Simulakr Support for Science

The situation with the RFFIA by his own experience is analyzed by Mikhail Rodkin, a prince. physical mat. sciences, an employee of the International Institute for the theory of Earthquakes of Earthquakes and Mathematical Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (MITP RAS), Moscow

Unfortunately, in our Fatherland in the last decade, the tendency of simulation of formally declared activities has developed exorbitantly. Such a component in the work is almost always present: inflating the cheeks and creating visibility is much easier than really working; But to the almost complete displacement of the original activity, it was usually not previously reached. The perversion on especially large sizes began with the prohibition of certain foods (as harmful to health) on purely political grounds, continued that the parliament was not a place for discussions, and reached the apogee in the roofing of criminal groups by the prosecutor's office. The convenience and simultaneous efficiency of using such methods (not only for organized crime groups, but also for the first persons of the state) is undeniable, but the consequences of their use are destructive. Below, the author would like to address the issue of simulation of the state support of fundamental science. In this case, - through the RFFI. Not because the support of science through the RFFIA is the least effective. On the contrary, this is the most effective in terms of relationships, performance/cost form of financing of Russian science (formal confirmation of this is the results of citation analysis). The article was initiated by the fact that in the RFFI recently the trends of “building the power vertical” and “proper division of resources” have recently begun. With all the ensuing consequences.

Formally, everything seems to be still. A variety of grant types is growing. These are traditional grants for small research groups, publishing projects, grants of support for the organization of various kinds of scientific events and trips to international conferences, international and regional projects, and support programs for young scientists. But to more and more, the resources of the RFFIFs go to administratively oriented projects for the development of material and technical support and fundamentally oriented projects. The specificity of such projects is that the amounts allocated for them are much larger, and only organizations or groups headed by the heads of institutions can actually be their recipients. There is, perhaps, nothing bad (except for a certain distortion of the initial meaning of the RFFIF in the sense of the way of financing science, regardless of its administrative structure). But in practice, the situation is different.

Its fundamental change is that not only the relative value of the GRANTS of the RFFIF, but even their absolute value over the past ten years have a persistent tendency to reduce. They are sharply reduced during the years of crisis, but continue to slowly dry out in fat periods. If we distract from a special way oriented grants, then the typical value of the financial projects funded by the RFFI fell from the once almost reached level of 500 thousand rubles. up to 300 and even up to 200 thousand

But the point is not only in the size of grants. Their use is increasingly furnished with such additional obstacles that it becomes a very tiring and humiliating procedure. I will start with my experience of a joint project with India (this is still a relatively good case, protected by some kind of international agreements). Initially, the provision of a fixed (equal to the Indian side) of the amount of 500 thousand rubles was declared. per year. The Indian side really all the time of the project received such an amount and could really dispose of it. But not so with us. To begin with, the amounts were cut to 350 and 320 thousand, respectively. But these cut amounts were also provided in the "greatest adversity." Formally, it is believed that the annual stage of work on the project continues from April to March. But in reality, funds entered the institute’s account at the end of June, and in November it should have already been completely reported to them. Total: the amount of financing (compared with the Indian side and the initial conditions for granting grants) has almost doubled, and the validity period of the project was also doubled. Hence a number of restrictions even on the terms of planned and necessary for the project of mutual trips to India and Russia. Indian participants in the project did not quite understand how it could be, and tended to suspect their Russian colleagues of various kinds of “sins”, which, you see, is not very pleasant.

Further - more. In the current 2011, at the beginning of July, funds for Grants of the Russian Federation were not yet received (and it is not clear when they arrived). In order to additional effective delay in this process, the new leadership of the RFFI was delayed the issue of the mandatory registration of grants at the center of information technology and systems of executive authorities of the Russian Federation until June. It was impossible to inform the heads of grants about this before? Or a delay in the transfer of money, the situation when the money is laid down in the bank for a long time, someone warms the soul (and maybe not only the soul) is preferable? And the fact that field work is breaking away from this is not important? Nevertheless, there were never such delays before (even in the “dashing 90s”). It is not clear, regulatory and improvement of the administrative-bureaucratic structure-is this for business? Or is it against business?

Further - even more. To receive money, it is required to provide the heads of grants with the final cost estimate. This means that in early June, the head of the grant must provide for tickets for tickets, living on business trips and the purchase of equipment and expenditures throughout the year of the project. Everything that does not fit into this estimate, the caring state confiscates for other urgent needs. Or maybe these amounts will go to well -deserved prizes that saved the state penny to officials?

The procedure for buying equipment is the same as possible complicated. The seller needs to issue goods before its real payment by the institute (payment should be made in fact). From my own experience I do not know the company that goes to it. In the best case, the store agrees “how” to ship the goods and provide a certificate, where the project manager is signed in “how” to receive the goods. After that, “upon receipt of goods”, the Institute of RAS pays, and only after that can the group receive a coveted computer or printer. Sometimes this happens next year. And this is not the worst option. Many trading companies refuse to provide fictitious certificates that they have already released the goods. This conflicts with the availability of goods in the warehouse and, generally speaking, punishable. In such cases, the necessary equipment has to be bought for cash, which is about 1.5 times more expensive with taxes. Given that a rare piece of paper is provided with accounting and the planned department of the institute correctly the first time, the employee will also travel between the store and the institute. Note that even with impeccable preparation of documents, the indicated procedure involves half a dozen trips (sending documents by fax is naturally prohibited). The author knows all this firsthand, GPS for work on expeditions he had to buy for cash, overpaying one and a half times. Such is the current practice, and from year to year it gets worse.

Under the current conditions, the value of obtaining a Grant of the RFFI for the collectors of researchers, of course, falls, it should be expected that the quality of the registration of applications and reports falls. The very possibility of real work on the project is gradually becoming problematic. In any case, the project manager is already deprived of a noticeable way to financially stimulate the work of the group. It would be enough for travel expenses for the purchase of current equipment and expenditure materials (so as not to overturn the thresholds of the administration with requests to allocate a pack of paper, which, you agree, does not give much pleasure, and they will not always be indicated by the indicated paper). The indicated unjustified organizational problems beat off such, even more or less effective use of RFFI grants; In any case, the acquisition of any expensive and non -standard equipment is almost impossible. It remains the option to somehow scatter the amount received from the RFFIs between the active participants in the project; And with all imputed taxes, this amount degenerates into an insignificant annual prize. Generally speaking, if desired, it will soon be difficult to prove that the work plans and working groups of 5-10 people declared in projects in most cases are really fictions, and on this basis to completely stop their financing. Perhaps such a decision would be the last nail to the coffin of Russian science.

The supporters of the protective line have a duty protective objection: it is easy to criticize, and you tell me how to do it better, but simply and inexpensive. In this case, this is even quite easy. First of all, it is necessary to raise moral responsibility for the implementation of projects (and not only through the RFFF line, but similarly to the projects of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and all other). For this, all final project reports should be available to the scientific community on the corresponding site (RFFI or another). It does not mean a brief report where, within the permitted half page, it is not clear to write quite incomprehensible, but a full report with a list of published work and other actual results of the project. As a result, it may be just ashamed to write outright linden in the reports.

As for the relatively large grants for material and technical support, it would be nice to check the use of this equipment. I will not reveal, I believe, secrets, if I say that cases are frequent when expensive equipment is amusing the pride of institutes, but it is really badly used. Perhaps such a check would stimulate steps for its better use. The scientific community (as part of the entire civil society) is quite mature in order to contribute to the improvement of climate in Russian science with one informal public opinion. Finally, I repeat repeatedly declared - the size of the grants should be sharply increased. At least to the relative level that they were in the 1990s. Grants should be such that it makes sense to compete for real small scientific groups without administrative steam locomotives. Of course, it would be extremely desirable to use an independent international examination (as is customary in almost all countries), at least for large projects.