Results of elections to the Russian Academy of Sciences: expert opinions

On December 23, 2011, the blog of scientific journalist Ivan Sterligov published a message “Results of the elections in the Russian Academy of Sciences: Churovshchina and nationalists appear” ( http://blogs.strf.ru/blog/182.html ), in which he noted that from the oral announcement The voting results announced at the General Meeting on December 22 by RAS Academician Nikolai Fedorovich Myasoedov indicate that some errors were made during the calculations. He also noted that “the maximum number of votes in favor in all branches were received by bearers of Slavic surnames.” We asked two members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the Counting Commission for the elections to the Academy of Sciences in 2011, to comment on some of I. Sterligov’s theses.

There was no “fucking” at the elections to the Russian Academy of Sciences

Dr. physics and mathematics Sciences, Professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Vasiliev

- Firstly, about the “crazy stuff”. The “first explanation” (they made a mistake in the calculations) does not work: during the counting process, each ballot (in which a member of the academy voted for all candidates in the corresponding nomination: academicians, corresponding member or foreign) was entered into the electronic system, while against each elected a checkmark had to appear in exactly one of three positions: for, against, or invalid; without this, the entire ballot was not accepted by the system. Consequently, the sum of the figures for all those elected in this nomination that arose in the system should have turned out to be the same. I think that the discrepancies in the amounts are explained either by Myasoedov’s poor eyesight, or by the mess when retyping the piece of paper with the results that he read out. In my opinion, such a discrepancy, visible to everyone, testifies, on the contrary, to the absence of evil intrigues: it is still much more difficult to falsify the results than to then ensure that all the publicly released figures agree.

But why the hell not print out all the results on slides and display them on the screen in parallel with Myasoedov’s speech?

It seems to me that not only and not so much the minimal information given in the certificates is incorrect. (By the way, these certificates are usually written by the candidates themselves, and higher-level organizations only check that there are no formal lies; so it is precisely real scientists who very often do not know how to present the goods face-to-face and write something very modest, without superlatives, which is unlikely can make an impression on people far from their area.) It is also not good that the results of elections by department can only be learned within a couple of hours at the General Meeting, having received a freshly printed book with these results received just the day before: accordingly, almost nothing happens meaningful discussion.

Finally, about nationalism. Yes, there were a number of ballots in which all or almost all of the “incorrect” names were crossed out. I did not see ballots in which only or almost only such names were crossed out: apparently, nationalism correlates with character traits that cause these people to cross out quite a lot in general. This time I had no idea about the percentage of such ballots. However, I remember my work (in previous years) in the counting commissions during elections in our Section of Mathematics, then I got the impression that slightly less than 10 percent voted in a distinctly anti-Semitic manner: perhaps 8 percent. Which is better than the average for our country , no matter how terrible it is to say.

“First of all, the professionalism of candidates is assessed”

Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. philologist. Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, Head. Department of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS Sergei Nikolaev

— (….) In I. Sterligov’s blog, it was suggested that one of the Academy members voted on a national basis. Do you think there are grounds for such judgments? — To be honest, I don’t like discussions on this topic at all. Because if you ask representatives of some directions, they will tell you that “everyone there is like that,” and representatives of others will say that “everyone there is like that.” This, believe me, is absolutely not true. First of all, when voting, we are always talking about the professional competence of a particular researcher. Of course, throughout the history of the Academy there have been cases when, in addition to scientific ones, various ideological and other aspects were and are involved. This happened both in the 20th century and in the 19th century. The Academy is not excluded from society, it is part of society. But as far as I can imagine, the national question was not discussed either officially (this is certainly true) or behind the scenes.

I think someone here might be imagining something. And when you have a vision, you need to be baptized, and since I am still engaged in scientific activities, I would like to avoid situations where someone is imagining something. Of course, some are chosen, others are not chosen. But if we guess for what reasons this happens, and give political, liberal, religious and other reasons, then it will be very bad. Because of this, we risk losing the scientific view on solving certain problems, and we will look for some metaphysical reasons (...) [1].

“The Academy is so conservative that nothing can be done”

Dr. shared her impressions of the RAS elections with TrV-Nauka and Polit.ru. economy Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Tatyana Ivanovna Zaslavskaya.

— How would you comment on the results of the elections to the Russian Academy of Sciences? Are you satisfied with their results?

— I’m not happy, because, in my opinion, the Department of Social Sciences concentrates a lot of different sciences and each science is represented by a very small number of people. In this case, issues in sociology are actually decided by one person, Gennady Vasilyevich Osipov, and he forms... At first he was alone, then he gradually forms his own lobby, which represents only one direction of sociological science in our country, in my opinion, far from the best, unpromising and unprincipled. Of course, I cannot be happy about this. And not so much, I would say, even specific people, I would not want to somehow humiliate them, but rather by the manual method of formation. No scientist, including an academician, has the moral right to appoint. And this is essentially an appointment, not an election.

Of course, the time of my peers has already passed, but the fact that Vladimir Aleksandrovich Yadov was not even elected as a corresponding member and his way there was closed is simply a disgrace for sociology, and now we have very bright young sociologists worthy of election to the Academy , and such manual selection is simply degeneracy.

- What should we do? I was at the General Meeting, there was not a single voice against it among people from the Department of Social Sciences, although there was some opposition on the sidelines.

— I wasn’t there, I was only on the first day. I wouldn’t speak, my age is too much for me, but one vote is against.

— Do you think it would be more correct to conduct a discussion, examination and elections?

Is there a method that would be more effective and correct for election to the Academy?

“The Academy is so conservative and such an institution that, in my opinion, nothing can be done here.”

“Public opinion is not a panacea, but without it it is impossible”

Cand. Philol. Sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, finalist of the 2011 “Enlightener” prize Irina Levontina answered questions from TrV-Nauka and Polit.ru:

— At the end of December, elections to the Academy of Sciences took place. How would you comment on their results for the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences? For other departments? Which scientists were you happy about the election of? Was there something in these results that, on the contrary, caused your irritation and rejection?

“I didn’t follow these elections at all, although I heard out of the corner of my ear that something was happening. And I just read the list of newly appointed corresponding members and academicians in our department (Department of Historical and Philological Sciences).

I'll try to describe my feelings. First of all, I was struck by the fact that I knew almost no one. Turning to the Internet, I found out that this is apparently due to the fact that the majority of those chosen are historians and archaeologists (I don’t know how the quota is determined for each science, but in this case it turned out to be so). However, I didn’t know all the philologists, which is even more strange - well, okay, there’s a lot of specialization in science.

However, one “historical” name on the list of academicians was exactly familiar to me and plunged me into deep despondency. It was Sergei Pavlovich Karpov, dean of the history department of Moscow State University. The fact is that some time ago a scandal broke out over a textbook for history students—“History of Russia. 1917-2009" (2010, 3rd edition, expanded and revised, authors - professors of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.S. Barsenkov and A.I. Vdovin), there was even a meeting of the Public Chamber.

It so happened that I wrote about this textbook [2]. This is a rather poor quality brew with a distinct Stalinist and nationalist flavor. Here is a link to the conclusion of the expert council [3]. Karpov’s role in this whole story, without going into details, is very unseemly. One way or another, this man is largely responsible for the dramatic situation that is taking place with historical education at Moscow State University [4]. Well, okay, let’s say they are elected to academicianship for something else, for their own scientific achievements. Here, of course, it’s difficult for me to judge, but his colleagues have a very low opinion of Karpov as a scientist: they even say that, being a Byzantinist, he does not know the ancient Greek language . I don't know if this is possible, but that's the reputation.

And so I think: how could such a shameful vote take place? Well, for starters, as I understand it, historians and philologists vote separately, in sections, and then simply approve each other’s decisions. Something like a non-aggression pact. Well, what about academic historians? Is it true that Karpov is considered a great scientist, or does no one simply want to quarrel with an influential person in the historical world? What do I care, I’m from another trade union - and how many active historians dare to publicly say about Karpov what they say in private conversations? And now he has been elected - and now he himself will influence which academicians will appear after the next elections. The rest is clear.

However, the “philological” surnames generally pleased me. And I was especially glad to see A. A. Gippius on the list, not only because he is my classmate and that I know him from the literary circle of the Palace of Pioneers, in which we studied together. He is truly an excellent scientist, immersed in science and far from administrative games. Gippius studies the history of the Russian language, in particular together with A.A. Zaliznyak has been studying Novgorod birch bark for many years

diplomas. This is what always fascinates me most about his work. It often happens that philologists and historians study the same monuments. Philologists - about Thomas (third palatalization, reflexes of the reduced), historians - about Erema (what can be gleaned from the monument about the events being studied). But Gippius somehow cleverly manages to talk about some cunning features of writings, and suddenly it imperceptibly follows from them that such and such a prince, it turns out, went there in such and such a year. By the way, another historian of the Russian language, V.B., also applied for the same “youth” place. Rat-ko is also an absolutely worthy candidate.

— How do you generally assess the existing mechanism of examination when electing new members of the RAS? Does it serve as an effective tool for selecting scientists who have made the most significant contributions to science?

— Answering your question, I want to start with one more disappointment. I didn’t see A.D. on the list. Shmelev, which is completely surprising to me. If there is a notable figure in the middle generation of our linguists, it is Shmelev. The point is not only that he is the author of a huge number of excellent works in various fields - from the culture of Russian speech, aspectology and lexical semantics to pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and conceptual analysis. He made enormous contributions to both theoretical and descriptive linguistics and enjoys truly great authority among his colleagues. Of course, this authority does not become less because Shmelev is still not even a corresponding member. But still. Shmelev was nominated this time, but to no avail. Colleagues did not vote for him. In my opinion, this is a vote against obviousness.

Of course I'm biased. I will not hide that A. Shmelev is my long-time friend and co-author on many works. But I am subjective in my grief, but my assessment, it seems to me, is completely objective. In any case, I think there is not a single linguist who will argue that all of Shmelev’s colleagues who have been promoted to corresponding members in recent years have made a more significant contribution to science than he has. But there are many for whom it is natural, when faced with a tricky question, to say: “I’ll have to ask Shmelev.” But I'm interested in understanding the mechanism.

As I understand it, for success in elections it is very important that there is a reputable academician who will temperamentally and convincingly promote his candidate at a meeting at the Academy. Indeed, given the current specialization and disunity, it is difficult to independently evaluate achievements in an unfamiliar area; you have to trust someone else’s opinion. And in general - maybe we are also to blame? Maybe it was necessary to carry out some kind of artillery preparation?

I don't know how the peer review system works before voting, but it seems that somehow the opinion of the scientific community is not taken into account. Now we vote for everything on Facebook. Maybe before the next elections we should try to create a page dedicated to the candidates for the branch, where we can discuss the candidates and even vote? Of course, academics are not required to take all this into account in their vote. But still, maybe someone didn’t know about Karpov? And Shmelev, perhaps, was simply presented poorly? So we would tell, we would tell everything. I don’t know, of course there will be problems here. It’s probably impossible to do it anonymously, otherwise someone will start trolling their competitors. And if under your own name, then, again, I’m afraid many will not want to get involved. But it's probably worth a try. Public opinion is not a panacea, but without it nothing is possible.

Prepared by Natalia Demina

Photo by S. Nikolaev from the website of the Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University ( http://philarts.spbu.ru/structure/sub-faculties/kafedra-slavyanskoi-filologii/persons/Nikolaev ) ; photo by T. Zaslavskaya -A. Artamonov.

1. For the full version of the comments on the elections to the Russian Academy of Sciences, see the Polit.ru website in the Science section www.polit.ru/rubric/science/

2. http://trv-science.ru/2010/08/31/my-moskovskie-studenty-a-ne-sharikovy/

3. www.hist.msu.ru/Science/DISKUS/2010/151110.pdf

4.www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/244759/humanitarnaya_katastrofa