New Megagrant competition
The Ministry of Education and Science has announced another megagrant competition
<url>The Ministry of Education and Science has announced the start of the second cycle of the megagrant competition.
Its winners will receive grants of up to 150 million rubles each for conducting scientific research in 2011-2013, in case of successful completion of the project, funding can be extended for another 1-2 years. It is noted that the total amount of remuneration to the leading scientist and members of the research team cannot exceed 60% of the amount of the megagrant.
The competition provides for the participation of two parties: a world-renowned scientist and Russian universities, in which this scientist will create a world-class scientific laboratory. The leading scientist undertakes to lead the scientific research and submit a scientific report on the conducted scientific research, and the university undertakes to ensure the conditions for their conduct. In 2012-2013, project managers will have to spend at least 4 months in Russia in each year (in total).
When selecting scientists, quantitative indicators of their activities will be taken into account: the number of articles included in international and Russian databases of scientific citation (Web of Science, Scopus and the Russian Citation Index), the Hirsch index, the citation index of the top 10 publications; the cumulative impact factor of articles for 2006-2010, etc. indicators. The winners of the 2010 contest – 40 scientists – cannot participate in this year's competition. The performance indicators of the university, which will act as an inviting party, will be considered equally carefully.
Recall that the Federal Government Grants Council, which makes the final decision on the winners of the competition based on the international examination of applications, includes 17 people. Among them: Minister of Education and Science Andrey Fursenko and his deputy Sergey Ivanets, Rector of the NES Sergey Guriev, Academician-Secretary of the Department of Mathematical Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences Ludwig Fadeev, as well as academicians, directors or other representatives of leading academic institutions (Head of IMEMO RAS Alexander Dynkin, Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valery Kozlov, Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Litvak, Boris Chetverushkin Institute of Applied Mathematics, etc.).
As emphasized in the interview "Polit.<url>" Deputy Minister of Science and Education Sergey Ivanets (the interview is given below – VM), now applicants have not one, but two months to prepare an application – they are accepted until 12:00 on June 16, 2011. The participants of the competition can be both Russian and foreign scientists who occupy leading positions in a certain field of sciences. The time for the examination of the received applications has increased, but not by much, previously only 3 months were given for the entire process from the deadline for accepting applications to the announcement of winners, this year – 3.5 months. The Grant Council will determine the winners of the competition by October 1, 2011.
A new stage of the megacompetition
Interview with the head of the megagrant project Sergey Ivanets
March 30, 2011
In the near future, a new cycle of the megagrant competition will start, the purpose of which is to attract world–class scientists to create competitive scientific laboratories in Russian universities. We publish an interview about whether this year's competition will be different from the previous one, and about some aspects of the examination with Candidate of Technical Sciences, Deputy Minister of Education and Science Sergey Ivanets. Ivanets is a graduate of MEPhI, worked in the structures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Aerospace Agency.
Since September 2008, he has been the head of the Department of Strategy and Promising Projects in Education and Science of the Ministry of Education and Science. In June 2010, he became Director of the Department of International Integration, at the same time he participated in the conference on Diaspora, which was held at the European University of St. Petersburg. In December 2010 , Sergey Vladimirovich was appointed deputy . the minister. Natalia Demina was talking.At the reporting board on March 19, 2011, Minister Andrei Fursenko said that the megagrant competition would be continued this year.
Tell me, will there be any changes in it?There will be no fundamental changes in this program and, in fact, there should not be.
Because this is a continuation of the program and it would be wrong if the new participants acted according to some other rules than the previous ones. All the criteria, all the parameters of participation must be preserved, otherwise it will be impossible to compare them. In short, this will not be new in any way, but will be a continuation.
In the near future, we expect to get approval of our regulations in the Government. They are now at the Ministry of Finance. This is necessary for the announcement of a new competition. But, unfortunately, nothing happens without it.
Is the start of a new contest now stuck at this stage?I will not say that I am stuck, yet these are not simple questions.
Previously, there were no such documents, but the competition was held, and now they decided to develop documents?No, there were documents, and they allowed to hold a competition, which was held in 2010.
But the next cycle requires changes to the original documents, because it was not originally intended that there would be several cycles. Now we have such an opportunity, and we will definitely use it, we must make this competition legitimate.
When will the start of the competition be announced?I would like to in the very near future.
Like last year, will there be announcements in Nature and Science?Absolutely!
I think this point is important for potential participants: the changes we will make will concern the deadlines for preparing applications and conducting examinations. According to the previous competition, we had complaints, and, in general, justified…
Yes, one month to prepare…Again, this month is a regulatory requirement that was difficult for us to overcome.
Now we are trying to change this norm, because, of course, it takes more time to prepare high-quality applications for such large-scale projects.
But there is also a certain advantage of holding the competition this year. It will be attended, apparently, by some of those scientists who took part last time, as well as new people. However, newcomers already know that the competition took place in 2010, that the international expertise was carried out at a very high quality level. In other words, I hope that the doubts that people had initially will be minimized. Of course, it is completely impossible to remove them. But I hope that they have confidence that this is real, that it is feasible, that, let's say a little high-flown syllable, it is possible to interact with the Russian state in such large-scale scientific projects.
Is it already known how many large grants will be distributed in 2011?Yes, it is known.
We proceed from the fact that the initial amount of all the money allocated for the competition was determined by the decision of the Government. What we have left allows us to hold a new competition and select about the same amount. Last time it was 40, this time it's about the same.
Is there any hope that the competition will continue in 2012?There is always hope.
We would consider it very positive if the Government were able to allocate funds for the next cycles, but it is difficult to promise this yet, of course.
I read that those who have received grants have formed a kind of community that is trying to change some laws that are inconvenient for doing science. Is it possible to interact and help them?I think it's wonderful that the self-organization of the community has really happened.
The initiators probably turned out to be Russian-speaking winners. It was easier for them to do this, but I assure you that they were actively joined by those scientists who have never had anything to do with Russia, they are also interested in dialogue. This group has a very active communication among themselves, and it seems to me, and I hope, that none of the scientists will complain to the Ministry that they are not heard or do not communicate with them....
Our communication is technically very simplified. They email me, the director of the Department that oversees them, the Minister directly, as soon as they have an idea - or a need, or a difficulty. And no one complained that we didn't answer…
Is there a large flow of letters? I personally received a few documents or letters with complaints about some unsolvable situations.
At the same time, for one reason or another, not necessarily problematic, sometimes even the opposite… They often write us messages saying that "we did not expect such a warm and interested approach from the university management" who invited them. So this or that communication at least once a week is mandatory.
The public and even the winning scientists themselves had questions about such small requirements for the results of the project, only two scientific articles for such money. They even offered to arrange a reporting conference where the results of their work would be publicly presented. What do you think about the requirements based on the results of the project?I'll explain it to you.
Probably, this approach, if it exists somewhere in the scientific community, is wrong. I would like people to more adequately represent the essence of the matter. During the implementation of this grant, a study is actually being conducted. According to its results, we demand, taking into account the allocated budget funds, respectively, and a scientific output, for example, an article in a recognized international publication.
However, the key task in this project, which was set for the grant recipients, is still not research, but the creation of a laboratory at the university. The laboratory is engaged in research both now and after the completion of the project, after the departure of this scientist, and this is the most important moment. And the criteria that will allow us to assess whether such a laboratory has really been created, whether worthy students are really being trained in it, they are all present, they are all accessible and open. We expect that with the help of international expertise we will be able to evaluate the results achieved. I would like to emphasize that scientific research is one important part of the project, but perhaps much more important is the creation of an international–level laboratory.
This grant will end, with what money will the created laboratories exist? How do you see it?Upon completion of the grant, we will have a laboratory equipped with first-class research scientific equipment in every university that has won, with personnel trained by leading scientists in the world.
This is a potential that will give the created laboratories huge advantages in competitive procedures for obtaining other grants. Roughly speaking, this is a guarantee of victories for the future.
That is, they themselves will be able to win grants. They will definitely do it.
This is one of their tasks.
There will be no continuation of funding from the state?Understand, the research project will be completed, but at the same time the potential will be created, this potential is being created so that it can be used to win grants.
I am sure that it will give huge competitive advantages to these laboratories. Moreover, the creation of such laboratories in universities is not just the creation of a research structure in itself. The arrival of a world–class star at the university is the greatest event. He will conduct classes, give lectures, even if not mass. All this to a certain extent pulls students, teachers, researchers, and other laboratories to this level. Looking at the leader, I want to get closer to him in some way, use his results, experience, and best practices.
And the last question. You probably read the comments that a number of scientists who made it to the finals received excellent marks on the examination, noted that the final selection itself at the Grant Council was somewhat strange. The evaluation criteria were not very transparent there. Apparently, the geographical factor was taken into account there, so that different regions would receive mega-grants, and some other factors. How to achieve at the last stage greater transparency, greater understanding of what was happening there, on the part of scientists? So that the main thing is not some state considerations, but the scientific qualities of the candidates…I hope that all or most of your readers will agree with me that international expertise is used all over the world to determine the winners, but almost never the results of the examination are not directly the ranking from where the winners come from above.
There is always a commission that reviews the results of this examination. Otherwise, the council for awarding grants would not be needed – the examination has already set some points. But the fears that the examination was carried out, and then somehow some unworthy people received grants, seem to me completely untenable. According to the results of the examination, about twice as many winners, really the best projects, were selected as expected. Certainly the best.
But just the procedure used to select the best of the best is somewhat confusing…Why is it confusing?
There are certain claims, I would probably hear them from those who talk about geographical distribution. But you must agree, it would be wrong if all grants go to a leading Russian university located in Moscow. Or, for example, if all grants turn out to be on the same topic – nanotechnology. Of course, this is an important topic, but it is still necessary to support other areas of science.
Does it seem to you that the element of subjectivism is always present?Sure.
After all, what is expertise? Subjective assessment of the expert. But please note that the Grant Council, where such an element of subjectivity appeared, as you say, is made up of officials by less than, probably, 5%. In other words, in this Council, the minister is one official, and I am acting secretary. All the other people who directly made the decision are, of course, recognized scientists. The composition of the council has been published. Anyone who somehow doubts their merits can check their Hirsch index and citation. I don't think anyone has any reasoned doubts about their scientific savvy.
Thanks for the interview.Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru