region – Moscow

Ukraine launched the incursion into Kursk Region last August, marking the largest attack on internationally recognized Russian territory since the escalation of hostilities between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. The area under Ukrainian control, however, has been steadily shrinking, with the Russian military retaking the settlements of Nikolayevo-Daryino, Russkoe Porechnoye, Aleksandria, Leonidovo, and Kruglenkoye in January.

According to the latest data from the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukraine’s total losses since the launch of the incursion have reached 59,940 servicemen, 361 tanks, 262 infantry fighting vehicles, 211 armored personnel carriers, and hundreds of other pieces of equipment, including US-supplied HIMARS multiple rocket launchers.

Russian officials have repeatedly accused the Western media of ignoring or downplaying alleged atrocities committed by Ukrainian forces. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also criticized the UN for ignoring Ukrainian attacks in Kursk Region.

Canadian Convulsions > Canada's Frightening 'Online Harms Act'

 

This legislation is desperately needed for the protection of children online. In 9.5 years of government, the Trudeau Liberals have done absolutely nothing for the protection of children from sexual predators. It's disappointing but not surprising that they would use this bill to gain even more control over the media than they alreay have, and they have a disturbing amount of control already. I wish that just for once, Trudeau would do something to protect children from paedophiles without political games involved.

Canada's Frightening 'Online Harms Act'

Tara MacIsaac Senior Reporter tara@epochtimes.ca

The Online Harms Act introduced this week raised many red flags for lawyers. A prime example: Someone could report you for online hate crimes they merely “fear” you might commit, and if a judge agrees the fear is reasonable, you might end up wearing an electronic bracelet for a year and living under a court-ordered curfew. If you don’t comply with the restrictions, you could be sentenced to a year in prison.

Online Harms Act Red Flags

The Liberal government tabled its Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, on Feb. 26, and lawyers and analysts have since been fervently reviewing and commenting on it.    The bill would have broad impacts on how online content, and speech in general, is handled in Canada. It has received praise, such as for its strong protections against child exploitation. But many have found its hate speech provisions especially alarming.    “The balance between protecting vulnerable people on the internet and egregiously infringing on free speech and expression is a delicate one,” said columnist Cory Morgan.   Some key points:    It targets seven harms: sexually victimizing children, bullying, inducing child to harm themselves, extremism/terrorism, inciting violence, fomenting hatred, and intimate content without consent including deep fakes.   While some are fairly objective, the concern is how the more subjective harms—such as “fomenting hatred” or “inciting violence”—are judged.    It seeks to amend the Criminal Code to:    - Increase penalties for hate crimes. For example, “advocating for genocide” could come with a lifetime sentence. “That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment,” said the Canadian Constitution Foundation in a Feb. 27 press release.   - Add the provision regarding “fear” that someone will commit a “hate propaganda offence or hate crime.”   - “Far more draconian than being arrested for something you say, is being imprisoned for something someone else is afraid you’ll say,” lawyer Marty Moore told The Epoch Times.   - Create a standalone offence for crimes “motivated by hatred.” Currently, in a murder or assault case for example, “hate motivation” is only an aggravating factor considered by a judge during sentencing. Now, it would be a standalone offence police could charge from the outset, and it’s “liable to imprisonment for life.”   It seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to reinstate a “hate speech” provision that was removed about a decade ago because it caused an uproar over impacts on free speech.    It will allow a government-appointed human rights tribunal to rule on some cases of hate speech (it creates a new class of hate speech below the criminal threshold judged by the courts).   The tribunal could fine people up to $50,000 and require payment to the complainant up to $20,000. The complainant does not have to be identified in all cases—so the accused may never know who has filed the complaint.   “Findings would be based on a mere ‘balance of probabilities’ standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The subjectivity of defining ‘hate speech’ will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech,” CCF said.    “It’s pretty cheap to lay a complaint. It doesn’t cost you anything. And if it doesn’t even cost you your identity, you can just go ahead and do that to all of your political opponents,” Mr. Moore said.   It creates a Digital Safety Commission made up of three to five commissioners appointed by the government (parliamentarians would vote on who heads it). It would be largely responsible for enforcing the law, and many have said it would have far too much power.    It could send inspectors into a person’s workplace to look at documents without a warrant (entering someone’s home would still require a warrant). It could make online content inaccessible, hold hearings (sometimes out of public view), and more.    “Despite those powers, the Commission is not subject to any legal or technical rules of evidence,” said University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, in a post on his website.   “We are talking about some of the most draconian powers given to an agency that doesn’t exist and has no track record of integrity,” Mr. Moore says.    “One troubling aspect of Bill C-63 is the vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, comprising government appointees, to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner,” said Canadian Civil Liberties Association director and general counsel Noa Mendelsohn Aviv.    It also creates the position of a digital safety ombudsperson to act as a guide and advocate for internet users, and a digital safety office to support the commission and the ombudsperson.   It places requirements on social media companies (such as Facebook) to flag content that they believe “foments hatred” and deal with content they have “reasonable grounds to believe … [poses] a risk of significant psychological or physical harm.”    Failure to abide by the requirements could cost the platforms 6 percent of their gross global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater.   “This appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw,” CCF said.

Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani arrives to a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Feb. 27, 2024. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

Why It Matters: Who will decide what “hate speech” is?    Previously, the province’s attorneys general had to be consulted before a hate speech charge could be laid. A lot rested on high-level legal expertise to determine what “hate speech” is.   Under Bill C-63, police could lay those charges, said CCF lawyer Josh Dehaas in an email to The Epoch Times.   Your average Canadian can also initiate an onerous legal process for anyone he or she thinks may be guilty of hate speech—by filing a complaint to the human rights commission or by going to the courts with it.    Social media companies are required to discern what they believe is harmful, and the digital commission is too.    One of the main criticisms Opposition Leader Pierre Poilieve has leveled at the legislation is that the Liberal government could use it to define “hate speech” as whatever speech it doesn’t like   Justice Minister Arif Virani was asked to respond to this criticism in a Feb. 26 interview with Michael Serapio of PrimeTime Politics.   “We’re talking about codifying [a] pre-existing definition of hatred,” Mr. Virani told Mr. Serapio.   “Hatred has been defined in Supreme Court jurisprudence for at least the last 11 years in a decision called Whatcott, 2013, where it talks about something that arises to ‘detestation’ and ‘vilification.’ It doesn’t cover things like humiliating, offensive comments, things that are insulting.”   Mr. Dehaas noted, however, the Whatcott decision lays out a confusing definition of hate speech. That’s why the attorney general is asked to evaluate the cases, Mr. Dehaas said in a post on X.    The Whatcott case was about a man in Saskatchewan who distributed flyers about homosexuality. He spoke of “sodomy” from a Christian perspective and said it shouldn’t be presented to public school children. The manner in which he expressed these views was deemed “hate speech” by the Supreme Court of Canada.   Given the current widespread commentary on how gender and sexuality are treated in schools, Canadians may be hard-pressed to know where the line is between hate speech and voicing concerns.    “It’s difficult for me, a lawyer who works on free expression cases, to know exactly where the line is between protected speech and hate speech,” Mr. Dehaas said in a CCF release. “If this bill passes, I suspect many Canadians will now be too afraid of a human rights complaint to participate in policy debates around things like race, religion and gender.”     The bill also follows on other recent legislation giving the government regulatory powers over online content.    For example the Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-11) gives the government greater control over streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify. The Online News Act (formerly Bill C-18) requires tech companies to pay for Canadian news content on their platforms (and has led Meta to ban Canadian news links).      What’s ahead: The bill will make its way through Parliament, and it may be amended to address some of the concerns being raised. In the months to come, it will likely remain a focal point for debate over free expression and government control over the internet.  ===================================================================