On the occasion of Associate Professor Vladimír Krylov's accession to the position of Dean of the Faculty of Science, we present an interview in which the new Dean of the Faculty of Science outlines his priorities in leading the Faculty for the next four-year term of office of the Dean of his College, which begins on 1 December 2024. Associate Professor Krylov will be confirmed in his position by the Rector of Charles University, Professor Milena Králíčková.
Mr. Dean, let's start with a simple thing - could you introduce yourself to those people who have not met you at the faculty before?
I am the Associate Professor at the Department of Cell Biology, where I head the Developmental Biology Laboratory, which deals, among other things, with the regeneration of striated and cardiac muscle using Sertoli cells in tadpole and adult models of the western clawed frog (Xenopus tropicalis) and the african clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). I supervise the undergraduate Developmental Biology course including practicum courses and the graduate courses Advances in Developmental Biology, Cell Differentiation in Ontogenesis, and Microinjection and Micromanipulation Practicum. Last but not least, I guarantee the graduate program in Reproductive and Developmental Biology.
In addition, you have also held a number of academic positions for some time...
As far as my academic functions are concerned, I would probably first mention my long-term membership in the Staff Chamber of the Academic Senate of the Faculty of Arts (2009 - 2020). In 2020, I became Vice Dean for Science, Research, Scientific Information and Academic Qualifications, Knowledge and Technology Transfer in the College of Dean Jiří Zima. In terms of the overall view of the Faculty, I consider my experience as a member of the Faculty's Scientific Council, where I have chaired the Habilitation and Appointment Committee for the last four years as Vice-Dean, to be very important. Through this experience, I have been able to significantly "peek outside my biology bubble" and have come to realize strongly that the faculty as a whole is truly excellent and that there is really great science being done in all sections!
Of course, our faculty is also part of the wider context of Charles University. Have you ever been involved in any university-wide negotiations?
Yes, my first experience in these processes was as a long-time member of the departmental council Charles University Grant Agency (GA UK) in section B - natural sciences. I was also chairman of the biology panel for a time. In the last year I participated in a number of meetings of the Economic Commission of the Academic Senate of the Charles University, which dealt with the distribution of funds for two key buildings in which the University is involved - Mephared 2 in Hradec Králové and "our" Biocentre prepared within the framework of the Albertov Campus project. Of course, I also have close ties with our representatives in the UK Scientific Council - in this forum we have recently dealt mainly with the criteria for habilitation and professorship procedures.
Did you also participate in the negotiations regarding the financing of the university and then the faculties?
As Vice Dean for Science, I was a member of the working group for the evaluation of creative activities funded by Cooperatio institutional funds. As part of this, a performance component was introduced which was divided from the fixed share, the former "Kafemlejnek", which has been used to distribute funding at Charles University since 2013. Currently, the performance component accounts for 10% and the so-called "fix" for 90%. This more progressive setting of science funding, which places more emphasis on quality impacted publications and their citations, or the volume of funds associated with national and international grants, among other things, means a gain for our faculty in the final sum.
In your election programme, you propose changes in the processes of evaluation of scientific activities at our faculty so that they are evaluated more transparently and fairly. What does the academic community mean by this?
In short, I would like the faculty system to replicate (with some modifications, of course) the university system. I have already prepared this new way of distributing Cooperatio funds to the individual sections as Vice-Dean and it has been preliminarily discussed positively at the Academic Senate of the Faculty of Science. On the other hand, it must be said that this system, although more comprehensive and fairer, will not cause a fundamental revolution in the institutional funding of science at the Faculty.
In addition to institutional money, the faculty should have additional funding. Already as a vice-dean, you have advocated for greater use of resources from knowledge and technology transfer, i.e. commercialisation of research. How do you think the transfer should take place?
Besides the money that flows from the university level according to a specific algorithm, commercialisation of knowledge is one possible source of funding. At the university level, CUIP (Charles University Innovations Prague a.s.) and CPPT (Centre for Knowledge and Technology Transfer) are soon to be merged into one company called Innovatio Carolinae. I have been working with representatives of both CUIP and CPPT for some time now, and I think they are doing their work very knowledgeably and are moving in the right direction. We are currently very close to two emerging commercial entities (spin offs) with roots in our faculty - one focused on satellite data analysis, the other on sustainable policy consulting. Other possibilities are money from patents or utility models - we already have something to offer in this direction as well, e.g. a patent from Prof. Jan Brábek's workshop, which is key in the field of cancer treatment, or the use of complex silver compounds for antiseptic purposes, which is signed by the group around Dr. Lukáš Rýček. In this context, one of my goals is to deepen cooperation with institutions that are close to us in the field - in particular The University of Chemistry and Technology and The Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS and to share good practice with them.
And other possible external sources of funding?
Apart from the possible source of income, which is the money collected for tuition fees from self-payers, significant funding can come from large European grants, e.g. from the Horizon Europe programme. Here, overheads of up to 25% are possible, which is a very significant contribution to the running of both the research teams and the faculty. My plan is to encourage as much as possible our academic staff to coordinate these projects to a greater extent or to be part of relevant consortia. Strengthening these activities would complement our otherwise very successful Czech standards in obtaining funding from operational programmes or ERC grants.
In addition to faculty funding, other topics of interest to staff and students are also important. For example, how do you see the topic of women in science, especially ensuring good working conditions for female scientists?
My basic view, which is also reflected in my election programme, is that we cannot afford to lose women in science. There are several possible ways in which the faculty will accommodate women scientists (or, of course, fathers on paternity leave). It may be to boost the income of the female scientist in question (depending on the grants she is involved in). I am also considering the creation of a fund for female applicants in difficult life situations. I would like to initiate discussions on this issue at the Rector's level as well - money for this type of grant could be bracketed in the University budget. Everything is ultimately a question of specific calculations.
This issue is also related to the maintenance or expansion of the Rybička nursery school.
Today, the faculty pays half of the operating costs per child, which is just over CZK 6 000. We would like to maintain this ratio in the future, with the possibility of receiving an additional subsidy per child from the fund I have just mentioned. There is also the possibility of extending Rybička by one floor, which would practically double the current capacity of the nursery.
Faculty are not only employees, but also (and actually primarily) students. You have been a member of the Academic Senate for many years, where student interests are intensively discussed thanks to the AS Student Chamber, and you have also been teaching for a long time and therefore come into contact with students. Do you have any vision of systematic support for student activities?
There is a large area that students can think about and organize much better than the staff. I would mention, for example, the recent introduction of departments to undergraduate students, which took place in our biology section and which was organized by Student Chamber of the Academic Senate member Markéta Byronová in cooperation with others.
But this is definitely not the end of student life...
It's definitely not. Our faculty has beautiful surroundings in the form of Albertov hillsides, which is a space that can definitely be used more than it has been so far. It is up to the faculty administration to provide space and legislative and financial support for these activities. Another chapter is the support of faculty associations, of which we have many at the faculty. They should certainly receive support, especially according to their size, i.e. according to the number of students they actually reach. However, from the position of the Dean, I want to leave the competences in this area to the Academic Senate's Study Committee, and possibly support the linking of the agendas of the Study Department, the PR Department and Student Chamber of the Academic Senate.
Another topic in the field of study is English. What is your vision for the direction of the faculty in this area?
English is the language of science, and moving the faculty forward in this area is also one of the items on my election agenda. I know from my own experience that knowledge of a language is dead if one does not attend to three basic things - if one does not read, speak and write English. The key to a shift, in my view, is to increase the teaching of English in vocational subjects, especially at master's and doctoral level. After that, practicing the language goes hand in hand with gaining proficiency. Students are now coming out of secondary schools already well equipped in the language - but I would be cautious about introducing English teaching across the board at undergraduate level. After all, students need to be more "attuned" to higher education.
One of the keys to internationalization is increasing the proportion of international students. In view of the reforms in the field of doctoral studies, the nature of the STARS elite doctoral recruitment project, for example, will necessarily change.
The STARS project is to be transformed, but not completely abolished. We would like to continue to use the funds that have been allocated to support elite, mostly foreign students to motivate quality PhD students beyond the statutory scholarship. Students with an A grade should be eligible for a scholarship of 1.2 times the minimum wage, while students with a B grade can go for half that amount. Thus, tutors must try to attract high quality students and, unless there is to be a significant drop in numbers, they will have to contribute to their funding from grant activity themselves.
Another development plan that cannot be skipped is the Albertov campus. How do you see its development in the coming years? The first question is - is the construction of the Globcentre, which according to the original plan was supposed to be one of the two buildings that would develop the spatial possibilities of the faculty, still on track.
There is currently no active group working on completing the Globcentre project. However, I do not think that the Globcenter project, which was intended to provide more space for disciplines outside the "white", i.e. laboratory-oriented, fields of our faculty, will be completely shut down. The question is whether the ideas about its future should be more "university" oriented, i.e. think of it as a project of the whole university and involve many more faculties (e.g. including humanities) than originally planned.
In conclusion, we come to the Biocentre - the process of its preparation has certainly not escaped anyone who has visited the Albertov area in the last year.
The completion of the Biocentre is of course a priority. For my part, it is important to start as soon as possible with the selection of people to fill the Biocentre's Board of Trustees, its highest body, which is involved in the election of the Director. I have high hopes for the cooperation with Czexpats in Science, an organization that brings together "returnees" from study and work stays abroad. The director should then be a person with a clear vision who is highly respected in the professional community and has an overview of the workings of not only European but also global science. It is important that the director communicates well with the deans of all three participating faculties (i.e., in addition to the Faculty of Science of the Charles University, also the 1st Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles University). In this regard, I would like to meet as soon as possible with Dr. Pavel Tomančák, the director of CEITEC in Brno, from whom we would like to draw inspiration.
Thank you for the interview!
Michal Andrle
photos: Petr Jan Juračka