This page has been archived

24. 7. 2009 11:46

Fischer: We’re not killing off science, the Academy is not the sector’s only champion

On Tuesday, members and supporters of the Academy of Sciences held a rally called The Murder of Czech Science, where they heaped criticism on the government and voiced numerous false arguments and unsubstantiated allegations.

A disinterested, uninformed onlooker might have been given the impression that so far everything to do with the financing of the domestic science agenda has run smoothly and that, were it not for the current caretaker government, which for mysterious reasons has decided to destroy Czech science and research, it would continue to do so. Not true!

The system for the funding of scientific institutions, so slated by the supporters of the Academy of Sciences, did not appear overnight. The radical reform of state aid for science and research was one of the previous government’s priority policies and as such this idea enjoyed the Czech scientific community’s support.


The reform took the shape of a draft amendment to the Act on the promotion of research and development. The Czech Academy of Sciences, along with other scientific institutions, was a “consultation point” in the preparation of the amendment, and therefore had the opportunity to comment on the draft law. Specifically, the points raised by the Academy of Sciences were either incorporated into the government draft, or were subsequently withdrawn by the Academy. Furthermore, the law was submitted to Topolánek’s government without opposition.

This was also reflected in the very smooth debate on the draft legislation in Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies passed it – without any political quarrelling – by a majority of 131 votes (which means the law was backed not only by “government” supporters, but by MPs across the political spectrum), and the Senate opted not to discuss it.

The shape assumed by the reform of science funding, including the subsequent decision to strengthen applied research at the expense of basic research, is not, then, the result of a decision by my government, but reflects the priorities and proposals of the previous government. Following this logic, we arrive at what, today, is perhaps the core of the matter: any significant change in the system can only emanate from a future government, a government with a long-term mandate and the standard parliamentary support, not from a temporary caretaker government.

The government of which I am prime minister finds itself hemmed in on two sides: on the one hand, there is the Act on the promotion of research and development, establishing rules on the allocation of state money; on the other, we are faced with the economic constraints of the central government budget at a time of economic crisis. Against this background, I decided that, compared to other budget headings, state spending on science and research as a whole would be the last to suffer cuts and that it would remain at 2009 levels.

I am confident that even the Academy’s unquestioning fans will agree that, in such circumstances, it is essential that we do our utmost to ensure that the limited financial resources return maximum benefit. As a specialist in statistics, I am well aware of the fact that the benefits cannot be viewed unidimensionally. Therefore, I do not share the view that if scientific research is of a high standard, it automatically provides a quantitatively measurable return over the space of just a few years.

Of course, I know that there are scientific fields that do belong to a narrower dimension in that they cultivate our national culture and that, as a matter of principle, there is no way that they can be promoted equally in an international comparison. This is one of the reasons why the state does not support science solely along straightforward economic lines, but also views it as an essential part of the country’s general cultural and spiritual plane.

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to make another observation: the Academy of Sciences is not the only champion of science and research in the Czech Republic! Although the position of the Czech Academy of Sciences, which holds the elevated status of administrator of its own heading in the national budget, has risen significantly in the last five years, it is a statistical fact that the scope of research and results at non-Academy institutions has expanded at a faster pace.

Between 2005 and 2009, the Academy of Sciences was allocated a total of CZK 18.25 billion crowns from the budget, while higher education institutions received only CZK 12.7 billion crowns in the same period. And the result? Of the total number of articles by Czech authors published in prestigious international journals, scientists from the Academy of Sciences account for only 37%. From the perspective of other types of results yielded by scientific exploration, less than a third can be attributed to the Academy of Sciences. Arguing, then, that reducing the Academy’s budget is tantamount to the “murder of Czech science”, as the participants of Tuesday’s rally would have it, is not only unscientific, but directly misleading.

The management of the Academy of Sciences is calling for the preservation of its budget, and claiming that the forthcoming reduction in the “institutional” part of the budget, i.e. that part of the budget received by the Academy regardless of the results it produces, will effectively lead to its demise. I can only observe, with a discreet sigh, that I hear the same from farmers, railwaymen, soldiers, firemen, doctors and many other professions where the national budget will have to be drastically reduced, or at least structurally overhauled, in the coming years.

I am no politician; although, by education, personal constitution and way of thinking, I am a member of the Czech scientific community, I simply cannot satisfy this demand that is being made by disgruntled academics. One of the reasons is that, given the time remaining until the general election, it is impossible to change the rules forming the basis for the distribution of state aid. I am not trying to evade responsibility; I am stating the facts.

The idea of reallocating institutional funds on the basis of the results achieved by individual institutes and universities, as prepared by the Government Council for Science and Research, is undoubtedly correct, but I agree that the current methodology was established when public expenditure on science and research was expected to increase. Conversely, in the current climate of austerity, it is all the more imperative that we review the parameters of the evaluation methodology.

Personally, I agree that the staff of the Government Council for Science and Research needs to be replaced as soon as possible in accordance with applicable law, by means of a transparent public selection process, so that, among its members, recognized scientists, accompanied by equally respected applied researchers, prevail.

Nevertheless, the overriding aim must be to achieve the reform objectives, namely the formulation and promotion of a creative, stimulating environment for scientific excellence, rather than to preserve the status quo or the mechanical distribution of budget allocations.

All this is possible and I am ready to start the relevant processes and ensure that visible progress is made. In short, there are two options: either hold constructive discussions with the government and me personally in an effort to find a solution, or demonstrate and bawl that the government is “killing off Czech science”. In any case, it is not possible to do both simultaneously.

Jan Fischer, Czech Prime Minister

print article   email   facebook   twitter