Write, Shura, write...

Writing collective letters “from scientists to the President” has already grown into a folk pastime. In my memory, over the past couple of years, scientists have been honored to write almost a dozen letters of varying degrees of collectiveness. One can recall the letter of ten academicians against the clericalization of society, and the appeals of the RAS trade unions to the authorities. But of the massive and decentralized actions, three are clearly etched in my memory.

First of all, scientists asked to protect society, and in particular schools, from religion ( www.scientific.ru/doska/opk.html ). It is difficult to say whether their request was heard or not. The introduction of the fundamentals of religious culture into the school curriculum began not so long ago. It seems that the student has a choice (which course to take), and the subject is taught not by representatives of the church, but by the same school teachers in between classes (some for work, and some for biology), but it seems to me that the signatories are in the majority of them are not satisfied with the impact of the petition...

Then the letters to Moscow flew in a doublet ( www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/121/13.html ). Russian scientists asked not to touch the RFBR and to cancel Federal Law-94 regarding the regulation of competitions for scientific programs. “Having listened carefully” to the signatories, officials reduced the RFBR budget for the current year, and Federal Law-94, meanwhile, hit even harder competitions within the framework of federal target programs, which are supervised by the Ministry of Education and Science (the situation is covered in sufficient detail by Evgeny Onishchenko in the article “Large Grants. Big games?”, published in TrV No. 52 dated April 27, 2010 - www.trv-science.ru/2010/04/27/bolshie-granty-bolshie-igry/ ).

Representatives of our scientific diaspora from abroad, meanwhile, did not waste time on trifles and proposed a whole range of measures - from a sharp increase in funding for scientific research to a centralized state program for working with schoolchildren and popularizing scientific knowledge. Many people call the Skolkovo project as a direct consequence of this request. Allegedly, having heard calls from Western scientists to increase funding, attract foreign specialists and concentrate efforts on specific projects, the Skolkovo concept was born. Maybe... or maybe it would be better to ask the signatories: are they satisfied with this reaction from the authorities?

So, out of three letters, only one (and even then with questionable effectiveness) reached its goal. By and large, it should be recognized that only the letter that in one way or another announced measures and plans that coincided with some interests of the management elite had a chance of achieving the goal. However, the authors themselves are also already thinking about the effectiveness of writing. Thus, Mikhail Gelfand noted back in September last year (TrV No. 38 of September 29, 2009) that collective actions are important primarily as a tool of public mobilization. This is what he writes: “ They (mass actions. - E.Z.) not only show who is who; they mobilize psychologically - that’s why I, perhaps, naively believe that it will be more difficult for a person who signed such a collective letter to persuade himself to take part in some next private outrage .” Mobilization is probably a good thing. But the subject of mobilization, as far as I understand, should still be quite clear and logical. Judging by what has appeared in the media over the past month, no one is thinking much about mobilization anymore. The genre of direct communication with the President began to turn into a farce.

On the eve of the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, two new letters appeared almost simultaneously. It is difficult even for representatives of the scientific community, not to mention officials, to understand the logic and aspirations of the signatories.

In the first letter, molecular biologists ask the President to allocate budget funding for the program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Molecular and Cellular Biology” ( www.ibch.ru/press/news/science/133 ). Mostly the signatories are representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But, excuse me, the RAS programs are an internal matter of the Academy of Sciences! It is the RAS, in the opinion of the majority of signatories, that should be considered the best expert in the field of fundamental science in Russia; it is capable of both determining priorities and distributing funding (based on the scientific significance and importance of the work). And it was the RAS, represented by academicians and management, that several years ago strongly opposed the Government’s attempts to place the distribution of funds under external control. Maybe I don’t understand something, but, in essence, the signatories of the letter are addressing the President with the following: “We give up, the Russian Academy of Sciences is not able to distribute funds itself, help us from the outside.” Is there an obvious demarche and split? From my point of view, it is difficult to come up with a more convincing argument for officials in favor of the need for strict reform of the Academy of Sciences!

The second letter, to use modern Internet slang, simply delivers. The Association of Russian-Speaking Scientists Abroad ( http://pycca.net/highlights/highlights.html ) asks the President to remember the need for expertise when considering scientific and technical projects, postulates that this function in Russia is performed by the Academy of Sciences, and then “logically” asks protect the Academy of Sciences from attacks by the party in power. Moreover, the point that scientists ask the President for protection from the party in power is the smallest absurdity of this letter. You may ask, what does the party in power have to do with this? Well, how? The only one who openly accused the RAS commission on pseudoscience of obscurantism was the chairman of the party in power, Mr. Gryzlov. At the same time, the President of Russia spoke only positively about the Academy in all his speeches. God bless him. Much more interesting is the previous link - about the need for examination and the role of the Russian Academy of Sciences in this examination. After all, the Academy itself (at least through the mouth of its president) is going to withdraw from the examination of its own scientific activities. Not only did the call of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Osipov to publish only in Russian journals and his confidence that any self-respecting Western scientist should know the Russian language received mocking publicity in the world scientific press (Nature, No. 464, 11 March 2010), but Just on the days when the letter in his defense was published, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences seriously discussed the ban on the publication of articles in foreign scientific journals ( http://xelat.livejournal.com/54808.html ). What is publication in the foreign scientific press? This is an independent examination of the results of a particular work. If the Academy plans to avoid examining its own research, then a logical question arises: does it have the right to examine any other people’s results? After all, her own qualifications will not be confirmed...

What can I say in the end? It’s difficult for me personally to imagine less logical and more chaotic letters on behalf of scientists. What an official should think when reading such appeals, and even more so the President, who by default is endowed by the authors of the letter with a higher understanding of what is happening around him, I don’t know. More precisely, it is completely clear what he should think. That scientists themselves do not know what they want. Either they demand independence, or they ask to intervene in the distribution of funds. They either ask to disband the Academy, or they claim that it “has deep traditions and authority in the international scientific community.” What conclusion can be drawn from this? Only one. Such letters can be safely thrown into the trash. I’m just sure that transferring the genre of mass action to the mode of bombarding with letters completely discredits and dilutes any positive effect that could be in such actions. If I were the officials, after about the third letter, I would simply ignore them with a clear conscience. So, for anyone who still has sleepless nights thinking about how to disturb the President’s peace, I strongly advise you to first think carefully about whether it is necessary.

Egor Zadereev

To the President of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev

Dear Dmitry Anatolyevich!

You, like other state leaders, have repeatedly spoken about the importance of science for creating a highly developed economy in our country. In recent years, more than once or twice, science has been named among the main government priorities. Many correct words are being said about the need to increase the efficiency of investing in science, holding open and fair competitions, abandoning “signboard financing,” etc.

However, the actions of government authorities often have nothing in common with the right words. The most important decisions are made behind closed doors on the basis of coordination of departmental and sometimes personal interests. The proposals and demands of the scientists themselves are not taken into account, despite promises from high stands. Claims that the government's plans are open and widely discussed by the scientific and educational community are untrue. Systemic mechanisms that have proven their effectiveness are being replaced by temporary measures. Previously made decisions are quickly forgotten, without ensuring their normal implementation.

It is necessary to change the system of development and decision-making, otherwise the bureaucratic imitation of useful activities will finish off Russian science. But some simple and clear steps in the field of competitive funding of science should be taken right now. These steps do not require the investment of tens of billions of rubles and will, not in words, but in deeds, contribute to increasing the efficiency of scientific research.

One of the acute problems is related to the position of leading scientific foundations. The Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (RGNF) are today the most effective government organizations funding scientific research. The funds allocated by them are used to finance the most productive scientific groups, regardless of their departmental affiliation. Thousands of scientific groups work with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation. However, the funds' budget has been sharply reduced; The average size of grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation is now unacceptably small. In addition, the current version of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation threatens the normal operation of funds after 2010.

At the same time, without working out the key point for the success of the business - the details of organizing competitions and examinations - a new system for distributing large grants is being established to stimulate the creation of a relatively small number of new scientific groups in universities. Money is allocated for this, comparable to the total financing of all RFBR projects. Thus, supporting thousands of successful scientific groups is less important than supporting groups that have not yet even been created. It is difficult to understand the logic of those who made such a decision.

Another serious problem is the distribution of funds for research and development within the framework of government orders: Federal Law No. 94-FZ of July 21, 2005 practically does not take into account the specifics of the scientific and educational sphere, which has the most negative impact on the effectiveness of measures taken by the state. Because of this, in particular, the Federal Target Program “Scientific and Scientific-Pedagogical Personnel of Innovative Russia”, adopted to solve the most pressing personnel issue in the scientific, educational sphere and high-tech industry, is working less and less effectively from year to year. The same shortcomings are inherent in competitions held within the framework of other federal targeted programs aimed at developing the scientific and technical potential of our country. Promises to make the necessary changes to Federal Law No. 94-FZ have not yet been fulfilled, and the amendments to the law being developed by officials will not significantly change the situation for the better.

We expect that you will pay close attention to the degree of elaboration and consistency of decisions made in the field of science and education. The situation will not change for the better until the scientific community has a real influence on the preparation of such decisions. It is necessary, in particular, that during any competitions, actively working scientists, and not officials, play a decisive role in developing regulations, developing evaluation criteria and conducting examinations.
As a first step, we urge you to give instructions to ensure the normal activities of scientific funds and increase their budget at least twice next year, as well as to introduce amendments to Federal Law No. 94-FZ of July 21, 2005, which would reflect the specifics of scientific research. -educational sphere.

You can sign the letter by sending information about yourself (full name, academic degree, academic title, other regalia, position held, place of work, city) in the format specified on the page www.scientific.ru/doska/rffi2010.html to the address rffi2010@mail. ru .

Not again, but again!

On May 21, 2010, the website scientific.ru began collecting signatures for the letter to the President of the Russian Federation published above. As of May 25, the letter had been signed by more than 100 people. You can also discuss the publication in the LJ community TrV-Science http://community.livejournal.com/trv_science_ru/ .

Again a letter, again to the President. In recent years, the genre of “collective letter to the President” has gained particular popularity in the scientific community: scientists working in Russia and abroad write to the President, writing on specific and general issues. They write to the president, and, as usual, some “head of the housing office” answers the letters: “A lot of work is being done, it will be continued.” And life, meanwhile, goes on as usual.

This letter, in a sense, is a continuation of last year’s “letter from 500 doctors”, in which scientists addressed the President with concern about the fate of the leading scientific foundations - the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation - and also called for changes to the legislation regulating public procurement, which is completely unsuitable for realities of the scientific and educational sphere. After the letter, the situation, indeed, changed, but not at all as the scientists expected: the budget of scientific funds was noticeably cut, and the rules governing the competitions of the Federal Targeted Program "Personnel" changed for the worse.

Observing this, many cease to see any meaning in the letters: why write petitions to the king when nothing changes? If we treat the letters as petitions to the good tsar, opening his eyes to the actions of the evil boyars, then, of course, this is naive. However, collective letters can be treated differently: as an action aimed at drawing attention to certain problems not only (and perhaps not so much) of the President, but also of society. As an action that can be supplemented by articles in the mass media with a clear, reasoned statement of position, active discussions on the Internet. Then the view on the meaningfulness of this action may be different.

And regarding ineffectiveness... I remember Anastasia Kazantseva’s note “Learned Helplessness”, written after reading Dmitry Zhukov’s book “Biology of Behavior: Humoral Mechanisms” and published in the last issue of TRV. The term “learned helplessness” means this: after an animal has made several attempts to transform an unpleasant situation into a neutral one without success, it stops trying to change something. And then I’ll quote Kazantseva: “ But in many situations, the creation of learned helplessness is the most important tool for managing people. Biased grades in a bad school, conflicting orders in a bad army and unmotivated coldness (best of all - in an unpredictable combination with unmotivated praise) in a bad family pursue the same goal: to show a person that nothing depends on him, and therefore is not worth it. and try to do something. Living surrounded by people with learned helplessness can be very convenient. It’s very easy to get what you need from them .”

Does this remind you of anything in our life? It seems that our ruling bureaucracy has been very successful in developing “learned helplessness” among the citizens of the country. She has her own answer to every objectionable action: to an incorrect vote, a correct vote count; to an incorrect lawsuit - the correct, most fair and objective in the world, the Basmanny Court; to the wrong rally - the right riot police; to the wrong letter - the correct head of the housing office. The main thing is to teach citizens to patiently adapt to any insanity created by the authorities.

All this exists in the scientific sphere: we are carefully taught that the result does not matter, the main thing is that the papers are correctly executed, that, having seen the next disgrace, we need to try to integrate into it and benefit from it, that officials have the full and sovereign right to at their own discretion to manage cash flows and receive “official rent”, that imitation of activity is, at a minimum, a necessary stage.

In general, it is up to everyone to decide what is worse – to feel like a signatory of a petition to the Tsar or a diligent student of the authorities. It seems to me personally that we should not create too comfortable conditions for the ruling bureaucracy, trying to silently overcome the obstacles created by it, but rather cause it a certain discomfort in return. And the more actively the mediocrity of the actions of officials is discussed publicly, at least in connection with the next letter to the President, the more inconvenience the bureaucracy will experience. And the greater the chance that something will change for the better.

So yes, one more letter. Not again, but again.

Evgeniy Onishchenko