Zdeněk Horák: Science Is Not Just About Finding Answers, but Also About Recognising the Limits of Our Knowledge

Your research focuses on human biomechanics, implants, and computer simulations. What fascinates you most about the intersection of engineering and medicine? Have you ever been surprised by the results of your own research?

What fascinates me most is how far technology has advanced, whether we are talking about new biocompatible materials, sophisticated computer simulations, or the possibilities offered by artificial intelligence. As an engineer and researcher, I recognize that even with the best technology available, we are still approximating how living organisms actually function. We are continually creating models that are more or less accurate.

What continues to amaze me, even after many years working in biomechanics, is the extraordinary complexity and sophistication of the human body itself. I find it fascinating how precisely individual organs, and the body as a whole, are adapted to their functions. Our natural ability to regenerate and heal is particularly remarkable, and this is also where we encounter the limits of our current knowledge.

Despite all the progress made in implant development and tissue engineering, our ability to fully and permanently replace living human tissue remains very limited.

You also work as a forensic biomechanics expert. How has this experience influenced your approach to scientific research?

Fundamentally, scientific research and the preparation of expert reports rely on the same principles and procedures. As an expert witness, I must always present conclusions that are objective, clearly verifiable, trustworthy and based on current scientific knowledge. In this respect, forensic practice is no different from research.

However, forensic work has one particular characteristic: some questions simply cannot be answered, or at least not with complete certainty. Most often, this is because the relevant input data are unavailable or incomplete. In other cases, the processes being investigated are so complex that we are not yet able to develop adequate simulations. When that happens, it is the expert's responsibility to state openly that an objective answer cannot be provided.

Your field involves biological and health data, which can be particularly sensitive to share. Where do you see the boundary between openness in science and the need to protect data?

In academic research, thorough anonymisation is now standard practice. When working directly with medical records, we are subject to the strictest personal data protection requirements, which we follow carefully and without exception. The boundaries are clearly established by applicable legislation and medical ethics. Even in such a highly regulated environment, however, the principles of Open Science can be successfully applied, provided that the data are properly and securely prepared before sharing.

The situation is entirely different when it comes to data I encounter in my role as a forensic expert. In these cases, the law directly determines how information may be handled, and my oath as an expert witness binds me to strict confidentiality. For this reason, the principles of Open Science cannot, by their very nature, be applied to forensic case data in the same way. Frankly, given how unique each individual case is, I do not believe that sharing such data would necessarily be useful or relevant.

The College of Polytechnics Jihlava has strong links with professional practice and industry. Is research data openness an opportunity in this environment, or can it also create challenges, particularly regarding intellectual property protection and collaboration with companies?

Research data openness in an environment so closely connected to professional practice naturally presents both significant opportunities and challenges. If we want to make the most of these opportunities, clear and open communication with our industry partners is absolutely essential. We need to demonstrate the specific benefits of data sharing while also reassuring them that openness has clearly defined limits.

Protecting intellectual property, trade secrets and data security is a non-negotiable priority for us. Open Science certainly does not mean that everything must be made publicly available at any cost. To manage this responsibly, we use clearly defined mechanisms, including appropriate licensing arrangements, thorough data anonymisation and embargo periods. When these mechanisms are applied correctly and combined effectively, we can fully protect the commercial potential of research while continuing to build mutual trust with our partners.

How does the College of Polytechnics Jihlava currently support researchers in managing and preserving their data over the long term? What would make their work easier, and what role could the services being developed within EOSC CZ play?

As a public higher education institution covering a diverse range of disciplines, we recognize that an effective Open Science support system must be tailored to our specific environment. We currently provide researchers with basic methodological support through the newly established Data Steward Manager position. This represents a transition from our previous ad hoc arrangements, which were linked to individual projects, towards a coordinated, institution-wide approach.

Our goal is to create a clear, accessible research data management support system that reduces administrative uncertainty and makes researchers' everyday work easier. An important contribution to this effort will come from the project Open Science at the College of Polytechnics Jihlava: From Strategy to Practice, funded under the OP JAK Open Science III call, which we are launching in January 2027.

From a long-term sustainability perspective, we see cooperation with the EOSC CZ initiative as extremely important. For an institution like ours, building isolated data infrastructure from scratch would make little sense, either economically or strategically. The opportunity to use the emerging National Data Infrastructure (NDI) and share good practices is particularly valuable for a regional institution. Our representatives are already actively involved in EOSC CZ working groups, giving us direct access to valuable knowledge and experience.

We intend to continue this cooperation. Sharing experience and taking a pragmatic approach will help ensure that Open Science becomes a genuinely useful tool for academics rather than just another administrative burden.

As you begin your second term as Rector, one of your ambitions is to embrace the opportunities offered by AI. Where do you see its greatest research potential? And do we have sufficiently high-quality, well-managed data to make the most of it?

The potential of artificial intelligence in research is enormous, and I see opportunities in several areas. One major benefit is making work with scientific literature more efficient, from searching for publications and preparing literature reviews to extracting the most relevant information. This allows researchers to gain an overview of existing knowledge in their field much more quickly.

Another significant advantage is assistance with writing analytical code and processing data. Language models can dramatically accelerate statistical analysis, particularly for researchers who are not primarily programmers. AI's ability to generate entirely new hypotheses by connecting findings from otherwise unrelated disciplines also looks very promising.

From an engineering perspective, I am particularly interested in the concept of automated laboratories, where artificial intelligence controls robots that plan and carry out experiments independently and determine the next steps based on the results obtained.

As for the second part of your question, Czech research institutions certainly do not lack data. Our main challenge is that data are fragmented. Data are often scattered across different institutions, lack adequate documentation, and can be technically and administratively difficult to access. Although legislation and technology are gradually improving, we will only be able to realize the full potential of artificial intelligence once we have reliable, functional data repositories and, above all, a fundamental change in the culture of data sharing. This is a systematic process that will take several more years.

Looking ahead to 2030, what would you like to change about the College of Polytechnics Jihlava's approach to research, technology and Open Science?

By 2030, at the very end of my second term as Rector, I would like to see the College of Polytechnics Jihlava even more firmly established as an institution specializing in applied research. My goal is to strengthen our links with professional practice so our research directly addresses the needs of companies and society.

The meaningful adoption of modern technologies is another key priority for me. This is not just about using them in research, but also about integrating them across the entire institution, including administration and management. We aim to digitize the institution as much as possible and reduce bureaucracy so our academics can focus fully on their research and professional work.

As for Open Science, my vision is very clear. By 2030, we must no longer regard it as an additional project or a time-consuming administrative obligation. Its principles must become a natural and integral part of how we conduct research every day.

And finally, a slightly different question: What is more difficult – establishing the truth in a complex forensic case or convincing the academic community that change is necessary?

That is an excellent question to end with. Both require considerable patience and a systematic approach. Nevertheless, I believe that reaching genuinely objective conclusions in a particularly complex forensic case is often more difficult. ​Convincing the academic community of the need for strategic change is certainly a challenge. But if we can communicate rational arguments clearly and convincingly, I believe it can be done.