The grant is classified as "secret"
Yuri Medvedev, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 27.01.2009
Why were the projects of an American professor who returned to Russia rejected in several competitions at onceAt the beginning of last year, a great resonance, including in the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was caused by a critical speech in the "RG" by the American professor Konstantin Severinov who returned to Russia (Back to America, 01.02.2008).
And so the scientist turned to the editorial office again.
Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Last time you complained that the academy officials were responsible for science sitting on starvation rations for six months. Competitions on the programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences begin only in early March, and the money for grants comes in early June. Then the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yuri Osipov, admitted that there was some flaw on the part of the Academy. Has something changed now?
Konstantin Severinov: Yes, the situation has improved dramatically. I wouldn't link it directly to the speeches in your newspaper, but I hope that they helped to a certain extent. The competitions of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences for 2009 were announced at the end of November last year. And apparently, the money for grants will go in the very near future. You don't have to wait six months to start experimenting.
RG: What made you contact the editorial office this time?
Severinov: Together with several colleagues, we have applied for grants under four programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Fundamental Sciences – Medicine", "Biodiversity", "Evolution of Geobiological Systems", "Fundamentals of Fundamental Research of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials". Most grants are small, about 200-400 thousand rubles, but sufficient to support, for example, graduate students or to start research in new areas. Naturally, all projects are different. For example, one is associated with the microorganisms of Kamchatka, the other with our participation in the Antarctic expedition, the third with biomedicine, the fourth with nanodrugs. So, none of the projects received support.
RG: Maybe they are really weak?
Severinov: Apparently, this is the opinion of experts, and we are not going to challenge it. But we would like to understand what exactly did not suit them. Do we have the right to do this? In all leading countries, along with the refusal, you receive a detailed review, where the reasons for the negative decision are reasoned. This allows applicants to understand the selection criteria that guide the experts and, when submitting new applications, not to step on the same rake. Science only benefits from this.
The only transparent program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences known to me is "Molecular and Cellular Biology", where everything is clearly described. The main selection criterion is named – the effectiveness of a scientist applying for a grant. This is determined by the citation index. How good this criterion is, one can argue, but it has been announced and it is adhered to. The names of both the winners of the contest and the "losers" are made public. You can compare them with the citation data and evaluate how correctly the winners are selected. That is, everything is extremely transparent. But try to understand in other programs of the presidium why grants were given to some scientists and not to others. It won't work.
RG: And you and your colleagues didn't ask why you were refused?
Severinov: They asked. At first, the scientific secretaries of the programs replied that no one is obliged to acquaint applicants with the results of the examinations. But we persevered and achieved at least some specifics. It turned out that, for example, in the "Biodiversity" program, our application allegedly does not correspond to the subject of the competition.
I don't want to discuss the details right now. The situation itself is indicative. I am not the latest scientist, I have received many grants, including from leading American foundations. I can imagine how to make applications. Why was there a puncture in this case? It is impossible to understand this, since no one wants to explain anything, getting off with general formulations. But everything would be simple if they sent an expert opinion.
Explaining the refusal of the program "Fundamental Sciences – medicine", I was told that "they do not want to substitute their experts." Which is strange, because we are asking for reviews, not the names of their authors. And the scientific secretary of the nanotechnology program referred to the fact that the scientific council had too little time to consider applications, so its members verbally decided among themselves who to give grants to and who to refuse. That is, there was no examination in fact.
In such a situation, you can make any assumptions. For example, that people who were members of the scientific council simply divided the money. By the way, the winners of the Biodiversity program have been announced for the first time. And there you can find the names of the same academicians who are listed on the scientific council and distribute grants. Some even have not one, but several supported projects. What does it mean? On the other hand, it's great that information about the winners of the contest is at least made public, because in other programs it is generally unknown who won them.
RG: There were a lot of responses to your last publication in "RG". Many agreed with the criticism of the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences, but there were other opinions. They say that our scientists have experienced the most difficult times here, and Severinov came from well-fed America for everything ready. I would say thank you that they gave him the money, but he complains...
Severinov: I agree that if a scientist goes to the press for help, it's not normal. His job is to do science. But what to do if you're stuck in a wall and you don't see a way out? There are excellent specialists in Russia who, having got into the best Western universities, make outstanding discoveries, but in our country they are constantly forced to overcome something.
When I decided to create a laboratory in Russia, I was not naive at all and knew well what I was going for. But unlike many Russian scientists, I have a laboratory in the USA, which gives me some independence from Russian realities. But I consider it my duty to try to do everything possible to somehow change the situation of scientists in Russia, so that normal conditions for normal work are created for them.
Help "RG"According to the program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Biodiversity", the names of the winners were published this year.
Among them there are many members of the scientific council of the program, which distributes grants: Chairman of the council, Academician D.S. Pavlov (two grants), Scientific Secretary V.V. Rozhnov (three), members of the council, academicians A.F. Alimov (four), A.I. Chernov (one), A.Yu. Rozanov (one), G.V. Dobrovolsky (one), Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yu.Yu. Dgebuadze (two).
Portal "Eternal youth" www.vechnayamolodost.ru29.01.2009