"Scientist and society"

We publish a decoding of the performance of mathematics, ch. scientific. sore. St. Petersburg branch of the Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Anatoly Vershik at the birthday of the TRV-hunger.

After such wonderful scientific reports, it became envious that I did not have the opportunity to tell something about mathematics. And in general, I'm in a strange situation here, because I was going to talk not about science, but about politics and public affairs. This transition is always somewhat heavy for me, but it will have to.

At first I must say that 8 years ago, when I was offered to write something in the first number of the Trinity Option, and that was April 1, 2008, I wrote something joking, as expected. I was sure that this project was not for long, for various reasons. I can’t say that I always predict well, but sometimes it happens. And here my opinion turned out to be deeply erroneous. We see that the newspaper has become unique. It seems to me that this is completely unexpected and wonderful, because there is no such publication for scientists and about scientists in Russia. I hope that it has finally established himself.

But, as one famous politician said, "the best way to celebrate the anniversary is to focus on shortcomings." So, I will now talk about the main drawback. It seems to me that it consists in the fact that the Trinity Option is not known little. And something needs to be done with this. I am not an advertising specialist and not a manager, and it is difficult for me to offer something, but I think that it is possible and, probably, I need to collect money to expand the base, and, of course, advertise the publication in the circles of scientific and pedagogical in the broadest sense of the public.

Of course, everything that we all heard today is often published in the Trinity version is terribly interesting to everyone who is not indifferent to scientific knowledge. And youth, and older people, and not only scientists. But there is another important side that is now becoming almost the main one. This is what I wrote in my application - the topic is too loud and, perhaps, too solemnly called the "scientist and society." I will say this very briefly.

We are now living in a country that has a new date of birth. This is either 2012 or 2013, or maybe 2011. A lot has changed, but the main thing is that the relations of scientists and the authorities have changed radically. Of course, scientists - of those who are engaged in science - do not spend much time on politics and discussing all sorts of pressing political and public issues, which, incidentally, simply score the Internet. I attribute this to myself too, but, on the other hand, scientists cannot completely ignore the discussion of the situation in the country. And precisely because we live in a new country, the attitude of scientists to what is happening should somehow adequately reflect your publication. And I see the possibilities of the Trinity Option as one of the tools to make this opinion public.

It is clear that scientists have different points of view on what is happening, but there is one common thing that unites them by definition - this is a scientific approach to the development of points of view. It seems to me very important to attract as authors of the articles of the “Trinity version” of historians, sociologists, political scientists and those who can professionally evaluate and compare the processes that occur with the country. There are probably such people, because good books are written and published, however, 100 copies with a circulation, so they are not known to anyone. But I know that there are such people.

Our assumptions and opinions based on personal life experience, on some moral principles-and these are all different things from different people-should somehow integrate into what is called public opinion, and it is now necessary. I suppose that, most likely, it will sharply differ from official and “street” opinions.

I want to say that in the late Soviet years, when there was no “Trinity option” and “rain”, the public opinion of the intelligentsia and scientists was. And this is not only a “dissident” point of view (“chronicle”), but this is the Sakharovsky assessment of events, and before that Solzhenitsyn. All this was little -known then and (I note in brackets and unfortunately) now. I took part in the publication of the Samizdat abstract journal "Sum" in the late 1970-1980s. It is worth evaluating the level and seriousness of the discussions of the events of those years. But now, at least the remnants of publicity allow you to publish the registered opinion of the scientific community. And he is not heard.

And it seems to me that we, especially those of us who lived in Soviet times, when there was no “Trinity option” and it was very dangerous to express our own thoughts if they were different from Soviet chatter - so, we all forgot how to say aloud what we think, although it is not so dangerous now. But even more important than then. And those for whom the times are sednia antiquity, all the more could do it.

A little example, which, as purpose, was prompted to me yesterday with one wonderful event yesterday. I was yesterday on the eight -year anniversary of one event at the St. Petersburg European University, which was founded in 1994, it is known to many of you. This is a wonderful institution, by the way, having a high international status among political educational educational institutions.

The event, which the then rector of the EUSPB spoke vividly and wittily, was that in January 2008 the official from the fire department appeared to the rector and said that he was instructed to seal all the audiences of this university, which he did. He did not stick toilets and laboratories, but he was ordered to seal all the audiences. The rector said that he, apparently, was a normal person and understood that he was doing something wrong. But he was ordered. And in March 2008, this official again appeared at the university and with pleasure (apparently a really conscientious official) took off the seal. This was noted. Guests were invited, in addition, there was still some kind of conference there. Everyone was kicked out into the street, then they took out a giant fire hose, put the hose to all this “tail” of the guests and solemnly brought to the university. It was very fun.

But for some reason, a sad and main story of these events did not sound at all, which consists in the fact that the lasting trifle was the reason for the actual elimination of a solid university by the highest decision, and only supernatural efforts were able to affect the change in the decision. There were many letters and appeals, including from the international public, but they did not help.

In subsequent years, there was more than one such event, the scale of others were more. Last year, the same thing happened with the Dynasty Foundation. Here the result was monstrous. The fund was decided to liquidate. Well, what can we say about the “reform” of the Academy, which, according to the initial plan, was not a reform, but liquidation (see the transcript of the government’s meeting in 2013 published in the Trv-hobby [1]). Is there a clear scientific public opinion about these actions and about the methods of their holding?

Alas, no. And the reason is that we do not want to talk about it loudly. I understand concern and do not condemn the silence of those who are forced to behave in such a way as not to provoke even greater repressions. I can give other examples, but still we must express our opinion loudly. This does not mean that we should go to the streets. I do not think that we must arrange demonstrations and so on. But on the other hand, the point of view: "So what will happen from your protests?" - I think vulgar.

Most of all, in the history of the liquidation-reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I was surprised that so little found those who openly expressed their attitude to events. Well, maybe this is a manifestation of the allegedly unity of scientists and authorities inherent in the Soviet time. The Academy, from which the great Sakharov came out, was not afraid of one to resist the Soviet colossus, almost did not find the same courageous people. The absence of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov and people of such courage is very affected by our lives. And I am very glad that our evening takes place in the Sakharov Center.

1. Soyfer V. Russia without RAS // TRV-hunger No. 199 of March 8, 2016.