Chile is running a severe deficit in science investment
En una economía global cada vez más definida por el conocimiento y la innovación, Chile enfrenta una paradoja silenciosa: pertenece al selecto grupo de naciones de la OCDE, pero invierte en ciencia y desarrollo como si aún no aspirara a ese estatus. La académica Susana Mondschein, desde la Universidad de Chile, ha puesto en palabras lo que los números ya revelan —que un país no puede crecer hacia el futuro si solo perfecciona lo que ya sabe hacer. La brecha entre el 0,4% del PIB que Chile destina a I+D y el 2,5% que promedian sus pares no es una estadística menor: es el reflejo de una decisión colectiva, repetida año tras año, sobre qué tipo de nación se quiere ser.
- Chile invierte menos del 0,5% de su PIB en investigación y desarrollo, mientras el promedio de la OCDE triplica esa cifra y países como Israel destinan casi siete veces más.
- Los recortes al presupuesto del Ministerio de Ciencias han suspendido nuevas becas de magíster en el extranjero y reducido el financiamiento para postdoctorados internacionales, cerrando rutas clave de formación para investigadores chilenos.
- La académica Mondschein advierte que sin inversión sostenida en ciencia, Chile quedará atrapado en su matriz productiva actual, incapaz de desarrollar las industrias y capacidades tecnológicas que definen el crecimiento económico moderno.
- El país se repliega hacia adentro justo cuando la competencia global en innovación se intensifica, arriesgando empleos de alto valor, menor productividad y una influencia decreciente en un mundo moldeado por el avance científico.
Susana Mondschein, directora del Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial de la Universidad de Chile e integrante de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Productividad, planteó esta semana una advertencia sin rodeos: Chile no puede seguir haciendo solo lo que ya sabe hacer. Su economía productiva, construida sobre industrias conocidas y métodos establecidos, se estancará si no hay una apuesta deliberada por el conocimiento nuevo.
La ciencia, argumentó Mondschein, no es un lujo. Es la base sobre la que descansa todo desarrollo tecnológico, y sin ella un país no puede construir las industrias ni los empleos que generan crecimiento real. Los números lo confirman con crudeza: Chile destina apenas el 0,4% de su PIB a investigación y desarrollo, frente al 2,5% que promedian los 38 países de la OCDE. Israel, el líder mundial, invierte el 6,8%. Incluso Costa Rica, el miembro de menor inversión en el bloque, gasta un 0,3%, apenas por debajo de Chile. La brecha no es marginal; es la diferencia entre tratar la ciencia como prioridad o como residuo presupuestario.
La situación se ha agravado con los recortes recientes al Ministerio de Ciencias. Se han suspendido nuevos programas de becas para magísteres en el exterior y se ha reducido el financiamiento para postdoctorados internacionales. Mondschein reconoció que Chile cuenta con programas de posgrado domésticos valiosos, pero subrayó que cerrar las puertas hacia el mundo envía una señal equivocada: el país se repliega justo cuando debería estar mirando hacia afuera.
El momento es crítico. Mientras las naciones que mantienen una inversión robusta en I+D construyen las capacidades que definirán la próxima década, Chile acumula años de subinversión estructural. Esa acumulación no es neutral: se traduce en menor crecimiento, menos empleos de alto valor y una influencia cada vez más reducida en un mundo que avanza al ritmo de la ciencia y la tecnología.
Susana Mondschein, who directs the Industrial Engineering Department at the University of Chile and sits on the National Commission for Evaluation and Productivity, made a stark case this week about why her country's approach to science and technology has become unsustainable. Speaking to a news program, she laid out the problem plainly: Chile cannot keep doing what it already knows how to do. The country's productive economy—built on familiar industries and established methods—will stagnate without deliberate investment in new knowledge and new capabilities.
Science, she argued, is not a luxury. It is the foundation on which all technological development rests, whether in Chile or anywhere else. Without it, a nation cannot build the new industries and new ways of working that drive real economic growth. This is not abstract theory. It is a practical matter of national competitiveness.
Yet Chile's commitment to research and development tells a different story. The country dedicates roughly 0.4 percent of its gross domestic product to R&D—less than half a percent. That figure sits in stark contrast to the nations Chile considers its peers. The average across the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the club Chile belongs to and wants to remain part of, is nearly 2.5 percent. Israel, the global leader, invests 6.8 percent. Even Costa Rica, which ranks lowest among OECD members, spends 0.3 percent—barely below Chile's own level. The gap is not marginal. It is the difference between treating science as a priority and treating it as an afterthought.
Mondschein was direct about what this means: Chile is running a severe deficit in its investment in science, engineering development, and technological innovation. The country is falling further behind not because of a single policy failure but because of a pattern of underinvestment that has become structural.
The problem has grown more acute with recent budget cuts to the Science Ministry. The government has suspended new scholarship programs for master's degrees pursued abroad and trimmed funding for international postdoctoral positions. These are not trivial reductions. They represent a narrowing of pathways for Chilean researchers to train at the world's leading institutions and bring that knowledge home. Mondschein noted that Chile does have strong domestic options for graduate study—master's and doctoral programs worth protecting and developing. But the message sent by cutting international opportunities is that the country is pulling inward at precisely the moment it should be reaching outward.
The timing matters. As global competition in technology and innovation intensifies, countries that maintain robust R&D spending are building the capabilities that will define the next decade of economic life. Chile, by contrast, is investing at a level that suggests it has decided to remain dependent on the industries and methods it already possesses. That choice, made year after year through budget decisions and policy neglect, is not neutral. It is a choice to accept slower growth, fewer high-value jobs, and diminishing influence in a world increasingly shaped by scientific and technological breakthroughs.
Citações Notáveis
Chile cannot keep doing what it already knows how to do; the country needs new developments to build a different productive economy— Susana Mondschein, Industrial Engineering Director, University of Chile
Science is not a luxury for a country—it is a necessity, the foundation of all technological development— Susana Mondschein
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Mondschein keep saying science isn't a luxury? Isn't that just what scientists always say about their own work?
She's making a different argument. She's saying that without new science, Chile can't build new industries. It's not about prestige—it's about the fact that every technological shift requires research first. You can't leap to something new without understanding it.
But 0.4 percent sounds low in the abstract. What does that actually mean in practice?
It means fewer researchers, fewer labs, fewer graduate students staying in the country. It means Chilean companies can't tap into cutting-edge research happening locally. It means brain drain—talented people leave because the opportunities aren't here.
The budget cuts seem recent. Is this a new problem or has Chile always been like this?
The underinvestment is long-standing, but the cuts are making it worse. Suspending scholarships abroad sends a signal that the government isn't serious about building research capacity. It's a false economy—you save money now but lose the researchers and knowledge you'd gain.
If Costa Rica spends less than Chile, why is Mondschein singling out Chile as the problem?
Costa Rica is at the bottom of the OECD, but Chile is supposed to be a developed economy. The comparison isn't to Costa Rica—it's to the average of 2.5 percent. Chile is choosing to invest like a developing country while claiming to be part of the developed world.
What would happen if Chile actually increased spending to the OECD average?
You'd see more research, more startups built on that research, more high-skilled jobs. It would take years to show up in GDP, but that's the point—you have to invest now in capabilities you'll need in five or ten years.