Minister, today is the inauguration of the academic year at Polish universities, the best of which, the Jagiellonian University and the University of Warsaw, are still somewhere in the fifth hundred of the Shanghai ranking in the world. Does the government have any ideas on how to improve the level of teaching at Polish universities?
It must be said right away that the Shanghai ranking is only one of several important world rankings, and it is constructed in a specific way. There, what matters most is publications in the best journals and Nobel Prize winners. This is a very one-dimensional ranking. In other rankings, for example the Times or QS rankings, Polish universities fare better because they evaluate various other aspects: internationalization, quality of teaching and so on. I wouldn’t despair about the fact that we are far away in the Shanghai ranking
Although there is indeed a question whether, in a situation where science in a given country is also perceived by a wide audience, by an international audience, through the prism of the Shanghai ranking, we should not focus on, for example, one university in this ranking higher. This would be a visible sign that Polish science is much better. I think that this may be good from a marketing point of view, but from the point of view of the entire science system it is less important. The learning system has much more complex functions. This also includes, for example, teaching students, cooperation with the environment, and influence on public debate. I believe that these functions of universities cannot be neglected. Unfortunately, the reforms that have been introduced for ten years tended to cut and reduce other functions.
And speaking of reforms, a draft amendment to the Act on the Polish Academy of Sciences has already been published. On the PAN website we can read the following statement: “It is difficult to evaluate the document published on the website of the Government Legislation Center as anything other than shocking. It is completely inconsistent with the standards of the European Union and the Western World, and by aiming to politicize the Academy and take full control over it, it brings to mind solutions from totalitarian countries. In the face of such an attack on the freedom and independence of Polish science, we cannot remain inactive.” Harsh words about your project.
Harsh, but I admit they are completely missing the point. Moreover, it is quite significant that this is a statement of the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences, consisting of members of the Academy, the so-called corporators. That’s 309 people at the moment. There is also a statutory, completely different assembly, the Assembly of Directors, which represents 70 scientific institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences where science is done. 10,000 people work there. The Meeting of Directors did not support this statement.
Maybe they just didn’t want to mess with the ministry.
I am sure that in the Polish Academy of Sciences there are very divergent interests and different visions. We are trying to reconcile these interests. The main goal is actually the integration of this institution. Today, the Academy is separate, the institutes are separate, and at the same time, the authorities, the Polish Academy of Sciences, are elected and basically represent only academicians, not institutes. We want to change that. We intend to expand the General Assembly to include representatives of the young generation, the Academy of Young Scientists and directors of institutes. This is largely what the dispute is about. I am deeply convinced that this is a good solution because it will simply lead to the democratization of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
One more important thing. Today, the Polish Academy of Sciences is under the control of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister really has a thousand other things on his mind than controlling the functioning of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
Or maybe it just doesn’t need to be controlled? Scientists are supposed to have freedom.
Scientists are to have the freedom to conduct scientific research, but at the same time there are supervisory responsibilities related to asset management, also related to the dynamics of the institution. Academics and corporators are quite inactive. In my opinion, they do not fulfill the role to which they are legally appointed. They do not participate in public debate. In recent years, there have only been two teams composed of academics, one of which focused on COVID and the other on climate change. It’s an important matter, but the last traces of his activity date back to a year ago. I checked it just before submitting the bill. This is quite small for a group of 300 of the most outstanding scientists. I would like this institution to be more dynamic, stronger, to have a greater impact on social life.
When I read this statement of the Polish Academy of Science and hear what you say, only one statement comes to my mind: war, internal war between you, the ministry and the Polish Academy of Sciences.
I see it as a discussion, a heated one, but a discussion nonetheless. Changes cannot be made without discussion.
The reform of the Polish Academy of Sciences is not the only problem of the ministry. Do you know that scientists are collecting signatures for your dismissal?
No, I admit that this is new information for me.
I heard this from several scientists yesterday, and it all has to do with NCBR’s IDEAS. This is such a company, a team of scientists that dealt with artificial intelligence, received grants, apparently the most in history. And this institution was until recently headed by Professor Piotr Sankowski. But it won’t happen anymore because the current government canceled it. And that’s what scientists didn’t like. They have already written four open letters on this matter. Let us add that Professor Sankowski has just been included by Stanford University among the 2% of the best scientists in the world. Why are you canceling it?
We need to correct a few things, because I see that the editor is echoing those who defend Professor Sankowski.
I can repeat that the professor is the only winner of four European Research Council grants in the country.
Let’s start from the beginning. IDEAS NCBR is a limited liability company, a commercial law entity. This is not a research institute as it is said to be. It is not evaluated as other centers are scientifically evaluated. In principle, this company was established to carry out implementations. Not to do basic research, but to build relationships between scientists and business and implement products sold on the market.
Let’s talk about what Prof. is defending you. Sankowski’s research was probably the most controversial: your entry on the X website. In this entry you write that IDEAS NCBR is a company established to commercialize research results, but instead of profits it generated losses. Even Platform X added information to your post that it is not a company to generate profits, but only to develop artificial intelligence in Poland. Your post had over a million views. This is probably a record-breaking one.
I think that people who work in the field of artificial intelligence have also had a hand in these areas. There are tons of bots out there. Besides, X is famous for being very much driven by such troll accounts. I want to say one more thing: prof. Sankowski ended his term in this company. She passed in June. He took part in the competition. He didn’t win this competition. The supervisory board certainly took the results into account as well. It cannot be the case that a company that is not actually a company established to generate profits, but is intended to generate revenues. In 2023, it was PLN 170,000 in revenues with a loss of PLN 29 million. I’m sorry, I just understand the supervisory board’s reasons for not wanting to extend contact with President Sankowski. And let us say one more thing: NCBR is an institution very burdened with unclear interests. There have already been arrests related to her activities.
But President Sankowski has nothing to do with it.
I will repeat the press reports: the IDEAS NCBR company rented a studio apartment in Warsaw for PLN 10,000, which was at the disposal of people associated with the Republican Party. I encourage you to find these articles on Gazeta Wyborcza and Onet. You will find them without any problems. We have information that various types of abuse have taken place at IDEAS. I don’t want to make any accusations. We will check it. This is a normal supervisory activity of the ministry. We are responsible for ensuring that the money is well spent and that it is actually spent on what it should be spent on.
And when it comes to research on artificial intelligence, Professor Sankowski himself also works at the University of Warsaw. There are several such research centers. Besides, we say that we will be happy to build a center that will be more related to science, and will not be some company connected to NCBR, which is very difficult to control and is not actually accounted for in the scientific evaluation system. We are conducting talks with rectors, and they are taking place in a good atmosphere, so research on artificial intelligence is not at risk at all.
You talked about the ministry’s supervisory activities. Mrs. Marcelina Zawisza, with whom you ran on one of the electoral lists, does not necessarily like this activity, so I assume that she is a close collaborator. I quote Mrs. Zawisza: ‘The dramatic situation in Polish science is a fact. The same story comes from different backgrounds. Lack of competence and arrogance in the ministry, fueled by a jump on positions. I criticized these mechanisms in PiS, I will continue to criticize them. It is in the context of this NCBR IDEAS.
Let’s be honest, some people from Razem, but not all of them, have a problem that, on the one hand, they are in a parliamentary club that forms a government, creates a coalition, and on the other hand, they do not necessarily want to support this government. In my opinion, this is a situation full of paradoxes, because if someone is in the parliamentary club that forms the coalition, he is either a board member or he is not. Some Razem MPs, I am thinking about Marcelin Zawisza, probably Adrian Zandberg, Maciek Konieczny, would like to be in the coalition club and at the same time in the opposition. It’s very difficult to reconcile this.
