What is good and what is bad? To discussion about the principles of science financing

I am afraid that these remarks are making many enemies, including among people, indeed in my own way of concerned about the situation in science; But I still can’t comment on the article by Yuri Kovalev [1]. It contains a number of statements showing how sometimes people dumps a variety of concepts into one heap without an attempt to figure out what is behind them. I will immediately make a reservation that this is not about the specific methodological recommendations of the MN, we are talking about loud words, about the worldview.

The first thesis of Yuri Kovalev: In any country, the path of optimal development of science is determined based on the given boundary conditions (the most important “granular” is the volume of financing). This thesis assumes that we cannot (and should not) affect the accepted orders that we must implicitly do what government officials say. This is not true. In any country, if the government creates unbearable conditions for the life of a group of citizens (and just slightly worsens life to someone!), Nobody perceives this as God this reality. As a rule, protests begin in one form or another, and citizens achieve changes in laws, orders, financing conditions, etc. Interestingly, Yuri Kovalev would be just as philosophical if the approved priority areas of the development of science, among which radio -abstranomy would not have acted as “boundary conditions”. And it would only be "bionocognitive." (This is still ahead). And they would not give money to the radio anastronomy at all. Yuri Kovalev will accept such “boundary conditions” as a given, within which something can be optimized?

The requirement to increase financing causes irritation, and then casually states that the increase is still possible, but only for those forms that are sweet to the authorities. So, it is not true that there is no money for science - there is no desire to give money really to science. Let's formulate it. Once again - out of 370 billion rubles. “To science” for all three academies now - 100 billion rubles, and actually in the wounds there were 60 billion rubles. Huge funding “to science” is pumped to completely stillborn projects in universities, in the nuclear industry, in the defense (one access to the arena of the Institute named after Dukhov what is worth it!), Kurchatnik, Skolkovo, etc. There, for elementary knowledge, they pay a lot of money for any articles. A competent (or at least more honest) order of this money would greatly change the situation in academic institutions.

The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences is accused of reducing financing of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No matter how the Presidium behaves, maybe this is still primarily the guilt of the government (not even a fan), which could not find 2.5 (!) Billions rubles. (For comparison: 1 billion rubles were allocated for anyone to no longer replace the curbs in Moscow, 708 billion rubles were allocated from nowhere to the development of Crimea) in the paragraph about the programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is generally clear that a person speaks from other people's words, not knowing the state of affairs. And certainly distorting to believe that the approach proposed in the article by Pavel Chebotarev [2] consists in equalizing as a basic principle.

Apparently, Yuri Kovalev does not see the difference between the equalization and the mentioned Pavel Chebotarev “to explore the right of the researcher”. It is very strange that this idea of ​​ensuring the “researcher’s right to explore” causes bewilderment. While in the West they begin to understand that with a science built on the principles of a business project, everything is very, very wrong, and try to improve the situation, we will again take the worst. After all, the alternative to the “Right of the researcher to explore” is a fashionable idea of ​​our officials that we must focus only on the most important directions and throw all the resources there. Alas, Yuri Kovalev cannot know (and I do not know) that it is really important (important, not fashionable!) Now it may appear in the future in science. And Dmitry Livanov cannot know, and Andrei Fursenko, and, scared to say, the Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. It turns out that officials suck these “most important directions” from a finger, guided by no means by scientific considerations and not even the interests of the state, and the Council for Science under the Mon is ready to destroy all those who do not fit into this framework. By the way, the “reactionary” programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences nevertheless gave many some opportunity to realize the right to do what they want.

Let's look at the idea of ​​how good it is when not all capable people receive the right to explore - "the higher the position, the more serious the competition." For the ideal of the organization of science, a system is taken in which competitions for permanent positions are organized - about 10-100 people per place. To consider a normal situation where 100 people claim one permanent place is just nonsense. Therefore, well, let 10. If these 10 people are about one, a strong enough level, then, having made it possible to work only one of them, you commit a crime. The costs of the company for paying salaries to several thousand scientists are incomparable with losses that a potentially capable person will not be able to realize. It is about the losses of society and the future of society, not the state! You can not justify the momentary needs of the state that harm society.

And a separate conversation - that the result of the choice of this one out of ten will depend on what indicators the competition takes place. In all such reasoning that it is necessary to support the most powerful scientists, constantly confuse the most successful scientists and most capable scientists. Will Yuri Kovalev really assume that all positions in the West are really strong scientists ? The entire survival system of the described type (10-100 people per place) leads to the advance of the most successful in “science as a business project”. And in our conditions, it is generally openly about the administrative, and not about the scientific leader. Indeed, in the state assignment of the “outstanding researcher” it will be written: “Organization of scientific work”, “Creation of conditions” and so on, because according to our laws, he will not be able to receive money for scientific work.

“We are now striving for the results of these countries (developed) - sorry, distorting. We would like to work in the same conditions as them. We strive for the same society as they are, to live normally, and not to survive constantly. But the life of a Western scientist is better precisely because society is different there, and not because science is better organized. Just the organization of science with eternal rat run are not the best. The most nimble, not the strongest, crawl out. And now in the West they begin to understand this, as already mentioned.

A very strange logic in the assertion that the competition of leading scientists will allow you to work comfortably, and Grants of the RFFIF do not allow, because it is small. So direct the money to the initiative grants of the Russian Federation, increase it at least three times - and will allow! No need for megagrators, no RNF. What is the problem? Is it not popular with the authorities? Even now, RFFF grants allow at least something, since there are no budget money for trips, or on equipment, or for anything.

It is said that only competitions make it possible to adjust. Absolutely correct. For example, the same initiative Grants of the RFFIF is a subtle setting. And the proposal of “few - a lot” is not a setup, it is a sale of your kidney to buy a medicine for the liver. Here were Mon contests, megagrators, now RNF. Among those who received these grants came across people who really should be supported. But does Yuri Kovalev really not know who, to what nonsense went to most of this money? Well, let's sit down and see the project after the project. Did these contests help science?

“Personnel errors in such groups will be incomparably smaller” - why? What exactly is the difference between the “scientific leader” and the academician - the director of the institute? Not all academics were administrators and worthless scientists. Is it not clear to be delighted that some part of the youth will enter such highly paid groups. Because it is a system of corruption of youth. A student or graduate student processing data from an accelerator or astronomical observations - how does it differ from any other? Almost everyone can do this work. But the young man who got into the “outstanding team” quickly gains quoting, indices, fame and begins to become a “young leader”, not doing, in fact, nothing. In such a system, a young man quickly understands that he does not need to think about something for a long time, especially since he should offer something new-he should quickly “get into the stream”. The goal is to become successful, “strongest”, and not to understand some task, the problem seriously.

An indicative example with the youth grants of the Russian Federation for 3 million rubles: out of 25–27 projects selected in the first stage, 7 were especially not remarkable from Moscow State University, and all on laser topics. Because the next “leading scientific leader” from Moscow State University (I do not call) entered all the commissions and taught youth a lesson how to build a scientific business.

"It is not clear what destruction of the scientific environment is discussed." Bad that it is not clear. Here is a leading scientific group launching a radio anti -radio satellite. In order to calculate the trajectory, there should be people who know what differential equations are and how to solve them. In this group, there should be, in addition to scientists - astronomers - still specialists in semiconductors, vacuum electronics, radio equipment, locksmiths, equipment. Who and where will teach these people to work competently? Where can they learn to calculate the trajectory, solder correctly (without confusing the wires, as on the “proton”), work with a voltmeter? It seems that there will be somewhere. We’ll buy it somewhere. No, after some time, these “strongest groups” will already have to specially prepare students for themselves so that they are just competent laboratory assistants, etc. This is the environment-when someone has to find out how some equations are decided, what semiconductor can be used for certain sensors, when there are competent technicians, electricians, techniques. No “leading groups” can finance and prepare people on all issues that they may encounter in their work. This is the decision of the chairman of the Mao on the rise of industry by building blasties in every village.

The vocabulary used by Yu. Kovalev is very alarming: “optimization”, “consolidation of personnel”, “financing of startups of young scientific leaders”. This is all from the field of administrative business management. And Startup is a business termin, having nothing to do with science. New technical developments can only be welcomed, but this is about something else, these are not the problems of fundamental science.

The proposal of “not the strongest” to go to teach at the university simply shows how much Yu. Kovalev is not familiar with what is being done at universities, it is pointless to discuss this here. (I only note that many of the academic institutes read special courses in universities almost free, it is trying to at least somehow train "new generations.")

It is confidently said: "Supply, alternative MR (methodological recommendations. - Ed .) , But is observed." Of course, not true. There are suggestions, they are simply not approved by the ideologists of the current reform. There are no alternative proposals corresponding to the General Line of the party. Then it must be formulated. At the end, it is called up: "Offer something for development, finally!" As already mentioned, you can offer many reasonable things. However, it is clear to everyone that if the attitude of the highest persons of the state towards science and education is not changed, then nothing will save, nothing will save. A certain number of artificial highly paid neoplasms will exist, but there will be no more science in the country.

Therefore, to the question of what can be offered and what can be done, there are two answers.

1. If you really look into the future and try to preserve science here, we must seek a change in the conditions in which we live and work, including financial ones. Do not perceive the current conditions as a given, but try to change them. And this would have to be one of the tasks of the Council for Science under the Mon - to ensure that the Minister of Science and Education defends the interests of the scientific community. (For example, he achieved a reasonable redistribution of money "to science" between departments.)
2. If you perceive current conditions as a given (“boundary conditions”), then the idea that it is possible to improve the situation by any reorganization, taking the rules of the game imposed now is a very dangerous illusion. Any activity in “optimization” can lead to an increase in salaries (but often not even to improve working conditions!) Of individuals, but will lead to a deterioration in the state of science as a whole. This is selecting the rations in the concentration camp more powerful, those who have earned the favor of the security. And in this option to the question: "What do you offer?" “The answer will be:“ We suggest not to get too sick too much. ” Do not get silent with an excessive desire to play the rules of the game proposed by power.

Well, in the end open text.

The situation with science is now bad in Russia not because science is poorly arranged, but because the state is poorly arranged. These are real "boundary conditions." When people believe that achieving something from government officials is also not necessary to do this, then this is no longer a discussion about the ways of developing science, this is a discussion about whether to take a solder from a neighbor in a concentration camp in order to survive or not.

1. Kovalev Yu . Are we good for all ? // TRV - Science No. 189 of October 6 , 2015 .

2. Chebotarev p . On the new principles of financing institutions . // TRV - science . No. 189 of October 6 , 2015 .