Science in Russia: the system needs to be changed!
Russian science is becoming uncompetitive
Here is a summary of his conversation with Boris Dolgin and Anatoly Kuzichev, held within the framework of the "Science 2.0" program (a joint project of the portal "Polit.<url>" and the radio station "Voice of Russia"). An audio recording of the broadcast is available here.
The A.N. Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, where I work, functions in conjunction with the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics of Moscow State University. This situation is absolutely unique for Russia. We usually have science separately, education separately. As a result, people who don't represent anything in science teach other people to be scientists. And those who are engaged in science do not transfer their knowledge to students. This situation is not typical for other countries of the world. At the beginning of the XIX century, a classical university appeared, where education and science are inextricably linked. Students there are not so much forced to cram, as they are educated by science.
In the modern world, it is impossible to say exactly where science ends and economics begins. In both Western and Eastern countries, science is part of the economy, and all boundaries are blurred.
Our science is not economically oriented, because there is nothing to focus on. But if we want to move along the path of innovative development, we must train people who, even if they are not scientists, will be able to come up with something new, invent, implement a new idea. Therefore, when they study, they must face science and its tools. They should be scientists in fact, even if they later become businessmen.
Our institute is actually one with the faculty, the institute is the faculty. Students, starting from the first year, work in laboratories. At first, they mostly observe, but still do some work. They begin to enter into real life, and not just assimilate some abstract knowledge, sometimes outdated. Our students are faced with real scientific life and begin to realize their own needs early.
Now a lot is being said and done for the revival of science in universities. Gradually, it begins to appear. Although there are very few universities that have strong science. In fact, of the newly created structures, the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics of Moscow State University is the only one of its kind.
Academic mobility is not developed in Russia. Most teachers teach students things that are already outdated or are not needed by the world scientific community, business, or economics.
Modern science is a pretty flexible thing. New tasks arise; it is necessary to form a new team for them. It is impossible to act in such a way that only one laboratory has been created and has been working for decades. When new tasks appear, it is necessary to change people or even open a new laboratory. As a result, people constantly travel around the world in search of work for themselves. Sometimes there are huge international collaborations of large projects, such as projects of large telescopes or the Large Hadron Collider.
It's perfectly normal for a scientist to move from place to place. But this practice is not developed at all in our country.
How much do Russian scientists earnIn Russia, a senior researcher at a good laboratory receives up to 15,000 rubles at a basic rate, and this is considered good money.
Then everything depends on his activity, first of all – on participation in various projects, in grants, in business agreements, etc. An increase of up to several thousand rubles a month is given by teaching. In total, a hyperactive Russian scientist receives 35 000 – 40 000 rubles per month. And this is another good case.
That is why academic mobility is impossible in Russia. A scientist with such an income is not able to rent an apartment anywhere, he is tied to his city, to his laboratory, to the institute.
Now the state is actively intervening in the financing of science in Russia. This situation is not very typical for the world. As a rule, the state is eliminated from direct control, giving the scientific community the opportunity to sort out the issue itself.
In the United States, for example, in scientific foundations, the state sets only some rules, and the experts who determine to whom and for which priority areas to allocate funds are scientists, not officials.
The current sad state of Russian science is due to the fact that officials are trying to determine a lot on their own, not understanding many things and not wanting to delve into them. They try to regulate science themselves, instead of turning to scientists or using Western experience.
Tender is the brake of scienceThere is a problem of low salaries, but the problem of bureaucratization of science is much more serious now.
There are no such strict bureaucratic regulations as in Russia in any civilized country in the world.
A concrete example: the main topic of conversation of scientists in 2011 is the law on public procurement. This was one of the main problems. Of course, this law plays a certain positive role, but it simply does not take into account the specifics of science. The specificity of science is that it is impossible to predict. You have conducted an experiment, got the results, then you need the next experiment, for which you need to purchase new reagents. In the West, a scientist does just that. The Russian law requires compliance with special procedures, filling out certain unnecessary papers, so that in a couple of months someone wins the right to supply you with this reagent by tender or tender. The question arises – and when to work?
Deadlines suffer very much. It is very difficult to choose a specific supplier: the quality of reagents seems to be the same, but everyone knows that the reagent works for this company, but this one does not. And the law on public procurement is no good here.
The situation is even more absurd with contests for the right to conduct scientific works. The law on public procurement in this case states that the winner of the competition is not the one who offers a good project, but the one who offers a cheap project. Price is the main selection criterion. As a result, the state selects obviously weak projects, provides funding for them, and strong scientists leave to work in the West.
There is a grant system in the West. Its main meaning is the lack of control over the work of a scientist, the lack of control over how much and what reagents he spends. But there is the strictest control over the final result of the study. And the scientist understands that if he cheated, then he will never be given a grant again. Therefore, there is an individual responsibility of the scientist for the result.
In Russia, the grant system is almost not developed. It's a drop in the bucket. There are only grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (RGNF). There are no grants outside of them. And grants in Russia are tiny: in the world in the field of biomedical research, a grant of $ 1 million is not uncommon, we have a grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research - 350,000 rubles.
The President of Russia in 2010 said that the law on public procurement should be made more loyal to scientists. However, 2011 turned out to be a terrible year for our science. It began with the fact that Order No. 601 of the Ministry of Economic Development appeared, which sharply worsened the situation. Previously, it was possible to spend 100,000 rubles per quarter on organizing work without tenders, and there were quite a lot of points for which this was possible. Order No. 601 introduced restrictions that made it impossible.
If we want to have world-class science, the system must be viable. We have to compete with Western institutions. In the West, a person goes and gets a reagent in 2-3 days, but we are with the tender system – only in 2-3 months. Consequently, we become uncompetitive.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru19.12.2012