"No need to cry, you have to work"

About scientific Russia, how to be an outstanding scientist in it, about the coronavirus situation and the unification of the two largest scientific funds was told by the Honored Science of the Russian Federation, the head of the scientific field of "magnetism" at the Institute of Physics named after L.V. Kirensky Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center SB RAS, DOK. physical. Sciences Sergey Ovchinnikov . Talked Maria Baikalova .

- Recently, Plos Biology published information about the most influential scientists, compiled on the basis of the Scopus scientific publication system. Almost 160,000 researchers from around the world got into it. The authors of the calculation and database algorithm are the famous American statistics John Johnnidis and his colleagues. The samples of record -based scientists for all the time indexation of articles in Scopus and the most cited scientists in the publications of 2019 included, respectively, 709 and 751 people from Russia. You got into both of these lists.

- Of course, I was pleased that I entered this base, but nothing more. I consider to rank people according to such a list, for example, when hiring or when distributing grants, I consider it wrong. In addition to moral satisfaction, I see no sense in it.

- How to become an outstanding scientist?

- In order to be published in successful magazines and be an eminent scientist, you need to work on the current topic. At the same time, there are topics fashionable, but not particularly relevant. They need to be distinguished. The fashionable flashes sharply, burn a year or two, scientists rush at them, and those, you look, have cooled. And there are topical topics that contain complex, long -solved problems. For example, I have been engaged in the theory of strong electronic correlations all my life. It has been known for almost a hundred years, but for a long time there was no particular development in it. Therefore, few were interested in the topic. But when high -temperature superconductors experimentally opened in 1987, it turned out that they relate to a class of materials with strong electronic correlation. And here it became relevant and fashionable. By the way, my most cited work applies to materials with strong electronic correlation. And recently, as part of the international team, we defined [1] how metals exchange oxides exchange electrons and change their magnetic state under the influence of optical radiation. Scientists could not solve this riddle for decades. Therefore, instead of fashionable, it is better to select the relevant topics.

It is important not only the choice of the topic, but also the integrated approach to it. It is necessary to improve the dash base and experimental opportunities, to conduct theoretical work. It may be that I entered the list of influential scientists, it is due to the fact that I have long been preaching the integrated approach in our Krasnoyarsk.

- You worked at many foreign universities. Does the organization of science are different in Russia somehow?

- I got my first foreign experience in 1990 in the Indian Bangalore. This is probably the most famous scientific center in India. They have the same principle as ours - an integrated approach. There are experimental and theoretical laboratories. It is important to note that this is a research institute, in fact, the same as our academic ones. In Western universities, in Europe or America, as a rule, a slightly different principle of organization. There are groups in which professors determine scientific areas. For example, they invited a professor of some famous experimenter, and an experimental direction is developing around him. Rarely such development is complex.

-Ideologically, something like the approach to Russian megagrators.

- It seems that only grants should be in more volumes that allow you to purchase decent equipment. Take, for example, a megaggrant that we received last year [2]. We were able to buy only the minimum equipment. In the first year, nothing left for the salary. Our megagrators are very small for serious experimental and technological development. We have to additionally connect other sources of financing to them.

- Is it possible to say that in Russia the conditions are difficult for science?

- It was always not easy for us. When there is a stately important problem, as it was with the atomic or space industry, then, of course, the state allocates a lot of money. Therefore, in the atomic and space industry, we had breakthrough achievements. In the nuclear, I would say, we are still ahead. At the same time, for example, the directions that I do do not receive such attention from the state. Although the high -temperature superconductivity, which I previously mentioned and which is my main scientific interest, was supported by the first federal target program in the Soviet Union. Good money at that time was invested. But in general, financing is always not enough.

- Are there any ways out of this position?

- In principle, the existing grant system in Russia allows active people to take the first steps. True, the merger of the RNF and the RFFI is now announced, and this is a very sad story. The RFFI was the first independent fund to support small groups of scientists. RNF is more focused on large projects. But in addition to powerful groups or themes, there are smaller, initiative. The elimination of the possibility of their financing will be a big mistake.

A positive moment is Russia's participation in international collaborations. It helps me a lot that Russia is included, for example, in the Megasaypenses project at the Synchrotron Center in Grenoble. Now in Hamburg a powerful accelerated center has been built, a laser on free electrons. Since Russia paid contributions there, we have the right to apply for an experiment. It is considered on a competitive basis by the expert community. In case of support, you are paid for travel, accommodation and experiment. We have been using similar capabilities for a long time. In Hamburg, we have already planned the first experiment. Russia's participation in international large projects greatly helps the development of such relatively small groups as mine.

- And if we talk about the fundamental science in Russia?

- Now take the situation with coronavirus. Why did Russia be one of the first to develop a vaccine? Because this science was long, it developed and was supported by the state. The Novosibirsk “Vector” or National Research Center named after N.F. Gamalei did not appear yesterday. This suggests that we do not have a sharp failure in fundamental science. Another thing: preparations for coronavirus were done, and to produce en masse, as we see, yet does not work.

If you return to physics, I would say that, of course, there is not enough attention from the state to the financing of science. However, there is another aspect. It is necessary not only to have money, but also to competently dispose of it. Why is this a problem? When a person is engaged in physics, chemistry or mathematics, he is a narrow specialist in his field, competently dispose of money, that is, competent management, we were not taught. This may be the reason why we have a certain gap between fundamental research and their application in practice. There are many interesting results, but initiative and enterprising people are deprived of the opportunity to do something on their own. Suppose a professor with graduate students came up with some idea in the west. A small enterprise is instantly issued, a former graduate student becomes a manager, begin to produce. This is almost impossible for us. Successful high -tech enterprises that introduce the results of fundamental science can be counted on the fingers. Our social structure not only has not yet matured, but even dramatizes such initiatives by the state bureaucracy.

- Does this mean that in Russia science is in decline?

- In decline or not in decline, it depends on what to compare with. In the days of the USSR, when the Academy of Sciences was a privileged organization, we could say that science is very supported by the state. Say, some kind of official solemn event, such as a festive reception. Always at the same table with the highest ranks of the state was the president of the Academy of Sciences. Now look at who sits: the heads of churches, large businessmen. Science is also invited, but somewhere there. This shows the state's attention to science problems. But this does not mean that science itself has become worse. The interests of the state have changed.

- You briefly mentioned Coronavirus as an example of the sphere, where science worked to solve the problem. And how did the pandemic affected science? Many, for example, scold the online format of scientific events.

- I think this is the positive side of our scientific life. It sounds unexpected, but in the conditions of coronavirus, when we are all at home, we began to communicate more. Now I am one of the co -organizers of Russian colloquiums on the urgent problems of physics of the condensed state [3]. We began to carry them out in the fall and now continue with regularity twice a month. To participate in the event, we invite speakers from around the world, mostly Russian -speaking. Among them, the Nobel laureate was already on our colloquium. Each time, about 500 participants are going to the report, at the lecture of Konstantin Novosyolov there were 700 people. At a full -time conference, it is difficult to collect so much. This became possible only thanks to a new form born by coronavirus. But it’s a completely different matter in this format to give lectures for students. When teaching students, personal communication is very important, it is impossible to completely replace live education with remote education. To conduct scientific discussions, online formats, I think, will be used. But, again, they will not replace living conferences, because direct communication is also pleasant and important.

- If not coronavirus, then what can prevent the scientist in development?

- Just yesterday I talked with my friend and former classmate, who also at our Institute of Physics heads the laboratory, he is a talented experimenter. The youth leaves from his laboratory. They are interfered with the lack of money, that income in business is much higher than in science. Some go to the west, because the conditions are better there. I think that someone can interfere with inorganization, to someone-a lack of money.

It is important to understand: if you want to work, you can always find conditions. And if you want to complain, you can always find the reasons for this. It depends on the person. I have a graduate student. He went to Grenoble for experiments several times, then he was invited there for a couple of years to work. Now he has returned to Krasnoyarsk. Recently he has a powerful article in Science [4]. Here is an example of how you can realize yourself in science. No need to cry, you need to work.

Photo by A. Tamarovskaya