Reform in large quotes

The TRV-hobby continues to publish the answers of the “refuseniks”-members of the Academy of Sciences, who declared their disagreement to join the new “RAS” if the law is adopted in the form in which it was introduced in the first reading [1-2]. What do academicians and members of the science who signed this statement think about the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the situation with science and education in the country now, after three months?

"Organized people of Russia are not needed"

Efim Khazanov , Dok. Fizat. sciences, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, deputy. Director of the Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, professor of the Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N.I. Lobachevsky:

- You were one of the first members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who announced your rejection of the declared reform of science, signed a statement that you would not join the new academy if the old is liquidated. How do you look at what happened now?

- I do not regret that I signed this statement. Moreover, I am proud that "I did not pass by." The July 1 club, uniting the signatories of this statement, became, along with others, one of the centers of crystallization of the protest movement of the scientific community.

- Has your point of view on reform changed?

-Firstly, I can’t name this “reform”, except in big quotes. It is generally accepted that the adopted law does not differ qualitatively from its first edition. I believe that the adoption of the law in July in its initial edition would be less evil, if only because there would be no illusion of a certain compromise. This illusion, which negatively affects science in Russia, now exists among the academic community, and in power circles, and in Russian society as a whole.

- Are you and the other 74 signatures are ready to abandon the “mandates”, or now this step would be useless?

- I am ready, but I can’t say “for all of Odessa”. As for the benefits, it all depends on the number of refusing and on the results of voting according to the charter of the new RAS, and on the charter itself. By the way, I believe that the new charter should be first accepted by the General Assembly of the Old RAS, and then the general collection of the new RAS. To date, the old charter of the old wounds is absolutely legitimum, and the only way to legitimately accept another charter is 2/3 of the vote of the general meeting, convened according to the current charter.

- What do you think about the final version of the bill signed by Putin? Do you think the tactics chosen by the fort, on the one hand, and protesting scientists, on the other, are correct?

- About the new version I already answered, and about V.E.'s tactics Fortova must say that she led to defeat. To make that this is not a defeat, but a compromise or even victory, not only strange, but also harmful - an incorrect assessment of the current situation can only damage further. The answer to another question - would lead the alternative tactics of Fortov to victory - is far from obvious. It is possible that the result would be the same. In addition, it is important to understand that in this case, the recognition of the defeat and even recognition of the erroneity of the chosen tactics does not mean recognition of Fortov’s work unsatisfactory. The forces were not equal, and whether it was possible to achieve more - it is not known. For example, I insisting that the Fortov RAS at this stage suffered a complete defeat, against his resignation from the post of President of the Academy of Sciences.

- What are you waiting for from Fano? We hear completely different opinions - from the pragmatic from the lips of academician Khokhlov that the law has been adopted, we must work, to the protest - it is necessary to protect every institute, etc. What do you consider it right to do in order to preserve the living islands of science in Russia?

- From the fano good I do not expect anything. Science (not only fundamental, but especially fundamental) should be managed by scientists. Of course, not every good scientist can be a good manager. Moreover, any administrative position inevitably tears a person from science. Often a person, even completely leaving scientific work, copes with managerial functions, because “in a past life” was an active scientist. However, without the experience of scientific work, it is impossible to manage science, and at any level - from excitement to the minister. The model is a scientist and deputy administrator work great, but the director of the administrator with a deputy for scientific work is not viable.

At least, an administrative confusion, which has already begun, is waiting for us. Officials, for example, do not know how to evaluate the results of scientific activity and ask scientists how to do it. Scientists say: “This is impossible to teach, experts are needed; Let us, scientists, will evaluate the results. ” This does not suit officials, then they are not needed at all.

And how, in principle, can an official evaluate the result? Only one method: he should have two columns of numbers: plan and fact. If in the second column all numbers are more than in the first, everything is in order. Officials insist on this not at all because they want to make the life of scientists unbearable, but simply in a different way they cannot. We see this perfectly, comparing the weight of the reports of contracts with the Mon with the weight of reports on Grants of the Russian Federation and the programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I now mean not scientific weight, but household - the number of kilograms.

I categorically against the thesis “Once the law is adopted, then we must work”, if the word “work” means “to stop fighting this law and its consequences”. From the lips of the authors of the law, this thesis sounds natural, but I, being the opponent of the law, of course, against. Resistance in various forms must be continued, bearing in mind that a key battle has been lost, but not the whole war. Our Borodino ended, our Moscow had to be burned and left to Napoleon, but the war can still end in Paris, if you do not give up, which our opponents count on.

If by the word “work” to understand “not to become a professional revolutionary and still continue to engage in scientific work”, then I agree. I did not stop doing her, although the time since July has become much less. These, of course, are the negative consequences of this law, but I believe that the continuation of protest activities will bring more benefit tomorrow than the time saved today. In addition to these purely rational considerations, there are also moral and psychological motives: so that it is not ashamed when it all ends, and if it will never end, so that it is not a shame to die.

- Meanwhile, reforms are also held in the system of scientific certification. The Higher Attestation Commission conducts a survey about whether to get away from two scientific degrees, but go to one. What do you think about the need to abandon the usual system and the transition to a single -stage one?

- I believe that the Higher Attestation Commission should in the shortest possible time to put things in order with the written off dissertations, which they write a lot about now. The most radical methods. This is a priority political task, which will allow to return the prestige of scientific degrees in Russia; And for starters, at least suspend its free fall.

The second task of the Higher Attestation Commission is technical: to establish uninterrupted certification work. The mechanism “rusted” in places, and it is necessary to lubricate it, adjust it, including taking into account the measures that will be taken to solve the first problem. Only after that can we discuss reforms such as canceling a doctoral degree; Otherwise, these reforms are just a way to distract attention from the above problems.

- How do you perceive the state policy in science and in education as a whole? What is the total traffic vector? What, in your opinion, are the main goals of the reformers?

- The total vector of movement is that the educated people of Russia are not needed. This is obvious both from a decrease in the level of education, and from the creation, more precisely, not creating, conditions for those who still received a good education. I'm not even talking about candidates and doctors of sciences (although about them too). I am talking about people who know that the earth rotates around the sun, or why it is cold in winter, and in summer it is warm.

Moreover, I will say that the “reformers”, as you call them, prefer an uneducated population to an educated one. Why? Maybe because they believe that oil will feed us forever, it may be because it is easier to manage the uneducated population, maybe because its education looks better against the general background? I don't know, ask them ....

1. A statement with a refusal to join the “new” RAS of July 1, 2013 http://polit.ru/article/2013/07/02/open_letter/

2. The answers of the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Vasiliev, the member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Joseph Herlovich, Anna Dybo, Alexandra Praskorov IAlexandra Belavina Read in the Triv-Nauk No. 140 http://trv-science.ru/2013/10/22/bystroe-naraastanie-ehntropii/ . Answers Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Vybo and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Olga Solomina, see the Trav-Nauk No. 141 http://trv-scieence.ru/2013/11/05/istina-postupka-delo-2/ and http://trv-science.ru/2013/11/05/budem-bez-konca-pisat-bumagi/

Science in Russia - like an abandoned garden

Lev Beklemyshev , Dok. physical. sciences, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, chief researcher at the Miana mathematical logic department:

- You were one of the first members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who announced your rejection of the declared reform of science, signed a statement that you would not join the new academy if the old is liquidated. How do you look at what happened now? Has your point of view of reform changed?

- I was not one of the first - to be honest, I really do not like to sign collective letters. But after voting, according to the law, in the first reading, I decided that it was impossible to swallow it all.

When discussing the topic of RAS reform, both from the general public and from the part of well -informed statesmen, two different things are often mixed: RAS as an election club of scientists and wounds as a state department, which played the role of a kind of ministry in fundamental science during the years of Soviet power. The first existed since Peter's times, the second has mainly a product of the Soviet era. (This difference, of course, is well known to readers of the Trinity Option.)

I consider the incident as an authorized defeat of this department by other state departments, which formally also entrusted with responsibility for the development of science in our country. Such or similar things and previously happened with us with other ministries, especially in a situation where the spheres of their powers were not clearly delimited. Now it has become possible because the positions of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the structure of the state over the past decades have been very weakened, and the moment of changing the leadership was convenient for the held blitzkrieg.

- What do you think about the final version of the bill signed by Putin? Do you think the tactics chosen by the fort, on the one hand, and protesting scientists, on the other, are correct?

- Fortov, obviously, did everything that he could in his situation. Protesting scientists have also done several correct things - such as the organization of the horizontal network of institutions and the implementation of the conference of scientists in August, the creation of a commission of public control over reforms in the field of science. In the long run, these all structures will be useful, they create channels for expressing the collective public opinion of scientists, which is no less important to us now than the official position of certain departments. Another thing is that the short -term effect of all these actions was small.

From the point of view of the government, the three main goals of the bill, very clearly formulated by the Minister Livanov, were achieved: the collection of academicians was separated from the management of the institutions (not only from the management of property, but, apparently, in terms of scientific leadership too), three academies were merged into one, a special body was created to which the reign brothers were transferred. Unlike the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, this body is directly subordinate to the government, the management vertical in science is finally established.

On the other hand, in comparison with the first reading from the law, the most odious points were removed regarding the “liquidation” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the automatic transfer of memberships to academicians and forces us all to write petitions for admission to the new Academy of Sciences. This all can look like a legal formality compared to a much more important issue of alienation of the property of the Russian Academy of Sciences and control over its institutions.

Nevertheless, it was this unceremonious invasion of the government and the Duma into the sphere clearly beyond their competence that prompted me to sign the letter in question. The fundamental principle of the formation of the Academy is the election of its new members to those who already consist of it. With all the shortcomings of this system-which are many and they are well known-you cannot become an academician by the decree of the parliament, in which case it will no longer be the Academy of Sciences, but something else. As a member, I highly appreciate the fact of my election by colleagues in the workshop and I cannot accept such an automatic translation into academics without taking into account their opinions. Thank God that we seemed to be saved from this. However, how and what will happen to the members of the members, the law has not yet been really prescribed.

I must say that the forced merger of the three academies in one also contradicts this principle of the formation of academies, although less seriously in their consequences. It is not clear to me why it was necessary to do this at all. However, this does not matter if the RAS becomes only a club of scientists. This club still has departments of completely different levels and numbers. They do not really influence each other's work.

- Are you and the other 74 signatures are ready to abandon the “mandates”, or now this step would be useless?

- It is stupid to protest against the transformation of the academy into a “club” by leaving it and creating another “club”. We need to go out if we really do not like something that is happening inside the Academy of Sciences, or if any actions with which we sharply disagree are performed on its behalf. So far this has not happened. We will wait for what will follow, and we always have time to slap the door, if forced to force. I say, of course, for myself, and not for all signatories.

- What are you waiting for from Fano? We hear completely different opinions - from the pragmatic from the lips of academician Khokhlov that the law has been adopted, we must work, to the protest - it is necessary to protect every institution and so on. What do you consider it right to do to preserve the living islands of science in Russia?

- The adopted law and the provision on the fan on the one hand endow the fano with very great powers, and on the other hand, many important things are not registered, a large scope has been left for interpretations. This, to put it mildly, causes big fears. In the near future, it is easy to foresee that the fan will collect information and calculate different indicators of the effectiveness of scientific organizations and individual researchers. In fact, it has already begun. Based on these indicators-and maybe some other data-the reorganization and reduction of institutions, which the relevant Fano commissions will be considered ineffective.

How specifically this will be done, how time -consuming the process of collecting all these data for scientists will be, how reasonable the criteria used will be, what will be with reduced institutions - this is where the dog is buried, and none of us know this yet. (I note in brackets that the faith of our ministry, by virtue and objectivity of formal indicators, is simply amazing. When you read their documents, it seems that they are all there under the influence of some kind of magic of numbers.)

It is bad that scientists are so far placed in conditions when they cannot reasonably influence what is happening. People who make decisions shut up their ears and communicate with us by launching from above some papers, the absurdity of which is often obvious to everyone except, probably, their creators. No, that someone from Fano or Mona would come, say, to the Institute of Steklov, would tell in detail about the plans (after all, should they have any specific plans?), Consulted on how and what to do and, perhaps, even took into account our wishes. Are they afraid of us all, or what?

As for the islands of science, I will try to do the same as now: teach, educate students, support our seminars, hold conferences. I have such activities after returning to my homeland eight years ago takes no less time than scientific work itself.

- Meanwhile, reforms are also held in the system of scientific certification. The Higher Attestation Commission conducts a survey about whether to get away from two scientific degrees, but go to one. What do you think about the need to abandon the usual system and the transition to a single -stage one?

- I do not see much sense in the transition to a single -level system. Probably, in principle, any of these two systems will exist in the country. But this is not a matter of priority importance, which means that it is better not to change anything here. The point is not how many levels the certification system has, but what measures can support the quality of the dissertations themselves. To stop the flow of “linden” in some areas, apparently, it will be easier than stopping a slow but steady process of reducing the average quality of dissertations. This trend, unfortunately, is observed in all areas of science, including mathematics. As from any meaningless action, from the abolition of doctoral degrees there will now be one harm.

- How do you perceive the state policy in science and in education as a whole? What is the total traffic vector? What, in your opinion, are the main goals of the reformers?

Someone, the widow of Academician of Ginzburg, seems to have very successfully compared the maintenance of science in the country with the garden. In order for the garden to be in good condition and bear fruit, first of all, the attention of the owner, interest in him, care and everyday work are needed. What we now have, rather, resembles a garden that the owners have forgotten about - for many years did not really water, weeds overgrown many beds along the edges, dry branches have not cut off for a long time. But the garden still lives and some plants are still growing in it.

It will not work out in one day here, it should be a long -term project that requires a patient and attentive attitude. In the conditions of our country, where the planning horizon is a maximum of three years, it is difficult to count on this. The worst that can be done is to start chopping everything under the root and hastily plant something new. Or even like that: to assess the market value of wood, cut everything and build a bathhouse at this place. Sometimes it seems to me that they follow this simple path.

Actually, this is the question. What do the reformers want: to sell everything and quickly get a small profit by plugging the current hole in the budget, or getting down to business, put a lot of money and even more work in science and try to create something in this place? I don’t know the answer, but still I continue to believe in a bright future.