Obama speech: Pro and Contra

The editorial office continues to receive responses to the performance of US President B. Obama at the US National Academy of Sciences on April 27, 2009, the translation of which, together with comments on Russian scientists, was published in the TRV No. 10 of May 26, 2009. We publish an article by Doctor of Economics, head. Sector of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences Irina Dezhina.

The speech of US President B. Obama, which is sometimes called “revolutionary” from the point of view of the development of politics in relation to American science, is very well written from a popularizing point of view. The whole speech is permeated by the examples of what science, including fundamental, and what exciting results, it brings. This is a good example of political speech, which could be borrowed by domestic politicians who promote the idea of ​​innovative development in society. Such an approach and such a presentation contribute to the growth of the prestige of science in society as a whole, and in particular, to some extent, they save scientists to explain why they are engaged in fundamental science. In Russia, at present, due to the increased political interest in the term “innovation” and everything related to it, scientists working in fundamental science, often have to literally make excuses for why science is needed and what moves them in professional activity.

As for the actual content of speech, it has several key directions. They are not revolutionary inherently, but the speech is notable for the fact that a clear setting of tasks is given in it. The main aspects are five:

1. New research priorities have been announced, and the main of them, to which a number of other initiatives (both financial and organizational) are attached, are pure energy and energy conservation. The composition of the priorities indicates that fashionable words starting with “bio-” and “nano” are replaced by such as energy conservation, ecology, and also remains a priority for the United States, the direction of healthcare, in particular the fight against various diseases and the quality of medical care (“Best service at lower prices”).

Argumentation in favor of the selected priorities is again built on a single principle: it is explained what successes in the economy and in improving the quality of life were achieved thanks to scientific discoveries and development. In principle, it is possible to justify almost any direction of investments in research and development. However, in this speech, it is important that the announcement of priorities is accompanied not only by their additional financing, but also by the recommendation to all departments to consider them in their work, as well as the creation of special structures responsible for the set of work in these areas. This is an important organizational and political decision, which does not guarantee, however, unconditional success. In Russia, there is one similar precedent of a similar scale from the point of view of PR, the volume of financing and administrative decisions - the creation of the State Corporation Rusnano. So far, the results of her work for various reasons are not the most impressive.

2. Fiscal initiatives, including the intention to bring expenses for research and development to 3% of GDP. It should be noted that this is not in speech, but there are in other documents and political statements (for example, made on April 30 - May 1, in Washington, the annual forum of the American association of scientific achievements - AAAS - American Association for the Advance of Science): in the planned 3% Budget allocations should be 1/3, and the rest - the contribution of industry. Now expenses for research and development are in the United States 2.66% of GDP with a little less than 2/3 of the share of extra -budgetary sources. That is, it is actually expected that a significant strengthening of funding for fundamental science will lead to an increase in the allocations from the business.

For this, it is introduced - or rather, defrosting - another initiative: it is proposed to make a tax loan for research and scientific experiments permanent. This is the same as a doubling of the budget of the National Scientific Fund and other key agencies, it is the initiative of the Presidential Administration J. Busha Jr., who found its embodiment in American competition (American Competes Act of 2007 -PL110-69). This law was adopted shortly after the proclamation of the President of the United States “National Initiative on Competitiveness: World Leadership in Innovation; February 2006 " In the “initiative” it was proposed to double the financing of research performed by key for the innovation sphere for 10 years; improve the training system; Make tax discounts for research and developing unlimited. The law secured a number of provisions contained in the “initiative” through budget financing, but last year its implementation was actually frozen.

It should also be noted here that the “stimulating plan” proposed by President Obama and agreed in the Congress, which was the consequence of which was the adoption of the Law “On Renaissance and Reinvesting to America”, which provides for a significant increase in financing, has two features. The first - budget funds must be spent quickly, and the second - expenses are quite rigidly limited, since the goal is not only emergency support for science, but also a contribution to economic development, including the creation of new jobs. Therefore, departments and scientific organizations are placed in difficult conditions that slightly resemble the Russian situation, when it is urgent to use significant budget funds, especially within the framework of “large projects”, which, for example, were innovative educational programs of universities.

3. Development of international cooperation, especially in chosen priority areas. Again, a more detailed consideration of this direction shows that not all types of expenses are permissible: for example, for political and economic reasons, it is believed that the funds allocated within the framework of the Law “On Renaissance and Reinvesting to America” should be spent inside the country and taxes must be paid from them. Therefore, it is unlikely that it will be possible to spend budget funds on, for example, co -financing works performed by partners from other countries.

4. Resuscitation of a long -standing initiative to improve the quality of school education in the field of natural sciences and mathematics. The US National Scientific Fund more than 10 years ago was already concerned about this problem, and, in particular, then a thorough study of the system of school mathematical education and training in the field of natural sciences in Soviet schools was carried out. It is important that the means indicate the means by which it is planned to achieve the goal - the revision of educational standards, the modernization of scientific laboratories, the updating of educational programs, retraining of teachers, and the involvement of scientists to teaching. In addition, it is planned to support graduate students with additional measures - by the triple of the number of graduate scholarships allocated by the National Scientific Fund for conducting scientific research. This direction is really relevant for the United States, and the approaches selected to solve the problem are represented by adequate and versatile.

5. The course to increase the openness and validity of the scientific policy and the results of its implementation. Since urgent measures for additional financing of science suggest further extension of budget deficit, it is important for the public to know how and what these funds are spent on. Therefore, it is assumed that the financing system will be presented openly on the Internet, and the scientific community will be more actively involved in the development of the scientific and innovative policy of the federal level.

Thus, the priorities are clear, the accents are clearly placed, and the main issues are how the proposed initiatives will be embodied and what results they will lead to. So, one of the reasonable fears widely expressed by American experts is that one -time massive investment in science will not give significant results if in the future budget allocations will be reduced or remain at the same level. Moreover, such investments will most likely lead to a new round of inflation.

The second circumstance: an increasing number of experts consider the traditional mechanisms of financing and evaluating outdated and therefore requiring review. So, introduced after the famous and still widely cited (including in the speech of President Obama), the initiative of Vannevar Bush, a system of expert assessment (Peer Review), implemented in the national scientific fund, is subjected to more and more criticism. In the speech under consideration, no cardinal changes were proposed, which is especially evident from that part of it, which is devoted to increasing the openness of scientific policy.

Finally, the orientation of economic development, supporting domestic manufacturers and the creation of new jobs in a crisis clearly visible in speech is, of course, an important task. However, science is not able to quickly contribute to their solution. This is mentioned in speech, but it is important to remember when evaluating the results of the implementation of the proposed plan for "revival and reinvesting."