On the issue of the Congress of Scientists

Preamble

A letter has arrived to the editor. As can be seen from the following, the author took an active part in the first attempt at self-organization of domestic scientists, which took place at the end of perestroika. In this regard, it is interesting not only his memories of that attempt (which was negatively affected by perturbations on an almost planetary scale), but also his opinion about what can be done in this direction today.

To the editor-in-chief
"Trinity option"
B.E.Stern.

Dear Boris Evgenievich! I am sending to “Troitsky Option” for possible publication my article concerning the problems of self-organization of the Russian scientific society and the organization of the Congress of Russian Scientists. Brief information about yourself: Borisov Vsevolod Vasilievich, born in 1937, candidate of physics and mathematics. Sci. Graduated from the Physics Department of Moscow State University in 1962 (department of biophysics). He worked at the Institute of Biological Physics of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1962-1967), at the Institute of Molecular Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1967-1971), at the Institute of Crystallography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1971-1991). All these years I have been studying the spatial structure of proteins using X-ray diffraction analysis. In 1990 he was elected as a deputy of the Moscow City Council, in 1994-1998. was the director of the Moscow office of the Soros Education Program in the field of exact sciences, then for a year - an assistant to a State Duma deputy, in 2000 he was appointed deputy director of the Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in the Scientific and Technical Sphere (RIEPP), from 2005 according to age transferred to the position of head of the department. In 2004-2008 was a member of the Board of the European Association for the Promotion of European Science and Technology “Euroscience”. I am extremely interested in cooperation with the “scientific community”, I read TRV with great interest, all 34 issues, I remember the old “Trinity Option” from my “Soros” times. The range of interests is almost entirely covered by the newspaper's articles: problems of education (school and higher education, the Bologna process), problems of popularization of science (we once published the Soros Educational Journal), international scientific cooperation, problems of self-organization of the scientific community, countering the aggressive policies of the Russian Orthodox Church etc.

In TrV No. 30, my attention was drawn to the article by M.B. Konashev “Congress of Scientists: Another Illusion or a Primary Task?” Although the author does not give a direct answer to the question posed in the title, there is no doubt that he himself and many of his colleagues in the St. Petersburg Union of Scientists consider the convening of the Congress of Scientists to be quite worthy and, as they hope, real purpose.

M.B. Konashev is clearly aware that the congress makes sense if it is, although important, but not the only element of the broader process of self-organization of the Russian scientific community. As a result, the question takes on a different formulation: is the Russian scientific community capable of self-organization?

Similar problems are raised in the article by B.E. Stern “Self-organization of science, or Is a phase transition visible at the end of the tunnel?” (TrV No. 20).

In this regard, it seems useful to me to once again recall the events of twenty years ago, which clearly demonstrated the ability of the country’s scientific community to self-organize. True, there was already a detailed article about this in “TrV” No. 26 by A.M. Elyashevich [1] , but I would like to look at the events from a slightly different perspective. In the interests of integrity of the presentation, some things will have to be repeated.

***

At the end of 1988 - beginning of 1989, there was a lively campaign in the country for the elections of people's deputies of the USSR, in which researchers from academic institutions also took an active part. This was especially true for the elections of deputies from the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was provided with 25 vacancies.

A wave of pre-election meetings swept through the institutes - at each of them a resolution was adopted and sent to the Presidium of the Academy. The resolutions usually mentioned several names - those whom the institute meeting proposed to elect as deputies from the Academy. In terms of the number of such recommendations, A.D. Sakharov was in the lead by a wide margin. Next, also with a significant gap from the rest, were R.Z. Sagdeev and D.S. Likhachev.

In January 1989, a meeting of the expanded Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences took place, with the number of participants somewhere in the region of 200-300 people. They had to approve the list of candidates to be included on the official ballot. The elections themselves were to take place at a representative conference, with the participation of all academicians and corresponding members, as well as delegates from institutes.

The participants of that “extended Presidium” were offered a large list of recommendations both from the institutes and directly from the Presidium. From this list, each had the right to select (by secret ballot) no more than 25 candidates. Those who received more than 50% of the votes were supposed to be included on the ballot.

Unfortunately, even 25 vacancies were not filled in this way. A second round was required. But the academicians were quite tired of all this, and they readily seized on the proposal to give 5 deputy seats to scientific communities, although the Election Regulations did not provide for such transfers.

But something else was much more important: neither Sakharov, nor Sagdeev, nor Likhachev were among the selected candidates. And this sensational news was immediately disseminated, including by the central media.

For many of us it was just a shock. How could the voting academicians be so dismissive of the extremely clearly expressed opinion of a huge mass of scientific workers? After all, it was not even about the final election, but only about putting the names of candidates on the ballot.

I remember my own feeling. There was a pounding in my head: I had to do something, I couldn’t leave it like this. Many other employees of academic institutions had much the same reaction.

Immediately, intensive calls to friends began - we urgently needed to meet and discuss what to do. Without any special notification, a group of about 40 people gathered on an initiative basis, which A.E. Shabad, a future Russian deputy, led to FIAN.

No one made speeches, the discussion turned out to be extremely constructive. The idea, approved by all, of organizing a mass protest meeting in front of the building of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences was immediately put forward. Roles were quickly assigned: who should do what. First of all, we organized a cluster system for alerting institute employees about planned actions. Several people volunteered to obtain permission from the authorities to hold the rally. Another group took on the task of ensuring communication with journalists, including foreign ones.

At several subsequent meetings, information was exchanged about the progress of preparations for the rally, and a list of speakers was outlined.

The rally took place in early February; approximately 3,000 people gathered in front of the Academy of Sciences Presidium building. About eight clear and sharp speeches were made, a draft resolution was proposed with demands to the Presidium, which was vigorously approved by those gathered. It seems that this was the first rally initiated from below and sanctioned by the authorities. He was later called an example of how the will of the masses should be organized.

***

Formally, the meeting yielded nothing: the members of the Presidium resolutely refused to reconsider their decision, citing the fact that all democratic procedures had been followed.

This was indeed the case. But the point is not in the procedures, but in the mentality of the voters, in their contempt for the “scientific plebs” from which they all once came. I remember how one newly elected academician privately shared his impressions of the morals prevailing among academicians: “Everyone believes that only he is a real scientist.” An exaggeration, of course, but it did not arise out of nowhere.

However, the most important thing is that both the meeting itself and the entire process of its organization greatly contributed to the sharply increased consolidation of employees of different institutions. We almost all got to know each other! This made it possible to quickly develop a further strategy: at the elections themselves, cross out all candidates from the ballot as a sign of protest against the decision of the expanded Presidium. Communication was established with other cities where their own consolidation processes were underway. This protest movement received solid support, which manifested itself, in particular, in the fact that almost all members of the initiative group and other active participants in the process were elected delegates in their institutes to the conference of the USSR Academy of Sciences on the election of people's deputies.

Of course, we would not have achieved anything at the conference if the decision of the expanded Presidium had been routinely supported by all members of the academy, who made up significantly more than half of the conference participants. However, among them there were many who supported us. I happened to see how academician Stanislav Sergeevich Shatalin openly, placing his ballot on the “diplomat”, resolutely crossed out all the candidates one after another.

According to the voting results, only eight deputies were elected. No one has suggested giving up another 12 places – there are limits to everything!

I had to repeat everything. New meetings were held at the institutes, recommendations were sent again (about the same as before), the expanded Presidium met again and this time it was forced to recognize the will of the majority of the scientific staff.

Again there is a conference, again approximately the same people are among the delegates, at their preliminary meetings roles are again assigned (to whom and how to speak). And - complete victory! All 12 new deputies were elected from among those who received the largest number of recommendations from institutions. Among them is A.D. Sakharov. True, he was 6th in terms of the number of votes received. So the mentality of a significant number of academicians has not gone away!

***

But the matter was not limited to this one-time achievement. There was a desire to consolidate the success with new initiatives. And already during the first conference, a number of attractive ideas arose during the discussion.

Firstly, it was proposed to create a Union of Scientists of the USSR - they agreed to create a working group with the involvement of everyone to study this issue. A discussion immediately arose: how should this Union relate to the Academy? After all, the January split between the leadership of the Academy and the scientific community did not pass without a trace. Then unions of scientists were organized by territory, in particular in Moscow and Leningrad.

Secondly, the idea was put forward to convene a Congress of USSR Scientists, which alarmed many academicians. They understood that at such a Congress there would begin a discussion of the most pressing issues in the life of the Academy and institutes, which are not customary to be discussed even at general meetings of the Academy of Sciences.

Finally, after the elections, the Voters Club of the USSR Academy of Sciences (KIAN) was organized, the purpose of which is to facilitate the implementation of political reforms in the country by deputies (including deputies from the Academy of Sciences). The history of KIAN is a separate, in many ways remarkable, page of the academic democratic movement, which also deserves a more detailed presentation. The main work of KIAN quickly focused on supporting the activities of the Interregional Deputy Group (IDG). What did not go unnoticed: all “Kianovo” activists received invitations to the founding conference of the MDG in July 1989, when A.D. Sakharov, B.N. Yeltsin, G.Kh. Popov, Yu.N. Afanasyev were elected as its co-chairs and Estonian MP Viktor Palm.

***

In the summer of 1990, it was necessary to convene another academic conference on the elections of people's deputies of the USSR. Two “academic” vacancies became available: S.S. Alekseev became chairman of the USSR Constitutional Supervision Committee and automatically resigned from the ranks of deputies; In addition, A.D. Sakharov passed away.

These “by-elections” did not meet with enthusiasm among many academic delegates: they were simply offended by the idea that someone could be elected “in Sakharov’s place.” And the conference did not take place due to lack of quorum. Nevertheless, the delegates mostly gathered - many simply refused to register. But since we had gathered, we could take the opportunity to discuss our own problems. And then we returned to the idea of ​​the Congress of USSR Scientists. A working group was quickly formed and it was proposed that it be headed by one of the academic activists, an employee of the Trinity Scientific Center, Yuri Efremovich Lozovik.

Towards the end of 1990, at one of the KIAN conferences, I asked Lozovik how the working group was doing. And he told me: “Listen, take this on.”

Of course, Lozovik himself had very conditional powers. The “authorities” delegated to me had even less weight. However, some members of the KIAN have already shown interest in addressing academic problems instead of issues of general public policy. Therefore, taking advantage of Lozovik’s proposal, we formed our own working group, which became another product of KIAN. The KIAN “politicians” did not object; perhaps they even blessed us.

Of course, we understood that organizing the Congress was beyond the capabilities of a handful of people, and we decided to find at least some ways to support the idea. Looking ahead, I will say that the Congress (albeit renamed a conference) did take place - in December 1991, in the last days of the existence of the USSR.

We met about once a week in the evenings. We adopted a mode of free discussion, which is what a working group should have. No fiery speeches, no slogans: specific proposals were put forward, everyone expressed their thoughts, there were no bickering - everyone very soon felt like good friends. I consider it important to emphasize this: I have been to many “democratic parties”, the style of which usually turned out to be exactly the opposite.

It is clear that you cannot come to the Congress empty-handed; you should select in advance the most important and pressing problems for discussion and for each of them prepare appropriate concepts and draft resolutions with constructive proposals. Next, it is up to the Congress delegates to approve or reject, supplement, adjust, etc. But the “outline” for discussion is necessary.

Our tactics included establishing all kinds of contacts: we met in turn with each of the vice-presidents of the Academy of Sciences, discussed current problems of the Academy, and offered our own solutions. These conversations were of a completely benevolent nature, without any attacks on either side. The well-known “corporate” style invariably faded into the background in individual conversations.

We have established contacts with the Committee on Science and Education of the Supreme Soviet of Russia, with the Chairman of the Committee on Science of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Yuri Alekseevich Ryzhov. There was a meeting with a member of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, academician L.V. Keldysh (then director of the Lebedev Physical Institute), with academician S.S. Shatalin. We received a favorable attitude from the Vice-President of the USSR Academy of Sciences V.N. Kudryavtsev, whom, by the way, the participants in the protest rally called on to resign (see [1] ). At the same time, roughly speaking, we did not “sell out” to anyone; we invariably defended the positions developed at the meetings of our group.

We understood that not everyone always speaks directly, but we had sincere allies: for example, academicians L.V. Keldysh, S.S. Shatalin, Yu.A. Ryzhov unconditionally supported us. Later, Academician E.P. Velikhov actively helped.

The most severe opponent was the Vice-President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Yuri Andreevich Osipyan, who died in September 2008. He said: “The Academy, with all its shortcomings, is the best organization in the country,

and you are trying to undermine it.” It must be admitted that among the “Ki-Anovites” there were indeed radicals who called almost for the immediate disbandment of the Academy. But our group did not have such “cool” plans.

I have recalled this rebuke from Yu.A. Osipyan many times. And in the end he recognized his assessment of the then Academy as correct. But it hardly applies to today's RAS. Although this does not mean at all that it needs to be “shattered”.

When looking for solutions to academic problems, we often came across areas of the Academy's activities in which we felt incompetent. And then we actively searched among the academic community for those who were well versed in these issues, attracting them to the working group. The composition of the group gradually expanded, and no one left.

*** It was clear that without support

The leadership of the Academy will never organize the Congress of Scientists. They agreed with us on many issues, but regarding the Congress there was an invariable “no”.

The situation changed radically after the August “putsch,” when power over the country quickly passed from allied structures to Russian ones. A threat also loomed over the USSR Academy of Sciences, especially since the Committee on Education and Science of the Supreme Soviet of Russia had already prepared a project for the creation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which provided for the parallel existence of Russian and Union academies.

In the changed situation, the positions of the Union Academy looked rather precarious, and its leaders themselves began to call us. Our “Kianovo” origin had an impact: at that time, KIAN “politicians” already had close contact with the Russian authorities. For example, one of the active members of KIAN, Ph.D. econ. Sciences Alexey Leonardovich Golovkov, was a member of the team of G.E. Burbulis (Secretary of State of the Russian Federation). In fact, it was he who proposed the candidacy of Yegor Gaidar for the post of Prime Minister of Russia.

We had meetings with the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences G.I. Marchuk (on his initiative), with V.N. Kudryavtsev, numerous meetings with E.P. Velikhov, we were invited to meetings of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and at these meetings we did not were extras.

We also managed to participate in the preparation of the Decree of the President of Russia “On the organization of the Russian Academy of Sciences” (dated November 21, 1991 No. 228). I will cite individual provisions of the Decree (for the full text, see [2] ):

1. Restore the RAS as the highest scientific institution in Russia.

2. Establish that the RAS is an all-Russian self-governing organization operating on the basis of the legislation of the RSFSR and its own charter.

Members of the RAS shall be considered, with their consent, all members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, retaining their titles..., as well as members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, elected on the basis of the Decree of the Presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Council of January 24, 1990 “On the establishment of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation” and the resolution of the RSFSR Supreme Court of February 15, 1991 "On further work on the organization of the Russian Academy of Sciences."

The RAS unites members of the Russian Academy of Sciences - full members and corresponding members of the Academy and other scientific employees of the Academy's institutions.

3. ...Complete the formation of a unified RAS in December 1991, taking into account the recommendations of the general meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a conference of scientists from academic institutes, and a meeting of the founders of the RAS.

In short, we received support for holding the Congress (renamed the conference). An Organizing Committee was formed, co-chaired by Academician E.P. Velikhov and an active member of our working group, Alexey Konstantinovich Zakharov from the Institute of Oceanology. Both of them became co-chairs of the conference.

On behalf of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, instructions were sent to all institutes for the election of delegates to the conference according to a certain quota. The academic part of the Organizing Committee insisted on sending out invitations to the conference to all members of the Academy. We had to give in (at first we suggested that members of the Academy also go through elections at the institutes).

Before the conference, new working groups were formed in various thematic areas: finance, international cooperation, processes of democratization of the Academy, etc.

The conference was held in the Assembly Hall of Moscow State University from December 10 to 12, 1991. On the first day there was a plenary session, a number of reports were presented and their discussion. On the second day, there were parallel sessions of five sections, where draft resolutions prepared by the working groups were discussed. On the third day, a plenary session was held again, at which agreed resolutions were presented on behalf of the sections - all of them received the approval of the majority of participants.

The conference materials are presented in the electronic journal “Courier of Russian Academic Science and Higher School” [3] .

After the conference, the academicians felt that they no longer needed contact with us. True, we were invited to the last meeting of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, but there they began to actively accuse us of disrespect for academicians.

Soon the General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences was held, which simultaneously became the founding meeting of the RAS. The resolutions adopted by the conference were conveniently forgotten.

***

Yet the main blow came from the other side. So what about academics? The reaction of most of them is quite expected. And our main resource was not the resolutions at all, but the people who approved them. People haven't gone anywhere!

Gaidar's reforms hit the Russian scientific community much harder, for which we were completely unprepared. The achieved consolidation of the community began to crumble before our eyes. The very attitude towards reforms led to a split. But even this is not the main thing. After all, we were actually unable to offer the new Minister of Science B.G. Saltykov, with whom the “Kianovites” had established good contacts even earlier (he, by the way, also spoke at the conference), any specific proposals, action plans, etc.

What follows is known: everyone began to seek salvation alone.

***

Let's go back to today. What we have?

Many Russian scientists, usually not lacking in talent, left the country. A Russian scientific diaspora has formed, although it is quite scattered. Of course, its formation was caused by our disasters, but the fact of its existence is certainly positive, as evidenced by numerous articles in TrV. Someone called the diaspora “our landing force,” but I don’t really like these paramilitary analogies.

The financial situation of Russian scientists has improved slightly, but we are still far from the opportunities that many colleagues who left have received.

Scientific products created in Russia, with a few exceptions, have become noticeably lower in level than before, at least in natural science areas. The most valuable results are obtained by those scientists who divide their time between Russian and Western laboratories. We are significantly saved by the fact that isolation from the West has practically disappeared.

Funds to support Russian science have been created, primarily the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, and the ability of Russian scientists to work with funds, their own and those of others, has increased many times over. True, the positions of opponents of expanding the grant system are still strong.

The strongest contrast with the past (of the most positive kind!) is represented by the information resources available to us and the opportunities for exchanging information - both among ourselves and with colleagues anywhere in the world.

Our scientists, whether better or worse, have adapted to the disadvantages. We have learned to take advantage of positive changes. In particular, it is better to understand who is who, to realize the significance of those values ​​that have temporarily faded into the background.

***

It's time to collect stones.

It may very well be that the consolidation of the Russian scientific community, its self-organization, does not look attractive to all scientists. But it is not at all necessary to strive for 100% coverage.

In the same St. Petersburg Union, membership in which is a source of pride for me, substantially less than half of St. Petersburg scientists are members. And even less participate in the Union’s activities. And this is typical for such organizations. But it is gratifying that the Union continues to exist and does a lot of useful things.

In the same way, it is extremely valuable and gratifying that the “scientific community” has formed (and, it seems, continues to develop) - as it seems to me, a completely “working together” team of authors of most of the materials posted on scientific.ru and published in TRV, in which Many interesting initiatives have been put forward.

At the same time, convening the Congress of Russian Scientists is a very difficult matter. And it must be preceded by a lot of work. But I hope that we will have the opportunity to seriously think through and discuss this in the near future.

Vsevolod Borisov

[1] A.M. Elyashevich “Who else if not Sakharov.” TRV No. 26 dated April 14, 2009

[2] http://base.garant.ru/179011.htm

[3] Since 2005, issues of the electronic journal “Courier of Russian Academic Science and Higher Education” have been posted on the website www.courier-edu.ru . The issue of Courier for April 2000 (the 100th issue of Courier to which this link is given) can be found at www.informika.ru/text/magaz/newpaper/messedu/cour0004/0.html