Presidential Chairs in Chile

Abstract

Letters from: [ Pedro Labarca and Ramon Latorre ][1] [ Alan Neely ][1] We fully agree with Ivan N. Saavedra (Letters, [7 Feb., p. 738][2]) that there is a need to foster competence of Chilean science in the international arena. However, his criticism of the recently created program of Presidential Chairs in Science is unfair. The competition for these Chairs is open to all senior scientists, and the Chairs have been assigned by an International Scientific Committee that has had among its members three Nobel laureates in science. The International Scientific Committee has decided with full independence to whom to assign the Presidential Chairs. By good fortune, one can evaluate the procedures of the committee that has assigned these Chairs. The article cited by Saavedra (“Science in Latin America,” 10 Feb., 1995, p. 819) highlighted two scientific fields in Chile—astronomy and biophysics. Biophysics was considered “one of the brightest areas of Chilean science.” The International Scientific Committee has done nothing but stimulate strong research teams in these two areas. Six Chairs have been granted to biophysics and related fields, and four Chairs in Physics are in the hands of astronomers. Last year, the Howard Hughes Medical Research Institute opened an international competition for Latin America and Canada in the Biomedical Sciences. Four fellowships have been awarded to Chilean scientists. Two were given to scientists holding Presidential Chairs, and the other two went to more junior scientists. In addition, in the last competition of the Chilean National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development, the research project of a scientist holding a Presidential Chair in Science obtained the highest score. # {#article-title-2} I cannot disagree more with Saavedra's suggestion that the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research is the only national agency that should distribute funds for science in Chile. On the contrary, the example of the United States suggests that having multiple funding agencies is an advantage. From the receiving end, what could be better than having more than one agency to apply to for funds? With diversity there is competition, and competition ensures that funding agencies with the best track record fare better when the nation's budget is discussed. Saavedra goes so far as to say the Presidential Chair program is “fail[ing] to reach its objective.” No serious scientific institution would return a verdict on a program that is less than 2 years old. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.275.5307.1721b [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.275.5301.737