Reacción a "Reactions to the adoption of the new Science Law "

Congress has finally approved the new Science Law, which will replace the previous one, from 2011, after rejecting the amendment introduced in the Senate that introduced an exception to the indefinite contract that marks the labour reform for researchers hired under competitive European projects. I think it was important that all researchers hired under scientific projects, without distinction and regardless of the source of funding, should be eligible for the benefits of the labour reform. 

This will require institutions, universities and research centres to adapt administrative procedures to manage the start and termination of these contracts, with their corresponding updated indemnities, like other workers. The ERC parliamentary group has announced an agreement it has reached with the government, through the Ministry of Science and Innovation, to increase the indirect costs of projects funded by the State Research Agency from 21% to 25%, in order to be able to deal with these cost overruns in compensation.  

Pending the details of this agreement, which also proposes to study a new funding system for science, this seems to be good news, as long as this increase in indirect costs is not deducted from the total project and the total amount of the project is increased in the same way. The new Science Law incorporates a number of improvements that will undoubtedly improve the national science system, particularly with regard to all research personnel, from management, technicians, researchers in training, young researchers, to more established researchers. There is a plan to progressively increase funding to 1.25% of GDP, which will certainly be insufficient, but it is welcome. The rights of researchers from different backgrounds will be equalised. There is a commitment to reduce administrative bureaucracy. The scientific career of researchers is restructured with a pre-doctoral contract of four years, followed by a post-doctoral contract of three to six years, which would end with the indefinite hiring of these researchers, as long as there is still funding for the laboratory line (not for the specific project), which could also end with dismissal for objective reasons, with compensation updated to 20 days per year worked.  

The Spanish Research Ethics Committee is also reconverted to incorporate the task of acting as a National Commission of Scientific Integrity, a body that was previously lacking in Spain. In short, we have the third Science Law of democracy, after the two previous science laws of 1986 and 2011, which advances the labour rights of research personnel and other improvements that are all welcome. Congratulations to all those who have worked for several years to achieve this parliamentary consensus that is the new Science Law. 

However, let us not forget that the Spanish scientific system still needs a substantial injection of structural money into the basic research projects of the National Plan, the basis of our system, the one we have to take special care of, the one that allows the middle class of science to develop projects, the one that can give in some cases the flashes of excellence and impact we are always looking for, forgetting that these only arise when there are enough well-funded projects underway that answer a multitude of questions. The answers to these questions can generate unexpected benefits over the years.  

A certain Spanish researcher, an expert in microbiology, discovered 17 years ago how bacteria defend themselves against the viruses that infect them. Seven years later, this basic research served as the basis for two researchers to propose a new tool for editing the genes of any living being, and these two researchers ended up receiving the Nobel Prize in 2020 for it. The entire biomedical scientific community has come to universally use these new gene-editing methods. And it all started with a basic research project.