Introduction

In Italy, as in many other countries, the need has arisen for a budgetary manoeuvre. However in this country the manoeuvre is based, as often also in the past, on "horizontal cuts" which do not make considerations of merit and do not regard science as something to invest upon in a time of crisis.

The intention is to give (to the national public opinion and to the international scientific community) a summary of the attitude of italian governments towards science, and in particular to present the main points in the budget manoeuvre which are detrimental for scientific research.

The essay is structured as follows: first there is a summary of the status of research institutions (with a side detail note on which countries do/do not have a ministry of research); then there is an historical excursus (first for the past before WWII and then from 1945 to the present) and a summary of the politics of science (with a side note explaining some italian peculiarities). Finally we illustrate the research=related items in the budget manoeuvre, first looking at the way it was prepared and then to the actual items contained in the text submitted to the Parliament.
Considered that I am active in a specific discipline, particular emphasis is given to astrophysics (and to INAF, the institution dealing with it), without neglecting a more general framework.

This document was prepared in support to the initiative "no brain no gain"

Why those pictures ?

Minister of Economy and Finances Tremonti likes to recall he is sitting at Quintino Sella's desk. Italian school kids know from their history lessons Sella as the man of the stingy "awl policy" (grudging funds for public expenditure) and the author of the unpopular tax on milled flour. However some recent historical readings induced me to change my opinion on Quintino Sella. From a biography of the matematician Vito Volterra [1] I learned that the scientist had in esteem Sella, who had a scientific education himself. And from an essay [2] on scientific institutions in Milan, my home city, I learned that the Minister, far from applying his awl cuts to science, was in excellent relationships with the director of Brera Astronomical Observatory, Schiaparelli, and that he funded (for 19440 lire of 1862) the acquisition of the Merz telescope, the first scientific instrument of the newly created Kingdom of Italy (the very telescope used by Schiaparelli for his famous studies of Mars canals).

Research institutions in Italy

In Italy there are (or there should be) three categories of institutions (and three corresponding categories of scientists) dealing with scientific research:

• Universities, with professors and university researchers
• public research organizations (PRO) with their research staff
• private and industrial research (does it exist ?)

expand details hide details

  Essentially all PRO staff has the same contractual status, but not all Research Organisations are exactly equal. In fact some institutions (more or less those dealing with "hard science") are under the surveillance of the Ministry of Research (MIUR, in the past, perhaps more correctly, MURST open detail hide detail) as shown in this list. Another list concerns funding.

Other, more "applied", institutions (and more curtailed by the budget manoeuvre) are under the surveillance of other ministries. But nevertheless they are research institutions, their staff is composed of scientists, their task is to make independent research, and publish their results on peer reviewed scientific journals.

Historical background

We want to remind that scientific institutions in Italy (included those subjected to cuts in the budget maneouvre) may have a century-long history, specially just in astronomy. A short excursus is available clicking on the buttons provided below.

Since 1700 to WWII

expand details hide details

Since post-war to the present time

expand details hide details

Political background

Italian politicians give a relatively scarce attention to scientific research, as it also shown by the fact that there is not always a dedicated ministry (as explained in the detail note above). However periodically they do some so-called "reforms".

The important "university reform" in 1982 created the three grades of university professors. As mentioned above in a detail note it was followed by a similar status change for PRO researchers, which were previously part of the so-called "parastato", i.e. were consider essentially as clerks.

Between 1999 and early 2000s (minister Berlinguer) a reform of several institutions was started (creation of INGV and early INAF, reform of CNR merging the original institutes and centres, located each in a single city, as sections of larger nationwide institutes; inclusive of a rewriting of the internal rules and regulations).

In 2003 (minister Moratti) there was a new reform, declared "at zero cost", which included, among other things, the merging of astrophyical institutes of CNR into the new INAF, whose statute was written as a Legislative Decree.

Presently (since february 2010) another reform is in progress, and should formally be concluded within six months. Its aims are the "statutory autonomy" of the research institutions. Minister Gelmini appointed one committee of experts per institution, who, together with the Admnistration Council of each institution, should rewrite statutes and regulations.
  To know more on this matter click on the buttons below.

expand details hide details

Seven days in May

Our foreign readers have most likely not followed, at the end of May 2010, the turmoil about the "budget manoeuvre" which the italian Government has prepared, similarly to what done by other European governments. We therefore provide some information. Since the Government felt an urgent intervention was necessary, they choose the tool of the Decree-Law (see the explanations above). However, while the Constitution prescribes that "the Government ... shall in the very same day submit it to the Houses [of Parliament] for conversion [into law]", about a week (very hectic, particularly in the research institutions) passed between the approval of a first draft by the cabinet and the publication of the final text (hence the title of this section inspired to the known movie).

In that time span the press has reported several rumours, and even a maze of many little drafts all different. An analysis of the final text is shown in the next section, while here we concentrate on some aspects concerning research institutions (a report of more official nature concerning INAF alone can be found on the Media INAF site).

The specific dispositions about research institutions articulated, in the original drafts, in three parts:

• A number of institutions under the surveillance of other ministries are cancelled and merged usually with the ministry itself. Most such institutions deserved one or more dedicated catches in the law text (like e.g.. ISAE, ISFOL, INSEAN), the remainder are listed in Annex 2 mentioned just below here. Since these norms survived in the final version, we refer to the next section .

• A number of other institutions were cancelled and merged to other institutions, usually into CNR. Apparently the Ministry of Economy has little interest for such institutions dealing with pure science, so they are just listed in a table, Annex 2, which the press (instigated by the government ?) brutally christened the list of useless institutions (or "useless beings", from the world "ente", "being", which indicates a generic body, organization or institution). We return on these further below.

• Finally an extensive list of cultural institutions (not all scientific, some were political foundations or committees for the celebration of anniversaries), to which public funding was cancelled, was present in Annex 3. Among the victims one had historical institutions like the already quoted Lombard Institute of Science and Letters, or the Italian Society for the Advancement of Science, or the largest italian science museum, the National Museum of Science and Technology Leonardo da Vinci in Milan, or the Italian Centre of aerospace research (CIRA).

The reader wishing to compare the final text of the "manoeuvre" with one of the drafts can e.g. look at this one. In such version for instance it is absent the merging of INGV with the Civil Protection department, previously proposed. But there is a list of institutions under the surveillance of MIUR, which are all merged into CNR, except (who knows why), the ancient International Zoological Station Anton Dohrn merged directy into the Ministry.

The candidates for merging in this draft include INRIM and INAF, i.e. two institutions created (by an act of the same political majority) in 2003 detaching one or more CNR institutes and joining them with preexisting institutions. Thus in 2003 an amount of staff exited from CNR, and now an about double amount would re-enter into CNR. Note the difference that INRIM is an institute located in a single city (Turin), while INAF includes 20 structures in 12 cities.
In the INAF case the staff exited from CNR amounted to less than 500 persons, while more then 1000 were due for re-entry. Which makes about 20% of the current CNR staff, requiring at least the creation of an ad hoc Department (in an institution which is in the process of rewriting its own statutes and has not been notified to have to ingest these new people ... but which is well aware of the problems and the time required for such an operation, since it suffered already the incorporation of INFM).

Similarly all the research staff of the INAF institutes, who suffered already a couple of such operations, were aware and worried of the problems (essentially useless nuisances for the change of all regulations, up to the internet domain and even the stationery).

But the authors of the law weren't aware of the problems, e.g. in particular ignored the presence in the INAF scientific staff of two statuses (astronomers from former Observatories and researchers from CNR) with the relevant, still partially unsolved issues.

The zeal of the ministerial mergers reaches the top since the draft listed among the institutions to be absorbed into CNR even ISGI, the Institute for International Law Studies "created by art. 1, catch 1, of decree 12 october 2001, n. 16000". But ISGI is already an institute belonging to CNR, since ever, and indeed, as shown on the ISGI site itself the decree quoted is a disposition of the CNR President ! But this escaped the attention of the careful and misterious authors of Annex 2 in their sacred zeal !

From announcement to reality

I summarize here the items of the "budget manoeuvre" which impact onto research institutions. For each item detailed information is available clicking on the provided buttons.
The official text is available e.g. here. This is the text published on the Official Gazette and submitted to the Parliament. Some items are already applied since it is a decree-law, the remainder might change if amended by the Parliament in the conversion process. The official text was originally available e.g. here. It was the text published on the Official Gazette at end May (subject to temporal access limitations) and submitted to the Parliament. Some items were immediately valid since it was a decree-law, other might have changed if amended by the Parliament in the conversion process. The process ended on 29 july 2010. These links allow to see the final text with the update history, the discussion at the Senate, the discussion at the Chamber of Deputies.

• A group of norms concern all public employees (and therefore also research institutions).
• Block of salary increases and renewal of collective contracts
  show detail hide detail
  

  The renewal of collective contracts and the amount of salaries included minor and major career progression is frozen for three years. Salaries above a gross income of 90000 euro per year are curtailed (but in research institutions these are rare).

  It could be true that public salaries lately were protected from inflation better than private ones, but compared with salaries in other European countries the latter and the former are both definitely lower. Anyhow this matter is part of the Government powers and does not concern only research.

• Curtailment of mission funds
  show detail hide detail
  

  Since 2011 the expenditure for missions shall not exceed 50% of what spent in 2009.

  But it is known that working meetings, missions for astronomical observations or for instrument calibration are an essential part of research activities, and most of such missions are required to support international projects, in progress or future. How can we do in 2011 for a new project started after 2009 ? May be to installare new instruments ? May be when the funds come from an international organization and are destined explicittly to cover travel expenses for 2011 ?

  To be true the law foresees one can exceed the limits "in exceptional cases, adopting a motivated disposition adopted (sic!) by the top administration organism, to be communicated in advance to the control and auditing organs of the institution". That is more bureaucracy, instead of a mission order signed by the directore, one need to reach as high as a deliberation of the Administration Council with copy to the College of Auditors, may be just for a single plane ticket !

• Cancellation of daily allowances for missions abroad
  show detail hide detail
  

  Since 31 May 2010 (being a decree-law it is immediately valid) daily allowances for missions abroad are cancelled.

  Potentially this is a valid way of saving, already for domestic missions the refund of hotel and subsistence expenses occurs within fixed ceilings after submission of the relevant bills (which however on the national territory are "fiscal invoices", an official document). The suspect is that the legislator had in mind (their) useless trips of large delegations with dwarfs and dancers, maybe to Geneva or Bruxelles, where (by chance) daily allowances are higher. Not a calibration campaign of a scientific instrument, where one works on two 12-hour shifts since 8:00 on Monday to 8:00 of Saturday (been there, done that).

  I know colleagues who declared a duration of the mission shorter than the real one, so that the refunds were just enough to cover the real expenditure, and they could use the saved money for a further trip.

  But in order to save a few pennies, was it necessary to give immediate validity to this norm, in absence of a regulation for refund of foreign bills (to be prepared by the Ministry of foreign affairs together with the Ministry of economy and finances), forcing us to send a mail warning to the colleagues abroad on May 31, maybe in Chile or Japan, advising them to keep any kind of bill, ticket and receipt (with no guarantee they will be considered valid for refund ... may be they'd require a sworn translation stamped by the consulate !) ?

  A similar norm cancels also the kilometric allowance for missions using one's own car (which can occur for experiment installations in places not served by public transport). A curious detail is that such cancellation does not appply to the "not contractualized staff" (like astronomers of observatories, which therefore could find a new activity as drivers for their colleagues which are researchers or technicians)

• Curtailment of funds for non-permanent positions
  show detail hide detail
  

  Since 2011 the expenditure for contracts for non-permanent positions shall not exceed 50% of what spent in 2009. In the text amended by Parliament research organizations are exempted by this cut, but it is confirmed the threshold of 60% of what spent in 2003 (budget law 2006).

  Consider that the regular temporary contracts (covered by the norm) are the most favourable form of non-permanent position, since the amount of the salary and the payment of social contributions is identical to the one of tenure staff.
  The alternative are research fellowship grants, where the fellow has a net salary only slightly less than a contract in the initial grade and step, but the cost for the institution is about halved, because there are no social contributions. Therefore the longer one remains a fellow, the smaller will be one's future retirement pension ! Fellowships are disadvantageous for the fellow on the long term, and are also subject to a limitation on renewal.

  Moreover most non-permanent contracts are for specific scientific projects (on funds destined and constrained to such projects), hence the norm means a de fact cut to the projects.

• Block of turnover
  show detail hide detail
  

  Formerly research institutions were allowed to hire new tenure staff in equal measure to the retired staff. Now for three years one will be able to replace one person every five, and in 2014 one every two.

  This is a dramatic limitation to the recruitment of new tenure staff, which hence cannot be a solution for the young (or not so young) non-permanent staff affected from the preceding norm.

  The combined effect of these two norms (50% curtailment of non-permanent contracts and block of turnover) is the most dangerous feature of the manoeuvre, since actually cancel the future of an entire generation of fully active young scientists !

• Incentives for the reversal of the brain drain
  show detail hide detail
  
  It is a paradox that an article (art. 44) in the fiscal part of the manoeuvre foresees "incentives for the re-entry in Italy of researchers resident abroad" (confirming tax rebates already existing). One wonders how can such scientist come back and why should they wish to come back.

  Curiously, while amending the text, the Parliament inserted here a catch which is a like having cabbage for a snack (says that entrance examinations for degree courses with numerus clausus held in a foreign language will be done in such language). This says much about how laws are written ...

• The description of the norms explicitly concerning research institutions was anticipated in the previous section. Luckily (at least for INAF) the norms are not so severe as in the drafts, however ...
• The cancellation of the PROs under the surveillance of other ministries is confirmed
  show detail hide detail
  
  In particular an independent institute for economical studies as ISAE is merged into the Ministry of Economy and Finances, an institute dealing with occupational safety as ISPESL is merged into INAIL (an organization dealing with disability pensions), an institute for ship building studies as INSEAN is merged into the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport (in the versioan amended by Parliament however INSEAN is merged into CNR).

  In all these cases the staff is relocated into the ministries, usually with the exception of the scientific staff (obviously useless in a ministry) which is relocated into other research institutions (without funds, equipment or supporto staff ?)

• Concerning the PROs under the surveillance of MIUR they are no longer mentioned in the final text of Annex 2
  show detail hide detail
  

  There is no merging into CNR of INAF and other smaller institutions

  It is confirmed the cancellation of the historical Experimental Stations for Industry, which are merged ... with the local Chambers of Commerce !

  It is confirmed the cancellation of ENSE, a self-funding research institution dealing with seed certification, merged into INRAN

• Also the funding cuts to cultural institutions no longer appear in the final text (there is no longer an Annex 3, but a deferral to future norms)

Conclusions

The preparation of the budget manoeuvre demonstrated an hostile attitude towards scientific research and its institutions, and moreover showed a large degree of sloppiness. Some items have been improved at the time of passing from the drafts to the final version, but the situation remains severe. Let us hope that, during the 2 months required for transformation into law, there will be amendments at least to the most critical issues, i.e. funds and human resources.

I like to conclude recalling two mottos, one appearing on Hilbert's grave and another by Vito Volterra (1931)

References

• [1] J.R. Goodstein, The Volterra Chronicles. The Life and Times of an Extraordinary Mathematician. - American Mathematical Society 2007
  ISBN 978 0 8218 3969 0
• [2] E. Canadelli & P. Zocchi (eds.), Milano scientifica 1875-1924 (2 vols) - Sironi 2007
  ISBN 978 8 8518 0115 1 (in Italian)
  (in particular the letter by Quintino Sella is quoted at pag. 99)

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed herein are the author's own and do not represent a commitment by, nor are official opinions of, IASF Milano or INAF