The Chilean Council for Innovation and Competitiveness (CNIC), a group of advisers to President Bachelet on science policy and funding, decided late last year that they needed a outside opinion on the state of Biotechnology in Chile. Apparently, the topic was a contentious one within the Council and, to dispel doubts and obtain guidance uncontaminated by local interests, they solicited the help of Interlink Biotechnologies, LLC, a consulting company out of Princeton, NJ. Their report is entitled “Biotechnology assessment and strategic recommendations” and was produced in December of last year after a six day visit by three of the companies’ experts. The full report is available on the CNIC web site.

The conclusions have created somewhat of a stir as they start by dividing Chilean biotech into three categories: those topics aligned with local industry, those somewhat aligned and those not aligned. Among the latter category (and thus the stir) are the biomedical programs, which according to the report: “In spite of a large resource allocation, there is a minimal probability of success due to extremely competitive and well-funded global activity and a fundamental lack of relationship with the industry served”. In other words, the government should not specifically support the development of a strong biomedical capacity and should rather concentrate on areas that are more directly related to industries where Chile can compete (food, mining and energy). While this sounds logical to those in charge of allocating funds, it so happens that a very significant fraction of Chilean biologists (including the most productive ones) are doing research in what could be classified as biomedicine. These scientists had been relying on the notion that their basic research could be “sold” to funding agencies as applied because there is always the possibility of discovering some new drug target, or potential intervention for such and such a disease, etc. If the report is taken seriously by granting agencies, many of these researchers will be left to compete over the rather smallish funds that support basic science.

Apparently, the byproducts of the high level research carried out by this community (training of young scientists, networks with the first world, and just plain good science) are given a lower value in terms of economic impact, even in the long run. With only about 2000 active scientists in the country, can we afford to go after “products” risking to drop some of the best assets we have along the way? Shouldn’t the build-up of a solid scientific base come first and then a push for high tech industry? Do I have to even ask this?

Yesterday, March 12, Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Alejandro Foxley was replaced by President Bachelet. It appears he was interested in leaving the post to take up other responsibilities and there was also some discomfort in the government with his outspoken criticism of authorities in neighboring countries.
Regardless of the reasons, Mr. Foxley had become quite an important actor for the scientific community. He was one of the main forces supporting the new policy of handing out thousands of fellowships for young people that are leaving the country to pursue studies or training abroad. While this policy is in its early stages, the impact has been strongly felt by Chilean scientists and universities. Concern by political authorities about Chilean scientific development is always welcomed but there was also criticism in that the plan was not well thought out and that there could be a “brain-drain” effect.
Mr. Foxley himself is particularly proud of one achievement during his tenure and that had to do with implementing a new kind of fellowship in partnership with the Fulbright Commission for educational exchange between Chile and the United States. He stimulated the creation of an equal opportunity fellowship aimed at recruiting graduates from public schools that had not had any training in English language, opening the door for disadvantaged students to pursue doctoral studies in the U.S. I have been involved with this scheme because I belong to the Fulbright Board of Directors and I can attest to Mr. Foxley’s commitment and interest in this program. I can also say that it has gone remarkably well and that it has made a significant difference in the lives of many aspiring scientists.
While the effects of his efforts must await the test of time, it has been refreshing to have a politician take interest in issues that will most likely produce benefits long after his tenure in government.

(Recent travels and diverse obligations have kept me away form posting for a while; I intend to restore regularity, conditions permitting…)

A well known Chilean physicist, Claudio Bunster, has recently caused an uprising in our academic community after statements made in an interview appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA (see the article here). The most offending comment appears to be the following: “…the system of Chilean universities that, even now, he considers ‘‘little Soviet Unions’’: stolid, inflexible bureaucracies that never take risks”. The press, always on the lookout for a good fight, interviewed a number of scientists, most of who work at universities and who were outraged by those remarks (find one such article in the weekly Que Pasa, including a couple of statements by yours truly; in Spanish, sorry). Dr. Bunster leads a small research center (CECS) in the south of the country that prides itself on being free of the restrictions imposed by the sluggish university administration; his motto is ‘to lead a voyage of discovery, choose a ship of small size’.
While speaking out in defense of the university system was an obvious way to respond, some of us were cautious of extending the criticism towards comparing the qualifications of Dr. Bunster with those of his colleagues. Some insisted that the larger ships are clearly superior in terms of producing papers, often with meager budgets. However, comparing the scientific output of a University, or even a Department, with that of a center such as CECS is unfair any way you look at it. Clearly, measuring the productivity of institutions with different missions makes little sense and, in order to compare the quality of science, it would be more appropriate to do so on a per capita basis.
A balanced view should see the merit in both approaches to research. Small centers or institutes are clearly in a better position to set up new areas and gather the resources quickly for following research leads. Scientists are often “free” of teaching and of other responsibilities and can dedicate their full effort to research. They pay a price though; they often lack depth in a given field, they cannot assemble large, multidisciplinary teams and, most importantly, being away from the classroom may deny them access to students. Independent centers must have robust ways in which to ensure quality control and accountability should be centered on scientific productivity, given their “freedom”.
University researchers are right to feel unfairly treated when categorized as part of an inefficient, bureaucratic machine. Many of them do as well, or better, than scientists that belong to small centers, even though they have plenty of other responsibilities. Being one of them, I can say that we are content if we compete in a level playing field.

Recent announcements by our President highlight the many ways in which her government intends to push the science and innovation agenda for the next few years (her speech before congress can be read here). While one should applaud the mere mention of an aspect that is usually neglected, there are enough glaring omissions and uncertainties about the exact nature of the new proposals to generate unease in the scientific community. As I discussed two weeks ago, an exorbitant increase in doctoral fellowships is in the works, though it is unclear how these people will find employment in 5-10 years time. There was no mention of programs for increases in university positions or of mechanisms to insert the newly trained specialists in industry. The infrastructure problem is particularly worrisome in the major public universities, as the aging buildings are less and less suitable for high-end research. A program for acquiring major equipment was announced but, with a paltry sum of US$30 million, it will hardly cover the present needs, much less prepare for the avalanche of newcomers. An argument against supporting the universities directly is that funding gets misspent or goes to waste in the bureaucracy and inefficiency of their ancient systems. Last year we witnessed an overt manifestation of this distrust when the government launched a funding scheme that bypassed the universities and required the formation of independent institutes within them, with no involvement of the mother institutions. The universities rejected (and boycotted) this program until the rules were changed to make them participants. This only seems logical considering that they are handling on their own the burden of providing infrastructure and academic positions for the great majority of Chilean scientists. Overheads are still low compared to first world standards (10-17%) and even the largest program-project type grants restrict the use of funds for building new research space. Our country has made huge investments in economically relevant infrastructure (communications, transportation, etc.) but it is yet to provide a better environment for the upcoming expansion of our scientific base.

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.

Recent events thrown at us by nature (the all encompassing laws governing the surrounding universe, not our parent journal) have had me thinking about how a timely investment into a proper scientific infrastructure could have lessened our troubles, or at least presented us with some forewarning.

There has been an outbreak of Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) virus in the fish farms in the south of our country, most likely imported inadvertently with eggs or fry from the Northern Hemisphere, where this virus has been around for a couple of decades. Atlantic salmon were introduced into Chilean lakes and protected fjords due to the excellent natural conditions found here, and they have proven to be of huge economic impact; the country is second only to Norway in farmed salmon production. The ISA outbreak has had two consequences. First, production is affected due to a decrease in the survival of the fish. The stressful growth conditions required for intensive farming of this resource are not forgiving to the diseased animals. Second, the use of chemicals to treat the disease and of antibiotics to treat opportunistic bacterial infections are getting attention from regulatory agencies in countries that buy the fish. Moreover, the use of these agents is a matter of environmental concern.

A week ago, a volcano that was dormant for over 9,000 years, in the same region mentioned above, went into eruption, displacing hundreds of inhabitants away from their towns. (For pictures of the eruption see this, and for a high resolution image taken by a NASA satellite, see this). Our country has over 800 volcanoes, most inactive, but many with a chance to enter into an active phase with little notice. While predicting eruptions is as difficult as predicting earthquakes (another one of our national delicacies; we had a major one six months ago in the north of the country), it is likely that a modern monitoring system could have warned of this event with some anticipation.

Programs for training and funding research groups in the areas of fish virology (aquaculture in general) and geology, and for new equipment and infrastructure have been somewhat prioritized, but only once insufficiencies in these areas became evident. One could argue that my comment is misusing the hindsight advantage to expose a shortcoming in our political and scientific planning system (if there is such a thing…) and that it is impossible to guess what might be needed at a given future time. That is exactly the point I’d like to make: since we shouldn’t be in the business of guessing, it seems that the best policy is to have a wide base of trained scientists and technologists, hopefully with as little bias as possible. Even extremely down to earth necessities can benefit from seemingly undirected initiatives (a.k.a., the shotgun hypothesis).

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.

I welcome the opportunity to communicate with readers of Nature Network from Santiago, Chile. I am a developmental biologist with a faculty position at the largest Chilean university (Universidad de Chile), specifically at the Department of Biology of the Facultad de Ciencias. Besides discussing my scientific interests, I would like to use this forum to explore issues faced by Chilean and Latin American science today and to exchange views about the use of biotechnology in our countries. I hope to stimulate colleagues from both the region and globally to join me in this discussion.

Well known for its wines, fruit and poets, Chile is not particularly famed for its science, at least that carried out locally. Most Chilean scientists have historically trained abroad and only part of this contingent eventually returns to become established in the country. Those of us who have are facing interesting times. The country is presently trying to upgrade its scientific base as part of a strategic plan to achieve a higher level of economic development. While there is a consensus that this is a good thing, how to do it has been a matter of conflict. Last year, for the first time, scientists took to the streets to protest a reduction in the budget of one of the most reliable basic science programs in the country, the FONDECYT program. (Fortunately, this decision was reversed; for articles in Spanish reporting on the affair see this and this). Other programs, that emphasize association of basic scientists with the private sector, and therefore require that the latter supply significant amounts of fresh funds, have been created. A focal point of the criticisms has been the lack of clear and centralized leadership that can formulate a scientific policy for the long term that is accepted by all of the participants. Some look with envy across our border to Argentina, where a new Ministry of Science (with a scientist at its head) was created with the new government. Chile does have a Council for Innovation, in charge of suggesting uses for fresh funds obtained from a mining royalty, though the influence of academia and the universities (where 80-90% of the research is carried out) on decisions has been limited.

It is against this backdrop that I will be attempting to generate a discussion among my peers and other actors with the simple aim of examining the merits of the different points of view that exist on the topic. I admit I am neither an expert nor do I have any answers, but rather I’m curious on whether such an exercise can generate meaningful ideas that can translate into proposals.