Rumor has it that our President, Michelle Bachelet, will soon announce that the number of graduate fellowships in Chile will increase manifold over the next few years to reach a number of 3000 annually. An apparently good sign for science in this country is loaded with uncertainty for several reasons. The first is that a substantial number of these fellowships will be exclusively for foreign training, which may be detrimental to the local doctoral programs. After all, science here depends heavily on this work force, and if too many of our best students train abroad, we will be left shorthanded. Second, it is not clear we will even have that many good candidates. Some of the existing programs (I am familiar with Fulbright, where I serve on the Board of Directors, and with one of the main doctoral programs at the University of Chile, in cell and molecular biology) are very efficient in detecting good people and follow up shows great successes, but an increase in the fellowships offered will come close to hitting (if not surpassing) the ceiling in terms of quality. It would not be a good idea to further deplete the local sources of talent with the risk of many of them not returning. Thirdly, and directly related to the previous point, this type of measure requires balance. If we’re going to increase the number of PhDs, we must first improve the teaching of science in elementary and secondary schools, and support undergraduate science. We also need this to go in hand with a better university infrastructure, where science teachers should be trained. We also need a concomitant increase in opportunities for PhDs after they graduate. We cannot reiterate the infamous trap that generates a bottleneck at the postdoc level, by not creating chances for professional placement of these individuals. Once again, we need to establish mechanisms for supporting the universities and for creating new institutions that can absorb the trainees; this issue has not been mentioned. While the private sector would be a natural destination for highly qualified PhDs, our local industry is not prepared for such an offer; it will take many years for this to materialize. Again, starting now with incentives to augment the employment opportunities for the newly formed doctorates would seem to be the most sensible strategy for developing our scientific capacity.
Strengthening a single link in the chain does not increase overall sturdiness.
You are spot on, Miguel, in that last sentence. But all governments are populist to some extent, and public attention spans are short unless we lobby for our own cause.
France definitely has an inferiority complex and often the opinion of foreign scientists on how science is conducted here has undue weight. If you’d like to round up some propositions for Chile and get a foreign contingent to throw its weight behind them, call on us.
Great post, Miguel. But there’s a huge mountain to climb. I went to Mexico on assignment for Nature to report on science in that country and came across precisely the same problems – and that was 14 years ago.
Thanks for the offer Heather (you’re right! It does work) and Henry for the promising outlook :-)
Advice and examples from abroad could/should prevent us from tripping on the same stones…
Great post Miguel. I am agree with your observations in regarding of the work conditions for all the new trained people that will come in the future. Likewise, I believe that a true policy in this area is not only a matter of number of scholarships, but also requires a complex plan that includes money and policies for research, facilities, labor reintegration, and priority in areas of national interest such as the agriculture, given the interest to transform the country in a global food supplier