“I want science to raise passions”
In our country, a ministry specifically dedicated to science is like Guadiana. Its irregular existence, together with the lack of a great State pact oninvestigation, makes your consolidation complicated. Even Garmendia’s young ministry has suffered incoherent political decisions: it started by taking over the powers of the university, but after a year they have already been taken away. On the other hand, only Aragon, Andalusia and Murcia have a Ministry of similar characteristics to the ministry led by Garmendia. In the rest of the communities, science occupies its classic place, as a small appendix of Education. Judging by the distribution of autonomous powers and by the ups and downs in the central government, it seems clear that Spanish politicians have a hard time finding a place to put science.
With the appointment ofGarmendia, in April 2008, he took command of theMinistry of Science and Innovationto a person from the scientific world and who, therefore, knows how it works. His predecessors in the former Ministry of Science and Technology of the Aznar government had profiles far removed from the field of research: Juan Costa came from law, and Josep Piqué and Anna Birulés, from economics. Cristina Garmendia (San Sebastián, 1962) is a peculiar scientist. It is not easy to find a researcher with an MBA (Master of Business Administration). Geneticist and molecular biologist, responds to the model of the North American scientist who jumps into the business world creating a successful company,Mother. Perhaps that is why it is not strange to hear him talk about science in business terms, something extremely rare in Spain.
-If we talk about our science, we have to start with the raw material, the researchers. In this sense, it is not necessary to mention research grants, in almost draconian conditions.
-Certain. With this issue we come from a very precarious model. I have lived it: four years of predoctoral scholarship and, if you were lucky, you would find a good postdoctoral destination outside of Spain without any possibility of return. But we have advanced. Today we give our future scientists two years of scholarship with social security and two more of contract. And thenew Law of Sciencewill go one step further, making the scholarship system disappear. It is going to be a great achievement.
-Will the precarious scholars disappear then?
-Ha, ha, ha … Every time they talk to me about them, I answer that I have one of their promoters as chief of staff.
-And what will happen to our scientists abroad?
-I hear many times that having scientists outside of Spain is a tragedy. We have to be proud of them, as we are of Nadal and Pe, who triumph outside our borders. Spanish scientists abroad are a great asset because they help us connect our networks with the country they are in.
-What is your assessment of the Ramón y Cajal program, which has allowed the return of our researchers?
-It has actually made thetalent return, both Spanish and non-Spanish, and has had a great impact on our scientific production. If we combine it with programs such as Juan de la Cierva and other territorial ones -case of the excellent ICREA program of the Catalan Institute of Research and Advanced Studies-, we have managed to attract 40% to 78% of foreign scientists to our country, regardless of your nationality. This has given an internalization to our science system, which has a fundamental value.
-Many believe that the problem is the disconnect that exists between research and the company.
-We have to keep moving forward. Hiring within companies must be encouraged. We have promoted an ad hoc program, theQuevedo Towers, with which we financed the company for three years to hire scientists and technologists. It is having a huge benefit on business R + D + i (research, development and innovation) in all its areas. We must convey that one of the most successful and productive strategies is the incorporation of people from science and technology to the business fabric.
– Isn’t the disappearance of students in science careers worrisome? Is it related to the fact that it is a very sacrificial and poorly paid profession?
-It is not true that all races are being discouraged, only some. The new Law of Science seeksmake scientific activity an attractive and well-paid profession. Perhaps it has more to do with the hardship than with the salary. If we compare ourselves with other countries, we see that our salaries are generally lower, but it does not only happen in science. However, Spain should not compete for costs anymore: our asset is knowledge, talent, and technology that we are capable of developing. Spain has to compete for added value. We must make a transition to a knowledge-based economy. And everything goes through well-dimensioned and paid scientific careers.
-It is curious that two major strategic issues for a country, education and science, still lack a state pact.
-Only with a great political consensus can a law that lasts succeed, and its stability is key to being able to dimension medium and long-term strategies. This is very important in science to get results. For this reason, we are dedicating a lot of effort tonew Law of Scienceis widely debated by all groups: economic, social, scientific associations, students … and with all parliamentary groups. We want it to be as consensual as possible. On the other hand, in the last five years we have almost tripled thebudgets dedicated to R + D + i, there has been great progress in structuring the National Plan and we have promoted coordination with the autonomous communities, with the creation of the map of Singular Scientific-Technical Facilities (ICTS).
With all this I want to say that Spain is already a country of science.We occupy the ninth place in scientific production. Now our commitment is that in the medium term we have apowerful scientific industry. This is the challenge.
-For this we will have to start patenting, something in which we are not very knowledgeable.
-We have two barriers that we must eliminate. One is cultural, since Spanish scientists have had no interest in patenting. Even for a long time it has been somewhat controversial: the one who cared aboutpatentwas questioned. I have lived it myself. On the other hand, the patent has not been incentivized, as in the case of scientific publications, and an incentive system is key.
-How has the Spanish evolution been in publications and patents?
-If world scientific production has doubled, in Spain we have multiplied it by nine. It is not difficult to see that we have had an extraordinary journey. In the case of patents, we are one of the most dynamic countries in Europe in terms of growth, the problem is that we come from far below. Once we have developed the culture of the patent, now it is necessary to transfer it to the productive sector.
-But historically, Spanish companies are not very given to investing in R + D + i.
-In recent years we have had a great competitor in the world of construction. It was difficult to convince a company of the benefits of investing in R + D + i when it could obtain high profitability in a very short term with brick. Now, in view of the facts, there are plenty of explanations. The companies that invested in R + D + i have improved in all their business parameters, and dramatically! If within the same sector we compare the results of companies that dedicate part of their budget to R & D & i with those that do not, in one year the former increase their productivity by 16% and by 18% its export capacity compared to the latter.
-Has there been an increase in the number of companies that have decided to invest in R & D & i?
-I don’t think anyone is questioning whether to do it. Data from recent months tell us that 50% of companies that invest do so for the first time, and half come from traditional sectors, not technology. Spain cannot take its foot off the gas in the innovative effort of its production system.
-This year the call for grants for scientific dissemination of the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) has allowed companies to present themselves. All a novelty.
-Not only companies, but NGOs or any other body that requests it. Any institution that wants to disseminate must be given that opportunity. We have to innovate in the agents and in the formats. One of the great weaknesses of our system is in the scientific culture and innovation, and it is so clear to us that it is one of the four axes of the Ministry. And the FECYT hangs directly from the minister. We give it top priority.
-Although not much money has been allocated this year for dissemination …
– Certainly there has not been for everyone, but an effort has been made. This program has had a 10% budget increase. FECYT budgets are 18% higher than last year, with a special chapter for the National Museum of Science and Technology.
-There is something that is striking: the research institutions affirm that dissemination is important, but they do not have good communication departments, and it is the Ministry that promotes them through the scientific culture units.
-It is the mission of the Ministry to implement all the new communication instruments. Once this is done, we demand a commitment from the institution. The next step is to reward that commitment, and we will distinguish between those who have developed it and those who have not. You have to be responsible with the decisions.
-From my experience, Anglo-Saxon scientists explain themselves much better to the general public than Spanish scientists. Why is this difference?
-The analysis is complex, but in my opinion there are two questions that can give us the key. One is that, in general, the researcher does not like to divulge and communicates for his colleagues, not for the layman. That has been suffered by society. Traditionally, the scientist has spoken for the scientist in scientific language, he has never been exposed to the media. In our centers there is no tradition of calling a press conference when a great result is obtained to explain its relevance and make public the pride of having achieved it. The other issue has to do with our training system, where communication skills are not given importance, which is very important for professional training. This the Bologna Plan does contemplate, by the way. And that kind of learning has to start in college, not college.
-Are we still dragging the typical disconnect between scientists and journalists?
-There should be more journalists specialized in science in all the media and scientists should be more used to communicating with informants. How can you not give an account to society of your investigations, if they are public? It is a must.
– When he was prime minister, Tony Blair said that it was necessary to turn the scientists into stars.
-Sure! We have to do it, because they are. Who knows the prestigious scientists of this country?
-They say that scientific dissemination on television is not salable, but we have very good examples of the opposite in Great Britain, Germany, the United States, Australia … It seems that where it is not salable is in Spain.
-I’m not an expert, but in my opinion maybe we should design dynamic, open programs, of original format … and then put content into them, but not the other way around.
-And also fiction programs?
-Sure! These spaces are key to creating references.
-You went to physics but ended up being a biologist. What happened?
-I have always been passionate about science. In 3rd year of BUP I was clear that I would do Physics, but in COU I had a Biology teacher who went far beyond the subject. He gave us fascinating jobs. He filled us with content, brought great materials to class, and loved biochemistry and genetics! So there I ended.
-And he went from San Sebastián to Seville. Wasn’t there a university that was further away?
-I chose Seville because it was the only faculty in Spain where you rotated through four different research groups. The race was very well focused. The extraordinary thing about Seville was its genetics department. What was done there was a singularity. In addition, it had an exceptional professor, Enrique Cerdá, who, in addition to investigating, was totally devoted to his students. He was a teacher with incredible teaching success.
-Did you have any problems in your time as a researcher because you were a woman?
-Personally no, but there are. We must influence regulation and education. In this sense, Spain is an exemplary country within Europe, with women’s and science units in all public bodies.
– Isn’t it curious that the CSIC report on women and science is signed by a man?
-No way. It is an issue that does not have to do with men or women, but with society.
-As an entrepreneur, you will also know the labor problems of women.
-As long as being a mother constitutes a barrier, we have a problem. This is changed with regulation. It is the duty of companies to ensure that there is no impact on productivity by hiring a pregnant woman. And it can be done; I have done it in my business side.
-It is still asked in job interviews if a woman is married or pretends to be a mother.
-Well, those who do it should start asking men if they are going to be fathers. Of the last two people I hired, one pregnant and one who had adopted, the ones who were going to take the leave were the husbands! This is what has to start happening.
-The business system is still very reluctant to have women in decision-making positions.
-However, studies that measure the impact of women on business elites in terms of productivity indicate that it is positive, because it introduces diversity.
-Why are you passionate about science?
-Because science is exciting. Who does not know it is because he has not discovered it. I hope it raises more passions. And for that, it must be explained even better.
Miguel Angel Sabadell
