Explanatory note

Director of the IPPI RAS Chl. RAS A.P. Kuleshov from the deputy. Director for Science IPPI RAS prof. M.S. Gelfand

0. If you play genres, then why not? This justifies extensive citation, mainly, of course, open letters in the Trav-hunger (OP) [1], and self-citing-articles in “Expert” (SE) (2], but not only. True, this genre does not imply epigraphs, but suitable quotes can be launched for subtitles.

1. “Dr. Bormental, statistics are a terrible thing. You, familiar with my last work, are known better than anyone else ”(M.A. Bulgakov,“ Dog heart ”). The OP indicates the absence of data and methods in the SE section. I report.

For Figure 1 (publication), the data on the wounds were searched on request (Ras Or Russ Acad Sci Or Russian Academy of Science) and Russia). At the same time, links were missed in which the institute belonging to the Russian Academy of Sciences was not indicated; In the OP, the share of such links is estimated as 30 %, which corresponds to other estimates that appeared on the Internet after the publication of the SE. Searched data on the request (University and Russia). After that, the received links were filtered with a special program, leaving only those in which these two words were one record. With manual viewing of a random sample of 100 links, the error of this procedure was estimated as not an exceeding 10 %. On the other hand, many educational institutions do not have the word “university” in the name, which leads to opposite distortions.

It should be noted that Figure 1 SE does not contradict the graphics given in the OP - it also shows the growth of the share of publications of the Russian Academy of Sciences. By the way, an attentive reader who noticed that the shares in Figure 1 surpass 100 % in total, would refuse the assumption that the naive SE authors received one share of the subtracting of another out of 100 % and therefore forgot about the scientific organizations listed in the OP.

In any case, it is clear that without an extremely labor -intensive manual recalculation, it is impossible to obtain absolutely reliable data on the number of publications. The pattern from the OP, apparently obtained in the finished form from WOS, is based on an equally imperfect procedure (according to it, the share of the wounds is even less than in the SE for any period!), And therefore it also leaves space for interpretations. However, apparently, we can assume that errors do not change over time, and since the procedure applied soon is standard, the course of curves in Figure 1 SE reliably reflects existing trends (except with the exception of the boundary effects of the last year). Of these, not only the already mentioned increase in the share of the publications of the Russian Academy of Sciences, but a significantly faster increase in the share of publications of universities. Here we can assume several effects, in particular an increase in the number of articles published in the co -authorship of academic and university scientists, as well as the number of authors indicating double affiliation. The initial high growth, apparently, is associated with a significant decrease in the publication activity of industry institutions, state scientific centers, etc. However, it is instructive that this affected the share of universities to a much greater extent than on the share of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Similar behavior of the derivative for absolute numbers was obtained during manual processing of materials of another database, Scopus, held in 2009 by the Open Economy Center: universities doubled the number of publications for the period 1996-2008. [3]. The same calculations showed an increase in the number of purely university (up to about 9 thousand) and joint (up to 3 thousand) publications with a slight decrease in purely academic (at about 13 thousand) [3]. By the way, these data, unlike those used in the SE, are shown to the abbreviated, but so far that has not disappeared the predominance of academic publications over university.

For drawings, 2-4 source source is indicated in the SE-these are statistical collections published by the highest school of the economy [4]. Ultimately, this is the data of Rosstat. Approximately the same values ​​are given by other organizations engaged in scientific statistics, for example CISN [5]. They can be treated with distrust, as any state statistics (Junk in - Junk out: we ourselves are its source and well know how careful attention we relate to all these forms), but there is no other source.

2. “Resolutely nothing of what is written there, I did not say” (M.A. Bulgakov, “Master and Margarita”). Before moving on to discussing deeper problems, I consider it necessary to make a number of clarifications.

I do not quite understand how the phrase in SE about academic gerontocracy could be attached to the respected scientists mentioned in OP. Neither Academician Apresyan nor Academician Sinai never held posts in the Russian Academy of Sciences - it is clear that it was not about them. But there is also a counter question: what is the proportion of worthy people in the current composition of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, what is the proportion of scientifically and administratively capable people and what is the intersection of these shares of all three or in pairs? One of the consequences of this gerontocratic incapacity is bureaucratic insanity: now, say, it is now required to write about the prospects for the development of all science until 2030. This is in areas where the characteristic times of radical technological changes and the emergence of fundamentally new tasks are years. Think for at least a month to think? And if you don’t think about it, ridiculous documents are obtained, on which a real, including budget, politics is built. Say, three years ago, I wrote about numerous nonsense and inconsistencies in the program of fundamental research of the Russian Academy of Sciences [6] - I did not check, but I am ready to fight about the congestion that not one of them was corrected during this time.

About grants. Indeed, “Great Soviet Science” was not built on them - it was built on the defense budget. And it is no accident that this greatness was manifested only in the “useful” areas - nuclear physics (read, bomb), space (read, rocket), mathematics (calculations of both). And, say, great Soviet biology did not work, although there were premises. About how wasteful and ineffective this system was from numerous memories, even the most pro -Soviet ones, if only to read them is more closely. Say, it was from there that the term “scree run” came, when non -fulfillment of promises is compensated by even more ringing promises [7]. Does it remind you? And nowhere in the SE it is said that grants should be the only or even the main source of scientists' salaries in permanent positions; For more details, see below.

Another “gaping plot”, an incident on the visit of directors of academic institutions to Petrik, is really banal, but there was no reaction of the academic leadership to this. Sin is not slaughtered. And, say, the “joked” vice president Aldoshin is now heading the commission to verify academic institutions; The questionnaire made by this commission is another example of a meaningless and merciless bureaucratic masterpiece. How can you make decisions, including the closure of institutions, based on the results of the commission with such a chapter, who stained himself with public lies? And there are many such “gaped plots”: say, abuse of academic and fraud with academic soil was discussed in the TRV-hunger. One of the academicians recently told me, looking from the window of the Presidium building at a chic residential complex, built on the territory of the Institute with a physical problem: “Before Peter Leonidovich is ashamed ...”.

The OP of the authors of the SE attributes the desire to gut the successfully working institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the noticeable part of the text is devoted to the description of the IPPI as an institution with which this should not be done. I agree-it doesn’t follow, and the SE specifically said: “It may be effective to transform several leading academic research institutes into master's-Asia Universities on the model of the Academic Physical and Technical University in St. Petersburg.” But the question is - are there many institutions in the Russian Academy of Sciences that can become full -fledged master's universities in at least one area? Say, in the department of nano and information technologies to which the IPPI belongs, there are still such?

3. “But, taking into account your deeply liable desire, Arkady Apollonovich, I, so be it, will expose” (M.A. Bulgakov, “Master and Margarita”). But the main problem of RAS is not that some wrong people dug in her leadership in her leadership in her leadership. The problem is that the structure of the Russian Academy of Sciences continuously gives rise to such situations, since it built into a deep and indistinguishable conflict of interests. The same organization cannot make strategic decisions on the directions that should be developed, then allocated funds for research in the framework of these areas, then fulfill these studies and then evaluate the results. The transformation of the Academy from a collection of scientists into a club of directors to a large extent is not connected with someone’s evil will, but with a falsely understood good. If the director of the institute is not presented at the Academy, the institute suffers, and therefore the director of the Academic, who does not pull to the Academy of his successor, is bad, is bad, a talented organizer, but not an outstanding scientist.

And then a decrease in scientific qualifications is aggravated in every election, and it is no longer shameful to make a correspondent of Nanobiotechnologist with about five published articles, the best of which is as much as 20 times. Or choose the governor in academics in economics. Or General of State Security - on sociology. These are the results of the latest elections; Let's see what the December will bring - there are also interesting characters among the candidates.

4. “You yourself are good,” the other answered. “Both of you are good,” Margarita said (M.A. Bulgakov, “Master and Margarita”). It should be noted, however, that the tendency to decompose is not the destiny of RAS alone. A lot was written about this in the same “Trinity version”, and recently in Nature [8] (by the way, using the case, I am corrected in the text of the letter by the editorial office: the first paragraph of the original was not said about “megagrators”, but about “megaprocts in the field of high energies physics” - this is the difference). Apparently, for balance, it was worth repeating in more detail in the SE, although there a broken word was said about “tendencies for inefficiency, opacity and corruption” at universities and the Kurchatov Institute - the only existing state research center.

The closedness of the latter, dating back to the Midmashev times, gives few opportunities to discuss possible abuse. However, by eye: the cottages of the director of Acadantorg Zhukov and the director of the Kurchatov Center Kovalchuk in the academic cerebellar near Moscow are standing each other. It is said that at the recent collegium of the Ministry of Education and Science to one of the leaders of the center (“B” to “NBIK”), they directly advised to moderate the appetites. Here is a wonderful entry from one of the scientific forums: “There is already a parallel AN structure, the Kurchatov Institute, for example. Some time ago there were diversified directions, a bunch of equipment was bought (the NBK-center is called). A completely opaque place, the bureaucraticized, and even with the long -standing traditions of secretly (here is not about transparency, this is already a matter of the openness of the scientific process and results). But, despite all this, it is easier to work there than through the Russian Academy of Sciences, and in general it happens faster. It happened. Recently there were cleaned the departments of the vegetable link. Probably the previous ones were caught by theft or transferred to warmer places. The problem turned out to be that the new ones have no Lexus yet. Previously, from external orders (equipment repair, buying reagents, for example), the top simply bitten 30 %, because they took with a margin. Now there is an order itself, but there are no supplies. Excuse me, there will be no proofs. Why did I write this, I don’t know either. ” So: there are rumors, there are pseudonymous notes on the Internet, too, but there are no “proofs”. The only thing that can be checked, without the authority of the Accounts Chamber or Prosecutor, is a decrease in publication activity, and it is evident, but the leadership of the center elegantly explains this by an increase in the share of closed work - another stylistic reminder of “great Soviet science”.

The situation with universities is more open, and it is widely discussed in the press: yes, they steal a lot and almost more senselessly transferly (for example, [9-12]). Again, in the SE, adequate management at universities, monitoring scientific effectiveness, audit of all scientific institutions (not only at all institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences), the order in which laboratories move to universities are carried out only voluntarily and, if there is an acceptable alternative, were clearly indicated as the necessary prerequisite for the reform.

The use of an administrative resource in Mon contests is a parable in a tongue. But here, in addition to their own ministerial troubles, the situation of interest conflict is reproduced, when everyone works for their institutes-and academics, leaders of the scientific and coordination councils of ministerial programs, and the authorities of Kluchanyk [13]. In general, if we needed one measure that could noticeably improve the situation in the programs of the mon, this would be a tough formal ban on combining membership in the councils of programs with the occupation of any significant posts in institutes: not higher than the excitement. Neither the director nor the deputies are free from the need to promote their own institutions. But the current feudal structure of science, where, by definition, the one who is more important does not allow decisions to be made by completely competent people, but over the academic and other authorities.

5. "" ... With every hour of delay, the danger increases ... " - Enough! Reading brought its fruits: everything was completely confused in my head, and I instantly became convinced that I do not understand anything, and above all, what, in fact, I will do: combined, uncomfortable, straight, indirect! .. ”(M.A. Bulgakov,“ Notes of a young doctor ”). With all discussions, it is useful to understand that the process of transferring fundamental science from academy to universities has been going on for a long time. Only he goes - as it was predicted [14] - randomly, unsystematic and impurities. This was said about this, the quote is given above. One of the main goals of SE was to discuss how this process can be introduced into a rational direction, what precautions and preliminary steps are necessary.

Recently, not many projects of reform of Russian science have appeared. Reasonable, and no less sharp - from the point of view of the fate of both individual groups and institutions and universities - proposals were contained in the first report of the Coordinating Council for Youth Affairs in the scientific and educational fields [15]; In a divorced form, some of them were then discovered in Strategy 2020. Prior to this, a project for creating promising research centers was published [16], which also contained quite radical, although more private proposals.

Two problems should really be discussed: the structure of science, which is ultimately supposed to be built, and how to go to it. Apparently, everyone will agree that the existing separation of fundamental science and higher education is a historical anomaly and science and education should be integrated. There are private examples of relatively successful overcoming this anomaly. Say, the situation of the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok and NSU is apparently close to the German model: the head of the group at the Institute of the Society of Max Planck is simultaneously a professor at the university. Unfortunately, as far as I know, attempts to instruct such a situation did not find understanding either in the Russian Academy of Sciences or in the Mon. The physical education system is unique, but it reduces the university to the position of Bakalavra College, which gives the basic education: the scientific work of students is done on the side, at the basic departments. From the existing closest to the SE project, apparently, the system of institutions of Moscow State University, especially NIIFHB named after A.A. Belozersky, which is the scientific base of the faculty of bioengineering and bioinformatics. However, all these are quite rare examples. In other cases, the integration of science and education is carried out in a personal union mode: an employee of the Academic Institute is working on teaching. On the other hand, strong graduate schools exist just in academic institutions, and therefore the normal chain of a professor (postdock) does not work - a graduate student - a student.

The integration of science and education in universities is also important in that it largely removes the question of what the salary is paid for (i.e. the ratio of estimated and grant financing). The professor receives a constant salary for teaching. If he conducts scientific research, then grants are spent on (a small) increase in his salary - in fact, on paying for work in the uncomplicated months, and mainly for the purchase of equipment and consumables and the salary of postdles in time positions. In the United States, the professor, in addition, has the opportunity to redeem his teaching hours from the university at the expense of Grant. In Germany, the main studies are also conducted due to grant financing. Ссылка ОП на социалистическую, в значительной степени, французскую модель с заметным числом непреподающих исследователей «на ставке» не кажется очень убедительной: во всяком случае французская биология находится en masse если не в кризисе, то в застое. Да и в России: если поднимать базовые зарплаты научных сотрудников до приемлемого уровня, то перед этим придется провести очень жесткую аттестацию. Это едва ли более мягкий выход, чем то, что предлагается, например, в СЭ.

Следует отметить, что гранты должны включать большую долю накладных расходов. Это заменяет сметное финансирование и резко повышает заинтересованность организаций в сильных группах. Фактически научная экспертиза проектов заменит в этом случае громоздкие и непрозрачные процедуры аттестации институтов и университетов.

Очевидно, что грантовая модель не может быть абсолютно универсальной: скажем, она не очень применима в математике (подозреваю, что антигрантовый пафос ОП в значительной степени связан как раз с профессиональным опытом автора). По другим, не менее очевидным причинам она не работает в больших проектах, на очень дорогих уникальных установках (астрономия, физика высоких энергий, космос и т.п.) — хотя механизм открытого компетентного обсуждения проектов здесь даже еще более необходим в силу их чрезвычайной затратности (кто знает, откуда вспорхнули мегапроекты, анонсированные этим летом [17] и в большинстве приземлившиеся в Курчатовском институте; кто входил в состав рабочей группы, которая их отбирала; как устанавливались размеры финансирования, сравнимые — для одного проекта — с финансированием всего РФФИ?). Но в любом случае в «массовых» естественнонаучных исследованиях в биологии, химии, науке о материалах, физике — не ясно, почему то, что работает во всем мире, вплоть до Латинской Америки (Аргентина, Бразилия) и Азии (Индия, Китай, Южная Корея, Сингапур), не должно сработать в России. Мы — убогие?

Как уже было сказано, основной целью СЭ было описать возможные пути перехода от существующей раздельной структуры к интегрированной. При этом была сделана попытка сделать такой переход максимально безболезненным для работающих научных групп. В частности, было сформулировано множество условий, выполнение которых требуется только лишь для начала движения в этом направлении. Практически ничего из этого не обсуждается ни в ОП, ни в других комментариях. Возникает странное ощущение, что никто из комментаторов СЭ не прочитал текст дальше первого раздела. Видимо, это вина авторов: надо было писать иначе, не задевая болевых точек в самом начале. Стоило также более жестко сформулировать проблемы университетов, которые должны быть решены: очень тяжелую и неповоротливую, даже в сравнении с академической, бюрократию, чрезмерные аудиторные нагрузки, отсутствие студенческой и аспирантской мобильности (несмотря на вроде бы внедряемую болонскую систему).

6. «»Положить нож, сказать: не знаю, что дальше делать», — так подумал я» (М.А.Булгаков, «Записки юного врача»). Существенная проблема, которую оставляют в стороне все реформаторские проекты, — это проблема актора. К сожалению, СЭ здесь не исключение: этот текст сформулирован в наивном предположении, что кто-то будет делать строго по написанному. Слабым оправданием, во всяком случае для меня, служит то, что писался этот текст летом, а опубликован был как раз во время спецоперации по пересадке голов у геральдического орла, положившей конец многим иллюзиям.

Действительно, велика опасность, что из любого проекта злонамеренными политиками и чиновниками будут выдернуты отдельные удобные пункты и проигнорировано все остальное; репутация и авторитет авторов (if any) при этом будут использованы как обоснование для принимаемых произвольных решений. Но эта опасность существует всегда. Не думаю, что разумным выходом является строгая самоцензура: не сказать ничего, что может быть произвольно процитировано или криво истолковано (на форуме scientifc.ru был предложен термин «иерархия вреда»). Думаю, что наше дело как членов научного сообщества — максимально открыто обсуждать как проблемы, так и возможные решения. Да, по многим конкретным вопросам существуют противоположные точки зрения: их надо артикулировать и аргументировать. На самом деле, по многим важным вопросам существует консенсус даже у очень разных групп в сообществе: доказательством этому стал митинг 13 октября. Полагаю, что внятное изложение как проблем и проектов, так и разногласий само по себе является полезным и, более того, необходимым элементом обсуждения как внутри научного сообщества, так и научного сообщества с обществом вообще.

Мы переживаем поганое время. Не самое ужасное, но очень противное. Можно прогнуться, утешая себя, что всё-таки занимаешься наукой; можно отгородиться и окуклиться; можно установить самому себе правила игры и стараться им следовать; можно впасть в анабиоз. Я не знаю, как правильно. Видимо: делай, что должно, и будь, что будет. Разумеется, представления о том, что должно, у каждого свои.

1. А.Кулешов. Случай так называемого вранья. ТрВ-Наука № 21 (90), 25 октября 2011, с. 6-7 ( http://trv-science.ru/2011/10/25/sluchajj-tak-nazyvaemogo-vranya/ ).

2. М.Гельфанд, Д.Ливанов. Верните действенность науке. Эксперт № 38 (771), 26 сентября — 2 октября 2011, с. 58-61 ( http://expert.ru/forum/expert-articles/17000/ ).

3. Д.В. Ливанов, частное сообщение.

4. Индикаторы науки: 2010. М.: МОН, Росстат, ГУ-ВШЭ, 2010.

5. Наука в России в цифрах: 2010. М.: ЦИСН, 2010 ( csrs.ru/statis/sc/sc2010.htm ).

6. М.Гельфанд. Мышь родила гору. ТрВ-Наука № 7, 8 июля 2008, с. 2.

7. Б.А.Осадин. Обретет ли статус отраслевая? Альманах «Восток» № 4 (18), июнь 2004 ( www.situation.ru/app/j_art_446.htm ), оригинал — Энергия № 2, 1991, с. 20-24.

8. M.Gelfand. Research funds: Rid Russian science of corruption. Nature, v. 478, no. 7369, p. 324, 19 октября 2011.

9. Е.Струкова, Е.Билибина, А.Корня. Нацпроект мешает науке. Ведомости, 6 июня 2008 ( www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/150316/ ).

10. С.Резник. ЮФУ — что происходит с университетом. Регионы России, 27 июня 2010 ( regrus.ru/content/publication/1797 ).

11. Е.Насыров. Университет миллионов. Московские новости, 30 июня 2011 ( www.mn.ru/newspaper_country/20110630/302940413.html ).

12. Е.Кузьмичев. «Тараканы» Миклшевского. Новая газета во Владивостоке, № 105, 6 октября 2011 ( www.novayagazeta-vlad.ru/105/Obrazovanie/TarakaniMiklushevskogo ).

13. И.Стерлигов. Конфликт научных интересов. Слон.ру, 26 июля 2011 ( slon.ru/business/konflikt_nauchnyh_interesov-426135.xhtml ).

14. МОНтекки из министерства и капулетти из РАН. ТрВ-Наука № 7, 8 июля 2008, с. 1.

15. Координационный совет по делам молодежи в научной и образовательной сферах при Совете при Президенте Российской Федерации по науке, технологиям и образованию. Актуальные задачи воспроизводства кадров в научно-образовательной сфере и пути их решения. Доклад Совету при Президенте РФ по науке, технологиям и образованию. Москва, 2008 ( www.youngscience.ru/files/DOCLAD2007.pdf ).

16. А.Казанский, Г.Цирлина. Что такое ЦПИ: неуклончивые ответы и открытые вопросы. Наука и технологии России, 19 января 2007 ( http://orange.strf.ru/client/news.aspx?ob_no=4296 ).

17. В.Петров. То ли еще будет… Владимиру Путину рассказали о синхрофазотроне. Российская газета № 144 (5520), 6 июля 2011.