Prof. Michał Seweryński, minister of science and higher education, talks with Witold Żygulski

What state is Polish science in today? How has it changed in the three years that have passed since Poland joined the European Union?

If we wanted to find a reliable answer to the question about the condition of Polish science, we would have to conduct a proper study of science to evaluate the progress in individual fields. In recent years the media have reported many interesting and valuable trends and achievements of Polish researchers. Sometimes, though, we only find out that we had an eminent scientist when that person dies. That is when a lot is written about them, whereas little is published about their work within their lifetime. The media in general do not write much about science, as this is not an attractive topic for the general reader.


We have set out to fill that void, at least partly, by publishing a new periodical, The Polish Science Voice…
There is no way of giving a brief assessment of Polish science as a whole. What we can say is that the conditions for the development of science in Poland are changing for the better, especially in terms of finance. For the first time in many years, spending on scientific research is growing-starting from the first budget drafted by the current government and presented to the parliament for approval, up to this year when research outlays have grown radically due to our participation in the new European Union budget. All this creates a new situation for Polish scientists, offering hope for serious development, at least of research closely linked to economic growth, along with the development of certain services for the public, such as health services. Poland has never before assigned such great amounts to scientific development, simply because the money wasn't there. If we return to the question of the state of science, we need to say first of all that the picture is different in different fields. They are developing at different speeds. There are areas in which we are well known and valued in the world, such as astronomy. Recently I visited one of the world's largest optical telescopes in South Africa, where we have invested and are taking part in research work. I heard some very good opinions about Polish astronomy from people who are not Polish and have no reason to compliment us excessively.

Undoubtedly, our research results and the state of Polish science could be much better in those fields in which the standard and advancement of research as well as our importance in the world depend on how much we have invested in state-of-the-art equipment. In this area, insufficient funding has always limited us. It is no coincidence that in various theoretical fields of science where money is not so important, such as mathematics or information technology sciences-in which we have been good for a long time and our students are well educated-Polish science is on a par with world science. In medicine, our students receive a standard of education that is no different from that in the most renowned schools around the world. If, however, you look at how our hospitals and clinics are equipped, of course it is all far from satisfactory.

We can certainly say, though, that a time of plenty is approaching for scientific research. For at least the next eight years not only will we have specific funding guaranteed in the EU budget, but also-I am sure of this-the amounts earmarked for scientific development from the national budget will also grow systematically. Poland's economy is developing at a very good pace; economists see this as a lasting trend in terms of the next decade or so. This means that much more money should also be found for science than has been the case so far.

What government measures, apart from financial issues, do you consider to be the most important to ensure the continued development of science in Poland?

It will be important what changes we make in the coming years in terms of organization of the scientific research sector. Today all the legislative effort of my ministry is subordinated to this problem. We began last year, and can see the first results today. Two laws involving the sector have already been adopted: we are establishing the National Center for Research and Development, and we have amended the law on funding science. Soon we should have a third important law in place that will change the legal status of research and development units. We are preparing further draft laws, too.

All these laws together will form a new legal basis for organizing the research sector. In the most general terms, the changes will mean that the process of selecting research areas, topics and projects will be handed over to scientists themselves. This will be coordinated by two new institutions that will in essence constitute research centers-the National Center for Research and Development and the Theoretical Research Agency. They will deal with matters that today are in the hands of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. I hope this will be de-bureaucratized and largely non-political activity. The relations between the ministry and research units will become similar to those we have today between the ministry and schools of higher education. Research units will become more autonomous, and will receive money for research not because they exist, but by way of competition. Whoever presents the better, more worthwhile research program will receive funding. This will be the most important organizational change in the system.

The second planned change will aim to concentrate the entire Polish research potential, now largely dispersed, by establishing large and multidisciplinary research institutes. These units will be able to carry out complex multidisciplinary research projects on the most complicated problems that require solving for the benefit of Poland's development. These problems include energy, climate, healthcare, food production, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies and many other key issues important to people's lives in the coming eras. These are fields of strategic importance everywhere in the world today; they determine the country's development and are the object of the government's interest and concern.

Research in these fields will be handled by newly organized and reorganized research institutes, which will thus lose their present sector-specific, narrowly specialist character, becoming research platforms composed of specialists from different fields of knowledge. Great problems can no longer be studied separately from other major research processes; research cannot be conducted in isolation. It has to involve representatives of many scientific branches and fields.

The reorganization of the research sector will be aimed at focusing on problems and issues of key importance to economic development and the development of services satisfying people's everyday needs. At the same time, we do not intend to neglect theoretical research. That is why we want to set up the separate Theoretical Research Agency. It will have its own budget to finance research conducted simply for the development of science as such, research that we call fundamental. This kind of work may find a field of application someday, but this could take a very long time. Today research in disciplines such as astronomy, for example, is needed for science itself, to highlight our continued participation in the development of European and world civilization. Poland has its unquestionable contribution to the history of European culture and the development of European civilization. Fundamental research serves this purpose, and that is why we will certainly continue it.

Finally, the third change I want to mention are the changed financing rules. So far, scientific research units were largely financed in the same way as welfare institutions. They existed, so they had to receive money. Things will be different in future. Some existing units will still receive funds to have their potential ready for use, but these will not be large sums. Serious funding for research will come to scientific units through competitions for research grants. Whoever proves they are really good will receive a large grant for their research projects. Weaker units may not get any money at all. This should allow us to avoid a mistake from the past-allowing money for science to be excessively dispersed. The small sums that small units receive today for their minor research projects are unable to cause the desired serious effect by bringing about genuine changes or true progress in science. Neither can they bring the expected results that could be applied, with a measurable change for the better, somewhere in industry or other areas of life.

This will be a fundamental change in the way research is financed-we have a lot of money, but we will spend it thriftily, financing only projects that have a realistic chance of success and that are justified in terms of Poland's interests. When I speak of chances for success, it does not mean that the state refuses to take risks when investing in science. The risk of failed research has always accompanied every exploratory activity, and there is no way of eliminating it. Obviously, we will not demand reimbursement from someone whose research fails or whose hypothesis has proved wrong.

You have experience in running a large school of higher learning. In the new situation you have described, how will the role of these schools change and what internal transformation will they have to undergo?
The larger part of research potential, especially in terms of staff, is found in schools of higher education. Obviously, the process we have been talking about will also involve and become an opportunity for Polish universities. They will be able to develop their research, mainly because they will receive more money for this. However, universities will also have to adjust their research to what the state's science policy recognizes as being the most important. We have already selected several large strategic areas of scientific research. Every research unit, including a university, that wants to join such research will receive greater funds than previously from the state coffers. This will be a new opportunity for schools that conduct research work next to their core activity of teaching. They will be able to develop their scientific potential significantly, for example by taking part in one of the great European projects for an innovative economy. These "innovations" will also be able to originate from schools of higher learning as research units. If the schools join these research programs, they will receive money enabling them to develop in economic and staffing terms, to make a presence for themselves in the world to a greater extent than today. This will be possible not only because young people will be well educated, but also thanks to research results. This outlines a very optimistic prospect for Polish universities.

How will the role of the Polish Academy of Sciences change?
From the legal status side, nothing will change. The academy will exist and will have the same legal standing as today; it will still be a corporation of eminent scholars, and it will continue its research through its research institutes. However, the institutes cannot continue in their present form. They will be subject to the changes I mentioned earlier. There is no question that the part of the science sector that is represented by institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) has a major role to play. There will be room both for institutes dealing with purely theoretical problems and those that are able to conduct research directly for the benefit of the economy. Good prospects and new opportunities are thus opening up before PAN institutes as well.

We keep on returning to the problem of links between science and the economy. Transferring scientific achievements to the economy seems to be of key importance today. What will your ministry do to improve this transfer?
We are already undertaking such measures. Stimulating cooperation between the science and business sectors, and developing and maintaining it, is an extremely difficult task. First, you need persistent information activity-you have to inform and persuade your prospective partners that both sides stand to gain, that they need each other. From communist times, we inherited an economy that was not used to working with the science sector. The existence of an enterprise under communism did not depend on whether it was innovative or productive. It could operate even if it was completely inefficient but existed thanks to a political decision. Cooperation between science and the economy should be an element of the managerial culture in a broad sense, for both science and business managers. We have to list this as an important element of managerial education. We also need to account for the substance of the economy. Our private sector mostly consists of trading companies whose existence does not rely on innovation. Innovation is the prerequisite of market success for production companies, of which there are far fewer in Poland. Many of them follow patterns or technologies that someone else invented and developed elsewhere. For example, computers are not produced but only assembled in Poland. Thus, state-of-the-art technologies invented somewhere else are developed in Poland through foreign investment. Of course, this is not without importance for the qualifications of our employees. I've read in a newspaper that a company from India plans to make TV monitors from scratch in Poland, instead of just assembling them. This means that modern production will enter our market, in which we will participate and learn something new. Foreign companies are the main incubators and promoters of cooperation between science and business in Poland. Though they have scientific facilities in their own countries, we will try to set such facilities up for these companies in Poland. We will show them that we have good research laboratories that are also much cheaper. These measures of persuasion are slowly starting to bring results.

We need to say the same things to our researchers, who until now were not used to their existence and success depending on whether what they were doing could be useful to the economy. It was enough for someone to obtain a postdoctoral degree, even purely theoretical, to become a professor and have a guaranteed prominent place at a university. Today we will try to persuade university authorities that if their scientists work for the economy, the schools themselves will receive more money and better equipment, and will find a place in world science. The lack of commitment to research for industry could mean a worse financial standing for the school. Of course, there is the question of risk in joint projects. Business people have to be convinced that they have to take that risk together with their scientific partner. The role of the state is to take care to reduce the risk, to cover some of that risk and thus encourage the partners to develop closer cooperation. We recently announced the Technological Initiative, a special program for financing innovation in companies, addressed to the business sector. No scientific partner was required in this case. A company's own innovative program counted. This was not about building more splendid headquarters but about improving production, technology or services. We assigned zl.100 million for this in the first round of recruitment. We want to encourage companies to be innovative and show entrepreneurs that they have a partner in us and can count on our support.

There is a lot of work ahead. Let me give an example. I was visited by representatives of the pharmaceutical industry who said that the greatest challenge for them was the clinical test stage of developing a medication. It is the most expensive and most risky stage. A new drug tested on animals can display a high level of usefulness, but this may not be confirmed in clinical tests. In such cases all the money spent on research is wasted. For both a small business and a large pharmaceutical corporation, this is a very serious risk. Companies in Poland do not have capital that they are prepared to invest in scientific research. Investing in development is very limited. Global pharmaceutical giants are investing in research without knowing what to expect, counting on seeing some of it generate a profit that will justify all other spending, including money spent on unsuccessful investments. We do not have this freedom of maneuver in Poland because we do not have rich enough investors. That is why we need to start persuading our partners from the business community that the state is able to reduce the risk. For now, through information and persuasion, guaranteeing our support, we hope to bring about the development of cooperation between the economy and the research sector. We are not inventing anything new-other, more developed countries have long been traveling along this road and have been successful. This is taking care of one's own interests in a good way; market economy mechanisms and competition impose innovative behaviors. Those who fail in this will have to disappear from the market. We want to help our entrepreneurs behave in this pro-innovation way. This is one of the greatest challenges we face.

It is clear that spectacular effects in the form of a new medication or some super-machine, or something else that will enrapture the world, can only come after some years. Even from a political viewpoint this is very hard work; we are sowing today but do not know who will be harvesting. I think it will take at least five or even 10 years for the results of the policy we are currently developing to be felt. It was the same in the countries whose example we are following.

How will this policy of giving preference to research related to the economy and serving its development, affect the condition of the humanities and theoretical sciences?
There is no danger to these sciences at all. As I said, we have earmarked a separate budget for these areas, which will be distributed by the Theoretical Research Agency. We decided that some sensitive studies that cannot be put to immediate practical use in the economy, and may never be able to generate tangible profits, need to have a separate budget so as not to disappear, not to lose their ambition of playing a major role for the benefit of Polish culture and world culture as a whole. Therefore we will not leave the humanities by the wayside. The Theoretical Research Agency will be a separate structure implementing and coordinating the system of financing research. This will allow us to avoid rivalry between practical and theoretical research.

Moving to the second group of issues, what do you think are the greatest benefits for Polish science stemming from Poland's EU accession?
Accession gave Poland full access to all the European research programs. Starting in 2004 and continuing every year, Poland's role in the 7th Framework Programme, which is worth several dozen billion euros, has been changing all the time. In previous years, when Poland was not an EU member, we had a subordinate role to play. For example, it was only in special cases that Polish scientists were appointed research coordinators. We were needed more as a way of showing the world that the EU was bending a little towards the east, towards the prospective new member countries. Today we are a full-fledged participant in all EU research projects. Our position is improving; the very fact that Polish experts will take part in the selection process for research projects allows us to believe that our participation in the 7th Framework Programme will grow. To Polish researchers, this is an obvious and visible benefit of EU membership. I hope that within the 7th Programme we will be able to use more of the available funding for research than we did in the previous, 6th Programme.

Other benefits stem from taking part in the work of all the bodies that coordinate European research policy. As the saying goes: nothing about us without us. We will be able to influence all the important processes in European science, take part in building great research facilities whose cost exceeds the capacity of any single country. We will be involved in this not just because we want to use these facilities but do not have them in Poland, but also because we are reliable partners since we have the money to pay our share. Soon we will have the next meeting at which Poland, Germany and several other countries already won over to the idea will talk about building a giant accelerator and persuading other countries to join this project. Without EU membership, even if we had been invited, we would not have had the money to take part in projects of this kind.

Next, we will be building what is referred to today as the common European research space. This is not just equipment; it is also a common educational space that will result in the establishment of the European Institute of Technology. The latest idea is that this should not be a school of higher learning located in a particular place, with its own staff, but an association of many schools forming a scientific research network. I hope, and this is something we are working on, that the central board of such a school will be based in Wrocław. Both the government and scientists themselves are undertaking numerous initiatives to win decision-makers over to this location. It's a tough matter, though, as other countries also aspire to the same prestigious goal. This is another example of Poland's active participation in building the European research and educational space.

The latest meeting of ministers from countries that have joined the Bologna Process-a new concept for organizing higher education in Europe-ended a few days ago. Though this idea reaches beyond the EU, the EU countries play the leading role in this process. This means even more benefits for Poland as a member state; we are creating new opportunities for student exchanges, sending our researchers on foreign traineeships, something without which it is impossible to obtain a good education today-especially when we are talking about fields that depend on well-equipped laboratories, which we still lack. This is an unquestionable benefit from EU membership.

How has Poland's research cooperation with countries outside the EU changed in recent years?
It has not changed dramatically, but today we have a much better position, much higher ratings-as we could already sense last year. We have become a more credible partner, willingly accepted in bilateral relations with, for example, non-EU countries such as the United States, the world's unquestioned leader in scientific research. The United States is a global partner for many countries that want to develop research, including Poland. We have achieved much greater credibility there in recent years than we had in the past. Previously, the main argument in our favor was the good education of our students and young scholars, who visited the United States and became easily acclimatized there, were appreciated, and some stayed on for good as valued research workers. We have professors with good reputations who lecture in the United States and take part in research, like the astronomers I mentioned earlier. But that is not all-specialists in medicine, physics and biology are also taking part in major research there that is important for the whole scientific world. Now there is the additional reliability factor: a better budget. Of course, we are a long way from the U.S. budget, also because research over there is strongly supported by the private sector, which invests huge money in science simply for profit. However, today we are undoubtedly in a much better situation than a few years ago. Suffice it to say that spending on research in 2005 was meager. Today things are much better. In percentage terms, the growth may not be spectacular, but this is largely because the country's gross domestic product is growing rapidly as well. If we were to adopt the Lisbon Perspective today, which calls for 3 percent of GDP spent on scientific research, with our current GDP, we would have to spend about zl.30 billion. This is absolutely unachievable for us-we are spending about zl.4 billion on research today from the national budget, which means from our own incomes-not including EU funds. With EU funds, we will have 50 percent more in 2007. This is a giant leap, in both absolute numbers and percentage terms. The quantitative growth will be very large in the coming years, though the percentage growth will be slow.

Thanks to this leap in outlays, we are a more credible and more sought-after partner today. Among the less affluent European countries, we are still a country with a large GDP, so 1 percent of our GDP involves incomparably more money than 1 percent of the GDP in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or even the Czech Republic and Hungary. That is why we are an increasingly valuable partner for cooperation in scientific research.

I see this every day. Partners from outside Europe want to talk with us and send their students here to be educated. We have to open up, and primarily increase the number of schools offering courses in English. The people coming here will not learn Polish, while they usually know English as the global language. We should prepare well-designed proposals quickly, and that is another challenge for Poland's schools of higher learning. They are already taking up this challenge; for example, medical universities in several cities already offer courses taught in English right up to full graduation. This kind of proposal is sure to interest many people and will be competitive. Thus, our credibility and our reputation as a partner for scientific research and for educating young people is growing; we are improving and have ever better ratings.

How does scientific cooperation with Russia look today? Under communism, Russia was forced upon us as a research partner, but today it is still one of the world's scientific powers.
We still have contacts there, both individual and institutional. In some fields, such as research in the exact sciences, we have never broken off those contacts. Russia's scientific communities are open and value their contacts with us. Personally, I see no danger of a worsening atmosphere of our cooperation. It can freely develop to the extent that both sides are interested in. This is no longer a matter of politics, neither great government politics nor any other. The prospective partners decide about these contacts. Schools of higher learning are fully autonomous, also in terms of choosing partners for all kinds of research projects. They decide who they want to conduct research with. Soon, as a result of the reforms I have outlined, scientific institutes will be in a similar situation and will be able to choose their partners. Why would these not be Russian partners as well, especially since in certain fields these are very interesting and promising contacts.

Opening up completely to scientific contacts with the world leads to the emigration of scientists, temporarily or for good. What benefits and what dangers do you see in this?
I see mainly benefits. We need to emphasize that we waited a long time for such a complete opening; my generation in particular could only dream of it. We know very well how much this is worth. Nobody can deny that it is good for our young people and our scholars, especially those still building their research position, to have the opportunity to supplement their education in other countries; especially countries that play a leading role in a given field. This is an undeniably positive and useful process. Moreover, we try to facilitate traineeship-type visits, for both students and young researchers. Undoubtedly, it is not to our advantage if these researchers, having completed their traineeship, developed their qualifications and supplemented their education, do not return to Poland. This means we are contributing a very valuable resource to other countries-educated specialists and researchers. But, we live in a democratic country and cannot impose any restrictions that would force these people to come back. That would not do; instead, we must try to create good work conditions for them to do research in Poland, and this is what we are slowly beginning to do. It is one of the elements of our policy. We will strive not only to increase the number of people able to work in the science sector, as they are too few-especially if we want the industrial sector to join in research and innovation projects-but also to create conditions for the people who have left Poland to come back. Just recently, for example, I received an invitation to a scientific session combined with the recruitment of new researchers for a PAN research institute. Several foreigners have applied; this institute seeking research workers has a good reputation worldwide and although it cannot offer an attractive salary, it is good to know that young researchers do not have to achieve rapid financial success at the start of their careers. What they do have to have are well-equipped laboratories, opportunities for development, as that is the most important thing. They will start earning money a little later. Therefore I am optimistic. I think that if we create better work conditions than those available today, we will stand a chance of bringing back at least some of the people who have emigrated in search of a scientific career and have learned more. Of course, we are aware of the brain drain of young academic workers. This concerns not only Poland, but practically all countries poorer than the United States, a country that is always prepared to offer better pay. What we need to do is ensure greater research freedom in Poland in better equipped laboratories as well as access to attractive scientific projects. Then these people will see that their work in Poland can be no less, and sometimes even more, interesting than in the West.


Prof. MichaŁ SeweryŃski
Born in 1939.
Professor at ŁódĽ University. Honorary doctorate from Lyon University.
Expert in the field of Polish and international master and servant law. Author of about 130 scientific papers and lectures presented at international congresses. Visiting professor at universities in France, Canada, Switzerland, Spain and Japan.
Member of Polish and foreign scientific societies, member of the Pope's Council for secular problems, member of the Prime Minister's Legislative Council, vice-president of the Government Law Reform Commission.
Rector of ŁódĽ University.
President of the Polish Universities' Rectors' Conference.
Decorations: Polonia Restituta, Academic Palms (France), Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice. Honorary consul of France in ŁódĽ.
Married, two children.