Civic forms of knowledge, tacitly built around scientific knowledge, reflect culturally specific meanings employed that are put to use in public arenas. Science, technology and society scholarship (STS) has developed a theoretical approach to coproduction of science, and postcolonial science studies critique the universalization of Western epistemologies. The present study extends these perspectives in relation to regenerative medicine in Brazil, examining relevant official documents and the understandings of 15 leaders in the local field about scientific progress, international collaboration and intellectual property rights. The majority of these Brazilian stakeholders hold a techno-deterministic view of scientific progress, and lack any thorough critique of Western scientific premises. While most interviewees ascribe legitimacy to Brazilian public research centres, representatives of civic society organizations express distrust about certain attitudes of local scientists, and criticize the communication of scientific discoveries to the lay public. Furthermore, stakeholders’ reflections on international collaboration are distinctly polarized, reflecting the unequal distribution of roles and power among local indigenous and internationalized actors. Although opposition to exclusive patenting is widespread, limited reflection is apparent on such topics as the role of private capital, cell therapy approval and the specificity of ethical and regulatory frameworks.

以科学知识为基础的公民知识形式反映了在公共领域使用的特定文化含义。科学、技术和社会奖学金 (STS) 已经发展出一种科学共同生产的理论方法，后殖民科学研究批判了西方认识论的普遍化。本研究将这些与巴西再生医学相关的观点进行了扩展，检查了相关官方文件以及当地 15 位领导人对科学进步、国际合作和知识产权的理解。这些巴西利益相关者中的大多数对科学进步持有技术决定论的观点，并且缺乏对西方科学前提的任何彻底批判。虽然大多数受访者认为巴西公共研究中心具有合法性，但民间社会组织的代表对当地科学家的某些态度表示不信任，并批评向非专业公众传播科学发现。此外，利益相关者对国际合作的反思明显两极分化，反映了当地土著和国际化参与者之间的角色和权力分配不平等。尽管普遍反对独家专利，但对私人资本的作用、细胞疗法批准以及伦理和监管框架的特殊性等主题的反思却很明显。并批评向非专业公众传播科学发现。此外，利益相关者对国际合作的反思明显两极分化，反映了当地土著和国际化参与者之间的角色和权力分配不平等。尽管普遍反对独家专利，但对私人资本的作用、细胞疗法批准以及伦理和监管框架的特殊性等主题的反思却很明显。并批评向非专业公众传播科学发现。此外，利益相关者对国际合作的反思明显两极分化，反映了当地土著和国际化参与者之间的角色和权力分配不平等。尽管普遍反对独家专利，但对私人资本的作用、细胞疗法批准以及伦理和监管框架的特殊性等主题的反思却很明显。