On August 14, 2026, when CONICET President Daniel Salamone stated in an interview with Infobae that "it is false that scientists are leaving the country," and that data indicated an inflow of 1,750 fellows in 2024 with plans for 2,100 in 2026, the reaction was immediate.
Scientists from the Mesa Federal por la Ciencia y la Tecnología and RAICYT promptly published a detailed analysis: between December 2023 and June 2026, the system lost 6,400 jobs, including 377 researchers at CONICET (145 voluntarily), 2,549 fellowships with 637 rejections; salaries plummeted by 40% in real terms, and the number of applicants for research careers decreased from 1,960 to 1,378.
Salamone, a veterinarian by training, joined CONICET with a clear mandate: "to preserve its immense scientific potential while simultaneously transforming it for greater impact on Argentina's productive development." His public stance consistently denies "scientific genocide," emphasizes the continuity of fellowships, and attributes the majority of the outflow to the previous administration.
However, the figures he presents do not account for the broader context: the abolition of the Undersecretariat for Research and Prospects, the cessation of postdoctoral fellowship renewals (from 1,400 in 2022 to zero in 2025), the decline in real wages, and the lack of project funding, which prevents laboratories from even purchasing consumables.
Salamone operates within strict political constraints: he was appointed by a government implementing radical spending cuts, and his survival in office depends on demonstrating the "successes" of the reform. While his institutional role demands the protection of the budget and personnel, political loyalty necessitates the justification of the current policy.
When, under pressure from protests and an international letter from Nobel laureates, he selectively presents data and accuses opponents of having "short legs of lies," this is not a random slip of the tongue. Instead, it confirms a consistent pattern: the prioritization of a political narrative over the full picture of reality.
Like a doctor who only takes the temperature of patients whose readings fit a desired diagnosis, Salamone focuses on incoming fellowships while ignoring the exodus of already-trained personnel and the deterioration of working conditions.
This is not merely a dispute over numbers. It represents a critical juncture where the head of a scientific council is forced to choose between defending the institution entrusted to him and defending a political course upon which his position depends. This choice has been made publicly and consistently.
Ultimately, the question posed by scientists remains unanswered: why is it increasingly difficult to build a dignified professional life pursuing science in Argentina? The answer to this question will determine not only the fate of CONICET but also whether the country retains its capacity to generate its own knowledge.
