Acting against the pitiful situation of basic research in Italy March 27, 2006
Posted by dorigo in internet, news, physics, politics, science.trackback
I promised I'd translate in English (as well as I can without looking into a vocabulary) the former post. Here is my attempt.
Press release: "Chat and Badges" in italian Research, the scientific community manifests for a serious change after gloomy and hard years (italian scientists for Italy of Knowledge).
Do italians know that during the last five years the financing of research institutes has been reduced by more than 20%?
Do italians know that during the same period a stop of 4 (four!) years in hiring new personnel in these institutes effectively shut doors to young researchers ? Do they know tha none among the presidents (of political appointment) has ever raised any official objection on this issue to the competent ministers ?
Do italians know that CNR (consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, or national council of research) and INAF (istituto nazionale di astrofisica, or national astrophysics institute) have designed organizational structures who resemble more military camps than modern businesses (both, obviously, models unsuited to research) ?
Italians do not know any of that becaus during these years we were spectators to public declarations and long interviews by minister Moratti and by the presidents of the institutes, installed by her, where the new course of italian research was plauded. The president of CNR distributes plainly insufficient ordinary funds to the research institutes, goes to radio or TV broadcasters and paints in bright colors the news of the new CNR. Chat, lots of chat, in fact. But in the meantime, the badges of presidents- commissaries start working and implement the spoils system, destructuring the research network, increasing bureaucracy, substituting projects with outsourcing, claiming powers and functions, sell hard-earned properties.
The scientific community, who in this Country has always worked in difficult situations, assisted incredulous to the show of these years, and now has had enough (we even tried, not only us from the Observatory, but in many different venues, to open a dialogue and reaffirm principles, but nevertheless without any real result).
In the face of the sudden acceleration of changes (in particular in CNR) to secure a few seats and a devastating restructuring of the research network (based not on evaluations of the scientific productivity – which is in any case eccellent given the human and economic resources available – but on techno-bureaucratic values) this community decided to come out and protest to declare their objection to this method of chat and badge.
One can argue that, close to political elections, this act might be interpreted as a political one, an instrumental choice. It is exactly what the scientific community intends to do! If our job has not been sufficient, if the credibility of a community vexed and nevertheless productive cannot leave a mark, we will use as an instrument public manifestations. Public externations to express plainly, in dignity but with determination, our point of view, negated during the last years of long interview by the presidents-commissaries of "everything is going better". A political act. And even a definitive choice: in favor of research!
Speaking clear and loud to politics to repel methods and procedures who have nothing to do with the management of research and science. Declaring to who is going to govern the country after April 10th that research has to be put in the conditions to express their huge potentials by respecting some essential principles such as scientific autonomy, an adeguate financing, the integration of young generations. And whoever wins we will have to affirm immediately and without hesitations this change of strategy: send home all sheriffs, and less chat!
The opposite of chat means to keep in the right value the relationship between research and citziens: to seriously broadcast scientific culture, to make transparent the economic balance of institutes and the research made. And more than everything, stop telling the contrary of what is actually done.
The scientific community must contribute to Italy of knowledge. For that reason too, it will manifest on March 30th in Rome in front of the CNR in Piazzale Aldo Moro, at 10.30 AM. From all around Italy researchers, scientists, technicians are getting ready to be present to this happening.
Osservatorio sulla Ricerca (www.osservatorio-ricerca.it)
dear Tommaso,
as everybody knows, italian universities and research centers contain a number of persons (10-20%?) hired thanks to “clientelismo”, “barionie”, “localismo” (in english: “mafia”), rather than thanks to scientific value. Manifestations like the one you advertise would have more credibility if, before asking more money, would propose to any government that we should fire (in italian: “licenziare”) the above fraction of relatively less productive researchers and professors. This emergency solution would give, at no cost, more resources and opportunities for younger generations than what you are going to ask.
Caro Alessandro,
I disagree with your proposal. Although I am as fed up as you are of the immoral and damaging method of recruiting personnel that has taken place in public office in Italy since 1946 (so, not just universities and research centers), kicking asses is not the way to reform the system.
First, because it again is illegal: people with a permanent position have the right to remain at their place. It is not by illegality that one is supposed to fight illegality.
Second, because in the specific case of universities and research institutes it is not granted that those hired because they were in the graces of this or that professor are really that much worse than those hired thanks to a regular selection. Apart from my doubts that a regular selection in Italy’s recruitment system of research personnel has ever existed, we have to face the truth that any young PhD graduate willing to continue doing research has had to play the game.
Third, do not fall in the easy trap of believing that in the US these practices do not exist: the recruitment of scientific personnel is a problem everywhere, regardless of the “system” in place.
hi,
actually my proposal is slighly different and more practical: who produced almost nothing in the last O(10) years should be fired. As you say it is presently illegal. Since removing this kind of laws is difficult, for the moment governments introduced “flexibility” only for new positions and works. I expect that, after enough years, something like the above proposal will look more acceptable and have a non zero probability of being applied.
I am against that as well.
Apart from mentioning that the present government in the person of Letizia Moratti – having her as a Minister of Instruction and Universities was one of the worse tragedies for Universities in Italy since the onset of the “leggi fascistissime” by Mussolini- has put in charge of CNR Fabio Pistella, who has published three (3) papers in the whole of his scientific career, I can only say that scientific research has to be free and defy controls. If it is controlled, or if it has to deliver, the whole sense of it is lost. It is not through focusing on low-level, medium-range goals that scientific advancement is achieved in basic research. What you say may have some sense in applied research, not for particle physics to be sure. But then again, I would not want to see a distinction of research topics in ones where long-term goals are all-important and ones where mid-term ones are required. Research has to be free, and if that comes with a price tag (a small percentage of parasites) well, we should pay that price.
But many citizens do not want to pay more taxes to allow the president of CNR to produce his 4th publication. A president with 3 publications is possible when too many of his researchers cannot complain about it. The president might go home with the government, and the true problem would remain. The minister previous to Moratti tried to trust universities, and it was a failure.
So, when you will ask that a town as big as Florence should start working for research, specify that about 30% of their work will be wasted, because who produced nothing has the right of being paid for it. I think that addressing this problem would also be a better way of defending scientific freedom.