doc. Mgr. Jiří Kohoutek, Ph.D. 

At the Faculty of Science, he works as an associate professor at the Department of Experimental Biology. Since early February, he has also held the position of Vice-Dean for Research. After completing his doctoral studies, he spent five years as a postdoc at the University of California, San Francisco, focusing on biomedical research. 

He serves on doctoral program boards, contributing to the academic supervision of PhD studies and evaluation of students’ research work. He is the chair of the national committee for the Secondary School Professional Activity (SOČ) in molecular biology. He also acts as editor-in-chief of the journal Cell Division. He is involved in numerous grant projects and actively participates in teaching.

Your agenda as Vice-Dean for Research mainly covers the development strategy and evaluation of scientific and research activities at the faculty. What other areas will fall under your responsibility in the coming period?

Before answering, I’d like to thank the previous Vice-Dean, Associate Professor Hofer, for his dedication and effort in supporting science and research at our faculty.

In agreement with the Dean, Professor Bláha, I’ve also been entrusted with chairing the Faculty’s Scientific Board. Although it is formally led by the Dean under internal regulations, he can delegate this role – which is what happened in my case. 

The Scientific Board deals with matters such as the faculty’s strategic plan, approval of study program proposals, and especially habilitation and professorship proceedings. When a candidates initiate the process, I review their materials, assess whether they meet all requirements, and then the procedure is formally initiated.

An integral part is the expert lecture before the Scientific Board, where the candidates present their work. The board then votes on the proposal for appointment as associate professor or professor.

Next year, the faculty will undergo a new round of internal evaluation of research and doctoral studies (IHVD). What does that involve, and what will your role be?

I expect my role to be quite intensive. The previous round took place in 2022, when evaluation panels composed of experts from various fields visited the faculty. 

The goal is to obtain independent feedback that can help us implement mechanisms to make existing processes more efficient. 

Last time, the faculty was divided by disciplines – mathematics, physics, earth sciences, biology, chemistry and RECETOX – with each area evaluated by a three-member panel chaired by a member of our International Scientific Advisory Board. 

The next round is scheduled for 2027. One of my responsibilities will be to help select panel members. We’re considering inviting experts from the previous round since they already understand the faculty’s structure and operations, but we’re also actively discussing bringing in new evaluators. 

We are currently discussing with the Rectorate what materials will need to be prepared, and we will soon ask department heads to suggest potential evaluators. 

The outcome will be recommendations concerning both the quality of research and doctoral programs. 

The previous evaluation showed that we are successful across disciplines but also highlighted challenges – for example, the mechanism for redistributing financial resources above the faculty level. 

As for doctoral studies, programs traditionally define their own requirements for degree completion. Given how science is evolving in the 21st century, we would like to harmonize these conditions more across disciplines, together with Vice-Dean assoc. prof. Paleček. 

What are your other priorities in the near future? 

My main goal – perhaps more of a wish – is to establish clear rules and principles for project support at both faculty and departmental levels. I’d like to meet with department heads to understand how project support currently works in their units. 

I’ve already met with Mr. Hovorka, head of the Project Support Office, and we discussed how responsibilities could be divided between the faculty and departments.

Without a detailed understanding of the current situation, it will be difficult to introduce an optimal system – but I’m optimistic we can make it work together.

How would you like to develop project support? 

In my view, the primary role of the Project Support Office is to reduce the administrative burden on researchers when preparing grant applications – whether for Czech or international agencies. 

The office is relatively large and functions well, but I see room for better coordination not only at the faculty level but also with individual departments.

Some departments have already invested in their own project managers, which can significantly improve success rates if set up properly. 

Together with the Dean, we agreed that the first step should be a thorough inventory – mapping capacities at the departmental level, understanding what the central office does, and seeing whether these efforts could be better aligned. 

It will be crucial to clearly define responsibilities: what belongs to the office, to departments, and to researchers themselves. Researchers, in my opinion, shouldn’t spend excessive time on administration but should focus primarily on the scientific content of proposals. 

I may have a somewhat naive view, but I believe the system could be made more efficient. That’s why I’d like to discuss a better setup with department heads and faculty leadership. 

Your agenda also includes reporting research outputs. What does that involve? 

Primarily, it’s about reporting results to the RIV system – the Czech database of research outputs. This includes publications, patents, utility models, and other outputs. 

Based on these, universities receive points that are later converted into funding. Part of the funding is then redistributed to faculties according to performance. 

My role is to ensure that we report all relevant outputs. The process itself is already well established, so I’m building on a system that works. 

Another area is electronic information resources. It’s crucial that researchers have broad access to relevant literature. The faculty and departments invest significant funds in journal subscriptions – millions at the faculty level and tens of millions at the rectorate level. 

There has been a national subsidy for this in the Czech Republic, but its future is uncertain. We should therefore prepare a strategy to maintain sufficient access. 

What does that mean in practice? 

Researchers need access to journals. Major publishers like Springer or Elsevier offer extensive portfolios, and it’s our responsibility to ensure access. 

My task is to review these resources with department heads and identify which ones are truly essential and most used. Based on that, we’ll need to allocate significant funds from departmental budgets. 

There may be disciplinary preferences, so we’ll have to realistically assess what we can afford. 

You also oversee awards for outstanding researchers. What was your experience with the Rector’s Awards? 

Even though I’ve only been in the role briefly, I already have two experiences. I evaluated nominations for the Rector’s Awards, which required making some difficult choices between strong candidates. 

At the same time, it gave me a great overview of the excellent work being done at the faculty and how many outstanding researchers and teachers we have. As readers will see, the faculty was very successful this year. 

I also participated in evaluating excellent master’s theses within the GAMU program. Out of 38 proposals, 27 came from our faculty, which shows how active and motivated our students are. 

Reading proposals gave me a broader perspective—not only on research topics across disciplines but also on students who are not afraid to prepare scientific proposals and enter competitions. 

The faculty has been part of the Open Science initiative since 2022. How do you see it? 

Open Science stems from EU policy promoting open access to research results and data. As recipients of public funding, we are expected to share outputs using digital technologies. 

At the faculty and rectorate level, rules and levels of sharing are being discussed. Personally, I believe in a common-sense approach. Open Science makes sense, but data reporting shouldn’t take more time than the research itself. 

I would strongly dislike seeing researchers turned into bureaucrats. Data entry according to strict rules can be very time-consuming. 

We also need to consider that some results have application potential. Publishing them too early could complicate intellectual property protection. 

This will definitely be one of the challenges ahead. 

What other challenges do you expect? 

I think we tend to focus heavily on our own disciplines and overlook what’s happening elsewhere. 

At the same time, networking across fields is equally important, yet often not very effective. There are Seminar Series and joint interfaculty seminars at CEITEC – platforms that could potentially be used more to build scientific culture and collaboration. 

The scientific community should have a basic awareness of what’s happening around them – even in neighboring buildings on campus. I realized while reviewing Rector’s Awards that there are amazing people working in fascinating and often emerging fields. 

I’m convinced that an interdisciplinary perspective could lead to new types of joint projects we wouldn’t have imagined before. But without genuine interest and enthusiasm, it won’t work. 

We need to shift our mindset – despite being busy, we are still part of the Faculty of Science. Scientific culture isn’t just about writing grants and papers; it’s about shaping and improving an environment that is stable and, above all, inspiring. 

I know this will be a major challenge – but if we manage even a small improvement, I’ll consider it a success. 

You’ve been active in academic senates and university boards since your student years. Do you think student proactivity matters? 

Absolutely – educate yourselves, get involved, collaborate, and above all, do what fulfills you. 

If someone chooses the Faculty of Science, it’s natural to expect an interest in basic, applied, or potentially translational research. Of course, we also train future teachers, which is equally important – they are ambassadors who introduce students to the field. 

If students choose science, it comes with a certain commitment. But it’s important to do what you enjoy. 

I believe the best measure of our teaching will be when students surpass their teachers – whether through success at universities or by doing excellent research here or abroad.