«Kulibinsky Approach»
Only according to official data, at least 100,000 people left Russia in 2022. Among them is a large proportion of IT specialists, as well as representatives of a number of other «intellectual» professions. Mostly they are people of military age. At the same time, many young scientists who have the opportunity to live and work abroad have decided to stay in the country, believing that it is in Russia that they will have broad opportunities and prospects in the field of their scientific work. «MK» decided to ask young professionals why they stayed in their native state, what specifically keeps them from the difficult decision to change their fate radically and what they would like to see in the future — their own and their country — from a professional point of view.
12 years of experience in drug development. He is preparing to defend his Ph.D. thesis in physical and mathematical sciences.
— There were both thoughts about leaving and offers from foreign companies: at the beginning of my career there were more thoughts, and then there were more offers from different partners. In the early stages of professional activity, there was a certain romantic idea of reality, of kalach, which is always sweeter in the wrong hands. Plus some vague understanding of life goals and further development paths. But then I met people here with whom I wanted to stay.
I’ll make a reservation right away: when considering the issue of relocation, all the arguments “for” and “against” are extremely individual, they all depend on the field of science, on personal preferences and goals, and so on. For me, people always come first — like-minded people with whom you can strive together to achieve your own goals. In this sense, science is in many ways similar to art: it is a kind of internal need for a certain self-expression and knowledge of the world. And when you meet people with similar needs, a similar value system, it is very motivating, and you just don’t want to leave this team. Of course, this factor must be combined with the satisfaction of basic needs — adequate salaries and working conditions are needed. Fortunately, I have all this here.
Of the technical tools, we need only computing systems — well, we have them in abundance. So for me the possibility of self-realization as a scientist is present in full: it is in Russia that I can become, in a sense, a pioneer. To be sure, being a trailblazer is usually more difficult—much more difficult than when there are some sort of rails on which to move safely. But at the same time, huge opportunities open up before you. Here you need to understand that if you get a job in a global pharmaceutical company abroad, then the freedom of your scientific activity will most likely be significantly limited.
My activity is related to the development of drugs — we are looking for ways to make them faster and cheaper. It is known that theory without practice is dead, and practice without theory is blind. And the ability to implement some ideas in practice is a very valuable thing. Moreover, we have many specialists with excellent education: there is something to do and someone to do it. The main thing is not to be afraid of responsibility and difficulties, to look for people with whom you can go towards a common goal. We have everything for this.
Specialist in biochemistry, protein purification and analysis. For a year and a half, he worked at Rutgers and Temple Universities in the USA, conducting research in the field of fundamental science. Has experience of working in an international company as an application specialist — a specialist in the use of biotechnological equipment. Total experience in the field of science and biotechnology for more than 20 years.
— There were several reasons why I decided to return to Russia, including household ones. At first I came to the USA alone, rented inexpensive housing there and lived quite modestly. But when the question arose of moving with the family, then the money that here in Russia seems significant, after deducting taxes, rent and other expenses, turns out to be not earnings, but a balance between zero and minus. And by that time, I already really wanted to go home, to my relatives and friends, and at the family council it was decided to return. Although, of course, the experience of working abroad from a professional point of view was largely positive and interesting for me. After returning, I received offers to relocate to Spain, the USA and China, but decided to stay in Russia.
From the point of view of the scientific process, from the very beginning it was clear that in Russia the level of education of specialists is higher. Many European and American scientists have lost a deep understanding of technological processes, in particular, in the area that in scientific jargon is called «wet science», which requires complex experiments. In most cases, a habit is formed to work exclusively according to the instructions with sets of reagents — without thinking, mix the contents of one jar with another, apply the mixture to the experimental field and wait for the result. There is an algorithm, but there is usually no understanding of the nature of processes and reactions. And when a European or American scientist runs out of a solution in a jar or something goes wrong, as described in the instructions, he does not know what to do next. Our specialists have the so-called «Kulibinsk» approach and knowledge of details, which allows us to get out of difficult situations. If something is over, we can mix these substances ourselves from simple components, if something breaks, we will fix it without waiting for the arrival of an engineer or the purchase of new equipment. We are used to often being outside the «comfort zone», which is why Russian scientists are so valued abroad.
A few years ago, working abroad had one significant advantage compared to research in Russia: this is logistics brought almost to perfection, which allows you to order reagents for your experiment and receive them in a few days and start working. Shipping materials from the US to Europe or from Europe to the US is quick and easy. At that time, this was a serious problem for us, but now our suppliers of both consumables and reagents, and various services have already reduced delivery times to comparable with Western standards, new Asian and Middle Eastern markets are opening, new logistics schemes are being built, new suppliers are appearing, growing competition.
Another thing is that due to the abrupt closure of the usual supply channels, we have not yet eliminated all the gaps, since, after all, we were very much tied to foreign reagents. But if a pessimist sees a problem in something, then an optimist sees an opportunity. And this is exactly the advantage that also makes working in Russia interesting: a chance to close the niches that opened up after the departure of Western partners. Now, I am sure, many companies will assemble strong enough teams that own technologies and are able to convince investors of their prospects, and we will very quickly have many of our new services and developments. Any crisis is a test of strength and an incentive for further development. As a result, everything will benefit our science and biotechnology.
Specialty: mathematical modeling in biomedicine. In 2009, she came to Russia from Ecuador, studied at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, graduated from two master's programs — in mathematics and computer science. She entered graduate school, in December 2022 she received a Ph.D. in physical and mathematical sciences.
— My husband and I considered options for moving abroad — he is a programmer, and he received specific proposals for relocation. Several countries were discussed: Spain (I am a native speaker of Spanish), Kazakhstan, India or Brazil (from these countries there were invitations to my husband), as well as Germany, where we have acquaintances. Our company has the ability to work remotely, and leaving Russia would not prevent me from continuing my work. The financial issue did not play a role: nothing prevented us from just buying a ticket and going. And abroad, probably, we would be able to earn normal money. In some places it could be better (but it is not known when), in others it would be more difficult. In general, finances did not play a decisive role. And in any case, we decided that this option did not suit us.
Firstly, I didn’t want to make such a decision on a hot head: “Oh my God! I don’t know what to do, but I need to run away from here urgently!” No, this option is definitely not for me. It may seem to someone that it is better abroad, but I understand that before you break loose somewhere, you need to think about it calmly, weigh all the pros and cons. A trip abroad is good for a vacation to have fun, relax and… come back.
Secondly, what we think is one thing, and the facts are another. And they just pointed out that you should not drop everything and go somewhere. Among other things (this consideration was not the main one, but it also took place), I was preparing to defend my Ph.D. thesis. As a last resort, this could probably be done remotely: formally, I had already finished my studies, and my brother, who also lives in Moscow, could collect the documents. I would only have to return for full-time protection. But I thought that this path does not suit me.
The most important consideration that determined my decision to stay in Russia is that for me personally — in the field in which I work — it is better here. It is in Russia that specialists in modeling are of a very high level, here you can acquire all the knowledge that will be useful in the future, here you can really develop and grow. Yes, it is difficult and even not always possible to find a company that provides such experience. But I'm lucky: I already know people who I can learn from, who have international knowledge, and I'm pleased to work with them.
Therefore, leave Russia for another country, God knows where, on unclear terms … Nope!
— All incentives are divided into material and non-material. And the responsibility for the use of both methods of motivation lies not so much with the state as directly with employers. If we talk about the financial component, it is clear that different countries have their own standard of living and taxation system, salaries are different everywhere. But for a competitive job, a specialist needs to be offered competitive wages. Whatever interest a researcher has in his work, he needs to feed his family. The key point is that we still do not have a global understanding that people do science. You can buy excellent devices for crazy money, but they will gather dust without competent specialists. For the development of science, we must learn to invest in people, at least create rates with competitive salaries and working conditions. And if the problem is solved, as in many of our scientific organizations — meager salaries on temporary labor contracts — no one will strive to work under such conditions.
The issue of funding cannot be approached mechanically, science is an area where everything is individual, depending on the level of expertise and the specific field of activity. But one gets the feeling that our scientific rates and salaries are formed without a single system. So, the input level of salaries in the specialty of a programmer or data analyst (this is an analogue of a junior researcher) in an IT company is 200 thousand rubles. But the salary of a junior researcher at an academic institute rarely exceeds 20-30 thousand rubles… How can one compete in such a situation?
We have separate grant programs that work effectively, and there are adequate funding streams. The difficulty is that on the ground this often comes up against the problem of «middle management», when projects are managed by people without understanding the realities of the modern scientific world. In this regard, another task of the state is the special training of leading cadres for science. There is a “School of Governors” – why not create a “School of Scientific Directors”?
There are also intangible incentives. Science is a creative process that only the best and strongest specialists can carry out, and such people can be attracted only by interesting modern problems. If some kind of breakthrough, discovery has already been made in the world, then you should be on a par with these breakthroughs, and not load your employees with tasks that lost their relevance 30 years ago. In our country, there are plenty of opportunities for competitive scientific developments, the most recent and well-known example of such a positive story is Sputnik V. A vaccine that turned out to be very competitive with the most advanced developments. It is necessary to carefully study the experience of such successful stories.
And one more important point: any organization, especially a scientific one, where there is a very strong creative component, is alive. Every living organism has periods of growth, maturity, aging and death. And if your organization is in the last stages of its existence, it will automatically scare away any talented, especially young people who, by definition, are in the growth zone. It is believed that a person reaches the peak of innovative productivity at the age of 35–45 years. No, no one says that a person at the age of 60 cannot be useful in scientific activities — these are people with colossal expertise, colossal experience. They, of course, should be on the team. But their role should change — move from the role of leader, manager to the role of teachers, mentors, reviewers, who support a high scientific culture and continuity. Only by maintaining a healthy relationship culture can you expect your organization to be scientifically productive.