This note refutes sorne of the arguments published by Adolfo Garcé and Cecilia Rocha's article entitled "Political Science in Uruguay: Between Professionalization, "Partidización" and the Specter of 'Perestroika Movement'" (Vol. 35 (1)). Because it is largely empirically grounded, Ido not reject most of the descriptive and analytic side of the paper. Instead, my note criticizes a set of final comments without empírica/ evidence, value-driven and prejudiced regarding a minority of Uruguayan scholars. This minority that holds and promotes sorne of the theoretical and methodological standards of the discipline is criticized far its "dominan/ discourse". Ironically, the Uruguayan Perestroika not only could rise from this minority with scarce institutional power, but would promote theoretical and methodological standards.