10 years ago, the federal law on the reorganization of the Academy of Sciences was signed
The Russian Academy was reformed, disarmed, and turned into a club of scientists. And the word “reformed” here, in my opinion, is not entirely suitable, since reform is a change in form while maintaining the essence. But has the academy retained its essence as a scientific organization? Unfortunately no. And the upcoming celebration of the tercentenary of the Russian Academy of Sciences in February 2024, for which everyone is preparing, will be tinged with sadness. In fact, the “reformers” deceived the government and the president.
The Federal Law “On the Russian Academy of Sciences, the reorganization of state academies of sciences…” was signed by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on September 27, 2013. The author described in detail how the law was adopted hastily, secretly from the scientific community, and who was among the main authors of this document in an article by Moskovsky Komsomolets dated September 26, 2019 under the heading “How the RAS was killed.”
Recall that we were talking about the transfer of all institutes subordinate to the Russian Academy of Sciences to the newly created FANO (Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations) and the transformation of a large state scientific organization into a club.
Today, a number of things are seen much more broadly: many of those who forced the reform, and in fact the collapse of domestic science, having fallen from their former high positions, occupy more modest, but no less well-fed… Dmitry Livanov, who was the Minister of Education in 2013, is now the rector MIPT, ex-Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Board of Sberbank on February 11, 2020; she oversees, according to Wikipedia, digital GR (Government Relations) projects, that is, interaction with government authorities, and the healthcare industry. Let me remind you that these officials took responsibility for the developed reform in 2013.
How clearly visible today are the “merits” of would-be reformers who underestimated the role of scientists who relied on the raw materials model of the country’s economy. Thanks to them, as well as the imposed Western sanctions (they seemed to play along with each other), we now lack a lot: neither our own spare parts for aircraft, nor semiconductors, nor microelectronics for the production of microcircuits and other goods. Even the equipment for extracting their raw materials for subsequent sale was purchased in other countries until recently!
Just think: over the past 10 years, the number of personnel involved in scientific research has decreased in Russia from 735.4 to 655, 4, almost 80 thousand! This is just the latest official data from the Institute for Problems of Science Development of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And how many scientists have left the country over the past 20–30 years! Hundreds of thousands!
Yes, perhaps, we should start talking about the destruction of what was once the best Russian science in the world not from 2013, when, in fact, an end was put in its biography, but from a much earlier period.
When something happens that does not fit into common logic, one must ask the question of who benefited from it. Let's figure it out. Experienced members of the Academy claim that the question of reforming the Russian Academy of Sciences was first raised back in 1993, by curators from abroad. The well-known report of the International Economic Organization of Developed Countries (OECD), which recognizes the principles of democracy and a free market economy, analyzed the state of Russian science. There it was said about the need to reduce the number of academic institutions, scientists and transform the Russian Academy of Sciences into a club. Why was it necessary to lay off scientists, you ask. To be honest, I don’t understand, they say, these were the recommendations of Western experts who referred to our weak economy, which in the early 90s was no longer up to big science.
The then Minister of Science Boris Saltykov is said to have agreed with this postulate. There was some truth to the fact that the years were difficult: the economy really was down. But whose fault is it? This is what the late academician Yuri Ryzhov, a former member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, who until recently headed the Department of Aerodynamics at the Moscow Aviation Institute, told me in 2016: “We had a complete economic collapse then (in the early 90s), there was no food. Speculators withheld food and sold it under the counter. And Gaidar legalized this business, he said: if you have a product, put it on the market, how much they will pay you, and sell it for as much.” You see, the speculators held it, and the people from the “box” were told: “There is no product.” When it suddenly appeared again, it turned out to be unaffordable for most.
But in those years there was still a chance to build a high-tech economy… But the resource path was chosen, without high science. Then the reduction of knowledge-intensive enterprises and applied research began, and soon the education system began to change according to the Bologna type.
In 2004, another key event occurred: science was “snatched” from the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology (that is, from the innovation circuit) and attached to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
— Education and science cannot be managed in the same way, — says one of the academy members. — Education is linear, everything goes according to a strictly drawn up plan, and fundamental science is always a non-standard solution, which means it should be structured differently.
What about the arrangement? Even then, the idea of changing the management of the property of scientific institutes arose in the minds of some officials. “They are so rich,” apparently reasoned the officials digging for themselves, “they have additional buildings for laboratories, fields for experimental wheat crops. And why do they need so many?!”
In order not to tease society too much, they came up with the thesis: “Scientists are engaged in science, administrators after the reform are engaged in farming.” But in fact, almost all management of science passed into the hands of administrators from the ministry. And those, go ahead and place your main bet not on institutions that are left without intelligent leadership, but on others under your jurisdiction—universities. Like, American science is done in universities, and we will follow this path. The choice to support universities more was strange. The share of scientific publications of the Russian Academy of Sciences among the total volume of scientific publications in Russia was 55.11%, and the share of all universities was 44.1%. “According to international citation rankings,” the Council of Young Scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences objected to Minister Livanov, “in 2013, the Academy ranked 55th among 5,252 leading universities and scientific organizations in the world.”
“They placed a bet on university science, like in underdeveloped countries,” one of my interlocutors reveals the true picture. — This exactly corresponds to the resource type of economy. The thing is that in the same States, research universities did not stand next to ours; each of them has its own material base, which many of ours, alas, cannot boast of. Well, such entities as, for example, Skolkovo, generally cause bewilderment. Despite the investments, for many years the university has not become one of the leading higher education institutions in the country. And its focus on foreign partners in the new conditions raises, in the opinion of many interlocutors, the question of the possibility of its existence.
When we are pointed at Western scientific organizations, we must understand that they are not all universal, each has its own distinctive features. In France, along with universities, there is a National Center for Scientific Research for the development of fundamental science; in Germany there are four societies: the Fraunhofer Society, the Helmholtz Association, the Leibniz Association and the Max Planck Society. These organizations are very similar to the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences is simply an analogue of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The leading countries of the world took their example from it, and our officials took it and destroyed it.
Of course, over the course of time, over 10 years, something in the general arrangement of science began to change for the better, for example, Vladimir Putin’s “May decrees” of 2018 on a 100% increase in salary are at least being implemented, although not everywhere. But the main thing is still missing: the institutes were taken away from the academy, but the ministry could not become the same scientific coordinator for them. Locally, it even got to the point where institutes wrote assignments for themselves and then carried them out themselves, which, of course, did not happen when they belonged to the RAS.
The famous cyberneticist Ashby formulated at one time the law of necessary diversity for cybernetics: “The governing body must be more diverse than the governed,” otherwise there will be no development. Take, for example, a gymnastics coach. If he wants to train the Olympic team well, he must himself be a professional in parallel bars, on the horizontal bar, etc. Otherwise, nothing will work out. Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences have always been such trainers for institute staff. And then FANO came with the ability to optimize well…
I would like to believe that the reformers, not out of malice, but out of pure bewilderment, destroyed the once competently built system of science management. OK then! Then one would expect drastic changes in it, at least after the start of the SVO, because hopes are now pinned on scientists to create their own technology, electronics, and medical devices. But… the law still sets the goal of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Conducting fundamental research,” and these studies are still not included in the list of its activities.
“Imagine that you were given a goal: to shoot a duck, but they didn’t give you a gun… The situation is very similar,” one of the academicians gives a clear example.
Another goal before 2014 for our science was integration into the world scientific community, but according to its rules: Russian scientists were forced to evaluate publication activity as an indicator of success. Everyone was obliged to publish their best results in foreign journals… It would seem that now the situation should change. But no. Until now, the Basic Scientific Research Program states that 75% of our results must be published in Web of science journals, and even in collaboration with foreign scientists. Last year there seemed to be calls to stop this vicious practice, but someone quietly decided to leave everything as it was…
It can be stated that all the tasks set by the reformers of the Russian Academy of Sciences have been completed. The team of scientists has been reduced, as has the number of scientific organizations. By and large, only expert functions remained with the RAS. It would be nice if the Academy took an active part in the formation of state scientific and technical policy (according to the Law on the Russian Academy of Sciences) — this is when not a single document can be issued by the Ministry of Education and Science without a visa from the Academy, but this is not the case.
This is exactly the inheritance that went to Gennady Krasnikov, who was elected President of the Russian Academy of Sciences a year ago, in September. He firmly raised the question of the leading role of the Academy in the selection of scientific priorities and in the implementation of specific projects. By the way, the task of eliminating the technological gap was set by Vladimir Putin back in the Address of 2018, but for some reason it was not completed over the next five years.
Some critics of Krasnikov note that he also does not have any bright results yet. “Wait,” say supporters, “first we need to organize work on interaction with key ministries. Do you think this is done quickly?! But there are certainly positive changes in this.”
Ideally, academicians would again like to formulate scientific and technological policy, organize and conduct fundamental research, not on paper, but in practice. According to many, this would benefit the entire country.
Return institutes to the RAS? No, there is no talk about this yet, but to truly return scientific and methodological leadership over them — yes. This includes determining the direction of research, monitoring, evaluating results and resolving personnel issues.
I foresee a lot of remarks about personnel… Regarding some, in recent months the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation has made quite drastic decisions, attributed, however, to Krasnikov’s team. So, in July, the directors were “removed” from the Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences and from the Scientific and Technological Center for Unique Instrument Making of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “MK,” let me remind you, at one time wrote about the activities of the director of the Scientific and Technical Center for Integrated Engineering of the Russian Academy of Sciences, after which he filed a lawsuit against us and the scientific director center, the outstanding academician Vladislav Pustovoit, went to court and lost. I know the circumstances of Bulatov’s arrival at the STC UP and his activities, and, rather, would approve of the actions of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Yes, the team was against this resignation, but who now forms the basis of this scientific organization? These are people who came during the years when Bulatov led the Center and are certainly his ardent supporters.
Another high-profile story occurred in connection with the removal on September 1 of the director of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Valery Garbuzov. Everyone considered his article about “Soviet mythology” in one of the newspapers to be the formal reason. As in previous cases, despite the noise, neither the Ministry of Education nor the Russian Academy of Sciences commented on the resignation. There was no explanation from them regarding the earlier transfer of a number of strong natural science institutes from the Ministry of Education and Science to the Kurchatov Institute. Let us remind you that this fact came as a surprise even to their leaders.
“You know, they didn’t pay attention to us at the ministry, so we hope that at least now it will be better within the Kurchatov Institute,” this is how he commented on the transition to me under the wing of Kovalchuk, the scientific director of one of the institutes.
And the president of KI himself, answering a question from MK in April, said the following about the transfer of institutes: “We are gathering powerful potential for a new “atomic project.” Here’s your answer: he’ll turn around and hit you in such a way that no one will think it’s enough.” No, according to Kovalchuk, he is not creating a new academy under his institute: “We rebuilt the academy in a different way. I wrote a letter together with the new president of the academy (Gennady Krasnikov) and the minister (Valery Falkov) to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation. We asked to raise the role of the Russian Academy of Sciences.” So, the Kurchatov Institute returned (formally or not, time will tell) under the scientific and methodological leadership of the academy. If only other structures, once removed from government control by order of the government, would do the same: the Higher School of Economics, RANEPA, St. Petersburg University and others.
As they say, hope dies last. And who knows, maybe the coming tricentenary of the Russian Academy of Sciences will not be the anniversary that ends its existence, but the starting point of a new fruitful period.