Big-bang for big bucks
The Academy of Finland and other agencies
which support science and technology
in Finland rightly place great
emphasis on internationalization. What
does this mean, why is it crucial, and are current
policies sufficient to promote it?
There is general agreement that we can only achieve
the level of excellence and impact in discovery
that guarantees future prosperity, if our scientists
are fully engaged with the top echelon of expertise
worldwide. In a global marketplace, a small
country with few natural resources and high costs
imposed by geography can only stay ahead by
promoting and selling its expertise. Finland needs
to punch above its weight, by creating a climate
that not only promotes local talent, but sucks in
the most creative thinkers from other countries,
and gives them the tools to achieve great things
here. Politicians in Finland are well used to articulating
this concept. The question is, how effective
are they (or us) when it comes to putting it into
practice?
Internationalization is partly nurtured simply
by ’networking’. Scientists based in Finland
can tap into global expertise if they are part of
regional (Nordic, European) or intercontinental
research consortia that share analytical tools, data
and ideas, and apply collective thinking to major
questions.
Nationally we make reasonably good use of programmes
and funding instruments that facilitate
networking. Reciprocal training visits and collaborations
are strongly encouraged, and are considered
a badge of excellence by funding bodies. We also succeed tolerably well in accessing instruments
that support inward and outward mobility,
such as the EU’s Marie Curie Fellowships scheme,
or the ERC starting grants.
But how good are we at recruiting the best foreign
scientists to Finland and keeping them here?
To be fully effective, recruitment must operate
at different levels, from undergraduate through
to institute director. We face several handicaps
in drawing in the most brilliant young students
from abroad. The language issue remains a major
problem. Another is the fact that our degree programmes,
hitherto free to all, are still offered very
cheaply. Paradoxically, this deters the best applicants,
creating a perception that we provide a mediocre
product for mediocre students, at a derisory
price.
Higher up the ladder, we still provide almost
no practical support for foreign experts to relocate.
There is a bureaucratic minefield to negotiate,
with an unwelcoming tax environment, salaries
way below international levels considering the
high cost of living and only tentative steps towards
a tenure-track model. Those with spouses and
families are often deterred even before applying
for a position. The FiDiPro scheme looks good on
paper, but even here, the financial arrangements
are unattractive to anyone coming from the senior
levels of academia in USA or Japan. And most academics
in Finland still waste a lot of time applying
for rather modest short-term support.
Overall, these drawbacks outweigh all the positives
about Finland: the safe environment, high quality
public healthcare and basic education, and serene
landscapes.
Nudging things in the right direction will have
little impact in redressing the balance, especially
since many countries are already following this
course. Instead we need a ‘big bang’ approach, offering
substantially more than any of them. Which
university, foundation or political party is going to
be bold enough to propose this and actually carry
it out?
Howard Jacobs
Academy Professor,
The professor of the year 2009, selected by the finnish union of university professors (fuup)
- Painetussa lehdessä sivu 14
|