Dmitry Dyakonov: To each his own ...

Dmitry Dyakonov

Simon’s article “Crisis of Science” and the addition of “On Science and its Defenders” are busily discussed on the Polit.ru portal. Having entered the official website of the Higher School of Economics, I learned with interest that G. Cordonsky:

Candidate of Philosophy, dissertation "Cyclic procedures of scientific research", Novosibirsk State. University (1988)
Order Professor Gu-HSE, head. Department of Local Self -Government (2008)
Acting State Councilor of the Russian Federation I class
Member of the Council on Science, Technology and Education under the President of Russia
Awarded the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" I degree (2004)

Therefore, it seemed to me interesting once again to see what a member of the Presidential Council thinks about science.

So, the article by S. Cordon “Crisis and Science” .

SK: " The modern picture of the world is formed by the efforts of the pre -war and first post -war (after World War II) generations of scientists and has been changing only in detail for many decades ." Briefly is wrong. Here, counter-examples from biology have already been given, but I will give physics as a counter-scramer. Modern physics of the fundamental level of matter - elementary particles - was completely born after 1970. This is quantum chromodynamics, which controls the physics of the nucleus and subjudicial particles - quarks, and the so -called standard model that quantitatively explains thousands of experimental observations both in micromy and in space, and the theory of strings is a possible future synthesis of all fundamental interactions.

This is the "modern picture of the world"; It is radically different from the one that was (and better to say that it was not) in the 40s and 50s. I will not give examples from the modern physics of the condensed state, which, almost without exception, is based on theoretical and experimental discoveries of the last third of the 20th century - what is the “post -war generation” here.

Of course, we all stand on the shoulders of the giants of the first half of the 20th century, but only to the same extent that they, in turn, stood on the shoulders of giants of the 19th century, and so on deep into centuries. Thank God, no one canceled the continuity in science.

SK: “ The scientific picture of the world has been akin to politics and technologies, and through them with the economy. As a result, science has largely lost what distinguished it from other activities, that is, itself . ” With an even greater basis, one can say about the science of past centuries, starting with Archimedes, and ending with Einstein. Nothing new in this regard happened at the beginning of the 21st century. Rather, on the contrary, in the advanced countries, the development of science - both fundamental and applied - has become less dependent on the whims of politicians, officials, religious figures, philosophers, military, capitalists, etc., than ever in history. That is why the development of science, in the sense of obtaining new knowledge, has become faster (and not slower, as the author apparently thinks) than in all times. By the way, therefore, technologies are replaced faster.

SK: " The efforts of scientists (as elements of a huge machine of derivative scientific institutions) are directed to the creation of infinitely small growths for this picture of the world, and not to its change ." This contradicts the facts, see above.

SK: “ It is very likely that a really new knowledge, potentially able to make a picture of the world more adequate, still appears, but the inertial structure of the scientific-technological-economic-information-political complex does not allow it to isolate it . This is wrong. In fact, the new knowledge, making the picture of the world more adequate, appears as an increasing pace, and with the correct organization in the country nothing interferes with this, no “complexes”.

SK: “Useful science” is mainly based on the works of scientists of the first half of the twentieth century, transforming their discoveries and revelations into different “little things”, which radically changed the life of most people over the past 50 years . ” Yes, it is true that there would be no computers today if Niels Bor did not think 100 years ago, why electrons did not fall on the nuclei of atoms, as they should do according to classical laws, and would not create a new quantum physics. However, the “little thing”, which G. Cordonsky wears in his pocket, or another “little thing”, with the help of which he sent his thoughts to Polit.ru, could not be made without the scientific discoveries of the last two to three decades.

SK: " The third part of modern science -" pure science " - is useless and uninteresting ." I can’t judge how useful and interesting is the area in which G. Kordonsky defended his thesis, but in the natural “pure” sciences, one cannot count the stunning examples of “uninteresting” research.

I already mentioned Niels Bora, who at the beginning of the 20th century took up absolutely “clean”, “useless” and “uninteresting” science of that time - atomic physics. At that time, the industrial power of the country was measured by the production of coke and steel smelting. But on the basis of quantum laws opened by the boron, all computers, mobile phones and so on are made today. And how many millions of lives saved and crippled people cured an X -ray when he wrapped a cathode tube with black paper?

A more recent example: the discovery of high -temperature superconductivity was a “pure science” in 1986, but after 20 years the opening is already used in wireless communication, in scanning of the brain and other “little things”.

Where, to what practical devices will you lead us to understand how matter is arranged at a deeper level than today - we do not know and we cannot know. This, like poetry, is “driving into the unknown”. The task of science is to understand how the world works. It is impossible to make a practical device if you do not understand how it “works”. And what will follow from the results of today's studies are some new “quarter”, or a new way of traveling to distant stars, or treatment of incurable diseases, we will learn in 50 years. “Pure” science produces knowledge, and it is invaluable.

SK: " The totality of mutual links and citation is most of the content of this science, in which new knowledge is most often buried under the traces of compliance with scientific rituals ." This is not related to reality, at least in the area that I can judge professionally - physics. Naturally, when the approval is given in the scientific article, it is supposed to refer to the source of the statement so that everyone can read all the details. What is the ritual? Compliance with hygiene rules can also be called a “ritual”, but it has a different content. And if knowledge is new, then under any links you can’t “burden” it.

SK: " Publishing usually trivial results in publications with a high impact factor, as a rule, gives granters the foundation to prefer some to researchers to others." This is the author invented. If I had not come up with, I would give a link where such statements are justified.

Essentially, the experience of forty years of reading good scientific journals (with a high impact factor), thirty-five years of publication there and thirty years of review and editing in such magazines tells me that erroneous work is sometimes found even in the most prestigious magazines, but trivial-almost never. Perhaps, from a philistine point of view, such small things as the discovery of graphene (2004), high-temperature superconductivity (1986) or the quantum effect of the Hall (1980) may seem “new aunt Sarah”, triviality-like a modest article “to the electrodynamics of moving media” (1905) 26-year-old employee of the patent bureau in Berna. Suum Quique.

As for the "granters", they are guided not by candy wrappers, but by expert assessments, what is called Peer Review. Thus, not only all foreign funds that I had to deal with, but also domestic - for example, the private Foundation Dmitry Zimin and the State Russian Fund for Fundamental Research (RFFI) are valid.

In general, it would be more encouraging to see the great competence of the actual state councilor of the 1st class in the matters in which he is obliged to advise the President of the Russian Federation in the service.

But what I am inclined to agree with G. Cordon is the fact that “ if scientists themselves do not grow up and do not change their infantile stereotypes, then their science will“ cut ”according to the rules that now dominate the distribution of resources and the development of resource flows .”

In essence, this has already happened. It is probably known a member of the Presidential Council that rather large money allocated to the fundamental research program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences is divided by the members of this presidium (also members of the Council under the President of Russia) more or less at their discretion (expert assessment of projects, of course, is unknown) that the notorious lots of the Ministry of Science and Education are deliberately so that there was no competition on the merits that there was no competition that there was no distribution that the spread that the spread is disseminated The Federal Law on State procurement for contests of research work has a frank mockery and probably made to the “development” of state funds by anyone other than productive scientific groups. See details in the articles of Evgeny Onishchenko in the newspaper Trinity Option.

How to be a scientist with their "infantile stereotypes", i.e. With the habit of working in good faith for the salary that is, not to emigrate, not to steal, but also to reproduce such students? Well, we try to "socially grow up."

Among the scientific community grouping around Scientific.ru, an initiative group arose, which did a great job to create an experts corps, i.e. According to the thorough selection of Russian world -class experts, which enjoy the greatest authority among actively working colleagues. Currently, the formation of the corps of experts in physics and astronomy has been mainly completed, and biology experts are selected. The principles and details of the selection, as well as the list of experts in physics and astronomy, can be found on the page of the expert corps .

These are experts on the Hamburg account, the best that Russian science has today, including Diaspora. It would seem that if you are interested in the development of science in the country, and not in the “cut” of state funds, you need to use the country's best personnel for their intended purpose - to form scientific policy and examination. However, so far only Rosnanotech expressed his readiness to use experts in the physics of a condensed state from the selected corps, and then more in words.

This means that the point is not in the “infantilism” of the Russian scientific community, which, on the contrary, showed social maturity and responsibility, choosing the best specialists from its midst, and the fact is that “ science” is drunk according to the rules that now dominate the distribution of resources and the development of resource flows ”, and world -class professionals, apparently, interfere with this.

And why go far-this is what Evgeny Onishchenko discovered in the article mentioned above: “The total amount of funds spent on scientific, methodological and information-analytical support [federal targeted programs in the scientific and educational field] is amazing. So, since 2005, only the Higher School of Economics received in this field lots in the amount of 570 million rubles. " Maybe the respected head of the department in the tower and member of the Presidential Council will know and inform the public how this helped the innovative development of Russia? “Apparently, only in 2008, within the framework of federal target programs, the Ministry of Education and Science will spent on [information and analytical support] the amount exceeding the budget of the Russian Federation!” (from the same article by E.O.).

This plague can only be defeated in one way - a policy in the field of science, technology and education should be formed and conducted by scientists and technologies themselves, which proved its productivity and enjoy authority among comrades in the workshop. There is no need to invent anything here - you need to look at any country or even just at our country of the era of the Minister of Science and Technology B.G. Saltykova.

Under the government, there should be a consultation on science (Research Council) with several departments in the disciplines. The main backbone of the branches of the Council for Science should make up experts who enjoy authority in the scientific world and are trusted. The Council for Science should also be included in the position of director of the most important institutions (or their deputies) and a certain number of foreign scientists at the level of directors of large laboratories are necessarily. Every few years, rotation is needed. If many members of the Academy of Sciences turn out to be one - the better, but in general we need the selection "on the Hamburg account."

The Council on Science should scrupulously consider large projects - on a competitive basis and with clear rules of parallel review of recognized world -class experts - and, if passed, recommend financing to the government. The “large” includes projects with the cost of, say, 10 million rubles and above. RFF and other funds in the very least coped with the "small". This system needs improvement, but it is.

At the level of large projects, such as the confluence and separation of institutions, the construction of accelerators, telescopes, reactors, detectors, Tokomaks, purchases of expensive materials and equipment, Russia's participation in large international projects, and so on, making decisions is unknown where and how. But it is there, under the carpet, the largest part of the money allocated by society for science is being “spinning”. Is it too surprised that the effectiveness of the use of funds depends on the incoming circumstances. I would also not trust the division of large means of the Academy of Sciences: firstly, the Presidium of the Academy was tarnished with opacity and contempt for objective expert procedures, and secondly, most of the scientific institutions are outside the Academy. This should be done by a new structure, working according to generally accepted world rules.

If you want to develop, not stagnation, you can not strictly regulate the subjects of projects (notorious “lots”). A truly new official, nor even an impeccable expert can predict-that is why it is “new”. In addition, it is necessary to give freedom to the leaders of successful groups in the use of won funds, as, for example, the German research society (DFG) and other foreign state funds. Reports on the results, of course, must be published. But again, experts should evaluate them, and not accountants, for whom the main criterion for the success of the project is that the money is not transferred from one article of expense to another and so that everything is spent until the end of the calendar year.

Participation in the Council for Science should not be encouraged materially so that there are no temptations for crooks - with the exception of business trips, payment of secretary labor and fees to reviewers. The duties of the Council for Science should also include the development of a development strategy, i.e. Scientific policy. All decisions should be published - with a written justification.

The most interesting thing is that I do not propose anything new: the described system of the organization of science in Russia already existed in 1993-96, and it was founded by the former Minister of Science and Technology B.G. Saltykov. Along with the current active Russian scientists, government commissions included the director of the largest world laboratories, who, incidentally, regularly and in full force came to Russia and worked not for fear, but for conscience.

It was a difficult time when the financing of science fell ten times, but it is safe to say that those crumbs that were then sedded by science were used as efficiently as possible - thanks to the honest parallel review of projects to the best experts, which could be found in Russia and in the world and, not least, thanks to the “infantile stereotypes” of members of the commissions - the idea of the “gap” was the idea Uninteresting. Perhaps because the commissions consisted of real scientists, not functionaries. And if something in terms of a scientific organization in the country still continues to work today, then this was created at that time B.G. Saltykov: for example, the RFFI or a very profitable agreement on cooperation with the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva.

But, in my opinion, the normal organization of science and innovation in Russia is hardly possible if people with those views that are presented in the article by S. Kordonsky are engaged in this.

About the author:

Dyakonov Dmitry Igorevich , Doctor Fiz.-Mat. Sciences, head of the theoretical physics of high energies, deputy head of the department of theoretical physics of the St. Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Laureate of the award named after Humboldt (Germany) "For outstanding achievements in the field of theoretical physics." In 1997-2005 He worked at the Scandinavian Institute of Nordita Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen, where the Danish Royal Academy of Sciences provided him with the famous Villa Karlsberg, where Niels Bor lived at one time.

See his articles on Polit.ru: Big Adrone Collider: Will our understanding of the universe change?, Mixing quarks and a mysterious mass of protons.

Dmitry Dyakonov: To each his own ...

See also: