Download Research in Poland

EARTO General Assembly
Research to Business
Warsaw, 15th April 2005
Research in Poland
An outline
Jerzy M. Langer
Ministry of Science and
Information Society Technologies
Foundations:
strengths and
weaknesses
GDP Growth (%)
8
7
7
6
6
5.2
5
4
6.8
3.8
5.6
4.8
4
3.5
3
3
2
1
1.2
1
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Inflation rate (%)
50
44.4
45
40
35
37.7
29.5
30
25
20
15
10
5
21.6
18.7
13.2
8.5
9.8
8.6
3.6
1.9
0.7
2.0
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Human resources in Poland
students
300
2000
342.1
1800.5
1800
1718.7
1584.8
1600
250
261.1
1397 1431.9
1400
1231
1200
209.8
200
174.8
1077
1000
845
906
150
146.3
115.9
800
100
600 385
400
89
59 61.4 64.2
70.3
50
200
0
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001/2
1991/2 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (in thousands)
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY GRADUATES (in thousands)
Students in Poland
a demographic projection
4
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
19 - 23 YEAR OLD
YEAR
STUDENTS
2019
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
0
1993
POPULATION (mln)
3,5
Human resources in Poland
PhD
31072
28345
30000
25622
22239
25000
18774
20000
4500
4000
3500
3000
15321
2500
15000
11237
2000
9577
1500
10000
6268
3687
5000
1000
2405
500
1608
0
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
NUMBER OF PH. D. STUDENTS
NUMBER OF AWARDED DOCTORAL DEGREES
Institutions of science
and researchers
UNIVERSITIES
63%
RTOs (JBR)
28%
PA N
9%
Researchers about 60 000 FTE
Size of the R&D sector (2002)
State Universities
125
Private Universities
252
Polish Academy of Sci. Institutes
R&D units
81
232
Polish Academy of Sciences
research staff age issue
dr hab
Professors
emeritus
dr
250
200
150
100
50
0
d o35
40
45
50
55
60
AGE GROUP
65
70
>70
Science structure
King D.A. (2004) Nature 430, 311-316
Budgetary expenditure
0,80
bln $
0,70
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
YEAR
R&D expenditure
1,2
1,0
% GDP
0,8
TOTAL
BUDGET
NON-BUDGET
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Scientific vs. economic wealth
Citation
intensity
GDP per person in thousands US dollars
David A. King, Nature 2004
Way forward:
- internal reforms
- the EU chance
Introduction of competitiveness
and economic rules in science
• Implementation of highly competitive grant
system.
• Critical assessment of all research institutes. It
constitutes a basis of a ranking system in a
distribution of statutory funds
• Benchmarking for disciplines, institutes,
individuals
Joining the EU
merger strategies
• Financial incentives to apply and participate in
EU programs (financial backing).
• Priorities based on economic and resource
assessment.
• „Ivy league” government policy (streamlining
resources into top competitive groups).
• Shift from „pure” research to economy oriented.
• Pro-innovative fiscal policy (chance for R&D
intensive industries), especially SMEs.
ACT ON FINANCING OF SCIENCE –
PRINCIPAL CHANGES
Formerly: the Minister awarded funds, executing
the resolutions of the State Committee for
Scientific Research (KBN)
Now: The Minister of Science awards funds for
science taking into consideration the opinion of
the Science Council
New instruments to create science policy
Science Council
COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL POLICY
(KOMITET POLITYKI NAUKOWEJ i NAUKOWO-TECHNICZNEJ )
Max. 11 persons nominated by the
minister, incl. those proposed by the
President of PAS and Chairmen of
RGSW, KRASP and RG JBR
COMMISSION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE
(KOMISJA BADAŃ NA RZECZ ROZWOJU NAUKI)
28 persons proposed by academia
UNIT OF APPEALS
(ZESPÓŁ ODWOŁAWCZY)
5 persons proposed by academia
UNITS
- disciplinary or interdisciplinary units
working
units
of
Council
Commissions
COMMISSION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY
(KOMISJA BADAŃ NA RZECZ ROZWOJU GOSPODARKI)
Max. 26 persons nominated by the minister – appropriate experts,
representatives of relevant ministers, and persons representing social and
economic practice
FP6 - overall results
14000
12000
partners in submitted projects
partners in retained projects
success rate
10000
30
25
20
8000
15
6000
10
4000
5
2000
0
0
AT BE DE DK EL ES FI FR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK BGCY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK TR
EU-25 Networks of excellence
Poland – Centres of excellence
GDANSK
SZCZECIN
POZNAN
LODZ
WARSZAWA
WROCLAW
LUBLIN
BIO+MED
IST
MAT
AERO
FOOD
TRA
ENE+ENV
SAF
OTH
GLIWICE
ZABRZE
KRAKOW
©AS
POLISH POSITION ON FP7
General conditions
• Ensuring equal chances of access to FP
instruments
• Ensuring a balance between “new” and
“traditional” instruments
• Continuation of the thematic priorities
• Excellence as a basic criterion of evaluation
• Formulation of thematic priorities to accommodate
social and environmental challenges – both global
and regional
Frontier/basic
research
a chance and a must
Where researchers work (%)
univ.
gov.
80
60
40
20
ze lan
ch d
R
H ep
un
ga
Sl ry
ov
ak
Fr ia
an
ce
Ita
ly
Sp
D ain
en
m
ar
k
U
SA
Ja
pa
n
0
C
Po
% of all res.
100
Source – EC Key Figures 2003-2004
Why then basic research is great
chance in NMS?
• There we are strongest.
• It is fairly inexpensive.
Strongest
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry,
Astrophysics
• It is a landmark
of Polish „ivy league” of higher education
and thus helps to train open minds.
Medium
Biology, Earth Sciences, Medicine,
some
Engineering
Sciences.
• A distance from
science-driven
research
to applied is
much smaller most
if a first
step is at the
highest level.
Lagging
Engineering
Sciences,
Ecology.
• There will be a lot of resources in Europe, so we must
get prepared
to compete,
and quickly.
Strong
nationally
Archaeology,
Literature studies
Sociology, History
ERC – the hope
• Great expectations
• Great challenge
• However the ERC will not solve all problems
• But ERC will contribute to the solution of
many problems and issues
• We must not only advocate for the ERC, but
we all have to work for its success.
The ERC – for whom and how?
• Address exclusively the top level of researchers in
Europe (groups but also individuals).
• Age and origin must not be used as a criterion
• All granting procedures must be highly
competitive.
• It will help create benchmarks.
Support only the best individuals and
groups, so that they can become
even better.
Polish position regarding FP7
15125/04 RECH
• Poland strongly supports the proposed
inclusion of basic research in FP7 and ...
Poland fully endorses the proposed
establishment of the European Research
Council.
• … the need to strengthen international
cooperation in research…
• … coordination of national research
programmes.
• Poland supports the EU’s mobility policy…
S&T in XXI century Europe
• European Research Area
Europe seen as a whole
• From the Enlargement to Common Europe
No new invisible Berlin Wall!!!
• Utmost care for all talented
• Need for novel pan-European R&D funding
schemes – the concept of European
Research Council
• From ERA to REI
Europe:
the knowledge based society
Heraclitos said – α αα i
And indeed
Europe is on the move
Research
European Education Area
Innovation