What made you decide to run for President of the Czech Academy of Sciences?
My ten-year tenure as director of the Institute of Plasma Physics was coming to an end. I was approached to apply for the position of Director-General of the European research organization Fusion for Energy in Barcelona, but I ultimately declined—mainly for family reasons. I had long been planning to run for the Academic Council so I could offer the Academy the scientific management experience I’ve gained over the past twenty years. However, several institute directors asked me directly if I would consider running for President, which came as a surprise. After a few sleepless nights and some hesitation, I decided to give it a try.
You won with a relatively narrow majority, but already in the first round, which many didn’t expect. Do you consider that a strong mandate?
I do. It’s very important that the Academy was able to agree on one candidate in the first round.
What will be different in the Academy under Radomír Pánek?
The Academy is a fairly complex system, and revolutions rarely bring great benefit. What’s needed is evolution, not dramatic cuts. Besides, the powers of the President are not so sweeping as to allow a revolution on their own. That said, I believe several things need to change. For example, we need to revise the Act on the Academy of Sciences, which is over thirty years old and doesn’t reflect today’s environment. We also want to address employee compensation. I’d like to significantly support transfer—that is, bringing scientific results into practice. I recently met with the leadership of the Confederation of Industry, and it’s clear that our cooperation is on a good track and needs to be further developed. Politicians are very interested in transfer—even during my appointment, the President asked me how we collaborate with industry and how we can strengthen this area to benefit the Czech economy.
You emphasized relations with the political sphere in your campaign platform as well.
Exactly. I want the Academy’s leadership to be much more active in dealings with politicians. I want the Academy to be a strong partner to the public administration—a source of impartial, evidence-based information for decision-making by Parliament, the government, the President, and others. I’d also like to see the President of the Academy become a regular guest at government meetings again. That would highlight the importance of the Academy in the system, which has unfortunately somewhat diminished. We must demonstrate that our role is essential to society.
So part of the plan is to provide more expert statements to government, parliamentarians, regional leaders, etc.?
Mainly to make sure they reach the right people. They shouldn’t get stuck at the level of ministry clerks—we need to ensure decision-makers are aware of them. Much closer cooperation between the Academy, government, and Parliament is needed. We may have formal memoranda signed, but in reality, things don’t always function ideally.
Expert advice doesn’t have to go only to politicians. It can also reach the public—who can then push their representatives for evidence-based policy.
I agree. From my point of view, the Academy has done a lot in recent years in terms of public communication. But we might need to be more proactive in building the brand of the Academy as a whole, rather than just individual institutes. That’s something I want to reflect on with the Academic Council. The negotiating strength of 54 individual entities can’t compare to that of a unified institution.
What about internal communication? You highlighted that in your platform too.
Communication between the Academy’s leadership and institute directors has improved significantly over the past four to six years, but it still needs to be strengthened and perhaps made more informal. Communication with other staff is naturally more difficult, as we currently lack a functional platform for that. We need to think it through.
You’ll be the youngest President of the Academy since 1962. Could that be an advantage?
I see my age as a plus. I have the energy and drive to fully dedicate myself to the Academy. And I believe I have the courage to make significant changes. It also seems to be a broader trend—if you look at rectors of Czech universities, many of them are also relatively young.
How do you plan to increase private-sector funding in the Academy—from licensing, spin-offs, contract research, etc.?
First, we must acknowledge that the Academy’s primary mission is to conduct top-level basic research. That, in turn, produces results that can be used in applied research, which many teams within the Academy already do. Some of these results can be transferred into practice via technology and knowledge transfer.
Transfer has been happening in the Academy for some time—see the successes of the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry (IOCB), for example. In the past five years, the Academy has significantly stepped up its activity in this area, establishing and growing the CETAV transfer center, which supports institutes with commercialization, licensing, spin-offs, and more. I also sense a generational shift among researchers, with more interest in seeing their results applied in practice. The recent PRAK conference showcased several success stories in transfer, and I believe the Academy is well positioned here. I want to support this momentum, expand CETAV, and make sure that transfer is handled by trained professionals, reducing the burden on researchers.
However, we must be realistic. It’s unlikely that commercialization revenues will ever replace public funding in any substantial way. Commercializing results is a difficult, uncertain process—only about one in ten spin-offs succeeds, and cases like IOCB are rare even globally. If we manage to generate 5–10% of the Academy’s budget from commercialization in the long run, I’d consider that a major success.
Name one to three goals for where you want to take the Academy. What do you want people to associate with your leadership?
Four years is a relatively short time. There are several processes I want to start—for example, reviewing the laws that govern the Academy, such as the Act on the Academy, its Statutes, and the Career Code. These documents are 20–30 years old and need updating to reflect the current state of society, the Academy, and research.
I want the Academy’s leadership to be far more proactive when it comes to legislation. The Academy should not just wait for initiatives from ministries and the government. And of course, funding and employee compensation are also key priorities.
prof. RNDr. Radomír Pánek, Ph.D.
He studied at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at Charles University and has worked at the Czech Academy of Sciences since 2000. His scientific focus is plasma physics and nuclear fusion. From 2015 to 2025, he served as Director of the Institute of Plasma Physics. He sits on the advisory boards of several universities and has held senior leadership roles at the European research agency Fusion for Energy in Barcelona and the European consortium EUROfusion. He has experience negotiating with partners from Czech and international industry, government representatives, and the European Commission.