Space constraints are one of the key factors preventing further development at many departments of the Faculty of Science of MU. This is based on the recommendations of the international qualitative evaluation of research and doctoral studies, which the faculty underwent and which the Vice-Dean for Research, Development and Quality Jaromír Leichmann was in charge of. The following interview provides information on what other recommendations came out of the evaluation, how they will be dealt with and what tasks await the Vice-Dean for Development after the evaluation is over.
At the Faculty Academic Senate meeting, it was mentioned that plans are being made to adjust the division of the Vice-Dean's agenda. What specifically will the change affect?
The division of agendas among the vice-deans is based on what tasks need to be addressed at the moment and how time-consuming they are. In the past year, we have spent a lot of time on the international evaluation of science and research, which was related to the further development of the faculty, so I was put in charge of that. After the evaluation was completed, the Vice Dean for Internationalisation, Ctirad Hofr, took over the science and research agenda. I will continue to focus on development and act as statutory representative.
How did the international evaluation of science and research at the faculty proceed?
It has been a challenging process. The individual institutes first wrote so-called self-evaluation reports, which we submitted to an international panel of 13 evaluators. They first read the reports, and then visited the individual institutes in person, discussed with staff and students of the doctoral programmes, and study programs. They then wrote a final report that included reports on the individual institutes and a jointly prepared set of recommendations for institute, faculty and university managers in the different areas of education.
What emerged from the evaluation?
The recommendations for the faculty could be summarized in three points. The first relates to the issue of setting up an appropriate employment system for people of retirement age, in view of the increasing length of active life. The second issue is the levy policy in relation to the centralised university budget, which should be set in such a way that writing projects and applying for grants is not discouraged. The third recommendation highlights the limited space capacity of many institutes, which hinders their further development.
Which of these recommendations can you most influence as Vice Dean?
We are preparing projects that could help with the issue of increasing spatial capacity. One possibility is the Ph.D. Infra call within the Jan Ámos Komenský Operational Programme, which is intended to improve the material conditions for doctoral study programmes. If we are successful, we could receive up to 80 million crowns for the faculty, which we would preferably use to develop working spaces for PhD students, thus freeing up space in our laboratories for further development of science and research.
Where exactly should the new space be built?
The call does not allow the construction of new premises, only renovation can be considered. At Kotlářská we are considering investments in instrumentation as part of a project with the working title: Shared Ph.D. laboratories for optical and other advanced analytical methods. On the campus, this would be an extension and modification of the ground floor, the so-called "leg" extension at the Chemistry Pavilion. The project for the entire university for the Ph.D. Infra call is due to be submitted in May.
What about the other two recommendations. Can anything be done in them from the faculty level?
We are largely constrained by national legislation on the issue of employment of people of retirement age. The proposed solution, which consists of concluding new contracts with employees of retirement age, which would allow them to have lower working hours, is only allowed by the Czech legislative framework in situations where both parties agree on it.
We will discuss with the university management the appropriate reconfiguration of the system of contributions in the case of projects. If we want to be a research university, it is not possible for the situation described by the evaluators to continue: "If a scientist who has received an international grant has to decide whether to go to Brno or Vienna, then he will go to Vienna, because in Vienna he will be given support, while in Brno he will pay taxes to the central budget."
What will else is to happen regarding recommendations resulting from the evaluation?
In February, we discussed them with the university management as part of the traditional faculty evaluation. The dean discusses them with the directors of the institutes during their regular annual evaluation. The conclusions and responses will be a topic at a future extended college meeting. We would like to wrap the whole thing up in June with a summary report to the university administration.
What will you do after the conclusion of the international science evaluation?
In addition to the OP JAK and Ph.D. Infra projects mentioned above, I will, for example, be dealing with complaints related to the evaluation. If someone is dissatisfied with their evaluation, they can dispute it within our HR Award rules. And if it is an academic, I am in charge of handling that complaint. Fortunately, this is not a frequent occurrence. Together with the Vice-Dean Markéta Munzarová, we are also the contact persons for issues of improving relations between students and lecturers.
This is your second term as Vice-Dean. Before that you were Dean for two terms, can these positions be compared?
It's incomparable. A dean has many times more responsibility. He decides what the priorities are, he sets the goals and the ways to achieve them, he chooses the team of people who help him implement them and assigns them tasks. And that is good, because it is the dean who has been elected by the Academic Senate.
Before you became Dean, you were also the head of the academic senate of the faculty. Did you use your experience as Senate in managing the faculty?
Absolutely. It happens quite often that senate chairs are elected to faculty or university leadership positions. Experience in functioning in the senate, knowing what to present and how to present it, is a great advantage. I honestly can't imagine being a dean without having chaired a senate or managed an institute before.
From your perspective, how has the faculty changed since you yourself graduated?
They're worlds apart. And not just because of the equipment we didn't have then. Before 1989, there was nothing in the faculties because research was primarily done at the Academy of Sciences. The role of universities was mainly to look after education and training. In this respect, the development of higher education in the Czech Republic has been enormous. The situation has also changed fundamentally in human terms. At the time of my studies before 1989, there was no university or faculty self-government; everything was determined by party bodies outside the faculty and university structures.
How did you get into your field of study?
To be honest, at high school, a strong motivation was the admiration for foreign motorbikes and cars, which at that time I could only look at in the pages of the magazine Svět motoru, which published comparisons and reviews on the back page. It was clear to me that if I ever wanted to go and see or even buy such cars and motorbikes, the only way to get to the West was through a career as a successful sportsman or through a job in research. It was too late for me to start sports career, so I threw myself into research in the natural sciences, which I enjoyed.
And that's why you got into geology?
Yes, because geologists went out West quite often. But after my studies I ended up in the uranium mines in Dolní Rožínka, and from there you weren't even allowed to go to the East Germany. Fortunately, it was short-lived.
But you are still doing uranium-related research today. What specifically?
At the moment, within the GEOBAR project, we are researching the behaviour of uranium in the Earth's crust, specifically the formation of deposits, but also the storage of spent fuel, i.e. the beginning and end of the whole process from the point of view of nuclear energy.
In this context, what is your view of the Czech Republic's potential for energy independence?
We are certainly not and will not be self-sufficient in oil and natural gas supplies; our reserves of these commodities are far from sufficient for our current consumption. We could be partially self-sufficient in coal, but this is ecologically problematic. Environmentally cleaner sources such as solar energy or wind power will not be sufficient for current consumption, given the climatic conditions here.
And uranium?
There are officially no mineable reserves. However, based on our research, which is based on the analogy of the geological subsoil compared to similar locations in the world, we assume that, with the help of new advanced methods, additional reserves can be found in our territory. We should focus on this research.
Where do you yourself recharge?
I like cooking, cycling and motorcycling. I always find time to cook, because you have to eat, and I sometimes ride my bike to work, but the time for motorbike trips is worse.
Honorary doctorates were awarded, by decision of the Scientific Council of Masaryk University, to Professor Thomas Robert Cech, who made a significant contribution to the formation of the field of biological sciences; and Professor Peter Wolfram Michor, who made a significant contribution to the development...
A team of botanists has revealed significant changes in the distribution of species in the Czech flora. Their study, published in the international scientific journal Biological Conservation, analyzed the decline and increase of individual plant species in the Czech Republic since 1960.
