Will Russia be left without science?
The brains we lost
Novaya Gazeta
Hundreds of Russian scientists have written to the Prime Minister and the president. They are trying to save the national science. Is it possible in conditions when many of the best have gone abroad, the Academy of Sciences is dominated by people over 70, and state grants are diligently "sawing"?
In October 2009, scientists who left Russia in the early 90s and made a successful career abroad wrote an open letter to the President and Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, drawing attention to the poor state of fundamental science in the country and the consequence of this problem - a massive outflow of scientists abroad. On the same days, 407 doctors of sciences working at the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) wrote an open letter to the authorities of the country similar in content. Two letters to the same address, sent from different parts of the planet, are the last desperate attempts to save Russian science.
"Due to the age structure of scientific and pedagogical personnel, Russia has 5-7 years left for qualified scientists and teachers of the older generation to have time to prepare a new generation for science, education and high-tech industries. If it is not possible to attract young people to the scientific and educational sphere in these terms, then we will have to forget about the plans for building an innovative economy ..." - write 407 doctors of sciences from academic institutes in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Ivanov and other Russian cities.
Russian scientists who went abroad and took place there also stand in solidarity with their colleagues. "The regression of science continues, the scale and severity of the danger of this process are underestimated. The level of funding for Russian science contrasts sharply with the corresponding indicators of developed countries." Indeed, in Soviet times, the budget of the Academy of Sciences was equal to 2% of GDP, and now it is less than 0.3%.
In the 90s, scientists began to leave the country with whole institutes, scientific schools. How did the authorities react to this? They steadily built a raw material superpower. So what has changed today? The President and the Prime Minister announced a course to build an innovative economy. Do we have the financial and personnel capabilities for this? Or are we hopelessly behind on all scientific fronts? The experts of Novaya give answers to these questions.
At least 200 thousand scientists have left RussiaViktor Supyan, Doctor of Economics, Professor, Deputy Director of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
– There is absolutely no accurate information about the scale of the real "brain drain" from Russia.
This is due to the fact that many Russian scientists do not formally emigrate abroad, but go to work under a contract, although the temporary status of such work often develops into a permanent one. Viktor Kalinushkin, chairman of the trade union of Russian scientists, for example, believes that over the past ten years, 500 thousand to 800 thousand Russian scientists have found work abroad. Western estimates are more modest – a maximum of 200 thousand. According to Professor Ushkalov, in the 90s, the number of scientists and specialists who went abroad from defense research institutes and military-industrial complex enterprises is at least 70 thousand people. During the period 1991-1996 alone, more than 5 thousand specialists left abroad from the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics (Arzamas-16), which is Russia's leading center for nuclear research. In 1992-1993, 1800 scientists and engineers went abroad from NPO Impulse, specializing in the production of guidance systems, electron-optical and other electronic equipment, mainly for military purposes. For ten years (from the mid-80s to the mid-90s), the Russian Scientific Center for Virology and Biotechnology (Vector), which is also engaged in developments in the field of biological weapons, has left 3,500 people. The main reason is a sharp reduction in government spending on research and development. The salary level of scientists in 2002 averaged $60-100. per month. Today it is already $ 1,000, but it is still not enough: for example, in the USA, the average salary of a researcher is 5-7 thousand dollars.
65-YEAR-OLDS WANT TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELANDValery Kozlov, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Steklov Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician:
– It is important to understand the scale of the problem: how many scientists went to work abroad, how many remained.
It is best to do this with a concrete example. Take the Steklov Mathematical Institute. It is small – only 120 researchers. Over the past 15-20 years, 30 people have left it. That is, a quarter of the composition. Not everyone has gone abroad. 10 out of 30 people have found work in commercial structures in Russia. Approximately the same percentages of outflow of scientists in the RAS as a whole.
Over the past 10 years, two people have returned to work at our institute from abroad. By the way, we now have offers to return and work at home from 65-year-old scientists. At this age in Europe, it is mandatory to retire. And in Russia there are no age restrictions. We have agreed at our institute to accept only young people, for the future.
After all, the RAS is aging, and this is an objective factor (see the table). It is associated with the impoverished size of the Russian old-age pension. As soon as a person goes on a well-deserved rest, his quality of life decreases significantly. Therefore, we cannot push our honored seniors to retire at the age of 60.
Here is a graph of changes in the age situation in the Russian Academy of Sciences over the past 6 years. The number of scientists under 30 and from 30 to 40 is slowly growing. This is a welcome fact. At the most productive age – 40-50 years, the graph goes down sharply linearly: the share of scientists of this age decreases. From 60 to 70 years of age comes the retirement age. The share of these people in the Russian Academy of Sciences is increasing, as for scientists aged 70 and older – the graph goes up sharply. There are disproportionately many of them. Maybe our government should adopt the experience of Ukraine, where every employee of science and education is paid 80% of the monthly salary upon retirement. Then our senior colleagues would be more willing to leave the walls of the Russian Academy of Sciences upon reaching old age, freeing up places for young people.
– Scientists who have earned a name for themselves in the West are slowly returning to Russia. Thus, Professor Konstantin Severinov returned from the USA and headed a group of researchers at the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Egor Bazykin (Princeton University) and Irena Artamonova (Germany, Institute of Bioinformatics of the National Center for Environment and Health in Munich) headed new groups of researchers at the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But not so long ago Severinov, Bazykin and Artamonova said that it is very difficult to work in the extremely bureaucratic Russian Academy. So, even with a grant, you need to announce a tender for the purchase of equipment worth 75,000 rubles or more. How to solve this problem?– This is a question for the Ministry of Education and Science, the government, legislators.
The Law "On Bidding and Procurement" regulates all competitive procedures related to the allocation of money, including for fundamental research. Parameters such as cost and timing become crucial. What does this mean in practice? Let's say a competition has been announced for the amount of 2 million rubles under the Federal target program "Cadres". Each applicant seeks to reduce the amount of expenses and deadlines for completing the work in order to win. Both are completely unnecessary restrictions. Serious researchers understand this. If 2 million rubles are allocated for the experiment, why reduce this amount or shorten the work time? But today, 50% of the success in passing the competitive procedures will be with the research team, which has reduced the amount of costs and deadlines. Here is one example. 62 applicants were nominated for one of the grants. According to the content of the proposed works, a university not very well-known in the country was in the 60th place. But it was he who received the grant (for more information about how scientific grants are distributed, see "under the text"). I have in my hands a copy of a letter to the President of the Russian Federation Medvedev, which was signed by about 407 doctors of sciences working at the Russian Academy of Sciences. They write, among other things, about the unsatisfactory situation with the financing of competitive research. This letter was submitted to the Presidential Council for Science, Education and Technology. I hope that these issues will be carefully and objectively considered. The week before last, at a meeting of the Ministry of Education and Science, I drew attention to this letter. But the staff of the Ministry replied to me that they were not aware of its contents yet.
– By returning young scientists from abroad, the Russian Academy of Sciences may face opposition in its ranks. The same Professor Severinov, having worked in Russia for a couple of years, says: "We need a transparent system of holding competitions, funding not institutes, but laboratories, etc. That is, the Russian Academy of Sciences needs reforms that will bring it to the level of the best scientific organizations in the world." Is the Russian Academy ready for changes?
– We will look for compromises with the returning scientists. We have a lot of unresolved issues. For example, uneven grant funding throughout the year. Unfortunately, this is typical for large public funds. It turns out like this: in the first half of the year it is "empty", there is no grant funding, in the second half of the year it is "thick", the money comes in full. And you need to be able to spend them twice as fast. So, to conduct competitive procedures for the purchase of equipment and materials. This is a chronic disease, the issue needs to be resolved, including in the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. This is what we and Konstantin Severinov are talking about. On the other hand, it is hardly necessary to specifically "single out" scientists who are going to return to Russia and create special greenhouse conditions for them. This can create a conflict between those who work here (and, by the way, work well) and those who have left. In many areas of fundamental research, for example, in mathematics, we are not at all inferior to the West. The applications of fundamental science, the development of high technologies and innovative activity are another matter. The experience of our compatriots who have achieved success abroad could well be useful here. But even here, one should not delude oneself: without the interested attitude of domestic business, innovations have no reliable prospects.
– The RAS has successfully launched the "New Groups" program, which attracts scientists who left the country in the "dashing 90s" to cooperate. Tell us more about it.– This is an experiment that is being conducted within the framework of the fundamental research program "Molecular Biology", created by the decision of the presidium of our Academy.
Usually a large scientific institute is divided into departments and laboratories, within which research is carried out in a specific direction. The creation of such new divisions has been formalized. In addition to this, there were scientific groups that unite young graduate students and senior students around a successful scientist to solve a certain urgent task. Within the framework of the "New Groups" program, scientists who once left Russia and made a name for themselves, including in the United States, were attracted to work at the academy.
The question of expanding this practice is premature. First, we should analyze the results of this approach. On the other hand, it is necessary to continue the search for new forms of organizing fundamental research, to build a more flexible strategy for finding and supporting talented youth.
– Shortly before the publication of the "letter of 407 employees of the Russian Academy of Sciences", a similar letter was written to the president and the government by scientists who once left our country and took place abroad. How do you feel about this appeal?– Many scientists who work in Russia could subscribe to it.
The main problem that our colleagues from abroad pay attention to is the insufficient level of funding for Russian science. This problem is the main one. But over the past 3-4 years, the salary level of scientists has increased. This was done thanks to a pilot project on increasing the salaries of RAS researchers, which was adopted by the government in accordance with our proposals. In order to increase the salaries of scientists, the academy has cut 20% of budget rates. Today, the candidate of sciences receives a little less than 30 thousand rubles a month. For doctors of sciences, the base rate is 30-35 thousand per month. But still, the salary of our scientists is several times lower than that of foreign colleagues. And the budget of the entire Russian Academy of Sciences is equal to the funding of Harvard University (1 billion US dollars – the budget of Harvard University, 30 billion rubles – the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences). We agree with the colleagues who left that the prestige of scientific professions in such a situation is falling among young people.
Today, another problem has become most acute – the equipment of the Russian Academy of Sciences and its institutes with modern equipment. It is usually unique and therefore very expensive. But without the latest devices, the entry of domestic science to the forefront is impossible. For university science, the government organized a special competition, the winners of which received money for the latest equipment. I think the same algorithm could be used for academic, fundamental science.
THE SHARE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE GLOBAL HIGH–TECH MARKETS IS 0.2–0.3%Boris Kuzyk, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Economic Strategies:
– Spending on research in Russian science has decreased by 5 times over the previous 18 years and has approached the level of developing countries.
Russia today spends 7 times less on science than Japan, 17 times less than the United States of America, and the number of researchers has more than halved. This creates a number of serious problems.
Russia's industrial potential is in a difficult situation. The average age of workers and engineers has reached 55 years or more, depreciation of fixed assets – 74%. At the same time, the equipment has been used for more than 20 years with the maximum effective operating rate of 9 years. This is mainly imported equipment. In the machine tool industry and the electronics industry, we have a serious collapse. In general, in terms of the level of development of high technologies, the country has fallen back by 10-15, and in some areas (biotechnology) – by 20 years. The share of machine–building products in Russia's exports is slightly more than 5%, Russia's share in the global high–tech markets is 0.2-0.3%.
P.S. Total. Venerable academics believe that all the troubles of Russian science are due to lack of funding. Young scientists who have returned from the USA and Europe put inefficient management at the top of the Russian Academy of Sciences, bureaucratization of the scientific process at the forefront. But all the problems will surely be solved if the Russian economy begins to switch to innovative tracks in practice, and not in words – then real large-scale projects of high-tech industries will appear, funded by federal and local budgets. Moreover, the "peaceful" industries – the military-industrial complex has been well loaded in recent years. Then a firm and paid state order for new technologies and scientific discoveries will be provided. Representatives of the Russian scientific diaspora are also ready to join in its implementation. It is very important that young scientists who have returned to Russia meet here not bureaucratic obstacles and gray-black schemes for cutting budget funds. And the willingness to work together to clear the way for new scientific discoveries.During the years of reforms, Russian science has not died, it has moved abroad, scientists themselves believe.
She needs to be returned from there. And money is not the main thing here. A scientist, not an official, should determine the strategy and tactics, financial policy of the Academy of Sciences. Then the necessary environment for innovation will appear. And science will become the basis of a high-tech economy. UNDER THE TEXT
The Science of "sawing" money
The financing of Russian science lags behind the world level.
In this situation, it is important to properly allocate the resources available to the RAS. How are grant competitions actually conducted and who benefits from it? Says Professor Konstantin Severinov, Head of the Laboratory at the Institute of Gene Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the group at the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences:– Together with several colleagues, we applied for grants under four programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and were refused.
We would like to understand what exactly did not suit the experts. 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. How are things with us? The only transparent program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences known to me is "Molecular and Cellular Biology", where the main selection criterion is named – the effectiveness of a scientist applying for a grant. This is determined by the citation index. The names of the winners of the contest and the "losers" are made public. But try to understand in other programs of the presidium why grants were given to some scientists and not to others. Explaining the refusal under 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?
Prepared by Irina Timofeeva
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru
30.10.2009