17.04.2026 Polish science does not need bigger budgets alone. It needs a better system – one that does not disperse talent, overburden people, and finally begins to treat science as a collective effort rather than a sum of individual struggles for survival.
The conversation with Joanna Kartasiewicz, Operational Manager of the Teaming for Excellence project at the International Centre for Translational Eye Research (ICTER), recorded for the Candela Foundation podcast, quickly shows that Polish science now operates under permanent tension. On the one hand, there are outstanding scientists, ambitious projects, and a growing presence in international consortia. On the other hand, there is a system that often hinders rather than supports the use of that potential.
From the very beginning, Joanna Kartasiewicz makes her point clearly, drawing attention to something rarely heard in public debate.
“In my opinion, there are simply too many institutions. Good or excellent science requires equally good or excellent support. Administration – where I have worked for 15 years – is often treated dismissively, as second-class staff who do not have PhDs, even though many of them actually do,” says Joanna Kartasiewicz.
This one statement captures the essence of the problem: the system is not only fragmented, but also fails to value its own foundations.
Fragmentation That Comes at the Expense of Quality
One of the most important themes of the conversation is the structure of the system itself. As Kartasiewicz stresses, Poland has hundreds of research and teaching institutions, which in practice means that resources, energy, and ambition are spread too thin.
“There are around 70 institutes within the Polish Academy of Sciences alone, and more than 300 across the system as a whole. This fragmentation can significantly reduce the quality of both teaching and research outcomes, while also lowering the level of funding available to institutions that could generate top-class results at the highest global level,” says Joanna Kartasiewicz.
This is not merely a matter of numbers. At stake is a fundamental question about the philosophy of how the system works: is it better to have many average institutions, or fewer but truly strong ones capable of competing globally? Kartasiewicz points to the experience of other countries, where large, interdisciplinary institutions with a high degree of internationalization have become the norm. In her view, Poland is still stuck in a quantity-based model that no longer fits the realities of modern science.
Money and the Way It Is Distributed
Although underfunding remains a fact, the conversation clearly shifts the focus in another direction. Kartasiewicz does not question the need for greater investment, but she emphasizes that the way money is distributed is just as important.
“Poland is a country with relatively low science funding as a share of GDP – the EU average is around 2%, and we do not reach that level. But it is equally important how we divide that money. On the one hand, we need greater funding; on the other, we need more effective redistribution, meaning that these funds should be divided among fewer but more dynamic institutions,” she says.
In this context, the conversation also turns to strategic thinking about science, as part of the country’s economic and technological system. Kartasiewicz suggests that investment in research could be linked, for example, to the development of defence technologies or the export of innovation. It is a perspective that goes beyond the academic horizon, and one that is still not strong enough in Poland.
The Scientist Trapped in Multitasking
One of the most striking elements of her diagnosis is the description of scientists’ everyday reality. Instead of focusing on research, they are forced to perform dozens of other roles.
“In our system, institutions are usually run by professors – people of science who are rarely managers and are not trained to run large organizations. As a result, they are expected to be researchers, teachers, managers, and often specialists in law, public procurement, or finance all at once. The number of roles keeps growing, but time does not,” Joanna Kartasiewicz continues.
This is not merely a matter of overload. It is a structural flaw that means the system uses people’s skills inefficiently. Kartasiewicz points to the British model, where there is a clear division of roles between the academic leader and the person responsible for operational management. In Poland, such a model is still the exception rather than the rule.
The Invisible Architects of Success
Another theme that comes through particularly strongly is administration – a group without which modern science simply could not function. Kartasiewicz speaks about it bluntly: “Administration is often treated as second-class staff, yet these are the people responsible for a huge share of the work that keeps institutions functioning – from grants and legal procedures to the everyday support of scientists.”
This tension between a lack of recognition and the group’s real importance leads to systemic problems. There is a shortage of training opportunities, career paths, development prospects, and chances for international exposure. And yet, as Kartasiewicz emphasizes, science today is a team effort, and the successes attributed to individuals are in reality the result of the work of many people, often invisible in the foreground.
On top of that comes the procedural layer. The public procurement system, administrative burdens, and excessive regulation all make the implementation of research projects a time-consuming and costly process.
“The procedures are extremely complicated, very lengthy, and require enormous administrative effort. Even if we have lawyers, they are also overloaded, so many responsibilities fall on employees who are not prepared for them,” she explains.
In this context, the lack of systemic support for people managing projects becomes especially clear. Kartasiewicz admits that she has had to acquire many skills abroad because access to specialist training in Poland is limited. This is a gap that directly affects the ability of institutions to compete for international funding.
Young Researchers at the Point of Decision
The most troubling part of the conversation, however, concerns the future. Kartasiewicz draws attention to the situation of young scientists, who are increasingly giving up on academic careers.
“People at the beginning of their careers can see how rough and difficult this path is, how administratively overloaded it is, and how heavily marked by the constant need to secure grants. That can be deeply discouraging. The alternatives are real – start-ups, the private sector – and many of them choose those alternatives,” explains Joanna Kartasiewicz.
This is a phenomenon that could be described as a quiet brain drain. It is not about emigration, but about the outflow of talent from science into other sectors. In the long term, this could have serious consequences for the entire system.
Science as a System, Not a Collection of Isolated Cases
The conversation with Joanna Kartasiewicz presents a coherent, if demanding, diagnosis. Polish science needs not only greater investment, but above all a change in thinking – a move away from fragmentation, overload, and the undervaluing of the system’s key links.
“Good science requires excellent support. No scientist today can function on their own – it is always teamwork, the effort of many people building success together,” she concludes.
That sentence sounds like a summary, but also like a starting point for a broader discussion. Because if science is to be a driver of development, it must first put its own foundations in order.
