A European Researchers' Charter: A Paradigm Leap?

Science Next Wave Magazine European Gateway

American Association for the Advancement of Science


A Researchers' Charter: A Paradigm Leap?


Anne Forde
EUROPE
22 APRIL 2005

On a hot summer's day in Rome in July 1991, Canadian anthropologist
David Aliaga sat at the Italian Ministry of Universities and
Technological Research, nervously waiting for his Ph.D. oral
examination to begin. The examiners never showed.

Nearly 13 years later, Aliaga still hasn't been awarded his Ph.D.,
and despite his unrelenting campaign, he has not been given the
right to an appeal. During his doctoral studies in Italy he received
little supervision, only 8 months of funding, and an examination
process that in his eyes was completely unfair. Aliaga has been
in professional limbo ever since.

His supervisor's reaction: "I'm sorry, David."


Worldwide, working conditions for researchers—from doctoral to
faculty members—vary greatly, and can at best be described as
arbitrary. In Europe, the situation is complicated by heterogeneous
educational and funding systems and the lack of a regulatory framework
that researchers can depend on as they build their careers.

A strong signal on researchers' rights


In an effort to address this issue, last month the European Commission
(EC) published a recommendation, "The European Charter for Researchers
and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers". Although the
document has no legislative power, many stakeholders perceive the
document as a strong signal to member states that they need to pull up
their socks when it comes to researchers' rights. The EC staff, along
with stakeholders ranging from researcher's representatives, to university
rectors, to trade unions, hammered out the content of the Charter and Code
over a discussion period of 9 months. As the EC's Sigi Gruber explains,
prior to the formulation of this document "the [professional] status of
researchers was not defined."

Even though the document has no legislative power, it has been welcomed
by most interest groups as a necessary and positive change. Yet the burning
question remains: Will employers take its recommendations seriously?
The Charter and Code comes 18 months after The EC issued a communication
entitled, "Researchers in the European Research Area: One Profession,
Multiple Careers", the first serious indication that the EC was finally
addressing the professional needs of the researchers themselves. The
central goal of the policy- makers was to meet the European Council's
goal of spending 3% of the Gross Domestic Product on R&D and to make
the continent the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy
in the world by 2010."

The EC estimates to reach this target, an additional 700,000 researchers
will be needed. A strategy to both retain researchers in Europe and make
the profession an attractive one to new recruits was on the agenda.
"One Profession, Multiple Careers" called for the development of a
Researchers' Charter "as a framework for the career management for
human resources in R&D." Gruber explains, "There was a fragmented
position [across Europe] and no reference point." A consensus was
clearly needed.

The Researchers' Charter defines itself as a "is a set of general
principles and requirements which specifies the roles, responsibilities,
and entitlements of researchers as well as of employers and/or funders
of researchers." It applies to researchers throughout their careers
and equally to research activities in industry and academia.

Researchers, says the Code and Charter, have obligations related
to research freedom, professional responsibility, accountability,
healthy research practices, and relationships with supervisors.
On the employers' side, a wide range of good practices are discussed,
including both individual issues like working conditions, stability
and permanence of employment, career development, funding, salaries,
and collective issues like gender balance.

It is hard to estimate accurately the extent of ill treatment of
researchers in Europe, but Gruber claims that, based on consultations
with organisations representing researchers, such as the Marie Curie
Fellowship Association (MCFA) and Eurodoc, it isn't rare for researchers
to encounter difficulties.

In an effort to get representative viewpoints, the Charter and Code
were drafted by a consortium of stakeholders including the MCFA, Eurodoc,
Euroscience, the European University Association, the European Industrial
Research Management Association and the trade unions EUROCADRE and the
European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE), among others.

According to Gruber, a key point the Researchers' Charter is making is
that "if you want to be treated as a professional, you have to act
professionally." Euroscience president Jean-Patrick Connerade, who was
also involved in the round table discussions, agrees: "It is a two-way
process."

Implementation of the Charter and Code will be a challenge, since they
are "policy instruments," which member states may choose to adopt--or
not--on
a voluntary basis. Alexandre Quintanilha, Director of the Institute for
Molecular and Cell biology in Porto, Portugal--and a member of this
stakeholders group--believes that for the Charter and Code to be effective,
"we have to develop pressure [on all levels], but with the cultural
differences there is no single recipe."

Some proponents of the Charter and Code think it may be endorsed by
institutions, which would provide some incentives for other organisations
to adopt it. Connerade imagines it could be "similar to the U.S., when
organisations have an equal opportunities endorsement [on their official
documentation] and [thus] may give a better deal to employees."
Quintanilha agrees, and personally he hopes that institutes that support
the Charter and Code might get "some brownie points for it."

A more daring approach would be to tighten the funding purse strings
through the Charter and Code. Gruber explains that the Commission
intends to propose (to member states) its endorsement as a criterion
for securing funding for the 7th Framework Programme.

Aliaga--along, probably, with many other researchers who have had
experienced the kinds of difficulties the Charter and Code aim to
address--welcomes their arrival. "I'm very pleased," says Aliaga.
"I firmly believe it is a good step forward, meeting the objective
of implementing some sorely needed standards across universities
and academia in the EU."

Italian scientist Andrea Raccanelli, who has taken his former employer,
the Max Planck Society (MPG) to court claiming discrimination on the
basis of nationality, says "from a personal perspective, I'm glad to
see it." However, he admits he is "not that optimistic" that all
institutions will adhere to it. He feels that only drastic measures
that cause "pain for institutions"--like taking legal action--are
likely to be effective. Racanelli's legal case argues that most
non-German MPG doctoral candidates are offered only scholarships,
in contrast to German nationals who (the lawsuit claims) are offered
full employment contracts –which include social security and pension
rights—much more often.

Adverse impact on funding?

In practice, some the Charter's stipulations may cause headaches for
funders of science and for employers. Gerlind Wallon, the manager
for the European Molecular Biology Organization's (EMBO) Young
Investigator and Women in Science programmes says EMBO is in favour
of the Charter and Code and, in fact, already practises many of its
recommendations. However, some of the Charter's stipulations would
be very expensive. Paying full social security benefits, for example,
could add up to a third on the funding price tag. Without a substantial
increase in the budget, the penalty could amount to a drop in the number
of researchers. For example, last year the U.K.'s Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Educations issued a Code of Practice for Postgraduate Degree
Programmes. U.K. institutions that fail to implement these standards--after
a warning period--could face funding restrictions by the Higher Education
Funding Council for England.

Across the Atlantic, Alyson Reed of U.S. National Postdoctoral Association
(NPA) says her association is interested in the European Charter and Code
and will monitor its developments. The NPA, she explains, along with other
stakeholders, currently are "considering the benefits of creating a document
on professional standards for postdoctoral education." The need, she
believes,
is there. "The NPA spent a lot of time trying to encourage National
Institutes
of Health (NIH) to set minimum standards" for postdoctoral training that
would apply to institutions and PIs, but so far NIH has made no commitments.
In the meantime, the NPA has drafted a set of recommendations for
" Postdoctoral Policies and Practices" .

All interested parties now have the task of raising the profile of the
Charter and Code. "We need to take the document to various organisations,"
says Connerade, to raise awareness and "to attract people into the
profession.
" Yet for some of the people involved---like MCFA's Dagmar Meyer--adopting
the charter's recommendations should be almost automatic." Many of the
issues that are raised in the recommendation," says Meyer, "are accepted
as self-evident in other professions." She believes that the part of the
problem is a need for greater societal appreciation of researchers. "If
the general image of researchers' profession improves, there will be more
pressure on institutions to apply the principles [spelled] out in the
recommendation".

For David Aliaga, regrettably, the damage is already done. This year he
halted his campaign for an appeal. Although, he says, "my life was
devastated," he takes a stoic attitude. "You can find corruption
wherever you go, [but] the only way to stop it is to have a clear mandate.
" It remains to be seen if the Charter and Code can deliver. If
researchers are given a fair professional environment, says Quintanilha,
it will create "a better and more creative atmosphere for scientists."

http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/04/21/6



PS: My appeals to the Italian Minister of Universities have been
supported among others by the US linguist and human rights activist
Noam Chomsky, Chilean playwright and activist Ariel Dorfman, former
Italian Clean Hands magistrate Antonio Di Pietro, the president of the
Canadian Anthropology Society Margaret Rodman, the president of the
American Anthropology Society James Peacock, the president of the
Canadian Association of University Teachers William Graham, the
secretary general of the American Association of University Professors
Mary Burgan, the secretary general of the National Union of Students in
Europe Alex Bols, the president of the National Association of Graduate-
Professional Students Bryan Hannegan, the chair of the Canadian Graduate
Council Rubina Ramji, the president of the Postgraduates International
Network Enrico Piazza, the Italian Doctorate Association (ADI),
Canadian MP Diane Ablonczy – F.B.Henry Calgary's Catholic Bishop.
Interested readers may review many of those letters as well as those
from many Italian academics at Libro Aperto a site hosted by
Prof. Andrea Paglietti at the University of Cagliari in Italy:
http://www.unica.it/libroaperto/Estero.htm or see an interview, an
appeal and various letters supporting my case hosted by
JUSTResponse a non-commercial human rights online journal at:

http://www.justresponse.net/doctoral_torture.html
http://www.justresponse.net/Rossetti.html
http://www.justresponse.net/Rinaldi.html
http://www.justresponse.net/Paglietti.html
http://www.justresponse.net/Scott_Raymond.html