The multifaceted environmental issues pressing global ecosystems (Steffen et al., 2015; França et al., 2020), especially those from emerging Global South nations, require inter and transdisciplinarity to address context-specific decision-making demands (Lebel and McLean, 2018) (Table 1). Even though synthesis centers interact with each other and share best practices in multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity (Baron et al., 2017), transdisciplinarity and connections with society and the decision-making level are often overlooked (Carpenter et al., 2009; Wyborn et al., 2018; but see Davies et al., 2015, and specific calls of NCEAS and sDiv). The proposed active articulation between researchers and stakeholders is a hallmark of SinBiose that goes beyond Global-North approaches (Carpenter et al., 2009; Wyborn et al., 2018).

Since its conceptualization, SinBiose fostered international cooperation and had the mission of bringing synthesis science into the intersection between research and practice, aiming for transdisciplinarity and fostering knowledge co-production (Table 1). In our opinion, the synthesis experience promoted by the SinBiose breaks paradigms by encouraging interaction between researchers ↔ stakeholders instead of unidirectional transfer of knowledge (researchers → stakeholders), a rare and challenging approach in ecology and conservation (Bertuol-Garcia et al., 2018). In the first SinBiose call, priority was given to diverse working groups (WG) collaborating to utilize existing data to generate evidence for decision-making at the intersection between ecological-social-economical-political sciences (Fig. 2; Table S1). Although the workflow occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, WG representatives had joint regular virtual meetings with the SinBiose core team and provided each other support on how to deploy the work virtually. Throughout project development, the SinBiose core team organized workshops with the goal of enhancing the identification of key stakeholders aligned with the knowledge generation objectives of WG. These workshops congregated project members, sowing the seeds for a co-production approach to be independently adopted and expanded by each WG (see example in BOX 1). The exchange between different WGs proved to be very rich in a trust atmosphere, as they had similar problems in spite of different research themes (Table S1).

Fig. 2.

The workflow of the Centro de Síntese em Biodiversidade e Serviços Ecossistêmicos (Synthesis Center on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - SinBiose, CNPq) is presented, highlighting the challenges and lessons learned during the first call. The SinBiose workflow is visualized through five interconnected spheres, each representing specific aspects of the process. The workflow started with the interaction between the SinBiose management crew and the working groups (WGs, white sphere), engaged in working with emerging issues and demands (depicted by the blue sphere). These demands were then processed, incorporating principles of big data and open science and utilizing synthesis science ingredients, such as peer review on the fly and inter-transdisciplinarity; this led to the formulation of background evidence for the WGs (represented by the yellow sphere). The output from these three spheres involves communication and exchange of ideas with a broader set of stakeholders (beyond those already in the WGs, depicted by the red sphere), with the aim of in the future involving high-level stakeholders of political arenas. Postdocs play a vital role in providing extensive support for synthesis science and co-production (represented by the orange sphere in the background). The ultimate goal is to have positive impacts towards sustainability on decision-making, management actions and economic growth policies, resulting in improved environmental quality for people (illustrated by the healthy ecosystem within the blue sphere). The policies formulated in the present are expected to shape the future, with synthesis science serving as a valuable tool for generating evidence for future policies.

(0.51MB).

In the last part of their development, each working group independently produced a decision-making-oriented deliverable policy brief (see Data Availability Statement and Table S1). The policy brief was the result of the WG collaboration with the SinBiose communication team, and covered a wide range of topics. Then, at the culmination of the projects' term, an outreach event was organized by the Center staff, where the policy briefs were presented to a larger audience, including decision-makers on different levels of federal management structure (e.g., Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and NGOs (e.g., World Wide Fund for Nature). This first series of SinBiose policy briefs should be seen as engaging or dialogue-inviting instruments, with a potential for influencing decision-making and public policies at various levels in Brazil.

We see SinBiose as an important initiative towards the inclusion of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and knowledge co-production in synthesis science. Incorporating inter- and transdisciplinarity fully into the scope of SinBiose still presents challenges. To enhance the co-production process within SinBiose, several improvements can be made. Although there is no “recipe” for how transdisciplinarity and co-production should be implemented (Chambers et al., 2021), some general principles for high-quality outcomes need to be considered (Norström et al., 2020). First, the early involvement of stakeholders and decision-makers should be prioritized. The first call fostered interactions between distinct stakeholders, consolidating working relationships for future projects (BOX 1). Second, a broader range of stakeholders, particularly from traditional communities, should be invited to contribute actively throughout the projects. One way to better address such challenges is to integrate postdocs and professionals specifically trained in co-production and interdisciplinarity into working groups, from the beginning (Fig. 2), which could be requested upon the funding call. These professionals play a vital role in enhancing interaction and integration between academic and non-academic participants, maximizing co-production opportunities.

Funding for building physical structures or equipping existing ones within public universities, with high-performance computing technology to deal with big data (Michener and Jones, 2012), is a need that arose from the virtual experience. The experience during the COVID-19 pandemic makes it clear that a physical structure for in-person collaboration, data analysis, creativity, serendipity, and reviews on the fly is essential for synthesis (Hackett et al., 2008). Although the experience with entirely virtual meetings showed that it is possible to maintain the collaborative network and WG cohesion, it prevented in person interactions and constrained intensive brainstorming and serendipity (Srivastava et al., 2021), causing delays in certain WG outcomes.

Incorporating inter- and transdisciplinarity fully into the scope of SinBiose takes time. Sustained funding and effective structuring of the center are crucial for future WG to take advantage of the collaborative atmosphere, as well as training in synthesis science, inter and transdisciplinarity, and knowledge co-production (Fig. 2). We have good home examples of the benefits of sustained and long-term funding, such as the Brazilian LTER, whose scientific production increased exponentially with project age (Cordeiro et al., 2022), and the BIOTA FAPESP Program, launched in 1999, which has funded research to generate knowledge for supporting the use and conservation of biodiversity in São Paulo State, Brazil (Joly and Bicudo, 1999). Sustained funding enables cutting-edge research to align with Brazil’s political agenda and societal demands, positioning the country as a leader in synthesis science in the Global South. It is vital for maintaining local synthesis center structures (Fig. 1), and establishing a regular schedule of calls for new WG, proposals, and visiting fellows. Additionally, funding allows hiring personnel for data science and knowledge co-production support.

SinBiose was a great opportunity for early-career scientists, such as postdocs, who face several obstacles in Brazil (Silva Junior et al., 2021; Guedes et al., 2023). Postdocs had a pivotal role in the WG, as the majority of their members, including principal investigators, are full professors primarily with many teaching and mentoring activities. Postdocs offered essential technical support in monitoring WG operations (e.g., meeting organization and tracking), engaging with stakeholders, and contributing to the data compilation, analysis, and report writing. These efforts establish the empirical foundation for WG products (Fig. 2). During the project's development in social isolation, unutilized financial resources designated for face-to-face meetings were reallocated to hire new postdocs in multiple WG. This considerably improved the workforce and workflow, and brought diversified skills to WG. Early recruitment of two diverse-skilled postdocs (e.g., data science and co-production) is strongly recommended for effective WG objective attainment, schedule adherence, and enhanced transdisciplinary development.

Postdoctoral researchers, who are highly skilled early-career scientists, often seek positions in academia (Guedes et al., 2023) and are therefore instrumental in establishing the practice of synthesis science in Brazil. Currently, university curricula lack integrated training in data analysis, synthesis, co-production, and political science. While data analysis and political science are in the curricula of disparate courses, synthesis and co-production are in fact new and not structured areas, which make training and integration with other disciplines much more challenging. Looking ahead, postdocs from SinBiose will play a crucial role in disseminating these concepts, as they assume positions at universities, research institutions, and governmental agencies nationwide. However, ensuring the development of a new generation of researchers equipped with these collaborative skills requires a substantial increase in federal-level investment to improve the overall working conditions of postdoctoral researchers.

Current working conditions for postdocs in Brazilian institutions are precarious, lacking labor rights, and often offering salaries that fall behind inflation rates (Silva Junior et al., 2021). Furthermore, prospects for viable career opportunities within the academic field are limited. The current work arrangement primarily consists of an Agreement to Accept Scholarship Nomination (Termo de Aceitação de Indicação de Bolsista) provided by CNPq and CAPES. While this agreement acknowledges regulations such as CAPES Ordinance No. 086/2013, which sets guidelines for grant duration, implementation criteria, and postdoc and CAPES responsibilities, it unfortunately neglects to address postdoc rights. In countries such as the USA (National Academy of Sciences, 2000) and UK (Stanford, 2020), postdocs can have access to dental and vision insurance, short-term leave, life insurance, and retirement funds depending on their position. Even though this is not a specific situation of postdocs of SinBiose and synthesis science in Brazil, it brings up labor-right necessities for postdoctoral researchers, who play a pivotal role in driving scientific progress.

Finally, we argue that colonialism should be abandoned as a hallmark of Brazilian universities. The “publish or perish” rationale pushes researchers towards pursuing fashionable scientific fields dictated by dominant theories that contribute little to effectively address national demands. Colonial science often diminishes and regards as of "local interest" what is produced in and for the Global South interests. This creates an expectation for postdocs to publish in themes outside the scope of Global South challenges. The postdoc’s role in SinBiose was also to produce synthesis science connected with Brazilian demands, which were relevant to global discussions in the interface between biological and social sciences (Table S1). While it is important to note several recent calls for decolonized scientific research in the Global South (Trisos et al., 2021; Castro-Torres and Alburez-Gutierrez, 2022; Nakamura et al., 2023), much needs to be done before we can say that the Global South has overcome its colonial past and present (Santos, 2022; Nakamura et al., 2023). South America's urgency and local/regional problems surpass the Global North scientific agenda, and engaging non-academic audiences can bring significant benefits in addressing these challenges. Although such an inclusive approach requires proper time and effort, the potential benefits to addressing local and regional problems are substantial. In this way, SinBiose has an avant-garde, perhaps even anthropophagic, foundation resembling the Brazilian modernist movement (Nist, 1967; Cabral and Jacques, 2018; Johnson, 2018), with the same aim of "digesting" and assimilating ideas from diverse cultural contexts while preserving our knowledge and culture. These properties empower Brazilian synthesis programs to create innovative solutions for the challenges of the Global South.

The SinBiose initiative, with its innovative approach, presents a remarkable opportunity to create the scientific background to tackle local and global environmental challenges. The pivotal role of postdocs in the synthesis process and the unwavering commitment to transdisciplinarity within working groups exemplify the aspirations driving this collaborative endeavor. To enhance this role, we recommend improvements for postdoc careers to keep these professionals in the country and attract postdocs from abroad. By bridging the gap between science and society, and by effectively conveying robust scientific evidence to stakeholders, SinBiose has the potential to yield significant returns on investment, especially during a time marked by scientific skepticism and the recovery from recent setbacks in national scientific policy.

AL Luza, AL Giles, and M Mamede wrote the first version of this manuscript. All other authors contributed substantially to improve it, and were sorted alphabetically by the last name in the list of authors.

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

The data used to produce Fig. 1 are available at https://github.com/andreluza/posdocs_sinbiose. Portuguese and English versions of the policy briefs cited in the text can be assessed at https://www.gov.br/cnpq/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/sinbiose-1/policy-briefs-1.