"Scientists don't breed in captivity"

, Doctor of Science, answers TRV-Nauka’s post-New Year questions Sergey Nechaev . physics and mathematics Sciences, Ved. scientific co-workers FIAN, head Poncelet Laboratories (CNRS, Independent Moscow University).

— What should a scientist do in the current socio-political situation? Can a scientist develop science in modern Russia and what is needed for this?

— It seems to me that the majority of adequate people who have not succumbed to collective psychosis, who want to work honestly, live by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” principle that existed in the American army in relation to sexual minorities, which, as they say, was quite effective.

In Russia, at least in the scientific world, there is a “superfluid component,” i.e., a layer of people who lives by universal human moral rules, travels around the world and communicates with colleagues, and does their job with pleasure (at a level that sometimes exceeds world), understands everything perfectly, but practically does not participate in public life. Unfortunately, this mainly applies only to central cities and only leading scientific centers. The rest of Russian science is poverty and the inability to work at the global level.

I already wrote once that scientists “do not breed in captivity.” Therefore, the middle generation, to which I belong and which has immunity, may go through difficult (primarily psychologically) times, but the scientific youth, alas, are doomed to either “internal” or “external” emigration. But we must also take this calmly, considering that this is the only way to preserve the scientific gene pool. I see with what pleasure Russian specialists come from abroad (for a short time) and give seminars at HSE, at the Independent University, at Steklovka in Russian. But, in my opinion, the biggest misfortune is the fate of the older generation, which, in fact, formed scientific schools, and is now left with nothing.

— In the current situation, can the Academy of Sciences have a significant influence on the development of science? Do you see the need to create new organizations of scientists?

— The Academy of Sciences creates an atmosphere of intelligence. At the present time, this is not bad. FANO does not create such an atmosphere. But neither the Academy of Sciences nor the FANO, in my opinion, have much influence on the development of science either in Russia or in the world. The development of science is influenced by the local atmosphere in a particular scientific center, the presence of motivated young people and the integration of this center into the global scientific community.

— Of course, everyone decides for themselves whether to leave or not to leave, but what are the conditions for this decision?

- I told you about leaving. Rather, the aspect of arrival is interesting. They really come to Russia. But I wouldn't call it a comeback. Specialists with good names come to special positions. Such a visit has a number of advantages: often a lighter teaching load, a decent salary, the opportunity for free scientific work, and communication in Russian. But all this is perceived as a bonus if you have “insurance” in the form of a permanent job in the West (or in the East). Adventurers also come to fish in the murky waters. But there are not very many of them in the scientific community.

— Do you have reasons for optimism?

“There is hope that maybe I will do something else in the area that I am working on.” As for the rest, don't ask, don't tell.

— What fiction or non-fiction books, films or music attracted your most attention in 2015? Could you tell us more about them?

— I can’t name anything released in 2015 simply because I didn’t keep track. I read with pleasure and interest the journalism of Dmitry Bykov, and returned to Douglas Hofstadter’s book “Gödel, Escher, Bach. This endless garland,” and for some reason there was a musical imprint from Kuryokhin’s “Sparrow Oratorio.” Among the documentaries, the series “From St. Petersburg to Moscow” on the Dozhd TV channel made an impression. I practically don’t watch new feature films; among the old ones, I always love “Favorites of the Moon” by Otar Ioseliani.

— You became the head of the Laboratory named after . Poncelet . How you see do its goals and objectives ?

— Since 2006, the Independent University has had the Poncelet International Mathematical Laboratory, organized by the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) with the support of several leading Russian mathematical centers, which until last year was led by mathematician and number theory specialist Mikhail Tsfasman.

French laboratories typically undergo recertification every four years, and last year the CNRS faced a dilemma: either close the laboratory or renew it in a slightly different format. So far, the decision has been made to “rebrand” and try to turn the Poncelet Laboratory into a French-Russian interdisciplinary scientific center in physics, mathematics and computer science. The final decision will be made by the CNRS at the end of the coming year based on the results of our work for 2016.

Why is this laboratory needed? This question was formulated most clearly by A.P. Kuleshov, director of the Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, when he asked me what the mission of the laboratory was. This question puzzled me, but now I can answer it: a) we would like to help overcome parochialism and handicraft in scientific research both in Russia and in France; and b) from the point of view of Russian-French relations, we would like the work of the laboratory not to be a “pulling of the blanket”, but to follow a win-win strategy - when everyone wins.

— What is the laboratory doing now?

— 1. We have a plan of conferences and schools that are already being and will be held jointly with other scientific organizations (IPPI, Steklovka, HSE, Yandex, Physics and Technology, Moscow State University).

2. We launched a Moscow-wide youth seminar on mathematical physics of a fairly wide profile with “live” reports in an informal atmosphere. Now we are working on a new website for the laboratory, which, I hope, will be up and running by March 2016 - all the information will be there.

3. Very limited financial resources do not allow us to invite French specialists for a long time, so we envision Oberwolfach-type cooperation, when, by prior agreement, a French specialist comes to the Poncelet Laboratory for specific work on site for a period from a week to a month. During this time we can provide free housing.

4. Last year, the CNRS representative office in Moscow was closed. Of course, we cannot and do not want to fulfill their functions, but the Poncelet Laboratory can be a platform where French and Russian scientific organizations interested in each other meet.

As an example, I can cite the round table we organized together with ITMO in December 2015 in St. Petersburg on the topic “Computer technologies in the preservation of cultural heritage” between ITMO and French companies that are engaged in the physical restoration of architectural monuments and use virtual reality methods. In March 2016, we plan to hold a French-Russian round table in Moscow on the topic “Big data in biology” together with IITP and HSE.

— What scientific problem are you working on now? What will your main efforts be focused on in 2016?

I'm sitting on three chairs, which apparently isn't very efficient, but I'm interested. Firstly, these are problems of DNA physics, which belong to the field of “statistical topology” and concern the topology and folding of DNA in chromosomes. There is now significant progress in experimental methods associated with determining contact maps of single chromosomes, and this allows us to build more adequate statistical models and think about building the simplest synthetic molecular machines.

Secondly, these are problems of phase transitions in complex distributed systems such as evolving networks. And thirdly, these are problems related to the geometric and statistical properties of structures that are “poorly” embedded in Euclidean space. For example, imagine a soccer ball whose surface area increases faster than its radius squared. How will the surface be structured in a typical case? We literally don’t have an answer to this question, but we know how to solve some related problems—I talked about this at Postnauka in December 2015.

— In your opinion, is there a threat of clericalization of the scientific and educational sphere in Russia?

— It is necessary to separate the professional scientific environment (where I include people who think and use their heads specifically to analyze information) and people who draw their knowledge about life and science from television. For the former, there is no threat of personal clericalization, but often for selfish purposes or in order to be closer to the feeding trough, they themselves promote clericalization, including in educational institutions - this, in my opinion, is cynical and scary.

For the rest of the people, such a danger exists. Moreover, clericalization merges with pseudoscience. I once wrote the text of “The Gravitsap of Father Zvezdony” about this very thing, but I never sent it anywhere, because life turned out to be even stronger than the examples that I gave there.