The key figure is the head of the lab!

Reprinted from the magazine “Knowledge is Power” ( www.znanie-sila.su ) , 2002, No. 4: 60-66 .

At the end of March, at a joint closed meeting of the Presidium of the State Council, the Security Council of the Russian Federation and the Presidential Council on Science and High Technologies, chaired by President Putin, important documents were adopted that will determine the state policy in the field of science for the next ten years.

Will these documents really play their proper role? Future will tell. But at least since the late seventies, an opinion arose in the scientific community that the focus of attention and funding in fundamental science should be transferred to those who directly do this science: to the heads of laboratories and leading researchers. Since then, this opinion has existed in parallel with the official one, or even in opposition to it. At a time when the country's highest authorities are thinking about the fate of science, it seems important that this opinion be heard.

The editors will be glad to get acquainted with responses to A. Kondrashov’s article.

Lukomorye no longer exists,
The oak trees are gone...
V. Vysotsky

The recent history of natural science in our homeland is full of bitter irony. The party and government tirelessly cared about Soviet science and, under Brezhnev, for some reason even declared it a “productive force.” Perestroika began with the decision to develop science - in the spring of 1985, a meeting was held at the CPSU Central Committee to “accelerate scientific and technological progress.” Then she was supported and, finally, after the collapse of the USSR she was saved.

I believe that the time has come to go down to the next level and call for the revival of science. At least natural science, which will be the main object of my consideration.

A crisis? What crisis?

To a reader far from science, my thesis may seem unjustifiably gloomy. Indeed, numerous research institutes are still standing where they were. The Russian Academy of Sciences is regularly replenished with new members and regularly issues reports on the work done. Moreover, the shocks of recent years have hardly affected the gross scientific product: in the 80s, Soviet scientists published about 40 thousand articles a year, and now Russian scientists publish slightly less than 30 thousand (the Germans or Japanese have only 2-3 times more) . Isn't the author (a Russian citizen who has been working in the United States since 1990) a banal emigrant and spiteful critic?

A crisis

Unfortunately, this decent facade only hides a picture of desolation. The genre and length of the journal article do not allow me to provide a detailed analysis of the situation (many important information can be found on the website www.scientific.ru), so I will limit myself to only the key facts.

More than half of the articles published by Russian scientists are not cited by anyone (with the possible exception of the authors themselves). Formally speaking, approximately 3,000 (10%) of the articles published annually by Russians can be classified as good—each of them receives at least 20 citations after five years. But most of these articles are written abroad by scientists who have left Russia (permanently or temporarily), who also indicate their former address. In addition, a significant part of them involves foreign co-authors (this means that the work was partially done in the West and - usually entirely - with Western money). This is an indicator for a 3rd league country. The contribution of Russian scientists to articles published in Nature and Science (these journals publish a significant part of the most important achievements in all fields of natural science) is no higher than that of scientists from Brazil, India or South Korea.

For scientists who remain in the country, citation indices (the total number of links to all published works) above 1000 - this is a certain minimum for entering the club of heavyweights - apparently have no more than 500 people. The low level of the broad masses of scientific authorities is striking. For example, the average citation index of full members of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the department of general biology is only slightly above 100, and the average number of citations per article by these academicians is less than 3 (their record is 67). For comparison, members of the US National Academy of Sciences in a roughly similar department of population biology and evolution have an average citation index of more than 5 thousand, and the number of citations to the most important articles in “general biology” is measured in the thousands.

The situation in Russian biology that I know well (the author of these lines is a biologist) is especially sad. There are approximately 10 biologists of the first magnitude left in the country (that is, scientists worthy of being professors at Harvard) - colleagues on whose opinions this assessment is based, as if by agreement, named numbers from 5 to 15. There are about 100 strong professionals capable of heading modern laboratories ( and most of them are over 50).

It is clear that even the current sorry state of affairs is unsustainable. Advanced science in a huge country cannot exist for long, mainly due to support from abroad. This support (often completely unselfish - it is more profitable to give part of the work to Russian scientists, who are happy to receive $300 a month, than to hire employees for $3000) will prevent a complete cessation of high-level research in the coming years, but will not ensure the reproduction of scientists. The strongest university graduates will continue to leave, and in 10–15 years there won’t be anything left left. Therefore, now we must strive precisely for the revival of Russian natural science.

Who is guilty?

A detailed consideration of this age-old question would take us too far. One can recall the destruction of Moscow University by the Stolypin government in 1911, and the session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948, and the relatively recent bullying of Sakharov. There is nothing to say about the last decade - it was naive to expect anything better from the era of the collapse of the superpower. I just want to emphasize that it is not only the post-Soviet collapse that is to blame for the current situation, and we are now observing the synergistic effect of a number of events of the 20th century. One should only be surprised that there are still a small number of working scientists left in the homeland of Mendeleev, Pavlov and Friedman.

By 1991, science, like many other things in the USSR, had arrived rotten. There was no lower limit to competence. Idlers made up the majority even in central academic research institutes, not to mention industrial and provincial institutions. Out of a million Soviet scientists, 30 thousand actually worked. But there was enough money (at a minimum, of course) for them. In addition, scientists usually could not emigrate, and there were few alternative worthy occupations within the USSR.

The disappearance of Soviet power affected science in two ways: 1) there was several times less money and 2) the opportunity to leave or leave appeared. At the same time, no reforms have taken place that would in any way encourage good work (RFBR grants can hardly be called serious support). As a result, negative natural selection occurred: first of all, the strongest left, leaving behind a shell of buildings and administrative structures.

Of course, the active (or trying to act) scientists who remain in Russia are no more to blame for their fate than the victims of Stalinism. The savant is a delicate plant that needs to be nurtured, watered and protected from pests. Only after this can society expect a harvest from him.

What to do?

In my opinion, the data presented above allows us to answer this question with a high degree of certainty. To some extent, my proposals repeat what many people have said previously (including President Putin). However, I assess the situation more pessimistically and therefore believe that more radical steps are necessary. Their only goal should be to create favorable conditions for those who are capable of advancing science—society simply cannot do anything else directly for it. So, what prevents the scientists remaining in Russia from working and how can these obstacles be eliminated?

Where does the billion go?

Of course, the first obstacle is lack of money. The salary of a lab manager in developed countries is usually from 3 to 10 thousand dollars a month, and in Russia it is 100 times less. The proportion in postgraduate scholarships and money for equipment is approximately the same. Since the cost of living in Russia is only 2-3 times lower, scientists usually subsist on their spouses’ salaries (if they are busy with “real work”), income from renting out apartments, translations, tutoring, or, if you’re lucky, on Western money—grants or earnings from latrine industries. It would be simply stupid to expect high returns from them.

Discussion of this disgrace is usually accompanied by calls to allocate more money to science. I believe that asking for additional money can only be done if current investments are spent efficiently. And there is no talk about this. The state allocates one billion dollars a year for science (the article “Fundamental research and promotion of scientific and technological progress” of the Russian federal budget). This means that approximately 30 thousand (a million rubles) are spent on each published scientific work (of any quality). Any Russian scientist will laugh at this figure - no one has seen such money from the state. Interestingly, in the USA the cost per article is only three times higher - about 100 thousand. A reasonable question arises: why is the salary of a scientist there not 3 times higher, but 100 times higher?

Of course, part of the “scientific billion” goes elsewhere. However, the root of the evil is that the poor but “good” state is trying to support many times more scientific workers (practically everyone who has not yet fled) than it could even under fantastically favorable circumstances (say, with doubling spending on science) , although most of them did not produce anything, do not produce and cannot produce. If the situation does not change, then any additional investments will be wasted.

What to do if there are only a billion dollars left?

Of course, a certain share of even fundamental (that is, not bringing immediate benefit) research would have to be financed by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and private capital. However, even in developed countries the state plays a major role in providing science, including applied science (at least biomedical). In Russia, where large capital is mainly occupied with the export of natural resources, and the need for modern science “on the ground” due to the backwardness of production is close to zero, this role inevitably turns out to be even greater.

Therefore, I will only talk about the government billion.

The correct approach to its distribution is obvious: it is necessary to a) establish the amount required for the maintenance of a “scientific unit”, that is, a laboratory (on average, say, $100,000 per year); b) determine the maximum number of laboratories to be financed by dividing all available money by this amount and c) select the strongest laboratories in this or a smaller number, and stop funding the rest.

Although a billion is a relatively modest amount (the budget of the US National Institutes of Health alone is more than 20 billion), it is still serious money, especially in Russia. We will assume that half a billion can be spent directly on natural science laboratories (the rest will go to other areas, space and libraries). Then it turns out that the state today can afford 5,000 well-endowed laboratories. This is not at all so bad and, unfortunately, exceeds the number of scientists working in Russia who could be strong heads of labs.

Therefore, unlike many, I do not see, in principle, a problem in who to give money to and who not. Those 1000 Russian scientists who have already proven their good level - have citation indices above 500 - must be guaranteed money for laboratories, say, for 10 years in advance, and another 2000 promising ones (if they still exist) - for 3-5 years. To identify these promising ones, one should use generally accepted criteria and mechanisms in the world, without inventing anything. The reform would have to be announced a year or two in advance, so that those who have good results, but succumb to the atmosphere of decline, have time to at least publish in journals with high impact factors (the impact factor of a journal is a measure of how attractive an article published in it is). attention of scientists all over the world) and would not be left behind.

I think we would have to fund much less than 5,000 laboratories - the country is not rich enough to encourage dullness. Accordingly, on average, more than 100,000 could be allocated to a laboratory. After this, the heads of the labs themselves must decide what to spend this money on (recruiting employees, purchasing equipment, etc.). As a result, the second, no less important category of scientists, “graduate students,” would also benefit, since competition between laboratories would arise due to strong graduate students.

Such an approach would improve the situation both in science and around it. Many pompous authorities and simple slackers would disappear from the horizon, and some 40-year-old “boys”, who, despite their achievements, were pushed around by their superiors all their lives, would suddenly become benefactor fathers. Young people would have a real opportunity not to leave. The desire of a scientist to publish where they will read would cease to be perceived as a quirk. And finally, the attitude towards scientists would change: no one would call a botanist a “nerd” who earns at least a thousand dollars a month.

Such proposals (support the few, but do well) often include the idea of ​​“prioritizing”, that is, funding only the “relevant” areas. I believe that would only be harmful. There are so few world-class scientists left in Russia that to say to any of them: “Sorry, you’re great, but your topic is not interesting to us” is an unaffordable luxury. We must save what is still possible. Attempts (cautious!) to actively influence the direction of development of science can be useful only when it is developing and not dying.

One of the reasons why the principle of funding a researcher based on the assessment of the quality of his work does not find sympathy even among many serious scientists is that it is usually promoted by his superiors. This implies that it itself will not go anywhere, since no one will be allowed to evaluate it. Of course, if you entrust the selective “distribution of elephants” to the current bosses, most of whom themselves do not meet the minimum standards, only harm will come out. Therefore, reform of science financing cannot be carried out without reform of its organization.

I'm the boss - you're a fool...

The second obstacle to Russian science is its current organizational structure. Science is done in laboratories (from one to thirty people), and the key figure in its organization should be the head of the laboratory. This is exactly the case in the USA. However, in Russia, from time immemorial, the heads of labs are commanded by many layers of superiors: the Academic Council, deputy directors for science and general affairs, the director of the institute, corresponding members, full members, members of the department's Bureau, academic secretary, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and its president. Most of these words cannot be translated not only into foreign languages, but also into Russian. The omnipotence of a hierarchy with so many levels inevitably leads to corruption and inefficiency. Directors are especially dangerous: they are appointed in some strange way, combining elements of direct primitive communal democracy and feudalism, as a result of which they have every opportunity for arbitrariness with impunity.

It is high time to protect Russian science from the harmful influence of the Russian Academy of Sciences. To do this, it is not even necessary to send the Alpha group to storm the Presidium building; it is enough to deprive academicians, who choose themselves and are irremovable, of power and the right to distribute money. If earlier the academic hierarchy at least played the role of a buffer (however, a flimsy one) between scientists and the repressive authorities, now it does not have this role either. Like all other national academies, the RAS should have (or not have) only authority.

At least two options for an administrative structure into which about a thousand well-funded laboratories could be integrated are conceivable: a small number of large research institutes or several universities. Of course, I would like the world-class scientists remaining in Russia to closely interact with students (now even at Moscow State University, at least in my native biology department, most professors are hopelessly behind the modern level of science). However, science has been separated, mainly administratively, from higher education for many decades, and I am not sure that it is reasonable to carry out two reforms at once.

In any case, the administrative vertical should be short (say, the Minister of Science - Director - Academic Council), its power should be minimally necessary (and not include the direct distribution of money), and at the top of this vertical should be the one from whom the money ultimately comes , that is, the state. The American model, based on a large number of independent universities, is, of course, better, but in the near future such universities will not become a real force in Russia.

Libraries

Finally, the third most important obstacle is the lack of libraries. Now in Russia there is not a single acceptable scientific library. Even Moscow State University employees are deprived of access to many of the most basic publications, and scientists from the provinces have nowhere to get information at all (how some of them still manage to stay afloat is a mystery to me). I note that the BEN AN USSR was a full-fledged “semi-acceptable” library (the only one in the country!); there was a poor supply of books there, but almost all magazines arrived (for example, the newsletter of the New Zealand Naturalist Society “Tuatara”).

It’s even somehow awkward to insist that Russia needs at least ten real scientific libraries - one for a large university city. The annual budget of a library, which receives a reasonable amount of everything, is approximately $10 million, and thus libraries require 10 percent of the country's scientific budget (ideally, of course, money for a library at, for example, Krasnoyarsk University should come from the regional budget).

If I were Putin, I would do this:

1) would appoint a non-old, working scientist as the Minister of Science (and only science) and give half of the “scientific billion” to his jurisdiction;

2) would order this minister to convene four state expert councils - in physics, geology, chemistry and biology. Each such council should include twenty to thirty high-class scientists not burdened with administrative posts - a third from Russia, a third of Russians working abroad, and a third of foreigners. The composition of councils should be renewed every two to three years;

3) I would instruct these councils to cut 500 million dollars into 2 thousand pieces of 250 thousand (per year!) and distribute them for a period of three to ten years to the best of the potential Russian heads of labs, entrusting them to spend this money under minimal control. As a result, there would be about 20 thousand scientists in the country with a real opportunity to work;

4) would abolish all existing science management structures and instruct the Minister of Science to create one simple structure for two thousand working laboratories;

5) with the remaining money, he would provide ten scientific libraries, and also retrain those of the 380 thousand remaining out of work scientific workers who have not yet reached retirement age.

Forecast

I believe that without the implementation of the reforms outlined above, Russian natural science will only face further degradation. Half measures are useless, and the situation is so bad that there is essentially only one way out of it. Despite this simplifying circumstance, there are several reasons why, unfortunately, nothing significant will happen in the coming years:

1) any radical reforms will now be met with hostility, since everyone is tired of change and wants stability, even if it is illusory;

2) the reforms would make the few remaining scientists the highest paid among state employees, which many will not like;

3) there are much more people who will lose from the reforms (even if only a little) than those who will benefit;

4) there is almost no social order for advanced science. The public is keenly interested in the objectivity of judging at the Olympics in Salt Lake City, but has calmly accepted the fact that Brazil and China, but not Russia, are participating in the genomic revolution. Creationism, witchcraft and astrology are popular. Russia is a democracy, and it is difficult for politicians to do things that voters do not care about;

5) finally, the authorities already have a lot of urgent problems. It is unlikely that in the near future, science reform will be included in the list of the three most important government affairs, and without this there can be no decisive action.

Therefore, the only hope for the near future seems to me to be the attraction of branches of international research institutes to Russia. This would give at least a few scientists the opportunity to work in their homeland under normal financial and organizational conditions, much better than when fulfilling foreign grants or subcontracts. Of course, this is completely insufficient.

In five years, the disappearance of fundamental science will begin to have a detrimental effect not only on the country’s long-term prospects, but also on mass higher education: there will be no one for future doctors and biology teachers to read the basics of genetics. I hope that awareness of this fact will force the authorities and society to finally carry out the necessary reforms. Otherwise, future generations of Russians will no longer have to revive science, but create it from scratch.

Alexey Kondrashov