Patrick Pallagi plays with the famous Rubik's Cube, invented by Hungarian Ernő Rubik (Photo: Zoltán Széll)
With the onset of the MTA (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia) debacle, I began asking around about what the real issue was. It appeared to me—and still does—that, at the end of the day, the real concern is and will be in regard to what type of funding for the Hungarian Academy of Sciences will now be approved. Of course, it is not nice to have your funding cut out of nowhere… or, I guess, not extended as always. And yet, when one is dependent on a third-party for funding, such issues can always arise, whether due to a restructuring or financial concerns. And when dependent on “donors,” no matter where they come from (private or government), those who fund will and do hold sway. Thus is life.
In any event, I received a great perspective on the situation in terms of some basic history from Patrick Pallagi, a young Hungarian currently studying Physics at the University of Toronto. Here below our conversation, or, rather, his response in color.
So, what are the reasons that the some here in Hungary care about this new funding decision?
One apparent reason would be that the public is still super angry at the government about CEU and the new work law. So I can fairly assume that there are people who just go to every demonstration so they can show how much they'd like the government to change.
But the bigger reason why many of us feel connected to the MTA is because it represents both a pillar-stone and a goal in our society.
It was founded by a noble man by the name of Gróf Széchenyi István, called “A legnagyobb magyar” (“The greatest Hungarian”) by Kossuth Lajos himself.
Széchenyi brought reforms to Hungary, perhaps most importantly in the way the banking system allowed people to take out loans, leading to great economic growth and moving Hungary away from what had been a purely feudalistic society. He continued to invest his own personal wealth and the profits he was making so that he could create meaningful change in Hungary. In addition, he saw two paths for its, Hungary’s, possible future.
He said that the country could either choose to progress and “catch up” to the West or fall behind much like the East. His main examples of these two options were Great Britain and Turkey. And so he lived his life in support of the progress that could help Hungary "catch up."
Széchenyi brought ship building, horse racing, and the first permanent Buda-Pest bridge, Lánchíd (Chain Bridge), to Budapest. He helped finance the construction of Lánchíd and was in fact the first to call the two united cities “Budapest.” Among his many contributions, Széchenyi also gave his annual salary to further the cause of the Magyar Tudós Társaság. This was the Society of the Hungarian Scientists. He was joined by other nobles who also contributed and ended up as second president of the group under Teleki József.
Today, both the young and old regard what became known as the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as Széchenyi's biggest commitment to his nation. So, the public regards the Academy as a direct symbol of Széchenyi, a man called the Greatest Hungarian by his very rival Kossuth Lajos. And today it is a crown jewel of science, really a symbol in the eyes of the public.
But here’s the question: How can an institution like the Academy support science in the 21st century?
The Academy has an opinion about that. And the government has perhaps an equally valid opinion about that.
Scientific research is done in labs that are all over the country at Csillebérc, Szeged, Budapest, and many more. There were a couple of labs that had their own budget, but even these became MTA affiliated labs after 2008. ( I'd assume due to the global economic crisis.) So the MTA had established a network of scientific institutions, and this system seemed to work really well: Affiliated labs connected to one institution that had its own budget.
However, then the government started asking a unique question: Why don’t labs have to apply for their own budget funding?
So, their idea is that they would like to make them do just this. Not such a bad idea if we look at comparisons around the world. Right, but the thing is that scientists usually are able to do their research thanks to grant money; that's how it works in the world of science. And grant funding comes from applying to grants, which typically have a 1 in 10 success rate, meaning a scientist often spends their time applying to grants that they don't get—kind of a waste of their time.
But at the same time, this new model could increase the competition among researchers, and competition is always good. It might increase the quality of outcomes, which is the basic idea behind the Hungarian government's new structure. They would like to see more individual labs
with their own budgets. I think that the idea in itself is not going to make people leave their homes and take to the streets.
But here’s the thing. Before, it was scientists at the MTA deciding how much money they should give to this and that lab. And that was a guarantee of a stable source. The MTA was co-founded by Széchenyi, and there was “trust in the system.” I think researchers now fear that they would need to apply for more grants and may very well not get funding for what they were working on before. In fact, some believe certain labs will be shut down entirely after April 1st.
So, scientists here don’t like the idea of a new system that they don’t really trust but also just really don’t want to have to waste time applying for funding and facing that uncertainty.
One can say this is capitalism, and competition is good. But science is kind of important, so thus the dilemma for some as to if the government has made a proper move.
Yes, perhaps science will indeed be better with greater competition.
Dr. David DeRemer, an American economist formerly employed by MTA and now at the International School of Economics in Kazakhstan, is however concerned on a more valid point. “In the U.S., Congress decides what funding to give to NSF, NIH, etc. But it's not going to evaluate individual grant proposals: international norms are for that to be done by academic peer review.” Dr. DeRemer also is concerned by the fact that presumably those who do not win funding from the recent grant round will literally be out of a home come April 1st.
As to the overall decrease in funding claimed, this is a bit perplexing, as in a letter in response to the MTA by Orban (their original letter is here), Orban in fact mentions an “increase” along with the planned structural change.
What is clear, is that the current Hungarian government will most likely not continue funding programs they feel are a waste of both time and money as well as not in line with the country’s goals. And the real controversies will most likely start when it is better known just how restrictive Fidesz decides to be. There has been some incredibly cutting-edge and long-lauded work performed here in Hungary, continuing on the country’s reputation in the world of science—far beyond the Rubik's Cube. :) So it would seem odd for Orban to want to give those areas up. But in regards to other more “social” arenas (e.g., gender studies, migration, and sociology), areas that may truly not be providing the desired bang for the buck in terms of any real or relevant results, one can see where cuts may indeed be coming.
Conveniently the man himself, Szechényi, is not around to say what he would or would not support. But that does not keep those in an uproar over the "injustice" from using his image and name to assure us all that he would of course be outraged. It is funny to note that the first priority of the society he funded was the development of the Hungarian language. And yet, Széchenyi, who was born into a noble family in Vienna, apparently admitted at the time to only speaking some 24 words of Hungarian himself.
It’s also important to point out that this funding debacle is in no way simply a Hungarian problem—as is often the case with many complaints here. As stated before, scientists in the US and around the world face this very same issue and are continuously having to apply for funding from both governmental and private sources. And they themselves are also looking for a better solution.
Patrick was kind enough to send me the video below: “Could Netflix Fix Science?” The scientists here propose offering grants to not the top 10% but the top 50%. I’m not sure I follow, as it would thus seem that there would be less money to go around, and less to go towards truly stellar projects. And why give to 50% if perhaps not all are equally worthy? The scientists answer that according to algorithms, the more hours spent “doing science” outweighs the lower quality of proposals accepted… hmm.
So how does Netflix come into this? Well, you can watch the video. But I don’t quite get how funding “completed science” instead of proposals makes any difference to the issue at hand. Scientists will still spend a huge amount of time coming up with their solution, and only one will be picked… or perhaps a few, leaving many out in the cold. And one would assume—or hope—that indeed the scientists would spend a hell of a lot more time doing the actual science than writing a proposal, right? So… for those who don’t “win”... what do they do after all that time spent and zip (desired money) to show for it?
In any event, I received a great perspective on the situation in terms of some basic history from Patrick Pallagi, a young Hungarian currently studying Physics at the University of Toronto. Here below our conversation, or, rather, his response in color.
So, what are the reasons that the some here in Hungary care about this new funding decision?
One apparent reason would be that the public is still super angry at the government about CEU and the new work law. So I can fairly assume that there are people who just go to every demonstration so they can show how much they'd like the government to change.
But the bigger reason why many of us feel connected to the MTA is because it represents both a pillar-stone and a goal in our society.
It was founded by a noble man by the name of Gróf Széchenyi István, called “A legnagyobb magyar” (“The greatest Hungarian”) by Kossuth Lajos himself.
Széchenyi brought reforms to Hungary, perhaps most importantly in the way the banking system allowed people to take out loans, leading to great economic growth and moving Hungary away from what had been a purely feudalistic society. He continued to invest his own personal wealth and the profits he was making so that he could create meaningful change in Hungary. In addition, he saw two paths for its, Hungary’s, possible future.
He said that the country could either choose to progress and “catch up” to the West or fall behind much like the East. His main examples of these two options were Great Britain and Turkey. And so he lived his life in support of the progress that could help Hungary "catch up."
Széchenyi brought ship building, horse racing, and the first permanent Buda-Pest bridge, Lánchíd (Chain Bridge), to Budapest. He helped finance the construction of Lánchíd and was in fact the first to call the two united cities “Budapest.” Among his many contributions, Széchenyi also gave his annual salary to further the cause of the Magyar Tudós Társaság. This was the Society of the Hungarian Scientists. He was joined by other nobles who also contributed and ended up as second president of the group under Teleki József.
Today, both the young and old regard what became known as the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as Széchenyi's biggest commitment to his nation. So, the public regards the Academy as a direct symbol of Széchenyi, a man called the Greatest Hungarian by his very rival Kossuth Lajos. And today it is a crown jewel of science, really a symbol in the eyes of the public.
But here’s the question: How can an institution like the Academy support science in the 21st century?
The Academy has an opinion about that. And the government has perhaps an equally valid opinion about that.
Scientific research is done in labs that are all over the country at Csillebérc, Szeged, Budapest, and many more. There were a couple of labs that had their own budget, but even these became MTA affiliated labs after 2008. ( I'd assume due to the global economic crisis.) So the MTA had established a network of scientific institutions, and this system seemed to work really well: Affiliated labs connected to one institution that had its own budget.
However, then the government started asking a unique question: Why don’t labs have to apply for their own budget funding?
So, their idea is that they would like to make them do just this. Not such a bad idea if we look at comparisons around the world. Right, but the thing is that scientists usually are able to do their research thanks to grant money; that's how it works in the world of science. And grant funding comes from applying to grants, which typically have a 1 in 10 success rate, meaning a scientist often spends their time applying to grants that they don't get—kind of a waste of their time.
But at the same time, this new model could increase the competition among researchers, and competition is always good. It might increase the quality of outcomes, which is the basic idea behind the Hungarian government's new structure. They would like to see more individual labs
with their own budgets. I think that the idea in itself is not going to make people leave their homes and take to the streets.
But here’s the thing. Before, it was scientists at the MTA deciding how much money they should give to this and that lab. And that was a guarantee of a stable source. The MTA was co-founded by Széchenyi, and there was “trust in the system.” I think researchers now fear that they would need to apply for more grants and may very well not get funding for what they were working on before. In fact, some believe certain labs will be shut down entirely after April 1st.
So, scientists here don’t like the idea of a new system that they don’t really trust but also just really don’t want to have to waste time applying for funding and facing that uncertainty.
One can say this is capitalism, and competition is good. But science is kind of important, so thus the dilemma for some as to if the government has made a proper move.
Yes, perhaps science will indeed be better with greater competition.
Dr. David DeRemer, an American economist formerly employed by MTA and now at the International School of Economics in Kazakhstan, is however concerned on a more valid point. “In the U.S., Congress decides what funding to give to NSF, NIH, etc. But it's not going to evaluate individual grant proposals: international norms are for that to be done by academic peer review.” Dr. DeRemer also is concerned by the fact that presumably those who do not win funding from the recent grant round will literally be out of a home come April 1st.
As to the overall decrease in funding claimed, this is a bit perplexing, as in a letter in response to the MTA by Orban (their original letter is here), Orban in fact mentions an “increase” along with the planned structural change.
What is clear, is that the current Hungarian government will most likely not continue funding programs they feel are a waste of both time and money as well as not in line with the country’s goals. And the real controversies will most likely start when it is better known just how restrictive Fidesz decides to be. There has been some incredibly cutting-edge and long-lauded work performed here in Hungary, continuing on the country’s reputation in the world of science—far beyond the Rubik's Cube. :) So it would seem odd for Orban to want to give those areas up. But in regards to other more “social” arenas (e.g., gender studies, migration, and sociology), areas that may truly not be providing the desired bang for the buck in terms of any real or relevant results, one can see where cuts may indeed be coming.
Conveniently the man himself, Szechényi, is not around to say what he would or would not support. But that does not keep those in an uproar over the "injustice" from using his image and name to assure us all that he would of course be outraged. It is funny to note that the first priority of the society he funded was the development of the Hungarian language. And yet, Széchenyi, who was born into a noble family in Vienna, apparently admitted at the time to only speaking some 24 words of Hungarian himself.
It’s also important to point out that this funding debacle is in no way simply a Hungarian problem—as is often the case with many complaints here. As stated before, scientists in the US and around the world face this very same issue and are continuously having to apply for funding from both governmental and private sources. And they themselves are also looking for a better solution.
Patrick was kind enough to send me the video below: “Could Netflix Fix Science?” The scientists here propose offering grants to not the top 10% but the top 50%. I’m not sure I follow, as it would thus seem that there would be less money to go around, and less to go towards truly stellar projects. And why give to 50% if perhaps not all are equally worthy? The scientists answer that according to algorithms, the more hours spent “doing science” outweighs the lower quality of proposals accepted… hmm.
So how does Netflix come into this? Well, you can watch the video. But I don’t quite get how funding “completed science” instead of proposals makes any difference to the issue at hand. Scientists will still spend a huge amount of time coming up with their solution, and only one will be picked… or perhaps a few, leaving many out in the cold. And one would assume—or hope—that indeed the scientists would spend a hell of a lot more time doing the actual science than writing a proposal, right? So… for those who don’t “win”... what do they do after all that time spent and zip (desired money) to show for it?
