The reform is too, or the apotheosis of the bureaucracy

On March 24-25, 2015, a general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences was held, attended by the Prime Minister and several members of the government [1] . In his speech, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev tried to reassure with the studied words that now all the transformations of science will pass “meaningfully and neatly” [2] . Is it possible to consider his speech a sign that the country's leadership began to be aware: the reforms were not very thoughtful, carried out by a cavalry scab, did not lead to the desired results, and the bureaucratization of science only intensified? A TRV-HOW is published by one of the most constructive, in our opinion, performances of a famous anti-people, a doct. East. sciences, member of the RAS, professor, deputy. Head of the Council on Science under the Ministry of Education and Science, Ch. scientific. sore. Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Directeur de Recherche in CNRS (Bordeaux, France) Askold Ivanchik .

At first, the reforms of the Russian Academy of Sciences have passed a year and a half, and you can already rather judge what to live and work in the new conditions, under the control of Fano. Fano, of course, has significant achievements. The legal registration of ownership of the property of the Russian Academy of Sciences is actively promoted than the former Presidium of the Academy of Sciences neglected for a long time; In some cases, Fano managed to win litigation with which he could not cope, and return the buildings that could be lost. It seems that the agency copes better with property management than the former Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and from this point of view, its activity should be recognized as successful and M.M. Kotyukova.

However, the main thing in scientific institutions is still not property, but scientific work, and here the results of the Fano management look much less convincing. Often they are described by the words “managed to avoid” and “managed to save”: it was possible to avoid a break in financing, it was possible to maintain scientific areas and scientific publications. But if the main result of the reform is the “preservation” of previous achievements, then the question arises in its meaningfulness.

In fact, of course, there are changes, and it is incorrect to say that researchers did not feel the reform. The main result of the reform, which is noted, is a multiple increase in the bureaucratic load: many papers constantly come from Fano to institutes requiring an immediate response; The requested information is repeatedly duplicated, the meaning of the requested information is not obvious. Of course, the administration of institutions suffer from this, of course, but its employees, in addition to holding administrative posts, are often acting scientists, and they have to devote more and more time to senseless paper, tearing it away from scientific work. However, ordinary researchers do not stand aside - more and more time on plans, reports and regulations have to be spent on them.

Sometimes you have to hear that this is the costs of the transition period, but this period has been going on for a whole year and a half, and it seems to be not visible to it. The increase in the bureaucratic load usually indicates the insufficient competence of managers. Since they are poorly oriented in what they control, they feel uncertain and seek to compensate for this uncertainty, and at the same time protect themselves in case of failures, abundant paperwork. Apparently, Fano officials feel confident in their professional sphere, property management, and uncertainly in the management of science, the specifics of which are poorly represented. For example, the requirement to plan for each employee for three years in advance is not only the number of articles, but also their exact names, the volume and even place of publication: a requirement that Fano, fortunately, responded, healing the arguments of common sense.

Another example: a lot of restructuring now discussed, and simply enlargement of institutions, in every possible way encouraged Fano. Its reasons are in no way related to science: enlargements are carried out without a preliminary scientific assessment of institutions, without formulating scientific tasks. The tasks here are purely managerial: it is difficult to manage almost a thousand

organizations, and it seems that a decrease in their number due to enlargement will facilitate the task. At the same time, experience shows that for many scientific research, although, of course, not for everyone, just small specialized institutions turn out to be more effective.

Here, perhaps, it is useful to compare our situation with the situation at the French National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS, closest to the wounds of Western scientific institutions. In CNRS, 30 thousand employees, of which about 12 thousand - researchers, accounts for 1170 of the so -called research units that correspond to our institutions and are legal entities with their own account, accountant, director, etc. As you can see, there are more than institutions in the Russian Academy of Sciences, with a much smaller number of employees. A typical French institute is several dozen people, and not a few hundred, like ours. Although, of course, there are exceptions: when it is necessary for scientific reasons, very large institutions are created.

Small specialized institutions provide the greatest comfort for researchers - they have less bureaucracy, the administration and other services are more affordable. Of course, in CNRS there are also superstructures - 40 sections united in 10 national institutions on the subject, which approximately corresponds to departments and sections in the previous wounds. Perhaps it is precisely the fact that the branches have not received an adequate replacement in the Fano system, greatly complicates the management of the institutions and leads to the desire to enlarge them. The proposed restructuring, in my opinion, is a movement in the opposite direction compared to a global trend. This is an increase in centralization and bureaucratic control where autonomy and self -government are required. In fact, the main principle of science management has long been known and confirmed by practice in many countries: only scientists can effectively manage science; Science develops only in conditions of self -government.

The way out of the current situation, in my opinion, begs: everyone should do what he knows better. The fan should reserve property management, and the management of science is returned to the academy, which succeeds. This is how I understand the distinction between the powers between the Russian Academy of Sciences and Fano according to the principle of two keys, which V.E. Forts, and here it can only be supported. The implementation of this principle is in the interests of Fano, and RAS, and scientific institutions.

There is another reason to support this principle. I must say that Russia was not the first country where the reform of the academies was carried out: such reforms were carried out in a number of post -Soviet countries, and even earlier in the GDR. Against this background, Russian reform looks rather soft, compromise, since it involves the preservation of the system of academic institutions, although separated from the Academy itself. In Georgia, for example, the reform was much more radical - the system of academic institutions itself was destroyed. Some of them were closed, others were greatly reduced, and their remains were transferred to universities or cultural institutions, such as museums.

The result was catastrophic - both the number of people employed in science and the number of publications were reduced, and the quality of research fell. Fortunately, the system of academic institutions has been preserved. However, it is no secret that in Russia there are many supporters, including influential, reforms on Georgian, so to speak, scenario, including dismantling the system of academic institutions and their transfer to universities.

And, in my opinion, the danger that the reform will try to develop in this direction is quite large. And this contradicts the interests of the Fano, which in this case simply ceases to exist, and the RAS and academic institutions, and, most importantly, Russian science. With this development of the events of Fano and RAS are natural allies, and, in my opinion, the best base for cooperation and mutual support than the principle of two keys, is difficult to come up with.

Therefore, I urge both members of the general meeting and our other colleagues to support this delimitation of competencies on the principle of two keys: the fan should manage property, ensuring the conditions for science, and the Academy must coordinate and examinations of scientific research and be responsible for the scientific side of the case. This distinction should be enshrined in law, for example, in the form of amendments to the RAS Reform Law.

1. Assembly report on the RAS website
ras.ru/news/shownews.aspx?id=194df459-746c-45FB-A5BD-007E7C3CEECC

2. Speech by V.E. Fortova and D.A. Medvedev
http://government.ru/news/17358