BLOG english

I’m relatively new to the CSIC. Most of my scientific career was spent abroad, and less than two years ago, I returned to Spain to start my own research group here. I’m neither the first nor the last to do so, and like many others, I’ve encountered a series of unexpected hurdles within the Spanish public research system.

What I’m about to share in this blog might not come as a surprise to the more seasoned among you, but sometimes it takes a bit of “fresh blood” to shake up a system that just doesn’t work. That’s why I’ve decided to write about the challenges we scientists face, comparing them to what I’ve experienced in other countries with more established research systems. My hope? That these reflections might spark change—whether in someone up there or in many of us down here—so that together, we can achieve a common goal: elevating the quality of science in our country.

A scientific Horror Story: the Bolsa of CSIC (or Why I Can’t hire Elon Musk)

As I mentioned, I recently started my own research group. And as you can imagine, it’s a complicated process: applying for funding, building networks, applying for even more funding, buying equipment... The early days are tough. You’re the PI, postdoc, technician, and admin all rolled into one. But honestly, nothing has caused me as much anxiety during this time as the dreaded Bolsa del CSIC (the centralized hiring pool used by the CSIC).

Anxiety, sleepless nights... I swear, I haven’t been this stressed waiting for the outcome of even the biggest grant applications. The nightmare begins every time I need to hire someone through the Bolsa. Seasoned researchers would usually respond with a resigned, “Ah, yeah, we know the deal. It is what it is,” and they adapt. But for those of us who are new, we find ourselves face-to-face with a system that, on first impression (and second, and third), is absurd, tedious, inefficient, and unfair.

The Bolsa of CSIC was supposedly designed to ensure “transparency” in hiring. To achieve this, its creators decided that candidates should be ranked not by their actual skills but by how many certificates they can present, as if collecting stickers for a scrapbook. The idea, I guess, is to prevent researchers from hiring “the neighbor’s kid.” But, dear CSIC administrators, we researchers are the first ones interested in hiring capable people! Without a solid team, our research is doomed.

Let me explain how it works. I’ll try to keep it short, although summarizing this chaos is no small task.

First, candidates must pre-register for the Bolsa. There are different Bolsas, and many are mutually exclusive. So, even if a candidate qualifies for multiple roles (say, as a predoctoral researcher or technician), they have to decide in advance which type of role they want to apply for—without any idea of what job openings might become available.

On top of that, when registering, candidates must choose only three specific areas of expertise and limit themselves to applying to just three CSIC centers. Imagine being a recent graduate seeking work anywhere in Spain, only to be told you must pre-select three out of the 180 CSIC centers, again without knowing what positions might even open up.

But wait, there’s more! Once registered, a mysterious panel evaluates candidates. This evaluation is supposedly “objective,” based solely on the certificates submitted: degrees, diplomas, and so on. The kicker? It doesn’t matter if these qualifications are even remotely relevant to the job they’re applying for. Have a Ph.D. in molecular biology but applying for a programming position? No problem—here are some points for that. Brilliant.

Oh, and the registration process can take up to two months. Perfect for a system that’s meant to quickly match unemployed candidates with job openings, right?

Think that’s the end? Think again.

When, after all this paperwork, we finally manage to post a job opening, the Bolsa does a “matching” process to identify potential candidates. But—not surprisingly—it only matches candidates from one specific Bolsa. Why give all registered candidates a fair shot? That would be madness!

At this stage, months into the process, the candidates (if they haven’t given up yet) accept to be considered, and a committee evaluates them. The committee considers the specifics of the job and the candidates’ profiles and assigns them a score. However, this score only accounts for 50% of the final ranking. The other 50% comes from the Bolsa’s arbitrary, certificate-based evaluation system.

What’s the result? A system that penalizes highly qualified candidates with relevant technical skills while favoring others who have amassed irrelevant certificates. It’s as if the system were designed to ignore what actually matters when hiring the best professionals.

For example, if we applied this model to a prominent figure like Elon Musk—who doesn’t have a master’s or Ph.D.—he’d rank below any recent graduate with generic degrees. Sorry, Elon, no chance of landing a job in my lab (though, considering your political affiliations, we probably wouldn’t get along anyway).

How can the CSIC aspire to be a global scientific leader if we can’t even hire the most suitable candidates?

Here are a few points I think the Bolsa system urgently needs to address:

• Reduce or eliminate the weight of the “objective” scoring system, which fails to reflect the actual needs of the position.

• Allow candidates to register for multiple Bolas simultaneously, increasing their opportunities to apply for diverse roles.

• Remove or expand the restriction of three research centers, enabling candidates to explore more options without arbitrary limits.

• Enable continuous CV updates so that candidates can reflect new achievements without restarting the entire registration process.

And no, I’m not just complaining because of the anxiety and sleepless nights this system causes me (though it does, trust me). I genuinely believe that fixing these issues would benefit the CSIC at all levels. It would make hiring more efficient and turn the CSIC into a more dynamic, flexible, and attractive institution for top talent, both national and international.

The current system, rigid and obsessed with certificates, is completely outdated. Instead of rewarding quantity, we should focus on quality: assessing practical experience, real achievements, and the ability of candidates to contribute meaningfully to science and progress.

And hey, if this also helps me get a good night’s sleep, that’ll be a personal victory I’ll happily take 😉.

Final Reflection:
The CSIC has incredible potential to lead global science, but that will only happen if we stop sabotaging ourselves with internal red tape and start attracting, retaining, and valuing the best professionals. It’s time to change the system (and my mental sanity)!