Last week, the Chilean Minister of Economy, Hugo Lavados, made public the strategy that will be followed for the next two years in terms of stimulating science and technology development (source: La Tercera, May 4, 2008, page 60). As was outlined in the second part of two volumes that make up the national “Strategy for Innovation” recommendations (PDF can be found here), the strategy will revolve around “clusters” of industrial importance to Chile. While a foreign consulting group had defined 11 clusters in a study carried out in 2006, these were reduced to 8 by the National Council for Innovation and the current proposal includes only five for this first period. These are mining, aquaculture, special interest tourism, foods and global services (outsourcing). The stated objective of this strategy is to “advance towards a higher selectivity in defining and applying public policy that will allow the development of the areas showing greatest potential and ensuring they receive adequate public support”. Thus, it is proposed that the Funds for Innovation and Competitiveness (FIC) are destined towards the needs of these clusters, consolidating the FIC as the key instrument for implementing the national strategy for innovation.
How does basic science fit into this strategy? This aspect is not making the headlines but the community has become used to reading between the lines to discover what these proposals mean for the average researcher. The study cited above does recommend continuing the funding for those programs that were already supported by the FIC, most of them channeled through the main basic science funding agency, CONICYT, and others through CORFO, that supports business oriented technology transfer. It has also been emphasized that an important aim is to increase the training of PhDs, reaching a threshold of 1000 graduates per year in 2010. And there is the stated intention to decentralize science and to shift the focus to the areas of the country where innovation is needed, for example by generating centers of excellence that can attract talent away from the capital city of Santiago.
Little mention is made however, of the instruments that will be used to allocate these funds and what criteria will be used for evaluation and follow up of the funded programs. The prevalent feeling among basic scientists is that solid programs with a proven track record are sidelined in favor of “new” initiatives, that are either too directly focused on a “product” or are assigned to areas with little scientific development and are thus not distributed to the most competitive groups. Missing are also references to the sorry state of scientific infrastructure (buildings and major equipment) and on the role of the universities, where over 80% of the research in the country is carried out. I hope to be wrong about this omission and that the oversight is due to political realities rather than firm convictions on how to build up scientific competence.
Sounds like short-termism doesn’t it? I guess if the remit was to deliver a two-year strategy, investing in infrastructure doesn’t look so appealing. Mind you, you’re not going to see an improvement in the quality of science in two years, regardless of what you do.
Shorter summary: damned politicians!
You wrote: ”It has also been emphasized that an important aim is to increase the training of PhDs, reaching a threshold of 1000 graduates per year in 2010.”
Just to highlight another danger: if you can’t employ a significant proportion of those young people your program is training, they leave the country for good. In France, they are always moaning about the brain drain. But aside from a very few university and research positions, there are no private sector or foundation-based ways to do research. Witness your own collaborator Roberto Mayor and our Olivier Pourquie.
France has also done the “decentralization” approach – there is a danger there as well, of diluting everything and spreading limited resources too thin. Over the last ten years or so, the health research organization I work for has been adopting a kind of reverse politics of “centers of excellence” – trying to re-coalesce the microdroplets back into drops of a critical mass, but with these drops outside of Paris when possible. Still, underneath it all is the knowledge that if you haven’t spent a significant part of your career in Paris (or out of the country altogether), you’re not ambitious enough. I think that’s reasonable for later-stage researchers but it’s just plain stupid for young postdocs. There is perfectly adequate research being done in the “provinces” by senior scientists who had themselves been elsewhere early in their careers. Unfortunately, these are self-perpetuating stereotypes.
Bob: politicians, a necessary evil, are by their very nature shortsighted. Our presidential term lasts only four years so this makes it even harder. However, one had hopes for the creation of an institution that was in it for the long haul, a part of the state, that transcended the political vicissitudes. Moreover, current political discourse in Chile is permeated by the impending bicentennial (our country became independent from Spain in 1810), and looking past the next election has been more common recently. Coupled with a favorable economic outlook (mostly due to high copper prices) the stage is set for real progress. I understand the need for urgency, sometimes, but it cannot come at the expense of efficiency and accountability.
Thanks for your comments Heather. What you say is patently true. While increasing the number of PhD fellowships should temporarily reduce the escape of our youngest and brightest, it certainly doesn’t retain them after they graduate. Moreover, increasing grant funding is pointless if these new scientists don’t have a job in the first place. Our industry is too immature in terms of R&D to hire them, so its pretty much left to the universities, period. I’m afraid the drain of qualified scientists will continue unless the universities are reinforced, including those in the provinces. Again, it seems we’re trying to skip over essential developmental stages (borrowing from my field of embryology).
Yes – quite an apt image, skipping over essential developmental stages, for France as well (and Italy, too, apparently).
Our INSERM has rearranged itself to superficially resemble the NIH, and the university system is trying to set itself up to look like tenure track in the US, all without plumbing these models for the good aspects and leaving the bad – no, all for appearance! If we look like the American system, that will bring in the same productivity, seems to be the approach.