For some time the Institute has been following the world of science in its various forms by producing and disseminating research studies and reports. In 2022 it launched an international program, the Aspen Initiative in Favor of Pure Science, the result of cooperation by the 14 Aspen Institutes around the world. The goal of the project is to assess the state of research and investment in the science sector. In this light, a global report providing a snapshot of scientific research in the 14 countries examined was produced. Three years on from that, the Institute has presented a revised version of the report that refers specifically to the Italian scenario: The state of scientific research in Italy (e-book in Italian).
The investigation into scientific research in Italy reveals a complex picture resulting from the intersection between institutional actors, the mosaic of funding sources and the sector’s position in the international framework. The approach taken is based on the role played by scientific research in Italy’s economic and social progress, with all the strengths and weaknesses of its system. The snapshot thus produced shows a country with great potential but some structural limitations. The reasoning followed is based on four key concepts: the size and scope of the system, research and development, funding, the evaluation of the research, and international relationships.
Dimensions and funding of R&D
The research system comprises a number of actors: the Ministry of Universities and Research (MUR), the universities, public research bodies (many of which are overseen by the Ministry), and businesses, to which can be added other public and private sector entities.
The actors on the R&D stage are different in nature, goals, purposes and activities, with a distinction being made between basic and applied research, or research for economically productive purposes. The indicators used show that the Italian system is in line with the other top ten countries in the world. However there are some critical elements, which notably include a low degree of integration between sectors, a very real and crucial challenge for the system, and the deficit in private R&D funding. While investment by Italian businesses has increased, a wide gap persists, taken on an annual basis, with respect to other European countries.
Self-funding of R&D by Italian businesses is essential, given the lack of external support such as venture or risk capital. The data also reveal that self-funding is low in the public sector, as is indeed the case in other big European countries. Funding from the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) could close the gap and open up some potential but poses the problem of the ongoing sustainability of any investment carried out.
Some change has been produced by fiscal incentives and tax credits for R&D. While this instrument is a robust growth factor, it too has some critical features that have posed sustainability problems. The data show, for example, that many small and medium-sized enterprises have used these incentives to undertake research projects which they have not, however, followed up using their own funds. The hoped-for multiplier effect has not therefore materialized.
Another source of research funding consists of European funds, which are important but not essential. Indeed, the European contribution is low and concentrated on major public and private operators. It is useful, therefore, in developing cutting-edge projects for our national “champions” but far less so for science as a whole.
The research data show that the MUR’s assessments of Italy’s research bodies and universities have had only a limited impact. Moreover, the major issue of university ranking, which is based on a somewhat questionable methodology, needs to be addressed. Assessments of the private sector are based on performance, in other words the ability to maintain high levels of productivity, competitiveness and profitability. To these measurements can be added assessments of patents, of which there are still few in terms of quality.
As for the size and role of Italy’s research sector, the production of scientific articles by universities and research bodies, and the filing of patents, the picture is consistent with the country’s potential. The critical issues concern quality, although none of the quality indicators can be viewed in absolute terms.
Many projects are supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in agreement with the MUR. In this case too, however, problems have emerged in terms of collaboration with the universities and research bodies of other countries. There are essentially three collaboration scenarios: with leading actors in certain R&D spheres; between actors with complementary capacities, on an equal footing; and with technologically and scientifically less advanced countries. Collaborative projects with some countries have revealed contradictions between scientific and economic-strategic objectives; this leaves questions of economic security and technological sovereignty unresolved.
Lastly, to coordinate the various components of R&D more effectively with a view to fostering public-private partnerships, innovation ecosystems and extended partnerships encompassing technological transfer should also be assessed.
These forms of collaboration could adopt the hub and spoke model that has, indeed, already been used. This consists, first, of a network management and development system in which connections are made when a public body identifies a topic of interest and entrusts its management to an implementing party, the “hub”. In a second, subsequent phase, public procurement tenders are published to fund specific studies conducted by executive parties, the “spokes”.
Values and trends in science. New pathways.
The snapshot of Italy’s research system must also include what science represents for society, starting with very precise values and trends.
To start with values, these include curiosity, needs, instruments, strength, rigor, the utility of doubt, and confidence in open debate by people who cultivate science from a perspective of collective enterprise. The ineluctable values of scientists are freedom of thought (guided by curiosity) and responsibility vis-à-vis that which is real, in other words facts. The sense of mystery, of that which we do not know, must also be respected. Science, along with its values, can be fragile because it is often inconvenient – it can run counter to common sense and confront us with that which we do not want to believe. And so it is attacked and needs to be defended.
Science should also be defended from the pre-scientific technology that dominates our era. This naturally refers to artificial intelligence, a technology that precedes a scientific theory that we do not yet understand and whose laws we must discover and principles we must identify. But AI is used for speed and convenience and to obtain scientific results, so it is a tool. The duty of science today is to understand this technology and not use it solely as a means to an end.
In the dialogue between scientists and the institutions the creation of an AI center modeled on, for example, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), could be considered. Here, AI could be a subject for study and not just a technological tool. This option is predicated on the interests of economic growth but also of asserting a model of humanity to transmit to future generations, taking an approach based on values.
Turning to the trends generated by science, reference must be made to the economic growth induced by scientific progress and thus to the relationship between science and growth – a relationship that has grown and developed over the centuries. Initially viewed as an externality, a factor exogenous to the system, the concept of science is now taken to mean that innovation is the economic application of scientific discoveries. This gives entrepreneurs a central role in translating scientific research into progress. It is now recognized that the system evolves and so there is no one optimization model, no specific amount of research to be funded.
Today, economic freedom, coupled with scientific research and growth, is a driver of development, albeit with some problem areas. When the purpose of scientific research is focused on a product, economic growth is generated but there is no freedom of research. Conversely, where freedom of research exists alongside economic freedom and where savings can be used to finance research, we see not just economic and scientific, but also social, progress. Italy is not very well placed in this scenario, given the lack of adequate funding for this end. In other words, the financial system does not convert sufficient savings into research.
A number of ideas have emerged that point to a possible way forward. As is often noted in the debate on these issues, it is vital to invest in young people’s freedom to make discoveries, as it is from discoveries that revolutions are born, going well beyond AI.
However, the crucial problem for scientific research is still linked to performance, funding and the limitations posed by public finances. Pure research seems tied to applied research and to the measurement of what is produced, because businesses, whose goal is profit, naturally tend to fund projects that will bring them results. The problem is probably a cultural one. It can be resolved through dialogue and by leaving the system to continually evolve while strengthening public-private collaboration.