Research in Italy: Little but Good and Winning (and to Be Supported) by Giuseppe Novelli
Data on the Italian research ‘scope’ are clear. First, we are the country with the lowest number of researchers in Europe: 151,000 against 520,000 in Germany and 429,000 in the UK. In 2013 Italian researchers accounted for just over 1% of the global scientific community, which according to UNESCO consists of more than 7.3M full-time researchers. According to OECD the number of Italian researchers in 2011 amounted to a quarter of the Finnish ones. As we all know, we are not a country which stands out for spending on research and development. According to the latest Observa report entitled ‘Yearbook Science Technology and Society 2015’ Italy only invests 1.3% of GDP in scientific research, well below the average of OECD countries and of the European Union (over 2%) and quite far from levels in Finland, Sweden and Germany (over 3%).
These two factors combined would not seem to be working in favour of Italian research. Still, a most composite analysis shows that the small lot devoted to scientific research have gradually improved their performances despite strong competition from countries such as China and India - and above all despite the paucity of allocated resources. Even more importantly is the fact that such improvement cannot be narrowed down quantity but to quality. Hence the amazing uniqueness of the Italian case: despite low numbers and scarce investment, Italian researchers are among the most productive worldwide and carry out (high-)quality research.
Only one year ago an article in Nature, a prestigious international scientific magazine, showed that between 2002 and 2012 the average quality of scientific articles by Italian researchers measured by citation number had constantly increased. So, are Italian researchers ‘efficient’? The International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base 2013 - an Elsevier report developed on behalf of the British Government - provided fundamental evidence to explain the ‘Italian case’. According to this report based on OECD, Scopus and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) data, the quality of Italian research reaches very high levels considering the modest public and private resources invested in research and development.
The great productivity of our research work can be inferred through the number of published articles and the number of citations per researcher: they are the highest among all covered countries, so high that the above mentioned report assumes an underestimation in researcher numbers. In particular, Italy ranks third as far as the value recorded by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) is concerned, which testifies to the high level of scientific output both at national and international level. Moreover, the number of start ups and spin-offs in relation to allocated resources is telling as well: it may well be the result of a determined work carried out in recent years and aimed at pursuing the goal of enhancing scientific research results, also thanks to University Third Mission activities.
Some further reports about the quality of Italian research could be quoted too, e.g. Reuters’ ‘The World's Most Influential Scientific Minds 2014’. This report shows that 55 Italian researchers (out of which only 5 are women) are listed in the rankings regarding the 3,200 researchers with the highest citation numbers in scientific works for the period 2002-2012. Such rankings rely on InCites, i.e. an online search tool developed to determine the number of citations per researcher, the number of published articles and the relevance of scientific articles for field-related research.
Nice result: it is a pity though that our 55 represent less than 2% of the best minds worldwide. In short, Italian researchers are few but among the most productive and cited worldwide. And this is a paradox: it is like saying that we do more with less. Therefore, two closely interwoven issues arise: one relating to (new?) ways of funding research, the other concerning a ‘generation problem’.
The first, crucial question can be summed up as follows: how can (good) research be supported in Italy? Well, some European countries see no doubts as to whether to invest in research and development or consider this as an excessive cost or an expense to be cut. Think of Northern Europe. For years, however, Italy has focused on possible models and tools to be implemented. And in the meantime we have not built any strong and effective research policy, unlike the Netherlands for instance. Today, in such a delicate historical phase when budget cuts for Universities add up to economic hardship and cuts in national spending, a funding ‘channel’ different from funding resources allocated by Europe seems even harder to find.
But even where European resources offer some support...often another ‘drain’ cannot be avoided. In 2013 Italy was the country awarded with the highest number of ERC (European Research Council) grants. Yet, only 20 out of those 46 young people decided to use these funds in our country. The other 26 decided to leave and spend the grant elsewhere. This occurred in no other country! Among other aspects, at the root of such Italian anomaly a lack of ideal tax conditions can be found.
ERC starting grant winning projects 2014 were published in January 2015. Italian bodies host only 11 out of the 328 projects (i.e. 3%) judged worthy of receiving such important funding. Since 2007, though organisations and universities have put forth many project proposals, such success rate in Italy has been the lowest among countries comparable in population and income. To quote just one case: the University of Tel Aviv on its own (12 projects) ranks better than the whole of Italy.
The dilemma thickens if we consider the risk inherent in research: ‘which’ research shall be supported? A ‘great impact’ research - whose returns seem more certain (certified) - or rather research in niche or emerging areas - whose profitability or success rate are unknown? In a lean period, choosing the first category is certainly more cautious as this minimises investment risks - uncertain (and not fully ‘business-like’) by their very nature.
Yet, while ‘paying off’, such first choice thwarts a priori the potential of innovative projects in unexplored scientific fields. Still: this first choice weighs on the fate of young scientific researchers. They might as well be good but little known, as per a kind of rule defined by The Economist in October 2013: ‘publish or perish’. The second (generation) issue has to do with a sort of ‘ban’ which Universities and the scientific field in general seem to display towards operators under 40. Referring in particular to Italian Universities, on 22nd January 2015 Gian Antonio Stella wrote on Corriere.it: ‘Tenured professors under 40 years are a rarity. No Professor is younger than 35. Average age is 60. Women account for only 36.5 percent. The fact that out of 51,807 professors at all levels those over 60 are thrice as much (24.8%) as those under 40 is unacceptable. Down to 8.8%’.
Such generation problem becomes even clearer when considering that in 2014 Italian Universities lost nearly 2,200 professors and researchers due to a turnover lock. In the face of over 2,300 retirements, only 141 vacancies for B-researchers have been activated, i.e. those whose position can be normalised after 3 years. In such a context Italian University Rectors have repeatedly - and unsuccessfully - asked for an extraordinary recruitment plan for young researchers (at least 1,500 per year for 5 years), believing that this bleeding started in 2009 can be stopped only this way. Universities produce 10 thousand new PhD doctorates per year, of whom 700 (i.e. less than 10%) are reabsorbed due to such turnover lock. And this is no efficiency! Hence, a bitter conclusion: the less researchers, the less projects; the less projects, the fewer resources. Thus, a consequent competition exacerbation between A-league research (well known, whose excellence is ‘certified’, cited and tested) and B-league research (innovative, just starting, niche, indeterminate).
Commitment (ingenuity?) is therefore necessary: by the Government with a plan, by Universities with their own efforts (even creatively). In this sense, I believe it appropriate to name the example of the University of Rome Tor Vergata: with courageous firmness, last year we launched our project ‘Uncovering Excellence’ aiming not only at promoting ideas by young and deserving University members, but also at stimulating their cooperation (interdisciplinarity).
For the first time funds for University scientific research were allocated via an external audit process to ensure impartiality and objectivity. The expert panel evaluating the projects was selected by ANVUR. As much as 24% of the projects submitted by researchers were granted financing: a testament to evaluation reliability and to the quality of University research in all areas. This model has already been appreciated for its originality and methodological rigour: I hope it may be the first of a ‘best-practice set’ for future research initiatives in Italy.
(Rector Professor Giuseppe Novelli. Published on ‘Specchio Economico’, May 2015)