Are we good for all?

The discussion about the principles of financing science in Russia continues. The article of a member of the Council for Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of Yuri Kovalev gives arguments in support of the competition and expert assessment as an optimal approach to the organization of scientific research and making personnel and financial decisions.

Let me start a discussion with the story about what has happened for the past few months - after the May conference of scientists. At an expanded meeting of the Council on the Science of the Ministry of Education and Science in June 2015, the views of active participants in the discussion of the project of methodological recommendations (MR) took place and a decision was made to create a working group to find a consensus on the project of MR [1] . The working group (RG) on the discussion of the MR consists of representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Council for Science of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Trade Union of RAS Workers, Komkon and ONR. One of the representatives of the latter is the co -chair of the Council of Onr Pavel Chebotarev. The discussion consisted of reasoning and arguments in full volume, it seems, in several numbers of a three-hobby, and on most issues it was possible to come to an agreement. Analysis of the published text of Paul is a certain difficulty precisely because the discussion format of the work of the RG is replaced by the pathos-configurative style of the newspaper article, reminiscent of the famous song of the Leningrad group [2] . But let's try. Thanks to the newspaper TRV-hobby for the opportunity to transfer the small part of the discussion to its stripes.

The path of optimal development - read, financing of fundamental science - in any country is determined based on the boundary conditions and parameters by which optimization occurs. Very simplified: boundary conditions are the amount of financing that are available personnel and infrastructure. And optimization can be done to one way or another for a combination of such tasks as training and/or consolidation of highly qualified personnel, ensuring a socially acceptable nature of changes, obtaining results in the form of scientific articles, books, and developing high -tech technologies.

Consider examples of two typical approaches.

In the article by Pavel Chebotarev, the idea of ​​ensuring the “researcher’s right to explore” causes bewilderment of his populism and absolute unrealism. In modern Russian conditions, this is de factimization, focused not on personnel growth or scientific result, but solely on the lack of dismissal. We emphasize that the level of modern financing of science in the country is completely unable to really ensure this “right” to all scientists.

The approach similar to the proposed Chebotarev was recently applied by RAS when making a decision on the implementation of the Presidium programs [3] . As a result, financing of the most successful, transparent, truly competitive program “Molecular and cellular biology” suffered greatly [4] and most others. But the RAS practically did not affect the dismissal, the number of basic bets has been preserved.

Almost all developed countries demonstrate another approach to optimization. In them, the receipt of any bet is associated with a real competition. And the higher the position, the more serious the competition. For example, receiving funding for a temporary two-year post-aode from the Humboldt Foundation in Germany is associated with the passage of the competition at the level of three candidates for the place [5] . Competitions for permanent positions in leading countries - about 10-100 people per place. Recall that we are now striving for the results of the names, no these countries (it does not matter by what indicators to measure their effectiveness). It is this approach that is proposed in Mr. What is the idea? It is necessary to pay scientists to such a basic wage that will allow worthy to exist in the modern world with confidence in the future. And young scientists - to realize these prospects and strive to get such rates, and not remain in constant positions abroad or go to other areas of activity. The long -term nature of financing is fundamentally important, with the extension of bets on the results of certification. With limited financing, this can be effectively implemented only within the framework of the competition. We emphasize that such conditions will allow the leading groups to work comfortably, and not to engage in constant writing applications for grants and reports on them for the purposes of “supporting pants”. And the initiative Grants of the RFFI, for example, cannot be characterized differently.

To call these conditions “Paradise for a few” in the context of the struggle for strong personnel in the Russian and world markets is at least frivolous. This is a cruel necessity that can only be replaced by an iron curtain (the problem of brain leaks is solved) and the restriction of salaries and freedoms in other areas of activity (the problem of the departure of strong personnel “into business” is solved). The author’s pathos, in references to the percentage of the richest people in Russia and a comparison with the MR, frankly, does not contribute to joint constructive work. Let me remind you that public organizations in their press release "support the very idea of ​​addressing strong groups" [1] . At the same time, the size of the salaries of leading scientists is harshly not regulated in the MR. So why invent what is not?

During the discussions in the working group, consent on most issues was achieved due to the idea of ​​using only additional funds for organizing bets of leading scientists and groups. Therefore, the author of the author is not entirely clear about mass reduction. This, rather, is the problem of directors and rectors on the implementation of the May decrees of the president, not tied to MR. I can not disagree that the attachment of salaries to the average in the region is discriminatory and unfair. The Council on Science opens against such discrimination; In the modern version of the MR, the reference requirements were softened to the level of “recommendations to take into account” as a result of a compromise with the ministry. I'm afraid the author’s fears on this issue are fair. But this, again, is the problem of the execution of the May decrees, and not Mr. The unions of the Russian Academy of Sciences understand this and work in the appropriate direction.

The smooth distribution of financing in capitals and not the capitals, the predominant financing of startups of young scientific leaders, and many other subtle settings will be possible and necessary when implementing contests prescribed in the MR by the relevant departments. But only contests give such an opportunity and freedom of fine settings. It is not clear what destruction of the scientific environment Pavel is talking about. The MR is aimed at the predominant financing of scientific groups, and not just individual leading scientists. Within the framework of these scientific groups, there will be leaders, and middle peasants, and young scientists with graduate students. And we will finally get the opportunity (yes, only in groups that won the leading financing) to recruit graduate students to a decent scholarship, and not for shameful 6 thousand rubles. That's just personnel errors in such groups will be incomparably fewer, for that their leaders are leading scientists. What to do “strong middle peasant” if he did not get into the “strongest” and if none of the strongest took him into his group? One of the options in Russia seems obvious - to go to teach at a university. There, from the middle peasant there will be real benefits: he/she will teach new generations.

What proposals are alternative MR? They are not observed. The call “more money is needed” is obvious and, by the way, has a little more chance of success in the implementation of real reforms. Suppose that in the coming years there will be no much more money. What alternative do public organizations offer, RAS? Live at the modern level of average salaries of 30 thousand rubles. (about graduate students are generally silent), whose purchasing power continues to fall? It is strange today to hear from the representative of the OHR in the group, in agreement of the MR, the call to the scientific community “offer other approaches” after the months of joint work and years from the beginning of the training of these principles [6] . Colleagues, so offer something for development at last!

PS Sincere congratulations to colleagues from the Institute of Cosmic Research with a 50th anniversary! Few people are lucky for so interesting, rich, brilliant, very difficult 50 years. I wish you, more precisely, our common future in space be no less entertaining.

1. Press release of public organizations of scientists .

2. The Leningrad group, the song "We are for all the good." Attention: abnormal vocabulary! (18+)

3. Announcement of the Russian Academy of Sciences "On the financing of fundamental scientific research, performed in priority areas determined by the Russian Academy of Sciences (programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences)."

4. A selection of materials under the program "Molecular and cellular biology" .

5. Statistics of scholarships Humboldt Research Fellowsip in German .

6. Documents of the Council on Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of September 2013, considered at the beginning of the discussion of the new model of financing scientific research. http://sovet-po-nauke.ru/info/26092013-docs
See also other documents on this topic on the website of the Council http://sovet-po-nauke.ru/info .