Oxygen starvation

At the St. Petersburg European University, the second conference of the Russian scientific diaspora was held on December 5–6. It was optimistically called the "growth points of Russian science." Most of the sessions were devoted to the definition of “breakthrough directions” (in my memory this would be the fifth of the sixth set of priorities), and only one round table according to the plan was supposed to affect really serious questions: “new challenges, or how now to work with Russia or in Russia.” In fact, the participants said that they considered it necessary, not too consistent with the declared topic of discussions. Below are the slightly redesigned theses of my speech.

Before discussing priorities, you should take into account zero priority, which is the normalization of the political situation. To do this, you must stop fighting with neighbors, quarrel with the whole civilized world and impose sanctions. The fundamental science of definition is international, and Russian science also critically depends on Western devices, components and consumables. Already, laboratories are forced to reduce the volume of planned experiments (I recall, this was said until Black Monday, Black Tuesday and other black days of the week).

At the past and at this conference, it has been repeatedly said that "we should not delve into politics." I think this point of view is naive, if not stupid. With oxygen starvation, the brain is the first to die, and the brain suffers with most genetic disorders - simply because it is the most sensitive organ. Science is an indicator similar to the brain in the head or canary in the mine: when the country has problems, they primarily affect science. And we see exactly that. I am not a sociologist, but I see the growth of suitcase moods among young people: hope has disappeared, and it began before the annexation of Crimea, but it intensified multiplying after it.

Thus, I propose to introduce into the conference resolution a requirement to normalize the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. This is required to do this not only civilian, but also professional duty. It seems to me that the practical absence of strong, independent professional societies who are not afraid to express unpopular points of view is one of the important reasons for the prevailing difficult and political situation in the country.

As the first and only breakthrough direction, the preservation of all strong groups working at the world level, regardless of the specific area, should be designated. Any priorities can be considered only after such groups receive financing sufficient for their development and conduct research. The Czechard herself with priority/ breakthrough/ all sorts of other directions that change every two years shows that there is currently no procedure for choosing these directions and at least some continuity and sequence of actions, and recent events clearly demonstrate that this choice is often conducted on the principle of access to bossal ear [1, 2, 3] . At the last conference, I noted alarming moments in the activities of the RFFIF, related to the arbitrary choice of topics of the Official contests [4] . Over the past four years, these trends have only intensified, the share of the main contest of initiative projects “A” is reduced, and the share of various kinds of “oriented” competitions is increasing. It is especially alarming that they are also reproduced in the activities of the newly created Russian Scientific Fund.

Instead of the rhythmic annual holding of the main competitions, several special competitions on fairly narrow topics were announced for 2015. This will lead to the fact that, firstly, strong groups, for various reasons that did not win in 2014, will be left without serious sources of financing for an indefinite time and, secondly, when the next main competitions are announced, the level of competition will be prohibitive. It should be noted that a one -time conduct of competitions has another unpleasant consequence - the inability to choose experts and even members of expert councils without a conflict of interests. In a normal situation, holders of current grants could play in this role.

Mikhail Gelfand

1. TRV-hunger No. 158, July 15, 2014, p. 6."Document"
2. M. Gelfand. The first went . TRV-hunger No. 162, September 9, 2014, p. 1.
3. Chef, everything was gone -2 . TRV-hunger No. 166, November 4, 2014, p. 2. "Document"
4. M. Gelfand. The problems of science and the possible role of the Russian scientific diaspora / fate of science in Russia and the Russian scientific diaspora. Materials of the first conference "Scientific diaspora and the future of Russian science" (EUSPB, July 24–25, 2010). S. 13–18.