Pátek 29. března 2024, svátek má Taťána
130 let

Lidovky.cz

Frolík: Science Council is ‘a waste of time’

  8:18

Parliament must set research priorities rather than hide behind an ineffective ‘Science Council,’ ex-member Zbyněk Frolík says

„Stát velmi diletantsky přistupuje k tomu, jak zachází s prostředky na vědu, jejich rozdělováním a s politickou odpovědností,“ tvrdí Zbyněk Frolík z Linetu, český Podnikatel roku 2003. foto: © ČESKÁ POZICE, Jan KunderaČeská pozice

Zbyněk Frolík, managing director of Linet, which sells hospital beds in 93 countries, built the company thanks to constant innovation as well as investment into research and development (R&D), and leading the way technologically. He has earned the recognition of his colleagues, being named Czech Entrepreneur of the Year 2003.

Frolík attracted attention recently for withdrawing from the Council for Science, Research and Innovation (RVVI). He says that the state has a very amateurish approach in terms of how it deals with funds for science, as well as the allocation of these resources and political responsibility.

“The Council does not work as it should,” Frolík told Czech Position. “Instead of looking at conceptual matters, it is always dealing with disputes over money between the top representatives of interested parties: the universities, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (AV ČR) and industry. There was no point in wasting time [on it].”

Frolík not only talks about how its operation could be improved, but also discusses how one whole quarter of funds earmarked for science and research in the Czech Republic is apparently being wasted. If we consider the fact that Kč 25.9 billion from the state budgetis supposed to go toward science and development this year, such a loss would amount to Kč 6.5 billion.

Video of the Frolík interview (in Czech)

Q: Why did you step down from the government’s RVVI at the end of last year?

A: Before Prime Minister Jan Fischer [Civic Democrats, ODS] appointed the current RVVI, there were five roundtable discussions involving representatives of all the interest groups. This resulted in four options being put forward for managing, restructuring and financing science, or, to put it simply, how to do it better. ‘I wanted to show that I can afford to decide whether I’ll be on the Council or not.’

In stepping down, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Council is not fulfilling the things we agreed on with Fischer. It is not dealing with restructuring science or with the political task of where, how and why money should be allocated. The government is also not explaining more complex concepts to the public and it is not even promoting its policy statement in a clear manner. I have the feeling that it was a waste of energy.

Things are following the same old route, perhaps in worse shape than the previous RVVI. I wanted to show that I can afford to decide whether I’ll be on the Council or not. I looked on it as a socially responsible activity that took up two days of work per week, which I had to compensate for on Saturdays and Sundays.

However, if I’m lacking targets or a purpose for pursuing this, then I’ll draw attention to the existing problem, and perhaps someone might even notice this. And if I’m not there, I will probably contribute more by devoting my time to our innovations, and paying perhaps Kč 50 million more in taxes.

Q: Will the RVVI be dismissed, or has Prime Minister Petr Nečas balked at the idea?

A: I don’t know. Mr Nečas has his own reasons why he should do this and that. He himself has said that he is not happy with the Council’s activities. I’m its chairman, and he has had three men of industry who have handed in their notice. (Editor’s note: besides Frolík, Jaroslav Míl and Pavel Kafka have also left the Council.)

And I know of at least three other people who have let it be known that they are stepping down from the Council. There are other members, however, some academics, who are not happy as well.

Q: Which members? Allegedly, Rudolf Haňka is preparing to leave.

A: That’s possible.

Q: At a conference held by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, PM Nečas said that the disputes on the Council are greater than the ones in the governing coalition. Was it really like that?

A: I’m not able to judge the scale of disagreements in the government, but I know that the media distorts what’s really going on in all interpersonal relationships. Yes, the work was not effective. Mr. Nečas is well aware that with 118 MPs representing the governing coalition in Parliament, there is scope for unpopular reforms. It is necessary to seize this opportunity.

Things are not progressing, and therefore he is probably thinking about disbanding the Council and doing things differently. I perceived his speech as a sufficiently strong signal that he is looking for people and for an appropriate time in terms of when it can happen.

Q: Have you received a new offer from him?

A: There has been talk “backstage” regarding 30 people. Nečas has spoken with me on the subject and about how I view the situation. I have also tried to explain it to [Minister of Industry and Trade] Martin Kocourek. ‘I would argue that none of the scientists represented can completely understand the specifics of fields pursued by others.’I am constantly saying the same thing. In principle, there are clever people in the scientific community — I’m not saying they are as good as they think they are themselves and that they understand all scientific issues.

I understand beds and innovations in my area, and I would not dare criticize their basic research. I would argue that none of the scientists represented can completely understand the specifics of fields pursued by others like mathematicians, economists and sociologists. There are so many disciplines that this is not possible.

Q: Would you continue in a new RVVI?

A: I enjoy issues concerning applied research and innovation. Regarding Linet, I think we have also produced output in this respect that can be measured in terms of tax yields.

Q: Have you got a mandate to sit on the Council for science?

A: Let others be the judge of that. After tax, Linet has made more than Kč 2 billion. This was done completely from scratch. It didn’t privatize anything. Therefore, just in the period from 2000 to now, this amounts to Kč 680 million in corporate income tax. I have contributed this to the state coffers. And this tax can be my mandate. If we were to do what our competitors do — if we weren’t innovative — then we wouldn’t be talking about Kč 680 million but Kč 100 million, as is normal.

Q: Why are you interested in working on the Council?

A: I am interested in the sort of country I will live in, and where my three children will live. I am interested in whether this country will be affluent and pay pensions like the ones in Norway, for example. This will only happen if our products are attractive, and people pay one-fifth more for them than they would for other products and if a lot more of them are sold.

I can afford to work on the Council because I am independent, financially secure and the firm works perfectly for me. I also have certain managerial experiences. Last year, I was among the 10 best entrepreneurs in the European Union. I’m a member of the international jury for selecting the European Patent Office’s inventor of the year, for example.

If someone wants to make use of my expertise and this serves some purpose, then I am willing to participate in this endeavor. If not, then I’m not going to force my way into anything.

Q: What should the state do to support first class science?

A: Basic research exists — i.e., the study of the principles and laws of the world and nature. This means enriching people’s knowledge in exchange for taxpayers’ money. Research is a quest. The fact that I study 10 or 1,000 different things does not mean that I will make a discovery and always find something beneficial. Only a small percentage produces some meaningful effect. The impact of basic research is 10 or 20 years in the future. ‘Only a small percentage produces some meaningful effect. The impact of basic research is 10 or 20 years in the future.’

And only a portion of such research is paid for by businesses themselves — in pharmaceutics, for example. With applied research, one knows that it already works in a way. And the likelihood of this having an economically attractive outcome is perhaps 70 to 80 percent. Then there are innovations — the phenomenon of a time in which the economic rate of success is high and the rate of return is rapid. And well-applied research and innovation means a rapid advance in competitiveness.

Q: Why talk about science in such great detail?

A: It is only by explaining the concepts that we can talk about what kind of insight the ordinary citizen and the state can have in terms of science and research. How much does the state want to have lots of successful discoveries? How thoroughly does it want to analyze the history of the Czech language, how much should it invest in the science of animated nature and inanimate nature, how does it want to develop basic or applied research via schools and businesses, etc.?

Q: What then should the Czech Republic invest in the most?

A: In view of the fact that we are considerably indebted and we can see that Europe as a whole is going “somewhere” [to hell], and also in view of the fact that we know the Czech Republic is an extremely small country, for example in comparison with the German economy, we can take two things from this: On one hand, with our minimal scope, we are unlikely to have much clout in the world; the good news on the other hand is: Precisely because we are small we will most probably be able to sell all we have on offer to the world.

Q: What do you propose?

A: We know that we have to implement reforms. And we should think about how to alleviate the social impact. Therefore, I would think about how to achieve the desired effect as quickly as possible if I invest in science and research. It is obvious that the quickest effect in terms of tax yields lies in innovation and applied research. This will have an effect within the timeframe of the next few years.

Application and innovation — in design, better features, in terms of a kind of astuteness — these will pay off and come back with a highly profitable additional value. Look at what Apple has achieved just by being in control of the iPhone. This innovative idea is so simple with some added emotional value, but it represents tens of billions of dollars and one-third of the Czech economic area. It is nearly a triviality, but you have to find it. ...

Q: How should the state support this?

A: First and foremost, the Czech Republic should become aware of how to deal the cards and inform people about this. Getting back to the Council — the state has a very amateurish approach in terms of how it deals with funds for science, as well as the allocation of these resources and political responsibility. ‘The state passed the buck in establishing the RVVI. It has entrusted it with important areas of responsibility and is hiding behind it.’I think that a quarter of the resources invested are being wasted.

The state passed the buck in establishing the RVVI. It has entrusted it with important areas of responsibility and is hiding behind it. The Council is led by the prime minister. He appoints its members. Nonetheless, the government must approve them for him. Consequently, the composition of the Council must obtain political consensus, and members cannot simply be changed just like that. Moreover, political interests could also come into play. A number of scientists on the list of candidates is attractive for voters, and therefore the scientific community can be protected in a way ...

Q: Apparently that’s what [center-right party] TOP 09 is now pinning its hopes on to a large extent.

A: I don’t want to say anything about some specific party. Parties have interests when it comes to scientists and doctors, and some of them genuinely get on better with academic institutions. There are plenty of influences, but few people are aware of them. The current RVVI is composed on people who are key statutory representatives of institutions. If I represent the Academy of Sciences, the Czech Rectors’ Conference, the Council of Higher Education Institutions or the Confederation of Industry, I automatically make room for a full-scale life and death discussion.

These people are obliged to represent the interests of the institutions, because they have been elected to them. The president of the AV is elected by the Academy Assembly. And do you think he will be elected in an a priori manner by those who know how to earn their keep by themselves? Definitely not. He will also be elected by representatives of weaker institutions who live off the reallocation of institutionally assigned funds.

Q: The president of the AV, Jiří Drahoš, wants to guarantee the quality of 54 institutions by way of an audit, which is now underway.

A: I am not criticizing the Academy of Sciences, but the system. It is important to note that Drahoš is a former colleague of mine from the Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. I was there as a young scientist from 1980 to 1986. We were there together with Karel Klusáček (now the president of the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic) Karel Aim and [Ivan] Wichterle in [the Prague district] Suchdol.

At that time, I worked as a technician in the computer center. These are very capable people. But if you are the commander of an army, you must represent its interests. It has its weak and strong links in terms of the way it has been conceived. It is interesting to study the strong institutions and see how they exist.

Look at Zdeněk Havlas, the professor from the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, where they make billions on licenses. They are quite independent financially, despite the fact that they conduct basic research, which is something people generally say can’t be sold. They are so good that they don’t have to announce themselves anywhere. I think it is all the same to them whether or not they work under the auspices of the AV. And I doubt that it is possible to conduct a genuinely good-quality audit and comparison with the world by oneself in one’s own organization.

Q: What would you propose for the composition of a government council for science?

A: Outwardly, everyone claims that it should be made up of anointed individuals who have enough time and experience to determine the directions and assess the trends that the state should follow. But it cannot be this exalted, because in the current system it concerns controversial questions: who will grab more money, which areas will the money go to? And ask yourself, who is going to cut their own money or a friend’s money for the benefit of someone else?

The government is leaving political decisions to the RVVI, which should be the responsibility of the government or parliament, e.g. defining priority areas, the ratio of public funds for institutional and specific science or basic research versus applied research and innovation. Because of mandatory expenditures or co-financing with money from EU structural funds, the room for maneuver is very tight, and therefore the discussion is constricted to 30 to 40 percent of the budget. A constant lobbyist battle is being waged on the Council between the interests of different disciplines and institutions. And because science is very varied, there are lots of institutions.

Q: Should the government of the Czech Republic perhaps set research priorities for the state?

A: If it concerns the allocation of billions, it is hard to decide whether Pavel or Petr is for the chop, whether the priority area right now is nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT or “discovering Cleopatras.” This is a purely political decision. It is impossible to tell scientists to “exclude the weakest by yourselves.” That would do damage in this community. Ultimately, it would transpire that they are all quite good actually, and so somebody has to politically decree what happens.

Q: What should be the criteria for exclusion?

A: It is necessary to involve foreign authorities in the evaluation of institutionally financed institutes and to judge scientific performance by international standards of excellence, that is, they could be judged according to publications in respected scientific journals with a global impact or the extent of foreign citations of Czech scientists.

In the same way, by way of a parliamentary initiative or through the government, the state must seek and determine who is responsible for the economic prosperity of the Czech Republic on the basis of science, research and innovations, and it must also ascertain how this should be done — how will it be managed, what will be the role of the AV, universities, industry and other departments, public and private research organizations, and what synergies will exist between them.

The government or Parliament should be given options, arguments for and against, and information on the risks involved. In short, they should be given the job of completely thrashing out this issue, and of setting targets. The Council should then offer strategies, milestones and operational supervision. To put it in simple terms: we want to be competitive in one way or another; we need education and export strategies, infrastructures, etc.

Q: It is not possible to support everything at once.

A: If we want to be successful, we have to say what our priorities are and which scientific outcomes are important. Do we support basic research because of the benefit it brings to the global font of knowledge and because of the schooling in gives students, or do we now we need to invest more in applications? If you are a firm that exports merchandise for Kč 2 billion,then for a normal commodity you get a margin of around 4 percent (Kč 80 million in profit) and Kč 16 million in taxes. Alternatively, you take the innovation and applied research route and you have a 25 percent margin like Linet. That is Kč 450 million in profit and Kč 90 million for the state coffers. There is already a substantial difference if the Czech Republic takes in five times more in taxes, which it can then use retrospectively to finance basic research. There has to be an interest in the highest level of tax yields.

Q: How do you see the future of Czech Science and research?

A: Unlike many scientists who are dependent on how much money they get from the state, we businessmen are independent in this respect.  ‘Owners, partners and investors are not interested in excuses. They want results from us.’We don’t have much to do with whether there should or shouldn’t be an Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, whether universities should educate students well or badly. We often have to give people extra training or hire them from abroad.

Owners, partners and investors are not interested in excuses. They want results from us. We give the state so much money in taxes according to how we are doing. If the state were to cleverly support us, as it were, in research and development, it will probably get more tax money in a short time, exports will increase, and this will also help eliminate to social impact of reforms. And if it doesn’t help us in this respect, there will ultimately be fewer resources for basic research as well.