To the editor — I would like to share your optimism on the future of Italian research1. However, past and present history leaves space for concern, regardless of the change of government. If the centre-right coalition has done little during its government (2001–2006), and in some cases has even created damage, the centre-left does not seem to fare better. The current academic promotion system, which favours in-house careers from PhD to tenureship, is a heritage of the first centre-left government (1996–2001). The new government, despite initial promises of boosting research funding, approved in July a 10% reduction in running budget. It seems to be very difficult to propose, let alone enact, effective changes in funding allocations, academic appointments and management because they touch too many interests across the public education and research sectors.

To improve Italian science, one should aim at addressing key issues, some of which are specific to the Italian system. The lack of funding, which is actually common to other countries, is made worse by the disproportionate weight of administration costs. In 2004, only 3% of the National Research Council (CNR) budget was spent on technical and scientific instrumentation, another 3% for fellowships, whereas 8% went to the Rome central administration alone2. In this context, the lack of a long-term scientific policy is a crucial problem. While subsequent research ministries spend their time undoing their predecessors' work and giving their name to new, short-lived reforms, the continuous state of reform forces researchers to adapt to ever-changing regulations and institutions.

To brighten things up, young Italian researchers are required to lead a monastic life, that is, passionate, faithful, and poor. A PhD graduate is expected to live on grants for years. Scientist are likely to be 36 years of age before obtaining a position as a permanent researcher, 45 for an associate professorship and 52 for a full professorship3. As the mobility in the public sector is very limited, this means that young people work under their mentor's 'supervision' for the largest part of their career waiting for promotions. This naturally provides little incentive for personal initiative, and little funding opportunities to deviate from their supervisor's work.

Finally, Italian scientists should recognize that they share part of the blame for the present situation. They should play a more active role in engaging the public and politicians to explain why scientific research and education are important. A related problem is the lack of representative and influential associations of scientists, with the exception of medical doctors. Physics researchers, for instance, lack the equivalent of the American Physical Society in the US or the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft in Germany. Their Italian counterpart, the Società Italiana di Fisica, resembles more a club of respected old physicists than a lively, representative body for all physics researchers — and it does its best to remain so, asking new affiliates to be signed in by two senior members before being allowed to pay its fee4. With such a poor spirit of belonging and no effective representation there is little wonder that Italian scientists stay under the spell of changing government winds.

The 10% reduction in running budget was proposed in late July 2006, after the August issue editorial had gone to press — Editor, Nature Materials