This page contains 1. A call to all Weizmann Institute scientists [sent July 6, 2010] 2. Extracts from some follow-up correspondences PART I: A CALL TO ALL WEIZMANN INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS [July 2010] The purpose of this posting is to express my opinion regarding the "centers of excellence" program, ask all members of the council as well as administration to (re)consider it, and act accordingly. On the most principled level, this program is wrong because it represents and implements wrong attitudes about conducting science. Rather than relying on the proved mechanisms of self-determination of scientific goals by the scientific community itself, here it is the government and/or VATAT head who are determining scientific goals. Furthermore, it is not that the government allocates *new* money to certain scientific goals, with no strings attached. The money many turn out to be old, and for certain strings are attached (in the form of (i) a 2-to-1 matching by the "gaining" institutes, and (ii) creation of "centers" that represent commitments beyond the scope of the 5-year funding program). All this comes after a decade in which the government, lead by the Ministry of Finances, sabotaged the academic system in Israel and put it in crisis by cutting 20% of its budget. The current program is estimated to allocate 1-5% of the yearly amount that was cut (i.e., 0.2-1% of the total budget of VATAT). Thus, rather than undoing the full harm (and adding some compensation for past damages and increased needs), the government is throwing some peanuts and the academia is supposed to fight on them and be grateful. Instead, I propose that the academia refuses to play this game, and demand a full undoing of the past cuts. The governmental program also represents a major misunderstanding regarding the problems that the Israeli academia is facing. The problem (or one of the major problems) is not enabling the "return to Israel" of some former Israelis who became senior "stars of science" while abroad, but rather stopping the "deportation" of promising junior academics who can not pursue a career in Israel due to the decade-long hiring semi-freeze, which in turn is a consequence of the aforementioned budget cuts. Getting more practical, let me point out the meaning of the "attached strings" mentioned in the first paragraph. The allocation of one unit of funding by VATAT is conditioned on the allocation of two units by the institute (one from its own funds and another from donations). Thus, the net effect of "winning" such a center is actually negative. Indeed, one can claim that the institute would have invested funds in this research direction anyhow, but it should be clear that it is highly unlikely that the institutional investment would have been at this level. Furthermore, this maneuver endangers to distort the development policies of the institute, by imposing a harsh external constraint. The result is most likely to be an over-funding of a couple of research directions and an under-funding of many others. In addition, the hiring policy requirements imposed by the program are incompatible with our own hiring policies and are likely to distort our system. In light of the foregoing, I call upon all Weizmann scientists and its administration to refuse to participate in this program. Furthermore, we should call other institutes to follow. It is still not too late to make a principled statement, and our statement will be heard and will be counted. Oded Goldreich [July 6, 2010] PART II: EXTRACTS FROM SOME FOLLOW-UP CORRESPONDENCES Firstly, I don't see the point of investing in Computer Science (CS) and a handful of other areas, while neglecting all other disciplines, let alone that most of those have suffered much greater trouble in the last decade due to the budget cuts imposed by the government (see the total hiring freeze in dozens of departments). The last thing we need right now is further differentiation (i.e., discrimination) in favor of some hard sciences at the expense of further neglect and saffocation of all other disciplines. But even if one decides to invest in Computer Science (CS) and a handful of other areas, while neglecting all other dozens disciplines, then the question arise as to how to do it (i.e., how to invest in promoting CS research). Evidently, it would make much more sense to spread the funds (almost) evenly in CS rather than give *all of it* to 10% of the CS community. In concrete numbers, I estimate that there are 150 researchers in CS in Israeli universities, and a center is likely to fund 10-20. Can anybody in his/her right mind claim that the select 15 are infinitely better than most of the unseleced 135? Note that such an assertion is necessary to justify assigning *all* funds to the select set and *zero* to all the rest.