FCT OBLIGED
TO GO TO COURT
The
controversy on the assessment of research units by the
Foundation for Science
and Technology (FCT), which has dragged on for months in the
scientific
community, will now move to the courts. There are at least
two public research
university centers which presented legal challenges of the
process, invoking
various illegalities committed by that institution, such as
rule changes with
the ongoing process and other "blunders", which lead them to
seek the
annulment of all evaluation
These
two lawsuits against the FCT were presented at the end of
last month, moved by
the Mathematical Centre (CMAT), University of Minho (UM), at
the Administrative
and Fiscal Court (TAF) of Braga, and the Chemistry Center of
the Tras-os-Montes
and Alto Douro University oUTAD), at the TAF Mirandela. In
addition to the
temporal coincidence, the two complaints share the same type
of arguments
against the assessment for the FCT by the European Science
Foundation (ESF),
which called into question the legality of some of the
decisions.
In
the two known processes there are three problems that are
pointed out. Among
these, there is the indication that appeared in the contract
signed between the
FCT, subordinate body to the Ministry of Education and
Science (MEC), and the
ESF that only 50% of the evaluated units would proceed to
the second phase of
the evaluation, a fact which could only be learned about
three weeks after the
announcement of the results of that stage (where 144 centers
have ended up its
way while 178 passed
to the second
stage). The action of the CMAT is considered that this
reading "results
clear from the contract with the ESF" and that a constraint
of this type
had never been publicized by FCT. "Thus, it breached the
principle of
transparency," argues the same document.
Then they
point a change introduced in the evaluation process already
under way. In the
action moved by the University of Minho research
center it
is considered a "serious breach" changing the number of
evaluators in
each panel. CMAT argues that on April
29, 2014, with an "additional information", FCT went on to
mention
that the assessment would be made by three rapporteurs, when
the first
evaluation of the guide, published on July 31, 2013, it had
been announced that
there would be five evaluators for each center. This change
"changes the
evaluation procedure during the procedure, in clear
violation of the principles
of trust and transparency", it is argued in the action which
was received
at TAF Braga.
On
the other hand, the list of expert panels for the evaluation
was proposed by the
FCT on April 4, 2014 – and approved by the Secretary of
State of Science Leonor
Parreira four days
later - at a time
when the deadline for research units submit their
application to the evaluation
processes was passed long ago. This time lag with the
appointment of experts
made at a later date than the applications also hurt,
according to the action
delivered in court by CMAT, the principles of neutrality and
impartiality and
is na additional cause for
the annulment
of the whole competition. "To date, and completely beyond
the legal term,
we remain without any response from FCT," explains to PUBLICO Ana Jacinta
Soares, CMAT coordinator,
who subscribes to legal action.
In
the first phase of the evaluation, released at the end of
June last year, CMAT
has been classified as "Fair”
and
therefore was not entitled to any funding. The first
complaint of the research
unit of the University
of Minho
allowed na
upgrade to "Good", but that was not enough for the CMAT,
which
considers being excluded some of its arguments "unfairly and
illegally"
In the
document of the case
the various steps
of the evaluation process of the research units, since the
opening of the
competition in July 2013, are recalled, calling attention to
the main defects
that were publicly denounced by the several scientific
laboratories over the
past few months, as the inadequacy of evaluators panels -
according to the
legal action of CMAT, from the 11 elements of the Panel of
Exact Sciences, only
three are actually mathematicians - or the fact that
bibliometric indicators
were not properly considered
The main
reason for opposition by the UTAD Chemical
Center
is precisely the evaluation criteria of scientific
productivity. This unit had
note 3 in
this item, despite being best rated in the various
parameters analyzed by
bibliometric study published by the FCT at the beginning of
the evaluation
process than the
centers that have ended
up having note 4.
This
research unit went from a “Very Good” rating in the previous
review of 2007 to
"Good" in the new process. Therefore, they will receive an
annual
funding of only 10,000 euros, which will have to be divided
among the 27
researchers who make it up.
Also
for this center there were "gross errors" in the evaluation
of
research centers that should determine its annulment. "All
this was so
incredible that the FCT has no choice but to start again",
says the
director of that scientific unit, Paulo Coelho.
These
are the only two judicial processes on the assessment of the
research units
that PUBLIC learned about. FCT did not disclose whether
there are others.
Moreover, on this subject there was a single reaction from
that public entity,
through its office of communications: "The FCT does not
comment on legal
processes, whether ongoing or in the perspective that they
will come into
being."
Samuel Silva Público 24/3/2015
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário