Where are we?

Full text of the article (doc)

How are things with science in Russia?

Find the answer to the question of how things are with science in Russia or, for example, in the Kingdom of Tong, just never more than ever, just look into the bottomless databases of Web of Science or Scopus. There is everything. And if your institute or office still does not have access to paid bases, the Spanish site SJR (Scimagojr.com) will come to the rescue - there are freely updated and the variety of data on the science of magazines and countries of the world are constantly updated. The databases with the language of numbers and graphs will tell you that the publication activity of Russia has been changing slightly for a half decades, while many countries, “in which rapid economic and scientific and technical development, demonstrate accelerated ... the increase in the number of publications in scientific journals” [1], including during the economic crisis [2].

However, the absolute number of scientific publications does not fully reflect the “scientific situation” in the country, since it greatly depends on the number of people inhabiting it. It seems that it is relative indicators - the number of scientific articles per year per capita (Articles Per Capita, APC ) and the annual change in this parameter (also in terms of per capita,  APC ) - most precisely correspond to the intuitive idea of ​​how “saturated with science” (or corresponds to the “African” level with primitive economy). Let's see where Russia will be on the scientific map of the world, if you choose relative coordinates as a parallels and meridians.

The analysis was performed using the SJR website, which, in turn, uses the Scopus base. Data for 190 countries with a population of more than 100 thousand people were taken. Information about the population and other "unscientific" parameters kindly provided the site CIA - The World Factbook. The dwarf countries (except Liechtenstein and Monaco) are excluded from the analysis, since the data for such countries are very susceptible to random fluctuations.

The starry sky of science

Personally, the diagram in the coordinates “The number of scientific articles per year per capita is an increase in the number of articles per year per capita - the absolute number of publications” (Fig. 1) resembles the famous Herzshprung -Russell diagram, and like a diagram of the evolution of stars, it can be used to analyze the evolution of science in the world. The “main sequence” of countries stands out on the diagram for which the relative number of APC publications and the relative annual increase  APC are approximately proportional. From mathematics it is known that this ratio characterizes the exponential growth of the variable, in this case, publication activity. The “main sequence” includes the vast majority of the countries of the world (about 170). 18 countries fall out of this community and form a separate group in which the APC is a noticeable value, but the annual increase  APC is close to zero or negative. Several countries are located so close to zero in both coordinates that they are difficult to attribute to the first or second groups.

In addition to relative coordinates, the “scientific luminosity” of states is important, that is, the absolute number of publications. Finally, the conditional colors of the circles correspond to the groups of countries by geographical and/or economic signs (see signature to the drawing).

So what can be seen in the diagram? First of all, two scientific supergiants are striking in the eye - the USA and China. A third of all world publications fall on these two countries. And five of the USA, China, Great Britain, Germany and Japan have been giving half. Finally, 31 countries in total gives out 90% of world scientific publications to the mountain, and Russia lurked in the very middle of this “list 31”, in 16th place.

As for the system of relative coordinates, almost all countries are quite confidently grouped in two large clusters, which can be conditionally designated as countries with developed and developing science. In the "developed" countries with APC  104 = 20  10 and  APC  104 = 1.5  1.0, all Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand (no wonder) fell; Southeast Asia countries-Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea; And also the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia and (who would have thought!) Estonia. Three states stand apart: Switzerland with the maximum specific number of 40 articles per 10 thousand people, Iceland with the maximum annual increase  APC  104 = 3.3 articles per 10 thousand people, and - unexpectedly - Japan, which with total large sizes has a very low increase  APC  104 = 0.1. In total, there are 33 countries in a developed cluster.

Much lower and to the left we find a cluster of “scientific-developing countries” with APC  104 = 2.5  2.5 and  APC  104 = 0.25  0.25. The average relative coordinates of the countries of this cluster are 6–8 times lower than the cluster of “scientifically developed countries”. 139 countries are grouped here, including China, which, with rather modest relative coordinates, is knocked out into the leaders due to huge sizes. Half of the scientific products of the left cluster in 2010 came to China, while the remaining 138 countries in total (including all countries of Africa, Latin America, as well as India, Turkey and Iran) hardly “scrape” for the second half.

The right “developed” cluster is approximately described by the linear equation of the trend  APC = 0.046  APC , while the left “developing” has a trend  APC = 0.11  APC (Fig. 1). That is, developing countries really develop a little faster - catch up. The totality of both trends can be called the "main scientific sequence" of the countries of the world. However, there is another group of countries located near the abscissa axis, with very small or negative growths  APC and with the equation of the trend  APC = 0.009  APC . Alas, Russia is located there.

The relative annual growth of publications per capita  APC in Russia is only 0.013 articles per 10 thousand people and is stable at this level for at least 15 years. This is 20 times less than on average for the “developing cluster” and 100 times less countries with “developed science”. In this parameter, we are close to fraternal Ukraine, but also to Venezuela, Bangladesh and Burkina-Faso. Yes, a half-forgotten expression about the fact that Russia is a upper volt with missiles, alas, finds a new confirmation. There is a weak consolation that there are countries where things are even worse. Of our good friends, this is the Republic of Belarus, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan. They, as well as in North Korea, Eritrea, Namibia, Guinea-Bisau, Mauritania and several completely exotic countries  APC <0. But if the mention of the latter causes only a surprise that some science exists there, then our scientific brothers in the CIS, because the USSR Academy of Sciences of Sciences was blocked from a cozy nest. And where they landed.

In the starry sky of science, Russia is still noticeable, but this is clearly a country from the second echelon. Our nearest neighbors both in the gross number of articles and in the scientific saturation of society are Iran, Türkiye, and Brazil. So what prevents us from being among the first?

What is bothering us?

We will choose those countries that were able to support science in difficult conditions. These are and can serve as an illustration of the famous thesis: "Whoever wants is looking for opportunities and who does not want is the reason." Iraq. The dictatorship, the occupation by a foreign army, the most severe civil war plus still rich oil fields - sit on a pipe and count the grandmothers. If they don't kill. And suddenly - science. SCOPUS gives 99 articles for Iraq in 2001 and already 724 - in 2010. Yes, there are few articles, but they are. This is the level of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Most importantly, there is seven times growth in 10 years. It is curious to look more closely at what kind of opus it is, who writes them and where. It turns out that universities exist in Baghdad and some other cities of Iraq. And in them Iraqi scientists are engaged in research activities quite at the world level. Many are in collaboration with colleagues from Western countries, far from all articles, the Iraqi author is in the first place. Many, apparently, postdles at Western universities, but put Iraqi affiliation. Scientific fields - medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, then everywhere. The most cited article with Iraqi affiliation for 2011 - “Electron Dynamics and Plasma Jet Formation in a Helium Atmosphere Dielectric Barrier Dischare Jet” - was published in September in Appl. PHYS. Lett. (IF = 3.84) and has already collected 6 citation.

The very thought of science in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Serbia seems unnatural. The first is associated with oil and sheikhs, the second - with a bloody civil war and difficult survival. But science is there - moreover, publication activity is growing rapidly. In Serbia, it is generally a tremendous growth, you can’t say differently: from 66 articles in 2001 to 4843 in 2010. Data on the relative increase in science in some “problematic” or “exotic” countries are shown in Fig. 2.

Thus, the occupation and war with a large number of victims (Iraq), confrontation with almost the rest of the world (Iran), the collapse of the state, civil war and foreign aggression (former Yugoslavia), huge oil reserves (Saudi Arabia, Iraq) or other raw materials (Australia, Canada), total poverty (Egypt, Nigeria), the absence of natural resources (Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Hong Kong), authoritarian regime (China) or a complete dictatorship (Libya) and even a low salary (Armenia) did not stop these countries not only take part in the world scientific race, but repeatedly increase the output of products - articles in Peer - Reviewed Journals . Even Burkina-Faso (the former upper volt) raised its relative presence in world science over 14 years more than 4 times. A worthy example to follow is Nigeria, with which recently it has become fashionable to compare Russia: the impressive growth of publications by 4.5 times in 10 years with a fairly noticeable absolute number (about 4,500 articles in 2010) and medium citation (twice as high as Russian).

What are we? And nothing. The great Russia, the heiress of superpower, has a total increase in publications for 1996-2010 only 18% and occupies in absolute terms a modest place just below the tiny Taiwan (the territory is 650 times less and the population is 15 times smaller than ours). Nearby Poland creeps close to us. That's really stability so stability!

Why, in Russia, in a calm and rather well -fed time, the publication activity of scientists is almost not growing? Most likely, there are several reasons, which has already been said about everything that can be said. The “feudal” system: the distribution of resources from above - first with its own, then worthy. The underestimation of the role of modern science: “Satisfaction of curiosity at the expense of the state” does not seem to the authorities a serious business and is perceived more like a hobby. Hence the absence in Russian science of both a real whip and a real gingerbread.

If people of high qualifications pay unjustly little, this is a signal: scientists are not needed by the country. According to a joint study of the Higher School of Economics and the Center for International Higher Education of the Boston College [3], of the 28 studied countries of the world on all continents only in Russia, the professor or scientist of the highest rank, the salary was much less than the GDP for the population in the purchasing power parity (Fig. 3). The diagram clearly shows: wherever they wanted, they found money for science.

The diagram clearly shows: wherever they wanted, money for science was found. The state can parasitize for a long time on gray -haired university professors who simply have nowhere to go. However, low salaries are able to completely block the influx into the science of youth or to produce a strong negative selection. As a result, instead of “combat -ready” units, vacancies are replaced by sluggish young men or girls engaged in family problems. So the muscles and vital organs of the former athlete are gradually replaced by connective tissue and fat. Outwardly, the shape and size do not change, but in a competition with other participants such an athlete can never be defeated.

A comparison of the former republics of the USSR also introduces some clarity - each of them went its own way. Including in science.

Baltic states. Politics: abandoning everything Soviet in favor of the “European” - in fact universal - values, fast integration into the European Union. But the economies are unstable, export of labor. Science: rapid growth of publication activity in absolute and relative calculation. Estonia in all respects entered the club of scientifically developed countries.

Central Asia. Politics: dictatorship, quick degradation to the feudal structure of societies. Raw material economies, industry degradation, labor export. Science: almost complete disappearance both in absolute and relative calculation. Much lower than the average African level. Turkmenistan, along with North Korea, Somalia, Burma and Angola, fell into the beginning of coordinates. In the foreseeable future - irrevocably.

Transcaucasia. Politics: instability, local armed conflicts. Weak economies, except for oil Azerbaijan. Modes close to dictatorship. At the same time - deep reforms and the desire for European values. Science: indicators in the middle between the Baltic states and Central Asia, but, in general, characteristic of "scientifically developing countries."

Slav brothers. Politics: a contradictory and unstable situation, the opposition of the rest of the world and the “its special path”, and recently - a rollback to Soviet samples of behavior. In the economy, the predominance of the raw material sector, a combination of a command-administrative system with elements of a market economy. Science: The general that three Slavic countries has is the State Academy of Sciences, direct heirs of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The number of articles is the average for “scientifically developing countries”, but there is no development, stagnation at the level of Soviet indicators over the past 20 years. As a result, a quick loss of presence in the rapidly developing world science.

The correlation of the country's political structure and the state of science is very clear. Simply put, which country is such a science. It is not surprising: scientific policy is one of the important elements of public administration.

Guard, everything is gone?

The margin of strength of Soviet science was really great, and it has not yet been exhausted. If you consider science separately by areas of knowledge, then a lot in Russia is not so bad. Bye.

In a number of areas of knowledge, we are still in good positions, although significant weakening takes place. Russian physics, chemistry, mathematics, science of land is still higher than the notorious 2% - Russia's share in the world population. Why, then, is the Russian share in world science (2010) only 1.5%? It turns out, due to the shaft of publications on medicine. Almost a third of world scientific articles are medicine, and here Russia is represented more than modestly.

Moreover, in some areas of science there was an increase. It is interesting that ours managed to succeed not in “traditionally our” physics or mathematics, but in the social sciences, economics, psychology and art criticism. Relative growth, although small, is observed only in these four areas of knowledge. Apparently, while some complained, others scribbled manuscripts. Once again it is worth emphasizing that we are talking about Peer-Reviewed Articles from the Scopus base.

But in the applied sciences, the fall of the relative share of Russian publications is more expressed. Material science, technology, energy and computer science - these are our leaders in a relative fall. Material science and computer science have declined more than half over the past 12 years. In the fundamental sciences, we “fell” less.

If it seems to you that things are going well, then you are a boss

And subordinates modestly silent about the problems, trying to avoid bossy anger in response to bad news caused by the short -sighted policy of the leadership. Only in infant ignorance can some decisions can explain, sometimes emanating from the very top.

So, forecast. Nothing needs to be invented - on the SJR website there is a ready -made forecast for publication activity in the world until 2018 [4]. The forecast methodology is based on simple extrapolation of existing trends for 6 years ahead. But it is interesting not just to extend the trend lines, but to compare the reality and forecast with reports and decree, calling for "strengthen, improve, increase, strengthen and direct." Некоторые примеры подобной деятельности собраны воедино на рис. 4. Данные о документах 1–3 взяты из [5], указ 4 по данным [6]. Похоже, что все эти призывы могли бы возыметь действие, только если бы Россия вдруг оказалась единственной страной на планете. Но в условиях жесткой научной конкуренции мечты об увеличении доли присутствия России в мировой науке, слабо подкрепленные материально, имеют не большее отношение к реальности, чем, например, пожелание «повысить яркость луны в 1,5 раза к 2025 году.

Декларируемое увеличение научных фондов до 25 млрд рублей вряд ли способно переломить тенденцию. Увеличение бюджета РФФИ на треть с 6,3 до 8,5 млрд рублей в 2012 году практически не повлияло на размер инициативных грантов — основного источника финансирования для реально работающих ученых. Деньги разошлись по другим конкурсам. Даже если дальнейшее увеличение бюджета РФФИ в три раза будет распределено пропорционально (во что уже не верится), это кардинально не улучшит ситуацию, а лишь законсервирует ее на нынешнем, явно недостаточном уровне. А тем временем остальной мир не будет сидеть сложа руки в ожидании, пока наши фонды подрастут.

Так что же ждет Россию на ‹каменистых тропах науки›?

Скорее всего, продолжится медленный рост абсолютного числа публикаций, но на фоне взрывного роста в остальном мире будет происходить снижение относительной доли. Научная звезда России будет постепенно клониться к горизонту, и светить всё более тускло на фоне ярких восходящих звезд. К 2018 году, к тому счастливому времени, когда научные фонды достигнут 25 млрд рублей и зарплата ученых увеличится «вдвое по сравнению со средней по промышленности», доля России в мировой научной продукции составит скромные 0,8% опубликованных работ. По абсолютному числу публикаций нас догонит бананово-лимонный Сингапур и оставят далеко позади Турция, Малайзия и даже Румыния и Польша. По-видимому, Россия сохранит заметные позиции на уровне 2–3% в традиционных областях — математике, физике, химии, науках о Земле. Если же за меру реального вклада в науку принимать число цитирований, которое для российских статей вдвое ниже среднемирового уровня, то наша доля в 2018 году составит жалкие 0,4%. Россия практически исчезнет с научной карты мира.

Можно ли переломить тенденцию? Теоретически, да. Ведь если это получилось в других странах, то должно получиться и у нас.

Для начала надо на самом деле захотеть. Спросить, наконец, реально работающих ученых: что же им нужно для успешной работы? Уверен, что они найдут правильный ответ. Поднять зарплату выше физиологического порога выживания (а порог выживания должен включать самостоятельное приобретение жилья). Всех перевести с повременного оклада на сдельщину, т. е. поставить в соответствие результаты работы и вознаграждение. Но главный способ, как получить максимальную отдачу от вложенных в науку денег, прост и давно известен. И с успехом применялся в советское время. За результаты надо спрашивать не только с ученых, но пуще всего с научного начальства. Только когда должность начальника станет «расстрельной» должностью, а не местом кормления, ситуация сдвинется с мертвой точки.

Иначе — полная Туркмения. И тогда задачу, как вернуть страну в русло научно-технического прогресса, будут решать наши далекие потомки.

Михаил Зеленский,
S.N.S. Института экспериментальной минералогии РАН (Черноголовка)

1. Е. Онищенко. Модернизация и наука, ТрВ № 50, с. 8–9, http://trv-science.ru/2010/03/30/modernizaciya-i-nauka

2. Е. Онищенко. Кризис, или разруха в головах, ТрВ № 76, с. 5–7, http://trv-science.ru/2011/04/12/krizis-ili-razruxa-v-golovax

3. http://acarem.hse.ru

4. www.scimagolab.com/blog/2012/forecasting-excercise

5. Е. Онищенко. Путин и наука: скромные обещания,www.polit.ru/article/2012/02/02/eo_vvp/

6. http://kremlin.ru/acts/15236

Комментарий Андрея Калиничева читайте здесь .