A couple of centuries ago, and encouraged by the winds of change that were sweeping the country, William Maclure settled in Spain. Near Alicante, the Scottish geologist tried to found an agricultural school dedicated to research, teaching and social inclusion. The adventure was short-lived. With the end of the liberal triennium and the return of absolutism, Maclure returned to the United States, where he was president of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, to undertake new philanthropic projects. Among others, he contributed to the creation of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the largest scientific and cultural institutions in the world.
Many stories of Spanish science seem to die, like this one, in the alley of melancholy. And when returning to them, a settled belief always emerges, the poor scientific culture of the citizenry, and an implacable judgment, the low commitment of private patronage to research. But also a reformist desire: to have a more favorable regulatory framework for patronage in R&D.
There have been several attempts to reform the Law 49/2002 which, for two decades, has regulated tax incentives for patronage. The latest bill has just been frustrated by the electoral advance, after its first approval in the Congress of Deputies. This is bad news because, as this newspaper pointed out in an editorial, it brought interesting incentives for science: it increased the deduction percentages in Corporate and Personal Income Tax ―with special treatment for collaboration between companies and the public research system― ; it incorporated the research centers of the Autonomous Communities as patronage beneficiaries ―increasing the room for maneuver to design territorial support policies―; and authorized public utility entities to create unavailable funds ―known internationally as endorsements ―, how relevant they are in the leading countries in science. That the Smithsonian was founded with the impetus of a private endowment, but with early support from the US government, reminds us that private patronage flourishes best when complemented by public engagement.
The question is: would the new Law have had the desired impact or should we abandon all hope due to our secular lack of scientific culture and private commitment? In my opinion, in that implacable judgment there is enough of prejudice. A prejudice weighs us down.
For a start, Comparative studies with other European countries indicate that Spanish citizens do not give less importance to science, nor do they have a worse understanding of its key concepts. On the contrary, we are a techno-optimistic country that values its science, medicine and engineering professionals. This is endorsed by the biennial surveys of social perception of science and technology prepared by the FECYT, attached to the Ministry of Science and Innovation. It is tempting to think that the results would be worse if we focused on our political and economic elites, comparing them with their peers in other countries. Indirect indications such as the low presence of PhDs in companies, less than a third than in France and Germany, or the scant activity of evaluation in the public sector ―not to mention the policies informed by the evidence, science for policy in European jargon―, point out that Spain is a country with pending debts with knowledge. We don’t have studies to back it up, but it’s a good guess.
In relation to private commitment, we can affirm that scientific patronage is low in our country. But we say it focusing on people ―individual contributions barely account for 0.1% of GDP, according to data from the Spanish Association of Foundations― or because we look in the mirror of Germany and the United Kingdom and regret not having more great players in this field. In other words, we would like to have more foundations such as “La Caixa”, BBVA, the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) or Ramón Areces, which alone mobilize tens of millions of euros every year in support of research. But it is unfair to say that R&D is out of the focus of Spanish patronage: education and science remain as the second area of activity of Spanish foundations.
What we need to ask ourselves is whether we can mobilize more donors, whether regulatory reform would help us achieve this, and whether the scientific establishment could do more. I think so, because not everything is a problem of culture: organization and incentives are just as important. Incentives such as those proposed by the bill, but also a better organization of efforts. In two ways.
On the side of donors, we need intervention models with a greater impact: that explore complementary spaces to those covered by the public R+D+i policy and that, wherever possible, mobilize individual patronage. The commitment of the La Caixa Foundation to articulate a large immunology research center or the entrance of the scientific foundation AECC in the biomedical startup financing ―which connects with the concept of venturephilanthropyThese are two good examples. So is the AECC’s ability to channel a large volume of individual donations towards research. Something that seems inherent to its model and to the emotional bond of its partners in the fight against cancer ―scientific patronage includes biomedical research on the one hand and everything else on the other―, but it is also the result of a strong managerial commitment that can inspire other entities.
On the system side there are also pending duties. All research centers declare that they are open to patronage, but few have made a singular effort to professionalize this function and design creative models of interaction with donors. few have come to incorporate philanthropic foundations into its board of trusteesas ICFO has done, or to design a association of friends such as the CNIO, to cite two examples.
Promoting scientific patronage requires progress on several fronts. It is necessary to break that melancholic loop of the past ―more a distorted perception of our country than a verified reality―, giving visibility to success stories and finding fresh formats to connect potential donors with the scientific system. And yes, once and for all reform the Patronage Law in the next legislature. Because we need new Maclures, but also better conditions for them to develop their commitment.
Diego Moñux Chercoles is a managing partner of the Science & Innovation Link Office and a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council
You can follow SUBJECT in Facebook, Twitter and instagramor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
#William #Maclure #melancholic #loop #scientific #patronage #Spain