Sir — We read with interest your editorial“Ending the pain in Spain” (Nature 428, 1;2004) but feel that it did not adequatelyaddress the bureaucratic difficulties facingforeign-educated scientists when applyingfor jobs in Spain.

Applicants for government-fundedpermanent positions must provide either a Spanish doctorate or the Spanish(‘homologated’) equivalent of a foreigndoctorate. This homologation procedure is expensive (several hundred euros for taxes, translation and other fees),involves excessive paperwork, and is time-consuming, taking six months in theorybut many years in practice.

The Spanish Ministry of Educationpassed a law on 20 February to address thisissue, but the law does not provide muchrelief. Careful reading reveals fewsignificant changes from the previous law.

Diplomas from foreign universities maynow be validated in general, rather than foreach individual case. This is a small step inthe right direction, but if Spain is seriousabout improving the mobility of researchers,it should consider following EU directive89/48/CEE and scrap the homologationrequirement entirely. Failing that, it shouldremove the requirement to homologate theundergraduate degree, which requires thesame paperwork and processing times, and

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 428 | 25 MARCH 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 365

consider accepting documents in English,as many European universities already do.

We have sent an open letter to theSpanish ministers of education and ofscience, asking them to consider removingthese remaining barriers both to Spanishscientists who wish to return home and toany scientist with the required expertiseand will to come and work in Spain.Mark van Raaij*Departamento de Bioquímica, Facultad deFarmacia, Universidad de Santiago,15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain*Signed on behalf of the Asociación Nacional de Investigadores

Ramón y Cajal and 89 international co-authors, whose names and

contact details are available directly from the author.

Spain: politicians need tochallenge the status quoSir — As a Spanish postdoc workingoutside Spain for almost five years, Iwelcome your Editorial “Ending the painin Spain” (Nature 428, 1; 2004).

As you say, science rarely occupies theheadlines in the Spanish press. When itdoes, the story is often a comment on theachievements of Spanish researchersworking abroad. As things improve, morescientists will return to Spain, but not asquickly as you suggest.

For example, it is not true that “Overthe past three years, [the Ramón y Cajalprogramme] has repatriated almost 2,000of Spain’s diaspora of postdocs”. If youlook more carefully at the numbers, youwill see that most of the 1,944 positionsoffered went to Spanish scientists alreadyliving in Spain, whereas only 21.4% wereawarded to Spanish researchers living abroad.To be fair, the programme was not aimedsolely at repatriating Spanish researchers,but intended to increase the overallnumber of researchers working in Spain byproviding steady five-year contracts toboth Spanish and non-Spanish nationals.

There are several reasons why fewSpaniards working abroad have beenattracted to this scheme. One of these isthat their own research initiatives will oftenbe subordinated to that of the group thatreceives them. This is understandable, tosome extent, because this group will paypart of their salaries and provide themwith space and equipment. Another is theuncertain future of people holding suchpositions. Contrary to the suggestion inyour Editorial, the competition for fundsin Spain could hardly be stiffer. Numerouspeople have returned to Spain, attracted by

schemes operating before the Ramón y Cajalprogramme, and were then abandoned bythe system. Many of these had to emigrateagain. This situation will continue untilour politicians show an interest inchallenging the status quo.Miguel Ortiz LombardíaYork Structural Biology Laboratory,University of York, Heslington,York YO10 5YW, UK

Fusion: Bush agrees it’stime to end the impasseSir — I am puzzled by your Editorial “Time for Japan to shine?” (Nature 427,763; 2004) on resolving the stalemate overthe choice of a site for the fusion projectITER. You analyse the situation with theJapanese and European bids fairly andaccurately. You conclude that if one or theother is technically superior, the facilityshould be sited there, but that in the eventof a tie or a near tie, then Japan should bethe chosen site.

I agree with your analysis and have beensaying the same thing for some time.

My puzzlement comes from the lastparagraph in which you say “Europeshould turn the other cheek to the Bushadministration’s mischief-making andbreak the impasse”. This position, althoughnew to Nature, is one that the United Statesgovernment has long held.

I would have expected Nature to reserveits regrettable sarcasm for situations inwhich you and the Bush administrationdisagreed.Burton Richter Stanford University, SLAC MS-80,2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park,California 94025, USA

Fusion: choose Japan forinternational balance Sir — Your Editorial “Time for Japan toshine?” (Nature 427, 763; 2004) offered theworld a way out of the present stalemateconcerning the selection of a site for thefusion project ITER.

In contrast, the correspondence by P. Vandenplas (Nature 428, 119; 2004)seems counter-productive. By stakingEurope’s claim to an “uncontested leadingrole in fusion”, Vandenplas missed themain point. As your Editorial correctlynotes, Japan genuinely yearns for aninternational project of the size of ITER.

If we look beyond fusion and see thebroader context of international science,we can see the need for internationalbalance in large science facilities. Technicalexperts from each of the ITER parties havealready certified both Cadarache andRokkasho to be acceptable sites for ITER.However, when viewed from the level ofinternational policy-making, it is clear that choosing the Rokkasho site will bringJapan into the international community of science leaders.

I applaud the wisdom of your Editorialand its broad view of international science. This opportune moment infusion’s history may not last long. Fusionscientists everywhere must agree with yourimpatient plea, “The time has come tochoose a site.” For this to happen, we mustcertainly look beyond our local concernsand work to find the larger politicalsolution that embraces the scientificaspirations of all nations.Michael E. MauelDepartment of Applied Physics and AppliedMathematics, Columbia University, 500 W. 120thStreet, New York, New York 10027, USA

New law does little to ease research pain in SpainValidation of foreign degrees is still mired in expensive, time-consuming bureaucracy.

25.3 correspondence MH 22/3/04 4:54 pm Page 1

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group