Defying boundaries: globalization, bureaucracy and academic exchange.

experience working in the field. I was accused from the first question of being an academician locked in his Ivory Tower. It is never easy to question acquired knowledge. Although there is a seclusion factor, in my opinion the simile is more a myth, or an urban legend, than reality. Researchers, like myself, who work in global health promotion, only spend a few weeks in our office, which provides some evidence that knowledge and learning are the result of exchange. Nowadays, it is quite the exception to find a health promotion scholar who develops or creates ground-breaking ideas that have not been inspired by the work of others. Once again, for this inspiration to happen there has to be an opportunity to access the learning shared or written by others. This process of exchange is unfortunately unequal, especially between scholars (and practitioners) from high-income countries to those with lower income. For researchers living in these latter countries, once financing their training is resolved (possibly abroad) and they are relocated, no easy task, they are confronted with real hurdles to integrate the scientific globalisation and its characteristic triple component. Organisations are increasingly looking for means to involve and open access to professionals from all over the world. For example, the IUHPE proposes equitable membership fees, which have been determined by the GDP of each country and translate into richer countries paying higher fees that support the possibility of lower fees in poorer countries. However, exchange of scientific knowledge also occurs on the occasion of international conferences. Evidently, the first obstacle is financing the participation at these events of researchers from low-income countries. Conference organisers constantly try to be innovative and contribute to their participation, but their efforts are not yet sufficient. Certain organisations, for instance, invite higher-income country In her famous novel The abyss, Marguerite Yourcenar narrates the errant life of Zenon, an alchemist and doctor, a kind of 16th-century scholar, who “used his wit like a lever that tries to break through the cracks on a confining wall”. Zenon defied the obstacles of travelling in Europe at a time of war, when pioneering ideas about the changes the Enlightenment would bring were not welcome. Despite the risks to his life, he continued to travel coming across substantial bodies of knowledge in philosophy and medicine in the process. The globalisation brought on by the microbial unification of the 15th century world and contemporary forms of globalisation, show that many walls have fallen since Zenon’s time. Nonetheless, the conditions for dialogue and travel are not the same for all, and inequalities continue to hinder scholarly exchange. Globalisation is understood nowadays as the interconnection of a world where we try to move faster (time), look beyond borders (space) and perceive the world as a whole (cognition) (1). This triple relation, however, reproduces itself unequally across the globe. The academic field, to speak in Bourdieu’s terms, is a striking example of the inequalities that have resulted from the globalisation of science. In order to perceive the world as a whole, we must be lucky enough to have access, to participate in the construction of this world and to benefit from the absense of others. In order to move faster, for instance, taking advantage of the Internet’s speed (or airplanes), and to cross borders, the underpinning foundation is having an opportunity to do so. In the academic world, exchange and sharing are an integral part of knowledge development, which reminds us of UNESCO’s (2) declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. In a recent conference on community health promotion, I shared with practitioners some new theoretical ideas, based on my