Response to the Statement Issued by the Leadership of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on 5 August 2026 Concerning the Legislative Amendment affecting HUN-REN

Following the parliamentary election in April, the Government announced its intention to restructure the HUN-REN Hungarian Research Network. The Ministry is currently working on amendments to the HUN-REN Act, and government statements indicate that Parliament will adopt them before the end of this year. Despite HUN-REN's repeated offers to contribute, the Ministry has not involved HUN-REN's Governing Board, its other bodies or its management in preparing the amendments.

On 5 August 2026, the leadership of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) issued a statement noting that it is working with the Ministry to develop the new regulatory framework. The MTA leadership outlined the principles and objectives that, in its view, should shape the rules governing the research network. Since MTA published its statement, we have received several questions about whether these principles and objectives differ from HUN-REN's current regulatory and operational framework. Below, we provide a brief, substantive response to each point, following the order used in MTA's statement.

1. ‘Restore the unity of the research network by bringing the humanities and social science research centres back into it.’

HUN-REN currently operates as a unified research network in the natural sciences. The return of ELTE’s humanities and social science research centres would reunify the network across disciplines, representing a change from the current model while restoring an arrangement that existed in the past. Which research institutions belong to a research network is fundamentally a matter of organisational choice. A range of scientific and organisational considerations may inform that decision. One possible model is, of course, to place all state-funded research institutions in a single network, regardless of their field. A common organisational framework alone, however, determines neither the quality of research and innovation nor the scientific performance of the institutions, and does not necessarily ensure genuine collaboration between them. That requires, above all, the right scientific and funding conditions, continual renewal and a willingness to collaborate. The Government's announcement of increased funding for research and innovation is therefore welcome, as is its objective of raising R&D expenditure above 2% of GDP and, over the longer term, reaching the EU target of 3%. The next Budget Act will set out the details.

2. ‘Ensure transparent and efficient operations by including representatives of the scientific community, the state, the employees of the network and the business sector on the decision-making body.’

Transparency and efficiency already serve as guiding principles and fundamental requirements, and the law expressly requires both. The law requires HUN-REN and its research institutions to make information on their financial management, budgets and financial reports publicly available. The Supervisory Board, together with the internal and external audit mechanisms prescribed by law, oversees their financial management. HUN-REN's leadership and Governing Board consult regularly with the heads of the research institutions on matters relating to HUN-REN's decisions, and the network works collectively to determine its operational direction.

MTA's proposals link efficiency and transparency to the composition of the highest decision-making body. The latter, however, is a separate governance question: representation of the various stakeholder groups does not, in itself, guarantee either transparency or efficiency.

MTA's proposal to involve the Government, employees within the network and the business sector in governing the research network introduces a new element. Government involvement would depart from the current model, which rests on organisational and decision-making independence from government. One of the fundamental objectives of HUN-REN's current statutory framework was to safeguard scientific independence from government and academic freedom. Indeed, the Act requires the State to safeguard HUN-REN's autonomy in private-law, organisational, asset-related and operational matters. This does not, of course, preclude cooperation with the Government on science policy objectives and their implementation, but politics, politicians and the Government play no part in HUN-REN's current governance. The President of MTA and the minister responsible for science policy jointly nominate, by consensus, the seven members of HUN-REN's Governing Board, all of whom are distinguished researchers or innovation experts. Holding political office or engaging in specified political activities is incompatible with membership. Three Directors General delegated by the heads of the research institutions also participate in the Board's work. The Governing Board also meets jointly with all Directors General to discuss strategic issues across the network directly. The Directors General lead and manage the individual research institutions with full autonomy. MTA's proposal would move away from all these arrangements.

MTA's proposal for direct employee representation on the highest decision-making body would introduce a new rule. Employee participation is important in any organisation, but membership of the highest decision-making body is not its only possible form. Representative and consultative forums provide other channels, including trade union arrangements, which typically operate at research-institution level in the relationship with the employer. Overall, the impact of the proposed governance structure and composition on autonomy and operations can only be assessed once the details of the forthcoming legislation are known. It is, however, essential for both research institutions and researchers that the organisation remain transparent and governable, with clear and stable responsibilities and duties.

3. ‘Members of the decision-making body should be appointed for fixed terms and should be removable from office.’

This objective already applies: under HUN-REN's current framework, members of the decision-making body serve fixed terms and may be removed from office. Members of the Governing Board serve six-year terms, and the Act provides for termination of their appointments.

4. ‘It should remain publicly funded (operation as a budgetary body within the public finance system is not the only way to achieve this).’

The research network is already publicly funded. Public funding for research is essential and serves the national interest, and the current system provides it. Under the 25-year framework agreement and the six-year public task funding agreement (KFSZ), the state sets out the funding it provides for HUN-REN's research and innovation activities (discussed further below). Modern research and innovation also require research institutions to operate within flexible financial frameworks: they need to be able to make commitments extending beyond a single financial year and to plan over the longer term, generate commercial income, collaborate with businesses and have an incentive to commercialise their research results. HUN-REN's current model provides all these capabilities. The research network's current operating framework serves two purposes: it funds the performance of public tasks while giving research institutions the flexibility to manage their finances in ways suited to the specific requirements of research and innovation. This dual framework should be retained.

5. ‘Funding should be linked in part to indicators that are differentiated by field of science. The research centres and a scientific advisory body will jointly develop the system.’

This objective already applies: funding for the HUN-REN research network is already linked in part to indicators and performance, while the research institutions define their own commitments and set their own priorities among the indicators. Under the KFSZ, HUN-REN's state funding comprises core funding and performance-based funding. For the latter, the Government has linked funding to the achievement of predefined performance targets, creating incentives for scientific excellence and for research to deliver societal and economic benefits. HUN-REN will receive HUF 76 billion in state funding in 2026. Of this, HUF 43 billion is core funding provided directly to research institutions, while HUF 33 billion is performance-based funding, approximately 95% of which also goes directly to research institutions and researchers. The current KFSZ specifies 18 indicators across four groups. The catalogue of indicators is uniform across the network, but each research institution decides what level of performance to commit to under each indicator, taking account of its own scientific profile and opportunities. The network as a whole must meet the conditions for performance-based funding, so institutions working in different fields complement one another through their different capabilities and achievements. Not every research institution needs to deliver the same performance against the same indicators. A system of indicators differentiated by field of science, as MTA's statement proposes, is of course another possible approach. Compared with the current model, this would mainly change the method used to define the indicators, rather than the principle that research institutions must deliver results if they wish to receive funding above their core allocation. If the indicators are defined separately by field, the system must preserve comparability in performance measurement and establish how funding will be differentiated among institutions across the network. This is particularly important because the funding needs of research in different fields can vary considerably. The allocation of performance-based funding must also be fair across research institutions. Excellence should receive recognition at network level as well.

6. ‘Research institutions should be autonomous entities capable of assuming obligations, owning assets, making financial commitments and establishing companies. They do not need to be separate legal persons for this purpose: the status of an “organisational unit with legal personality” available under Hungarian law provides a workable solution.’

This objective already applies: HUN-REN's research institutions are separate legal persons, autonomous in their activities and responsible for their own financial management. They hold their own assets, may assume obligations and enter into contracts in their own names, and may establish companies. Each institution's Director General manages and represents it. The HUN-REN Act, HUN-REN's founding charter, the founding charters of the individual research institutions, and the organisational and operational regulations of HUN-REN and the institutions set out this legal framework in detail, with each instrument building on the others.

7. ‘The heads of the research institutions should act as the employers and, in that capacity, should control the intellectual property arising from research conducted by their organisations.’

This is essentially already the case, although the wording of the current HUN-REN Act would benefit from clarification. The HUN-REN Act designates the President of HUN-REN as the employer of every employee across the network, while vesting the exercise of the employer's rights directly in the Directors General of the research institutions. In practice, the Directors General already exercise all employer's rights, without limitation, in respect of employees at their own institutions. The framework would be clearer and more closely aligned with actual operations if the Act also designated the Directors General as the employers.

Research institutions already have the right to control intellectual property arising from research. The HUN-REN Act and sector-specific legislation establish this right, and the organisational and operational regulations of HUN-REN and its research institutions also reflect it. Experience over the past eight months suggests, however, that the current statutory provisions in this area may require clarification. An even more important task is to establish a standardised institutional register for intellectual property, together with appropriate arrangements for its valuation, accounting and financial management. Practices currently vary significantly among research institutions. We have begun reviewing them at network level, but developing a comprehensive system and applying it consistently across the institutions will require further effort.

8. ‘They should be subject to public procurement rules to the extent appropriate to their use of budgetary funds - this is already the case under the current rules.’

HUN-REN is already subject to public procurement rules: HUN-REN and its research institutions are required to conduct public procurement procedures in the cases and under the conditions specified by law.

9. ‘Oversight of the performance of public tasks and the use of public funds should be strengthened. For example, contracts should be made public as required by the Act on the Right of Informational Self-Determination and on Freedom of Information (Infotv.).’

The transparency requirements of the Act on the Right of Informational Self-Determination and on Freedom of Information already apply to HUN-REN. HUN-REN and its research institutions fall within the scope of the Infotv. and must therefore provide access to data of public interest and data public on grounds of public interest, as well as meet the statutory publication requirements. Information on data of public interest and data published in accordance with the applicable disclosure requirements are available on the websites of HUN-REN and its research institutions.

10. ‘The organisation should meet the criteria for “public body” status under EU rules.’

EU classification as a “public body” generally depends on the status conferred on a research network or research institution by national law and on the rules governing that status. Whether an entity qualifies as a “public body”, however, depends on the applicable EU rules and the European Commission's validation practice. The planned restructuring should therefore consider together the status that Hungarian law would confer on the research network and its research institutions, whether that status could meet the EU criteria for a “public body”, and the advantages and constraints associated with each available structure. The aim of securing “public body” status must also be balanced against another equally relevant consideration: a 21st-century research institution needs the flexibility to operate and manage its finances outside the public finance system and within a private-law framework.

European practice offers a range of models. Examples of research organisations governed by private law, comparable in this respect to HUN-REN's current model, include Germany's Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association and Helmholtz Association; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland; RISE Research Institutes of Sweden; the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology; Belgium's imec; and Spain's TECNALIA Research & Innovation.

11. ‘MTA should contribute more than its name and real estate to the network. In addition to exercising the founding rights, its delegates to the network's governing body should help shape the research network's strategy and develop differentiated funding and performance-assessment systems for the institutions.’

Of the ten people currently participating in the work of HUN-REN's Governing Board, seven are members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The President of MTA and the minister responsible for science jointly nominated the current members of the Governing Board by consensus. The MTA scientific community already has a decisive voice in HUN-REN's current governance. Five of the seven members of HUN-REN's Governing Board belong to MTA's public body, including four members of the Academy. The three heads of research institutions who participate in the Board's work in a non-voting capacity are also members of the Academy. Together, they contribute to shaping the research network's strategy and to discussing and deciding other matters of major importance specified by law.

Transferring HUN-REN's founding rights to MTA would represent a new approach compared with the current operating framework. The legislature may take such a decision after weighing all relevant considerations and keeping the interests of the research network in view.

***

In summary, the principles and objectives set out by MTA for the future operation of the research network largely match HUN-REN's current regulatory and operational framework. Of the 11 points listed by MTA's leadership, essentially two would bring substantive change: bringing the research network under MTA and transferring the founding rights to MTA; and integrating ELTE's humanities and social science research centres into the current network. All the other principles already apply within the HUN-REN Hungarian Research Network.

Professor Balázs Gulyás, President of HUN-REN

Roland Jakab, Chief Executive Officer of HUN-REN

Response to the statement issued by the leadership of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on 5 August 2026 concerning the legislative amendment affecting HUN REN