RFBR does not give rest...

The Russian Foundation for Basic Research, created in 1992, according to the prevailing opinion of scientists, is the most effective and least corrupt channel for financing science. Its share was only 6% of the citizen science budget (after 2008 it fell to 2.6%), but this 6% made a significant difference in the climate.

How does the RFFI differ from other financing systems? First of all, by the fact that, according to its principles, it has nothing to do with the administrative verticals and “verticals” that covered everything around. The funds go directly to the head of the grant, who can be (and very often is) an ordinary researcher, for example, a candidate of sciences, who is not provided with any administrative “paw.” The applicant himself formulates the topic of the project and is not obliged to coordinate the application for a grant with anyone. The decision on who to give a grant to is made by the same researchers, experts, of whom there are also a great many, and the department’s expert council, which considers intermediate cases. This principle gives the scientist independence and status. In reality, not everything is so good, but the RFBR remains the best we have in this regard.

This scheme, apparently, irritates some owners of large administrative resources: it is impossible to control financial flows, the corruption capacity is close to zero. Therefore, with depressing regularity, attempts are being made to reshape the RFBR in the spirit of the times. For example, ideas arise to cancel all this “little things” and reorient the fund towards large projects. Or, instead of a declarative principle in the formulation of project topics, define in advance supported topics, often tailored to certain people (this is partially implemented in the form of a competition of “oriented fundamental projects”). Or switch to applied research.

And here we go again!

On May 17, the RFBR Council will adopt a new charter ( http://trv-science-ru.livejournal.com/76587.html ). This is the main innovation.

The main objectives of the fund :

Was: The main goal of the Foundation is to support fundamental scientific research.

Became: The main goal of the Foundation is financial and organizational support for fundamental scientific research that contributes to the implementation of priority directions for the development of science and technology, as well as critical technologies for the strategic modernization of the economy of the Russian Federation, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.

And it completely disappeared: The principle of self-government of the Foundation lies in the right to independently choose areas of research, distribute extra-budgetary funds and approve the distribution of appropriations allocated from the federal budget among areas of science and projects on a competitive basis.

There are several more innovations regarding “ priority areas approved by the Government ,” as well as little things in the spirit of the times, such as extending the term of senior positions from 4 to 5 years and abolishing the two-term limit on their occupation.

For a sufficiently sophisticated person, everything is clear from the above amendment. For the less experienced, it is useful to “chew on” something.

Why is fundamental science needed?

The most general answer to this question was given by the first director of Fermilab, Robert Wilson , when he was asked what this expensive project had to do with increasing the country's defense capabilities. He responded, among other things: “ ...It has nothing to do with the direct defense of the country, except for making the country worthy of defense ” (see article by Zurab Silagadze and Ksenia Filipchuk in TrV-Science No. 63, http://trv-science .ru/2010/09/28/zachem-nuzhna-fundamentalnaya-nauka/ ). More specifically: fundamental science provides humanity as a whole and the nations where it successfully develops with an intellectual uplift, a “drive” without which there will be no technological achievements, an interest that recruits young people into both science and technology (“ The student is a torch, ” which must be ignited ,” it is fundamental science that ignites). With the disappearance of fundamental science, the path to degradation opens, when eventually you have to buy technologies along with people who understand how they work. Science develops according to its own internal laws, and where it develops will be determined by the work of the scientists themselves. What are called “promising directions”, as a rule, are yesterday.

What are “ Priority directions for the development of science and technology approved by the Government of the Russian Federation ”?

Here they are as they are:

• Security and counter-terrorism
• Living systems
• Nanosystems and materials industry
• Information and telecommunication systems
• Advanced weapons, military and special equipment
• Rational environmental management
• Transport, aviation and space systems
• Energy and energy saving

So, now our science must adapt to this fruit of bureaucratic squalor? Biology will somehow fit into the vague “living systems.” Part of solid state physics will hardly fit under the “industry of nanosystems and materials.” If you practice a lot in demagoguery, you can probably “pull something else by the ears.” But let's not practice demagoguery!

This absurdity must be cut to hell as a whole, without entering into bargaining on individual amendments. This is the prerogative of the members of the RFBR council, and we, mere mortals, must speak out properly in the remaining few days.

Some colleagues believe that the adoption of this charter will mean the end of the RFBR as such. Maybe it won’t - people will somehow learn to get out, not for the first time. But in any case, this will be a big step in comparing the RFBR with the surrounding landscape of the state.

Boris Stern