Competition "A": dialogue with virtual anonymous

In the Trv-hunger No. 15 (309) dated July 28, Larisa Kolesnichenko and I published the results of a survey of Russian scientists conducted by the company of scientists, about their attitude to the competition of initiative projects of the RFFI (competition “A”) and the prospect of their possible liquidation [ 1 ]. The survey once again confirmed the greatest importance of initiative grants for Russian science and the concern of scientists by the further fate of this competition.

Unfortunately, during the time that passed after the publication, the occasion for unrest did not disappear, and the hopes were not increased. Neither the representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, nor the leadership of the RFFIs have still explained what will happen to the competition "A". The only reaction to our material was the note “A“ I am Grant ”, released on July 29 on the Telegram channel“ Scientific and Educational Policy ”[ 2 ]. Although the text is anonymous, it is among the people that the NOP channel expresses the position of the Ministry of Education and Science. It is not customary to discuss with anonymouses, but I will still comment on the main provisions of this note ( they are highlighted, spelling and punctuation are preserved ). So…

“It is planned that the RNF will continue to implement the presidential research program, as well as large interdisciplinary projects. The RFFIF will continue the implementation of grant programs aimed at developing international cooperation, special grant support measures, including competitions conducted together with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and projects aimed at developing scientific graduate schools. ”

It was such an answer to [ 3 ] to his question Evgeny Onishchenko from Fian (he is also the co -chair of the Russian Federation of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Note that the Minister of Science and Higher Education Valery Falkov clearly fulfills his promise - all the questions received to his recent “open conversation” really receive answers .

He performs, but not clearly: I also sent Valery Falkov a question about the contest “A”, but I never received an answer. It is sad, however, something else: Evgeny Onishchenko, whether the ministry considers it necessary to preserve this competition, has no answer. The complete ignoring of such a competition in plans to reform RNF and RFFIA gives another reason for anxiety for his prospects.

A stumbling block for the scientific community is a “sowing” grant competition “A”, in which a small, but (in theory) is extremely wide financing of research projects. This year the competition was not declared within the usual time, which caused a whole storm from individual representatives of the research sphere - the issue was repeatedly raised at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in communication with representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, as well as in social networks and the media.

At the same time, there is no decision to cancel the competition “A” now, but certain forces actively use this topic for the frank criticism of the country's scientific policy .

There is no decision to cancel, however, the terms of the competition remain unknown, and the leadership of the Ministry of Education and Science and the RFFIA skillfully leaves answers to questions about his fate. This means that many scientists cannot really plan their further work: after all, grants “A” simply do not have an alternative. As a representative of “certain forces”, I only want to find out when a competition will be announced, which is extremely important for me and my colleagues, as well as receive responsible guarantees for its preservation under any reforms of the RFFIF and RNF. Well, the general community (“all”) should not be used in vain. Such is frank criticism ...

Note that in discussions two polar points of view are presented. Perhaps only this grant line is almost devoid of suspended assessments.

I would like to know where exactly the “polar points of view” are represented? So far, no public discussions have been observed on this subject: the scientific community only expresses concern about the fate of the initiative projects of the initiative projects, and the leaders of the ministry and the fund stubbornly ignore them. The whole criticism of the competition “A”, which appeared in the media over the past two months, boils down to several negative and completely balanced statements by scientists published in our article in the TRV-FUND of July 28. However, there are much more statements in support of the competition (mainly also balanced).

Supporters have pushed that, in contest “A”, albeit small funds were issued, but necessary for the daily needs of individual scientists and small groups. It is especially emphasized that according to these grants there were practically no restrictions on the subject, and reports did not imply any serious encumbrance by publications.

Let me, but the topic of applications submitted to the competition “A” is obliged to comply with the scientific specialty from the official classifier, as well as one of the directions from the strategy of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation. As for publications, their number and level serve as the most important criteria for evaluating applications and reports. If in two years the project participants did not have worthy publications, then financing can be suspended; At the same time, the chances of getting a new grant are significantly reduced. Is this not “serious encumbrance by publications”? However, nothing interferes with clarifying the requirements for publications in the rules of the competition: for this it is not necessary to eliminate the competition as such.

Critics pay attention to no less systemic problems - this competition has long become a “way of feeding” of a limited circle of scientific groups, it is almost impossible to win it (except that with the Lobbism from the inside of the RFFIF), the amount of funds allocated is still insufficient for normal scientific activity.

If the contest "A" cannot be won, then which one is possible? Support receives 25-30 % of the number of applications submitted for this competition. A strong application has a very real chance. Moreover, the allocated funds are enough for normal work in many areas of science, especially if studies do not require expensive equipment or reagents. For example, in the botanist I am engaged, but, of course, not only in it.

It should be noted that it is the examination of applications and decision -making in the RFFIF that cause very large -scale criticism, in particular for the opacity of the process and the clearly obvious lobby of part of the applicants from the leadership of the Fund. In these matters, he clearly loses to his competitor - the Russian Scientific Fund .

The remark is clearly not at the address: for lobbyism, contests of oriented fundamental scientific research (“Officers”) of the RFFIF are really criticized for lobbying, but not the competition “A” at all. The examination in both funds is organized in a similar way, so it is not clear what exactly the RFF is losing to the RNF. In any case, the shortcomings of the expertise of the RFFIF should not affect the fate of the competition “A”: they equally concern all other competitions held by the fund, since applications and reports on them are checked by the same experts under the same rules.

The discussions around the competition “A” by and large are only a reflection of indisputable attitudes-“sowing” financing objectively necessary for the progress of science, but at the same time it should be transparent and associated with the main directions of the country's scientific and technological development.

Of course. But the competition “A” is financed no less transparent than all the other RFFI competitions, and the topics of projects correspond to areas of the strategy of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation. Moreover, they correspond not only formally, but also real: this is one of the most effective tools for supporting science in our country. It is not clear why to destroy what works well.

For the reboot of the RFFIF and “Stock Perestroika”, the state has reasons-earlier grants of type “A” were actually used to reach the salaries of researchers to a more or less acceptable level or sponsoring “related expenses”. Now (albeit with excesses and stretches) the level of wage has clearly increased, and state assignment has increased - therefore, there is a reason to revise the grant policy .

Yes, grants “A” serve as a monetary help for scientists, but their size never allowed to “reach” the salary of a scientific team to an acceptable level. So the point is not only in the salary. The meaning of these grants for science is primarily that they allow scientists to work independently. Having a grant, the researcher himself decides what to spend it on: he does not need to go to the administration to get funds to buy each pack of paper or packaging of reagents, to a trip to the field or to the conference. And since the vast majority of studies in Russia, as in the rest of the world, are conducted by small groups of scientists, such initiative grants are the most organic form of their support. So convincing reasons for revising the policy in relation to the competition "A" is not yet visible.

Sowing support for science does not imply indistinct scattering with money, even in its breadth of research topics it should be integrated into the main directions of scientific and technological development, which are determined by the key doctrinal document-the NTR strategy. This is precisely the meaning of the “stock restructuring” and “rebooting” of the competition “A” of the RFFI .

There is no “indistinct scattering with money”: grants are issued only on topics that are relevant for their areas of science. If the relevance of the topic is not obvious, then the application has no chance of getting support. In addition, as I already wrote, each application for grants “A” is already obliged to comply with one of the directions of the strategy of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation. So if the meaning of the “rebooting” of the contest “A” is really in this, it means that it does not make any sense.

Thus, the anonymous author of the note in the “Scientific and Educational Policy” wrote many words about the contest “A”, but said nothing on the case. Obviously, he is simply not in the subject. Time, however, is on, it is necessary to work, so we expect information from the leadership of the Ministry of Education and Science and RFFs about the date of announcement of the next contest of initiative projects and its future fate. I really hope that the policy regarding the grants of the RFFIF and the RFF is determined by people who are more disassembled in this subject than the venerable anonymity, and better understand their significance for Russian science. For not breaking - not to build.

Alexey Oskolsky