"Sow bread, raise children ..."

Commentary on the article by Alexander Bagrov " Crisis of fundamental science and the tasks of oriented financing of scientific research "

Someone will probably reproach us with a rather bulky article, which also contains a number of interpreting statements and things that we ourselves consider clearly erroneous. Is it possible to see in its author of a bearer of some fresh concept that requires a separate discussion? Of course, one cannot fail to notice the promotion of those ideas that are now by hearing (including popular in government corridors), for example, the ideas that scientific tasks should set the power itself, which is aware of its special responsibility to the people and has analytical information that is absent in the public domain. Much "rushes in the air." Much of what has been expressed is usually only implied, and officials do not talk about this in an open text (for example, that there are simply not interesting scientific directions and they should not be financed at all). The attempt is clearly visible to spread the system of relations between the authorities and science of the Soviet period for the present time, but at the same time the “philosophical” part of Alexander Bagrov, called to justify all this, seems to us rather weak and ambiguous, and the discontent with fundamental science and the “durable” of colleagues is still quite unexpected for the doctor of physical. Sciences from the Institute of Astronomy.

The role of the Academy of Sciences, which, on the one hand, is awarded to praise for past acts, and on the other, does not find a certain place in the latest conditions - except as a kind of double of the Ministry of Science, who carefully implementing the decisions of higher scientific directions with the abandonment of their own experts, is completely not defined in this “concept”.

What the authorities know about the needs of science, what does in this direction, whom he welcomes and whom he promotes, we know. It is enough to recall the illiterate Viktor Petrik and the state trillions for “clean water” (and, apparently, along the way for party and private needs). This is an example of what the desire leads to when making government decisions to rely not on the results of scientific examinations, but on the opinion of a particular party leader. If we delve into history, we will recall the bacchanalia associated with the “People’s Academician” by Trofim Lysenko and his environment, which easily convinced the party that genetics is a corrupt girl of the bourgeoisie; The fate of cybernetics and many other directions that are not developed in time. And already in perestroika time, the scam of the “torsionists” Akimov, Shilov and others became known, who lowered state money literally into the toilet without any results that could not be. At all times, the military, the KGB and the Ministry of Emergencies attracted some sorcerers and psychics to their work, also spending a lot of money on this. The space program is placed by our Soviet political defects, but we recall the fate of Sergei Korolev and his colleagues. Korolev almost died in the camps, his laboratory was dispersed, and then I had to copy the FAU-2 trophy technologies to catch up. It’s not just our state men who then made the right decision on the atomic project and missiles - they were forced to make them based on the reports of scouts and the information obtained - so as not to lag behind the Western countries where their experts tried. There is no particular insight behind this - only the successfully adopted results of the enemy’s examinations. Sometimes unsuccessful, misinforming - the result of which, perhaps, ultimately became a loss in the Cold War. All this is the result of a situation when the authorities themselves take on the functions of the expert and is taken to decide which way to develop science. The success of science in the United States is largely connected with its organization (and not at all with only money), more optimal distribution of financing, an expert system, when decisions on the development of a particular direction and scientific groups are made according to the results of these examinations, and not by voluntarist methods or in consent with intelligence.

Some old dogmas are paid attention to, which are probably extremely close to the heart of the author of the article and are perceived by him as personally suffered. So, for example, three times with some intervals in the first half of the article passages pop up that science is only getting more expensive and that every new knowledge goes to us with great and great difficulty. You can see this that some such patterns, of course, have a place to be, but with careful study they still do not be so unambiguous. This thesis applies, rather, to the common myths of public consciousness, as well as the well -known statement that science over time is more and more depersonalized and that new achievements are increasingly related to the work of large and very large scientific groups, in which it is difficult to highlight the individual contribution of each individual employee. Exceptions almost more than rules. Scientific tools are not only valuable, but also cheaper, like any electronics. New household appliances and amateur tools are widespread, with the help of which you can also sometimes engage in quite serious science. The technology for the production of scientific devices is becoming more and more massly as it is demanded, mass production brings with it the necessary optimization and cheaper. Competition in this market of scientific devices also exists and contributes to - of course, in a normal unfinished society - reducing prices and improving the quality of manufacture and maintenance.

Yes, the number of people involved in science is inevitably growing, but the welfare of states is growing, the number of scientific works is increasing, and methods for assessing their level are hidden. There are new possibilities, such as the use of super -delayed distributed calculations. This is not to mention the Internet (about which the author himself speaks), which creates a fundamentally new environment for the exchange of scientific information. The openness of scientific data and international cooperation lead to the fact that in many cases it is no longer possible to build super -expensive tools or launch devices into space in order to get data for your own work - you can use strangers completely free of charge. There are areas of science, let's say mathematics or theoretical physics, where only the education and circle of communication are important (and the example of Grigory Perelman is in hearing). All the rest there can be achieved literally using a pen and notebook, the maximum - a cheap computer. Astronomers-amateur sometimes discover what professionals who have access to a huge number of devices throughout the Earth and in space, and the army of such lovers is growing all the time. The same data are used many times, which also contributes to the cost of science, an increase in the number of scientific articles and even fundamentally new results related to a particular project. Super -expensive projects like Hubbla and the Great Hadron Collider are justified both by the quantity and quality of the data obtained used in the works of scientists around the world, and the popularization of science among the widespread masses. It is the all -terrain openness, the international cooperation and the spread of scientific knowledge - the guarantee that the superpowers of the scientific project will eventually become economically justified, and will not remain in the destiny, for example, military departments and few selected specialists. All such tasks are much more efficient by scientists themselves, not officials.

The Front of Research does not narrow under the oppression of ever increasing state expenses for science, it is still expanding. The creation of fundamentally new classes of tools, such as “desktop” accelerators, leads to the fact that what used to be achieved only with the help of interstate cooperation can now be the property of individual laboratories. “Nanosatniki” - a consequence of the reduction in technology and reducing physical size - even students launch. To the cost of launches into space, perhaps, will also lead to an invasion of private companies to this market.

New knowledge often leads to the fact that further production of new knowledge is simplified. Well, the myth that fundamental science is insanely expensive costs the state more than “applied” and does nothing as a result, has always remained only a myth (although an attempt to create a fundamental science in a “scorched place” can really cost crazy money). It is expensive, as you know, there are only criminal “cuts” that are not related to science, and the optimal competitive financing of small groups can be very inexpensive and leading to great efficiency, which is shown by the practice of Western countries. All this also works in Russia, however, the development of the grant system and evaluation according to formal parameters are all the time inhibited by bureaucracy at all levels that do not want to lose control of financial flows and grant the right to vote by existing scientists. Unfortunately, the negative “trend” in this sense is also observed at the highest level: Russia as a state is more and more controlled “from above”, the system of self -government continues to be cuckthing, and it would be strange to expect that science in this sense will be an exception ...

Alexander Bagrov proposes to engage in economics and ecology properly, without spraying things “unnecessary” things. Again, the thought itself is not new and dictated, possibly with good intentions, but it is strange to hear this from the mouth of the scientist.

Economics and ecology themselves, in turn, do not do without fundamental research in related sciences, and in fact are more likely areas of practical rather than scientific activity. An ideal economic theory, which gives unambiguous advice to all market participants, in a sense nonsense. Business is a game, and if the results of this game are always predictable, then it makes no sense to play. The “theoretical model of the world economy”, capable of “forever ending with economic crises”, has not yet been built not because there are no people who want to spend sufficient means on such developments (on the contrary, such knowledge would become an ideal source of enrichment). The desire to create a unified theory of functioning of human society arose repeatedly and repeatedly ended only in the creation of a new ideology, which itself, in turn, spread under a hail of new facts, unless it was organized artificially. It is precisely the exact sciences at all times that these “purely human” areas of human activity have fresh ideas.

To live this day, not to develop unnecessary sciences ... It is clear that all this is not new, at every stage of human development such ideas arose. Do not spend more than “necessary” on all “useless”. To sow rye, to raise children ... Now again this idea is gaining popularity. However, if at every new stage there were no expenses for “unnecessary”, we would still sit in the caves. And someone wise said that for the only discovery of electricity, scientists have earned the right to engage in the eternal eyelid to do anything. Perhaps something like this will come up with ...

Maxim Borisov