The Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), the government agency for funding research in Portugal, should be independent of government. This is the main recommendation made by the external evaluators of the institution panel, as presented on Tuesday by the coordinator of the Evaluation Committee, Christoph Kratky
The evaluation began about a year. – Meeting for the first time legislation of 2005 – and featured a panel of four researchers with expertise in financing agency management and evaluation, said the Minister of Education and Science, Nuno Crato, at the end of the evaluation of the presentation which took place in the ministry’s premises. The evaluators were chosen by the Ministry of Education and Science from a range suggested by the European Commission.
Christoph Kratky, who was eight years ahead of the Foundation for Science in Austria, said that this dependence on government causes many limitations on the activities of FCT: is full of bureaucracy, can not hire administrative and personnel worse, has come to manage annual budgets of government, while maintaining multi-year contracts with the institutions it funds. If the budget down in one of those years, FCT may not be able to fulfill the commitments established, said the appraiser.
It is ridiculous that the FCT can not hire administrative staff ” , told the Observer the coordinator of the commission, referring to a problem that affects the whole Civil Service. “They have to be independent in administrative and financial terms and must be able to find its own organizational structure.”
Independence is the key point of the presented assessment. Christoph Kratky recalled in an interview with the Observer, the agency must continue to be funded by the state but recognized that it is difficult for politicians to give money to an independent institution, without trying to control what they do. “Of course there has to be some control not to spend money indiscriminately, but the world’s best science funding institutions are independent.”
With the autonomy suggested by the evaluators, the FCT could have better links with universities and researchers, while remaining in contact with the government. Has a real role of intermediary. Because while the FCT is connected to the State, universities and scientific institutions do not feel confidence in the institution that should be seen as a partner.
Only if it is independent of the state is that scientific community will trust, without seeing her as an appendix of the government, “said the evaluator, who is also a scientist. “Trust is an important part of this process.” Furthermore, “an independent institution can more easily make science communication because it is no longer seen as a propaganda department of the government.”
Added to this lack of confidence, there is poor communication between the FCT and institutions and people who finances. “The FCT failed to transmit to the scientific community that was struggling to solve the problem and that he was a victim of the situation,” said the coordinator of the Commission. He stressed that “not everything is the fault of FCT, much comes from the fact that this not be independent, to be a government institution” but argued that at a time of change communication becomes even more important. Without this communication, which the scientific community turned out to see were “changes that did not understand, instability, complicated bureaucracy and money does not arrive in time.”
A scientist must value yourself in market
Christoph Kratky acknowledged that major changes in funding agency coincided with the financial crisis and the freezing of budgets, giving people a “feeling of insecurity when they needed to feel safe” . But generally it considered that the changes were “well conducted” and that there are still more changes to make.
Among the main changes, the Evaluation Commission highlighted the doctoral programs and Investigator FCT program. The coordinators recognized the Observer that “may have been a bit abrupt”, but still “was well conducted.” These measures fall under the committee’s recommendation to gradually do away with individual scholarships for doctoral and post-doctoral.
For Christoph Kratky is very difficult to assess a young researcher by an application, because unlike a senior scientist It does not have a large scientific production. “A young scientist should be evaluated in an interview.” Therefore defended the doctoral programs – admission assumes that the universities choose the best candidates. Also in relation to applications for individual fellowships, the manager said he often is the future doctoral advisor that helps in preparation of the application.
The doctoral scholarships must end. It is an instrument that has existed for a long time in many countries, but that is over in most places, “he argued Christoph Kratky. Regarding post-doctoral added: “We recommend gradually away with these individual grants and that bet in the program Investigator FCT, which is a program for Post-doc with the intention of recruiting people to become researchers independent and eventually encetem a research career. “
To allow for the financing of projects if they can hire doctoral students, or even post-doctoral, is another way to fund these researchers which are selected in an interview conducted by the project coordinator. But in the case of Post-doc no more than two or three years, said Christoph Kratky. “The market value increases with the doctorate, and may increase with the Post-doc , but only if changing institutions. Stay long as Post-doc in an institution lowers the market value because the investigator did not try hard enough to get out of that situation. “
Christoph Kratky admitted that the problem the plight of Post-doc happens all over the world, and therefore should encourage mobility, but the situation in Portugal is very complex. On the one hand, the Portuguese industry does not hire Post-doc . On the other, universities also have not been to integrate these professionals.
Have research teams rather than research units
Another of the points included in the evaluation report has now been evaluating research units. Not that this point had been asked by the FCT or the Ministry of Education and Science, but because during the first visit the evaluators received much criticism from the scientific community regarding this process.
The panel evaluated in depth the FCT documents and the European Foundation for Science (ESF) and heard various stakeholders and concludes that the evaluation was well conducted, said the commission’s coordinator. “The key points of the criticisms were not shared by us. We think the scientific assessment has robust and well-chosen reviewers. “The only negative point to change the financing scheme in the middle of the process. “I understand why [FCT] made the change, but should have sat with stakeholders and communicated better.”
Christoph Kratky said that the assessment had been competitive as intended. “If everyone had been satisfied is because there had been a mistake.” If the applications for projects only 20-30% can be financed, have 50% of the institutions financed until after evaluation is a high number, said the researcher. For the evaluator, many institutions have bothered to present the results achieved, but paid little attention to future goals -. And both criteria were the same weight
This review may enhance the restructuring of some units. In fact, Christoph Kratky told the Observer that more than research units, there should be research teams in universities. “These teams were to team up with a specific goal and if they were not successful should dissolve and form a new team.” The evaluator argued that the units can not be petrified in the structure they have.
The panel recommended [even] the FCT continues to strengthen research in all areas of science, “reads the executive summary. “The first priority for Portugal should be to build an excellence in research in order to benefit from the results of this investigation.”
By the way, said Christoph Kratky, as do all successful countries in terms scientific, much richer countries, such as Switzerland, as those who have financial or social problems such as Israel. Still, for a small country like Portugal, is “legitimate” focus on specific areas. “But be legitimate, it is not necessarily intelligent. It is very hard to be good in a field without being good in other areas. “
Last Updated 23:00
Continue reading
