The reform of science in Russia enters into the stage of changes that every researcher will feel. The article by the co -chair of the Council of the Society of Scientists Pavel Chebotarev we are talking about a document, according to the development of developers, called upon to lay the basis of a new science financing system.

On the last day of the summer, the Russian Academy of Sciences received a second version of the project from the Ministry of Education and Science, called “Methodological recommendations for the distribution of subsidies provided by federal state institutions performing work in the field of scientific (research) and scientific and technical activity” [1] (hereinafter-MR-2). His original version, which appeared in April, caused a sharp criticism of the scientific community. The newspaper TRV-hunger wrote in detail about her [2] .

In the explanatory note to the second version of the recommendations, Sergey Salikhov, director of the Department of Science and Technology of the Ministry of Education and Science, reported: “ The proposals and comments received during the discussion on the draft methodological recommendations, including regarding the implementation of a smooth transition to a new format of state assignment in the field of science, were taken into account during its improvement .” Meanwhile, the most important were objections against this format itself , and not the wish of a more smooth transition to it. Some of the objections were really taken into account. Comparing the two versions of the MR, the reader will find that almost all normative figures have disappeared from the document. However, his direction and ideas remained the same.

Before discussing these ideas, we will call those provisions of the MP-2, with which the head of the Council for Science under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Ministry of Education and Science Alexei Khokhlov and Sergey Salikhov, who represented developers at a meeting with representatives of the RAS Workers' union, the public control commission in the field of science and the Society of Scientists, who held on August 27, 2015 at Moscow State University, agreed. These provisions, as we assume, will be fundamentally changed.

About the differences of MR-3 from MR-2

The most important provisions of this kind are four.

1. It was possible to convince representatives of the developers that the “lagging” organizations in many cases will need to “pull up”, including support for the studies conducted in them. Therefore, we agreed on the withdrawal of paragraph 10 of MR-2, which states: “For institutions classified as the results of assessing the effectiveness of their activities to the 3rd category ... as well as institutions (educational organizations of higher education), recognized as ineffective based on the results of annual monitoring ... The costs of financial support for development projects in the costs of scientific (scientific and technical) projects on initiative topics are not They are taken into account. " Here it is necessary to explain that “development projects” are understood as projects, applications for financing which are submitted by organizations themselves.
2. In paragraph 4, only “ targeted support for structural divisions of institutions ... and (or) scientists who have reached high scientific (scientific and technical) results ” and ensuring conditions for 1) “ solutions to the state and society defined by state programs of the Russian Federation ” and 2) “ ensuring the functioning ... infrastructure of institutions ” were announced. Thus, search studies and units / workers who have the results of the middle level, if this point is accepted for support, could not apply for support [3] . Evgeny Onishchenko, a member of the CSS of the Trade Union of RAS Workers, proposed a different wording with which the developers agreed.
3. When listing in paragraph 3 of possible expenses, some of them were clearly forgotten. Thus, the costs of scientific institutions “ for the maintenance of property ... not used for the performance of work and for general economic needs ” were recognized as legal, while the costs of the maintenance of property used for these purposes are not. This gap also managed to close with the help of the wording proposed by Evgeny Onishchenko.
4. Finally, leader and deputy. The head of the Trade Union of RAS employees Viktor Kalinushkin and Vyacheslav Vdovin noted that in paragraph 6 of Appendix 1, the first “main” criterion for the competitive selection of applications was called “ the potential of the head of the laboratory (qualification, age, experience in scientific communities, governing bodies of reviewed scientific publications, authoritative Russian and foreign conferences, etc.) ”. The developers admitted that such a “personification” of projects is excessive.

Already by these examples it is clear which way the ship is “rolled”, what intention of the developers, breaking into the surface, creates dangers and can give rise to injustice. Namely: the desire to create a system where scientists compete harshly, the leaders of the “stars” and their teams-and “winners receive everything” win .

Now we will discuss those ideas of the project that are clearly expressed. There are two of them. The implementation of each of them is described in a special application added to the MR. It is easy to notice that these ideas are completely consonant with the intentions, the assumption of the presence of which is formulated above.

"Let the loser cry"?

The first idea is that research projects should be funded through the competition. The initial version contained both obvious and ambiguous [4] hints that units whose projects would not become winners of the competition will not be financed. In the MR-2, the wording was softened, but there is no reason to believe that they refused this approach . Thus, methodological recommendations give officials a “legal” reason for the quantitatively not limited dismissal of professional scientists based on the results of project competitions.

Here I will make a small digression. In the summer, I read an interview with the President of the Academy of Sciences of Latvia Oyars Paracatis magazine Railway [5] . In it, in particular, he says that at the end of May 2015, the International Conference of the Presidents of the Academy of Sciences was held in Bern, where the issue of human rights in science was discussed [6] . The main thing is the right of a professional to conduct initiative research. “If a person is given a talent to be a scientist and someone violates his right to be this scientist and commit to the needs of civilization of the discovery, if he is not allowed to work on his research, then ... Thus ... human rights are violated. The scientific process should be protected by the state in the same way as other human rights. There is a right to life, and there is a right to scientific research! This point of view radically changes the place of science in society and the state. ”

Of course, the exercise of this right is encountered by economic restrictions. Indeed, there are projects that require large costs, and they should be funded on a competitive basis. But there are many other projects, for the implementation of which you do not need anything but the head of a scientist, a computer and a completely moderate salary. Why are researchers, who, at the next certification, confirmed their worthy professional level and the ability to work, prevent the opportunity to calmly realize their “undesirable” ideas without any competition?!

And what, professionals whose “costly” project did not win the competition should be dismissed? Why not give them the opportunity to systematize the results - write a useful review or book, work with other people's data (not to mention the opportunity to find the use of the same institution in other projects)? Is it not the government’s duty to maintain a workplace for all past certification and ready to work as professional researchers, even with a reduced price of oil? After all, this is an investment in the prestige of the country and its development (and it means a worthy use of raw annuity).

Even in Latvia, which does not have raw materials and experiencing considerable difficulties in integration into the European Union, the question is raised that way. However, this proposal is not close to the developers of methodological recommendations. What is not surprising, if we recall that some of them have long been offering to transfer all scientists, except for the selected seizures, to temporary contracts paid from excitement grants. Perhaps they forget that science is made not only by teams led by star leaders, but also by loners and microgroups, the unification of which in the laboratory is very conditional. In mathematics, humanitarian and technical sciences, this is not at all uncommon.

Now imagine the result of the implementation of the principle of “ all for the competition ”. This competition will become a game of playing and fighting for pieces and crumbs of the “pie” that belonged to the flying out. It is not clear in it who does not understand how to determine how many “non -splash” and how many “expensive” projects must be supported. Of course, in such a struggle for existence all connections, all available mechanisms, including the exchange of services and buying and selling favorable solutions will be involved. And loners and small groups that do not have connections at the top, but dreaming of realizing only their ideas, will massively go “to the exit” . After all, a competition, where projects compete with each other, is much more than certification, admits taste judgments that do not need a “solid” substantiation. “He did not go through the competition” - that’s the whole fairy tale.

In the explanatory note to the MP-2, Sergei Salikhov writes: “ Strengthening the competitive mechanism in the distribution of state assignments in the field of science does not mean abandoning the basic (extra-currency) financing of the scientific activity of institutions, and the procedure for determining the amount of funds for these purposes is also contained in these methodological recommendations .”

P. 4 MP-2 directly contradicts this, which says: “ The costs of performing scientific research are determined on a competitive basis ”, i.e. There is not even a hint for out -of -competition financing (such, alas, the quality of the work of the document). But the developers are ready to correct this item.

What is the “procedure for determining the amount of funds” for financing not by the competition mentioned by S. V. Salikhov? Clause 9 says (here the reader must try not to lose the thread) that the costs “ for the implementation of ... projects aimed at the formation of the scientific reinforcement and the effective reproduction of the personnel potential of institutions” are determined by the founder “in accordance with the technique approved by him, taking into account the reference groups of the institutions and reached the values ​​of the performance indicators from the list approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia dated March 5, 2014 No. No. 162, as well as indicators of the implementation by institutions of state tasks in the field of science for previous periods . ” But this is undoubtedly also hiding the competition (which, by the way, was clearly registered in the MR-1)! And - the overwhelming dependence of the support of the laboratory project on the general indicators of the institute in which it is located.

Jesuit fork: Large contractions in the capitals of VS poverty and swamp

The reduction of a significant number of jobs in science is fraught not only by the widespread contests of initiative projects, but also the next MP-2 item: “ 11. When determining the costs of financial support for development projects, it is recommended to take into account the amount of remuneration of performers who are scientists at the main place of work, which is necessary to achieve the level of average wages in accordance with the“ roadmap ”, approved by the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 30, 2014 No. 722-r ".

The mentioned “roadmap” is aimed at achieving the average salary of scientists in each region equal to double salary throughout the region. The latter is now in Moscow (where approximately 30% of Russian researchers live) 60.8 thousand rubles/ month. [7] . This means that the average salary of Moscow scientists should be approximately 122 thousand rubles. Since now the average salary of scientists is 20 thousand rubles, and a noticeable increase in science costs is not planned, this plan can only be implemented by large -scale reductions. The assessment of their scale can be found in [2] .

At the same time, the “roadmap” does not provide for a significant reduction in the number of scientists. Well, it is also feasible: it is enough to dismiss people in the capitals and hire to work in other regions. And if the Moscow scientist is ashamed to look into the eyes of colleagues from Novosibirsk, who are waiting for almost a fourth less salary for the same work, then this is just the problem of their relationship. A side effect will be the disunity of the scientific community, preventing it from defending his rights. And what to do with the Constitution, proclaiming (Article 37) “The right to reward for work without any discrimination ”?

An exorbitantly lifted salary standard in the capitals, fraught with dismissal of professionals and reducing jobs, forces the scientific community to protest against these plans. And the government (and the developers of the MR) leaves the opportunity to maliciously fending away: “Are you against? Well, if you do not want to change anything, then do not grumble for the average salary of a scientist of 20 thousand rubles. Fano ignores the “ road map ” ? So, in its institutes there will be poverty and swamp. ”

This false dilemma (the dismissal of VS professionals poverty and swamp), generated by the 11th MP-2 item, is a problem for most scientists, but not for developers. Therefore, they categorically refuse to remove it. It seems, however, that the time itself will do this for them: many experts predict that the “May decrees” of 2012 with their idea of ​​the “double average agency salary” will be, if not canceled, then they are launched on the brakes due to their obvious unrealizability in today's economic conditions.

Of course, in addition to this far -fetched fork there is a normal path. It is necessary to struggle to increase regular salaries of scientists without discrimination and sky -high heights in the capitals. Let's say that, after 3-4 years, a candidate of sciences published in the editions prestigious in his field had a salary of at least the Sredvemoskovskaya in any region . And not due to the reduction of jobs (in developed and developing countries, the number of scientists is not reduced, but grows!), But due to an increase in funds. The budget of civil science and the military budget are so multi -scale that the second rewind would practically not feel the second one necessary to solve this problem.

Do you keep the "leading researchers" from state assignment?

The second main idea of ​​methodological recommendations - the introduction of the status of “leading researchers” - can be discussed for a long time, but we will touch on only one issue: whether this program should be financed from the meager funds of state assignment.

Paragraph 6.1 of Appendix 2: “ Subsidies allocated for targeted support of leading researchers are aimed at compensating for costs for the labor of a leading researcher (not lower than 4-fold average wages in the relevant region) with charges on labor payments; costs of acquiring communication services; costs of acquiring transport services; The costs of other general business needs . ”

Thus, today in Moscow only “compensation for the cost of remuneration of the leading researcher” (without means of communication, transport, etc.) should be approximately 243 thousand rubles/month. And this is from the means of the “state task”, and not from grants (which candidates for this position usually also have). Meanwhile, the scholarship of the graduate student in the Russian Federation is still 6 thousand rubles. Is it not better to use the methodological recommendations in order to improve the unenviable financial situation of graduate students, scientific (and engineering) employees without a degree, as well as with degrees of candidate and doctor of science? Moreover, without reducing jobs. And do not let state assignment money on an expensive program for creating a new quasiademic caste.

The Global Wealth Report-2014, released by Credit Suisse Research Institute, is anxiously high level of property inequality in the Russian Federation [8] : “According to our calculations, 10% of the richest people in Russia owns 85% of the state of all its households. Это значительно выше, чем в любой другой крупной экономике: так, соответствующий показатель равен 75% для США и 64% для Китая… Более того, 111 миллиардеров владеют 19% состояния всех домохозяйств России». Похоже, разработчики МР, вдохновленные этими цифрами, решили, что дифференциация доходов в науке неоправданно отстает, причем одними лишь грантами ситуацию не поправить…

В целом идеи, положенные в основу обсуждаемых методических рекомендаций, заставляют рассматривать их как проект рая для немногих, создаваемого ценой разрушения научной среды . Возможно, авторы этого проекта не отдают себе отчета в том, что наука подобна муравейнику, отношение высоты которого (т. е. вершинных достижений) к ширине (т. е. разнообразию тем и массовости) колеблется в довольно умеренных пределах. Если оставить в науке только сильнейших, она очень быстро захиреет. Не говоря о том, что среди оставшихся будет немало сильнейших… в борьбе с себе подобными, а не в генерации знаний. Одним словом, если превратить науку в «траншею, где землекопы дерутся лопатами», то поляжет много, а вырыто много не будет.

Поэтому научной общественности нужно, вероятно, действовать в двух направлениях: 1) стараться нейтрализовать остающиеся в проекте Минобрнауки меры, ведущие к разрушению научной среды, и 2) предлагать иные подходы к разработке МР, направленные на сохранение этой среды.

1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzju0MPr7qN6d3JTa2ZTRFJXYnM/view

2. Евгений Онищенко. Бюрократическая революция // ТрВ-Наука, № 177 от 21 апреля 2015 года.

3. Уже здесь понимаешь: заверению из пояснительной записки к МР-2, что основные подходы, заложенные в МР, «полностью одобрены» Советом по науке при Минобрнауки, не стоит придавать очень большого значения, поскольку одобрить это дискриминационное положение после внимательного прочтения текста очень трудно.

4. В МР-1 был, например, такой пассаж: «Предельный объем бюджетных ассигнований, предусмотренный на финансовое обеспечение выполнения учреждением государственных работ в сфере науки, включает расходы на: обеспечение научных (научно-технических) проектов по… тематикам, выполняемым в том числе наиболее результативными структурными научными подразделениями учреждений (далее — лаборатории)…». Труднообъяснимое упоминание здесь одних лишь «наиболее результативных» подразделений заставляет поверить, что высокое звание «лаборатории» предлагается сохранить лишь за ними, не оставляя надежд на финансирование остальных.

5. http://issuu.com/spotlightmedia/docs/railway_compressed , С. 28–29.

6. www.esil-sedi.eu/node/896#_ftnref2 ;
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/Presentation_FShaheed_Bern_May2015.pdf

7. http://bs-life.ru/rabota/zarplata/srednyaya2015.html

8. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 , С. 53.