Academy without academicians

In the discussion on how to reform state academies, the experience of post-Soviet countries is very important. Deputy Director of the Botanical Institute named after. V.L. Komarova RAS Dmitry Geltman talks about the experience of reforming academies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The most important subject of current controversy surrounding the status of the Russian Academy of Sciences is the affiliation of scientific institutes to it. At the same time, the opposing sides agree that the RAS as a community of outstanding scientists will remain in one form or another. Is it possible to have an academy without personal membership? It turns out that it is possible. And an example is the current organization of the academies of sciences of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

In socialist Czechoslovakia there was an Academy of Sciences, built generally according to the Soviet model. Its part (quite autonomous) was the Academy of Sciences of Slovakia. It would seem that in the wake of the revolutionary changes of the 90s, these structures should certainly have been liquidated as an example of Soviet influence, and the institutions should have been transferred to universities, or even closed, as our Ministry of Science reformers propose.

However, this did not happen. Personal membership in the Academy was eliminated, mainly, as colleagues say, taking into account the “anti-patriotic position” of a number of academicians in 1968 and subsequent years. But the academies survived as self-governing systems of scientific institutes. It turned out that their scientific efficiency is noticeably higher than other forms of scientific organization. Therefore, the leadership of the Czech Republic and Slovakia did not take the path of destroying a well-functioning system for the sake of political expediency.

Thus, in the Academy of Sciences of Slovakia (I have more detailed information about it), the highest body is the assembly (“snem” in Slovak), which includes representatives of institutes elected by scientific staff. This assembly (apparently, it can also be called a general meeting) elects the executive body - the Presidium of the Academy, and seats are reserved in it for representatives of various scientific disciplines, and candidates are proposed by the institutes. The Presidium elects the President of the Academy, who is then approved by the President of the country. There is a special scientific council under the President of the Academy.

The Academy has its own line in the state budget. The main parameters for the use of funds allocated to the Academy are determined by the same assembly. The funds allocated to the institutes are enough for a basic salary and approximately 75% of infrastructure maintenance costs; the rest must be raised from the overhead costs of grants. The Academy has its own grant agency, however, as colleagues report, these grants are usually not enough to do “good science.” Of course, Slovak scientists now have access to grants from the European Union and international organizations; no one restricts them from this. The property of institutes is state property, transferred to them for use and management.

The procedure for appointing directors of institutes is as follows. First, an open competition is announced, in which everyone can participate - both citizens of the country and foreigners. All candidates are subject to a rating vote by the institution's research staff, and only candidates who receive more than 50% of the votes are subsequently considered. Then the decision is made by a special competition commission created by the Presidium of the Academy, and the director is formally appointed to the position by the Presidium.

The system adopted by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic is very similar to that described above, with the exception that the property of the institutes is transferred to their ownership and, strictly speaking, is not state-owned.

The experience of the Czech Republic and Slovakia shows that it is quite possible to build a fairly well-functioning self-governing network of scientific institutions without any settings - in the form of either a “club of scientists” or ministerial “effective managers”. Maybe we should also take this experience into account and, in any case, place more trust in the scientists themselves working in the institutes? After all, we are the Academy.

The author is grateful for consultations to an employee of the Institute of Botany of the Academy of Sciences of Slovakia, Secretary General of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy
Karol Marhold