On 2 June 2026, representatives of European institutions, research organisations, research infrastructures and scientific communities gathered in Brussels to discuss one of the increasingly strategic issues for European research and innovation: how to build a research data ecosystem that is secure, resilient, interoperable and sovereign. The policy discussion Research Data in Europe: Security, Sovereignty and Resilience was hosted at the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the European Union and jointly organised by the Permanent Representation, the National Science Centre Poland (NCN) and the PolSCA Office of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Brussels.

The meeting took place at a particularly important moment for Europe. As highlighted during the opening remarks, research data has become a strategic resource not only for scientific excellence but also for Europe's competitiveness, technological sovereignty and capacity to respond to major societal challenges. In the context of ongoing discussions on the future Framework Programme (FP10), the role of research data, digital infrastructures, open science and AI readiness is gaining increasing prominence. The event brought together approximately 50 participants representing various elements of the R&I ecosystem in Europe.

Research data at the heart of Europe's strategic ambitions

The meeting was opened by Magdalena Kula (Research Attaché, Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the EU), Krzysztof Jóźwiak (Director of the National Science Centre) and Tomasz Poprawka (Director, PolSCA Office of the Polish Academy of Sciences).

The first session provided a policy perspective on research data security and sovereignty in Europe. Michael Arentoft (European Commission, DG RTD), Lidia Borrell-Damian (Science Europe) and Daniel Wójcik (European Brain Council and Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology PAS) reflected on the growing importance of research data for scientific collaboration, innovation and evidence-based policymaking. The discussion emphasised that Europe’s research data landscape remains fragmented and that stronger coordination, trusted infrastructures and long-term investments are needed to unlock the full value of data across borders and disciplines.

A recurring theme throughout the event was the need to understand data security in a broad sense. Participants agreed that security is not limited to technical protection or cybersecurity measures. It also encompasses legal and ethical safeguards, responsible governance, long-term preservation of critical datasets, and the ability to ensure trust throughout the entire data lifecycle: from collection and stewardship to sharing and reuse.

Building a trusted and resilient research data ecosystem

The panel discussion, moderated by Klaus Tochtermann, President of the EOSC Association, brought together perspectives from European and national research communities. Representatives of SURF in the Netherlands (Ron Augustus), CSC – IT Center for Science in Finland (Irina Kupiainen), EMBL (Plamena Markova) and the Institute of Oceanology PAS (Sławomir Sagan) discussed how Europe can strengthen resilience while maintaining openness and international collaboration. Panellists highlighted the importance of interoperability, sustainable digital infrastructures, data stewardship skills and trusted partnerships across the European Research Area.

Particular attention was devoted to the role of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). Speakers noted that EOSC demonstrates how openness and security can reinforce rather than contradict one another. By federating distributed research data resources and promoting common standards, EOSC contributes to building a European environment based on trust, responsibility, interoperability and high-quality data management. As several participants stressed, data sovereignty should not be understood as isolation, but as the capacity to cooperate on European terms while maintaining control over critical resources and infrastructures.

The discussion concluded with a shared recognition that research data is no longer a supporting element of research projects but an increasingly decisive factor in their success and long-term impact. Building a secure, trusted and resilient European research data ecosystem will therefore require continued cooperation among policymakers, funding organisations, research infrastructures and scientific communities across Europe.

Poland in the European research data landscape

Beyond the discussion itself, the event also provided an opportunity to highlight Poland’s growing engagement in the development of the EOSC and the broader European research data ecosystem. Through the activities of the National Science Centre Poland (NCN), Polish research institutions and scientific communities are increasingly connected to European efforts aimed at advancing open science, FAIR data principles, interoperable infrastructures and responsible data stewardship. 

As one of the organisations actively involved in EOSC-related initiatives and policy discussions, NCN contributes to strengthening the integration of Polish researchers into the European Research Area, helping ensure that research data generated in Poland can be securely shared, discovered and reused within a trusted European framework. NCN coordinates the national EOSC-PL node, which has participated in the EOSC Federation since its establishment in 2025. The Polish node is developed jointly in partnership with Cyfronet AGH University of Kraków, Gdańsk University of Technology, Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling at the University of Warsaw, and the Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

On 21–22 May 2026, representatives of the National Science Centre (NCN) and the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) visited Reykjavík and Akureyri (Iceland) to discuss the new edition of the EEA and Norway Grants in the field of R&I. The events were organised by the Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannís) in cooperation with partners from Poland and Norway.

The meetings brought together representatives of the Icelandic research community, universities, research institutes and institutions interested in international cooperation under the new funding schemes. The attendees included representatives of the Polish Embassy in Reykjavík, the Ambassador of Poland to Iceland Aleksander Kropiwnicki and Counsellor Maciej Duszyński.

Ambassador of Poland to Iceland Aleksander Kropiwnicki

New EEA and Norway Grants calls

The purpose of the visit was to present the opportunities offered by the fourth edition of the EEA and Norway Grants in the areas of basic research, applied research and innovation. During the meetings, attendees discussed the calls organised by NCN and NCBR, as well as cooperation opportunities for Polish, Norwegian and Icelandic research institutions.

The NCN representatives presented the Basic Research Programme, including GRIEG BIS, LANGSPIL, and Coordination & Capacity Kick-off and Follow-up calls. They also introduced the SPARK polar research project supporting the involvement of Icelandic partners in the research cooperation previously developed by Poland and Norway.

NCBR presented the POLNORIS call supporting applied research and innovation projects carried out by international consortia of research organisations and businesses.

Polish-Icelandic cooperation and matchmaking tool

The Polish-Icelandic research collaboration was one of the major themes of the event. The hosts emphasised the importance of long-term research partnership building and enhanced internationalisation of research by Polish and Icelandic institutions.

The new matchmaking tool developed by NCN generated considerable interest from the participants. The tool, which can be used by partners looking for projects, facilitates the formation of international research consortia ahead of the upcoming calls. The meetings demonstrated that the Icelandic research community is keen to expand cooperation with Polish research institutions and participate in new funding opportunities offered under both EEA Grants research programmes.

Shared experiences and international perspective

Marzena Oliwkiewicz-Miklasińska

The programme also featured presentations by representatives of Rannís and the Research Council of Norway. A representative of the Research Council of Norway (RCN) discussed the experiences from previous editions of the EEA and Norway Grants. The attendees had the opportunity to discuss prospects for the future cooperation between Poland, Iceland and Norway.

The importance of international cooperation was given particular attention, especially for research development and for addressing contemporary social, technological and environmental challenges.

NCN and NCBR representatives

The National Science Centre was represented by Marcin Liana, Anna Wiktor, Marzena Oliwkiewicz-Miklasińska, Joanna Węgrzycka and Michał Olejnik. Maciej Jędrzejek represented the National Centre for Research and Development.

From more stable quantum computers and ultra-fast quantum internet technologies to sensors capable of detecting minute variations in gravitational fields, researchers involved in the projects selected under the QuantERA Call 2025 will work on key technologies underpinning the future quantum infrastructure. The research will combine quantum physics, photonics, mathematics, computer science, and nanotechnology. Notably, as many as seven of the awarded projects will be carried out with the participation of Polish research teams.

The fifth QuantERA call was launched in September 2025 by 34 research funding organisations from 29 countries and attracted significant interest from the scientific community from the outset. A record number of 287 proposals were submitted, from which 39 winning projects were selected. The strong interest in the Call 2025 competition demonstrates the importance of the QuantERA Programme and the need for its continuation, ensuring sustained funding for future research projects in one of the fastest-growing scientific domains. Among the awarded consortia are seven research teams from Poland, including one project coordinated by a Polish researcher. Five projects will receive funding from the National Science Centre (NCN) within the scope of basic research, one project will be funded by the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) within the scope of applied research, while one of the Polish teams will finance its participation from its own resources.

– Implementation of Call 2025 reaffirmed the critical role played by the QuantERA initiative in the European quantum ecosystem. Record numbers of proposals have been received in two call topics: 148 in Quantum Phenomena and Resources and 139 in Applied Quantum Science. These figures vividly illustrate the wealth of fresh ideas and concepts that quantum research community seeks to explore through transnational collaborations. 

Thanks to the commitment of research funding organisations participating in the call and the substantial EU financial contribution, in total 39 of the highest-ranked proposals will be funded in both topics. The results of QuantERA-funded projects will undoubtedly strengthen European position in the global efforts to benefit from the second quantum revolution. – says prof. Konrad Banaszek, QuantERA Scientific Coordinator.

List of the projects with the participation of Polish research teams

• EQUALITIES – Efficient Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing via Fine-Grained Logic Gates on Qudit Codes 

  Polish Principal Investigator: prof. Remigiusz Augusiak, Center for Theoretical Physics PAS, Warsaw

  Research team comprising researchers from Austria, Finland, Germany and Spain

• HEMS – Heat and Entropy Management in Superconducting Devices 

  Polish Principal Investigator: dr Maciej Zgirski, Institute of Physics Polish Academy of Sciences

  Research team comprising researchers from Finland, Germany and Italy

• INTEGRA – Innovative Architectures for Next-Generation Trapped Atom Interferometers 

  Polish Principal Investigator: dr Jan Chwedeńczuk, University of Warsaw

  Research team comprising researchers from Austria, France, Germany and Italy

• SDPCode – Semidefinite foundations for quantum codes: convergence, bounds, and constructions

  Polish Project Coordinator dr Felix Huber, University of Gdansk

  Research team comprising researchers from France, Germany and Slovenia

• ToDiQT – Towards Device-independent Quantum Technologies

  Polish Principal Investigator: dr Felix Huber, University of Gdansk

  Research team comprising researchers from Austria, Belgium and France

• QUASIMODO – QUAntum SImulations with MulticOmponent ultracolD atOms 

  Polish Principal Investigator:  dr Emilia Witkowska, Institute of Physics Polish Academy of Sciences

  Research team comprising researchers from France, Germany, Lithuania and Spain

• QUICFIRE – QUantum Internet Components in all-FIbre REalisation for low-loss entanglement distribution  

  Polish Principal Investigator:  dr Michał Karpiński, University of Warsaw

  Research team comprising researchers from Austria and United Kingdom

The NCN Generation is made up of researchers whose work pushes the boundaries of knowledge and changes our lives – improving health, protecting the environment, advancing technology and deepening our understanding of the world. The protagonist of episode 5 is Maciej Trusiak, who builds lensless microscopes that can image hundreds of thousands of cells in a single frame. Thanks to them, it is possible to check, immediately after a sample is collected, whether a biopsy is suitable for further analysis.

Maciej Trusiak is a professor at the Faculty of Mechatronics of the Warsaw University of Technology, where he leads the computational imaging group. As he himself emphasises, from the very beginning he was driven to “ask his own questions, follow his own path, and pursue his own goals, plans and dreams”. He started out on his own, and today he leads a team of 15. His research is funded by NCN and the European Research Council.

A simple device with a concrete application

An oncological diagnosis often begins with the collection of a small sample – cells or tissue – for example a thyroid smear. A histopathologist assesses it only after the slide has been stained, which takes time, and sometimes it turns out that the material was collected incorrectly and the biopsy has to be repeated.

The lensless microscope developed by Maciej Trusiak’s team makes it possible to check the quality of the specimen immediately after collection, before it goes on for further processing. This makes it possible to detect more quickly that a biopsy needs to be repeated, sparing the patient valuable time. As the researcher emphasises, the device will not replace the histopathologist, but it can become a tool for their preliminary assessment. The first research units are already being installed in the laboratories of biologists and physicians. Implementing a clinical version requires a manufacturing partner and – as the researcher himself estimates – several years of work. The design itself is, moreover, very inexpensive: the camera costs around one hundred dollars, the light source is an LED, and the sample is placed on an ordinary glass slide.

A hologram instead of a lens

A classical microscope magnifies the image using a system of lenses, and the drawback of such a solution is the small field of view – only a few cells can be observed at a time. In lensless microscopy there are no lenses. The sample lies directly above the camera sensor and is illuminated by a beam of light which – passing through the thin specimen – undergoes slight scattering. The undisturbed wave and the wave disturbed by the sample overlap and form a hologram on the sensor array. The image is produced only at a second stage, numerically: an algorithm reverses the propagation of the light and reconstructs the structure of the sample.

Such an arrangement makes it possible to image an entire cell culture – tens, or even hundreds of thousands, of cells at once. This increases the chance of capturing significant phenomena and reduces the risk of drawing erroneous conclusions on the basis of a fragment. The lensless microscope also copes with transparent samples, which do not absorb light and remain invisible to a classical camera. For this purpose it uses phase contrast – a mechanism described in the 1930s by Frits Zernike (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1953). Different intracellular structures – the nucleus, mitochondria, the cytoskeleton – delay the passing light wave to varying degrees, and reconstructing these delays makes it possible to distinguish them within the cell without the need to stain it.

A world record in lensless tomography

Lensless microscopy is currently being developed at many centres around the world – in the United States, China, Germany and the Netherlands. The common goal is to obtain as much information as possible from a single measurement: a wide field of view, a large measurement volume and high contrast when imaging transparent samples. A particular challenge remains tomography, that is, three-dimensional imaging.

The previous world record belonged to the team of Prof. Aydogan Ozcan from UCLA, who imaged a slice of mouse brain 200 micrometres thick. The team from the Warsaw University of Technology has pushed this limit to 500 micrometres, taking into account the phenomenon of multiple light scattering and numerically reversing it. The paper describing this result has been accepted for publication in the journal Light: Science & Applications.

Selected quotes

An advantage over the classical microscope

Classical microscopes allow you to image five to ten cells, which means we have a field of view at least ten thousand times larger. I like to think that this gives us two advantages. Firstly, we increase the probability that we will see something interesting, because we image all the cells. And the second thing is that we lower the probability that we will make some kind of error. If we look only at a fragment of a larger whole, we can very easily form a false impression and misjudge the situation.

Application in diagnostics

The best application that comes to my mind is to assist in diagnostics. (…) We take a smear, for example from the thyroid, we have a sample prepared for examination, but we do not know whether it is diagnostic. The histopathologist first has to stain it, look at it, and may then say that the biopsy was collected incorrectly. And we, before all this happens and we lose valuable time – especially for oncology patients – can quickly check whether the specimen was collected properly.

It begins with curiosity

(…) research on lizard venom led to a change in the treatment of diabetes and in human weight loss. It did not begin with the production of medicines at all. Curiosity is absolutely the most important thing, and it is at the start of every discovery. To realise that curiosity, funding is needed. The National Science Centre is essentially the only body in Poland that funds such research. It is very good that it exists – I would like the NCN budget to be at least doubled.

What does NCN mean for researchers?

I have been using funding from the National Science Centre since PRELUDIUM, which my mentor, Professor Krzysztof Patorski, helped me to write. The OPUS and SONATA grants were an absolute foundation that enabled me to apply for an ERC grant at all. I managed to secure it thanks to the experience I had previously gained by delivering NCN grants and building a team. Independence comes from funding – without NCN’s programmes I would not be in science.

We would like to invite researchers interested in the Trans-Atlantic Platform (T-AP) for Social Sciences and Humanities call Preparing for Tomorrow – Societies and Strategies in Times of Transition (P4T Call 2026), to participate in the live webinar on Monday, 8th of June 2026, 15:00 (CEST). During the webinar, general rules and key features of the call will be presented, followed by a Q&A session. The webinar will be conducted in English.

Click here to join the event.

About P4T Call

The “Preparing for Tomorrow – Societies and Strategies in Times of Transition” Call covers four main themes:

1. Uncertainty: sources, costs, communication, and improvement;
2. The many faces of the future and crisis: historical, cultural, and regional perspectives;
3. Scope and coordination of response strategies;
4. Normative inquiry into prevention and preparation for future crises.

The themes are described in more detail in the call text available on the website of the T-AP.

Funding proposals may be submitted by international consortia composed of at least 3 research teams from at least 3 countries participating in the call from both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Poland-Canada). 

Call Announcement for Polish research teams

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