How Molecular Cell Biology is being Killed
Among the academic programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences there was one that the academicians themselves were very proud of and which had every chance to become an important factor in the revival of Russian science and an instrument for the return of Russian scientists who left for the West – the program "Molecular and Cellular Biology" (ICD). However, now Russian fundamental research in the field of molecular cell biology is under threat.
The ICD program was started in 2002 and was then called "Physico-chemical Biology", and received its current name in January 2004. The coordinator of the Program was and is Academician Georgy Georgiev, Director of the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In his article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta in 2003, he noted that this program is a panacea, an urgent measure to save Russian science: "Its goals are selective support of the most effective research teams, as well as the formation of new independent groups of talented young scientists."
The main emphasis of the program was placed on the support of scientific groups, laboratories, that "small" science, which just moves research forward. The main thing is that "good teams receive serious support, and weak ones do not parasitize, pulling significant funds on themselves," the academician summed up in May 2007.
An expert council was created and an examination procedure was developed. As Georgiev noted, "the selection of applicants was carried out according to the criteria accepted in many fields of science. These are the "impact factor" (IF) of the journal where the author was published, and the "citation index" (CI) of his works. The criteria, of course, are not absolute, but there is nothing better for evaluating fundamental works yet. Thus, one of the main indicators of the work of the teams was the number of articles published by employees over the past five years in international journals." In another interview, the academician explained that the arithmetic of accounting for the effectiveness of a scientist's activities is simple, one article in one of the most cited scientific journals in the world – the journal Science "weighs" like four publications in a good journal like "Nuclear Acids Research" or like 30 articles in a weak journal.
The ICD program has become a unique example of expertise transparency for the Academy of Sciences. On its website, anyone can view the lists of applicants, details of the discussion of the expert commission, scientometric indicators of each of the applicants (academic degrees, IC, IF, awards of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc.), decisions on controversial issues. There is no doubt that the expert commission sometimes had to make compromises, moving away from objective indicators to subjective ones, but in general it managed to maintain the program at a fairly high scientific level. This can be judged by scientific publications in leading journals of the world and reports at annual conferences on ICD, which were held not in Greek resorts, as was done in some other academic programs, but in Moscow and the Moscow region.
The working rhythm of the ICD program did not stop until the end of 2007; in the summer, in another interview, proposals were even voiced for its expansion and more transparent organization of the competition.
But in January 2008, the ICD participants found themselves in the information and budget vacuum zone – no one canceled the program, but also did not extend it, as, indeed, other programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Those scientists who believed the seriousness of the promises of the Academy of Sciences and returned to Russia, having received grants for 3 and 5 years, found themselves "in limbo", their three- and five-year grants unexpectedly turned out to be one-year. According to unofficial information, the reason is simple – the leadership of the Academy of Sciences has more important problems to discuss every time, the solution of the issue is postponed, and the laboratories of biologists and bioinformatics turned out to be without cash and non-cash money, without the ability to buy the necessary equipment, reagents, pay salaries to their employees.
It was about this strange situation that we talked with the participants of the Molecular and Cellular Biology program: Bioinformatics scientists Mikhail Gelfand, Egor Bazykin and Irena Artamonova and experimental biologist Konstantin Severinov (for more information about our experts, see notes 3-8).
K. Severinov, E. Bazykin and I. Artamonova returned to Russia precisely to work under the ICD program. Their careers in the West were successful: Konstantin became a full professor in the USA and, as noted by the ICD expert Council, has exceptionally high rates of scientific productivity [8], Egor received a Ph.D. at Princeton, and Irena, who defended her PhD in biology at the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry (IBH) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, worked as a postdoc in Germany, at the GSF – National Research Center for Environment and Health [5, 6, 8].
E. Bazykin comments on the situation with the ICD as follows: "This summer I was finishing graduate school at Princeton and decided whether to stay in the USA or return to Russia. To a large extent, my decision to return was based on the fact that I won this grant, but if I had known that it was about one year and not three, then perhaps my decision would have been different."
Mikhail Gelfand, winner of the A.A. Baev Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences for 2007 for the series of works "Computer Comparative Genomics", says that his student, a young established researcher, who in 2007 became the main co-author of two articles in PNAS (one of the most cited scientific journals), is now working for him in the USA. From time to time he consults with M.G. whether it is worth returning to Russia. Earlier, Mikhail confidently told him that yes, there is an ICD program and when the young scientist returns, he has a high chance of receiving a grant to create a new scientific group. However, M.G. is not so sure now: "I do not know what to say if he asks me when to apply. If we say everything as it is, then there will be no chance of his return."
Konstantin Severinov echoes him: "In 2007 there was a turning point. Russian biologists working in the West learned about the ICD program to create new groups, and there was a stir among the masses, colleagues began to discuss, maybe it really makes sense to return to Russia? I was attracted by a decent grant size and a 3- or 5-year funding prospect. In the matter of the reputation of the program, you can make a mistake only once. If it suddenly turns out that every year scientists will be so "shaken", then the attitude of colleagues to the ICD and other academic programs will be appropriate. Who wants to break down for a year?"
COMMENTS OF SCIENTISTSWhat are the advantages of the program "Molecular and Cellular Biology"?
Mikhail Gelfand: This is the only academic program that has a clear competition procedure, you can agree or disagree with it, but there is a procedure.
It has been announced, and people understand what rules they are playing by. The whole procedure appeared, apparently, largely as a result of public discussions and turned out to be quite adequate for our conditions.
Any Russian researcher, both in Russia and abroad, could participate in the ICD competition for a new scientific group, and it really had to be a new group. The scientist should be separated from the old group even administratively. An official consent was taken from the receiving institute that the institute was ready to create such a group, to provide it with a room for work.
It was a really effective program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which had a real competition. It was a way of hoping that the situation in this place was not hopeless. She was praised not only by the recipients, but also by other colleagues.
Why has the ICD program turned out to be so attractive for scientists wishing to return to Russia?Konstantin Severinov: It allows experimental biologists to conduct research in Russia at a fairly high level.
In addition, if you can apply for all other grants only after returning to Russia, being employees of some academic institute, then this program gave a person freedom of choice. When making an application, the researcher only needed to find a future job, get the consent of the receiving institute and wait for the decision of the expert commission.
Irena Artamonova: I graduated from Moscow State University and MIPT, then defended my PhD thesis at IBH RAS. After three years of postdoc in Germany, you could either stay there for a very long time, or choose another country. But after receiving this grant, I realized that I could try to return. 2007 was quite effective, there is nothing to complain about.
Egor Bazykin: The terms of this grant are very reasonable. I still cannot apply for many Russian grants because I am not a candidate of biological sciences. I have a Ph.D. Princeton University, but my papers for recertification have been lying in the WAC for six months, and according to some information, they will be there for the same amount of time.
Natalia Demina ( <url>): In December, at the Plenum of the Higher Attestation Commission, I took a comment from the head of the Higher Attestation Commission, M. Kirpichnikov, for future publication, and he said that recertification and nostrification for the Higher Attestation Commission is not a problem, submit documents (After hearing this, colleagues laugh).
Mikhail Gelfand: I would reformulate this answer as follows: this is not the biggest problem that M.P. Kirpichnikov has. The WAC is overwhelmed by a wave of nonsense. The problem of Vladimir Zhirinovsky's doctoral dissertation is more acute for him than the problem of Egor Bazykin's PhD dissertation. I sometimes visit the website of the Higher Attestation Commission, in the section where the abstracts of doctoral dissertations in biology are published. It turned out that many doctoral theses are defended only by a couple of dozen abstracts of conferences and meetings and a dozen articles in the "Bulletin" of their own local university. It is worth thanking M. Kirpichnikov at least for pushing through the requirement for mandatory publication of abstracts. Of course, this creates additional organizational difficulties for everyone – the WAC is not the most user-friendly organization in the world – but it still gives some kind of insurance against absolutely odious cases.
What do you do? What projects were funded by the ICD program?Konstantin Severinov: In our laboratory, we are engaged in two things, each of which, despite the fundamental nature of our research and the absence of any formulated applied aspects, has potential access to biomedical and biotechnological applications.
Firstly, we are investigating microcins - antibacterial substances of a protein nature, which, unlike other antibiotics, can be modified using standard genetic engineering methods. On the one hand, we are interested in the structures of these molecules and the mechanisms of their antibacterial action. On the other hand, in the course of our work we create quite large libraries of derivatives of these substances, many of them may have some improved properties and go directly into development as promising antibacterial agents or agents for decontamination.
Secondly, we deal with bacteriophages (bacterial viruses). This is the most numerous form of life on the planet that exists by "eating" bacteria. Bacteriophages are "antibiotics" before antibiotics, they were used as antibiotic agents long before the discovery of penicillin. Moreover, phages have a number of advantages over antibiotics. For example, when treating bacterial infections with bacteriophages, dysbiosis does not occur, because only those bacteria to which the bacteriophage used is specific are killed.
Mikhail Gelfand: Unlike antibiotics, a person does not notice their actions.
Konstantin Severinov: In addition, bacteriophages are, so to speak, "exponential" agents. If antibiotics must be taken until all the bacteria die, then bacteriophages multiply themselves while there are "enemy" bacteria. Russia has historically been a leader in the therapeutic use of phages, but the methods used were not the most progressive. Therefore, no one in the West believed in the prospects of these studies, but now there is just beginning a certain rise in interest in this topic. We use the most modern methods of molecular biology, biochemistry, bioinformatics, genomics, anything to identify, detect, analyze and study new phages. In particular, we are studying the mechanisms by which these new phages inhibit bacterial cell growth. These mechanisms are almost always very beautiful and unexpected, and their understanding can allow the development of new types of drugs.
In the West, we have patents for the results of our research on both microcins and phages, but we do not directly use them. In Russia, we are actively cooperating with M. Gelfand's group, which provides us with bioinformatic support.
Mikhail Gelfand: We are engaged in bioinformatics – analysis of genomic sequences, analysis of other people's experimental data. We have our own scientific interests, purely bioinformatic, which may not be so important to the national economy, but we justify our bread by serving experimental biologists.
Our cooperation with K. Severinov's group began to take shape just after his return. Before that, we had been developing techniques for years, which now allows us to move forward quite quickly.
Konstantin Severinov: The mass bioinformatic analysis conducted by Mikhail may be very useful for the production of new producer strains with improved properties, to clarify the mechanism of regulation of the synthesis of a particular cellular metabolite. If you are faced with the task of obtaining a bacterium that produces a lot of some substance, say, some vitamin, then the Gelfand group allows you to do this with "little blood", to give a forecast of how exactly this should be done, without carrying out the selection that breeders used to do: select, select and select, not knowing what would come of it. This is a big deal.
Mikhail Gelfand: Bioinformatics significantly reduces the cost of searching for producing strains. It allows you to detect potential targets for specific antibiotics. In addition, we also studied the strains used in bio–purification systems, more precisely, the stress systems of these bacteria. A bacterium that cleans something lives in not very good conditions. She must have specific conditions for responding to stress.
Konstantin Severinov: What M.G. and I are doing also makes it possible to identify new proteins with interesting and potentially useful properties.
Mikhail Gelfand: By importing "returnees", we import scientific knowledge into the country – we are engaged in "parasitizing" American, European and Japanese taxpayers who finance the receipt of experimental data. Since all this data is public and open, since this is a condition for financing, anyone can analyze it, which is what we are doing. What we are doing with K.S. is the first time when we managed to organize cooperation with an experimental laboratory in Russia. With foreign ones – as much as you want.
Konstantin Severinov: I am sure that the main direction of the development of biology should be to overcome the division between theoretical biologists and experimentalists. The result of our cooperation with the Gelfand Laboratory was the publication of three joint articles in the world's leading journals, the first authors of which are Russian students and postgraduates.
Egor Bazykin: My research group is also engaged in bioinformatics, computer analysis of other people's experimental data, but we are interested in the problems of evolution and various ways of analyzing it. It so happened that many theorists who developed the field of theoretical evolution were from Russia. In particular, my teacher is Alexey Kondrashov.
Mikhail Gelfand: Kondrashov is one of the strongest evolutionists in the world.
Egor Bazykin: Scientists do not yet have an answer to many seemingly simple questions about evolution, although it is quite obvious that the available data allow us to get this answer.
In addition, I am interested in various practical applications of evolutionary research, especially the evolution of pathogens. Firstly, with the help of evolutionary analysis, you can try to predict the places for which pathogen proteins can be "grabbed", and this data can be used to develop possible drugs and vaccines. Secondly, it would be good to learn to understand how pathogens, in particular HIV, evolve, "learn" to avoid exposure to antiretroviral drugs, and what can be done to ensure that antiretroviral drugs remain effective.
Mikhail Gelfand: The point here is that the pathogen changes its genome, i.e. it changes the composition of its proteins. If we had a protein that was a target for some drug, and then a point mutation occurred in it, then the target ceased to be a target, it shifted. The drug stopped acting on her and, accordingly, the strain in which this mutation occurred received a significant advantage. The rest are "pressed", but he is not "pressed", and he spreads quickly, and the medicine no longer works on him. That's what Egor is studying.
In addition, against the background of rampant obscurantism, experts in evolution are valuable in Russia by the very fact of their presence, no matter in which areas they conduct research. (Irena Artamonova remarks: "Now it seems that obscurantism is getting more and more...").
Irena Artamonova: I am also primarily interested in the evolutionary aspects, namely the stage of evolution when a person became a person. What are the evolutionary aspects of the existence of the genome specific to humans as a species? What genes appeared after the separation of humans from other primates? In addition, it is interesting in itself – for both specialists and non-specialists. Until now, not everyone believes that we are descended from a monkey. But, in addition, for specialists, it is also an exit to the applied aspects of medical genetics, which my group also deals with. When studying all kinds of diseases that are genetically inherited, computer analysis can be very effective. It is clear that massive experiments on humans cannot be done. After sequencing the human genome, computer analysis can partially replace them.
Another aspect of our activity closely correlates bioinformatics and experimental biology. A significant part of the bioinformatic merit to the experimenters is the maintenance of various databases, the storage of the acquired knowledge, access to this knowledge. For example, "protein annotation" is an electronic library of what people currently know about specific proteins. We are developing automatic annotation methods for all currently known proteins (there are about 4 million of them).
The use of databases and, in particular, protein annotations makes it possible to reduce the amount of money spent on the experiment, to narrow the search boundaries in advance. Experimenters who are faced with a new problem, a new protein for them, are no longer obliged to do old experiments today – it is easier to first turn to databases and analyze the already existing knowledge about this protein or similar proteins and the corresponding predictions.
Unfortunately, there are many errors in such databases and their correction is also very important. With the growth of database volumes, errors spread very quickly. According to some estimates, almost half of the information among certain types of annotations is erroneous and this, of course, can lead to the waste of money and efforts of scientists for repeated experiments.
Mikhail Gelfand: Let's be honest, most of these mistakes were made by bioinformatics itself. "She drives herself, she presses herself, she gives help herself" (everyone laughs).
Irena agrees: Since it is bioinformatics that create databases, they also had a hand in the mistakes. Nevertheless, we are now actively starting to correct these errors. I continue to cooperate with the German group in which we developed algorithms for automatic search for such errors.
Konstantin Severinov: There are available databases for experimental biologists, but in Russia the overwhelming number of experimenters, including recent university graduates, do not know how to use them. Experience shows that the return of strong scientists from the West would allow not only to shake up academic science, but also university education. We all "returnees" immediately started teaching at Moscow State University and not because we are forced to do it.
Mikhail Gelfand (who is a professor at Moscow State University and teaches the course "Comparative Genomics" at the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics): Yegor Bazykin, in the first year after returning to Russia, read a special course "Evolutionary and medical Genomics" at our faculty, Irena – the course "Bioinformatics" at the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics, and Konstantin – the same course "Molecular biology", and not because they pay a lot of money for it.
Egor: They didn't pay me a penny at all for the course I read.
Konstantin Severinov: Bioinformatics is also a way of thinking, Irena is the first person at the biofac who teaches biologists bioinformatics. Mikhail's faculty is already teaching these things, although perhaps they have a lame line of experimental biology there (M.G.: "Not lame"). And at the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University, where they give a fundamental classical biological education, they lagged far behind in the field of computer biology due to the fact that the 1990s were monstrous for science. Bioinformatics should become an experimental biologist's tool. At least, that's how it should be.
Why do you want to work in Russia, despite the uncertainty of our system and opportunities in the West?Irena Artamonova: Because we are Russian people, this is the main argument.
Egor Bazykin: At no point was I going to work anywhere else, and so far nothing has happened that would make me change my mind. While I have the opportunity to work in Russia, I would like to live at home for various sentimental and not very sentimental reasons.
Mikhail Gelfand: Why haven't we left yet? Many people have asked me, and some have even suggested it, as I have no doubt to our other colleagues. I don't see any special reason to leave. In Russia (I'm talking about our science), we managed to keep quite a meaningful community. We have been holding a Moscow seminar on bioinformatics for fifteen years. It was started by three or four people. Now there are about thirty people who come there regularly. I don't know how things would have turned out here if everyone had left.
This community is a magnet-not a magnet, but a place where people can return if they want. We have very good contacts with our colleagues from the Diaspora, they regularly speak at our seminar. If some academic authorities say that they managed to keep the academic environment in Russia, then it is not true. This is contrary to the environment they have preserved. We have created our own environment. This is a socio-psychological motivation.
From a substantive point of view, I just don't have the feeling that I would have been able to do more if I had been an American professor. Of course, there would be some advantages if I managed to become a good American professor, I would have more direct access to data and some more free contact with experimenters, but, apparently, there is more freedom in organizing research. On the one hand, there are more idiotic restrictions here, but on the other hand, since with some skill we manage to cope with them, we manage to do more of what you think is necessary. Of course, it helped that we had international grants all these years – they made it possible to behave quite independently. Well, our science is not very expensive, it is more difficult for experimenters in this sense – they have both financial and organizational problems more acute.
Konstantin Severinov: I have partially returned, I don't think I have returned completely, but on the other hand, two laboratories, both in the USA and in Russia, are better than one. There is a working system of science in the USA, it does not need to be changed, and it is good that it is there. I have a feeling that something more can be done here than a laboratory. Our efforts may have a longer-term impact on both science and education. As we do, so it will be.
Here I have access to the best university in the country and the best students. There I have access to not the best university. Rutgers University is far from the worst, but not the best either. However, it is worth noting that the biology students of the best American universities are much stronger than at MSU.
Personally, it seems to me that I, having Western experience in scientific management, and knowing the Russian system of science organization, will be able to make a laboratory that will be no worse than an experimental laboratory in the USA. But it is possible to prove or refute this thesis only experimentally. I believe it can be done. On the one hand, this is a kind of challenge, and on the other, if it works, then the merit will be, to a large extent, mine. In my opinion, the problem is still not in money and not in people, but in something else. There is some kind of system problem here, which seems to be solved and everything will be fine. We can scold everything as much as we like, but somewhere there must be that magic point to which efforts should and should be made.
Mikhail Gelfand: Unlike experimental biology, it is not very difficult to make a bioinformatic laboratory no worse than in the USA
Irena Artamonova: Bioinformatics, unlike experimenters, do not need devices and reagents, but computers. There is no problem with them in Russia. What distinguishes my life here from my life abroad is the bioinformatic community. Without a doubt, in Russia it is arranged in a much more thoughtful way than in Germany. There, and this is to a large extent typical for the whole of Europe (I can't answer for the USA, because I have less experience), bioinformatics is more focused on purely computational problems. In such a situation, everyone is engaged in their own narrow problem and there are much fewer common cases. But the German colleagues also understand the importance of the existence of a scientific community, they are trying to develop cooperation between different groups, but they are still getting much worse.
From a scientific point of view, Russia is much more interesting to me. There are not so many bioinformatic groups here, but the scientific community plays an important role for existing groups. As a result, it is much more interesting and effective to do research here. And as long as we have the opportunity to exist, as long as there is some funding, we will work here.
How did you find out about the closure of the ICD program?Mikhail Gelfand: The situation is such that no one says that the program will not exist.
It's just that the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences has other important things to do all the time. At first there was great joy: they adopted the charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and everyone was not up to "nonsense", what the hell are scientific programs? Then there were important nanoproblems (the commission, the new branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and there was also no time for "nonsense".
Now the elections to the Academy are on the nose, it is necessary to determine the list of vacancies, there is absolutely no time for "nonsense". And also the elections, more precisely, the re-election of the president (RAS). This seems to be the most serious thing that happens at the Academy. There is no official announcement that there is no program or something has changed. There is just a continuous domestic drudgery.
Irena Artamonova: In principle, closing the program is not an exotic thing. There are large foreign programs that are being closed.
Mikhail Gelfand: INTAS – the program of the European Union to support scientists from CIS countries has been closed since January 1, 2007.
Irena Artamonova: Yes, and this is not the only example. However, in the West, in the last year of the program's existence, as a rule, regular application contests are announced. The program itself is being closed, but the financing of projects that was promised continues exactly in the amounts and for as many years as it was promised. This is not the case here. We don't have any information about what's really going on.
Is there any contract so that you can go to court with it?Irena Artamonova: There is no legal agreement.
Konstantin Severinov: The most amazing thing is that there is a signature there, but it is the signature of Georgiev, who has nothing to do with money. When applying for a grant, we signed up under the requirement that we would be in Russia for 9 months a year, despite the fact that funding was actually given only in the middle of the year. We kept our promises, and the Academy?
Mikhail Gelfand: The leadership of the ICD program (Academician Georgiev and others) is framed even more than we are, because they gave people a promise that everything would be OK, and now it turns out that they cannot fulfill their promise. And for reasons beyond their control.
Are there any mechanisms of pressure on the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences? Can the Ministry of Education and Science help in any way?Mikhail Gelfand: The Ministry cannot put pressure on the Presidium, because if I understand the situation correctly, the Ministry has once again made sure that reforming the Academy is, as one of the classics said, like cutting a pig: there is little wool, but a lot of squeal.
Therefore, they decided not to feed the "pig", which is much easier. The Ministry stopped trying to reform the Academy over the head of the Presidium, because it was convinced that it was impossible to do so.
The Ministry is slowly moving the channels of science funding somewhere else. As a result, there is pressure on the RAS Presidium, but it is global-financial. As a result, it turns out even worse, because the procedures for financing science do not improve from this, and money becomes less. One can imagine what happens as a result of lack of money and lack of procedure.
In addition, the Ministry has reserved part of the RAS money to support outstanding institutions. The Ministry of Education and Science is developing a draft competition, during which it plans to distribute 1 billion rubles each to 10 Russian academic institutions, which it will allocate in some way. I have already spoken on this topic. Firstly, in my opinion, this is a rather meaningless event, and secondly, it has nothing to do with supporting fundamental science.
As a result of all the twists and turns of last year, such a situation arose: attempts to reform the Academy failed, the Ministry completely gave up. As a result, the Academy of Science decided to simply "not feed", and those people who are engaged in science inside the Academy turned out badly from both sides at once.
Maybe it's worth contacting the State Duma Committee on Science and High-Tech Technologies to write a deputy request?Mikhail Gelfand: Valery Chereshnev, Chairman of the Committee on Science, is at the same time Chairman of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
He is a member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Will he write a deputy's request to himself?
Can the Presidential Administration help in any way?Mikhail Gelfand: Something tells me that they already have something to do.
And then, no one says that the program is closed – it's just not open. It seems like there is no reason to go somewhere. And the fact that even in the best case, if the decision is made in mid-February (now they call such deadlines), and the program is funded in an adequate amount, then the money will come somewhere in September – who cares, except the grant recipients themselves? They are not small, they will suffer, they will hang out.
Instead of a conclusionA regular meeting of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was held on January 15, 2008.
The members of the Presidium heard a scientific report by Mikhail Gelfand "Bioinformatics – molecular biology in silico (in a computer)". The report was accepted "with a bang", academics and invited scientists discussed the present and future of a young but actively developing science. According to panelist Konstantin Severinov, the Presidium said that the key to success is in a close symbiosis of bioinformatics and experimental biologists.
However, for some reason, none of the members of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences raised the question of what the future of the ICD program is, at what expense the research of biologists and bioinformatics will now be funded. The discussion ended with the Resolution of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences No. 2 dated January 15, 2008, which, in particular, stated: "In conclusion, the Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Academician Nekipelov A.D. thanked the Doctor of Biological Sciences Gelfand M.S. for a very interesting scientific report and wished him further success in his work."
Commenting on this "handshake" of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was not followed by any real steps, M. Gelfand said: "Read Russian history. In fact, there has never been an active opposition to reforms recorded in it. They just didn't happen for some reason. While everyone is waiting for something, the "baby" dies by himself."
On the sidelines, they say that the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yuri Osipov, allegedly wants to start all the programs of the Presidium from scratch. For the participants of the ICD program, this means that when, at best, in mid-February 2008, a decision is finally made on financing the programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the competition will be announced anew. And all researchers, regardless of whether they received a grant in 2002 or in 2007, will have to apply for grants again. "It turns out that the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences has no responsibility, no obligations," K. notes. Severinov.
Knowing the practice of the Russian Academy of Sciences, our experts assume that it will not be possible to conduct a real examination in the conditions of the inevitable rush caused by the late decision on financing programs, it will be necessary to quickly master budget money. For those programs where all decisions are made over the phone within one or two days, this is probably not a very big problem. For the ICD, where a real competition is held, this is much more serious. If the procedure is crumpled up, it will no longer be necessary to say what a good and transparent examination the ICD has, and the only truly competitive program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences will lose all its advantages. Maybe this is what academics are striving for? Our experts believe that the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences has no secret intent – its inertia and poor management are to blame for everything.
"Given that there is always a big delay in funding science in Russia, the money may possibly come in September. We use the ICD grant to pay allowances to more than modest budget salaries, and those researchers who were on this money in 2007 are now sitting in a full ass" – K. Severinov, perhaps, could have chosen words more correctly, but the reality is what it is. – Now it is not very clear from which funds to purchase reagents and consumables and how to pay employees. It is unclear how in these conditions they will be able to do science. In this regard, I am interested in the following question: Is the Academy for scientists or scientists for the Academy?"
P.S. On January 31, 2008, a note by Quirin Schiermeier appeared in "Nature": "Funding freeze shakes Russia's prodigals. Academy pulls the plug on research program" ("Russian 'returnees' are shocked by the news of the freezing of grants. The Academy closes the research program"). In a comment to this article, Academician G. Georgiev noted: "We found ourselves in a very uncomfortable situation. The program was not formally closed, but the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences reschedules its resumption from one week to another. People are getting nervous." According to the latest information, the RAS Presidium will discuss the situation with the programs on February 12, 2008.
Useful links and notes:1. The code of rebirth.
Put in a word about "small" science. Georgy Georgiev, Academician, Director of the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. // "RG-Nauka", No. 42 of October 15, 2003
2. Medvedev Yu. Academics will be put on the scales. Serious money has come to science, but it is being spent incorrectly //Rossiyskaya Gazeta, No. 4376 of May 30, 2007
3. Mikhail Gelfand is a well–known Russian bioinformatician, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Deputy Director of the A.A. Harkevich Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head. Educational and Scientific Center "Bioinformatics" IPPI, winner of the A.A. Baev Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2007 for the series of works "Computer comparative Genomics".
4. Konstantin Severinov is a well–known Russian microbiologist, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of laboratories at the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, Rutgers University (USA).
Medvedev Yu . Interview with K. Severinov. Good bye America? A world-class scientist has returned to Russia // Rossiyskaya Gazeta, No. 4314 of March 14, 2007.
5. Irena Artamonova – Candidate of Biological Sciences, worked at the Institute of Bioinformatics of the National Center for Environment and Health in Munich, Senior Researcher, Head of the Bioinformatics Group of the N.I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
6. Egor Bazykin – Ph.D. of Princeton University, Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Junior Researcher, ruk. Comparative Genomics Groups of the A.A. Harkevich Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
7. March 16, 2004, quote from the results of an additional competition on the program of fundamental research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Molecular and Cellular Biology":
According to section 1 "Fundamental Research", new grants in the amount of 2 million rubles per year were awarded to: Doctor of Biological Sciences M.S. Gelfand (IPPI).
8. On January 16, 2007, a meeting of the Scientific Council on the Program "Molecular and Cellular Biology" was held. Many issues were considered at the meeting, including::
Candidate of Biological Sciences K.V. Severinov (IMG), returning from the position of full professor from the USA and having exceptionally high productivity indicators, was awarded a full grant of 4350 thousand rubles per year.;
grants have been awarded to those working in bionformatics, where costs are significantly lower:
PhD in Biology I.I. Artamonova (National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Bioinformatics / IOGEN) 1000 thousand rubles per year;
PhD to G.A. Bazykinu (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB), Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA / IPPI), the size of 1000 thousand rubles per year.
Portal "Eternal youth" www.vechnayamolodost.ru31.01.2008