Prof. Michał Kleiber, minister of science in 2001-2005, now president of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), talks to Danuta Górecka.

It is hard to manage scientific research when money is in short supply and young researchers are leaving the country. How do you plan to tackle these problems as president of the Polish Academy of Sciences?

There's a lot of hard work ahead. Let's start by saying that Poland has great research potential. Unfortunately, the Polish system is egalitarian in terms of funding, because it tends to support low-standard research. Meanwhile, real science, including research that translates into corporate innovation, needs high-standard achievements. This means Poland should have a system of elite university-level schools and research institutes-a total of 20 would be sufficient. These should have their funding increased in one leap so that they could aspire to become leading research and teaching facilities in Europe.

Don't Polish universities, such as the Jagiellonian University in Cracow or the University of Warsaw, already meet European standards?

Of course-thanks to their traditions, staff or campuses. Unfortunately, we are unable to match the world's best universities with the current level of funding. An elitist approach is absolutely essential. We also need to find a way to overcome political and academic-community resistance in the face of an approach in which those who are good would be getting twice as much money as those who are not so good. These institutions will only receive enough funds for their basic needs related to teaching until they upgrade their standards. Such a mechanism should be at work at the level of funding for universities, funding for research projects, and in selecting priority fields for research.

For two years now I have been a member of the European Research Council, a body of 22 members, including many Nobel Prize winners. Actually, the entire European Union has problems similar to ours. Funding in Europe is much lower than in the United States or Japan, for example. China too will probably be spending a greater percentage of its gross domestic product on research than the EU within a year or two, 2 percent versus 1.9 percent. Today China is spending around 1.3-1.4 percent of its GDP on research. To compare, in the United States the figure is around 2.6 percent.

Among other countries, Japan assigns around 3 percent, and the same goes for Sweden, in line with the EU's Lisbon Strategy. Poland is lagging behind with a mere 0.56 percent of the GDP. Why is this so?

Sweden is a European leader, and so is Finland, but both these countries are small. That's why their high level of spending has a limited influence on pan-European statistics. In larger countries such as France or Italy, on the other hand, there is stagnation in terms of funding levels, which are actually quite low at the moment. These two countries, as well as other large countries including Poland, have the greatest impact on funding in the entire EU. Poland accounts for over 8 percent of the EU's total population, yet our GDP contribution is only about 2 percent of the EU total. Therefore it seems that our share in the European research budget should be at least 2 percent. In reality, however, Poland's share is only about 0.7 percent of the total pool of money for research across the EU. The key issue is the proper management of European funds.

If funding for research increased, would we be able to put this money to good use?

Just recently my reply to this sort of question was "I'm not sure." We had a system for funding research that was rather ineffective, and some key issues such as the accountability of research were neglected. Of course, this doesn't mean accountability only in terms of short-term economic success, but chiefly in terms of improving our position in world science. The system for allocating funds was very complicated in Poland for many years, which was largely due to huge competition provoked by a ubiquitous shortage of funds. At the same time, the system for accounting for money spent was flawed. Today this is improving, and I am convinced that if we increased our budget by 15 or 20 percent annually, the money would still be well spent. This is not only a question of how research is financed but also of the plans concerning the best universities and institutes. Another important thing is for research institutes to be able to define their mission properly.

Does this mean that some universities have not defined their goals and are still groping in the dark?

To see the scale of the problem, it's enough to realize that the United States has about 300 university-level schools, of which no more than a third aspire to being research institutions. This means that in an affluent country where science is well funded, no more than 100 schools are competing for money for state-of-the-art research. In Poland today we have about 500 university-level schools, including private ones, and most of them want to conduct ambitious research. All of them, meanwhile, should sensibly evaluate their chances and have ambitions on a level that is justified in view of their potential. There is a lot to be done in science for the benefit of the regions where universities and research institutes are located. They should conduct applied research focusing on solving local and regional problems. Only sometimes, in special circumstances, should they think in terms of research on a greater scale, which today usually requires huge outlays and specialist personnel.

Isn't this already happening, to mention projects such as the Aviation Valley in the southeastern region of Podkarpacie?

The very positive fact about the Aviation Valley project-of which I have been a proud promoter for many years-is that its establishment was initiated by strong companies with foreign capital rather than by universities. These companies are after state-of-the-art technology, and everyone knows that good research is the best investment. However, for now, foreign companies prefer to locate research in their home countries, not Poland. It's the fault of the mistakes we made during privatization 15 years ago. The most important thing then was not to lay off staff, not to reduce wages, and to maintain various social security benefits. As a result, most research and development units had to be closed down.

In contrast, the Czech Republic and Hungary demanded research packages next to social security packages, and most company research units remained in place as modern research laboratories supporting industry. This brings me to my point that the public debate in Poland on these issues is superficial, and often concerns historically unimportant matters. I lived abroad for many years, where it's impossible for a political party to win an election without clearly outlined educational, scientific and innovation plans. In Poland, nobody knows what the parties plan. There is no coherent innovation policy.

Meanwhile, there are funds flowing into Poland from the EU. We have about zl.500 billion to spend over seven years on measures nominally aimed at modernizing the country. Such a huge opportunity-with so much money available for modernization-will never come again in my lifetime or in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. We have an opportunity of waking up in a completely different country in seven years' time. Just look at the OECD statistics: 25 to 30 years ago Greece, Portugal and Spain as well as Ireland and Finland were at the same level of development, measured in GDP per capita; all of them accounted for around 70 percent of the EU average. Today Greece and Portugal still account for the same 70 percent, while Ireland boasts 132 percent; Finland reports 127 percent, and Spain exactly 100 percent. Wise policies have made these countries European leaders within one generation. This means that in 30 years in Poland, our children or grandchildren will stand a chance of living in one of the richest countries in Europe.

That sounds very optimistic, but don't you think that Poland will still have to meet many conditions before this vision becomes reality?

Absolutely anything is possible-on one condition: that we find a way to be successful in putting EU money to good use. For now, one can only be a moderate optimist. The political commitment of Poland's consecutive governments to this kind of modernization project has been insufficient, though we are getting more and more positive feedback. Poland has many advantages: we are a relatively young society, we are getting all this funding, we are a large country, and we have a large expatriate community around the world. All this is very important. Wasting this opportunity would be unforgivable. I trust it won't happen.

Poland has huge potential in the form of educated and talented people. How should they be encouraged to develop their skills?

The most important thing is to give the most talented people opportunities for development in Poland. Two things are needed for this. One is creating favorable conditions for starting small innovative businesses. Poland lacks such a climate today. Businesses should be easy to establish and run; venture capital should be available, and we need a proper business climate.

One problem is that even the most reputable research groups with a long list of achievements have little chance for a bank loan in Poland today. Polish banks simply don't trust such projects and don't have good risk evaluation methods. There are not enough examples of successful innovative activities, and the entrepreneurial abilities of some of our innovators and inventors also leave much to be desired. I hope the situation in this area will improve quickly.

Completely new possibilities for conducting research have to be created as well. We need twice as many Ph.D. students, some of whom would go into research, while others would work for companies. This would stop many people from leaving the country. Ph.D. studies should be community-based and take advantage of the synergy between the research unit and the overall research infrastructure. Unfortunately, it often happens in Poland that some expensive piece of equipment purchased by a university or a research institute is locked away at 4 p.m. and no one has access to it. In part, this is because someone is financially responsible for this equipment if it's made available to outside users. However, similar problems exist all over the world, and they are resolved in one way or another. You just need to form a research consortium, sign an appropriate agreement, and so on.

Doesn't this simply mean that Poland should follow the best international practices?

Cities such as Warsaw, Cracow, Wrocław, Poznań and Gdańsk would be able to offer Ph.D. studies of the highest world standard in many scientific fields if they joined forces and worked together. Meanwhile, Wrocław, for example, has three Ph.D. studies in physics: at the University of Wrocław, at the Wrocław University of Technology, and at a leading institute run by the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN). I cannot understand why they are separate. There ought to be only one course, which would make it possible to pool resources in terms of competence, equipment and funds, which, in the current situation, is an essential condition of success.

After you took over as president of the Polish Academy of Sciences early this year, you announced the establishment of a research coordination center. What does this plan entail?

Coordination of research within an institution as large as PAN is essential. Research efforts at PAN can be consolidated without significantly restricting scientists' autonomy.

We need a wise policy on creating and using knowledge at all levels of management in Poland. We need to sensibly develop the creativity of people, organizations, companies and all kinds of enterprises as well as public administration. At the government level, implementing a policy to improve society's creativity should be the responsibility of a single official in the rank of deputy prime minister in charge of the country's modernization. They would be responsible for education, culture, new technology and innovation.

The Polish Academy of Sciences has a huge role to play in the country, hence its great responsibility. As head of PAN, I hope to receive help in reforming this institution in a process that is already in progress.

What does this reform involve?

PAN plays a dual role: it is an association of scientists and a set of research units. With regard to the former component, the advanced age of many of PAN's members is a problem. Because the greatest honors usually come late in life, the association ends up being "old." Meanwhile, modern management methods require young blood. PAN members are elected in a democratic and rational way; truly the greatest Polish scholars are selected. Intellectually, this is a very strong association. There are so many candidates for the academy from the scientific community nationwide that many great scientists cannot be selected because PAN can have a maximum of 350 members.

I have some ideas on how to rejuvenate the association. We want to introduce a rule for members who turn 75 not to be counted as part of the quota. We have a lot of people aged over 75, so with this rule we could elect many young colleagues. We also want to introduce a new policy dubbed the "Youth Academy" whereby we would be able to elect the country's best young scientists as junior members, not for life, but, say, for five years. We are working on the rules for such a system and beginning next year scientists aged 35-40 may actively join the academy's work.

Apart from PAN members, the association includes about 100 scientific committees that are created by way of democratic elections throughout the country's scientific and academic community. These bodies represent either individual scientific disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, chemistry, history, and sociology, or areas of study. Examples include the Polish Language Council, which is a PAN committee that comprehensively assesses the rules of language usage, or the Poland 2000+ Committee, which deals with forecasting Poland's socioeconomic development. These committees represent the whole of Polish science; the great majority, 60-70 percent, are university staff. These are very important bodies because they unite the Polish research community, creating discussion forums to talk about the problems and future of individual disciplines.

What about research units-the other component of PAN?

The Polish Academy of Sciences was established in October 1951 and had research institutes from the very start. Today their number is larger and they are absolute leaders in Polish science in terms of quality. This is exemplified by the latest "Polish Nobel Prizes" given out by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP). Of the competition's four winners, three are from PAN. The fourth is a University of Warsaw professor who concurrently works as vice-president of PAN.

When we held the first competition for centers of excellence under the auspices of the European Commission-with reviews, opinions and evaluations given by international officials-22 Center of Excellence titles went to facilities in all the new EU member states, which were candidate states at the time. Among these, nine were Polish, including seven PAN units. Despite this, Polish science needs improvement and structural changes. PAN units certainly need such changes as well.

What direction will the changes take?

A consolidation process is certainly needed in terms of subject matter. Research is terribly fragmented, which may be a good thing when all research projects are carried out by great scientists. But we don't have just great scientists, so it would be sensible to set up large research teams working on large, ambitious projects. This is hard in the current organizational arrangement. We have dozens of research units at PAN, and each has many professors. Many units have long suffered from funding shortages and cannot hire any more talented young people. A new arrangement needs to be worked out to consolidate the research efforts of several institutes. It is also obvious that modern research institutions should have some kind of supervisory boards. We need a body that would represent the public interest before large units conducting research.

My idea is that most PAN units would create a dozen or so loosely or closely connected research centers. Each of these would encompass a few of the current institutes. Joint application for research funding would certainly be much more effective then. This would have a gradual, beneficial influence on shaping the modern profiles of the research centers. Through various organizational methods, the centers should attract top scientists, including those from universities and research and development units. The supervisory boards of regional centers should include scientists as well as local government officials responsible for the development of education, research and innovation in a given region. Bankers and experts on European issues should also be involved, to help obtain EU funding. Individual units need help with obtaining funds. Many of them fully deserve the money, but, due to their size, have problems coming up with sufficiently ambitious projects.

Overall, we have a clear plan ready, and many things have been sorted out. We have applied for all kinds of funding for the planned centers. Our plan additionally opens PAN up to academia, as we want to ask scientists working at universities to become members of the centers' supervisory boards.

According to what criteria will the centers be established?

When I was minister for science, we drew up a document called The National Framework Program. It specified priority research areas for Poland and said what kind of research should be conducted, and what areas should be emphasized: theoretical research, applied research, or staff education. To my great satisfaction, my successors approved this document, with a few minor corrections and additions. PAN centers are structured in such a way that they can deal with the most important problems of contemporary world science, on one hand, and pursue national priorities, on the other. This is accompanied by better funding opportunities. Luckily, these two goals overlap to a large extent because Polish science is part of world science.

Poland's energy sector is largely based on coal, while other countries are switching to nuclear power and renewable energy. What is the Polish research agenda in this field?

Poland's program for the development of power engineering says that the first nuclear power plant should start operating by 2020. Meeting this deadline is essential. We are already behind, because it roughly takes about 12 years to build a nuclear power plant. Broad public approval is also needed. This is something we lack because of a failed project in Żarnowiec some years back and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster across Poland's eastern border in 1986. This means that we should be steadily conducting a campaign to promote nuclear power, which is currently back in favor around the world. In fact, we should have started such a campaign two or three years ago. An environmentally aware country like Finland is building a new reactor, and so are many other countries. Today nuclear technology is the cleanest source of energy. Like everything, it has its weak points such as the problem of waste, but there is no energy source that would be completely free of drawbacks.

Poland has huge coal deposits, and it is certainly in its best interest to continue to mine this coal for many years to come. This means that Poland has to develop clean technology based on coal. Unless we show we are serious about pollution, we will not be a credible partner on the international arena. Poland has a major opportunity to become a leader in thinking about a pollution control system.

Especially as we are expected to host a world conference under the auspices of the United Nations next year in December to discuss climate change. Are preparations for this event already in progress?

Predictions are that over 10,000 people will take part. Because a new pollution control system will be take effect Jan. 1, 2013 to replace the Kyoto Protocol, next year should see the first proposals on how this new system should look. The Polish minister of the environment is officially the coordinator of preparations for this conference. If all goes to plan, late next year Poland may play an important role in the world by preparing a document as part of international consultations that would be the first attempt to reach agreement on climate change, a key issue for humankind.

What about biotechnology, the buzzword of the 21st century? Is it true that foreign universities are bending over backwards to lure away Polish biotechnologists?

Biotechnology is relatively strong in Poland and should be supported. The problem is that we are not good at protecting our intellectual property rights in Poland. Obtaining a patent is very expensive, often beyond the reach of many Polish researchers, and that's something we lose out on. Patents and other intellectual property rights are among the key aspects of competition. Giant corporations patent 10 or more inventions daily. Today it is hard to start certain types of production without violating someone's patent. Unfortunately, Poland lags far behind in terms of the number of patents, and this problem is not receiving enough attention.

Still, Polish researchers are doing their best to fend off competition from the world's top brains. Would you agree that Polish science is increasingly appreciated in the world?

Many people in Poland are keenly interested in increasing the level of innovation. There is also a growing group of politicians who are interested in this problem. We are on the right track, but are we moving forward fast enough? Every country has such doubts in a world in which everyone is competing against everyone else. We have to part of this competition and keep talking about it, calmly encouraging our scientists and showing them examples of successful projects.

At the moment I am managing a huge project called The National Foresight Program: Poland 2020, which involves several thousand people. It concerns predicting the development of various kinds of research and new technology in Poland, in terms of how they can be used for the country's development. The program ends in June, and its results will be presented after the summer vacations. This is a fascinating project that involves the evaluation of individual ventures in terms of their usefulness for science and the economy as a whole.