Contribution to science

Can the story of one researcher about his salary change the financing of an entire industry?

Nina Ruzanova, Rossiyskaya Gazeta

An impromptu story by Anastasia Proskurina, a senior researcher at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, to the president about her salary suddenly became a sensation. And although there was no secret in what she said, 35-year-old Anastasia became a hero who colleagues from all over Russia want to shake hands with. Immediately, the search for scientists guilty of "poverty" began – the law enforcement system reacted instantly.

Briefly recall: young scientists Anastasia Proskurina, Ekaterina Potter and Evgenia Dolgova became laureates of the presidential prize. They were invited to a meeting of the Science Council, and there Anastasia said that her salary of a senior researcher is less than it should be. Although it is believed that scientists should receive at the level of two average salaries in the region, and this indicator has been reached according to reports (in the Novosibirsk region, the average salary is 39 thousand rubles). In addition, scientists were offered to switch to a part-time job: formally, the salary is increased in this way, but in reality it remains the same at best. Anastasia's laboratory refused such experiments.

In the wake of public speeches

Today's reaction of young biologists, who are now shown on TV every day: fear, inexplicable guilt (what will happen to the institute now?!) and resentment. "I will not discuss my salary with you! Why is everyone interested only in this? I've been working here for 16 years, but now no one cares about it, only money," the exhausted Anastasia throws me.

Her phone screen doesn't go off for a second – calls, calls, calls... She turned off the sound. And I don't have the strength to answer. The next day after the conversation with the president, Anastasia had to talk to the investigator. Such a turn will unsettle anyone, not that fragile girls who are not at all prone to hype and scandals.

The next day, Ekaterina also goes to the prosecutor. For her, this is also not an ordinary event – a test.

Both departments – the Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee - decided to find out how things are with the salaries of scientists. And we started, of course, with the culprits of the celebration. The leadership of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics is also ready for "tough checks": director Alexey Kochetov has already stated that he has nothing to hide, and the financial activities of the ICIG are regularly and scrupulously checked without appeals to the president. And if we still discuss the level of salaries of scientists, then on average for the organization, he says, everything converges: two average salaries for the region (39 plus 39, a total of 78 thousand rubles per month) a statistically derived "average" scientist in the ICIG receives.

Here it is interesting to recall the scientific work of Anastasia Proskurina, Ekaterina Potter and Evgenia Dolgova. One of the directions of their research is the technology of influencing stem cancer cells, which was called "Karanahan" (in Sanskrit – "killing the cause"). Scientists have found out that for the application of this technology it is very important to choose the moment when cancer cells become as vulnerable as possible. And this moment after chemotherapy, even with the same drug, does not occur at the same time for everyone, it is influenced by many factors, that is, ideally, the mode of exposure should be selected for each individual organism. It's possible. And this is the personalized medicine that we have been striving for for a long time. Medicine is learning to see a unique personality in each patient. But we still consider the salary of those with whose help "humanity" is born in science, as we know how. Most often... on average.

There is an obvious contradiction in this, isn't there?..

Grant circle: rescue or closed?

But in addition to the "average temperature in the hospital", there is another, if I may say so, squiggle in the salaries of scientists. This is its multicomponence. Anastasia also makes a reservation in a conversation with the president – she earns a little more than 30 thousand rubles when the laboratory does not have a grant. He's not here right now. Is 80 thousand rubles for a Novosibirsk scientist taking into account grants and contracts, or is it a basic level that should be provided monthly from the federal budget?

The question is debatable. Chairman of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valentin Parmon believes that the second option is correct. And she does not hesitate to publicly thank Anastasia for bringing to the very "top" what scientists have been talking about for many years. Presumably, they are talking to themselves. Valentin Parmon says the obvious: in the regions, scientists earn three to four times less than in Moscow and St. Petersburg. According to him, the academy has been "excommunicated" from the formation of salaries of scientists for many years – that's the result, they say.

– The society should not get sick, but suffer a new management system of science, – as if responding to Parmon, says a researcher temporarily attached to the laboratory where Anastasia and her colleagues work. He asks not to be named ("I'm still temporary here, you never know what"). But it is easier to talk about the fate of science with him, who has crossed the threshold of the fiftieth anniversary and has caught the Soviet period, than with Anastasia. Her wise colleague continues to talk about the "pitfalls" of the grant system for financing science. And it's not just about salaries.

– Experiments require money. To receive a grant, you need to submit the result of an experiment already conducted, at least a scientific publication. No money, no experiment. So, there is no publication and there is no opportunity to receive a grant – the circle has closed. It turns out that there is no grant, and you can not work at all? The incognito biologist believes that while there is a search going on in the country: they tried to manage science in this way, it didn't work out, they came up with something new...

"But you are people, not experimental mice," I sadly remark. He is silent. I'm going to Anastasia. And my interlocutor suddenly returns to confirm: "Yes! We are not mice!" It's really important. It would be good to remember that the fate of real scientists, not average ones, is behind the reports on the allocation of billions. And also the fate of experiments that were never carried out due to lack of money. Experiments that in the future could also save someone's life.

Giving inspires

Anastasia, Ekaterina and Evgenia are engaged in salvation. They are not doctors, they are biologists. Anastasia is three years older than her fellow laureates. She came to the laboratory in 2004, while still a student at NSU. Ekaterina and Evgenia are classmates, together at school, together at university, together at work. Anastasia admits that she was purposefully looking for a laboratory where anti-cancer research is carried out, she wanted to be useful. They are all glad that they are conducting applied research – the result is visible.

"It's insanely inspiring," Anastasia says. – If you manage to help a person, it's happiness!

They really help. One of the laboratory's developments – the drug "Panagen" – has already passed two phases of clinical trials, its effect has been tested on 80 patients diagnosed with breast cancer. The drug, which is used in combination with chemotherapy, activates the cells of the body's immune system, and it begins to fight the tumor. Trials have shown that the 5-year relapse-free survival rate when using the drug "Panagen" in chemotherapy courses is 50 percent compared to 18 in patients who received only chemotherapy. The third stage of clinical trials is ahead, already on a larger number of patients.

As for the "Karanahan" technology, its clinical studies have not yet been conducted. But, as the author of the idea, the head of the laboratory, Doctor of Biological Sciences Sergey Bogachev, said, the method of influencing stem cancer cells was used only once, with the consent of volunteers who could no longer be helped by doctors. And the tumors significantly decreased in size and even disappeared, surprising the doctors.

In general, the results of the scientific search, you will agree, will inspire anyone: there is a chance to defeat oncological diseases! But will the results of many years of work of scientists appear in hospitals? As they say – in the market? But this is a big question. Let's forget about the salaries of scientists for a moment. And we realize for a moment the fact that the means that can save our lives should be "pushed" by them: Anastasia, Ekaterina, Evgenia. We must look for financial partners. Themselves. They're biologists. Not managers. But – this is the system now. Invented, tested – sell...

– Not offended? – I ask Anastasia. A cruel question. But I know many cases when scientists have been unable to find buyers for very important and necessary technologies for years. In particular, because these technologies can change the market and leave someone without the usual income.

– Of course, I want someone to come and say: "Well, wow, how great you've come up with everything! Here's a lot of money for you, come up with more, and we're taking this! Thank you very much!" But now it doesn't happen that way, says Anastasia.

Behind this kind "someone" I see the state. Or at least a combat detachment of the advanced, which probably should be in any scientific institute. There seem to be such people in science. But their interests are also, to put it mildly, selective.

Blitz survey:

– Have you already decided where you will spend the bonus?

Proskurina: Partly for development. For example, we will pay for the publication of an article in a scientific journal – 110 thousand rubles. Publications are needed to achieve indicators in our work.

– Previously, they often talked about the brain drain from Russia – is this problem relevant now?

Proskurina: In my opinion, it's not the same as before. Personally, I don't want to live and work in a foreign country, I don't understand this desire.

Catherine Potter: I could go abroad, but only for a certain period, not forever.

– Why should young people go to work in science?

Potter: Because it gives freedom of creativity, freedom of thought. An interesting and fascinating process of achieving results, solving problems – this is probably the main thing.

By the way In search of answers and reasons, it is worth looking at the Institute's website and the website of the Ministry of Education and Science in the section "Income information..." of officials.
From the figures for 2019, it can be seen that the difference in the payment of the first persons of the ICIG (the director, six of his deputies, the chief accountant and two heads of branches) and the payment (salary + allowance) of the leading researcher is expressed by the ratio of 10:1. And the decile coefficient, i.e. the ratio of the 10 highest-paid positions and the 10 lowest-paid ones reaches 20. This is an exorbitant indicator for scientific institutions. And here the branch trade union and the trade union of the Russian Academy of Sciences should have their say.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru