Form and meaning. Fano imitates the reform of the wounds

In the life of the Russian Academy of Sciences, significant changes have begun, which in the near future, obviously, will unfold wider. Judging by the last sentences of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science, they will affect the most important aspects of the life of the scientific community of Russia.

Despite the proclaimed approaches to reform (Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science are engaged in organizational issues, delivering scientists from economic troubles, and the academy - scientific work), despite the recently formulated “principle of two keys”, contrary to all assurances, these proposals will be carried out according to plans prepared without proper agreement with scientists.

What is the matter? Why do officials clearly exceed their powers, why do reformers and scientists disagree with each other?

Do not understand or do not want ?

Reformers tell us how remarkably the reform progresses. You listen to the New Year's interview M.M. Kotyukova TV channel "Russia-24" and you will find out that:

• The unification of institutions occurs exclusively at the requests and proposals of the institutions themselves;
• All recommendations of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science are discussed at the stage of projects with the scientific community.

These positions were recently clearly repeated by the high -ranking representatives of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science A.M. Medvedev and L. M. Ogorodov, who participated in meetings of the third session of the conference of scientists on May 29, 2015.

But we know how the restructuring of institutes in Kabardino-Balkaria and in Sevastopol is taking place. We know how the discussions of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science with the Public are taking place (environmentalists use the term “public public” in similar situations). We know what are the results of these discussions. We know how, ignoring the clearly expressed opinion of labor collectives, the head of Fano M. M. Kotyukov fired the director of the Geokha named after V.I. Vernadsky academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences E. M. Galimov and director of Jeset named after S. I. Vavilov Corr. RAS Yu. M. Baturina.

The documents of the last months emanating from Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science, and the statements of their leaders regarding the cooperation of the authorities and scientists are eloquent! Perhaps they leave no place for questions. So the answer suggests itself simple: they understand by their own and by their own and otherwise they do not want to understand another . At the same time, anything can be declared.

Assessments and criteria

There are two prevailing assessments of the reform, and both of them are directly opposite. Everything is fine, representatives of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science say. Everything is bad, scientists say.

Straighten compliance with the deadlines for the completion of certain works prescribed by the leadership and regarding the reform of science - this is the priority, this is the position of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science. In essence, this is a purely formal position. The content of the work is secondary.

The clarification of the creature, meaning, the consequences of the proposed changes as the main criteria for assessing their expediency are the position of the scientific community.

Scientists are convinced that it is better not to transmit to their intended purpose and not publish unfinished, raw or completely unsuitable materials, they must be improved, even violating the previously established terms of readiness. After all, scientific work is not conveyor production.

Shell and contents

The symbolic meaning of the Easter egg is known. This is a symbol of revival, resurrection from the dead. Other images and meanings are also known - an egg of the world, a space egg, the beginning of all the principles, the philosophical egg of the alchemists, the Columbovo egg - the number of images and meanings of the egg is huge. In the ideas of the Slavs, the egg contains the opposition “Life - Death” (recall the fairy tale of the nationwide immortal).

In all cases, the egg is the integrity, unity of the shell and contents. And if the unity is broken, if the contents are separated, the price of the shell is negligible. Hence the saying about the escaped egg as a worthless thing. “Egg -headed wise men” are also worthless people. This is a contemptuous nickname of intellectuals.

But in a vacation egg there are useful properties. It is suitable, for example, to compose articles, feuilletons, etc., capable of in the hands of skilled newspaper men to turn into a gold testicle.

This is the short story of Chekhov Two Newspaper. Here is a fragment of their dialogue.

- ... You have a nature such that you can write about the extended egg, but I ... no!

- Well then? - Vlappyn was inspired. -What, in your opinion, is a poorly lost egg? A lot of questions! Firstly, when you see a damned egg in front of you, indignation covers you, you are outraged! An egg intended by nature for the reproduction of the life of an individual ... you understand! Life! .. Life, which in turn would give life to a whole generation, and this generation to thousands of future generations, suddenly eaten, became a sacrifice of gluttony, whim! This egg would give a chicken, the chicken would demolish a thousand eggs throughout her life ... - Here you are, as in the palm of your hand, undermining the economic system, jamming of the future! Secondly, looking at the escaped egg, you rejoice: if the egg is eaten, then, then, they eat well in Rus' ... Thirdly, it comes to the idea that they fertilize the earth, and you advise the reader to cherish the discharge. Fourth, a vacation egg leads you to the idea of ​​the braveness of everything earthly: it lived-and there is no it! Fifth ... What do I think? There is enough for a hundred numbers.

Were not similar motives the authors of the prescriptions of Fano and the Ministry of Education and Science? Some of their projects are very similar to structures, which are an empty container. These are, for example, “Key theses: Unified approaches to the unification of intellectual resources and scientific infrastructure” from the “Project of the Plan of Restructuring of Scientific Organizations”.

The authors of the project and the key thesis have posted their proposals on the Fano website for discussion as part of a public examination. The authors proposed the principles of restructuring and asked the participants in the discussion to answer several questions. Among them:

1. Which of these principles are the most important?
2. What did the authors of the document not take into account?
3. What is superfluous in the offers of the authors?

My answers are as follows.

1. If we are talking about fundamental research, the principle of “look and explain the unknown” should be put in the first place. Everything else is only the creation of conditions for a productive search. This is obvious, this is banal. But you can’t forget about it. There is nothing similar in the document.
2. The authors did not take into account the need to argue their proposals and demonstrate the materials and facts showing the benefits of the proposed approaches.
3. The whole abstract structure is superfluous. It can be rewritten in the reverse order, backwards - and it will be as convincing as proposed in this document. Only the shell is characterized, there is no substantial filling. Although it is the content of the research that should show what the advantages of this shell are. Discussion of an empty shell does not make sense. It resembles efforts to create a science of a vacation egg.

Imitation of the reform and the true meaning of what is happening

Representatives of Fano argue that their projects for the reconstruction of science have passed a wide discussion with the scientific community - more than 300 scientific organizations participated in it. Is it a lot or little? How were the opinions of these organizations taken into account? There are no explanations on this subject, accompanying the documents submitted for public examination on the Fano website. What do sociologists think? Did Fano turn to professionals for evaluation? We do not know this.

Sociology teaches that the fact becomes a sociological fact only after it receives an interpretation in the system of sociological knowledge. So whether the discussion was correct or not, it is impossible to judge without professional explanations. Therefore, the documents proposed to me are still presented by an imitation of plans agreed with the scientific community.

But what happens to the reform, with Russian science, where are we moving? Simon Elevich Shnol, a well -known biophysicist and historian of Russian science, who was experiencing a 1948 vasculin session, in the context of what was happening, recalled the performance of one of the creators of our genetics, the author of the idea of ​​the matrix synthesis of chromosomes, Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov. Koltsov warned: domestic science threatens a terrible danger. And he was right. Schnol and the famous slogan of the French revolution recalled: "The Fatherland is in danger!" This is probably the true meaning of the completed reform of science.