As Rector I will always "watch" to ensure that research is carried out with scientific rigor and in complete freedom; when I stop being Rector, as a researcher I will "work" with the awareness that research is carried out with scientific rigor and in complete freedom; when I stop working for the university, as a citizen I will "fight" to ensure that research is carried out in the universities with scientific rigor and in complete freedom; and this is not to defend the autonomy of research but for the independence of research.

I speak on the recent publication of the thirtieth CRENoS report recently presented and which had an important echo on the regional information bodies. I want to immediately clear the field of controversy. I will not go into the assessments of health or budget or transport policies in Sardinia over the past twenty years. I believe that the discussion tables to do this operation are other and with more actresses and actors.

Instead, I will focus on the research activity and its results. The very first things I learned at the beginning of my career as a researcher, therefore as a PhD student - and I had the pleasure of verifying this even outside our national context - is that there is a difference between two aspects of research: the "result" and the "methodology" of producing the result". The result is the data that is used and commented on, the methodology is rigorously chosen with an accurate analysis so that it gives guarantees on the reliability of the result.

Let's start from this second aspect, from the method, for convenience. Evaluating the methodologies first of all means ascertaining the data sources, who produced them - for example whether they were produced by a certified body or not -, how they were produced, the temporal dimension and the elements that could possibly disturb the production of that given.

In the case of the CRENoS report, it seems clear to me that the methodology is robust and rigorous: the data are the result of an ISTAT research (certified institute that follows extremely rigorous robustness procedures and which provides official data for the country and Europe) presented to the Parliament. The processing techniques used to process those data and produce the research results are documented by the Institute itself and have been taken up by the CRENoS researchers. In this process, the methodologies that are applied are not the result of an extemporaneous imaginative vivacity of male and female researchers, but derive from consolidated and "evaluated" practices by the international scientific community in the appropriate fora (scientific congresses, publications, review processes and anonymous evaluation and scientifically rigorous by the international scientific community.

I have no reason to think that whoever drew up the thirtieth CRENoS report didn't follow this path again this year, simply because those who do research adhere to a very precise code of ethics. An ethics commission and a disciplinary commission supervise the code of ethics, in ours as in all universities and in many research institutions. In the event of violation of the fundamental methodological principles, one is subjected to disciplinary proceedings
Now let's go back to the first aspect, the result of a research: this cannot be judged good or bad, it is a result that must be used and commented on. In the specific case, perhaps, to plan corrective policies, to change course, to support reinforcing policies or even to say that the policies undertaken will give results in the near future.

I therefore find it right that Councilor Doria "comments" the results and arguments in defense of a policy undertaken. Not only is it his right, but I think it is his duty. Don't question the production of that result but rightly comment on it. Also because unlike research, the results of politics, by definition, are instead subject to judgment, that of the voters and the electorates when they go to the polls.
So there is a radical difference between results that can be commented on and subject to political evaluation and the scientific process that leads to results independently of political constraints. It would be serious and dangerous to live in a context where any political decision-maker should be concerned about the research activity carried out in my University in making his own choices as administrator. How serious it would be for the researchers of the University that I have the honor to represent to carry out their research activity with the concern of causing displeasure in political decision-makers. Fortunately, research must go on and must be evaluated as a system, not as results. I could never accept that the result of a research into the erosion of a given beach should be hidden and not disclosed just because this would damage the economic valuation of the properties adjacent to that beach.

One more consideration on research with co-authors. When a collective research activity is carried out, such as the one produced by CRENoS, there is the work of many months of many researchers and then there is a person who becomes its organizational and scientific manager and is its spokesperson; if that person in making the results public violates those sacrosanct principles of objectivity and impartiality which I mentioned earlier, I am sure that the research group would be the first to rebel and distance itself. And that is one of the cases that allows those responsible to intervene and investigate. Sometimes the distinction is small and it is up to the woman or man of science to identify and respect it.
I spoke on this subject also because many forget that there are many people who work and care about the reputation of their University. I am referring to the technical, administrative and librarian staff. They too are fundamental because they "facilitate" our research activity and therefore the merit of the results belongs to them too. Just as it is important to reassure our students who live on the reputation of a university. This is what I absolutely and unconditionally want to defend with this intervention.

Francis Mola

Rector of the University of Cagliari

© Riproduzione riservata