Minimax program

The RAS can be reorganized with maximum efficiency with a minimum of changes

Recently, one can often hear calls to disband the Academy of Sciences. Let us imagine for a moment that they have come true and all research institutes are closed. The property was sold, the employees were dismissed. Russia has already seen this after the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks very quickly realized that they couldn’t go far with workers and peasants alone. And, destroying the Russian intelligentsia of the Tsarist flood, they immediately began to create a new one. The result was a gigantic structure that had no analogues in the world - the USSR Academy of Sciences.

How did it happen that the academy turned from national pride into an object of irony and hostility? Historically it went something like this. The Bolsheviks had respect for science from the moment they seized power. After the successful explosion of the atomic bomb, Stalin decided that many other issues, both military and civil, could be solved just as successfully with the help of science.

The Bolshevik concepts about the leading role of the party and the individual in history were translated into a structure in which the place of leaders was occupied by experts called academicians, and the place of the masses by ordinary scientists. In matters of knowledge of truth and its recognition as such, a table of ranks was built: General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - Politburo - President of the USSR Academy of Sciences - Academicians - Corresponding Members of the Academy of Sciences - Doctors of Sciences - Candidates of Sciences - Researchers without scientists degrees - laboratory assistants. According to Soviet ideology, no one had the right to show personal interest in the results of labor, only public and disinterested ones. Money did not play a role ideologically, or supposedly did not play a role.

Since the laws of nature really cannot be bought with money, such an approach in science was not meaningless. Each employee of the USSR Academy of Sciences had practically lifelong guaranteed employment. As a result, a class of intellectuals arose for whom knowledge in the broad sense of the word became a matter of life. Moreover, due to the saturation of Moscow, St. Petersburg, science cities and some other cities with people whose profession was knowledge of the world, as well as public respect for intellectuals, an intellectual field arose in the USSR. This intellectual environment, which had no analogues in the world and had enormous creative potential, was (along with the army and rockets) the hallmark of the era that began with the flight into space of the first Sputnik and Gagarin.

With the fall of the USSR everything changed. The country abandoned idealistic goals, science and even the intelligentsia as such began to seem like a burden that did not correspond to the new era. Society remembered that money exists, and altruism began to be associated with idiocy. In conditions of widespread privatization of socialist property and lack of funding, academicians who headed institutes were forced to turn into owners of state enterprises and scientific entrepreneurs. First, in order to survive, and then for other purposes, the directors of the research institute began to rent out premises to companies that had nothing to do with science and technology, and also took other actions that did not correlate with the declared goals of the academy.

The very concept of “academician” has also changed. Instead of the idea of ​​a highly qualified expert, it began to be associated more with an administrator heading a certain economic institution and the distributor of considerable public funds. Hand on heart, this opinion, widespread among the people, is not completely false. As a result, from the point of view of both the government and ordinary people, the Academy of Sciences turned into a strange institution that did not bring any immediate benefit, that is, from the point of view of modern Russia, none at all. The promised application of fundamental results to commercial technologies in the distant future (which the Academy has not only never dealt with, but which it was directly forbidden to deal with) is perceived by both the country's leadership and businessmen as a utopia.

Thus, it would seem that the Academy of Sciences, which had remained the same since the sixties of the twentieth century, has evolved. The question has come to the fore whether it is reformable in order to meet modern requirements, or whether it is impossible to reform. That is, is it necessary to destroy the Russian Academy of Sciences as a system in order to create a new structure adequate to the coming era?

With all of the above in mind, let’s take an impartial look at the Academy, because the questions that the state and society have regarding the RAS are truly serious. Let's list those that cause the greatest concern. First of all, the age gap between venerable scientists over sixty and graduate students under thirty is striking. The academy is not to blame here: the country, liberated from Bolshevism, simply spat on the intelligentsia, practically destroying it. The Academy is also not to blame for the fact that its premises are empty: no matter how much you call, in a country of kickbacks and redistribution of property, no active person with a penchant for creation will be able to do anything: he will go abroad or go into other professions.

It is not the Academy of Sciences’ fault that it rents out premises to those who pay: given the need to pay for land and premises, coupled with the ban on the creation of any technological firms that existed until recently, research institutes simply had no choice to survive.

But there are also aspects of the academy’s activities for which only it itself is to blame. The Academy of Sciences is infected with the same disease as the whole country. Some Russian academics have become “folk” and indistinguishable from the people, but not in the sense in which we would like. The presence of scientific gangs in decision-making and in the distribution of money (take, for example, the problem of the imaginary shutdown of computers on New Year's Eve 2000: an obvious scam, in this case perpetrated by technocrats in the USA) is a thing known all over the world, but still not up to par. to such a degree. And neither science nor technology are created by people of bad conscience and flawed morality: this must be clearly understood.

Another symptom that not everything is perfect within the academy is who gets selected and who doesn't get selected. Although elections to the Academy, in comparison with what is happening in elections to Russian authorities, seem to be the acts of righteous celestial beings, unfortunately, they are not always an election based on the scientific achievements of the applicant and only on them. Both in Soviet times and today, the powerful of this world are eager to become academicians, and this is a title, like Olympic champions, for life. Which, by the way, can not be viewed completely negatively, because it is proof of the still preserved prestige of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And in the Soviet Union there were plenty of “ex officio academicians.” The replenishment of the Academy with VIPs, artificially selected as scientists of national importance , unfortunately, did not stop with the fall of Bolshevism. The very election to a host of scientists on the basis of their position (recognition as a major scientist simply because the name was appointed director of the institute) is a profanation of the main principle on which science is based. Great scientists are not appointed from above, just as it is impossible by decision of the Duma or by presidential decree to establish a “new” law of nature or to abolish the “old” one.

What has been said, however, does not mean at all that the academy should be closed and begin to build a new intellectual world of Russia from scratch, as the communists did in 1917. This simply means that it is necessary, by making the minimum possible changes, to create maximum conditions to meet the requirements of time and morality. And this should not be done from within the academy.

When pronouncing the words “Russian Academy of Sciences,” three functions are mixed. The first is the leadership of science. The second is recognition of a scientist as a world or national figure. And the third is the distribution of funds . The same goes for the term “academician”. When pronouncing this word, they mean all three meanings of it and mix all three functions.

During the time of the USSR, it was taken for granted that the directors of the institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences, appointed by the CPSU, were academicians who were the best in their profession, or in modern terminology, experts. To a large extent this was the case, but not always. Conformists, ignoramuses and even outright villains immediately began to join the host of priests of science. Let us recall, for example, Trofim Lysenko and the destruction of biology, as well as similar persecutions of physicists (quantum mechanics) and psychologists (psychoanalysis) that were planned but not realized. However, in the USSR, the distribution of cash flows rarely led to personal enrichment of the nomenklatura, including scientific ones - this was closely monitored. In the Soviet Union, flows of money did not materialize into individual benefits, only into privileges according to the position held. The distribution of funds therefore had little or no vested interest.

With the fall of Bolshevism, academicians and heads of institutions turned from experts into entrepreneurs, willingly or unwillingly. Under these conditions, the combination of three functions in one hand became unconstructive and very dangerous for both the academy and science. After all, these three functions are actually different and incompatible.

Albert Einstein seemed to be a good scientist, but he never wanted to become an administrator and did not rely on financial flows. The same is with the great Russian scientists - Kolmogorov, Mendeleev...

The main thing that is required by the “minimax” program (maximum effect with a minimum of changes, using physical terminology) for the reorganization of the Russian Academy of Sciences is to separate these three functions. So that, when pronouncing the word “academician,” not only fellow scientists, but also citizens not associated with science know what they mean by this word: a scientist who has made a significant contribution to world science, a general of science, a commander of ordinary scientists, or a distributor of financial resources .

In recent years, the concept of “great scientist” and even “prominent scientist” has, in principle, ceased to be associated with membership in the Russian Academy of Sciences. Administrative resources are undeniable, distribution of money is undeniable. But not the quality of a scientist as an expert. It is not surprising that there is no special awe or even basic respect for current academicians either in Russia or abroad. Status returns slowly, but reputation most often never returns.

In conditions where election to academic status cannot guarantee the status of a great scientist, there is no longer any credibility to this term.

To regain this trust, election to academicianship of the Russian Academy of Sciences must first of all mean acquiring the status of a highly qualified expert. Having the right to make decisions regarding the development of science and technology is as honorable as being a Duma deputy. It is this right that should be given first of all when elected to the academy.

It seems that the scholarship for already elected academicians and corresponding members should be retained. Moreover, its size approximately corresponds to the salary of a laboratory assistant in the West.

The main change in the RAS should concern the principles and channels for distributing funds. The general meeting of the academy must assess the state of development of science and technology in the world and determine key directions. It can recommend this or that direction for the development of science and technology in the country, create certain scientific and technological funds, and determine the distribution of funds between them. But it is absolutely impossible to give money to certain people and groups, especially to ourselves.

Let us repeat once again: the title of academician should mean recognition of the highest expert status. There should not be academicians by position - this is absurd. Board of directors of institutes is normal. There is no automatic election as an academician after receiving the position of director of the institute. Just as the general meeting should not distribute money for specific scientific research, special funds should do this. Preferably with an international panel of experts to reduce bias to the minimum possible extent.

Directors of institutes should receive money only for current needs, equipment and relatively modest salaries of employees. The main money should be distributed through grants. The recipient of the grant should not depend on the director of the institute when working on his topic. He can distribute it among employees of several institutes and even move to another institute, as is customary throughout the world. Under these conditions, the one who received the grant (by running a laboratory or opening a scientific and technological company) may turn out to be more successful in all respects than the administrative director. This is exactly how it should be.

Grants should be distributed by state and private foundations ranging from tens to approximately hundreds of millions of dollars, but not by multi-billion dollar monster state corporations such as Rusnano or Rostekhnologii. At the same time, a member of the commission does not have the right to allocate a grant to himself for at least three years after leaving the grant distribution commission for a particular fund. Of course, there will always be loopholes and cross-pollination with grants, but this is a problem of the next order. Existing, by the way, everywhere.

Who will benefit and who will lose from these innovations? All employees of the research institute will benefit, since their prosperity will not depend on the management. Good directors will benefit, because for projects carried out on the premises of the institute, the institution will receive overhead, as well as a certain percentage from startup technology firms with topics consistent with the name of the institute (preferably with the participation of institute employees). Moreover, these firms will work within the walls of academic institutes. The state will benefit, since such a system will definitely be healthy. It seems that the only losers are bad directors, who cannot create anything in the institutions they lead.

The status of an academician should not give an indulgence forever; an academician is not a saint of the Catholic Church. Director of a scientific institution is hard work, not access to benefits. University employees in the West often earn more than the director and rector. For example, if you created a company that has a technological perspective, and even more so produces a competitive product.

A number of institutes, such as the Institute of Russian Language and Literature or the Institute of Oriental Studies, are unlikely to be able to live on subsidies from grants as successfully as, say, FIAN. They should especially encourage employees to give lectures at universities, not only humanities, but also technical ones. This is all the more important because harmonious education for the creators of innovations at the global level is necessary: ​​without it, they will forever be Kulibins, capable of shoeing a flea, but not creating this flea (which, as is known, could dance until Leskov’s Lefty applied to her “innovative” hand).

We especially note that in Russia it is generally impossible to dismiss employees who have worked at the academy for, say, more than 25 years based on age, if only for the reason that it is unreasonable. They must retain their pass and workplace for life. Or maybe some part of the salary or even all of it. Moreover, the salary of an academy researcher is several times less than that of a beginning scientist in any developed European country and the United States. It's not just academics who should have lifetime rights. Every employee of the academy who has given his life to science, even if he failed to do something significant in it, should have the most modest right - to be listed as an employee of the academy, to come to seminars and to have a job for life.

You can even award such people the title (which costs the country nothing), say, knight of science. Or less loud, but still commanding respect, such as an academy veteran. Giving the right to have a job, continue scientific research and share knowledge with young people as long as there is enough strength. After all, informal communication is part of the great Russian intellectual culture, in which learning is no worse and certainly more original than in formal lectures.

It is necessary to clearly understand: the core of the middle class in Russia should not be clerks or nomenklatura, but people of creation, knowledge and learning, as is the case in all industrialized countries. They must be nurtured and protected. The presence of employees of retirement age at the research institute - even just their presence, the atmosphere they create is comparable in importance and potential to the most profitable items in the country's budget.

The atmosphere in the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences is a national treasure, which has no equal in the world. Temples of science are, first of all, the people who worked and work in them. Hence the conclusion: the intellectual heritage of Russia - the collectives of academic institutions - must be comprehensively protected and preserved.

So, in the Russian Academy of Sciences, power, knowledge-creation and cash flows should be divided. Just as the judicial, legislative and executive powers are divided in a civilized society. Such a minimum program, consistent with common sense, the interests of Russia and the academy itself, is necessary and urgent. This modest reorganization alone is, of course, not enough for the country to become a science and technology superpower. But without the indicated minimum natural measures, the program of innovative revival of the nation will definitely not be implemented.

Fedor Bogomolov, professor of mathematics New York University, Yuri Magarshak, professor, president of Mathtech, Inc.