The NCN Generation comprises researchers and scholars making a significant contribution to the advancement of science. Episode 4 features Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska, who studies the resettlement cultures that emerged after 1945 in post-resettlement areas in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia.

Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska is a cultural studies scholar, Bohemist and ethnologist, and a professor at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Her research is funded by NCN and the European Research Council. She is a 2023 NCN Award winner.

Things that ask questions

A portrait of an unknown woman from the Wittmann photography studio in the former Deutsch Krone, today’s Wałcz. Fragments of roof tiles from the Sturm works in Freiwaldau, today’s Gozdnica, reused to reinforce the foundations of a post-war building. Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska treats such objects as material traces that raise questions about the earlier inhabitants of these lands.

The researcher works with the thesis that things left behind by displaced communities act as ‘ghosts’ of those earlier cultures – they point back to the world in which they were made, even though they now exist in an entirely different present. As the researcher herself puts it, they work in both directions: they turn attention towards the past, but they also ‘tilt it towards the future’, because every engagement with such a legacy is undertaken with the intention of something that is yet to happen.

For the regions in which such processes unfold, Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska has introduced the scholarly category of resettlement cultures (kultury osadnicze).

Post-war migrations affected one in four people in Poland, and eighty years after the war the Polish language still lacks a neutral vocabulary for describing these processes – both the lands themselves and the people who arrived there, as well as those who were displaced from them. The quotation marks around ‘Recovered Territories’ are the most visible sign of what remains unsaid.

Why this knowledge matters

‘The year 1945 was not year zero. It was the beginning of a long process in which new bonds, new meanings and new ways of life took shape in spaces inherited from others,’ says Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska.

The first generation of settlers treated their new surroundings as foreign; the second – already born there – saw them as self-evident. The third and fourth generations are beginning to ‘stumble’ over this materiality and to ask who was there before. It is they who today face a problem for which there are not yet any ready-made tools of description – or even language.

Distinct traditions are taking shape in these regions, invisible in the dominant historical discourse, and the ethnographic toolkit – sustained presence in the field, repeated visits to interviewees, engagement with the materiality of objects and archival sources – makes it possible to describe them. Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska defines the aim of her research plainly: to describe how new communities form and how they produce their own ‘cultural whole’.

‘I would like us to move beyond seeing these regions as a uniform patch on the map where nothing is happening, and to think a little more deeply instead about what is in fact going on there,’ the researcher says.

Selected quotations

On fieldwork

I usually go back to these people several times – to ask about something, or to talk about something else, or just to catch up, to hear how they are and to share how I am. So very often a kind of bond develops there – I would not quite call it friendship, because of the age difference between us – but a bond, a relationship, that goes beyond simply “please answer this and that question for me”.

On archives

We sometimes think of an archive as a place that, in principle, contains everything – you just have to look carefully – but our Central European archives have been through a great deal, much like the regions we live in. That is, they are often damaged, incomplete – something is missing, something has been deaccessioned, something never made it there at all. (…) I like to return to documents that I have already seen several times, to read them again, because the materiality of the document also matters to me. What it is written on, what is on the back, what later annotations subsequent readers have left, who looked at the file before me.

On things as ghosts

The things we encounter in these post-resettlement areas behave a little like ghosts of those earlier cultures, of those communities that were displaced from there. That is, objects that somehow raise questions – they do not always provide answers, but they remind us that someone was there before, without necessarily saying who.

Research on the past and on the future

The better we know ourselves, the more resistant we become to the stories others tell us about ourselves. We are less swayed by the kind of stories that are meant to explain the world to us and nudge us towards something that may not necessarily be true.

This idea of things as ghosts shows just how much of what we do, even with the past, is tilted towards the future. We always do it with the intention of something that is yet to happen.

What does NCN mean for researchers?

It is an opportunity for autonomy – a chance to test whether our idea, once we translate it into a project, is feasible, to learn what others think of it, and to obtain feedback.

In the latest episode of the NCN podcast, Prof. Margaret Ohia-Nowak and dr inż. Tomasz Szumełda discuss the results of a survey on the use of AI in proposal writing, as well as research into bias in Polish language models—a project led by Margaret Ohia-Nowak and funded by the NCN. Hosted by Anna Korzekwa-Józefowicz.

Margaret Ohia-Nowak is a linguist and media scholar at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. Her research focuses, among other things, on race, racialisation and the language of public discourse in Poland and Central and Eastern Europe. Tomasz Szumełda served for many years as an NCN scientific coordinator. He is currently involved in implementing the e-Grants system (e-Granty) and represents NCN in the AI working group at Science Europe, an association of research funding agencies and scientific institutions.

AI in the grant system

In autumn 2025, NCN conducted a survey among principal investigators of projects submitted in recent editions of the OPUS, SONATA and PRELUDIUM calls, asking about the scope of GenAI use in preparing proposals and the limits of its acceptable use. A total of 2,708 respondents took part. Around 60% of respondents believe that NCN should allow the use of GenAI in preparing proposals, while 42% admit they have already used such tools. At the same time, most respondents oppose the use of AI to develop research concepts, formulate hypotheses and prepare literature reviews. The position is even clearer when it comes to proposal evaluation: 67% of all applicants and 72% of grantees exclude the use of GenAI in this process.

Tomasz Szumełda notes that the survey results are consistent with NCN’s position published in May 2025, which allows the auxiliary use of GenAI in preparing proposals and prohibits its use in scientific evaluation. “The research community itself separates form from content, which shows that NCN’s approach aligns with applicants’ expectations,” he says. Margaret Ohia-Nowak, who also completed the survey, agrees with this distinction and adds that AI can be useful for translation and language editing, but the research concept must remain the work of the researcher.

Tomasz Szumełda also emphasises that the guidelines developed by NCN are aligned with a broader European approach. Work is ongoing within Science Europe to develop common recommendations for national agencies, and NCN’s current approach—allowing the auxiliary use of AI by applicants and prohibiting its use in evaluation—is consistent with the prevailing direction in Europe. An exception is the German agency DFG, which has recently allowed reviewers to use AI for language editing and structuring their own critical comments. However, DFG prohibits the use of publicly available models, allows only local institutional servers, and requires reviewers to indicate which parts of their reviews were generated using AI.

Subtle algorithmic bias

The podcast also discusses AI as a field of research. NCN funds projects on AI across multiple areas, from machine learning algorithms and language models, through applications in medicine and biology, to analyses of its social and legal implications. One such project is Margaret Ohia-Nowak’s research on Polish large language models (LLMs). The researcher analyses how the teams developing the Bielik and PLLuM models address safeguards against reproducing ethnic and racial stereotypes. Findings from the first phase indicate that Polish models include a wide range of bias-mitigation measures, and that the range of solutions continues to expand.

The researcher notes, however, that initial, instinctive model responses may be less nuanced, as illustrated by the following example:

“But even today, I asked ChatGPT to generate an image of a wise person. And that wise person… White, with a moustache. These models are now able to differentiate. But three years ago, in 2023, when the idea for this project first emerged for me, they were not. From my corpus research, I already know that these models can be subtly biased. Even when trained to reduce bias, their first response to a question about a ‘wise person’ often reflects a very stereotypical image. The question is: how can we make those initial responses different?” she says.

The project, scheduled for completion at the end of 2027, is expected to result in a guide for two groups: users, supporting them in constructing prompts that generate more culturally sensitive content, and teams developing future Polish LLMs, providing them with a set of good practices.

Selected statements

Margaret Ohia-Nowak

I smiled when I heard that most respondents do not support using AI tools to develop research concepts. I also selected that answer. However, when it comes to formalities, which are often difficult—especially for those with no experience in writing proposals, or in structuring them—this can also be helpful, although much of it is already specified in the call or proposal description. I think these are technical aspects that funding institutions should allow, and NCN does. It involves support with minor translations or language editing, but not with the creative contribution.

Tomasz Szumełda

At this point, NCN’s position is clear: AI should not, in any way, interfere with the merit-based evaluation process. We could probably record a whole separate podcast on this topic. Let’s imagine, for example, an AI reviewer who, having been fed a huge database showing that this type of research has received funding over the last three years, might conclude that the research is not innovative—or, conversely, that it is innovative—because it will have been fed a dataset that subsequently suggests appropriate responses.

There have been situations where experts and reviewers evaluating the proposals did indeed feel that something was off. That the research concept or the proposal was in some way superficial, generic. Someone asked a simple question and received a simple answer. What was missing was depth and coherence between the methodology and the track record. Such proposals were typically evaluated as being of low quality, yet they required the involvement of human resources to assess something that had no substantive value.

Two-thirds of NCN researchers oppose the use of generative AI in the evaluation of grant proposals. At the same time, 60% believe that NCN should allow its use in their preparation. This is the main finding of a survey conducted by NCN among principal investigators submitting proposals in OPUS, SONATA and PRELUDIUM calls concluded over the past two years.

The boundary defined by researchers themselves is clear: generative AI is acceptable as an editorial tool for language editing, translation and abstracts. As the author of a research concept or as a reviewer of a proposal, it is not.

The findings are consistent with NCN’s position from May 2025, which allows the auxiliary use of GenAI in preparing proposals and prohibits its use in scientific evaluation.

The survey was carried out in October 2025 by the NCN Evaluation and Analysis Team, led by Dr Anna Strzebońska.

What they do and do not want

A total of 42% of respondents have used GenAI tools. They most commonly used them for language editing of proposals (39%), preparing abstracts, including abstracts for the general public (18%), and translating text (14%).

More than half (54%) believe that generative tools should not be used to develop the proposal concept or prepare literature reviews. Nearly one in two respondents (46%) support a ban on using AI to prepare summarised versions of proposals for experts.

Differences can be observed between calls for early-career researchers and the call open to all applicants. In SONATA and PRELUDIUM, 49% and 45% of applicants respectively used GenAI, compared with 37% in OPUS. Responses do not differ significantly across scientific groups, suggesting that these tools are already part of everyday research practice.

Three approaches

Three regulatory approaches emerge from respondents’ comments.

The first emphasises full responsibility of the researcher. The reasoning is pragmatic: bans are difficult to enforce, and funding agencies lack reliable tools to detect AI use in proposals. A proposal drafted using AI thoughtlessly will show signs of being formulaic, which an expert will quickly recognise, and given the low success rates in NCN calls, such a project will not succeed.

The second approach calls for a complete ban. The reasoning is ethical: a grant proposal demonstrates a researcher’s competence and forms an integral part of their creative work. Delegating writing to a machine is seen as unfair competition for independent researchers. One respondent compared the use of GenAI to doping in sport.

The third and largest group proposes a “middle ground”. It does not reject the technology but calls for clear rules and verification mechanisms: mandatory disclosure of GenAI use, a distinction between language editing and substantive content generation, and proportionate sanctions for discrepancies between declarations and the actual use of the tools.

Regardless of their regulatory stance, respondents point to the same risk: the leakage of unpublished research ideas into public models that use user data for further training. Text pasted into publicly available tools for language editing may be retained and lose its confidential status. The research community therefore expects solutions ensuring control over data flows, including on-premises tools and zero-retention policies.

Proposal evaluation: a clear “no”

The stance on the use of AI in proposal evaluation is much more clear-cut than in proposal writing. 67% of all respondents oppose it, rising to 72% among grantees. This opinion is consistent across scientific disciplines and independent of call outcomes.

The arguments go beyond general scepticism. Respondents refer to research indicating that large language models replicate the biases from training data and favour content that matches their own patterns over scientifically valuable content. Algorithmic evaluation would therefore favour proposals written to “please the algorithm”, rather than the scientifically strongest proposals. Concerns were also raised about new forms of manipulation, such as hidden instructions embedded in the text of the proposal (e.g. in white text) or excessive keyword use.

According to respondents, the only acceptable uses of AI for reviewers are formal tasks, such as checking completeness, compliance with call requirements, and the consistency of the document. Full responsibility for the content of the review must remain with the expert.

What next?

The survey results will serve as a starting point for further regulatory work at NCN. They point to three areas where clarification is expected: transparent declaration of GenAI use in proposals and reviews, data processing security, and training for applicants and reviewers, including protection against manipulation using AI tools (so-called prompt injection).

The approach adopted by NCN is consistent with a broader European standard, including the European Commission’s recommendations set out in Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research.

The full study forms part of the “Report on the Evaluation of NCN’s Activities”, which will be published after approval by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

NCN Generation comprises researchers making a significant contribution to the advancement of science. The guest of the third episode is Małgorzata Kot — an archaeologist specialising in the Palaeolithic, lithic technologies and early human migrations. She conducts fieldwork in caves in Poland and Central Asia, combining excavations with advanced laboratory analyses. Her research is funded by NCN and the European Research Council. The interview is conducted by Anna Korzekwa-Józefowicz.

When did we stop being alone?

For decades, human evolution was presented as a sequence of species that appeared one after another. That changed with palaeogenetics — the ability to read DNA from remains tens of thousands of years old. In 2022, Svante Pääbo was awarded the Nobel Prize, among other things for the discovery of Denisovans and for sequencing the Neanderthal genome. It turned out that both of these species and modern humans coexisted for a long time and interbred.

“At that point, we realised that our way of thinking about human evolution had to change, because we were never alone. Until now, evolution was understood in a way that had us searching for links in a chain, one after another. And it turns out that we are no longer looking for missing links. I do not think there was ever a moment in human evolution when we were alone as just one human population. There was always another one — genetically different and following a completely different evolutionary path. Only today — for roughly the past 40,000 years — have we been alone as a single species on Earth. This is the first time in the history of our evolution,” says Małgorzata Kot in the recording.

The researcher is looking for an answer to the question of what these encounters meant for modern humans. To what extent did contact with Neanderthals and Denisovans — and perhaps the adoption of some of their knowledge of the environment — make it possible to settle Europe and Asia, continents evolutionarily foreign to a species originating in Africa? She conducts fieldwork in high-mountain caves in Uzbekistan, reaching places several days’ walk from the nearest settlements. She identifies sites on the basis of Soviet speleological publications, information from local shepherds and hunters, and sometimes photographs from Uzbek climbers’ blogs.

In parallel, she conducts research in Poland. In the caves of the Sąspowska Valley in Ojców National Park, she discovered, among other things, the oldest traces of human presence in what is now Poland — dating back 450,000–600,000 years and attributed to Homo heidelbergensis.

Selected quotes

Fieldwork:

We have undertaken a three-day expedition to find a cave I had spotted in three photographs on the internet. I was genuinely delighted when I found it after those three days, because there was a very real chance it simply would not be where I had plotted it on the map.

I met a shepherd in the mountains and began telling him what I was researching — that people had been here, that they had walked these paths. He sat there, looking out at those mountains, and said: "I thought there had never been anything here."

The Role of NCN

I would not have received the ERC grant had I not previously done NCN grants. Thanks to the perspective of those eight years of fieldwork through the OPUS grants we had a full picture of the situation and could formulate our research questions very clearly. We knew what was missing. And when ERC evaluation forms ask whether a given researcher is the right person to carry out that particular grant, we were able to knock down all the counterarguments straight away, because we were already there, we have been doing research for years.

Just as MINIATURA is a pilot study for an NCN grant, one might say that an NCN grant is a pilot study towards writing an ERC grant.

Revising applications

How many times should one revise a grant application?

- I think twice.

- But you did far more than that.

- I believe I received only the thirteenth grant I applied for. The earlier ones were not selected for funding. (…) I was simply changing ideas. We write an application, we have a concept, and then we come up against the reviewers. If we do not receive the grant, that is genuinely the moment to reflect, to refine the application, to perhaps adjust it slightly, perhaps to conduct some pilot studies. Upon a second rejection, that is the moment to take stock. If we truly believe in the project, then I believe it is worth submitting once more. But no more than that, probably.

On 6–7 May, the 12th edition of NCN Days will take place in Katowice. In this special year, marking the 15th anniversary of the National Science Centre, attendees are welcome to celebrate together and to reflect on the impact of NCN’s role in the research funding system on the quality of research carried out at Polish institutions.

NCN Days are held each year in a different academic city across Poland. The event offers two days of meetings, workshops and discussions on science in Poland and the funding of research.

Participation is open to researchers, policymakers in the field of science, administrative staff supporting research projects, research data management specialists, PhD students, and students planning to pursue research careers after completing first- and second-cycle studies. NCN Days provide a platform for broad, open and inspiring gathering of all stakeholders involved in developing Poland’s scientific potential.

NCN Days 2026 Programme

Panel discussions

The official part of this year’s NCN Days includes four open panel discussions. No registration is required; admission is free.

6 May, 10:00 am The limits of knowledge: does boldness in research pay off?

A panel exploring the tension between security and breakthrough in science. The discussion will focus on the extent to which grant mechanisms encourage research risk-taking and whether they may, at the same time, favour predictability. Participants will consider whether current project evaluation models support bold research approaches, what the real costs of intellectual caution are, and whether space for failure is essential for the advancement of science.

Moderator: Dr hab. Agnieszka Turska-Kawa, Prof. at the University of Silesia

Participants:

• Prof. Dr hab. Krzysztof Jóźwiak, National Science Centre
• Prof. Dr hab. Ryszard Koziołek, University of Silesia
• Prof. Dr hab. Michał Krzysztofik, Academy of Physical Education, Katowice
• Dr hab. Anna Malinowska, Prof. at the University of Silesia
• Dr hab. Agata Daszkowska-Golec, Prof. at the University of Silesia

Venue: Lecture Theatre of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Silesia, ul. Uniwersytecka 4, Katowice

6 May, 12.15 pm Quality – a natural feature of science

A panel dedicated to the quality of research. The discussion will begin with a reflection on the freedom to choose research topics and the factors that determine whether research is basic or applied. Participants will discuss the role of NCN in supporting both research quality and high standards in the publication of research results. They will also explain what expert evaluation means in practice, how formal shortcomings differ from substantive shortcomings, and what options are available to applicants whose projects have not received funding. This is a discussion about what we can do now, using the tools we already have, to genuinely support the quality of science in Poland.

Participants:

• Prof. Dr hab. Mariola Łaguna, NCN Council, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin  
• Dr hab. inż. Alicja Kazek-Kęsik, Prof. at the Silesian University of Technology, NCN Council, Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice 
• Prof. Dr hab. Justyna Chodkowska-Miszczuk, NCN Council, University of Silesia 
• Dr hab. Łukasz Michalczyk, Prof. at the Jagiellonian University, NCN Council, Jagiellonian University in Kraków 

The meeting is organised by the NCN Council. It will conclude with a quiz on the National Science Centre, with prizes.

6 May, 2.45 pm Limits of responsibility: research ethics under pressure for results

A panel on the tension between productivity pressure and ethical responsibility in research work. The starting point will be the growing number of article retractions and cases of data manipulation, plagiarism and “optimising” results for the points-based system. Participants will discuss how evaluation culture influences researchers’ everyday decisions, where the boundary between strategic action and misconduct lies, and what institutional mechanisms can protect research integrity. This is a discussion about trust: whether the reward system supports research quality or unintentionally rewards behaviours that undermine it.

Moderator: Prof. Dr hab. Tomasz Pietrzykowski, University of Silesia

Participants:

• Prof. Dr hab. Tomasz Dietl, NCN Council
• Dr Patrycja Rudnicka, Academy of Fine Arts, Katowice
• Prof. Dr hab. Sebastian Werle, Silesian University of Technology
• Michał Tomaszek, CINIBA, University of Silesia
• Professor Marlena Jankowska, Prof. at the University of Silesia, University of Silesia

Venue: Lecture Theatre of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Silesia, ul. Uniwersytecka 4, Katowice

7 May, 2.00 pm Between passion and burnout: the hidden costs of success. How can burnout in academia be prevented? The everyday life of a researcher

An academic career is often driven by passion, ambition and constant curiosity about the world. At the same time, it involves productivity pressure, competition, funding uncertainty and blurred boundaries between work and private life. This session invites reflection on the less visible costs of academic success and on ways to build long-term satisfaction with research work without losing health or energy. Participants will examine the specific cognitive and emotional burdens of research work, the culture of “constant achievement” and the traps of perfectionism. Practical strategies for protecting well-being will be discussed: energy management, setting boundaries at work, micro-recovery, realistic planning and building supportive professional relationships. Researchers will also share their own experiences. The NCN will outline the mechanisms and support measures designed to support the well-being of staff in projects, as well as options available in the event of unforeseen situations.

Moderator: Dr hab. Agnieszka Bielska-Brodziak, Prof. at the University of Silesia

• Prof. Maciej Nowak, University of Economics in Katowice
• Prof. Oskar Kowalski, Medical University of Silesia
• Katarzyna Więcek-Jakubek, University of Silesia, HR Department
• Dr Anna Wiktor, NCN

Venue: spinPLACE, ul. Bankowa 5, Katowice

A recording of the discussions held during the official part of NCN Days on 6 May will be available on the National Science Centre YouTube channel after the event.

Workshops and training courses

NCN Days also include workshops and training sessions. In Katowice, across as many as nine workshop sessions, we will meet with researchers planning to submit a proposal, staff responsible for the administrative management of research projects at institutions, and people interested in research data management. We also encourage participation in online training sessions for applicants, regularly delivered by NCN scientific coordinators, online training sessions on open science, and webinars for administrative staff, which take place approximately once a quarter. We also recommend #NCNpodcasts, in which we discuss issues important to science in Poland, as well as inspiring conversations with scientists representing the #NCNgeneration, produced to mark NCN’s 15th anniversary.

Co-organizers of the NCN Days 2026

Media patronage

The Polish research team from the Silesian University of Technology, in collaboration with German partners, will investigate the accelerated fatigue performance of materials used, inter alia, in aviation.

The Polish research team headed by Dr hab. inż. Andrzej Katunin from the Silesian University of Technology, in collaboration with partners from the University in Freiburg, will aim to develop a new method of accelerated fatigue performance of materials used, inter alia, in aviation under the project: “Methodology for adaptive accelerated fatigue testing of thermoplastic composites considering the self-heating effect”. Researchers will investigate lightweight but durable thermoplastic composites reinforced with carbon fibre which, despite numerous advantages, are susceptible to degradation under long-term mechanical loading. They will study the impact of the self-heating effect that may affect test results, and will develop a fatigue degradation model combining various loading regimes, eventually creating a tool for a faster and yet credible evaluation of composite durability. The Polish project budget is over PLN 720,000. The proposal was evaluated by the German agency DFG and the evaluation results were approved by NCN under the Weave Programme.

Weave-UNISONO and Lead Agency Procedure 

Weave-UNISONO is a result of multilateral cooperation between the research-funding agencies associated in Science Europe and aims at simplifying the submission and selection procedures in all academic disciplines, involving researchers from two or three European countries.

The winning applicants are selected pursuant to the Lead Agency Procedure according to which one partner institution performs a complete merit-based evaluation of proposals, the results of which are subsequently approved by the other partners.

Under the Weave Programme, partner research teams apply for parallel funding to the Lead Agency and their respective institutions participating in the Programme. Joint research projects must include a coherent research program with the added value of the international cooperation clearly identified.

Weave-UNISONO is carried out on an ongoing basis. Research teams intending to cooperate with partners from Austria, Czechia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium-Flanders are urged to read the call text and apply for funding.

On 25 March 2026, the Scientific Council of the European Research Council published a white paper Widening excellence. Bridging the ERC gap for a truly pan-European Research Area. The document analyses the structural factors behind the lower success rates of researchers from widening countries—EU Member States with comparatively lower levels of investment in research, including Poland—in ERC calls. It also formulates recommendations for governments, research funding bodies, the research community and the ERC itself. The authors emphasise that the ERC’s core principle remains unchanged: projects are selected exclusively on the basis of scientific excellence.

Persistent imbalance

Widening countries account for approximately one quarter of the EU population but receive only 5% of ERC grants. In 2024, researchers from widening countries submitted 940 proposals, compared with more than 7,200 from other countries. Although success rates have gradually improved—from 3% under the 7th Framework Programme to 6% under Horizon 2020 and 8% under Horizon Europe—they remain significantly below the European average of 10%, 12% and 14% respectively for the same periods. A further indication of this gap is that, under Horizon 2020, 56% of proposals from widening countries received the lowest score at the first stage of evaluation, compared with 30% for other countries. The authors attribute this disparity to structural factors, including lower levels of investment in research, insufficient institutional support for applicants, limited integration into international research networks, and linguistic and psychological barriers—including concerns about reputational risk associated with unsuccessful applications.

The Role of NCN

The white paper presents NCN as an example of a targeted institutional response to these challenges. Poland is among more than ten widening countries that have established national agencies funding basic research since 2007, drawing on the ERC model. NCN began its operations in 2011, with the ERC serving as a key reference point.

Poland also participates in the ERC Mentoring Initiative, which connects prospective applicants with experienced grant recipients and former members of ERC panels. NCN-funded projects grantees can benefit from individual consultations with mentors, covering project analysis, guidance on the proposal development and recommendations for further steps. The programme is coordinated by the NCBR National Contact Point, and involves four institutions: the National Science Centre (NCN), the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), the Foundation for Polish Science, and the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA). The authors also highlight Poland as one of the widening countries with the highest number of experts serving on ERC grant panels.

Data collected by NCN indicate that nearly all ERC grantees working in Poland have previously benefited from NCN funding, received the NCN Award or served on ERC grant panels. This suggests that the national system for funding basic research plays functions as a genuine preparatory stage in the process of applying for European grants.

Islands of excellence and the Czech example

The authors note that clear islands of excellence can be identified within the widening countries. For example, researchers from Hungary achieved a 22% success rate in the Neuroscience panel, while researchers from the Czech Republic reached 11% in the Computer Science and Informatics and Cell Biology panels. The Czech example is particularly striking: in the 2024 ERC Consolidator Grant call, Czech researchers achieved the highest success rate in Europe. The authors link this outcome to a grassroots mentoring programme launched in 2010 on the researchers’ own initiative, offering workshops, mock interviews and one-to-one mentoring well in advance of the submission deadline. Of the 45 Czech ERC grantees funded under Horizon Europe, 34 had previously participated in this programme. The authors recommend this model to other widening countries.

Direction of change

A key condition for improving results in ERC calls is higher national investment in research, including—as identified by the authors as a separate recommendation—increased funding for basic research. The authors document a strong correlation between R&D expenditure and the number of ERC grants obtained. Countries such as Sweden, Austria and Germany allocate around 3% of their GDP to research, while most widening countries spend below 2%, and Slovakia, Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania below 1%. No country in Central and Eastern Europe has yet reached the EU target of 3% of GDP; only Slovenia and the Czech Republic have exceeded 2%. R&D expenditure in this part of Europe is, on average, half the level observed in Northern and Western Europe.

The authors also recommend more effective use of cohesion funds—EU funds aimed at reducing development disparities between regions—to finance ERC projects that have successfully passed evaluation but did not receive funding due to budget limitations. The scale of this phenomenon is significant: in 2025, 69 projects from widening countries reached the second stage of evaluation but did not receive funding, although they could potentially have been supported under the European Regional Development Fund. So far, only Lithuania and Latvia have made use of this possibility. The authors also call for reforms of research evaluation and career progression systems, as well as for the development of stable career paths for researchers. The ERC announces closer dialogue with national research funding organisations and ministries, as well as the expansion of mentoring programmes.

The full text of the white paper is available on the ERC website.

“High-quality research is a matter of national interest. We need to simplify the procedures, integrate institutions into a coherent system, and bridge the gap between research and global innovations.” Six research institutions have made recommendations for the state authorities on research funding and commercialisation in Poland.

“High-quality research is a matter of national interest. We need to simplify the procedures, integrate institutions into a coherent system, and bridge the gap between research and global innovations to make sure that public funding will have a faster impact on health, safety and workplaces.”

The Polish system of research funding and commercialisation of research deliverables must be completely transformed, instead of relying on ad hoc modifications by individual agencies. This diagnosis was delivered to the top state authorities by the heads of six public research institutions. Their joint request was sent to the President of Poland, the Prime Minister and the Marshalls of the Polish Sejm and Senate. The document was drafted following a debate organised at the Jagiellonian University on 17 February during the conference “Science for Society and Economy: Public Funding of R&I in Poland.”  

New quality of evaluation

The authors jointly urge that research institutions be evaluated based on the actual quality of the research track record and its impact on the society and economy rather than on other aspects, such as the number of patents, publications or citations, which must not be the main basis for evaluation. Evaluators should be foreign experts independent of the Polish science system.

Ecosystems instead of silos

The main request is to discontinue fragmented approach to research funding. Technological innovations are created in a functional ecosystem, where high-quality basic research evolves into applications, commercialisation, and scaling. Basic research funding must not be regarded in isolation, as basic research is an indispensable element of the overall innovation process.  

Commercialisation and risk 

The authors point out the importance of closing the gap between research findings and the market, requiring such measures as the proof-of-concept, better coordination of basic research with mentoring, and funds for the development using the resources secured by universities, institutions and venture capital funds. Special attention was given to high-risk research projects. According to the signatories, such projects should not involve the obligation to reimburse funding if the intended technological parameters are not achieved but the project is carried out with due care. 

Stability and HR

A multi-annual funding system is indispensable for the development of high-quality research and talent attraction. No reform can be effective without limited administrative burden; excessive control and oversight stifle creativity, and extensive bureaucracy promotes compliance over measurable research outcomes.  

As regards HR, the document promotes talent circulation to ensure that the top researchers choose to pursue their careers in Poland, and supports increased female participation in the research system, particularly in managerial and strategic roles. 

Social communication 

The document concludes with a call for reliable social communication. The authors underline that research and innovation-related advantages must be real and measurable: promotion alone cannot replace the actual value of the end product.   

The joint request was signed by the heads of the following institutions: the Foundation for Polish Science, the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, the National Science Centre, National Centre for Research and Development, the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange and PFR Ventures.

The full text is available on the website of the Foundation for Polish Science.

In the second episode of the #NCNGeneration series, we speak with Prof. Michał Tomza from the Faculty of Physics at the University of Warsaw. The scientist discusses ultralow temperatures, precision measurements, and the asymmetry between matter and antimatter, as well as an experiment designed to measure the asymmetry of the electron – a phenomenon that may explain why matter prevails over antimatter in the universe.

NCN Generation comprises researchers making a significant contribution to the advancement of science. The second episode features Michał Tomza – a scientist dedicated to describing matter at ultralow temperatures, exploring the foundations of the quantum world, and contributing to the debate on the future of Polish science. The interview is conducted by Anna Korzekwa-Józefowicz.

Understanding why we exist

Michał Tomza focuses on one of the central problems of contemporary physics – explaining the origin of the difference between the amount of matter and antimatter in the universe. ‘One of the questions that interests us greatly at the moment is how to use our measurements and experimental systems to understand the difference between the amount of matter and antimatter in the universe,’ the scientist explains. ‘Current laws of physics cannot account for this.’

Michał Tomza’s team proposes an approach based on ultracold molecules, which allow exceptionally precise measurements to be carried out. The aim is to determine whether the electron exhibits a subtle asymmetry – a hypothesis that has not yet been confirmed experimentally. Such an effect could indicate an asymmetry in the laws of physics that explains why matter predominates over antimatter. ‘We have demonstrated that, using appropriately prepared ultracold molecules, it is possible to measure the electron’s “shape” with great precision,’ says Michał Tomza. ‘If this asymmetry can be observed, it would be an important step towards understanding why we exist at all.’

The scientist’s team has developed the theoretical concept for the experiment. On the basis of this work, a collaborating researcher from Florence secured nearly €2 million in funding for its implementation. ‘If the asymmetry can be observed within the next few years, the colleague conducting the experiment will have a strong chance of winning the Nobel Prize,’ says Michał Tomza.

The accuracy of one second against the age of the Universe

The research is conducted under conditions of extreme vacuum and ultralow temperatures, which simultaneously ‘silence’ the surroundings and amplify quantum effects. ‘Inside, there are fewer atoms than in interstellar space. We are simply trying to obtain nothing – perfect nothingness,’ the physicist describes. These conditions make it possible to achieve extreme measurement precision – of the order of one second relative to the age of the universe.

Michał Tomza is a theoretical physicist – his primary tools are mathematical models and calculations performed on supercomputers. On the basis of these, he describes possible phenomena and identifies what can be measured and how. He works closely with experimental teams in Poland and abroad, who verify these predictions in laboratories using sophisticated apparatus, including laser and optical systems. He brought an element of such apparatus to the studio – a vacuum chamber, that is, a component of the experimental system from which nearly all particles are removed in order to create conditions resembling interstellar space. In an environment prepared in this way, highly precise measurements and the study of quantum phenomena become possible.

Science is an investment that transforms the economy

When asked about the impact of basic research on economic development, Michał Tomza emphasises the need for broad funding of science. ‘We try to understand in order to learn to control. And once we learn to control, applications emerge,’ he explains. The history of science provides examples: the laser, the transistor, electrical current – each of these discoveries grew out of basic research before becoming a technology. ‘Even if just one in a hundred scientists discovers something that becomes a breakthrough technology – that will already change the economy,’ he adds. Equally important, in his view, is the indirect contribution of science: educating students, building intellectual attitudes, and developing the humanities as a tool for understanding the relationship between society and technology.

The path to independence with NCN

NCN funding enabled the scientist to return to Poland after a period abroad and to begin independent research. ‘Thanks to this funding, I was able to build my own team,’ he says. The results obtained from the first NCN grants, supplemented by funding from the Foundation for Polish Science, became the strongest part of the application for a European Research Council grant – and it was these results that, in Tomza’s view, determined his success. What advice does he have for young researchers? He points to the importance of ambition and consistency. ‘I see a far weaker link between intellect and ability on the one hand and outcomes on the other than between hard work, motivation, and passion,’ he says. ‘Consistency is what yields the best results.’

DAINA is a call for research projects carried out by Polish–Lithuanian research teams, jointly announced by the Research Council of Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo taryba, LMT) and the National Science Centre, Poland (NCN).

Applications may be submitted for funding of research in any scientific discipline specified in one of the 26 NCN panels.

Under the DAINA 4 call, NCN and LMT will fund only proposals that meet the criterion of basic research.

The merit-based evaluation of proposals will be carried out by LMT in accordance with the rules applicable at this agency.

• Announcement of the call: 15 June 2026
• Deadline for joint proposals submission to LMT: 15 September 2026
• Deadline for national proposals submission in the OSF system: 22 September 2026, 14:00 CET
• Call results: June 2027
• Start date of funded research projects: August 2027

Eligibility requirements:

• Proposals must involve basic research and include joint Polish–Lithuanian research plan. Research equipment or networking activities can only be funded within projects with a basic research focus. Projects consisting solely of the purchase or development of equipment or solely of activities within scientific networks do not meet the funding criteria and will be rejected.
• State aid cannot be applied for under DAINA 4.
• A person may be indicated as the Principal Investigator in only one proposal submitted in the given edition of the call.
• Under DAINA 4, research projects may be planned for a period of 36 months.
• Entities eligible to apply for NCN funding for the Polish part of the research project must be those specified in Article 27(1), points 1–2, 4–5 and 7–8 of the Act on the National Science Centre of 30 April 2010 (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 101).
• The list of Lithuanian institutions included in the Register of Research and Study Institutions that may participate in the call is available at: http://www.aikos.smm.lt/en/Pages/Default.aspx, under Registers in the Education providers category.
• At the time of submission, the Polish Principal Investigator must be at least PhD holder. The Lithuanian Principal Investigator must be a scientist (at least PhD holder).
• The budget of the Polish part of the project must not exceed PLN 1,300,000.
• The budget of the Lithuanian part of the project must not exceed EUR 200,000.

Information on requirements for Lithuanian teams is available on the LMT website.

This announcement is for information purposes only. Detailed conditions will be set out in the official call text.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Polish side: NCN

Coordinators:

• Life Sciences: Grzegorz Sowa, PhD
• Humanities, Social Sciences and Art Sciences: Oskar Wolski, PhD
• Physical Sciences and Engineering: Anna Koteja, PhD Eng.

General enquiries: Jadwiga Spyrka, PhD

Lithuanian side: LMT

Miglė Palujanskaitė

Updated: 23.04.2026