"We cannot afford to support a multitude of researchers who exist instead of practicing science"

• I would like to improve the competences of politicians, says Prof. Krzysztof Pyrć, virologist and new president of the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP), in an interview with WNP.
• The professor criticizes expert groups created to improve public image and proposes that every ministry should have a scientific advisor. This person would analyze data and provide scientific evidence to ensure that political decisions are based on facts, not interests or emotions.
• The CIS interlocutor also calls for reform of science. He speaks of greater freedom for top researchers, a focus on education in strategic fields, and the efficient use of public funds.
• Professor Pyrć emphasizes that Poland should define its areas of strength. He proposes systemic support for selected research areas and the development of top-down collaboration with business.

Are Professor Maciej Żylicz's shoes comfortable?

I wouldn't dare step into my predecessor's shoes. Professor Żylicz is an iconic figure who had a significant impact on Polish science's global reach.

I'm asking you precisely for this reason. When Professor Żylicz was president, the FNP not only distributed grants but was also an important center for scientific discussion. Will this continue under your leadership?

"My plans are to expand this part even further. From the outset, the Foundation's mission was to fill gaps in the system. Therefore, it supported the development of competences of scientists and program managers, sent scientists to the best institutions in the world to gain experience and contacts, and later—through its programs—encouraged them to return and develop science in our country."

This is also about you.

- Yes, indeed, many years ago I returned to Poland thanks to the FNP program.

Later, the Foundation began funding science through structural projects because of a lack of funding for research. Fortunately, the National Science Centre was established, and this gap was also filled. There's no point in encroaching on its remit.

So what gap do you see?

"We have a very large gap between science and the broader society and economy . It's often said that scientists should figure out how to transform their research into solutions used by industry. However, that's not their role. Scientists are supposed to be engaged in science. Instead, it's the state and entities like the Foundation that should create bridges."

We are currently implementing two such programs – Prime and Proof of Concept. The former helps researchers find ideas for commercializing research, while the latter helps them verify whether the solutions developed by scientists actually work.

But this is not the end, because I would also like to improve the competences of politicians.

"A politician could make decisions based on facts, not just the assessment of interest groups"

Politicians?

"Of course. First, we need a better understanding of the role of science in the modern world and informed decisions that foster an innovation-based economy. Second, we would like to leverage the experience of some countries where political decisions are based on scientific evidence. Unfortunately, in our country, there is a mutual lack of understanding between the scientific and political communities, and the concept of "scientific advice" doesn't work."

It's not a matter of understanding, but of the nature of politics. Remember when Radosław Fogiel, then deputy spokesman for Law and Justice, said on RMF FM that his party had sought the support of experts – including those from universities – but that it didn't work because their actions contradicted the political platform?

- As I said, the formula doesn't work.

On the one hand, politicians sometimes form expert groups, but I have the impression that this often happens not to gain substantive support, but for purely utilitarian reasons – either they want to neutralize those who shout, or for PR purposes, or they use them as a buffer, deflecting public dissatisfaction with reforms back at them. On the other hand, scientists often exploit these contacts to gain influence or achieve personal goals.

In my opinion, changing this approach by both sides could make cooperation with scientists look different and be beneficial not only for both sides, but also for society.

What role do you see for the Foundation as a catalyst for cooperation between scientists and politicians?

"Think tanks can be established, and—as in Spain—a scientific advisor can be hired in each ministry. When regulations are being developed, their role is, for example, to identify the real scientific basis and solid data that can inform decisions. As a result, politicians could make decisions based on facts, not just the judgment of interest groups."

But a scientist can also be part of an interest group.

"Yes, that's why the trust built over the years in these scientific advisors is a crucial factor. The European Commission established its own institute, the Joint Research Council, which combines research and analytical resources, thus mitigating the problem of conflicts of interest. This is one possible path, and I believe it is possible."

Trust among decision-makers is one thing. Citizens' trust in such advice is another. You've been involved in vaccinations during the COVID pandemic, so you've experienced firsthand how low that trust can be.

"Some sections of society have truly lost trust in what scientists say. Of course, the reasons for this phenomenon can be debated at length, but it's worth considering the word we use in this context—faith. Science has become so specialized that it's becoming increasingly inaccessible to the average citizen. In such a situation, it's difficult to independently verify data, so it all comes down to faith."

As a result, whoever manages to "govern souls" gains de facto control over what is considered true and what is false, rendering facts irrelevant. As a result, we live in a reality where truth is increasingly determined by political sympathies and antipathies. Of course, there are many more reasons for this state of affairs.

Law and Justice (PiS) MP Janusz Cieszyński posted a video on social media from a 2022 webinar hosted by the current head of the Medical Research Agency. He explicitly recommended that those who refuse to be vaccinated be lied to. This wasn't a moment taken out of context, but the culmination of the lecture. How can the public trust scientists in such a situation?

- Personally, I disagree with this type of approach. It's hard for me to even address it.

During the pandemic, Professor Jerzy Duszyński and I formed an expert team, including not only doctors and virologists, but also psychologists and economists. In our publications, we reported what we didn't yet know about vaccines, wrote that they would no longer work, and that new variants of the virus would emerge. We tried to present matters as honestly as possible.

The problem is that society isn't listening to these calm voices. The question I can't answer is how to communicate them without letting fashion and clicks dictate actions and words.

The scientific community is not keen on self-purification - that's one of the problems.

It's time for a comprehensive reform of science. The way universities operate needs to change.

But isn't it just that we have a general crisis of faith in science?

"As I mentioned, one of the causes of the crisis is low trust in science. On the other hand, scientists are certainly not without blame. We constantly hear about misuse or ineffective use of funds, false scientific publications, and abuses. Even lies by people with academic titles. Worse still, such actions don't always lead to consequences; the community is reluctant to cleanse itself. This is another factor contributing to the decline in trust, which is especially important today."

And how to begin this great reconstruction?

First, we must rebuild the ethos of science. The first systemic step should be to redefine the way science, individuals, and scientists are assessed so that it truly promotes quality. Currently, we focus on numerical data – the number of publications, patents, and impact factor values.

Scientists have learned to function within this system, but if the goal is impact factor rather than the actual impact of research, the results are limited. Therefore, we must consider how to value the true scientific, social, and economic value of achievements. In my opinion, evaluation by independent experts from outside the system is the only, albeit imperfect, approach.

If I receive data on ten research units, it only takes me half an hour to assess which ones are actually contributing and which are merely faking their work. That's why the Foundation for Polish Science evaluates its applicants not based on points, but on a substantive analysis of their achievements. The entire science evaluation system should evolve in this direction.

What beyond evaluation?

- A change in approach to universities themselves. Today, they are administrative units.

And what should they be?

"The first is providing high-quality education for young people in sectors that are needed in the modern world. The second is investing in the best scientists and giving them the freedom to conduct their research. As a society, we cannot afford to maintain a multitude of researchers who simply exist, rather than pursue science. And another element: let's define what we are good at and develop our specializations."

So something like ordered directions?

"No, we can't allow officials to dictate what scientists should do. I absolutely don't want to devalue the work of officials; their work is very important, but that simply won't work. My point is to identify the areas in which we excel and create broader, systemic support for them. This approach will also help build international alliances – if our scientific and commercial partners know that a given field is strategically supported, they are more inclined to cooperate more closely."

When it comes to creating innovation, it's worth considering top-down programs in which research is conducted in close collaboration with business. Collaboration that doesn't rely on scientific servility, but on true co-creation.

The change in thinking about money in the EU forces specialization in research in Poland

What about the rest?

Systemic support for selected fields doesn't mean that other fields should be sidelined. Silicon Valley is dedicated to computer technology, Boston to biotechnology, London to fintech, and Copenhagen to green technologies.

In my opinion, we need to prioritize specialization, also due to the situation in the European Union. There's a significant debate about whether Europe can afford to support countries like Poland, or whether research budgets should be redirected to stronger centers.

Where is this discussion?

- In the European Commission. The question often arises as to how much more can be invested in countries that joined the community later.

There are voices saying that we have had plenty of time to catch up with Europe, but if for some reason this has not happened, perhaps the money should be reallocated to centres of excellence.

What would you support in Poland? What is our field?

"I'm a scientist, so I don't want to rely solely on my own beliefs. It would simply have to be measured. For some reason, for example, a large portion of ERC grants that go to Poland are in the humanities, which are neglected here. Maybe that's part of the answer?"

At the beginning of the conversation, you spoke about supporting scientists in their relationships with industry. Isn't it the case that Polish industry simply doesn't want to invest in research and development?

"Perhaps. However, industry won't invest in exploratory research because most of it ends in failure. It's the government that should be taking on that risk and leveraging it. If the government is afraid to invest in this type of activity, how can we expect someone whose goal is to make money to do so?"

We need to return to the issue of funding basic research and effectively selecting the most valuable research, and then build an appropriate model of cooperation. The literature clearly shows that countries that have developed such a system, such as South Korea and the United States, are successful and developing dynamically, while those that have not, have stagnated.

Does this require more money or better use of what we have?

- Additional funds are certainly needed, but I have the impression that without rethinking how we spend them, i.e. without a major reform, there will be no breakthrough.

Do you see any will for such a major reform anywhere on the horizon?

"I don't see it happening right now, but I believe we, as Polish society and the Polish economy, have no other choice. The best researchers will always manage, but if we want to develop as a country, we must create conditions in which science becomes a real driver of progress."