Scrisoare deschisa a Asociatiei FAR adresata institutiilor europene
Constatand lipsa de interes a Ministerului Educatiei, Cercetarii si Inovarii (MECI, fost MEdC) in legatura cu procesul de reforma a sistemului educational, Asociatia FAR a decis transmiterea urmatoarei scrisori deschise catre Comisia Europeana (CE) privind Mecanismul de cooperare ži verificare pentru Bulgaria ži Romania coordonat de catre Secretariatul-General al CE, in vederea unei informari conforme privitoare la modul de finantare a domeniului cercetarii stiintifice, dezvoltarii si inovarii (CDI) in Romania. Consideram ca scrisoarea este motivata suplimentar in momentul de fata, avand in vedere modul in care fondurile publice CDI – reduse in conditiile de criza – nu sunt alocate in concordanta cu nivelul rezultatelor (care ar trebui de asemenea sa fie publice) intr-un mod transparent si accesibil, conform principiului “fonduri contra reforma”. Scrisoarea este adresata urmatoarelor institutii europene si persoane:
Ms. Catherine Day, European Secretary General, Secretariat-General, B-1049 Brussels
Mr. Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for Science and Research, janez.potocnik@ec.europa.eu
Pentru a asigura o transparenta si corectitudine deplina a demersului sau, Asociatia FAR informeaza in prealabil asupra actiunii de fata, toate organizatiile civice care s-au manifestat activ in ultimul timp in domeniul CDI. Asociatia FAR propune semnarea acestui demers impreuna cu acele organizatii care isi vor exprima o astfel de optiune in cursul urmatoarelor 7 zile, fiind constienta de importanta unei sustineri cat mai largi a continutului acestei scrisori deschise.
De asemenea, in acelasi sens al transparentei si corectitudinii, prezenta scrisoare deschisa este transmisa si urmatoarelor institutii ale statului:
Presedintia Romaniei, Domnului Presedinte Traian Basescu
Guvernul Romaniei, Domnului Prim-Ministru Emil Boc
Ministerul Educatiei, Cercetarii si Inovarii, Doamnei Ministru Ecaterina Andronescu
Asociatia FAR isi exprima speranta ca acest demers va fi abordat ca un act civic indreptat doar impotriva celor care fac abstractie in mod sistematic de nevoia societatii de a derula o reforma autentica.
Colegiului Director al Asociatiei FAR
Dear Sir/Madam,
In a previous letter dated March 10th 2004 [1], the FAR Association (http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/, the Romanian Academic Forum - Forumul Academic Roman or FAR, at the time) intended to draw the attention of the European Union to the efforts of the scientific community in improving the general situation of the higher education and research system in Romania and combating corruption in fund distribution. When Romania joined the EU on January 1st 2007, the Commission took the obligation within the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism [2] to assist our country to remedy certain weaknesses remained in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption, that could have obstructed the effective application of the EU-laws, policies and programmes, thus depriving the Romanian people of their granted rights as EU citizens.
In this respect, the Commission decided to prepare reports every six months [3] on the progress of the judiciary reform and the fight against corruption. In the report published on July 23 2008 [4], it is clearly stated that corruption has become a common practice in the education system. This point has concerned the fourth benchmarks set, namely “take further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the local government”. Further actions concern the continuity of the activities focusing on sectors with a high risk of corruption, reports from the civil society already proving their need for the education system [5].
Consequently, we would like to provide in this letter, quite recent evidence along the same line. This is closely related to the shortcomings that Romania needs to address before the Commission carries out a full assessment by mid 2009, the last report published on 12 February 2009 containing only a factual update of progress [6].
The yearly report mentioned above actually noted that Romanian leading authorities in areas such health and education denied the existence of a serious problem, citing as evidence the lack of corruption-related complaints. On the other hand, the report has shown a conclusion of a pilot study run by the Coalition for Clean Universities [7], on universities’ high degree of autonomy and administrative discretion due to the lack of transparency and of genuine accountability mechanisms. Hereby, we would like to bring your attention to the same lack of transparency at highest levels, not only on the way the research funds are distributed (even by means of the so-called competitions for research and development - R&D - projects) but also on the results expected to be obtained when substantial public funds are used. The above-mentioned “competitions” are the Programme for Research of Excellence (CErcetare de EXcelenta, CEEX, 2005-2008) [8] and the 2nd National Programme for Research, Development and Innovation (Programul National de cercetare, dezvoltare si inovare pentru perioada 2007- 2013, PN-II) [9], implemented by the National Authority for Scientific Research (Autoritatea Nationala pentru Cercetare Stiintifica, ANCS) [10] to support the R&D projects in Romania since 2005.
These programmes managed by ANCS marked a real improvement of the R&D funding in our country, steadily increasing from 0.11%( 2002), 0.18% (2003), or 0.3% (2004) of the average gross domestic product (GDP) to ~0.6% of GDP in 2008. The funding allowed an increase of the R&D salaries up to 1500 EUR (CEEX) and 4300 EUR (PN-II), preventing a severe brain drain [11,12] and moreover, motivating young scientists working abroad to return to Romania and pursue a scientific career. While appreciating this financial effort, we must emphasize that the opportunity to earn an income which is almost ten times the average salary at national level, should have been accompanied by unambiguous constraints, to avoid any dishonest practice. However, major question marks have remained over the R&D project competitions organized within these programmes, ironically called a ‘lottery’ [13] among the scientific community. These concerns originate from the questionable scientific qualification of the evaluators body, recruited by ANCS and used to review the grant applications within these competitions. Since the selection process of these evaluators was neither clear nor transparent, it remains obscure whether they, as well as many awarded-project directors, meet the adequate standards of scientific activity.
The superficial evaluation of the CEEX programme, which ended in September 30, 2008 and the arbitrary decisions related to the funds cutting of the ongoing programmes are the object of the following comments which, in our opinion, need to be addressed by Romania’s key institutions in direct connection with the fight against corruption.
1. The scientific results of each CEEX project have been expected to (i) generally prove the capability of research groups and institutions to join the Commission 7th Framework Programme (FP7) [14], and (ii) be either published in journals indexed by the former Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) [15] or patented. Moreover, according to the strict request letter of MEdC-ANCS No. 28/10.01.2007 and Art. 2 of the additional contracts per year 2007, annual results should have been easily accessible on the projects homepage. However, on the ANCS site [16] where all information should be available, the box ‘web homepage’ is empty for most of the projects including those with the homepage address given on the sites of various CEEX sub-programmes, e.g. CEEX/CERES [17].
Our simple conclusion is that even the highest government authority was not in the least concerned with fulfilling the requirements of the CEEX projects and failed to understand the concept that funding research at European level should result in work performed at a similar standard.
2. There are similar question marks over the PN-II-ID-PCE-2007-1 projects [18] concerning both the project results [19] and project homepages [20]. An increased supervision [21] has been provided in this case, as opposed to the PN-II-Program-4 projects [22] of a twice larger cost; however many of these project sites failed to show their results at already mid contract period.
3. A key criterion for former CEEX-project directors to participate in the PN-II competitions (2007-2008) has been considered the submission of a FP7 proposal. Although the importance of such submissions is beyond any doubt, we consider their significance less relevant especially in the absence of a clear feedback on the success rate and also, by comparison with the much more restrictive conditions imposed within the former CEEX projects (ISI papers and patents). Under these circumstances the situation described above (point 2) would have been the most expected one. This shows once more the lack of interest of the central authorities to ensure a correct and rigorous evaluation of the outcome of the projects and continue the funding at European level giving priority to projects with results at a similar standard.
4. The worldwide financial crisis becoming apparent at the end of 2008, also in Romania, may explain the mitigation of the 2009 R&D budget to the years 2003-2004 levels, i.e. to 0.19-0.28% of GDP. However, it is difficult to understand why the Romanian authorities do not wish to “take advantage” of this crisis and correlate the level of the granted funds with the proved work performance and publication record. Moreover, in spite of various signals of the Romanian civil society [23] drawn over the major issues mentioned above, they are announcing important fund cutting of all projects, regardless their performance [24].
Unfortunately, this situation is best illustrated by the 2008 annual evaluation [25] of the PN-II-ID-PCE-2007-1 projects mentioned above (second point). As a result of the reviewing process, the authorities decided to cancel the funding of 6 projects, while the remaining 430 projects are still supported in 2009, at about half of the initially granted budget. However, among the successful 430 projects there are at least 28 which do not even fulfil the basic requirement of the 2008 evaluation-file [26], the existence of a homepage. At the same time, about half of the projects which passed the evaluation process have not succeeded to produce any ISI papers or brevets. This contestable situation may validate a generalized critical assessment [27] which is undeservedly addressed to the whole Romanian R&D community while the responsibility for the major flaws [28], well identified at the highest academic level [29], should be primarily assumed by the central authorities.
5. It is important to note that the above-mentioned, latest unfortunate actions of the Romanian officials are in clear opposition to the “funds against reform” key target, proposed [30] by the Presidential administration at the end of 2008 and maintained by the actual Romanian Government [31].
With confidence in receiving your attention on the above issues, especially on the lack of transparency and honest funding-performance correlation in awarding the R&D projects in Romania, from the perspective of a full assessment carried out by the Commission in mid 2009,
We remain,
Sincerely Yours,
FAR Association
[1] http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=23
[2] Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 56).
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm.
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/romania_report_20080723_en.pdf.
[5] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/sec_2008_2349_en.pdf, p. 15.
[6] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/romania_report_20090212_en.pdf.
[7] http://www.romaniacurata.ro/coalitia-pentru-universitati-curate.html.
[8] http://www.mct.ro/index.php?action=view&idcat=233
[9] http://www.mct.ro/index.php?action=view&idcat=228
[10] http://www.mct.ro/, within the Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation, http://www.edu.ro/.
[11] FAR, http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=180.
[12] Ad Astra Journal 2, No. 1 (2003) http://www.ad-astra.ro/journal/3/?lang=en.
[13] Dialoguri europe: educatia si cercetarea (EU PHARE project), http://www.sar.org.ro/Dialoguri%20europene-6%20oct.pdf .
[14] http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html.
[15] ISI Web of Knowledge, Journal Citation Reports, http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_jcrabout.htm.
[16] http://www.cnmp.ro/ceex/comp/.
[17] http://www.infim.ro/ifa/ceex-web-05.html.
[18] http://www.cncsis.ro/PN2_idei.php.
[19] Contract Annex IIb, http://www.cncsis.ro/2007/Finantare/Idei/ANEXA_IIb.doc.
[20] Contract Art. 11.29, http://www.cncsis.ro/2007/Finantare/Idei/contract.doc.
[21] PN-II_ID web homepage address list, http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/Idei/2008/IDEI_pag_web.pdf.
[22] http://www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/proiecte.php, www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/proiecte2.php.
[23] http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=oficial, http://www.ad-astra.ro/phare/petitie/,
[24] http://www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/anunturi.php, http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/ANUNT%20IMPORTANT.pdf .
[25] http://www.cncsis.ro/PN2_idei_eval_pce2007.php .
[26] http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/Idei/Fisa%20Evaluare%20Anuala%20-%20PCE-Competitie%202007.pdf, p. 1.
[27] http://www.sfin.ro/articol_15549/cu_cercetarea_la_psihiatru.html .
[28] Gardianul - Romania ocupa ultimul loc in UE la cercetari stiintifice originale .
[29] http://www.ipid.ro/reprofesionalizarea_romaniei_2009_prezentare_generala.html .
[30] Comisia Prezidentiala pentru Analiza si Elaborarea Politicilor din Domeniile Educatiei ži Cercetarii din Romania, http://edu.presidency.ro/
[31] http://www.gov.ro/capitolul-12-cercetarea-stiintifica-dezvoltarea-si-inovarea__l1a2079.html
Stimate Domn/Doamna,
Intr-o scrisoare anterioara din 10.03.2004 [1], Asociatia FAR (http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/, Forumul Academic Roman, FAR, la data respectiva) a urmarit sa atraga atentia Uniunii europene asupra eforturilor comunitatii stiintifice pentru imbunatatirea situatiei generale a invatamantului superior si cercetarii stiintifice din Romania inclusiv pentru o finantare corecta. Ulterior aderarii la UE a Romaniei la 01.01.2007 Comisia Europeana a initiat Mecanismul de Cooperare si Verificare (Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, CVM) [2] pentru a sprijini tara noastra in remedierea lipsurilor inca prezente in domeniile reformei juridice si a luptei impotriva coruptiei, care pot limita aplicarea efectiva a reglementarilor, politicilor si programelor UE si, in final, drepturile garantate cetatenilor romani ca cetateni UE.
CE a decis in acest sens sa prezinte semianual rapoarte asupra progreselor realizate in cazul reformei juridice si a luptei impotriva coruptiei [3]. Astfel, in raportul publicat in 23.07.2008 [4] se mentioneaza existenta coruptiei ca o practica comuna in sistemul educational. Aspectul respectiv este corelat cu al 4-lea set de conditii vizand “masuri urmatoare pentru a preveni si luptaimpotriva coruptiei, in particular in administratia locala”. “Actiunile ulterioare privesc continuarea activitatilor vizand sectoarele caracterizate de risc marit al manifestarii coruptiei, rapoarte ale societatii civile demonstrand deja necesitatea lor in acest context pentru sistemul educatiei [5].
In consecinta dorim sa prezentam in aceasta scrisoare elemente recente similare, in stransa corelatie cu deficientele pe care Romania trebuie sa le recupereze inaintea realizarii de catre CE a urmatorului raport la mijlocul anului 2009, in timp ce ultimul raport din 12.02.2009 a reprezentat numai o actualizare a progreselor realizate anterior [6].
Raportul anual mentionat mai sus apreciaza de fapt ca autoritatile din Romania, coordonatoare ale unor domenii precum sanatatea si educatia, considera lipsa unor sesizari asupra coruptiei ca o dovada a inexistentei unor astfel de probleme in domeniul administrat. Pe de alta parte acelasi raport arata ca un prim studiu realizat de Coalitia pentru Universitati Curate [7] a evidentiat ca “universitatile au un grad mare de autonomie si discretie administrativa bazat pe lipsa de transparenta si a unui mecanism autentic de responsabilitate” [8]. Dorim sa va atragem atentia in continuare asupra unei absente similare de transparenta la nivel central privind nu numai modul de distribuire a fondurilor destinate cercetarii stiintifice (chiar si prin asa-numitele competitii pentru proiecte de cercetare si dezvoltare, CD) dar si rezultatele indreptatite atunci cand sunt implicate fonduri publice substantiale. Competitiile mentionate sunt Programul CErcetare de EXcelenta (CEEX, 2005-2008) [9] si Programul National de cercetare, dezvoltare si inovare pentru perioada 2007- 2013, PN-II) [10], administrate de Autoritatea Nationala pentru Cercetare Stiintifica (ANCS) [10] in vederea finantarii proiectelor CD din Romania cu incepere din 2005.
Programele respective au marcat o crestere apreciabila a finantarii activitatii CD din tara noastra sub coordonarea ANCS, de la 0.11%( 2002), 0.18% (2003), sau 0.3% (2004) din produsul intern brut (PIB) national la ~0.6% din PIB in 2008. Aceasta finantare a permis cresterea salariilor in sectorul CD de pana la 1500 EUR (CEEX) si 4300 EUR (PN-II), contribuind la prevenirea unei migrari masive a tinerilor [12,13] si chiar oferind o motivatie de a reveni si a-si continua activitatea in Romania unor tineri cercetatori lucrand in afara tarii. Aprecierea acestui efort financiar impune insa si sublinierea ca, pentru evitarea oricaror practici incorecte, posibilitatea obtinerii unui venit de aproape zece ori mai mare decat salariul mediu la nivel national ar fi trebuit dublata si de impunerea unor cerinte clare. Cu toate acestea au ramas fara raspuns semne de intrebare ridicate inca de la inceperea competitiilor CD mentionate, considerate ironic ‘loterii’ de catre comunitatea stiintifica [14]. Acestea s-au datorat calificarii scientifice discutabile a corpului de evaluatori coordonati de catre ANCS si implicate in evaluarea propunerilor de proiecte participante in aceste competitii. Deoarece procedura de selectie a acestor evaluatori nu a fost nici clara si nici transparenta, a ramas discutabila alinierea acestora precum si a numerosi directori de proiecte finantate, la standardele uzuale ale activitatii stiintifice.
Evaluarea superficiala a programului CEEX, finalizat in 30.09.2008, si deciziile arbitrare privind reducerea drastica a finantarii proiectelor in derulare sunt obiectul urmatoarelor comentarii care, in opinia noastra, ar trebui sa primeasca o explicatie din partea organelor centrale ale Romaniei in relatie directa si cu lupta anti-coruptie.
1. Rezultatele stiintifice ale fiecarui proiect CEEX urmau (i) sa demonstreze in general capacitatea grupurilor si institutiilor CD de a se implica direct in al 7-lea Program-Cadru (PC7) [15] al CE in domeniul CD, si (ii) sa fie publicate in reviste indexate de catre anteriorul Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) [16] sau finalizate prin obtinerea de brevete. Mai mult, conform adresei ultimative MEdC-ANCS nr. 28/10.01.2007 si art. 2 al actelor aditionale pe anul 2007 la contractele de finantare CEEX, rezultatele anuale trebuiau sa fie in modul cel mai direct accesibile pe pagini proprii de internet ale proiectelor respective. Cu toate acestea, pe pagina ANCS unde ar fi trebuit gasite toate informatiile pentru fiecare proiect [17], rubrica ‘web homepage’ este necompletata in marea majoritate a cazurilor, inclusiv pentru proiectele a caror adresa de pagina poate fi gasita pe domenii ale unor sub-programe CEEX, e.g. CEEX/CERES [18].
Concluzia imediata in aceste conditii este cel putin absenta unui interes chiar si din partea autoritatii centrale cu privire la indeplinirea cerintelor contractuale legale de proiectele CEEX, cat si fata de obligatia ca o finantare CD de nivel EU sa fie reflectata de o activitate stiintifica la standarde similare.
2. Semne de intrebare similare exista si in cazul proiectelor PN-II-ID-PCE-2007-1 [19], cu referinta atat la rezultate [20] cat si la paginile lor proprii [21]. O monitorare mult mai atenta a fost realizata in acest caz [22], opusa situatiei [23] proiectelor PN-II-Program-4 cu costuri de cca. doua ori mai mari, desi pe multe pagini proprii nu sunt prezentate rezultate obtinute pana la aceasta data de la mijlocul perioadei contractului.
3. Un element critic pentru directori ai unor proiecte CEEX, in vederea participarii si in competitii PN-II (2007-2008), l-a constituit transmiterea unei propuneri PC7. In timp ce importanta realizarii unor astfel de propuneri este evidenta, consideram ca semnificatia ei in acest context este mult mai redusa – in special in absenta unor date asupra succesului ei – fata de implicarea in acelasi sens a satisfacerii cerintelor mult mai restricve pentru rezultatele respectivelor proiecte (lucrari ISI papers si/sau brevete). In aceste circumstante, situatiile descrise mai sus (punctul 2) erau cele mai probabil de intalnit. De aici rezulta din nou lipsa de interes a autoritatilor centrale pentru asigurarea unei evaluari corecte si riguroase a rezultatelor CD, precum si finantarea in continuare la nivel EU cu prioritate a proiectelor ce au obtinut rezultate la un standard similar.
4. Criza financiara mondiala ce a devenit vizibila si in Romania, la sfarsitul anului 2008, poate justifica reducerea bugetului CD pe anul 2009 la nivelul anilor 2003-2004, respectiv la0.19-0.28% din PIB. Este insa extrem de greu sa intelegem de ce autoritatile din Romania nu incearca sa “beneficieze” de acest context pentru a corela in sfarsit nivelul finantarii CD cu acela al performantelor CD mai direct masurabile ca oriunde altfel. Mai mult, in pofida semnalelor societatii civile [24] cu referinta la cele mentionate mai sus, aceste autoritati anunta reduceri drastice a finantarilor proiectelor in derulare, indifferent de rezultatele obtinute pana in prezent [25].
Aceasta situatie este din nefericire foarte bine exemplificata prin evaluarea [26] pentru anul 2008 a proiectelor PN-II-ID-PCE-2007-1 mentionate la punctul (2) de mai sus. Pe baza acestei evaluari autoritatile au oprit finantarea a 6 proiecte in timp ce finantarea a 430 de proiecte continua in 2009 la ~½ din bugetul acordat initial. Cu toate acestea s-ar cuveni mentionata cel putin existenta a altor 28 dintre cele 430 de proiecte care nu indeplinesc conditia eliminatorie a existentei unei pagini proprii de internet, din fisa de evaluare [27] pe anul 2008. In acelasi timp mai mult de ½ dintre cele 430 proiecte nu prezinta ca rezultate cuvenitele lucrari ISI sau brevete. Aceasta situatie discutabila este de natura sa justifice critici dure [28] ale intregului sistem CD, in mod clar nemeritate de catre toti cei implicati in timp ce responsabilitatea pentru o stare deficitara [29], identificata ca atare la cel mai inalt nivel academic [30], revine autoritatilor centrale.
5. Nu poate fi lipsit de semnificatii nefericite nici faptul ca ultimile actiuni oficiale mentionate se afla in opozitie totala cu principiul “fonduri vs. reforma” sustinut [31] de Administratia Prezidentiala a Romaniei la finalul anului 2008 si incluse in actualul program de guvernare [32].
Cu incredere in captarea atentiei CE asupra elementelor de mai sus, in special a lipsei de transparenta si corelare cinstita a finantarii si rezultatelor activitatii CD din Romania, in perspectiva evaluarii CE de la mijlocul anului 2009,
Cu toata consideratia,
Colegiul Director al Asociatiei FAR
[1] http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=23
[2] Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 56).
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm.
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/romania_report_20080723_en.pdf.
[5] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/sec_2008_2349_en.pdf, p. 15.
[6] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/romania_report_20090212_en.pdf.
[7] http://www.romaniacurata.ro/coalitia-pentru-universitati-curate.html.
[8] http://www.mct.ro/index.php?action=view&idcat=233
[9] http://www.mct.ro/index.php?action=view&idcat=228
[10] http://www.mct.ro/, within the Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation, http://www.edu.ro/.
[11] FAR, http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=180.
[12] Ad Astra Journal 2, No. 1 (2003) http://www.ad-astra.ro/journal/3/?lang=en.
[13] Dialoguri europe: educatia si cercetarea (EU PHARE project), http://www.sar.org.ro/Dialoguri%20europene-6%20oct.pdf .
[14] http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html.
[15] ISI Web of Knowledge, Journal Citation Reports, http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_jcrabout.htm.
[16] http://www.cnmp.ro/ceex/comp/.
[17] http://www.infim.ro/ifa/ceex-web-05.html.
[18] http://www.cncsis.ro/PN2_idei.php.
[19] Contract Annex IIb, http://www.cncsis.ro/2007/Finantare/Idei/ANEXA_IIb.doc.
[20] Contract Art. 11.29, http://www.cncsis.ro/2007/Finantare/Idei/contract.doc.
[21] PN-II_ID web homepage address list, http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/Idei/2008/IDEI_pag_web.pdf.
[22] http://www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/proiecte.php, www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/proiecte2.php.
[23] http://www.forumul-academic-roman.org/index.php?page=oficial, http://www.ad-astra.ro/phare/petitie/,
[24] http://www.cnmp.ro:8083/pncdi2/program4/anunturi.php, http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/ANUNT%20IMPORTANT.pdf .
[25] http://www.cncsis.ro/PN2_idei_eval_pce2007.php .
[26] http://www.cncsis.ro/PNCDI%20II/Idei/Fisa%20Evaluare%20Anuala%20-%20PCE-Competitie%202007.pdf, p. 1.
[27] http://www.sfin.ro/articol_15549/cu_cercetarea_la_psihiatru.html .
[28] Gardianul - Romania ocupa ultimul loc in UE la cercetari stiintifice originale .
[29] http://www.ipid.ro/reprofesionalizarea_romaniei_2009_prezentare_generala.html .
[30] Comisia Prezidentiala pentru Analiza si Elaborarea Politicilor din Domeniile Educatiei ži Cercetarii din Romania, http://edu.presidency.ro/
[31] http://www.gov.ro/capitolul-12-cercetarea-stiintifica-dezvoltarea-si-inovarea__l1a2079.html
