What is the road to go to Russia? Part 2

We continue to discuss measures to develop the Russian economy, which will give her a chance not to get into the category of backward countries. The second part of the Digest on the report of the scientific director of the Higher School of Economics Evgeny Grigoryevich Yasin is devoted to this question.

Science

If Russia cannot compete with China, with India or Brazil in labor resources, then only an innovative development model remains it. We need knowledge and creativity that can be converted to oil and gas income in the development of an innovative economy. Science, like education, is the foundation of such an economy. Science mainly supplies knowledge that is the content of education, and education prepares personnel for science.

The achievements of Soviet scientists in the field of mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology have earned worldwide recognition. Thanks to them, nuclear weapons and energy were created, missile and space systems, the latest samples of aviation equipment, etc. At the same time, science in the USSR experienced the strongest ideological pressure, and therefore genetics, cybernetics, and, especially, public humanitarian sciences lagged behind. Russian science, education and innovation could be competitive in the world.

A peculiar organization of science has developed in the USSR: the most powerful scientific institutions were concentrated at the Academy of Sciences. This was the Ministry of Fundamental Sciences, similar in terms of functions with other ministries and departments, but with external signs (for example, presidential election) relatively independent and self -governing organization. The Academy had close ties with the research centers of defense departments: many prominent specialists of these centers were elected academics, and the financing of centers often many times exceeded allocations for other institutions. The number of scientists was great by world standards, although their productivity left much to be desired. The university science as a whole was weak, excluding two or three dozen universities and institutions. Entrepreneurial activity was banned, as well as traveling abroad. Such an organization of science could exist in the conditions of a planning and distribution system, but with its collapse of transformation and in the field of science became inevitable.

In the transition to the market in the 90s, science suffered heavy losses due to the reduction of state financing and the actual “zeroing” of industry orders. The influx of young personnel has stopped, a brain leak has sharply increased. Many of the scientists have gone into business. The situation of science workers has become humiliating. In this regard, negative moods are still prevailing, and any reforms are found in hostility. People are just afraid of even more decline in science.

Nevertheless, reforms are needed to raise the role of science to the level necessary for an innovative economy. This is not to say that nothing has been done in the last 15 years. Already in 1992, the Minister of Science in the Government of E. Gaidar B.G. Saltykov proposed and mainly implemented an emergency plan aimed at saving the most important components of Russian science with the simultaneous reorganization of management and mechanisms for its financing. His plan had powerful opponents: after all, he encroached on her conservative, but beneficial for the academic community of the foundation. Saltykov proposed the distribution of finance through the Academy, which leads to subordinate institutions, supplement the financing of scientific groups through independent funds, as was done in most countries with developed science. Academicians who were influenced by President Yeltsin and the government have opposed the continuation of the reforms of the Academy itself. After Saltykov left the Minister’s post in 1996, the reforms were stopped.

After 15 years, his ideas tried to realize. Four state funds were created to finance science and innovation. All of them are valid today: the Russian fund of fundamental research (natural sciences), the Russian humanitarian scientific fund, the Fund for the development of small forms of enterprises in the scientific and technical field, the Russian technological fund. They have proved their effectiveness. At the same time, sectoral research institutes were privatized, technology parks and innovative-technological centers (ITCs) appeared, including the Svetlana NPO in St. Petersburg, the scientific park of Moscow State University and many others. To save the most promising areas, about 60 state scientific centers were created, in which it was supposed to concentrate limited financial resources.

10 years after perestroika, it became clear that reforms in science could not be avoided. Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences from Novosibirsk Ze Don Kwon wrote ["Independent Gazeta". 2003, May 28] : “The system of the USSR Academy of Sciences, created by a totalitarian state, was aimed at creating wonderful collectives of scientists”, intended to solve primarily grandiose tasks for the construction of “great pyramids”, which would perpetuate the “great” era. “In this system, everything turned out to be turned upside down: the main educational function of science was pushed pushed, and a smile of cognition ... on the happy face of a fool was the treasured aspiration.” We need a “return to the initial and adopted state of the world, when the critical and educational function of science is put at the forefront.” Back in the Soviet years, the dissident was Professor Kitaygorodsky, demanding a return of fundamental science to universities.

In the summer of 2005, the head of the Ministry of Education and Science A.A. Fursenko reported in the government the concept of reform of the public sector of science. It provided for the reduction by 2010 by the number of state scientific institutions, including in the Russian Academy of Sciences and industry academies, with the transformation of some of them into joint -stock companies and the sale of a state -owned shares, and the other part into autonomous state non -profit organizations that are not directly on budget financing, but receiving state orders (by the way, most universities were also supposed to be transferred to this form). Secondly, the increase in the salaries of scientists three times [ Kommersant, 2005, July 1]. But then the decisions were never made. Another year passed. In 2006, some new ideas were officially announced, including the transformation of wounds into a club of outstanding scientists with a significant reduction in its administrative functions transferred to the state body, as well as on the approval of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences by the president of the country. The last idea is the only implemented.

Meanwhile, the situation in Russian science is rapidly worsening. According to statistics [“Indicators of Science”, 2007], in 2005 there were 813 thousand people engaged in scientific research and developments (of which 104 thousand people in the Russian Academy of Sciences). In 1992 there were 1.5 million people (in the Russian Academy of Sciences - 128.5 thousand people). By the number of researchers, Russia is inferior to the United States, China and Japan. The situation with the financing of science and its effectiveness looks depressing. Russia takes 30th place in terms of expenditure for research and development in GDP (1.07% in 2005). The costs of science per expense per researcher are approximately $ 19 thousand per year against $ 100 thousand in China, 131 in Germany and 147 in Korea. In the rating of countries on the citation of articles in leading scientific journals in the world, Russia is in 19th place, and in 1995 it was in the 7th.

The most important directions of science reform:

1) the combination of science with education, the creation of the so -called research universities;

2) the concentration of resources in the priority areas of fundamental sciences, the implementation in this area, in addition to creating conditions for individual creativity of a number of large projects;

3) maximum openness and integration of Russian science into the world scientific community and independent scientific examination;

4) the mass development of the innovation industry, the commercialization of science.

All this is known. But in all these areas there are endless discussions and there are no noticeable promotions.

The training load of teachers of Russian universities, especially technical, is so great that teachers are not up to science. Ideally, research and teaching are two different professions. By the way, Western experience only confirms this thesis. The students there are rarely seeing students and are mainly busy with research, ours - tirelessly patronize students from the first call to the defense of the diploma. ” The conclusion is this: “Research University in Russia is the invention of a new way to prevent Russian scientists from working ...”

There is aging of scientific personnel. If in 1988 the most numerous group was at the age of 30-39 years, then in the late 90s-already 50-59 years. The average age of doctors of science is 61 years, candidates of sciences - 53 years. In universities, more than half of the professors crossed the bar of retirement age. The state of affairs with university science does not correspond to the role and significance of universities in the development of the scientific potential and the education system in Russia. The share of universities in the total cost of scientific research and development in our country is only 4-5% over the past five years, although the absolute number of doctors and candidates of sciences as part of the faculty personnel is one and a half to two times in Russian science as a whole.

In the west, professors spend less time on lectures and seminars. But with each of them, as a rule, a group of young children works, performing a certain job in the projects of their scientific leader. Science constantly gets young replenishment. Research University, which combines both cognitive and educational functions of science, is the solution to the most acute problem of aging personnel. The Academic Institute will not cope with her.

Resource concentration. This is not about reducing costs, on the contrary, science expenses, including fundamental, must be increased. It is necessary to spend large amounts on the purchase of the most modern scientific equipment to equip the best Russian scientific centers in order to make them attractive for researchers. To invite leading foreign scientists to work in such centers as Peter I invited Leonard Euler to us.

In a number of countries with developed (and effective) science, a new very effective model of “superiority centers” has already been developed and successfully applied, where world -class research in certain areas with the prospect of large -scale innovations in the economy and social sphere is conducted. Such centers can be individual organizations, consortiums, it can be network projects; First of all, the high level and real effects of scientific activity are important. The creation of such centers and the concentration of resources for their support is a key link in the reform of the public sector of science.

Maximum openness. You can’t stop anyone. I would send 10 thousand Russian students and graduate students to study at the best universities of the world at the expense of the state. China, sending thousands of students to the United States, only receives about 15% back immediately after studying. But experts believe that study and work abroad ultimately pay off for the country. Great science does not know the boundaries at all, the question is in which direction the border will be crossed in 15-20 years. We should have new tempers who will attract future Rutherfords. In addition, it would be worth the initiative to create new international scientific centers, including in Russia, with the financing of international funds or participating countries.

The openness, transparency of the science of science is the most important condition for its own effective development and to ensure public recognition of its role and significance. Without this, it is difficult to expect an increase in interest in science from the state and business. Therefore, a system of regular assessment of the research activities of scientific organizations and universities on the basis of international-recognized criteria and procedures with the involvement of independent experts, including foreign, and with the discovered publication of conclusions, is vital. On this basis, decisions should be made on the support of individual organizations and scientific areas, and if necessary, then on their liquidation. It is on such principles that science lives and develops in the leading countries of the world, and only those who have nothing to present as their scientific results and who disguise their inefficiency can impede the creation of transparent rules of the game.

An independent scientific examination , separated from any departmental interests, is one of the most important functions of scientists in all developed countries and in the world. In assessing scientific achievements and determining the directions of the development of science in scientific and technical forecasting, in the humanitarian field-an objective and qualified opinion is important everywhere. Someone must judge "by the Hamburg account." This is the role of scientific examination. Unfortunately, this tradition is largely lost in us. Scientists are too dependent on material and departmental interests, from the state or company. In addition, the desire to make a great discovery is sometimes ahead of real achievements.

In this vein, it is necessary to discuss the role of the Academy of Sciences, the reform of which plays a noticeable role in the fate of Russian science. If she wants to manage state resources, then the appointment of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences as a government official is natural. If she prefers the role of a civilian institute, a center of scientific and technical expertise, she is better off in conditions of independence. Then the functions of the London Royal Society, or the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, or even the France Institute, which is fully financed by the state, but practically does not manage scientific organizations, more consistent with the role of independent examination.

Industry of innovations

The isolation of Russian science from the needs of practice, from bringing discoveries to a commercial product is the main reason for its crisis and the lag of the Russian economy.

Our country should proceed to an innovative economy. Russia has to catch up with other countries in this area if it wants to answer the challenges of the 21st century. In the meantime, it is submitted by international patent applications 7 times less than Korea, and 70 times less than the United States. The share of costs for technological innovations in the cost of industrial products is 1.16%in Russia; For comparison: in Germany - 5%, Italy - 2.3%, Spain - 1.4%. Innovative products occupy less than 1%in Russia, and in Italy, Spain, Portugal - from 10 to 20%, in Finland - 30%[ “Independent Gazeta”. 2007, January 24].

In Russia in 2005, revenues from technology exports reached $ 389 million, and $ 954 million payments for technology imports. This corresponds to about the level of Portugal ($ 559 and 910 million), while, for example, in Switzerland these indicators reach $ 7.5 and $ 8 billion, $ 29 and 14 billion, not to mention the United States - $ 57 and 24.5 billion. [ Indicato of Science , 2007].

Lack of a minimum of an order of magnitude. Competitions about the fact that scientists do not allow scientists to engage in pure science, but require innovation, looks like nagging. The lost paradise is 4 million employees in the field of R&D, including 1.5 million scientists in the USSR, many of whom "satisfied their own curiosity at the state expense."

The relationship between opening, invention and innovation is very complex and uncertain. Often, it is practical tasks that become impetus for scientific discoveries. Linear programming, as you know, began with the decision of L.V. Kantorovich tasks of optimal cutting of materials for the Leningrad plywood trust. The society is ready to contain a certain number of talented scientists who are not prone to practical tasks while they give hopes or after they justified these hopes. But how many should there be? The rest will have to respond to the "despair" of the real economy that needs innovation to increase competitiveness.

The creation of a strong industry of innovations, many small enterprises involved in bringing the ideas of scientists and inventors to a traded product is a number one task for our economy.

Need a whole complex of conditions

Suppose all the reforms mentioned above in education, science, and the innovation industry have been carried out, the proposals have been made. Money for these initiatives was allocated as much as they asked. Will this ensure the creation in Russia in the future, say, 20-30 years of an innovative economy comparable in strength to the USA, Europe, Japan?

Only if all the mentioned conditions are fulfilled in sufficient volume, both directly necessary for the innovative economy and indirectly supporting it. At the same time, freedom of creativity and entrepreneurship, competition are needed. We need reliable protection of property rights, including intellectual, and maintaining the discipline of contracts, without which market mechanisms will not work effectively. We need to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, primarily to the state. Hence the need to subordinate power to the law, the rule of law and the independence of the court, which are so difficult to give to us.

Отсюда и требования к политической системе, которая должна исключать злоупотребление законом и полномочиями органов правосудия и правопорядка, что предполагает недопущение чрезмерной концентрации власти и политическую конкуренцию в рамках конституционных правил. Все это называется демократией, не требующей каких-либо прилагательных.

Тезис о зависимости инновационной экономики от всех этих условий, а особенно связь успехов в науке с демократией встретит много противников. Их аргументы будут черпаться из советской практики, когда ученые порой работали в «шарашках» и добивались мировых достижений.

Но, во-первых, сталинскому периоду в развитии страны все же предшествовала великая революция, во всяком случае так ее воспринимала значительная часть современников. А она, пусть не на уровне вождей, но в части интеллектуальной элиты, была символом и обещанием свободы. Она, уничтожая одних, открыла дорогу в науку другим, из всех слоев общества. Этот дух свободы и революции послужил импульсом подъему 1920-х, когда сформировались основные кадры советской науки, сделавшие выдающиеся открытия в 1940-е-1950-е гг. «Шарашки» понадобились, чтобы запугать и подчинить свободных людей.

Во-вторых, сейчас принципиально иное время. В век индустриализации, когда конвейер и унификация были вершиной достижений цивилизации, планировать научные и производственные приоритеты было много легче. Инновации как таковые еще не стали массовым и самостоятельным продуктом. Сейчас дело обстоит именно так, а неопределенность будущих прорывов существенно выросла. Эпоха, когда организация была богом, прошла. Теперь успех рождается из разнообразия, из свободы.

But that's not all. Экономическая, институциональная и политическая системы в стране, которая стремится иметь сильную конкурентоспособную инновационную экономику, более того, ставящая цель создать почти заново такую экономику в ответ на вызовы нового века, должны быть поддержаны обществом. Формальные институты должны опираться на определенные нормы социального взаимодействия, предполагающие достаточные уровни ответственности, доверия, терпимости и солидарности, усвоенные и практикуемые большинством членов общества. Речь идет о весьма сложных и тонких вещах, к исследованию которых уже давно с разных сторон подбираются социальные науки. Они обозначаются такими близкими, но не идентичными по смыслу понятиями, как социальный капитал, гражданское общество, культура.

Собственно, ответ на вопрос, готово ли общество к модернизации в современном понимании, зависит от того, в каком состоянии оно находится, нуждается ли оно само в более или менее серьезных изменениях, возможны ли такие изменения, а если возможны, то в какие сроки и под влиянием каких сил они могут происходить.