UMF Iași, gazda celei de a X-a ediții a Congresului Româno-Iordanian de Medicină și Farmacie

În perioada 10-17 septembrie 2019 se desfășoară la Iași cea de a X-a ediție a Congresului Româno-Iordanian de Medicină și Farmacie (CORIMF). Evenimentul are loc anual și alternativ – atât în România, în centrele universitare de tradiție unde au absolvit specialiști iordanieni, cât și în Regatul Hașemit al Iordaniei.
Ediția din acest an, organizată de UMF Iași, în parteneriat cu Asociația medicilor iordanieni absolvenți în România, va reuni 400 de participanți din ambele țări.
Deschiderea oficială a Congresului are loc joi, 12 septembrie, la ora 11.00, în Aula „George Emil Palade” a UMF Iași.
„Evenimentul își propune să consolideze relațiile bilaterale dintre România și Regatul Hașemit al Iordaniei prin intermediul rețelei de cooperare creată în domeniul medical și prin contribuția unor specialiști de referință”, a declarat prof. univ. Dr. Viorel Scripcariu, rectorul UMF Iași și președintele Congresului.
Programul științific, alcătuit din 78 de prezentări orale și postere, atinge o varietate de teme, atât din domeniul medicinei, cât și din cel al științelor farmaceutice.
Iașul este pentru a doua oară gazda acestei manifestări de tradiție: în 2013, la UMF Iași a avut loc cea de a IV-a ediție, precedată de Zilele Româno-Iordaniene. Cu această ocazie, patroana spirituală a manifestării, Alteța Sa Prinţesa Muna Al Hussein, mama Regelui Abdullah al II-lea al Iordaniei, a primit titul de Doctor Honoris Causa din partea Senatului UMF Iași.
Site-ul evenimentului:

Publicație: Ziarul de Iași

International students will be able to stay in UK for two years after graduation, Boris Johnson says

‘It demonstrates our global outlook and will ensure that we continue to attract the best and brightest,’ home secretary says
International students will be able to stay in the UK for two years after graduating, to find work, under new proposals announced by the prime minister.
Boris Johnson said the changes, due to come into effect for those starting courses next year, would help those studying in Britain to begin their careers in the UK.
International students who have successfully completed a course in any subject at an institution with a track record in upholding immigration checks will be able to benefit from the measures.
They will apply to students who start courses in 2020/21 at undergraduate level or above.
The announcement coincides with the launch of the world’s largest genetics project, the £200m whole genome sequencing project in the UK Biobank, which aims to transform genetic research.
Mr Johnson said: „Britain has a proud history of putting itself at the heart of international collaboration and discovery. Over 60 years ago, we saw the discovery of DNA in Cambridge by a team of international researchers and today we are going even further. Now we are bringing together experts from around the globe to work in the UK on the world’s largest genetics research project, set to help us better treat life-threatening illnesses and ultimately save lives.
„Breakthroughs of this kind wouldn’t be possible without being open to the brightest and the best from across the globe to study and work in the UK. That’s why we’re unveiling a new route for international students to unlock their potential and start their careers in the UK.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel added: „The new Graduate Route will mean talented international students, whether in science and maths or technology and engineering, can study in the UK and then gain valuable work experience as they go on to build successful careers. It demonstrates our global outlook and will ensure that we continue to attract the best and brightest.”
Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, said the announcement was „very positive news”.
He said: „Evidence shows that international students bring significant positive social outcomes to the UK as well as £26 billion in economic contributions, but for too long the lack of post-study work opportunities in the UK has put us at a competitive disadvantage in attracting those students. The introduction of a two-year post-study work visa is something Universities UK has long campaigned for and we strongly welcome this policy change, which will put us back where we belong as a first choice study destination.
„Not only will a wide range of employers now have access to talented graduates from around the world, these students hold lifelong links.”
However Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said it was an „unwise” and „retrograde” step which would „likely lead to foreign graduates staying on to stack shelves, as happened before”.
„Our universities are attracting a record number of overseas students so there is no need to devalue a study visa by turning it into a backdoor route for working here.”
Publicație: The Independent

Nobelist: toughest, not most talented, stay in academia

Brian Schmidt says academia is losing brightest researchers because they cannot endure ‘intolerable’ job precarity throughout their thirties
Academics who succeed are “not necessarily the most talented”, but those most able to withstand universities’ “intolerable job structure”, a Nobel laureate has said.
Speaking at Times Higher Education’s World Academic Summit, Brian Schmidt, vice-chancellor of the Australian National University and winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011, said outstanding early career researchers were too often forced to leave academia by “intolerable” demands on their career and personal life, rather than the fact they lacked the ability to do the job.
Professor Schmidt, an Australian-born astrophysicist who was educated in the US before returning to his homeland in 2015 to lead the Canberra-based institution, told a panel of senior university leaders that it was time to “create an academic structure that fits the lives of people and does not require them to bounce around the world three or four times on a short-term contract”.
“The people who survive that are not necessarily the most talented people – they are the people who have the willingness to put up with what is, quite frankly, an intolerable job structure,” Professor Schmidt told the audience at the summit, held at ETH Zurich with the theme ‘How Talent Thrives’.
Professor Schmidt said it was unrealistic to ask researchers to accept so much uncertainty in their early careers, with many only achieving a level of job security in their early 40s.
“We cannot expect people to wait to 42 to begin their career when, I’m afraid, in my career, we’ve all done our best work before the age of 40,” said Professor Schmidt.
He explained the career progression model in academia was obsolete and had “evolved out [of] the 1960s and 1970s when [the university sector] was growing and everyone had opportunities”.
However, very few PhD students or even postdocs would now secure a permanent academic post, even if they attended a world-class university, Professor Schmidt argued.
“Even from the very esteemed universities on this panel [at the summit], only 1 in 10 [early career researchers] are going to end up in an academic position and yet our professoriate make it clear that you are a failure if you are not one of the one in 10,” he said, adding: “That needs to stop”.
Professor Schmidt said that universities should instead be more honest about researchers’ long-term career prospects and stress that leaving academia did not constitute failure if staff could secure good employment that used their research skills.
“I am trying to come to pact where the deal is…give people a three- to five-year start early on…but then it is, sort of, up or out,” said Professor Schmidt who stressed that “out is not bad, out is great, but [also] have the [opportunity] for people to come in later in life”.

Publicație: The Times

How to survive in the era of academic overproduction

Historic prompts on how to keep overbearing expectations at arm’s length should be taken up by modern academics, says Michael Marinetto
In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx and Engels claimed that capitalism has got itself into an unlikely fix. It was in the midst of “an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of overproduction”. Nearly two centuries on, the affliction has spread all the way from the factory floor to the ivory tower.
Moreover, just like in the industrial economy of the mid-19th century, the epidemic of academic overproduction has generated what economists call externalities. Bad shit, in other words.
The most serious externality relates to the internal life of the academic. The recent publication by the UK’s Higher Education Policy Institute of Liz Morrish’s report on the modern university as an “anxiety machine” uncovered an epidemic of poor mental health among academics, driven by “the perpetual requirement to produce more, and faster”.
This is borne out by the figures. In 2018, 3 million English language academic articles were published in 33,100 journals. That compares with only 1.4 million articles in 23,000 scholarly journals as recently as 2010. Between 2006 and 2016, total world academic publication output grew at an average annual compound rate of 3.9 per cent.
Amid such a culture, the pressing issue is how to advance professionally while maintaining a sense of well-being that allows us to publish and flourish.
We could sense hope for a countercultural moment or even an “Academic Spring” in the numerous critical-professors-turned-superstars that exist in modern academia, who have apparent freedom to produce what they want, when they want. Yet, in reality, even they are dependent on producing for the sake of producing. Indeed, they helped create and sustain the overproduction epidemic in the first place.
For a better guide, we should look not to the successful insider but to the independent-minded outsider: to those who are in but not of academe. It is true that such outsiders are more likely to be found in the past, but they did not necessarily operate under a kinder, gentler university system.
Take the sociologist C. Wright Mills, the mid-20th-century “closet Marxist” from Waco, Texas. Mills was an intellectual outcast in the urbane Ivy League setting of Columbia University, refusing to be bound by academic or professional dogma. He preferred to exist, as he put it, “outside the whale”: a kind of spiritual condition in which he would take orders only from himself.
Mills’ approach has three aspects worth emulating. First, professional focus should be on mastering the skills of scholarship – not on impressing peers by outperforming or outproducing rivals. As the renowned sociologist Michael Billig argues, the mass publication culture of academia is driven by the psychological terror “that rivals are publishing more than us”: status anxiety, in other words.
Second, we should value depth of thinking and scholarship over instrumental performance measures – potentially entailing a slower than average rate of productivity. And, third, we should remember, as University of Tulsa media studies professor Joli Jensen reminds us, that academic writing requires the methodical practice of relevant skills, not the pursuit of rewards or goals. As she argues in her 2017 book, Write No Matter What: Advice for Academics, this will allow us to „give ourselves daily low-stress, high reward contact with our projects”.
Succeeding on your own terms in the age of overproduction also requires long-term planning. Here, we can learn from the “journeyman academic”, whose key strategic subterfuge, according to the critic Mark Grief, is to be embedded financially in the university while being spiritually distant from it.
The journeyman par excellence was Georg Simmel, the overlooked founding father of modern sociology. Simmel managed to flourish in the harsh, results-driven environs of Germany’s academic system in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite facing a conservative ethos, institutional antisemitism and a lowly status as an untenured teaching tutor, Simmel forged a highly influential and innovative body of work, by which many household names were influenced.
Simmel’s research career can best be described as one of gradual intellectual reinvention and simultaneous distancing from the academic publishing machine. Prior to 1900, 50 per cent of his writings ended up in scholarly journals, but subsequently, only 28 per cent did so. In pursuit of a non-academic audience, Simmel preferred to target liberal newspapers, arts magazines and literary monthlies.
Such an approach does not amount to another form of overproduction. Rather, it is an attempt to broaden academic appeal and challenge academia’s culture of narrow specialisation. To paraphrase the great thinker Max Weber, you should not have a field as you are not a donkey.
Academics inspired by Simmel would seek to live up to the expectations of the academy (becoming financially embedded in it) early in their careers, before gradually distancing themselves from the pressures of overproduction by cultivating a different audience or set of priorities, such as teaching. While still being mindful of what the academy requires from them, they would extricate themselves from their immediate peer groups and the toxic pressures of overproduction that come with dependence on such professional networks.
Obviously, there are costs to a Simmel-styled career trajectory. But what is lost in career progress is more than gained in well-being. While those who remain inside the whale are consumed by the pressure to feed the creature’s bottomless appetite for publications, those outside it are free to dive for pearls.

Publicație: The Times

Hong Kong historian witnesses dictatorship on the doorstep

‘This is a regime that believes you should govern by clubbing people,’ says Frank Dikötter
A historian’s study of dictators has come worryingly close to home.
Frank Dikötter, professor of humanities at the University of Hong Kong, is best known for his devastating trilogy about life in China under Mao Zedong: the award-winning Mao’s Great Famine (2010), The Tragedy of Liberation (2013) and The Cultural Revolution (2016). Like his other non-academic books, these are banned in China – something he welcomes, since it means he “can go back and work on the archives, because my name has been erased. Some of the archivists know me, but they don’t know what I’m up to or what I’ve published. There is no Google. And my books aren’t available.”
For his latest book, How to Be a Dictator: The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century (Bloomsbury), Professor Dikötter has put together sharp portraits of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, Duvalier, Ceauşescu and Mengistu. In each case, he had “relentlessly focussed on power: how dictators acquire it, how they keep it – the cult of personality is a very large part of that”.
The good news is that the great age of dictators is over. Though Professor Dikötter acknowledged that “vigilance is extremely important”, he was impatient with claims that “[Donald] Trump and Boris Johnson are turning into dictators”. “It belittles what happened to literally hundreds of millions of people if you start using those terms,” he said.
Unfortunately, China has bucked the wider positive trend.
Ever since he was a student there in 1985-87 and again in the months leading up to the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, Professor Dikötter has been sceptical of the idea that the People’s Republic is “substantially different from the regime under Mao” or “moving towards greater openness and economic reform”. Xi Jinping is still “head of the one-party state…the iron underpinnings of the party are still there. If I were to join the history department at Shanghai University, there would be a party secretary who decides what I can teach, what I can research and who we can invite to the department, not to mention who gets a promotion.” All China’s leaders “want their writings or musings inscribed into the party charter” and “all demand absolute loyalty. That is the key value for dictators.”
As Chinese plans for the citizens of Hong Kong as well as the mainland have become clearer, Professor Dikötter has witnessed “a real sense of desperation among young people” such as his students, since “everyone is all too well aware of how fragile their basic freedoms are, and how hell-bent the mainland is to crush them. This is a regime that believes you should govern by clubbing people.”
“Until 2014, it all seemed rather far away,” he explained, “as if the mainland was the mainland and Hong Kong would be Hong Kong. In 1997, under the so-called ‘One Country, Two Systems’ agreement, meant to last 50 years, the idea was that the PRC would become like Hong Kong. But that now seems like a very distant dream. It’s clear that Hong Kong is being forced to become like any city on the mainland.”
Though the atmosphere had deteriorated since the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the final straw came in 2014, when it became evident that China was reneging on its 1997 commitment to holding full elections. This had led to “the Umbrella Movement” and Occupy Central with Love and Peace, which Professor Dikötter described as “probably one of the most civil demonstrations on planet Earth, with people cleaning up behind them and recycling their rubbish – and oh so polite about it, as the students have been ever since”.
The current protests and repression, in Professor Dikötter’s view, were indications of “a clash of civilisations: a barbaric retrograde regime which has no clue how to govern a sophisticated city like Hong Kong…it’s like a bunch of Soviets from Siberia trying to run Hong Kong. They don’t even know what a free press is.”
Historians are not prophets, and Professor Dikötter was “not sure if the struggle for greater rights in Hong Kong is doomed or not. One man in Tunisia set himself on fire. Who could have predicted that a whole series of nasty regimes would just founder in North Africa?”
But he was not optimistic and, for any of his students who had a choice, he could only offer the bleak advice: “Go West, young man (or woman)!”
Publicație: The Times

Sens, reconnaissance, argent… Que peut-on attendre de son travail ?

Indépendance, intégration sociale, réalisation de soi ou simple occupation face à l’ennui : Thomas Schauder, professeur de philosophie, explique les multiples dimensions de ce qui est au cœur de nos vies.
En cette rentrée, alors que de nombreux jeunes diplômés font leurs premiers pas dans le monde de l’entreprise, Le Monde Campus explore la question du travail. Quelles sont les raisons qui nous poussent à travailler, et à choisir telle ou telle activité ? La « quête de sens » est-elle une illusion, un luxe ? Thomas Schauder, professeur de philosophie et chroniqueur pour Le Monde Campus, tente de répondre à cette question.
bouleverse nos manières de travailler, au point que certains auteurs parlent d’une troisième révolution industrielle. Les machines ne se contentent plus de faire : elles pensent à notre place. Le phénomène de l’ubérisation a bouleversé l’organisation de la production, en supprimant les intermédiaires. Google nous promet la voiture qui se conduira toute seule ; Amazon des livraisons par drone. D’un autre côté, un nombre croissant de personnes désirent un travail qui ait du sens.
Mais qu’est-ce que le travail ? Que peut-on en attendre ? Le travail a quatre fonctions. La première, c’est de permettre de gagner sa vie, de produire ou d’acheter les biens nécessaires. Il n’y a plus guère de sociétés de chasseurs-cueilleurs aujourd’hui qui trouvent dans la nature les moyens de subsister. La plupart des peuples transforment cette nature pour la mettre au service des besoins humains – même si dans le cadre de notre économie capitaliste mondialisée, cette transformation peut impliquer violence et irrespect.
« Que faites-vous dans la vie » ?
Nous en arrivons ainsi à la deuxième fonction du travail : l’intégration sociale. Nous bénéficions du travail de nos ascendants et de nos contemporains, et nous travaillons pour nos contemporains et nos descendants : le travail nous permet de payer notre dette à l’égard de la société.
De plus, le travail nous définit socialement, il indique qui nous sommes. Chaque métier a ses traditions et une image lui est accolée. D’ailleurs, quand nous rencontrons quelqu’un, la première question qu’on lui pose concerne son nom, et la deuxième son travail : « que faites-vous dans la vie » ? Au point, malheureusement, qu’on puisse se sentir stigmatisé soit parce qu’on fait un travail qui a « mauvaise réputation », soit parce qu’on n’a pas de travail.
Pour certaines personnes, celui qui ne fait rien n’est rien. Ainsi, il n’est pas seulement question de faire partie du corps social, mais d’y être situé. Autrement dit : notre travail fixe notre place dans une hiérarchie sociale. L’image a son importance : un médecin, un juge ou un chef d’entreprise sont globalement respectés, même lorsqu’ils ne gagnent pas beaucoup d’argent. Mais il est évident qu’à l’heure actuelle, où notre statut social est en grande partie déterminé par les biens qu’on possède (voiture, télévision, smartphone, etc.), le niveau de rémunération joue un rôle décisif : celui qui ne gagne rien n’est rien.
Pour certains théoriciens, ce sont là les deux seules fonctions du travail : réaliser notre nature animale (survie) et sociale. Si on s’en tient là, le travail apparaît comme un mal nécessaire. Pour les Grecs et les Latins, pour les aristocrates jusqu’à une période récente et même pour certains penseurs socialistes ou anarchistes, l’être humain digne de ce nom doit être oisif et le travail réservé à l’esclave, ou aux machines. Paul Lafargue, gendre de Karl Marx, écrit ainsi à la fin de son célèbre pamphlet Le Droit à la paresse que : « la machine est le rédempteur de l’humanité. (…) Le Dieu qui lui donnera des loisirs et la liberté. »
« Fierté » et éthique personnelle
Mais tout le monde n’est pas d’accord sur ce point et d’aucuns pensent, au contraire, que c’est le travail qui confère à l’homme sa dignité. Le « libérer du travail » serait faire son malheur. Pour eux, le travail a une troisième fonction : la réalisation, l’accomplissement de soi. C’est souvent à cette dimension que se réfèrent ceux qui réclament un travail qui ait du sens, qui ne veulent pas seulement gagner de l’argent, mais être fiers d’eux, se sentir bien dans ce qu’ils font.
Cet accomplissement, on peut le ressentir dans des tâches très différentes : manger les légumes qu’on a fait soi-même pousser, soigner ou aider les autres, contempler l’objet qu’on a fabriqué ou réparé de ses mains… Le travail n’a ainsi pas seulement une dimension morale (ne pas travailler, ce serait mal, ce serait vivre aux crochets des autres, être un assisté, etc.), mais aussi une dimension éthique : ce que je fais engage mon rapport à moi-même, aux autres et au monde.
De ce point de vue, faire un travail inutile ou nuisible peut produire une véritable souffrance (bore out, brown out…). C’est ce qui arrive également à ceux à qui on ne donne pas les moyens de faire correctement leur métier, par exemple, les personnels hospitaliers en sous-effectif chronique ou les professeurs aux classes surchargées.
Travailler pour ne pas s’ennuyer ?
Enfin, on peut proposer une quatrième fonction qui expliquerait aussi pourquoi il nous semble évident qu’il faut travailler : c’est la peur de l’ennui. Pour beaucoup de gens (et sans doute encore plus aujourd’hui où le rapport à l’attente, à l’inactivité est devenu extrêmement problématique), s’ils ne travaillaient pas, ils ne sauraient pas quoi faire de leur journée.
Blaise Pascal avait déjà mis en lumière dans ses Pensées que « tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre ». Le travail nous sert de divertissement, c’est-à-dire nous permet de ne pas penser à notre condition d’êtres humains, faibles et mortels.
Mais si le travail sert à nous fuir, à nous oublier, comment expliquer qu’on lui accorde tant d’importance ? Est-ce que les souffrances qu’il engendre, les maladies professionnelles, les soucis du quotidien et les luttes pour le conserver en valent la peine ? Avons-nous raison de consacrer tant d’énergie à travailler ? Le travail devrait-il prendre moins de place dans nos vies ? Nous tenterons de répondre à toutes ces questions la prochaine fois.

Publicație: Le Monde

Università, assegnisti di ricerca: soltanto uno su dieci ce la fa

L’Italia investe oltre 14 miliardi ogni anno per formare personale che poi non assume. Nell’indagine dell’Associazione dottorandi e dottori di ricerca la fotografia di una situazione che non accenna a migliorare
ROMA – L’Italia butta 14 miliardi di euro ogni anno per formare talenti che poi accompagna alla frontiera: spenderanno altrove conoscenze affinate da scuole e università nazionali. Il motivo principe per cui i talenti, a volte anche i semi-talenti, se ne vanno all’estero è che qui non li assumiamo. Al netto dei molti concorsi profilati dell’università italiana e dei bandi con tutoraggio sindacale del Cnr, il sistema dell’alta formazione assume poco e niente.

Un’indagine dell’Associazione dottorandi e dottori di ricerca in Italia (Adi) rivela questo: dei 13.029 assegnisti che oggi lavorano in un ateneo statale con un dottorato alle spalle – parliamo di ricercatori pagati per un periodo da uno a tre anni, contratto rinnovabile una volta – solo il 9,5 per cento troverà una collocazione a tempo indeterminato all’interno di una delle sessantacinque università statali del Paese. Entrerà in maniera definitiva nel sistema accademico. Sarà un professore associato, di fatto, visto che i ricercatori a tempo indeterminato la Legge Gelmini li ha semplicemente aboliti.

C’è un blocco di giovani che ha speso vent’anni su libri e slide – il 90,5 per cento dei dottorati che ha strappato un assegno di ricerca, 11.791 studiosi laureati e post-laureati – che, se non cambierà la direzione degli investimenti nel Paese, nel prossimo sessennio sarà espulso dall’università. Parliamo dei più qualificati, la crème del sapere. Nello specifico, il 56,2 per cento non rientrerà dopo i due assegni ottenuti: avrà sei anni di tempo per costruirsi un futuro all’estero in un altro campo. Il 29 per cento, ancora, riuscirà ad approdare a un contratto a tempo determinato di Tipo A e poi abbandonerà. Il 5,3 per cento prenderà un contratto di tipo B (sempre a tempo determinato) finito il quale dirà addio all’accademia.
L’ottava indagine Adi
È l’ottava indagine dell’Adi sulla situazione di dottori e dottorandi italiani, ma se si vanno a controllare le precedenti si trovano conferme – anche peggiorative – sulla possibilità che ha un „alto formato” di compiere il suo ciclo lavorativo nell’università italiana e spendere i suoi saperi nel Paese. L’indagine del 2016, la sesta, dice che „nei prossimi anni” solo il 6,5 per cento di chi è assegnista di ricerca „riuscirà ad accedere a una posizione di professore associato negli atenei italiani”.

Nel 2015 i sopravvissuti erano, in proiezione, l’8,1 per cento. Nel 2014 il 3,4 per cento. Nel 2013 e nel 2012 il 7 per cento. Dal 2010 – Legge Gelmini approvata in piena crisi finanziaria – ad oggi la situazione è, con alti e bassi, lievemente migliorata. Ma le percentuali di assunzione da uno su dieci restano da realtà patologica. Spiegano i dottori dell’Adi: „L’espulsione degli assegnisti di ricerca rappresenta uno sperpero di personale qualificato per la cui formazione il sistema può arrivare a investire fino a 140.000 euro pro-capite”. Limitandosi ai costi pubblici del dottorato e dell’assegno di ricerca. Questo livello di spreco è stato indicato dall’ex ministro dell’economia Giovanni Tria.

Tornando all’ultima indagine, l’ottava, presentata lo scorso 8 maggio, si scopre che i posti di dottorato banditi in Italia nel 2018 sono tornati a flettere: dai 9.288 del 2017 a 8.960 (-3,5%). Dal 2007 i dottorato chiamati dalle singole università si sono ridotti del 43,4 per cento (il 55,5 per cento al Sud). No, i tagli all’università non trovano inversione.

L’imbuto dell’Abilitazione nazionale
Sarebbe persino virtuoso questo meccanismo se fosse ispirato da una iperselezione dei docenti italiani. No, avviene per il sottofinanziamento delle università e della loro ricerca. Nell’intero sistema che si regge su 116 mila lavoratori, il 59 per cento è precario. E il sorpasso degli instabili sugli stabili è avvenuto in tempi recenti. Ancora, per spiegare gli imbuti che si creano negli atenei del Paese, dal 2012 per poter insegnare bisogna prendere l’Abilitazione scientifica nazionale. Solo per la prima tornata – dati del marzo 2018, offerti dal Cipur – su 7.149 abilitati il 49 per cento non era stato chiamato da alcuna università. Pronti per l’insegnamento in cattedra, ma senza posto.

Nel sistema universitario i docenti a contratto sono la categoria più numerosa tra i professori: sono più del doppio degli ordinari e settemila in più degli associati. Per dire dell’uso sistematico del lavoro precario anche per fare lezione, erogare didattica. Alla Normale di Pisa i docenti a tempo determinato sono oltre il triplo di quelli assunti. Il sottofinanziamento spinto del sistema accademico italiano ha portato a un invecchiamento strutturale della classe docente universitaria: nel 2005 i professori e ricercatori a tempo indeterminato sotto i trentaquattro anni erano 3.105, nel 2017 solo 42.

Francesco Sinopoli, segretario della Flc Cgil: „I cervelli italiani sono immersi in un coacervo di regole concorsuali spesso gestite in maniera feudale oppure ristrette a pochissimi numeri perché lo Stato non garantisce adeguate risorse. Eppure da anni dottorandi, assegnisti, borsisti, collaboratori, ricercatori a tempo determinato contribuiscono con le loro ricerche ad avanzamenti dei processi culturali e a scoperte innovative in tutti i campi. Nelle scorse settimane all’Università di Modena-Reggio Emilia è stata aperta una breccia per la cura dell’Alzheimer. I protagonisti delle scoperte cliniche hanno tutti, da anni, contratti a termine senza diritti e senza tutele”. Chiude Sinopoli: „Non servono più analisi, servono 1,5 miliardi di euro vincolati a reclutamento, sblocco del turnover, separazione normativa delle assunzioni e delle progressioni di carriera, una riforma del pre-ruolo che non condanni le giovani generazioni a rimanere al palo per i prossimi anni”.

Publicație: La Repubblica