Translated material
MES, RAS, PR RAS, etc.
The release at the very end of June of the draft law on reforming the Russian Academy of Sciences shook up the scientific community, already agitated by the previous feverish interaction with the Ministry of Education and Science. The spring aggravation of this interaction was replaced by a feverish summer, which gave rise to a variety of rallies, standing, pickets, extended meetings and extraordinary sessions, supplemented by information messages and speeches in the media and on the Internet.
The expression “blitzkrieg” that appeared during this campaign is fully consistent with the nature of this “legal” operation, the organizers of which demonstrated a determination for lightning success. However, there was no strategic surprise in this action, taking into account the long-term interaction between the Ministry of Education and Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences, in which the Ministry almost always took a much more active position than the Russian Academy of Sciences.
On March 24, 2013, in an interview on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, D. Livanov, answering the question whether he was going to “reform or, even worse, abolish the Academy of Sciences,” said:
“Well, I have already expressed my position many times, I do not renounce it, and I believe that this form of organizing science in the 21st century is unpromising. She will not live, she is not viable. But she lives with us. And this life, it will continue for some time. Maybe for a long time, maybe for a short time. I will do what depends on me so that this situation changes...”
In response to such quite unequivocal statements, the Academy only twitched wildly in protest spasms (together with the trade union of RAS workers) or publicly took offense at the ministerial machinations. This line of behavior can hardly be called optimal. Why did the Russian Academy of Sciences, claiming to be the highest expert community, fail to adequately assess the development of events and, for example, not promptly raise the question at the state (and not just personal!) level about systemic problems generated by the presence of two “scientific” structures - the Ministry of Education and Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences? ?
Through the mouth of its authoritative representatives, the Academy rightly complains about the lack of demand for the results of its activities. At the same time, society simply does not see the scientific position and results of the work of the Russian Academy of Sciences on pressing economic, social and other issues of our modern history, which, in their consumer demand, could well surpass the “historical” research of Academician A.T. Fomenko. We can only hope that under the new President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, through joint efforts it will still be possible to solve the problem set in his program:
“The task of today is to make the Academy of Sciences a modern, effective instrument for the scientific, technical, innovative development of the country and the ongoing socio-economic transformations, an important element of civil society and, moreover, the culture of the country. It is necessary to move from a survival strategy for the Russian Academy of Sciences to a strategy for its development. The goal is the preservation and harmonious evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the interests of the state and society.”
According to the cliché circulated during the election campaign at the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Academy in recent decades has been simply engaged in “survival.” Some aspects of this “survival” related to the use of state property entrusted to the RAS have already been noted in a number of publications [1-3] and repeatedly repeated by the militant minister with increasing pressure:
“There are big problems in the use of federal property by the Russian Academy of Sciences. According to the Accounts Chamber, more than 50% of real estate is not registered in the prescribed manner as state property. These are colossal violations that create the ground for abuse” (press conference at ITAR-TASS on June 27).[4]
“More than half of the real estate is not registered at all; serious damage has been caused to land plots that were previously in the possession of the academies of sciences. A huge number of violations are recorded in the acts of the Accounts Chamber and other inspection bodies. On the other hand, some members of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and their relatives acquired elite apartments in houses built on the lands of academic institutes” (Izvestia, July 5) [5].
“The second fundamental point is the nationalization of the property of the Academy of Sciences. With this bill, the state takes full responsibility for the safety and 100% intended use of federal property, which was previously assigned to the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was used inappropriately, which, to put it simply, was squandered. But now this will be over. The state guarantees, firstly, the safety of this property, and secondly, its intended use only in the interests of the development of science and higher education” (“Echo of Moscow” July 11) [6].
There is still no clear reaction to these persistently repeated invectives, not to mention their categorical refutations, from the side of the Russian Academy of Sciences, except for the appeal to “universal” opinions and maxims that they steal everywhere, including at MISiS, where Livanov was rector, and even more so in the Ministry of Defense.
The vagueness of information about property affairs in the Russian Academy of Sciences gives rise to various, sometimes polar opposite opinions, which recently appeared, for example, in the academic community and the trade union regarding the investment project for the reconstruction of the Moscow clinics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In this case, the opinions of the majority of RAS employees differed from the position of the leadership of the PR RAS, which can be read in the newspaper “Scientific Community” (No. 4, 2013) in the article “Frozen!”
Another place where the minister deliberately and unhinderedly hits is the problem of transparency and openness in the Russian Academy of Sciences:
“Monopolization of financial and property resources, lack of transparent mechanisms for scientists to access them and control over the use of these funds.” (June 27) [4].
“We need to return to the ranks of the world's scientific leaders. To do this, it is necessary that our science lives by the same rules that they live by all over the world - openness, transparency, competitiveness, and so on.” (July 5) [5].
“Basic principles. The first is openness when making any decisions. The second is the participation of actively working scientists in making these decisions" (July 11) [6] In connection with these provisions that sound accusatory for the Academy from ministerial lips, an elementary question inevitably arises - why the problems of openness and transparency were not resolved at the RAS even during its twenty-year "survival"? Didn’t the “highest expert community” see what trump cards its opponents and ill-wishers get from this state of affairs with property and transparency? These trump cards turn out to be stronger than possible positive opinions about the Russian Academy of Sciences, based on the number of publications, citation indices and other bibliometrics.
At the same time, ministerial and even higher-ranking statements, of course, should not be taken as proven scientific truth, especially if they relate to the future. On June 27, Livanov stated:
“At the same time, there will be no disruptions in the budgeted funding and scientific work of the institutes. Scientists will not feel the changes associated with the new jurisdiction. And over time, their working conditions will improve thanks to the new control mechanisms listed above. Our priority is to improve the working conditions of every scientist.”
Such words bring to mind not only the famous statement of the “popularly elected” with a promise to lie down on the rails, but also the words of a character from a popular television series that “we won’t stab you to death.” It is also difficult to believe Livanov’s declaration above that “the state guarantees, firstly, the safety of this property, and secondly, its intended use only in the interests of the development of science and higher education.”
The actions of scientists in this “tumultuous, combative, ebullient” should be determined by their main interests, which during the rest of the summer must not only be fully understood, but also clearly formulated, including in the form of amendments to the law being adopted. Such work is now actively being carried out in the Ministry of Education and Science, RAS, PR RAS, ONR and in other structures with active discussions on the Internet and other topics. Such activity will have to continue after the adoption of the law, since life, even scientific life, will not end there.
Whatever the course of the upcoming transformations, the totality of academic institutions with their infrastructure and the RAS brand should remain invariant. It is also necessary to think about possible amendments to the Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences, because, in particular, the currently adopted management system at the Russian Academy of Sciences is hardly the only possible and optimal one.
Hot autumn is approaching.
A.A. Samokhin
1. www.rg.ru/2013/06/25/lager.html
2. www.rospres.com/corruption/12695
3. www.novayagazeta.ru/society/58992.htm
4. http://litcey.ru/pravo/66882/index.html