Klára Šeďová: Politicians should rely on scientific expertise

SYRI National Institute is a virtual scientific hub where experts from Masaryk University, Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences cooperate and where scientists find new opportunities to collaborate and offer real-time solutions and recommendations. “After Covid-19 Czech society was hit hard by the war in Ukraine, AI and its impacts on our daily lives, the energy crisis and security risks of all kinds. These are very dynamic times with systemic risks, and we must be able to react to them,” says scientific director of the institute and expert on education from Masaryk University Klára Šeďová.

The SYRI project and the institute are half way through. What makes the collaboration of experts from Masaryk University, Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences special?

When the institute was founded in 2022, it enabled broad cooperation between scientists from key academic institutions who can now work together on their respective research projects in nine groups. Back then, it was something new in the Czech scientific community. The direction in which information and key findings are forwarded to politicians is exceptional as well. It may sound strange, but nobody had done it before on a systematic basis. We organise round tables for members of the Chamber of Deputies, conferences in the Senate and other events. The purpose of these efforts is to bring key information to decision-makers who actually influence policies and actions that bring about a change. Our goal is to create a long-term institute, and in it, a stable channel where politicians can interact with academics. Data-based decision-making is a big topic in the public discourse now, but the actual practical implementation is not meeting expectations. SYRI has real things to offer in this area, and I do not recall any scientific entity in the Czech Republic that would be this active. We are not working for ourselves in this regard. Our goal is to start a process in which other actors will participate in the future, not just our scientists. I believe that ten years from now political decisions will be based on evidence. Politicians using scientists is a matter of common sense.

How does the exchange of information work in reality?

Our institute has nine research groups dealing with health, politics, the economy and education. We conduct “SYRI studies”, and the outcomes of the research are transformed into comprehensible theses and recommendations. It is up to politicians to listen and use these outcomes in their decision-making processes. I believe many politicians are reluctant to vote if they do not know why

What do you think about the degree of acceptance of voices in the area of social sciences in general? Is there still some room for improvement?

I think there is, and we must try to explain the meaning of our efforts. When a scientist is trying to find the cure for cancer, nobody has any doubts about the meaningfulness of their efforts, regardless of the billions spent. Social sciences are playing the weaker hand, as they cannot “sell themselves” so easily. Our findings are presented in press releases, which aim to be generally understandable, and we will continue to do so in this manner. While the fundamental outcomes of our work are presented in articles in scientific journals, we conduct “SYRI studies”, which begin with recommendations and contain findings of first-hand practical relevance. As for the meaningfulness of social sciences, there is one very relevant example: developing an effective vaccine during the pandemic is one thing, and we have life sciences for that. But you also want people to accept it, and they need to understand the complex issue. You cannot achieve this without a thorough sociological analysis. We are seeing increasing numbers of parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, and often these decisions are made by people with university degrees. And the consequences are evident: in 2019 the Czech Republic lost its status as a measles-free country. We need to understand social phenomena and their causes in order to facilitate change.

Are there any other examples?

There are many examples. Speaking of healthcare, our researchers found out that there were more deaths caused by cardiovascular diseases than Covid itself during the pandemic. It was partly caused by the “emergency regime” and lockdowns. Some people were simply scared of seeking medical care, or they could not go. This is a major lesson, because basic healthcare must be ensured at all times in similar situations. Our areas of interest are not all focused on Covid. The war in Ukraine is a systemic risk as well. It was not expected and neither was the influx of refugees. Czech society had to respond to this new situation. I am the head of the group dealing with education. At one point we studied the process of adaptation of children from Ukraine in Czech schools. We came up with some recommendations which were later implemented by the Ministry of Education. And going back to Covid again, it changed the system of education as a whole. All of a sudden, teachers were forced by circumstances to use modern communication technologies, which for many was a kind of science fiction. The pandemic was a test for the entire society. Scientists can now look at it as a social experiment and a model for any major crisis.

What does the SYRI brand mean in this regard?

We address the “systemic risks” which may result in extreme situations such as pandemics, wars, etc. Generally speaking, these scenarios cause a significant burden for society and emphasise already existing inequalities in a variety of areas – the labour market, education, healthcare and others. We collect information on these risks and try to come up with timely warnings. We have data facilities, and we also collect our own data. This allows us to respond relatively promptly to recent developments and to adjust our research efforts to the most pressing of issues.

What topics do you see in front of you?

I do not want to see any new pandemic and significant new systemic risk. Hectic times bring surprises over and over. In addition to the unexpected events I just mentioned, there are things with very uncertain outcomes. I am talking about the implementation of artificial intelligence. Our researchers found out that almost one-third of adult Czechs use AI, mostly younger generations. It will once again reshape our system of education. For some people AI is a risk, but it is also an inevitable fact of life. We must be able to reshape AI into opportunities in all areas our institute focuses on. On top of that many new topics are emerging, such as the use of telemedicine or improvements in palliative care. There are many challenges, and we still have a lot of work to do.