Sir

You reported the case of Antonio Férriz Mas, a Spanish astrophysicist who has taken the University of Salamanca to court after being rejected for an associate professorship1. Your editorial2 made comments on the appointment process in Spanish universities and its alleged role as a significant obstacle to the development of science in Spain. You identified two main problems that prevent Spain's being influential in modern science: cronyism, the practice of favouring one's friends (internal candidates) in university appointments, and the “intellectual sclerosis” of a system based on tenured positions.

Support for the theory of cronyism comes from the fact that two of the five members of an appointment board come from the department or university involved. This suggests that social networks and unspoken agreements cause the selection, not of the most meritorious candidate, but of the one with the appropriate connections. A more adequate alternative might be to have panels that include just one member from the institution offering the position, or no-one at all. However, is it fair to limit so severely a university's contribution to decision-making on strategic issues which affect their long-term functioning, notably the appointment of tenured staff?

Decisions by any appointment board imply value judgements which are accepted, not because of their objectivity, but because their subjectivity is shared to a great extent by the scientific community. Common design is achieved through clear-cut, publicly visible criteria. Stability — permanence over time — is also a desirable criterion, especially when appointments are made on the basis of long-term activities, as is usually the case in science. But even if these requirements are fulfilled, disagreements are still likely to occur. (See, for instance, the recent controversy over the exclusion of Salvador Moncada from the Nobel Prize3.) It is also plausible, as in any human activity, that from time to time regulations implemented to maintain fairness are overtaken and that biased decisions are intentionally made and adopted. If that is so in Férriz Mas's case the court should say so. But to cast the slur of cronyism on the entire appointment procedure means casting doubts and allegations of corruption on the hundreds of university teachers who have participated in the process, either as panel members or as candidates. To us, that seems audacious, to say the least.

We could certainly debate the adequacy of the criteria followed by different appointment boards, and introduce improvements to the Spanish appointments system, not only at universities but at other research institutions. Certainly, it would be useful to establish some form of broad scientific/academic profile that young researchers can use as a reference for career planning. For university appointments, such a profile should, of necessity, include both research and teaching profiles, especially as tenure positions in Spain imply 240 hours’ teaching per year, a significant amount of total labour time.

We fear, however, that even if this goal is achieved Spanish scientific development will still be at a standstill. Why? Because despite Spanish economic advances over the past years, investment in research and development, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is lower now than it was in 1991. It is the second lowest in the European Union, far below the EU average4, and even lower than in some eastern European states (such as the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Slovenia5). Furthermore, 43.8 per cent of university teachers, many of whom are highly qualified and experienced, face a dim future as most are under short-term non-tenured contracts6.

Meanwhile, postdocs like Férriz Mas are sent abroad: 4,554 in the period 1984-94 (ref. 7). But, if the scientific structures and the political will at home remain the same, what's the point?