Q: The Foundation for Polish Science is not only increasing in prestige among the scientific community, and Awards given by the Foundation have been called Polish Nobel prizes. In an attempt to follow the current trends, I should ask you about the most spectacular examples of the Foundation’s achievements.
A: The problem is that there is no direct relationship between “outlay and result” in science. More time is sometimes needed to achieve results, and the appraisal of the results is not so obvious or immediate. Even in the case of the Nobel Prize, the value of some inventions is appreciated only after decades.
The Foundation was established less than twenty years ago. We started from scratch in 1991. I think that is too short a time to claim that we have been of service to the development of world science. The resources that we have are only a fraction of the amount that the government and the economy provide for scientific development.
It is easier to talk about results in those areas where funding is associated with individual research projects. The Foundation for Polish Science has a different philosophy: it does not identify research areas or research problems, but instead it identifies people who have achieved something already and their work conditions ought to be improved so that their achievements can be multiplied, so that they can build a team, broaden the scope of research, etc.
Q: The Foundation’s mission is to “support only the best so that they become even better”. What does that mean in practice?
A: Most of the Foundation’s permanent programmes are designed to build a genuinely creative scientific community. Because our resources do not allow us to conduct comprehensive programmes, we concentrate on picking out and supporting the best. The Foundation’s strategy is to support individual scientists at every stage of their scientific career and development. And for example, we invest money in young people in the START programme, which is a 12-month scholarship for scientists under 30; usually there are 100 to 110 people from all fields of science annually. When they receive the funding they have already distinguished themselves from among their peers. Will all of them succeed on the world stage? That is the risk of such an investment.
At the other end we have the MASTER programme (Academic Grants for Professors) aimed at the top scholars. We do not place any conditions on them as to how they spend these grants. We assume that they know best what their teams need. So the whole problem is to pick at every stage of their scientific career those who show the greatest promise for further development.
We also want to promote on a large scale good models – certain kinds of scientific career models. That is why when we discuss grants and awards we put emphasis on the way careers are built.
Q: In adopting such an approach the Foundation seems to support a specific model of conducting scientific endeavour, the “master-student”formula. That seems very traditional...
A: …and it brings to mind a hierarchical, feudal system? It is no longer like that. It is difficult to achieve anything without research teams, especially in those fields that can be transferred into economic practice. It is rare to find geniuses who can solve a real problem on their own.
Moreover, the role of a contemporary scientist is not only to focus on research work, but also to create a team of people who are able to follow his ideas. That has nothing to do with putting science into a hierarchical order or with the feudal system. For example, in the USA it is normal for an important publication to have a long list of authors with a dozen or more names. That is also becoming more common here and that is a reflection on something. Certainly not about feudal relationships, but about proper discussion, collective effort and common ideas. That is what a creative scientific community is all about.