President of the Foundation for Science and Technology resigned – TVI24

The president of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Miguel Seabra resigned from office “for personal reasons, the claim had accepted ‘, the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC) in a statement.

“The remaining members of the FCT remain in office and the MEC now fulfills the necessary arrangements for the appointment of the new head of the national public agency to support research in science and technology ‘ referred to MEC in a statement.

In the note sent to the press guardianship ‘acknowledges the contribution »Miguel Seabra the three and a half years who led the FCT.

“The Ministry of Education and Science is grateful to Professor Miguel Seabra contribution over the nearly three and a half years where he led the FCT. In a period of particular difficulty for the country, FCT honored all multi-annual commitments of the past, performed efficiently budgetary reinforcements of about EUR 300 million which benefited between 2012 and 2015, ensuring the financial sustainability of the science system technology, Portugal remained the major European organizations of science and technology, strengthened the country’s presence in the European Research Area, created the first National Road Map Strategic Interest Research Infrastructures, established new scientific cooperation agreements with third countries, introduced incentives for greater competitiveness in Horizon 2020 and created new measures that leave our C & amp system; T more modern and internationally competitive

still is noted the critical role played by the FCT in the design of the National Research Strategy and. Innovation for a Smart Specialisation, which began with the publication of “Diagnosis of Research and Innovation System – Challenges, strengths and weaknesses towards 2020″, the first study internationally compared the evolution of the System I & amp; I Portuguese, “writes the Ministry.

Under the leadership of Miguel Seabra, FCT faced in recent years the challenge of research fellows, by cuts in the allocation of doctoral and post-doctoral.

The external evaluation process of national research centers also put FCT under criticism from the scientific community strong, who accused the institution of lack of rigor in the process.

In March, one of the most recent episodes that prompted criticism of the evaluated centers, eight research units integrated in the Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon complained of “changes in the rules of the game ‘of public funding, which, they claimed, result in annual budget cuts up to 66%.

At issue is the disclosure by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), which subsidizes research, the criteria of the funding for the scientific centers evaluated with the note ‘exceptional’, ‘ excellent ‘and’ very good ‘after the publication of the results.

“In January, after the outcome of the classification of centers, FCT publishes changes to the rules of the game. Surprisingly, longer appears any reference to the base funding component, which simply disappears’ refer a statement the eight units, including CE3C – Ecology Center, Evolution and Environmental Change, spokesman for the group.

The coordinator of CE3C, Margarida Reis, told Lusa that, in accordance with the Regulation, the research units are entitled to a base funding, for in practice, the ongoing operating costs.

In the case of scientific centers with high notes – ‘exceptional, excellent and very good’ – the base amount reaches a maximum of 400,000 euros per year.

Most of the 178 research units that went to the last stage of the evaluation process, to obtain the bulk of public funding for expenses, disputed the results, with 72 still waiting for final decision.

When the evaluation process, launched in the end of 2013, have applied 322 research centers, aggregated or not the universities, of which 257, according to the preliminary results, have total eligible funding of € 71 million per year – a million to be distributed in 90 units with ‘good’ rating, with 23 million for the “very good”, 34 million for the ‘excellent’ and 13 million for ‘exceptional’ (the latter at the top of the pyramid financing).

From out of any financing were, according to the same results, 65 units, with a grade lower than “good”, including 1,595 scientists.

The process to which the FCT and the Ministry of Education and Science and the umbrella, point accuracy and transparency, was soon challenged in the first phase, with almost half of the units – 131 – then the claim of results. Only ten of them made it through to the second and final phase.

Scientific Centers, deans and the National Union of Higher Education, representing researchers from universities, have pointed out irregularities evaluation, such as quotas, to prevent almost half of the units to apply for the bulk of financing, and the lack of scientific competence of evaluators, recalls the Lusa.