Science in Russia: Chudakov's Dreams

Eight Steps to the prosperity of natural Sciences
Dmitry Chudakov, for STRFMost likely, all the theses outlined below are obvious to almost everyone who deals with the problems of organizing science in Russia.

And, most likely, coming from an ordinary candidate of sciences, they are too naive and easily refuted by harsh realities. Maybe.

However, neither on the Internet, nor even on television, most of these issues are not really raised. That is, some sluggish discussion is constantly taking place, but the speed and intensity of its flow is such that the first raised point is already forgotten as the third is discussed. And most importantly, practically nothing is being done.

For this reason, I have plucked up the courage to put in writing those few decisions that seem to me: a) useful, b) real, and c) taken together – effective for the normal development of fundamental and fundamental applied science, forming the basis for building a technological economy, about which so much is said. At least, these considerations seem to me to be true for the field of natural sciences and the associated future of pharmaceuticals, medicine and agriculture.

1. It is necessary to build new institutionsIn close proximity to major cities.

Full-fledged institutes equipped with all the necessary infrastructure, ventilation systems, storage of reagents, fire extinguishing systems, centralized supply of gas, compressed air, carbon dioxide, etc. With dormitories, sports grounds and kindergartens, since young mothers in science make up a significant part of the workforce. With the involvement of specialists and companies with experience in the construction of effective scientific complexes in Europe (EMBL), USA (Howard Hughes, etc.), Japan (Riken).

On the basis of an open competition, an international citation index (see below), new groups and laboratories are selected for these institutes, they are allocated a substantial budget for the creation of startups, and for five years ahead, after which the recertification of managers is carried out on the basis of an open competition again. Old institutions are merging, freeing up outdated school-type buildings. Buildings are being demolished. The vacated expensive land in the city center is being realized, which significantly compensates for the money spent, which will take a lot. It will take a lot of money. It costs a lot, but it doesn't work otherwise.

New institutions are the renewal of infrastructure, the renewal of equipment, the renewal of personnel, the renewal of ideas, a new impetus to development. They need to be built, and not in a one-time way, but regularly. A new modern institute, in the true sense of the word, should appear in the country every year.

The last modern building of the Natural Science Institute, the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry in Moscow, was built in the early 80s.

2. Reagent supply and sample exchangeThis is a very difficult problem.

A scientist in Europe, the USA or Japan receives most of the necessary reagents either immediately – in the institute's warehouse, or within a few days of ordering. From any point to any point. On dry ice. Without overpayment.

In Russia, this period can easily reach up to four months, and sometimes more. It is elementary to buy cell culture from a European bank, enzymes, live samples, which often require delivery on dry ice – it is almost impossible to do it quickly and competently. Free exchange of biological samples with foreign colleagues is impossible. It's a bunch of papers, permits. As a result, I, a researcher, cannot physically send or receive a sample of DNA, protein, cells from abroad - nothing. Proliferation bans should concern the development of bacteriological weapons, closed institutions. All other conversations on this topic are illiterate nonsense or a competent disguise of theft.

The organization of a large reagent distribution center in Russia ("warehouse-catalog of high–purity chemical and biochemical reagents") is very good. And this is great because in itself it means that the state sees this problem. However, this measure is obviously not a systemic solution to the issue. Ask any active molecular biologist. These are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of items, often custom-made, often piece-by-piece, these are services that require free and fast exchange of samples. No mega-deposit will replace a reasonable infrastructure and clear customs agreements with developed countries.

A "green corridor" is needed for the supply of all reagents and samples related to scientific research. Quickly, without delay, without permits, without fees. And if someone takes green peas along this "green corridor", then let the police catch him. Let the scientist work. In any case, the damage caused by customs today to the development of science and technology in the country is catastrophic, and cannot be compared with the lost duty – not from peas, not even from Italian furniture.

3. Competitive allocation of funds and effective disbandment of inefficient collectives

The result of the scientist is publications. And not quantity, but quality. And the degree of his contribution to science is most accurately reflected by the number of citations of these publications by other authors.

That is, of course, there are fashionable trends and there are unfashionable ones, there are light publications and time-consuming publications, and the citation index is not always exactly proportional to the researcher's talent, the efforts expended and the result obtained.

But still, in any field of knowledge, about 10 percent of outsiders – that is, laboratories that are really inefficient, while taking up space, wasting resources. They are subject to disbandment. In the current situation, this should be done annually. And this does not mean that all employees will be fired. They can join old and new teams whose leaders want to accept them. However, these managers should clearly understand that they, in turn, will have to report on the effectiveness of their teams. Therefore, a weak employee will not be hired, and he will leave science. And that's good. Maybe, first of all, it's good for him. Science is not a poorhouse. Effective fighters, effective organizers, ambitious and purposeful people are needed here.

Such a reduction will really benefit the entire system in the long run. The general reduction recently undertaken "by order" had a minimal positive effect and practically stopped the civilized recruitment of young employees.

The distribution of most of the funds directed to basic science should be carried out at the level of groups and laboratories, through an open competition, based, in turn, on the international citation index.

As mentioned above, in each specific case, the citation index is not the only correct evaluation criterion. However, statistically it is fair enough, and in relation to many groups and laboratories, its use is the only correct way of selection, the most objective, and most importantly: the most protected from corruption. In our conditions, the last point is absolutely critical.

Attempts to create a separate Russian citation index border on a crime. To do this is like starting to measure toy cars in a sandbox, agreeing not to notice real cars at all.

The requirements to report only on the number of publications and patents not only do not lead to an effective distribution of funds. These requirements instill in young employees a false idea of success, the ability to report and get money from an official, and extinguish the natural desire to achieve a real scientific result. A scientist does something, somehow publishes in some (any) journals, successfully reports and receives state funds. The official accepts reports and, in turn, reports on the work done, which was not. It creates the appearance of a process that does not exist. For real motivation, it is necessary to demand from a scientist not any publications, but publications in journals with an acceptable citation index, in which you need to break through, and prove every day that your results are worth something.

4. Improvement of scientific journalsIn turn, the existence of countless domestic scientific journals that are not translated into English, respectively, are not read and are not evaluated by world science in any way is not only meaningless, but also extremely harmful, as it creates a false sense of the supposedly ongoing scientific process – both for scientists and officials.

Scientific reviews intended for a wide range of educated readers – students, postgraduates, scientists, doctors, teachers - should be published in Russian first of all. These reviews should be written by recognized professionals – compatriots and emigrants, well-stimulated financially and reviewed quite harshly. Plus open online access, newsletters, etc. It seems that such a system is adopted in Japan – in Japanese, respectively.

The publication of a new discovery or development should be evaluated by the international scientific community, since isolation in this case leads to self-deception and a complete loss of any effectiveness. Therefore, the article should be translated into English, and not as it is done in some journals now, but into normal English. Even better, if the article is initially written in English and reviewed by independent reviewers in different countries.

The editorial board of the Russian English-language journal, composed of compatriots, will be able, all other things being equal, to support the clans of Russian scientists, but the contribution of this component should not exceed 10 percent in the balance "for and against" the publication of the article. The decision should be made on the basis of an international review. Otherwise, it is impossible to build a respected scientific journal that only allows you to seriously support the clans of Russian scientists in the international arena.

It is necessary to encourage journals to have high citation indexes.

Three consecutive steps are seen as one of the possible solutions to improve the current situation:

1) Disbandment of 70 percent of the least cited journals in each field of knowledge.

2) Ensuring sufficient funding for the remaining 30 percent of scientific journals for 5-10 years.

3) After this period, the financing of 2/3 of non-competitive journals in each field of knowledge should also be discontinued.

The remaining 10 percent will be competitive enough, and they will be able to develop within the right framework. At the same time, the possibility of the appearance of new, in one form or another, state-sponsored scientific journals, on a competitive basis, with recertification by the citation index every five years should be preserved.

5. Legal basis of commercial development of institutionsTo date, there is no connecting link that would allow using the results of fundamental and applied research for the development of commercial products and their subsequent commercialization.

In the chain of scientist – laboratory – institute – innovative company – manufacturing company, the inseparable connection and motivation of each of the links is important.

Despite the fact that the primary motivation of a scientist is curiosity, he also has to feed his family, and material interest almost always plays a role. This role increases with the transition from the stage of discovery and invention to the stage of development of a real product, which may require a lot of effort and in itself may not be as exciting as fundamental research.

For this simple reason, for the effective implementation of scientific developments, it is necessary that there is a reliable, legitimate and understandable mechanism for the participation of a scientist and his laboratory in possible future profits from a product that was born thanks to his work.

At the same time, a scientist, as a rule, works with state money, on state equipment, and the primary legal protection of his developments, in principle, should be carried out by the patent department of the institute, that is, at the state expense.

At the same time, the result of his work can be brought to mind and effectively used only by a commercial company, usually small at the initial stages. It is reasonable and effective if the scientist-inventor will be an employee or consultant of this company.

At present, the system of protection and transfer of intellectual property rights for the interaction of institutions and commercial companies in Russia has not been formed. Probably, to a large extent it could be borrowed from the United States, where it is built very effectively.

However, even when built, this system obviously will not work without the motivation of the next link – the actual companies involved in the commercialization of developments.

6. Stimulation of knowledge-intensive businessHere we have come close to a range of issues that I can no longer discuss at all – the problems of the development of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia.

There has been talk about supporting companies engaged in the development of high technologies for many years, but to this day those few companies that are not engaged in anything other than the development and commercialization of the most high technologies, continue to pay the same taxes as any kiosk, dumpling shop or brick factory.

I repeat, my ideas are probably extremely naive. But still I don't understand: why can't the taxation of everything related to the development of high technologies be minimized or even zeroed out for 20 years?

There are almost no such companies, respectively, it is ridiculous to talk about any significant shortfalls in the budget.

There will be numerous abuses, of course. Each company will want to be called high-tech, and will prove that its blouses protect against infection, and vacuum cleaners prolong life by applying a magnetic field to the blown air purified with dried lactobacilli lysate. Let him prove it–maybe even prove it. Only not to the official for the kickback, but to the expert community, naturally, incognito, and best of all international, compiled according to the same citation rating.

Work on the creation of the Russian "corps of experts" is underway. In general, when choosing Russian experts, one can rely heavily on the lists of the most cited scientists that have already been compiled.

In a word, if desired, you can build a fairly effective system of screening pseudo-high-tech companies. Not everyone, of course, – there will be a percentage of illegal tax evasion, that is, there will be a loss to the treasury.

But not allowing high–tech business to develop today means bringing a thousand-fold loss to the treasury of a country whose economy will not be able to develop effectively for many more years.

7. Attracting big pharmaIn the pre-crisis period, car assembly plants began to be successfully attracted to the country.

It is hoped that in the post-crisis period, these initiatives will sprout, and together with the acquisition of technologies and further competent steps will lead in one form or another to the revival of the domestic automotive industry.

Similarly (although this task is probably even more difficult), the country should attract the largest developers and manufacturers of medicines, as well as manufacturers of high-tech equipment for biomedical research.

Today, Russia for these companies is a market for medicines and biomedical equipment, as well as a territory for relatively cheap clinical trials.

It is necessary to make the Russian territory attractive for conducting applied research and manufacturing high-tech products here.

This is a tax-free regime, state co-investments and, of course, the removal of countless bureaucratic barriers. These barriers are not necessary – no special obligations should be required. It is especially not necessary to demand the state's share in all the intellectual property that they will produce here – no one will ever come to us, and the state will not be able to use this complex fluid substance in its own interests anyway. The interests of the official involved in regulation are not meant here.

By analogy with the automotive industry, it is possible to provide for obligations to gradually increase the share of domestic components and the degree of involvement of domestic companies and research institutes.

A high-tech life will naturally arise around large pharmaceutical companies and equipment manufacturers, associated with fundamental and applied research, serving biotech companies, small companies conducting initial testing of technologies and, of course, the work of research institutes.

Will it turn out that the technologies developed by our scientists will go to the West? Yes, of course. But this is how it happens – technologies go to where they are in demand.

But all technologies are becoming obsolete. The winner is not the one who owns a large number of technologies at some point in time, but the one who knows how to continuously develop and implement them into production. And these processes should take place here.

8. Biotech service companies and collective use centers

To work in the field of natural sciences, a modern scientist needs access to a number of expensive and very expensive devices and numerous biotechnological services, which also require expensive equipment.

Over the past few years, the state has invested a lot of money in the purchase of expensive devices for scientific research. The system of distribution of these funds needs to be made more transparent and competitive, but in any case, it is vital to continue this practice – despite all the crisis phenomena. Regular updating of the institutes' instrument base is absolutely necessary.

However, the expensive device itself does not work. In addition to electricity, its functioning, as a rule, requires consumables, components, repairs, updating hardware and software. In addition, very often an operator is required – a highly qualified (that is, among other things, a highly paid) specialist who is able to maintain and update equipment and, in fact, conduct a competent experiment and interpret it correctly. Devices designed for the implementation of large-scale biotechnological services may require a full working day of several people and substantial expenses.

At the same time, very often one or two devices of the same type may be enough for the needs of an entire institute or even several neighboring institutes. However, someone has to spend effort and money on their maintenance and organization of their work.

A small biotech company can perform this task most effectively. The company is interested in the scientist, as he is ready to pay for her work from his grants. Accordingly, it is in the interests of the company to provide service in a timely and high-quality manner and to keep the equipment in order.

However, in the current situation, a legal contradiction arises: the device was bought with state money, and someone wants to use it to extract commercial profit.

At the same time, a small company cannot afford to buy a device for a million dollars. But even if it can, it will not go for it, since the purchase of an expensive device and its commercial use may turn out to be a loss-making or non-profit enterprise. By and large, the profit in the development of such projects should be considered not directly received income, but a multiple (without exaggeration) increase in the efficiency of scientists' work. And this profit is for the state.

The existing contradiction needs to be resolved, for example, by granting institutions the right to lease equipment to high–tech companies working primarily for the institute itself, secondarily for other state institutions, and only third – for other users. This will allow small biotech companies to form effective centers of collective use in the institutes on the basis of the existing instrument base and further strengthen them at the expense of the newly received large equipment at the institute.

An alternative solution is to co-finance the purchase of large equipment for service biotech companies. However, this mechanism leaves a lot of freedom for corruption and will require strict independent expertise.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru14.09.2009