The reason for this concern is enough clear: in that sector the chainsaw was at maximum power.According to data from a document published in November by Ibero-American Center for Research in Science,Technology adn Innovation–Ciicti–,in the last ten months all indicators of state investment in this sector have decreased: the budget decreased by 30.5%. Basically because the percentage of GDP dedicated Scientific and technological function We went from 0.3% of GDP in 2023, occupy only 0.21% of GDP.
Others are included in this large number: wages have fallen by up to 30% in real terms. Subsidies to the segment decreased by 61.2%. In all of 2024 there were practically no new entries into the careers of researchers. If you add retirements, holidays and exodus, there are 2,696 fewer jobs in CyT.
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a basic pillar of democracy. This is why it bothers those who believe they are the holders of the truth.
In this panorama, another former sector official and Conicet researcher, Roberto Salvarezza, highlighted in a post of network underexecution budget of the entire national governance”. And he accompanied his post wiht a spreadsheet where the underutilization of that public distribution was about 98%, comparing 2024 to 2023.
But that’s not all. “Apart from the shortfall and under-implementation of the budget, there is a different concept. It directly states that the state must not finance science,” he summarized PROFILE Daniel Filmuscurrent researcher at Conicet and former Minister of Science, Technology and Education in previous administrations. And he added: “In recent decades there have been moments of expansion and contraction of investments. More or fewer researchers have joined Conicet. But what has never happened now, when we consider that science should only be financed by the market.” And this leads to destruction, especially in terms of trained human resources. “There are once again very qualified people, professionals of the highest level who leave to look for options in other countries”.
Filmus explained that “virtually all subsidy, purchase, equipment and infrastructure programs are paralyzed. No scholarship holders are admitted nor are careers open for starting new researchers.”
Another contradictory point that Filmus highlights is that “the model that the Government applies in this segment He has no inspiration anywhere. Not even in the USA, where various state departments finance research.” But it is not even what is seen in other “paradigms” of “model” nations of libertarian government. “This lack of investment in science and technology is not seen in Israel, Korea, Germany or Ireland.In all these countries, GDP investment in science doubles or well exceeds 1% of GDP,” Filmus said.
We warn with a word that sums it all up: a ‘scientificide’
For his part, Rolando Gonzalez-Joséprincipal investigator of Conicet and member of the Federal table of science and technology, he said PROFILE: “We warn with a word that summarizes everything: ascientific‘. That is, the systematic destruction of local science and technology.”
For this expert, the defunding which affects all scientific and technological organisations and universities “have lots of them severitysince it limits the advancement of research activities and favors the emigration of qualified resources”.
This situation is playing out on multiple levels: “Like, it is indeed they repealed the laws that have regulated our sector, such as the Financing Law and the argentina 2023 Plan, which detailed the scientific and development objectives based on the needs of each province and the country. “This was basic strategic planning that has ceased to exist.”
On the other hand, González-José reported that “many of the programs that the former Ministry of Science and technology had today they are stopped: We can’t sign agreements, we can’t organize price competitions, and projects like Equip Science and Build Science have stopped working. the National Investigator award, which was an critically important symbolic event, has also been suspended.” all link instances were deactivated.
What can happen in 2025? Nothing positive if there are no significant changes. according to Filmus: “Four funding laws for different scientific topics that Congress approved promptly in previous years – and by large majorities – are not being respected.There we must put pressure on Parliament so that these laws “enter” the 2025 budget and their rules are applied, which guarantee new funds for scientific research.”
the statements are in the first person
“Several researchers personally reported to officials what was happening. For example,I complained about these circumstances to the current president of Conicet,Dr. Daniel Salamone,” he said PROFILE researcher Rolando González-José. And he
At that moment they asked him, for example, what would happen to the 400 vacancies for admission to the research career that he himself had promised. “He responded to us with evasions and lies, as this year is already over and – finally – only 54 young people who had won the tender in 2021 entered Conicet. from that moment on there were no new entries”.
Something similar happened with another public statement that emerged this week, when a famous Conicet researcher received an international award. It’s about the prize scientists who matterwhich was handed over in a ceremony held at the French Embassy; Valeria Edelstein He took advantage of the lectern to launch a complaint on the precariousness and abandonment that the scientific system is experiencing.
How can Argentina improve its approach to funding science and technology based on global best practices?
Interview Transcript: Time.news Editor with Daniel Filmus,Expert on Science,Technology,and Education Policy
Editor: Thank you for joining us today,Daniel. the recent data from the Ibero-American Center for Research in Science, Technology, and Innovation has raised significant concerns regarding the state of scientific investment in Argentina. Can you provide an overview of the key findings?
Filmus: Absolutely. Recent reports indicate a staggering 30.5% decrease in the budget allocation for science and technology. This figure is alarming, especially when we see that the percentage of GDP dedicated to this field has plummeted from 0.3% to just 0.21%. Such cuts signify a lack of commitment to scientific advancement, which is crucial for national development.
Editor: Those are indeed concerning statistics. You mentioned a decline in job opportunities in the scientific and technological sector. Could you elaborate on that?
Filmus: Certainly. This year,we’ve seen nearly 2,700 jobs disappear in science and technology,primarily due to a halt in new researcher entries combined with retirements and voluntary exits.While previous years had fluctuations in job numbers, this instance represents an unprecedented erosion of our scientific workforce.
Editor: It sounds like a dire situation for those in academia and research. How do you see this impacting the future of scientific research in Argentina?
Filmus: The implications are profound. When talented professionals are faced with stagnation and shifting policies—notably those suggesting that the state should not fund science—they frequently enough look abroad for better opportunities. This leads to a ’brain drain,’ where our highest-caliber individuals pursue thier careers in other countries, depriving Argentina of critical innovation potential.
Editor: You mentioned the viewpoint of the government regarding funding. What is the current narrative they are promoting in relation to science financing?
Filmus: The current government narrative is that scientific investment should primarily come from the market. However, this belief is misaligned with global practices, where government funding is essential for research and development. The model they are utilizing lacks inspiration from any triumphant framework—both domestically and internationally. Countries known for their innovation—like the USA, Israel, and Germany—invest substantially in science, often exceeding 1% of their GDP.
Editor: Why do you think there’s such a stark contrast between Argentina’s approach and that of these nations?
Filmus: It comes down to vision and policy priorities. A robust scientific ecosystem requires not just funding but a strategic commitment from the government to view science as an investment rather than a cost. Countries that are thriving in technology and innovation see the value in funding research as a pathway to long-term economic growth and societal advancement.
Editor: Beyond funding, you mentioned that virtually all subsidy, purchase, and equipment programs are currently paralyzed. How does this affect ongoing research?
Filmus: It’s an untenable situation. Programs that support research initiatives have been halted, which means existing projects lack the funding to continue and new initiatives cannot start.This paralysis stifles creativity and innovation,further contributing to the decline in our scientific capacity. Without resources, we risk falling further behind.
Editor: How can Argentina pivot from this current trajectory? What steps do you suggest to reinvigorate the scientific sector?
Filmus: First, there needs to be a re-evaluation of priorities at the governmental level. Engaging with stakeholders in the scientific community to reshape policies that foster an environment of research and collaboration is essential. second, reinstating funding structures that encourage innovation and allow for the attraction and retention of talent in science is crucial.
Editor: Thank you, Daniel, for your insights. It truly seems we are at a pivotal moment for argentine science and technology. I hope for a turnaround that recognizes the value and importance of investing in our scientific future.
Filmus: My pleasure. Let’s advocate for the policies that will allow us to harness the potential of our remarkable talent pool.
Editor: thank you for speaking with us today.We hope to follow up on this critical issue as it develops.
