Answer to comments on an article on the modernization of the Russian Academy of Sciences

I got the impression that many participants in the discussion1 inattentively read my article and did not think through the technology of the actions I proposed.

For some reason, no one paid attention to the main argument, which consists in the fact that the average age of scientists of the Academy of Sciences far exceeds creative age. No one drew attention to the fact that I assume the transformation of the Academy of Sciences very costly, since the retirement of a retirement to an elderly scientist is compensated by quite high manuals and the right to work is left for scientists, connecting to projects and contracts. Liberated vacancies can be occupied by young scientists and employees.

It is necessary to revise and change the structure of institutions consisting of laboratories and departments, since it does not correspond to the market foundations of the economy and is funded by grants, subsidies and partially at the expense of budgets. The difference between a scientist working at the University and the Academic Institute is obvious. The rector of the university is continuously communicating with young people, raising them and can create a school. He always has constant work in one direction - lecture. He is engaged in science at the beginning of his career, and if the direction of work is promising, he can reduce the teaching load, gain grants and move on. At the Academic Institute, the situation is different. The continuous pursuit of the means leads him to the need to change the subject. He loses students brought up in the same direction and should start all over again if the topic of new grants does not correspond to the previous activity. In the Soviet Union, the scientist continuously developed the direction and packed up new ones gradually. This is possible only with stable budget financing and fairly high budget salaries. Of course, I assume that after a while all newly educated universities, together with former laboratories, will switch to self -government.

Universities such as NSU, Moscow State University, MIPT, Baumanov School are not included in the ten best universities in the world for one reason - an insufficient scientific assessment of scientific research. Anyone will be able to evaluate the activities of NSU if the institutions of the Novosibirsk Scientific Center are part of the university, and make sure that the highest rating criteria will be satisfied.

Scientists with the Hirsch index work much higher than the mid -ID and have publications at the highest level in the Institutes of the SB RAS. However, the average age is growing catastrophically, and many institutions are burdened with employees who have long “went out” eyes, and they are at the institute as a club, while having a minimum, but guaranteed wage. Many are no longer engaged in fundamental science, but are engaged in teaching, work for production structures or have their own implementation organizations. The work of scientists has become absolutely prestigious, and wages are ridiculously low. What can I say if the police lieutenant will have wages at the level of an academician of Russia.

I have been defending the need for the reform of the Academy of Sciences for many years. I know well the science system in the USA and has repeatedly visited the Massachusetts Institute, Stanford University, Princeton University, Rochester Corporate University General Motors, carried out large contracts with Hewlett-Packard, General Motors, Air Products. I perfectly imagine that all these are independent organizations, not state, all of them have giant volumes of money concentrated in the enduums and trustees. For example, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this fund is ten billion dollars, and at Harvard University - several tens of billions. This money is in circulation, in shares, and thus universities have additional funds. The total income of universities consists of training fees, donations, income from corporation orders, the sale of licenses, state orders and subsidies, grants of various levels. Tuition fee is not a fee from your own pocket immediately. In the United States, a system is developed similar to a mortgage system. Banks give out loans for the time of study, which are returned after graduation. Students help counties, give subsidies, etc.

The system of research universities in our country is only being formed, and we can not do without budget financing. But the Ministry of Education itself has plans to further distinguish these structures in independent entities. Their weakness is in the absence of fundamental schools. The main idea of ​​my project is to combine these schools and the formation of new generations of scientists, the highest level engineers on this basis, the development of fundamental science on this basis.

I am reproached for the fact that in the nominated model of the Franco-American and other academies of sciences, I propose to preserve a certain high scholarship and the right to two assistants for academics. This proposal should, in my opinion, mitigate the resistance of all members of the Academy, especially the elderly, who have done a lot for their science, especially since 70% of academic scientists are now the main experts, as well as the leaders of the largest schools, and creative leaders.

Only the absolute lack of an idea of ​​what the Academy of Sciences is, science in general, allows hooligans such as “Ivan Dudenkov: 03/26/2011 at 1:25”, insult the academy and its members. I am grateful to everyone who responded to my article, but let's think about the final sense of the statements of all my opponents. All considerations come down to the fact that it is better not to change anything, since nothing will work out. Let's not do anything, but then we will lose the future of our country.

I can only repeat to academician A. L. Aseeva, - he made a mistake by making a discord between the leadership and the NSU team and the Presidium of the SB RAS. I remind you that the final decision on the construction of the university was made at the Board of Trustees, at which there were opponents and supporters of construction. Several deputy chairman of the SB RAS, that is, your deputies, Alexander Leonidovich, advocated continuing the construction in the same place. The meeting was also attended by the mayor of the city of Novosibirsk and the governor of the Novosibirsk region. The building of the corps was agreed with you, and the Ministry of Education allocated serious funds for the construction of the corps. The construction site for the main building of the university was planned by M. A. Lavrentiev. I consider it erroneous that you turned to the prosecutor’s office with a protest about construction without discussing this with the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. The neglect of the opinion of their colleagues and the opinion of Novosibirsk State University is unacceptable for the chairman of the SB RAS.

Regarding the hooligan comment of Ivan Dudenkov - this is slander on me, and I consider it just as slander and sue.

For S. Kutateladze:

Dear Samson Semenovich!

You know that Spencer is my favorite philosopher. I always take into account in my sentences his concept of progress. The variety of qualities does not decrease: a new fundamentally important quality in the form of research universities has appeared. The Academy of Sciences as the quality of the European level and the US level is preserved, including a new quality in the form of a mass of small scientific and scientific and technical enterprises.

Vladimir Narryakov,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

See : Vladimir Narryakov, “The Reform of the Academy of Sciences is inevitable”, the Trav-hunger No. 74 dated March 15, 2011 ( http ://trv-scieence http://trv-science.ru/2011/03/29/prozhekty-prozhekty/ )