In recent days, it has been disclosed that the political parties of the government coalition are planning to drastically limit the self-governance of Czech public research institutions (v. v. i., in English: P. R. I.), i.e. the institutes of the Czech Academy of Sciences and a number of other public research institutions. There is an acute danger that public research institutions will suffer from the incompetent interventions of their legal founders (in Czech: zøizovatel), they could easily be politicized and some of them could be liquidated. Public research institutions, which together with universities are the basis for the internationally competitive economy of the Czech Republic as well as for education and social stability, are now to be fatally weakened and threatened with liquidation!

According to reliable information leaked from the Office of the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation and published by the Science Lives! Forum, in the second reading of the draft of the so-called Consolidation Package Act in the Chamber of Deputies, an amendment changing the Act on Public Research Institutions (Act No. 341/2005 Coll.) containing an extensive and dramatic change in the legal status of science and research in the Czech Republic is to be proposed and approved as part of Consolidation Package Act.

The criticized proposal (bit.ly/czech_proposal) is to be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies as a parliamentary amendment, as so-called prilepek in Czech (i.e. limpet amendment; in the anglo-saxon countries also known as Wild Rider), non-standardly attached to a parliamentary draft of the act to which it is not related by its content. It means changing the law without prior social and professional debate, without a standard procedure. An amendment of this kind represents a scandalous circumvention of the proper legislative procedure – an act out of licence (an act of despotism), denial of the rule of law and dishonest conduct.

The changes proposed in the planned amendment would lead to a drastic reduction in the self-governance of public research institutions and would disproportionately strengthen their founders. The founder could, among other things, remove and appoint the director of the public research institution (P. R. I.) against the will of the Council of the P. R. I. or of the Supervisory Board. The Council of the P. R. I. should also be deprived of its right to approve the institution's budget and approve its annual reports. There would be a threat of politicization of public research institutions, whether in an attempt to influence the direction and results of research activity or in an attempt to create political sinecures for some persons, e.g. at public research institutions founded by the government ministries. There is no less risk of professionally incompetent interference in research activities on the part of the founders. (A warning example of such approaches is the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, which is not a public research institution and lacks academic self-government).

The amendment would allow the founder to easily dissolve the public research institution or merge it with another institution, or to transfer its assets for some other public use (many public research institutions manage assets of enormous value – buildings, land, equipment, intellectual property rights – built up over many decades and used to their own research activity and its co-financing).

In addition, there are to be other interventions, such as the reduction of social fund (created by every public research institution according to the law) resources by half, and in addition to the forced diversion of part of the social fund to private pension savings, regardless of the will of the employees and the fact that the pension reform is still being planned (without further information about its form). In fact, the social fund is reduced to a quarter of the current state! This intervention would invalidate existing collective agreements and harm the employees of public research institutions.

Today, public research institutions are already subject to control by their founders, which guarantees economical and efficient management of the entrusted funds. The founder issues and amends the institution's charter, appoints all members of the supervisory board, decides on the amount of the institution's budget, and gives prior consent to the disposal of the institution with its assets.

We consider unacceptable that extensive changes to such an important law as the Act on Public Research Institutions should be pushed through a „limpet“ amendment in the second reading of another, content-unrelated act. It is absolutely necessary to insist on a previous public discussion, on a proper discussion of the proposal, on a thorough comment procedure, which would take into account positive and negative experiences with the application of this act in the course of previous years. In particular, the balance between the autonomy of the research institution and the influence of its founder should be carefully set. However, the current proposal definitely does not meet these requirements.

The drafters of the „limpet“ amendment are apparently trying to eliminate the long-standing, balanced management model of public research institutions and replace it with a construct that purposefully strengthens the role of the founder. We believe that this change cannot increase the quality of public research institutions, but on the contrary, incompetent interventions by the founders (e.g. ministries) will lead to a reduction in the quality of the research carried out, or even to the total disintegration of these institutions. We consider the fundamental limitation of the academic self-government of public research institutions – as well as the method of the „limpet“ amendment (i.e. bypassing the standard legislative procedure) to be scandalous and unacceptable. In addition, one may encounter fears that if the self-government of public research institutions will be significantly limited, the following steps could lead to a similar government effort to limit the academic self-government of public universities as well.

Odborový svaz pracovníků vědy a výzkumu [Trade Union of the Science and Research Workers]	Fórum Věda žije! [Science Lives! Forum]
Jan Kober, president Lubomír Soukup, vicepresident	Michaela Vojtková, president Michael Komm, vicepresident
Vysokoškolský odborový svaz [Trade Union of Universities]	Hodina pravdy [Hour of Truth Iniciative]
Petr Baierl, president Jiří Konečný, vicepresident	Ondřej Švec, coordinator Monika Brenišínová, coordinator Vít Zdrálek, coordinator
Českomoravský odborový svaz pracovníků školství [Czech-Moravian Trade Union of Education Workers]	Odborový svaz státních orgánů a organizací [Trade Union of State Offices and State Organisations]
František Dobšík, president Markéta Seidlová, vicepresident	Pavel Bednář, president Alena Gaňová, first vicepresident Šárka Homfray, second vicepresident