Repeated open letter

Dear President!

This is my second appeal to you as the President of the country. The first was sent to your administration in the summer of 2000. That same year, this letter reached the editorial office of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and at the request of a certain Kozlov, I allowed its publication. In No. 17 of July 19, 2000, it was published under the rather unfortunate title “Science Headquarters is turning into a representative office of Moscow clans” (the title is editorial, catchy, but not in essence). In response to the letter itself, I received a banal reply from an official (his name also appeared in the current composition of your administration) with very “useful” information for me, an Academy employee with 50 years of experience, about what the Academy is and that its history dates back to Peter himself and so on.

In fact, over these years I consider the state of the Academy and the possibilities of its reform as even more catastrophic. Immorality as an indispensable parameter of the environment of existence of scientists takes on a defiantly frank character. It is impossible to combine the highly moral procedure of searching for the truth, preparing young people for this vital feat with the recognition of the reigning immorality. Opponents of the proposed reforms talk about its destructive implications for young people. My experience suggests that the growth of young scientists (and not just young people in science) requires not just an efficient team, but also an adequate reaction from society to any manifestations of immoral behavior of leaders. There is no need to look for it, it is everywhere. For example, even in those years of my letter to you, the current president of the Academy, Osipov, acquired 350 acres of land in Barvikha at 55 thousand dollars per hundred (!), developed this plot and built a mansion, attracting the Finnish company Honka. Where do these millions, incredible for a Russian professor, even an academician, come from? I know many examples similar to this. Upon leaving his post, he receives an order of merit from your hands. Which ones, I wonder?

Do you remember your speech in 2010 at the general meeting at Moscow State University? I heard it in full on television. Destructive but fair criticism. Scene in the Presidium during your speech: Vice President Laverov passes a note to Osipov. He asks to speak. As an argument in defense of the merits of the Academy, he cites the example of the Kola Science Center, which they (the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, therefore) supported for many years. “And finally, they bring $200 billion into the country’s treasury by opening a platinum deposit” (I quote from memory). Neither the home country nor investors are in a hurry to turn these mythical reserves into real dollars, although thanks to the press release of information about feasibility studies, about the construction of a road and a factory and similar information, the shares have skyrocketed. They asked the State Prize laureate, Academician Mitrofanov (you pinned this badge on him) why the Motherland is in no hurry to take platinum, he replied that only Putin is interfering. What's it like?

I have known many academicians for years who have not carried out scientific work for decades, but occupy key positions in deciding the fate of individual research teams and scientists, entire areas and schools, and in the distribution of financial flows. Academicians have turned from beacons of the scientific movement into beacons: scientists with experience in the Russian Academy know that often the intersection of a new idea with the interests of academicians closes the latter. And it’s better not to meet with such a “buoy”. I know this from myself. Thus, Nobel laureate Ilya Prigozhin at the end of the last century turned to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research with a recommendation to support our direction as the leading one in the world. All our attempts to obtain this financial support from the Russian budget were unsuccessful. Denying ourselves and our families in many ways, we still managed to write and publish our book “Self-Organization of Mineral Systems,” which became a scientific bestseller both in Russia and in Europe. “Not timely, although relevant” - the opinion of the recent vice-president of the Russian Academy of Sciences N. Laverov.

The publication of the above-mentioned article (i.e., my letter from 13 years ago) caused a stormy, hysterical reaction in the leadership of the Academy. As one of the Kola academicians reported, Vice-President Mesyats called me a mu...k (“Who is this mu...k?” he asked).

Despite the fact that I was the only one at the institute who, according to the results of the certification, qualified for the position of chief researcher, and there are several of them at the institute, they offered me in a threatening manner (“if you don’t agree, we’ll kick you out”) to switch to a part-time position. Then I finished the book and did not get distracted by the fight with Academician Mitrofanov.

I am closely monitoring the government’s reaction to the Academy reform. Recently, Prime Minister Medvedev said that the problems of the Academy are its internal matter. Either he doesn’t know the true state of affairs, or he doesn’t know a way out of the deadlock, or even worse, he doesn’t want to get into it, knowing both. I am sure, even convinced, that there is no solution to the problem within the Russian Academy itself. You don't even have to try to find it. If the Academy is “sovereign”, then the decision is yours. The ball is in your field. And no diplomatic passes will solve this (like “we need to find a figure for the new president of the Academy, we don’t need to quarrel with academicians, we don’t need to encroach on traditions”). Solitaire in the style of modern managers, “effective managers.”

Yes, the Academy has its own charter, but this Charter does not prevent it from living on treasury money. Any joint-stock company has a charter. For your money and within the law, you are free. But today's Academy reminds of itself, its Charter, and traditions, having guaranteed budgetary support and paying off with formal achievements. And at the same time, she does not risk anything, since the leadership of the Academy has never had to answer for chronic infertility in the foreseeable time. All the noise, the scandal, the mobilization of the public who have not read the draft itself, the attempts to point the finger at the authors of the text, and the use of the administrative resources of academicians convince us that two groups of scientists are against the reforms. These are actually academicians with their indisputable rights and indulgences and scientifically equipped idlers with their guaranteed, albeit rather conditional, well-being. The voices of the former modulate the topic of eliminating independence in the distribution of funding for priorities and their leaders, the latter are more concerned about tactical issues: there is still no reliable tool for an objective assessment of the scientific and economic efficiency of the Academy.

13 years have passed since my letter to the President. And then the same rabid criticism that is addressed to the authorities was addressed to me (the authorities did not have time to indicate their intentions to reform science), Russian science continues to move towards its collapse, led by academic appointees.

About the Charter of the Academy. According to him, only academicians are the Academy. I, a Russian professor with more than 50 years of experience in the Academy of Sciences, am, in fact, not a member of the Academy, but a hired employee of these characters who have long lost their influence on the scientific process. And I have no opportunity to change this situation. But I would like to do it. But can I consider this appeal to you such an attempt? I think yes.