doc. Mgr. Jan Paleček, Dr. rer. nat.

At the Faculty of Science, he works as an Associate Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics. In addition to serving as Vice-Dean for Doctoral Studies, he is also the guarantor of the doctoral programme Genomics and Proteomics. He completed his doctoral studies in Biochemistry at the University of Vienna.

He gained international experience, among other places, during his postdoctoral fellowship at Sussex University in the United Kingdom and during research stays at the Max Planck Institute in Göttingen and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg.

He is an editor of the scientific journal General Physiology and Biophysics and a member of the Scientific Council of the Institute of Biophysics of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

You serve as Vice-Dean for Doctoral studies at the Faculty of Science. What exactly does your agenda include?

It concerns doctoral studies from approving stipends to the overall concept of the study programmes themselves. Over the past several years, doctoral studies have been undergoing transformation, and new ideas are therefore emerging in connection with them.

At the moment I am only taking over the agenda, so I am still getting familiar with it. However, I know it from the perspective of a programme guarantor, since I serve as guarantor for the Genomics and Proteomics programme.

What would you like to focus on during your term of office?

Next year we will undergo the so-called Internal Evaluation of Research (IHVD), which also includes doctoral studies. Everything will be assessed by international reviewers, and the evaluation takes place every five years. The results of this evaluation will subsequently be used for the reaccreditation of doctoral programmes in 2028.

In 2018–2019, the university transitioned from the process of programme accreditation through the National Accreditation Authority to self-accreditation. We will therefore have an opportunity to look at how the results of individual programmes have developed and how they function ten years after this accreditation.

I would therefore like to lead the programmes toward successful reaccreditation and improve what can still be improved.

Where do you see weaknesses?

For example, the duration of doctoral studies. The standard period set by law is four years. Nevertheless, we have students in their eighth and even ninth year. During my first month, I have already approved three or four students entering their ninth year.

Of course, I am looking into the specific reasons, because there can be many legitimate causes. On the other hand, nine years is truly a long time.

The effort to motivate students but also supervisors and programme boards to complete their studies within four years, with one additional reserve year, had already been initiated by the former Vice-Dean Bláha, and I will try to continue this effort as well.

I think there are still many programmes whose criteria for allowing the defence of a dissertation require students to have one first-author publication. On the one hand, that is a valid criterion, but on the other hand, if it takes someone eight years to achieve it, the question arises as to how motivating—or demotivating—it is for the student and whether it makes sense for their further career development.

Besides the reaccreditation of doctoral programmes, what do you see as another priority?

What I consider most important is the conceptual question. I understand that the main aim of individual programmes is to train students as researchers who will subsequently pursue postdoctoral positions ideally abroad and eventually become scientific staff members, ideally leading ones. However, I came across statistics on how many doctoral graduates actually continue in research or work in an academic position. It is a minority.

For me, it is therefore quite essential to reflect on whether we should educate only research scientists when only a portion of doctoral students will pursue that path in their later careers.

The university and the faculty, also thanks to the previous Vice-Dean Bláha, have already begun offering soft-skills courses to students so that they do not learn only the scientific routine of laboratory work as part of their research. These skills will benefit them both in scientific careers and if they eventually leave academia. I definitely want to continue in this direction.

Since last year, an amendment to the Higher Education Act has been in effect, bringing a number of changes. How does it affect doctoral studies, and will these changes be reflected in your agenda?

The most fundamental change concerns the funding of doctoral students. Another significant change is, for example, the abolition of state doctoral examinations and the removal of the obligation for students to participate in teaching.

The previous legislation did not define doctoral students’ income explicitly. The amendment to the Higher Education Act has linked their income to the minimum wage.

It is clear that a stipend of twelve or fifteen thousand Czech crowns was hardly sufficient for a research worker. I certainly do not view doctoral students in the traditional sense as students, but rather as colleagues who are learning to conduct research and who will become independent researchers by the end of their studies.

However, it should also be said that linking doctoral income to the minimum wage will bring both advantages and disadvantages. In the future, the disadvantage will be that the minimum wage will increase every year, and doctoral incomes will therefore not necessarily correspond to the financial resources allocated to universities and research overall.

What I mean, for example, is that the Czech Science Foundation currently has a lower budget, and its growth will certainly not be as rapid as that of the minimum wage. There will be quite a few issues to resolve in this context.

What will be the greatest challenge for you in your new role?

I think that will only become clear over time. First, I want to listen and develop a realistic understanding of all the issues.

Frankly, I was surprised by how many students we still have in their eighth and ninth year. However, I first want to learn more about why that is the case, and then we will see whether anything can be done about it and how big a challenge it would be to adjust the system.

I assume it will largely be about communication about how each programme guarantor and each programme board has structured their programme and how smoothly cooperation will proceed, or whether we might encounter difficulties somewhere.

How did you come to hold this position?

For the past seven or perhaps eight years, I have served as the guarantor of the doctoral programme Genomics and Proteomics. It was quite an interesting activity to which I devoted a lot of time and energy, and it was fulfilling for me.

When Dean Bláha offered me the position, I agreed because I thought it would be good to take the next step and use my experience. I also liked the way he carried out the role of Vice-Dean and the direction in which he intends to lead the faculty in his role as Dean.