A group of researchers in the laboratory of the University of Trento, analysing swabs during the firrst COVID-19 wave in Italy in March 2020. Credit: Alessio Coser/University Of Trento via Getty Images.
Sequencing and analysis methods allowed us to track the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in real time. mRNA technology enabled the rapid development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Anti SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies were used to treat high-risk patients. These are three examples of applications of frontier research from different sectors of the life sciences, that have brought great benefits in dealing with the recent pandemic.
This kind of frontier research, which in Italy receives scarce and irregular funding, is mostly supported by the European Research Council (ERC), that has had great success both in terms of appreciation by the scientific community and of the results obtained. The ERC funds projects with large budgets (€1.5 to 2.5m) and a five-year duration. Its programmes include Starting Grants for young researchers to help them become independent, as well as Consolidator Grants for mid-career scientists, and Advanced Grants for senior ones. The recent results of the latest Starting Grants, for scientists who have completed their doctorate less than 7 years ago, should sound an alarm bell for the future of life sciences research in Italy.
The Life sciences (LS) domain receives 39% of the total ERC budget. Physical and engineering sciences (PE) gets 44% of funds and the humanities and social sciences (SH) gets 17%. In the latest call for Starting Grants, only four projects funded to Italian institutions fall in the LS sector, versus 17 in the PE sector and 11 in the SH sector.
If we broaden our view and look at the results of the last five years, we can see a remarkable disparity in the projects funded to researchers working in Italy in the three scientific domains, especially when it comes to Starting and Consolidator grants. While for Advanced Grants awarded to Italy the distribution between LS, PE and SH was 16, 21 and 29 projects, for Consolidators it was 14, 43 and 36 and for Starting Grants it was 16, 80 and 50. If we instead look at Italian projects as a share of all ERC-funded projects over the last five years, we see that Italian researchers received 5.2%, 4.4% and 10.9% of Advanced Grants in LS, PE and SH respectively. For Consolidators the shares are 3.1%, 6.5% and 8.5%, and for Starting Grants they are 2.6%, 8.7% and 8.5%.
The numbers speak for themselves: unlike more mature researchers in the same field, young Italian scientists in life sciences do not manage to excel in this competition as much as their colleagues in the physical sciences and in the humanities. This is worrying , because the future of research in the country depends on our ability to nurture young people who manage to excel even in the fiercest competitions, and who do impactful frontier research.
One can imagine an easy objection: the reason is that our best young people do their research abroad. Even if this were true (which does not appear to be the case looking at the ERC data themselves), the fact that things are different in physical sciences and the humanities indicates that it is possible to have bright young people staying in Italy to do their research.
We need to take a critical look at the mentoring and career development system for young life scientists in Italy. Two aspects that certainly make the difference between success and failure in ERC competitions are mobility, and a demonstrated independence with respect to the PhD supervisor. We should be rethinking early careers by introducing young scientists to research environments outside the one in which they were trained, making them responsible for managing their research, placing them in structured research groups where they can openly discuss their research topics, and cutting earlier the umbilical cord that ties them too long to their initial mentor.
Universities and research institutions should explicitly set up mentoring systems for young researchers and provide them with start-up funds to enable them to become independent, accepting the fact that every new hire of a young researcher also requires an investment in research funds. Lawmakers, the Ministry of University and Research and the National Agency for Research Evaluation (ANVUR) should rethink the way young people are recruited and evaluated, for example by favouring the quality rather than the quantity of publications, and by speeding up the attainment of positions that, even when they do not guarantee permanent status, enable young people to do research independently. Finally, the scientific societies in the sector should carry out initiatives to help young researchers grow and develop their career.
Perhaps above all, a change of mentality will be needed on the part of senior researchers who must be willing to let young people go their way without abandoning them, striking a balance between “parental care” and training for scientific independence.
