Maria Cristina Messa. Credit: MUR. 
When she became Minister for University and Research in the government led by Mario Draghi in February, Maria Cristina Messa found difficult files on her desk. Italy’s largest research body was without a president; young scientists were growing impatient for a reform of research careers; the investments on research and education in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) had to be defined and submitted to the European Commission. Messa, 59, is an expert in medical imaging and nuclear medicine, a former Vice President of the National Research Council (CNR) from 2011 to 2015, and was the Rector of the University of Milan-Bicocca from 2013 to 2019. Speaking to Nature Italy, she outlines her vision on the issues that will shape the future of Italian science.
What are your priorities?
The most urgent matter is to clarify the career framework, by better defining the path and reducing the insanely long process before recruitment. It is also urgent to make the management of funds more fluid, because research institutes and universities face many obstacles in their spending capacity, that dramatically slow down research projects. I am aware of researchers who have trouble buying a reagent or an equipment even if they have the funds, because convoluted bureaucratic procedures prevent them from spending them straight away. Furthermore, our Ministry will work on simplifying the whole evaluation process, from public calls to the assignment of funds, which is also ridiculously long in Italy.
You recently appointed the new president of the National Research Council, the biggest research institute of the country. Many see the CNR as hampered by bureaucracy. Do you plan to reform it?
Streamlining bureaucracy is the battle of battles. We will not intervene on a single research body though, but on all of them. The National Research Council is suffering particularly at the moment because the review of the career process is on its way, and the whole recruitment of researchers is at a standstill as a result. We are trying to accelerate as much as the agenda of the Parliament allows.
What is the career reform about?
I would like to reduce the period between the PhD and a professorship position, to guarantee generational change and mobility. After their PhD, young researchers might get a studentship or a short time contract, or a fellowship. At the end of these contracts, it is extremely difficult to obtain a rare three-year research position, the only possible track for a professorship. Most researchers stay in a limbo for too many years. I aim to shape a unique path, like a tenure track, where the postdoc phase lasts no longer than seven years, after which the researcher can become a permanent researcher within the research institutes or become associate professor in academia.
What role will the National Research Council play in the PNRR?
The CNR will have a paramount role with its critical mass. Its presence throughout Italy and its 8,000 employees mean CNR can aggregate the territories and universities and coordinate the themes in which it is particularly strong. However, it is important to highlight that all funding will be subject to public calls.
What are the national research centres on ‘Key enabling technologies’ mentioned in the PNRR?
With the main goal to create a critical mass and to be competitive with other European countries, we decided to create a sort of network of existing centres on key enabling technologies, such as quantum technology, artificial intelligence, biopharma, agritech, to name a few. Universities, research institutes, companies and start-ups must join forces and collaborate closely around these themes in order to transfer knowledge more quickly. They will not be institutes or foundations; perhaps they will be consortia that use the staff already in existing institutions, with a few more people recruited for management. All this will be based on public calls and I am sure that institutes like the National Research Council, the National Institute for Nuclear Physics, and the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology will be able to use this opportunity very well.
Some say the PNRR puts too much emphasis on industrial research. How do you answer to this criticism?
The numbers can be the answer. In the plan, €14 billion is allocated to University and Research. Out of these, €6.9 billion, equal to 47%, is for basic and applied research. Another € 1.570 billion, equal to 11%, are for infrastructures for researchers. An important part is dedicated to students – and indeed, we must invest in education in order to have skilled researchers in the future. The rest, around 20%, is for industrial research. Therefore, I must disagree with the critics.
What is your vision for the future of Italian research?
The country is crying out for more researchers and, in turn, more scientific production. I see Italian research taking off only if we are successful in increasing the critical mass of researchers and helping the generational turnover. Furthermore, it is imperative to clarify matters around intellectual property and patents as well as the relationship between public and private bodies, in order to create the conditions for an impact on economic development.
There is an ongoing debate in Italian academia about the funding distribution: would it be better to concentrate funding on a few competitive realities or to spread money more equally?
I am absolutely in favour of acknowledging merit and competitiveness. Those who do better must be rewarded, but this can be done only if at the same time the system also supports the less competitive realities. The real success of the system, I believe, is when you raise the general level as well help those who run faster.
Do you have any plan for promoting women in science?
In the PNRR we have 40% gender quotas, a good starting point. An aspect where I would like to see change is the small number of women in committees in academia and research at large, because these have big impacts on downstream decisions. However, the topic of women in science is complex and would require action in the short, medium and long term. We need first to intervene on the gender pay gap and face the fact that STEM female graduates earn less than their male colleagues. In the medium-term, girls should be stimulated to embrace STEM degrees in a more definitive way, perhaps with the help of scholarships and reduced fees. In Italy, less than 20% of engineers are female, and in computing science the female component is minimal. Then, in the long run, the real revolution would be a reform at the primary school level.
