ITEP: chronicle of the struggle for survival

The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics found itself in a difficult situation several years ago in connection with the transition to Rosatom. Then, by government decree, ITEP was merged with the Kurchatov Institute - but the situation only worsened. More than a year ago, a new director was appointed from the Kurchatov Institute, intended to “drag and not let go.” The institute staff grumbled; we covered what was happening as best we could (see TrV-Science No. 71).

Finally, in December 2011, it “broke through”: the institute’s employees made a number of open statements regarding the situation at ITEP (see TrV-Nauka No. 95). The statements were published and commented on in Moscow News, Gazeta.ru, Polit.ru, Pravda.ru and, of course, in TrV-Nauka. Soon, enthusiasts, including former and current ITEP employees and simply sympathizers, created the website saveITEP.org , and corresponding groups appeared on Facebook and VKontakte. The site received dozens of letters from scientists, and not only scientists, students and doctors of science, professors of Western universities of Russian origin (and not only Russian). An appeal to Russian politicians is being signed (at the time of writing - more than a hundred signatures). Finally, the other day a publication appeared in Nature, which contains statements from current and former ITEP employees. The ice has broken, as in all of Russia.

In any conflict, it is useful to listen to both sides. There were attempts to listen to the director of ITEP and the administration of the Kurchatov Institute. Pravda.ru scientific observer Anton Evseev tried to talk to the director of ITEP. The conversation ended at the level of the director’s assistant: “Ekaterina Antonovna (irritation is felt in her voice): No, you know, we are not giving any comments yet, because (pause) [all this] is written on the Internet" (quote from A. Evseev’s message in the savelTEP group feed on Facebook).

Ivan Sterligov, a former scientific observer for STRF.ru , tried to get a comment from the administration of the Kurchatov Institute . They also refused to comment, saying only that “the situation is being deliberately distorted.” The editors of Nature also addressed questions to both the director of ITEP and the administration of Kurchatnik - with the same result.

However, while maintaining public silence, the administration of the Kurchatov Institute seemed to have taken the first step towards the ITEP members. On January 17, the scientific and technical council of the institute was held, where parliamentarians arrived: four deputy directors of the Kurchatov Institute. The bottom line: recognition of problems and the formation of a working group to find a method for solving them. It is interesting that the director of ITEP did not say a word at this NTS.

These problems, as seen from the outside from the statements of ITEP employees, come down to the following list:

• Beggarly salaries and negligible research funding. Salaries were miserable, but now their guaranteed part has decreased.

• Draconian business travel rules and sadistic practices of their application.

• Manic regime of access to the territory of the institute, especially for foreigners.

• Inadequate list of priority topics that does not take into account the main real areas of the institute’s activities.

The working commission has met once so far. As far as we know, a solution to one of the listed problems has been announced so far: the access regime. It was promised that passes for foreigners would be issued in two days. But this will only happen in a few months. But in general, Kurchatnik’s side sticks to its line: at ITEP everything will be like ours. The main person in this whole story, M.V. Kovalchuk, did not participate in the meeting and has not shown up at all yet.

Well, no matter what, it’s progress. And it happened precisely because of wide publicity, no matter how indignant the administrators from the Kurchatov Institute were about the noise raised. It is important that public scrutiny increases.

Now the opinion of the author of this note. The conflict is much deeper than the points listed above: it is a civilizational conflict. A good institute, integrated into world science, seems to have fallen from modern European civilization into feudal despotism, which, in my opinion, the Kurchatov Institute resembles.

Andrey Rostovtsev in his note (see below) proposes a number of solutions related to changing the status of ITEP. There is another solution. The Kurchatov Institute is a completely logical formation. We just need to return it entirely to the fold of modern civilization. Naturally, the current composition of the Kurchatnik administration is incompatible with such a return. And this composition is holding on to the coattails of one person, the throne under which has begun to crack. So it's only a matter of time. But to bring this moment closer, you need to move on without relaxing.

Skeptics argue that it is difficult to count on success, since there are still few people who spoke openly, and they themselves did not present clear proposals. This is true, but if the reaction of people were immediately massive and clear, it would be a completely different country. You have to start somewhere.

Boris Stern

www.facebook.com/groups/saveITEP/

http://vk.com/save_itep

* * *

I am a first-year student at MIPT, a student of the 21st group, my base institute is ITEP. Among classmates, even from other groups, there is an opinion that ITEP is the best base at Physics and Technology. Other guys also go to workshop classes with our group. I have already realized that real world-famous scientists work at ITEP.

Unfortunately, before my eyes, events are happening that are in no way consistent with the scientific process. The security puts up all sorts of obstacles; each time you have to practically fight to break through in and out. Salaries at ITEP are already low, and the new project personally shocked me. Having already decided to write my thesis on this basis, I was very upset. It seems to me that every possible effort must be made to save the institute!

Nikita Astrakhantsev

* * *

I, Anikin Evgeniy Viktorovich, a first-year student of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, living in Moscow... would like to join the Appeal of Vladimir Safonov.

ITEP is my base department, perhaps my future place of work.

I perceive the latest events and the possible disappearance of the Institute as my personal tragedy.

The people working at ITEP are devotees of science and education, real scientists and teachers! The fact that ITEP is being destroyed is quite symptomatic. The government, which builds dummies of scientific institutes, will not be able to accept that there is not fictitious science, but real, and world-class at that. We teachers are already suffering from the terrible slow (and fast) destruction that is being imposed on one of the best education in the world. But if a teacher can be drowned in a paper-report swamp, delusional programs imposed on him, and humiliated in many other ways, then a scientist, apparently, for the same purposes, must be deprived of his laboratory, the atmosphere of scientific research, and close communication with colleagues.

Help ITEP, gentlemen, officials. At least don’t destroy it, don’t interfere. And it will count for you, maybe even in this world.

Solovyov Roman Borisovich,
teacher.

* * *

What causes such obvious intensity of the confrontation around ITEP? It seems to me that the main reason is the following. The model of the organization of science, repeatedly voiced by Kovalchuk, includes two ideas that are important to him. First, megascience must be built around mega-installations, next to which scientists will inevitably appear, like mice from dirty laundry. Secondly, the national characteristics of Russia imply a special way of development and organization of science, for which all models that work effectively in the world are not applicable.

ITEP turned out to absolutely not fit into Kovalchuk’s scheme. Firstly, ITEP’s main asset is its people. Secondly, people involved in fundamental science at ITEP are very closely integrated into international cooperation and think in standard international assessments of the results of scientific activity and the relationship between the administration of institutes and researchers.

The conflict was not difficult to predict and it took place. This is not about scientists wanting to receive two kopecks for their work, not one. A little pathetically, one can say that unexpectedly, in a rather specific example, a clash of different value systems occurred. Such a clash cannot be resolved with cosmetic measures, and the solution to the situation requires much more serious decisions. Of course, such a problem did not arise here and not now, but in the situation with ITEP it turned out to be articulated especially clearly. An attempt to “tame” ITEP for a year, trying to cut off its international ties, did not lead to anything good.

What is a possible way out of the situation? Common sense dictates that the state, as the main employer of fundamental science, should turn the advantages of ITEP to its advantage. There are two most natural structures that are built around people, not mega-installations. Firstly, these are universities. A possible natural solution could be to implement the project to create the MIT-Skolkovo University (SINT) at ITEP, but, as far as I understand, the decision to create it in Skolkovo has already been made, although the option to create its branch at ITEP is still worthy of discussion. In this case, the question of creating an intellectual atmosphere, which the ideologists of the Skolkovo project are so worried about, does not arise; it already exists.

The second, equally well-known option is the creation of an institute for fundamental research, which has proven its exceptional effectiveness in recent decades. Similar institutes have been created in recent years in a dozen countries, but there is not a single similar institute in Russia, perhaps with the exception of the Euler Institute in St. Petersburg. It is difficult to find a place more suitable in all respects for such an international institute than ITEP. In this case, ITEP's international relations would be fully realized, and the international scientific council, usual for the management of such institutes, would serve as a guarantee of the highest level of scientific work in fundamental physics, mathematics, biology and IT.

There is no easy way out of the situation, just as the goodwill necessary for a long-term rather than immediate solution to the problem is not yet visible. It seems to me that both sides understand the rather serious context of what is happening, and it is unlikely that an attempt to temporarily quell the conflict will suit at least one of them.

Andrey Rostovtsev,
dr. phys.-math. science
Head of the Laboratory of Elementary Particle Physics