(Feb. 12th, 2010) The Italian Davide Calebiro studied medicine in Milan and worked at several research institutions in Italy and abroad. Recently, he started a small research team at the Bio-Imaging Center/Rudolf Virchow Center (RVZ) of the University of Würzburg, Germany where he focuses on real-time monitoring of cellular signalling pathways. Lab Times asked him to assess current Italian science.
Why did you leave Italy?
Calebiro: I was looking for an institute specialised in receptor signalling and live cell imaging. I was particularly attracted to the RVZ in Würzburg, where everything was in place to pursue my research goals. In addition, after several postdoctoral appointments, I felt the need for a turning point in my career. I accepted the offer of a five-year contract and the opportunity to build a small research team. I am still not sure what to do afterwards. It would be nice to return to Italy but this depends on my achievements and on future improvements in the Italian system.
What is the current situation in Italy?
Calebiro: Italy is a wealthy nation with a long tradition in science and several outstanding research institutes. However, there are both financial and structural problems that are undermining its international competitiveness. One problem is the lack of sufficient financial resources. Additional problems are the ways of allocating funding resources and the processes and outcomes of evaluations. While private agencies carefully assess how their money is spent, the public system is still lacking sufficient control.
What about universities?
Calebiro: The Italian university system is in urgent need of reforms. Careers at Italian universities are particularly slow. There are almost no programmes for promoting young scientists and there is almost no mobility. It is rather common to study and pursue a whole academic career at the same place. Open competitions for academic positions are few and often lack transparency, therefore, many young Italian scientists decide to go abroad and foreign scientists are not attracted to Italian universities. Both Italian researchers and politicians have acknowledged these issues. Many agree that only putting meritocracy, excellence and substantial financial investments into centre stage will have a major impact. But turning this into practice requires unpopular decisions and sufficient resources in times of economic constraints.
What is the impact of current reforms?
Calebiro: The Italian parliament has passed or is about to vote on a series of reforms that tackle some of the above issues. These reforms might timidly improve the transparency of open competition and introduce some forms of reward for productive universities. But they do not at all address the precarious situation of many young researchers or increase the financial resources.
What about younger Italian scientists?
Calebiro: After receiving their doctorate, Italians are often employed on temporary contracts for years, without social security. There are only a few open academic “researcher” positions, which are seldom filled by scientists below the age of 40. I am also not aware of programmes equivalent to the German Emmy-Noether Programme or the Max-Planck Young Investigator Groups. There have been a few calls for start-up grants with the idea of supporting young scientists on the cusp of independence. But, given the limited funds, only very few researchers benefited. Nevertheless, many young Italians are not discouraged. In spite of far-from-optimal conditions, Italian research is alive and quite productive, which makes hope for the future.
(Interview: Ralf Schreck)
Read more about career possibilities in Italy's life sciences in the current Lab Times issue 1-2010 (pp. 36-41).