Inability to comment: the requirement in the Fondef guidelines that concerns scientists and which Science should have rectified

A phrase included in the guidelines of one of the applied research competitions from the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) set off alarms among scientists in recent hours. The document, published this Thursday, listed among its grounds for ineligibility having issued an opinion on an ongoing competition, a provision whose placement in the text generated doubts about its possible consequences for researchers. The controversy arose from numeral 5.1.4, titled “Ineligibilities and Incompatibilities,” of the guidelines for the IDeA I+D 2027 competition, which belongs to the Fund for the Promotion of Scientific and Technological Development (Fondef). The section stated that those who were in certain situations could not “apply or participate in any capacity.” Among these were those who had “issued an opinion, by any means, on an ongoing bidding process whose award resolution is pending.” The problem was that this restriction, originally conceived to safeguard the impartiality of officials and people involved in the evaluation and awarding of public funds, appeared incorporated into the general ineligibilities of the applicants. A literal interpretation led to the thought that a researcher who publicly questioned the conditions of the competition would be prevented from participating in it. A kind of “gag law” for scientists. The concern reached the Ministry of Science, from which they clarified that it was a drafting error in the guidelines and that the prohibition on issuing opinions on the procedure was directed exclusively at those involved in the competition's decisions, not at the researchers presenting projects. The correction by ANID arrived during the morning of Friday. ANID clarified that after gathering the confusion generated by the interpretation of the competition guidelines, a correction was made to avoid misunderstandings. They explained that the questioned section derives from the obligations that the current Budget Law establishes for those participating in the bidding process, namely evaluators and ANID officials, in order to safeguard objectivity in the evaluation. “Therefore, the guidelines now differentiate these incompatibilities from those that apply to applicants, so that it is not interpreted as implying prejudice or bias toward those applying,” they noted. This was reflected in a resolution signed by the national director of ANID, Alejandra Pizarro. The agency modified the questioned numeral entirely, expressly separating the ineligibilities of the applicants from the duties of abstention of those who participate in the administration and evaluation of the competition. In the document, which La Tercera had access to, the institution acknowledges that the original wording allowed for an interpretation that could affect researchers at state universities. “That reading exceeds the scope of Article 27 of Law No. 21.796,” the resolution states, recalling that ineligibilities, by restricting rights, can only be established by law. The new text incorporates a specific section for applicants and another for public officials, evaluators, and members of the Technical Advisory Committee who intervene on behalf of ANID. Regarding the latter, it specifies that they must abstain from participating in decisions when there are conflicts of interest, links with bidding entities, or when they have issued opinions on the procedure while its award is pending. The modification expressly states that this rule “does not constitute an ineligibility to apply or to participate in applications.” Furthermore, the entity clarifies in its rectification that reports, evaluations, responses to inquiries, and other pronouncements made in the exercise of the competition's own functions do not constitute opinions for these purposes. For Flavio Salazar, former Minister of Science and researcher at the University of Chile and the Oncobiomed center, the clarification is positive, although he considers that the episode exposes problems that go beyond an administrative mistake. However, he warns that this type of situation fuels uncertainty in a sector that depends on stable rules to plan its research. “It is essential to act with extreme care and rigor in the elaboration of competition guidelines. In recent years, we have seen modifications and improvisations in various financing instruments, which has generated uncertainty and frustration in the scientific community. The rules must be clear, consistent, and known in a timely manner,” he maintains. In his view, the reaction to the provision also reflects a deterioration in the relationship between authorities and researchers. Salazar suggests that it is fundamental to recover spaces for dialogue, transparency, and participation in decisions related to science and technology. Cuts in benefits for doctoral students The controversy also occurs against a backdrop of budgetary restrictions that have also generated concern regarding the benefits available to doctoral students. Among the issues raised is the absence, in the offer of complementary benefits for operational expense financing—which are used to acquire reagents, hire services, or attend conferences—as well as the lack of cotutelles with foreign researchers that allow part of doctoral training to be developed in international laboratories. The Ministry of Science explained that these benefits have always been subject to budgetary availability, a condition contemplated in both the decree and the program guidelines. However, they confirmed that, due to the reduction in resources, only two complementary benefits will be provided this time: scholarship extension for doctoral thesis writing and the doctoral internship. Therefore, it is not formally a modification of the guidelines, but an effective decrease in the support available to scholarship holders. Although it corresponds to a different program from the competition in question, the situation adds pressure to the debate on scientific funding and the conditions under which researchers and students develop their projects.