Hungarian research head defends network privatisation

The president of the Hungarian Research Network (Hun-Ren) has defended a major planned reorganisation which critics argue could entrench control by prime minister Viktor Orbán and even lead to EU research funds being cut off. 

Balázs Gulyás insists the changes, which as they currently stand would allow Orbán and Hungary’s science minister to appoint the inaugural governing board, are not a political takeover. 

“We have nothing to do with politics,” he told Science|Business. “I would not be able to tolerate anything which is not respecting scientific or academic freedom. That would be a disaster.”

The reforms, unveiled last month by the government, follow a year-long assessment of Hun-Ren, and have already sparked criticism from academics in Hungary and an MEP, who says that the changes resemble reforms to universities that led to Brussels cutting off Horizon Europe money last year. 

In those reforms, universities were privatised and controlled by politically appointed boards. Orbán has also been accused of tightening control of the courts and media, and in 2018, the government forced the Central European University out of Budapest, part of a wider campaign against its financial backer, the philanthropist George Soros.  

Gulyás, appointed by Orbán at the beginning of 2023, returned to lead the network after a globe-trotting career as a neurobiologist, including positions at Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. 

“Coming back to Hungary, that is due to my challenge seeking personality traits,” he said. According to “oriental wisdom” he acquired in Singapore, in the “later stages of our life” you “really have to give back to society”, Gulyás said. 

So when Gulyás received an “out of the blue” invitation to lead the network, he took it up. 

The network needs reform because of Hungary’s persistent brain drain and lagging innovation ecosystem, argues Gulyás. “I know so many of my contemporaries who left Hungary - we are in the world everywhere, be it America, Europe or Southeast Asia,” he said. 

The other problem with the network is that it is 85% dependent on Hungarian national funds. Comparable research networks in Sweden, for example, receive two-thirds of their income from businesses and international grants, he pointed out. 

Critics argue that Hun-Ren is largely a basic research network, not designed for applied work, but Gulyás rejects the entire basic-applied distinction, which he says does not exist in Singapore and wider East Asia. Instead, these countries have a “kind of a mission oriented, or solutions for society oriented model”. 

The network is going to build its technology transfer system, said chief executive Roland Jakab, a former Ericsson executive. “We have to hire professional persons who can do the market research for all kinds of new inventions.” He also wants more tenure track positions to give younger researchers career stability. 

There are also back-office problems: paper-based administration, three different accounting systems, and so on. It’s “unbelievably outdated,” said Gulyás.

Power grab fears

As the proposed law stands, the network will be heavily centralised, and presided over by a seven-person governing board whose chair will be appointed by Orbán, and the rest of the governing board by the science minister. 

These board members can serve up to two terms of six years. When their time is up, or if a position becomes vacant, the existing board members – along with a supervisory board – elect their successors.  

This worries the Hungarian Academy Staff Forum (HASF), a group of researchers which has criticised the reforms, because it could permanently entrench Orbán allies in charge of the network, even if the government in Budapest changes. 

There are some checks and balances: lawmakers and government members can’t be appointed, for example, and the majority of the board needs to be scientists. 

HASF has also criticised another major change envisaged by the new law – the morphing of the network from a public body to a “private quasi-foundation”, with state assets privatised. 

These proposed changes mirror reforms to Hungarian universities, the group argues, which saw them privatised and control handed to politically appointed trustees. The European Commission in 2022 estimated that over 70% of these new university board members had links to Hungary’s government, or personally to Orbán. 

‘Lessons learned’

Gulyás insists that “we have learned the lesson” of Hungary’s university reforms, which prompted Brussels to halt funding over corruption and conflict of interest fears.  Hungary has since modified the law, removing politicians from the boards, in the hope of winning back EU cash, but has been unsuccessful so far. 

The reformed research network will be a “public body,” along the lines of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, not a trust foundation like the universities, says Gulyás. 

HASF has a completely different reading of the law. “HUN-REN will operate as a private business according to the laws of the market. Its operation will not be transparent to the public and its books will be treated as not public, so secret,” said Márton Zászkaliczky, one of the founders. The difference with the university reforms is in name only, he argues. 

Hun-Ren responds

Gulyás also hit back at the claim the reformed network will be politically controlled. “I don't want to have any politician on the board,” he said. 

Board appointments will be made by “consensus” by both the innovation minister and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, although the government will “formally” appoint the members, he said.  

The existing legislation could also be amended, Gulyás stressed. 

He also pointed to other bodies, like France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) or Germany’s Max Planck Society, which have political involvement in selecting their leaders. 

At CNRS, for example, the president is appointed by France’s president. In Max Planck, a decision is made by the Senate, but a significant minority of members are politicians.

“We would like to imitate or take over the best case examples in Europe,” said Gulyás. “This is very similar.” 

Political appointees

But organisations like CNRS have measures to balance out political appointees, notes Zászkaliczky. CNRS’s 30-strong scientific board has 11 members that are directly elected by staff, for example. 

There’s also the question of why such major centralisation is required to make the existing network more business-facing and simplify back-office processes. 

“Without an orchestration of these activities, it won't be effective,” said Jakab. “We have now 20 different legal entities with […] no synergies,” he said. “We are burning our resources and money, because we don't have any kind of good governance on top of these.” 

Performance related pay

Gulyás also has big plans to shake up life for individual researchers at the network. He floated the idea of performance related pay, based on measures like scientific papers, patents and spin offs. 

In addition to a base salary, “on top of that, your scientific performance can […] offer even more,” he said. 

He later stressed that whether to introduce performance related pay would be a matter for the network’s research directors. 

But Gulyás certainly wants performance targets for the research centres themselves. They would be give a “basket of KPIs [key performance indicators]”, as had been the model in Singapore, he said. 

He acknowledged, however, that it would be a “big challenge” to make sure these kinds of targets don’t lead to sloppy science or even fraud to hit publication targets. 

Gulyás said there was a “very good intention” to double, or even more, the salaries of researchers. The network should receive a 50% budget boost on 1 April next year, and then a doubling by 2027, he said.