Experts and boiler houses

Dear editors!

In Moscow, as in all of Russia, a wonderful time comes - about five warm months, when nature itself, one might say, rejoices in life. The sun shines, the trees are covered with foliage, millions of Russian citizens begin annual migration for cottages - some on weekends and who is on an ongoing basis. In general, I want to congratulate all of you, dear colleagues, on the upcoming holiday of spring and labor!

Of course, the Pervomaisky holiday is now called the holiday of spring and labor now, but with difficulty it usually does not work out very much: the soul rejoices in the visibly advancing spring, and not only at home, but also among the neighbors in the country. Although this year we are waiting for as many weekends, so that it can come to work.

I don’t know if this is due to natural rhythms, but in spring and autumn Russian academics traditionally hold their general meetings. So this time they will gather to discuss many important issues in the "golden brains". I note that although the meetings are called “common”, the members of the Russian Academy of Sciences are far from fully ensuring the proper filling of the hall: if at the beginning of the first day the hall is quite crowded, then at the end of the second there are, to put it mildly, some problems with the quorum.

But I do not want to talk about that: the ability to sit at meetings is not the main challenge that the Academy is faced with. If you remember, in one of the books of the Strugatsky brothers on the wall of the laboratory, a poster hung with the question “Do we need us?” Academicians should also bother the similar question of their own need. No, of course, each member of the Russian Academy of Sciences individually is very necessary for himself; Probably, it is very necessary for the nearest environment. But is the Academy itself needed in changed historical realities? That's the question.

Even some 6–7 years ago, the Academy was actually the Ministry of Fundamental Science, it ruled a large network of scientific institutions. No one could have occurred to anyone that such a structure was not needed. And now? Academicians are asking for the problem of landfills, then to develop a program of fundamental research - from the heterogeneity of the tasks of posed tasks in the eyes.

Academics themselves also do not add clarity to the question of why they are needed. Not so long ago I heard a noise: in Siberia, academics were indignant at the proposal to seize property from the Siberian branch. It surprised me: who are you, scientists or the manager? Why do you need boiler houses, heat centers, hotels? Yes, it was said that money from lease allows us to support scientific magazines, but this generally smacks of some nineties when everyone survived as they can.

Now are other times, and everything should be done correctly and reasonably. It seems to me that the Academy needs to stop experiencing phantom pains on the withdrawn institutions and by the property that has departed from its management and confidently occupy the place that the state points to it in a rapidly changing world. Namely, a key scientific expert instance.

This is not to say that the wounds did not take steps in the right direction. The Academy has already begun to engage in expert activities: analyzes the topic of work on a state assignment at academic institutions, studies scientific works conducted in universities. Although it does not do without problems either: they say that academic experts do not very highly appreciate the work being conducted in universities. But nothing will deal with this: they will not give academics money for the scientific programs of the Presidium this year - next time they will not demonstrate their academic arrogance.

But you need to look further: there are boring piles of reports, but there are state programs and large projects, there are large business projects. And someone must take on the role of an appraiser of the scientific and scientific and technical component of such projects and programs. And this promising niche, mind you, has not yet been particularly mastered by the Academy.

The main thing here is to approach the case correctly. The correct expert is not a self -confident snob, taking an example with Landau in the sharpness of judgments, is not. The correct expert is one who knows how to feel a request from the state or large business in a timely manner and competently substantiate the need to implement it. I repeat, forget, dear Academic colleagues, about the requirements to return the institutes under the wing of the Russian Academy of Sciences, refuse property claims: believe me, you can get much more for the correct expertise than for the management of boiler rooms and steering institutes!

Your Ivan Ekonomov