Translated material
About termites, scientists and officials
The task of fundamental science is to obtain new knowledge about our world. The criterion of novelty is important for any scientific publication. In contrast, for example, politicians, lawyers or preachers, scientists rarely express and publish generally accepted points of view and well -known facts. It can also be difficult to write a popular science text-it confuses the need for simplified presentation of the material and listing of known truths. This is partly why successful popular science articles are now in a large shortage. It is good that the Trinity Option with its living publications reveals the door to the world of science for everyone who wants to look there.
Further provisions are obvious to most of my colleagues, but despite this, I consider it necessary to write about the important mechanism of self -organization of fundamental science. Inside our workshop, we all intuitively understand how it works, and there is even no need to use the term “stigmergy” to designate it. However, it is this side of scientific life, apparently, absolutely incomprehensible not only to people far from science, but also to officials trying to modernize Russian science.
So, the term “stigmergy” (stig-mergy) denotes a spontaneous indirect interaction between individuals, which occurs through traces or marks left by individuals in the environment, which stimulate the further activity of the same or other individuals. The actions of individual individuals mutually enhance each other with a coherent result, creating complex objects without initial planning. The concept of stigmergy was introduced in 1959 by the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse to describe the behavior of termites. The term is formed from the Greek words “Stigma” (sign) and “Ergon” (action). At the beginning of the process of building a nest, the termites are rolled into balls of the soil, they have a mummy substances and place them randomly. In those places where, as a result of random fluctuations or relief features, an increased concentration of balls is observed, the enhanced smell motivates the termites to leave new balls. The result is the concentration of insect activity in certain places and the construction of termitects there - houses, towers or even entire cities.
You can easily find the features of stigmergic interaction within the scientific environment. In the scientific community in the role of individuals (termites) are either individual scientists or collectives of co -authors. The interaction within such groups is quite intensively, and in general they can be considered as individual subjects. Individuals leave their marks (balls) in the environment in the form of publications in scientific journals. The most interesting works attract the attention of colleagues and stimulate further research activity: new works are published on the appropriate topic, which develop the results of the first works on this topic and are based on their ideas. Scientific activity is very often grouped around a relatively small number of work (Seminal Works), which bring to light new theories or important experimental facts. Thus, “houses” or “towers” are built that form the scientific landscape.
I emphasize that the initial placement of the marks - in this case, articles are quite chaotic. At the time of writing a scientific text, the authors are rarely ready to predict the further fate of their work. If it were possible, then we would publish only first -class results, immediately throwing secondary ones into the basket. However, only time separates grain from the chaff. This is confirmed by a list of publications of any outstanding scientist. Along with first -class work, which, as they say, “shot”, there are less well -known works, and even simply forgotten.
So, once again we list the key properties of the scientific environment. The first is the interaction between scientists is mainly indirect, the exchange of information occurs through publications or at scientific conferences. And in that and in another case, the most often “ripened” scientific results are presented to colleagues, and unpublished manuscripts are discussed only between co -authors. The second is the unpredictability of the appearance of publications, of which only some become epoch -making. The rest can be important methodically, pave the road for future breakthrough work or represent a second -plan. The third - the scientific environment is mainly decentralized and is not strung on any vertical (there are no termites in the colony of termites). This contributes to a healthy competition between scientific groups. Scientific authorities play an important role in the formation of a scientific landscape, but true authority is built precisely on epoch -making publications that arose as a result of the initially chaotic scientific search. Now it is difficult to imagine that the whole modern fundamental science can be successfully controlled by several great “gurus”. Specialization and separation of disciplines are noticeable, therefore it is difficult to imagine a person who can competently plan the development of even one field of knowledge as a whole. Modern science has many branches and directions that even the most erudite and outstanding scientists cannot effectively manage. Finally, the most famous scientists do not always seek to occupy high administrative posts.
I emphasize that the stigmergic mechanism of interaction and self -organization of a large number of individual researchers or their independent small groups is very characteristic of modern natural sciences abroad, but is actually completely ignored when trying to organize fundamental science in Russia. In this, the organization of our science for the worse differs from the “western” model, where the head of the research is at the head of the research, who receives funding on a competitive basis and recruits employees for specific tasks ”1. The key figure of science there is excess of the western model in a healthy competition between scientific groups. Stygmergic self-organization allows, firstly, to conduct research on a wide range of problems (to leave marks-publications everywhere where it is possible) and, secondly, not to miss the emergence of important results and quickly concentrate efforts in promising areas with a coherent result where there are a lot of tags-publications and they are of good quality.
I note that the stigmergic side of the functioning of science does not at all require a complete abandonment of centralized and hierarchical scientific structures. In the USA - a very successful scientific power - there are analogues of our ministries, for example, the Department of Energy), which oversees, in particular, research in the field of nuclear physics and particle physics. In another strongly strong country - Germany, organizations that unite many scientific institutions, for example, Max Planck and the Helmholtz society, function. Stygmergic self -organization of science finds a place for itself, within the framework of such institutions through honest competition for grants, a periodic assessment of the effectiveness of scientific institutions based on the number and quality of their publications.
The centralized and hierarchical Russian Academy of Sciences (10 departments in scientific fields, 3 regional departments and 15 regional scientific centers) is a unique scientific organization and has a powerful infrastructure and resources, which, of course, should be preserved. However, nothing prevents you from thinking about the support and cultivation of stigmergic self -organization within the Academy itself, for example, delegation of part of functions and powers from the central apparatus of the Russian Academy of Sciences to institutes.
A simple example is a recent scandal with an English -language version of the RAM site. The centralized development of the English -language version (ordered by the incomprehensible to anyone) turned into embarrassment. As a result of the automatic translator, dozens of institutes received comic English -language versions of their names. But the easiest way would be to make an English-language version of the RAS website in the form of a Wiki project. Choose a general design and provide the right to fill the pages by the institutions themselves. I am sure that working scientists could correctly submit general information about their institute in English!
A stable trend outside the wounds is trampling the stigmergic self -organization of science. New centralized and hierarchical organizations are being created. This is primarily the Russian Scientific Center “Kurchatov Institute”, which included institutions transferred from other departments4. The structure of the Skolkovo center has not yet been represented by the public, but it can also be expected to the appearance of a centralized-hierarchical construction. Of course, the idea of an imperious vertical (hierarchy) is close and understandable to officials who start such transformations and undertakings. Unlike the grant system of financing science in such organizations, the distribution of allocated funds is often carried out without taking into account the current scientific effectiveness of recipients, to their people, under the “fashionable” studies of research or under a blurry, but loudly formulated areas of work; The mentioned new scientific institutions appear without preliminary discussion in the scientific community, which is only presented by already adopted managerial decisions4.
Finally, a fresh sad example: the coming reorganization of the RFFIF with the loss of the function of financing initiative scientific projects5. Their theme was proposed by the researchers themselves and was evaluated by the forces of experts recruited by the RFF from the depths of the scientific environment. Such a stigmergic function of the fund seemed to be inadmissible luxury (embezzlement of as much as 2.6% of the civil scientific budget!), And the fund can deprive the right to “independently choose the fields of research, distribute extra-budgetary funds and approve the distribution of allocations allocated from the federal budget, according to science and projects on a competitive basis” 5 . The fund is proposed to finance only the priority areas of the development of science and technology approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The above leads to the following conclusions. The stigmergic side of the life of modern fundamental science is realized through the publication of a large number of works in many areas, their critical assessment within the scientific community and the subsequent concentration of further scientific activity in promising areas. The priorities of fundamental science quickly and dynamically change, for their proper formulation, both a fair share of intuition and the ability to critically consider fresh scientific publications are required. Perhaps, only actively working scientists themselves possess this. Therefore, such priorities cannot be set from outside - ministries, departments and even the government itself. The grant system of financing science is not devoid of disadvantages, but today it is the most effective system. Unfortunately, all this is not taken into account when developing a scientific policy in Russia.
Of course, the state has the right to choose and pay for socially significant projects and important technological areas, but this should not cancel the grant (stigmer) system of financing science - it is vital for the parallel existence of these two systems. A striking example is a successful atomic project of the USSR, on which huge funds were purposefully allocated. But it is worth remembering that the impetus for the launch of the atomic project was, firstly, the discovery in 1940 in the USSR of the spontaneous division of Uranus G.N. Fleurov and K.A. Petrzhak (in the modern language-as a result of an initiative scientific project), and secondly, an analysis of the publication activity in the division of nuclei in the journals of that time (the sudden cessation of publications-work became secret). The latter is the same analysis of the marks-publications for the formation of scientific priorities, which can be made only inside the scientific environment and which is an important part of the styling model of scientific activity.
Igor Pshenichnov,
cand. physical. sciences,
S.N.S. Institute of Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1 M. Frank-Kamenetsky: “I am surprised when talented people stay in Russia” www.inauka.ru/sciencei/article51200.html
2 A. Kondratov, key figure - excitement!
http://trv-science.ru/2010/12/07/klyuchevaya-figura-zavlab/
3 A. Samokhin, errors, errors and errors
http://trv-science.ru/2011/01/18/oshibki-oshibki-i-oshibki/
4 B. Stern, please love and complain!
http://trv-science.ru/2011/02/01/izvolte-lyubit-i-zhalovat/
5 B. Stern, RFFIRED HAVE HOME RESULT ...