1.- Spanish universities and the obstacles to development

A viable science base requires a commitment to excellence and imagination that is incompatible with rigidity and cronyism. Spain needs to absorb this lesson if it is to flourish scientifically and economically.

Few countries are as well placed to turn modern science to their economic and social advantage as Spain. On the one hand, Spain's membership of the European Union should, in principle, allow it to tap into the best that Europe's research laboratories can offer. On the other, it enjoys the long-term prospect of expanding markets in Latin America. Yet a traditionally heavy-handed bureaucracy, the legacy of scientific stagnation during the Franco years, and the side-effects of a strong libertarian backlash when the Franco yoke was lifted, still threaten to hold the country back from exploiting this opportunity to the full. The consequent obstacles to progress are damagingly frustrating to Spain's best scientists who, despite this, continue to support their country's scientific and economic development.

Take the issue of university appointments. Current laws on universities, introduced in 1983, rightly give such institutions considerable freedom in appointing tenured faculty members (previously, these had been appointed centrally). But there is much evidence that the procedure under which such appointments are made, in particular the make-up of five-member appointments boards, two members of which come from the university involved, can remain excessively influenced by non-academic considerations. The concern is that the autonomy of universities has allowed the appointments process to become dominated by mutual self-interest operating through self-sustaining social networks -- in other words, 'cronyism'.

The issue has been highlighted by charges brought by one astrophysicist against the University of Salamanca, who had returned to Spain -- ironically in response to a government appeal -- after working for eight years in Germany (see page 712). The astrophysicist claims that he was inappropriately, and illegally, rejected for a faculty appointment, despite the superiority of his scientific qualifications. In drawing attention to this case, Nature is not seeking to make any judgement on the validity of the university's decision to award two different posts, for which the astrophysicist had applied, to internal candidates. Nor, indeed, is the case necessarily different from thousands of similar but less formal complaints that cronyism overshadows scientific performance in the appointments process.

The situation in Spain is by no means unique, but that should not make it any more acceptable. To its credit, the current administration in Madrid has shown itself aware of the problem. Proposed changes to university laws currently under consideration would alter the make-up of appointments committees, requiring at least four of the five members to come from other universities (selected at random). Such a move would be a welcome challenge to the 'cronyist' temptations.

But the problem goes deeper than voting procedures. Social networks will always find ways to flourish, whatever is done to limit their effectiveness. And changing the appointments process on its own will not address the second major problem facing universities in Spain (and elsewhere): the intellectual sclerosis created by a broad system of tenure that requires little accountability from researchers, after they have crossed initial hurdles, for the rest of their working lives. The trick is to find a way of improving the situation that does not undermine the commitment to long-term goals on which the health of a growing science base depends.

The two problems need to be addressed together. Again, this appears to be recognized by many of those government officials who are responsible for the health of the nation's research base, for example in the proposal that universities provide four-year teaching contracts. It seems to be less accepted in wider political circles, where those who enjoy the privileges and security of the current arrangements -- and who would be directly threatened by any significant changes -- can often find substantial support. But change is essential if Spain is to achieve its full scientific and technological potential. Already some institutions, such as the nascent National Centre for Cancer Research in Madrid, are demonstrating that alternative arrangements are possible; hopefully, a high scientific output from such 'experiments' will show that they are also desirable. Spain's politicians should give them close attention.

Nature, 24 diciembre 1998, página 709

2.- Spanish university sued for favouritism...

[BARCELONA] The University of Salamanca in Spain is being taken to court by an astrophysicist who claims that a bias towards internal candidates denied him an associate professorship in its department of general and atmospheric physics.

A university panel has already rejected an appeal by the astrophysicist, Antonio Ferriz Mas. It argues that, despite having better scientific qualifications than the individual appointed, his speciality of fluid dynamics was "significantly different" from the department's requirements, namely atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics.

But Ferriz Mas says the university has violated the principles of equality and meritocracy in assessing applicants for the post. University officials are not commenting publicly on the charges, which will probably take one to two years to reach court.

The administration of public universities in Spain has improved following reforms in 1983. But the selection process for professors, known as the "concurso-oposición", is still widely seen as a considerable barrier to the development of high quality research.

A contract researcher already employed in a department is frequently given a tenured position, for example, even if they are not the most scientifically qualified applicant.

Under the 1983 law, appointment boards must have five members, at least three of whom must vote for the approved candidate. Two members come from the department concerned, and three from other universities. But often the crucial third vote for a local candidate is said to be easily obtained.

Many concerned parties -- including vice-chancellors and officials at the Ministry of Education and Culture -- are now backing a change in the law to give each university department only one vote, that of chair of the appointment board (see below).

Ferriz Mas worked at the University of Freiburg in Germany for three years as a PhD fellow and five as a postdoctoral researcher. He returned to Spain in October 1994 under a programme sponsored by the government for 'reincorporating' researchers. A month later he applied for a post in earth physics, astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Salamanca, and spent six months preparing the teaching project on atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics.

There were three candidates for the post. In the first part of the examination, based on research experience and proposed teaching project, the examiners gave Ferriz Mas three points. The local candidate, who was put forward by the department and was eventually awarded the post, received the top mark of five. The second exam, which involved giving a lecture, resulted in an equal score.

Ferriz Mas appealed against the decision. A year later, an appeal panel, chaired by vice-chancellor Ignacio Berdugo Gómez de la Torre, reported after taking advice from two foreign scientists. Both agreed that Ferriz Mas's work was "substantially more important" than that of the appointed candidate.

Despite this, Ferriz Mas's claim was rejected because the first part of the appointment process depended on the match between the position's 'teaching profile' and the research and teaching programme proposed by the candidates. The appeal panel acknowledged that the appointment board "should have operated with a higher diligence, as the 'fit' to the teaching profile must be clearly stated in preliminary information, as well as in the reports of the first exam".

The panel said it lacked the knowledge to judge how much the need to meet this 'teaching profile' should take precedence over the quality of prior research and teaching.

The appointment process had already been questioned by the third candidate for the post, Fernando Atrio Barandela, associate professor of theoretical physics at the University of Salamanca. He was also given three points in the first exam, following which he withdrew voluntarily.

Atrio Barandela asked one member of the appointment board the reason for his score, and says he was told it was not intended to reflect the relative merits of the candidates, but rather the committee's preferences.

A year later, Ferriz Mas applied for another post, an assistant professorship in the theoretical physics group, with an astrophysics teaching profile, at the university's Faculty of Sciences. The post involved instruction in using telescopes, but was given to a chemist.

Again Ferriz Mas appealed. This time the appeal panel, again chaired by Gómez de la Torre, accepted that the person appointed had a worse fit to the teaching profile than Ferriz Mas -- but had substantially better research and teaching experience.

Ferriz Mas says that this second decision confirms that the local candidate was the predetermined choice for each post, and that there is often an unspoken agreement among the members of appointment boards.

In such cases, he argues, the deciding third voice seals a pact where board members return the favour in the future. He says that committee members have total impunity.

Many Spanish researchers are critical of the process. Benjamin Montesinos, director of the laboratory of space astrophysics and fundamental physics, an 'associated unit' of the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia (Higher Council of Scientific Research), says that a smokescreen of complex arguments is often used to justify appointing an internal candidate to a post.

He argues that examiners who assess applicants to jobs in universities should have no link with the department concerned.

Luis F. Rull, professor of physics at the University of Seville, says the argument used against Ferriz Mas -- that fluid dynamics is a different discipline to atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics -- is false. Rull calls for common standards and wants a public ranking of disciplines, perhaps based on publication record, impact factor and citations.

Juan J. Manfredi, professor of mathematics at the University of Pittsburgh, says that many qualifications are used by appointment boards to disqualify candidates who may be better than local candidates. He says that some positions define a teaching profile (instead of area of knowledge) so closely that only one candidate can meet the criteria. This process, he argues, goes directly against the cross-fertilization that research requires.

Nature, 24 diciembre 1998, página 712, por Xavier Bosch.

3.- ... as new posts created in academic reforms

[MADRID] The Spanish government announced last week that it plans to introduce a new university position, based on a four-year contract, with the same responsibilities and salaries as existing tenured positions. The new contracts form part of a set of university reforms to be debated in parliament next month. Also included is a proposal to reduce the number of local university representatives on five-member appointments committees from two to one (see main story). The government hopes that both moves, which have been approved by the secretary of state for universities, Manuel Jesús González, will increase the employment prospects for well qualified PhDs. They stress that winning one of the new teaching contracts will depend on an independent national agency evaluating a candidate's research experience. It says that the proposed changes to the legal framework governing universities -- whose funding and administration is the responsibility of individual provinces -- will increase the rigour and openness of the selection process and raise teaching standards.

Nature, 24 diciembre 1998, página 712