Deburocracy?

Dear editors!

Recently, there have become fashionable talk that our science is needed to deburocatization as air. Say, instead of doing research, scientists only do what all kinds of papers write. Huge applications, to which you need to attach tens and hundreds of different certificates and documents; The endless reports of the sometimes frightening thickness - in these and similar bureaucratic pools, any possibility of work is drowning. Therefore, they say, let's remove the mountains of these papers and finally give scientists to work. Such, I repeat, go conversations, and they become more popular.

With all the determination, I must say: these are irresponsible philistine conversations, which are either from thoughtlessness or by evil intent. Because the notorious deburistization in practice means undermining authority of power, breaking the power vertical and erosion of discipline by the most do not indulge.

What, my dear colleagues, in our country the most important thing? Not even the power of Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, as many probably thought, no. The main thing is the correctly established order of things. The order in which everything is done not by any, as it is not by the wave of the left leg, but in accordance with the thoughtful prescriptions of the authorities, regulating all aspects of the multifaceted life of our society.

Judge for yourself, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Treasury and the Antimonopoly Service work not in vain, it is not for nothing that they prepare draft laws, orders, orders and circulars. Indeed, behind each piece of paper-the work of dozens of officials who thought, thought and finally figured out how to even more correctly streamline different aspects of our reality.

Say, our people, what to hide, cunning and stitched. Work on state money in your pocket. Therefore, the law on public procurement was introduced, if not stopped, then at least limiting the vacchanal of theft. Of course, this has created for us some problems even with simple, routine purchases, but what is more important - greater public benefits or the private interests of the convenience of the work of an individual scientist? The answer is obvious.

Or look at the work of the native ministry. Everyone who is not lazy scolds his lots for the fact that in the applications it is required to represent a bunch of different pieces of paper. But let's think at least for a second, have these requirements appeared in an empty place? Of course not! They appeared because state people are not ready to give state money in unknown what hands. This money can only be given in the hands of verified and certified!

After all, we will say directly, in our projects, we are inclined to promise the moon from the sky, to enter completely left -wing people there, to invent fictitious co -financing, to do anything in general in order to snatch a piece of budget cake. Therefore, reasonable officials are forced to demand confirmation of every sneezer: what the young candidate of science declared in the project exists in practice and works in this organization, and is actually young, that this organization is not a fake office, but a solid institution, etc. We ourselves, ourselves! We force officials to be strict.

It’s even scary to think about what would happen, give us the will ... Again, only the actions of officials who are continuously requiring us, do not allow us to relax and sit down. Imagine that all the papers disappeared in an instant. What would we do? You can’t drive teas all day.

Finally, it is very important that it is often a rarity and extraordinary that give a special charm to the moment. Say, one thing is sometimes to drink a bottle of good wine, and it’s quite another to drink without drying. In the latter there is no pleasure, there are only problems and problems. So the work that you do every day turns into a routine. And only in the case when science can be engaged in those rare moments when a paper shaft has subsided, you can feel the true taste of this lesson.

So what should I say directly and clearly: Deburopolization? No, thanks!

Your Ivan Ekonomov