Breakthrough and about fish

On October 6, the media reported two wrong messages that the right people received. The author of one was the newly -made Nobel laureate of physics and, as recommended by him, the Russian British Andrei Gam. The addressee of the other, if you do not get out of the same patriotic stylistics, was the Russian Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in one person - the head of the Rosnannech corporation Anatoly Chubais.

Andrei Gam said that "he does not know and does not want to know anything about an invitation to Skolkovo," which he was allegedly sent a few minutes after the announcement of the Nobel Physics Prize. "Do you have people there-did you go crazy at all? They believe that if they dump the gold bag for anyone, can you invite everyone?"

What an amazing coincidence! Figurely expressed, it was about the "bag of gold" who asked Anatoly Chubais and the Russian prosecutor's office. This request is a mirror copy of Gam's stinging statement: the state corporation was asked to submit "a complete list of projects that ended unsuccessfully, and a list of persons who made a decision on these projects."

How did it happen that the embodiment of innovative thinking is the creator of the miracle graphen-and the embodiment of the inhibition of science is an official, the most difficult device on the table on whom, perhaps, is a household chocrine, and such a coordinated blow was inflicted on our collective Skolkov?

Meanwhile, the answer to this question is well aware of the surprised addressee - Anatoly Borisovich Chubais. Chubais speaks of an innovative wave on which Russia should take off in the next decade as a mandatory, inevitable and non-alternative, as space and atomic projects of the 1940s and 1960s. Chubais began his recent report to the students of the national economy under the Government of the Russian Federation and began with pictures of the space rocket and native atomic mushroom, and graduated from portraits of the luminaries, which stood behind the main achievements of Russian science. The statesman-Chubais urged to repeat the feat of domestic scientists at a new round of the scientific and technical revolution.

And then he stated that our state is still "thieve, stupidly and inefficient." Nobody objected to this. The conclusion of Chubais? No globally important business can be controlled by this state. On the other hand, Chubais says, and without a state, innovation is impossible. From little Israel and Finland to giants - the USA and China - these innovations can take place only under state support. But the conclusion, it turns out, is to make early.

In the USA and France of the 1960s, Chubais admits, the scientific and technical revolution was made by startups, and not at all a state. Not strict state control, not ideology, but free, counter- and even subcultural breakthrough of startupers. Neither the state nor society interfered with them, because they provided America with the role of the motor and technical revolution for the rest of the world for several decades ahead.

But here, Chubais complains, not only economics and politics, but also thinking, “mentality” are not startup. And what about Rosnannotech? Judging by the stories of Chubais about the corporation, about trips to exemplary concerns of the world, led by a tough authoritarian structure and should behave as one giant startup oven.

Students listening to Chubais twice asked for political support for innovation. Didn’t they mean, they asked that the only way out of the contradictory picture that Chubais painted is in the field of political reform? No, says Chubais, let the politics wait. There is no, they say, in the country of a social layer, "capable of creating a request for democracy." Those people who now require democratization and political freedoms, according to Chubais, are too anti -state to listen to them. Among the intellectual elite "the attitude of unbelief, irony or, sorry, sends." And Chubais directly accused Russian science, which could become the third force of the inability to "find an elixir of innovation in the Russian mentality itself."

Here is the choice: or the technocrats-old-arrangements, the leaders of the industries who "should want" to invest in the upcoming success, or the Democrats and Moscow intellectuals who do not believe in the success of nanophael. Moscow in general, according to Chubais, is the city of innovations alien. "There will be no innovation, even if the mayor is changed." In the regions, from Chechnya to Chukotka, this potential is huge. Like in the USA. There, 50 percent of the innovative economy in two states is deployed - Massachusetts and California. And we will be so. Of course, not in all subjects, but in the top ten regions for sure. Now, according to Chubais, leaders are Tatarstan, Tomsk, Novosibirsk. Five years later, Stavropol and Saransk will burst into this list. The word "Skolkovo" sounded in this context. But does this bobbruisk not adjacent to the unloved Moscow to the ring road around the unloved Moscow? And why, instead of Bobruisk, not support Tomsk, Novosibirsk or Kazan? The question remained unanswered.

Where does the interference of innovation come from in Russia? It was then that we are approaching the prosecutor's office. More precisely, to the laws written for the industrial era, although we have long been living in post -industrial. And we are going to get over at all - to nanotechnological. The next letter of these laws, the control bodies - from the Prosecutor General’s Office to customs - do not allow business to turn around. They interfere with creating and risking.

But even with the prosecutor’s office, Chubais is easier to agree than with the intellectual elite, which, according to him, is “too low, the level of understanding the wishes of the authorities”. It is petty counting social losses. Pulls the country to the left. It interferes with selection. After all, we need strong. We will take them to the future.

Some nimble students and one functionary who pretended to be an old startup decided to use the place at the microphone for self -party. Come, uncle, to our Sarov Technopark, see how great we have. We will arrive, assures Chubais, check. And if we want to invest, then we will raise everything, we will enlighten everything. You yourself will not be happy to call. Because we need the best. Selection, as A. B. Chubais said, "reinforced concrete". And we need thin, graphene, nanotechnological. After all, the Prosecutor General’s Office visited you with the same goal that is familiar to myself and for you: "Raise everything, enlighten everything. So that they themselves were not happy that they were opened."

At the end of the lecture, Chubais comforted the audience with old Hokhma: why doesn't the real manager like mermaids? Yes, because where he is looking for a woman, a fish awaits him. And where he is waiting for the fish, he gets a woman. So with our correspondents: the Prosecutor General’s office asks Chubais, where he went scales for a torso. And the Nobel laureate from Manchester wonders why he had a fish tail - an evolutionary model that clearly worked out his resource.