Vladimir ZAKHAROV - born in 1939

Vladimir ZAKHAROV - was born in 1939 in Kazan. Graduated from Novosibirsk University. In his student years he was one of the founders of the club of poets in Academgorodok. Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, laureate of the State Prizes of the USSR (1987) and Russia (1993), as well as the Dirac medal (2003). In 1992 - 2003 director of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. At present, he is the head of the mathematical physics sector at FIAN and a professor of mathematics at the Arizona State University (Tempe, USA). Author of five collections of poetry and more than twenty poetry collections. Member of the Union of Russian Writers and the PEN Club. As a poet, he was awarded the Petropol Prize and the Victor Rozov Medal. Lives in the Moscow region.

Vladimir ZAKHAROV

Science in Russia and in the modern world

1. Why is fundamental science needed?

Louis Pasteur said: "Science should be the most exalted embodiment of the Fatherland, for of all peoples, the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity." These wonderful words are quoted in the Message of President D. A. Medvedev dated November 12, 2009. However, the simultaneous reduction by 11.8% of the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences, approved by both the Duma and the Federal Assembly, is in sharp contradiction to these words. Our political elite considered spending on science unnecessary and useless, thereby recognizing that Russia does not intend to be ahead of other nations "in the field of thought and mental activity."

And this is happening at a time when Russian science is in critically bad shape - worse than at any time in its 285 years of existence. Funding for science is completely insufficient, and the departure of scientific youth abroad continues. If it is happening at a slower pace, it is only because there are fewer scientific youth themselves. With regard to funding, it is appropriate to cite some figures here.

The budget of the Academy of Sciences, with all its two hundred research institutes and centers, archives and libraries, is one billion dollars a year. There are 55,000 scientific employees in academic institutions, and the total number of people financed from the budget of the Academy is more than 100,000.

One billion a year is the budget of a good American university. Only a part of this amount (from 1/5 to 1/3) is covered by student fees and grants earned by professors, the rest of the budget is from the state in which the university is located (if the university is public), or income from a charitable foundation ( if the university is private). The university has about three thousand teachers - professors of three levels and lecturers. And there are more than a hundred such universities in the USA.

The underfunding of Russian science is simply a glaring fact. Postgraduate scholarship at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences is 1500 rubles. And what is the attitude of public opinion to this?

Some argue that the losers left, unable to find a decent place in their homeland. This assertion is patently false. Many have made excellent careers in Russia as well - they have become professors, academicians, heads of institutes and laboratories. They did not become rich people, if this is meant by a worthy place in their homeland, on the contrary, humiliatingly low salaries forced them to leave for a place where the talent and qualifications of a scientist are valued.

Other voices can be heard: yes, science in Russia is dying. It's sad, but not tragic. This is a natural, regular process. Russia will do without science. There are societies in the world that live perfectly without any science.

With such a view of science, it remains unclear: why are expensive scientific projects carried out in the world? Why is a hadron collider being built, the Hubble telescope launched into space, probes sent to distant planets, archaeological expeditions carried out and ancient texts studied? The answer is simple - because the world is a place where the development of civilization takes place, and science is the most important component of civilization.

We lack an adequate understanding of the role of science in human society. There is a bad joke that scientists satisfy their own curiosity at the expense of the state. Of course they satisfy curiosity, but it is a precious curiosity for the mysteries of nature. Yes, the New York Times has a business news tab every day. But once a week, on Wednesdays, there is an extensive tab dedicated to science news. The feeling that science is moving forward brings satisfaction: everything is going as it should go. The progress of science plays the role of a social stabilizer. A society where science and scientists are respected is a healthy society. There is no need to fight against anti-science, shamans, sorcerers and exorcists of the spirits of the dead do not flourish there.

The most important combination of words “fundamental science” is missing from the vocabulary of our political elite. Even the most responsible part of it looks at science in a purely utilitarian way, as an aid in the creation of new technologies. As a result, Russian science can be compared to a seriously ill patient whom no one wants to treat. It is not surprising that despair seizes scientists, including those who have gone abroad "losers". Recently, a group of Russian scientists, temporarily or permanently working in Western universities, addressed an open letter to the President and Prime Minister of the Russian Federation with an appeal to save Russian science. One can not agree with all the proposals contained in this letter, but one thing is certain - it was written by people who have a serious name in the scientific world and are sincerely concerned about the plight of Russian science. It provoked some responses, but, in general, the reaction of our society to it was sluggish, wary and cool.

The proposal to invest a lot of money in the construction of a new generation particle accelerator caused a special rejection. This rejection says a lot about the morbid state of mind in contemporary Russia. We are going to hold the Olympics, motivated by the need to strengthen the international prestige of the country. But the construction of a modern accelerator, which, by the way, is cheaper than the Olympic facilities and infrastructure, would raise the prestige of Russia much more. The Olympics are a one-time event that everyone will soon forget. And the accelerator will work for half a century, arguing by the very fact of its existence that Russia belongs to the family of civilized states. A scientific and educational center will be built around it, there will be active international cooperation.

For those who believe that we do not need civilization and culture, let us turn to the practical benefits of science. Recently, much has been said about the need for innovative breakthroughs and the development of new technologies. Why not pay attention to the fact that the developed countries of the world right now, during the financial crisis, are sharply increasing spending on science? Why does US President Barack Obama say that "today science is needed more than ever", declare science the country's top priority, and double funding for "the entire spectrum of basic science"? Why does French President Nicolas Sarkozy, while allocating huge additional funding to five strategic areas, put education and research in the first two places, and then only industry and so on? This is done because without science there will be no innovative breakthroughs. The most important function of fundamental science lies in the fact that it lays the foundations for the technologies of the future. They are not easy to predict. Neither Hertz nor Mendel, when doing their experiments, could imagine television and genetic engineering.

We should think about how much and irreversibly science changes the world, how quickly what we call progress is happening. People tend to take progress for granted and not ask themselves the question: why is it actually happening? We turn on the lights, forgetting that the use of electricity is based on the great works of Faraday. We watch TV, forgetting that the iconoscope was invented by Vladimir Zworykin. We click the digital camera without thinking about the Chinese Kuan Kao. We swallow drugs that prolong our lives without thinking about their creators. We pump gasoline into our gas tanks, not thinking about who and how the oil fields were explored. But behind each of these familiar things is a name, and this is the name of a scientist. Today there are battles, they divide the largest underwater Shtokman gas field. And why is it called that? Because it was discovered from the board of the research vessel "Professor Shtokman", named after our outstanding oceanologist Vladimir Borisovich Shtokman.

In the future, the importance of science in the life of society will only increase. Mankind cannot reduce its dependence on science in any way, it will not be possible to get off the “scientific needle”. In thirty, fifty years at the most, oil reserves will run out. What will we do then? Only science can solve the problem of alternative energy sources. Periodically, new strains of viruses arise, vaccines for which science finds. Anthropogenic pressure on planet Earth is constantly increasing: if global warming continues, many cities, including our St. Petersburg, will be under water. Mankind will be able to resist this grandiose challenge only by fully using the power of science. Today in our country there are very nervous disputes about the past of Russia. Do they have a repressed fear of the future?

The next most important function of science is educational. An aphorism that goes back to Plutarch is often cited: "The student is not a vessel to be filled, but a torch to be lit." And only the one who burns himself can light it. The participation of scientists engaged in fundamental research in the educational process makes it possible to educate truly high-class specialists. It gives students the opportunity to inhale the aroma of scientific creativity. Only a few of them will become professional scientists, but private and public companies engaged in the production of new technologies will receive young and valuable employees capable of making “innovative breakthroughs”.

Another important function of science is expert. A scientist cannot succeed if he does not constantly question what he is doing. Scientists represent the most sober and critically thinking part of society. A disdainful attitude towards scientific expertise leads to the fact that a flood of pseudoscience falls upon the country, which is extremely expensive for society, especially when combined with unprofessionalism and corruption of officials.

Science not only lays the foundation for the technologies of the future, it actively participates in the creation of the technologies of today. In the dynamic West, local achievements of scientists are paid close attention: as soon as there is hope that they make it possible to make some technical progress, small private companies immediately appear. This is called "spin-off". Investors invest in hundreds of risky areas, knowing that 1% of successful projects will pay off all expenses.

Of course, scientists cannot be held responsible for the introduction of new technologies in industry. Specialized companies employing hundreds and thousands of people are responsible for this. The business of scientists is scientific research, education of a new generation of professionals and an expert function. For example, a professor at a technical university, a specialist in steam turbines, is not required to design new turbines. But he must know which turbines worked and work when and where, what can happen during operation, what are their typical problems, what are the critical loads. On occasion, he will head a commission to study the causes of the accident. And he will transfer his knowledge to students, supplying the industry with newly trained specialists. This is the real place of a scientist in industry.

2. All literate humanity strives to develop science

In what countries of the world today is strong science? The most important criterion may be an annual list of the two hundred best universities in the world. In the Western world, scientific activity is concentrated mainly in universities. Research laboratories, such as the National Laboratories in the United States or the Max Planck Society in Germany, have relatively few researchers: about fifteen thousand scientists in the Max Planck Society and two tens of thousands in the US National Laboratories. In Russia, there has traditionally been a somewhat greater separation of research activities and the educational process. Although staff members of academic institutions actively lecture university students, the closest interaction between scientists and students occurs only at the master's level, when young bachelors enter graduate school. This also has its advantages: graduate students freed from the teaching load (in Western universities they are required to work as teaching assistants for a significant part of the time) and their mentors can devote themselves more fully to scientific research. As a result, the quality of our Ph.D. PhD . A university will not be on the list of the best if it does not conduct serious research in the field of fundamental sciences and does not employ world-famous scientists. A special prestige is created for the university by the Nobel and Fields laureates located within its walls. The methodology for compiling the list of the best universities in the world is not ideal, but does not raise objections from the scientific community.

Comparison of the lists for different years shows that they are very dynamic - some universities go up, others go down. As you might expect, the largest number of top universities (52) are in the US. In the first place among them and in general in the list - Harvard. But already in second place is the University of Cambridge in England, which occupies a solid second place (26 universities). Third - fifth places (11 universities each) are shared by Holland, Japan and China. Canada and Germany (10 universities each) rank sixth and seventh. The leading ones also include Australia (9) and Switzerland (7), Belgium and Sweden (5 universities each). It should be noted that the Scandinavian countries with a small population (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland) are presented very worthy - eleven positions in the list. France, Israel, South Korea and New Zealand each have three first-class universities. Two each - India, Singapore, Ireland and Russia. Finally, one each - Italy, Spain, Greece, Austria, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia and Thailand. The Russian universities represented in the list are Moscow (155th place) and St. Petersburg (168th place). The selection of universities is quite harsh. Based only on my own experience, I can name a few very good American and Italian universities that were not included in this list.

So, in the list of the two hundred best universities in the world, almost all countries of the notorious "golden billion" were included. In addition, there are two, on average, rather poor countries - India and China, as well as a number of so-called developing countries. More than half of humanity lives in countries that have the best universities and thus developed science.

In fact, there are still “second tier” countries that are making great efforts to get into the mentioned list. These are Brazil, Argentina, Chile, countries of Eastern Europe, Portugal, Turkey. These countries are striving with all their might to become full members of the world scientific community: they actively hold international congresses and conferences, invite foreign experts. It will not be surprising if Iran is soon added to this list. This country is full of contradictions: on the one hand, there is an archaic theocratic regime, on the other, a rapidly developing civilization.

So, summing up, we get that the number of countries sparing no expense and effort to strengthen their scientific potential is more than forty. At least three-quarters of humanity lives in them. It is interesting to compare this figure with another. According to UNESCO, about 20% of the adult population of the world is illiterate, and there are only fifty countries in which all children are in school. It would not be a big stretch to say that practically all literate humanity strives to develop science. Everyone except us. We stubbornly continue to believe that only impractical eccentrics are engaged in pure science. We believe that science is too expensive.

In this regard, it is interesting to talk about the impractical Chinese who have eleven universities that made it to the top 200 list. Just ten years ago, there was only one university from "traditional" China without Hong Kong on this list - Fudan University in Shanghai. When in 1999 I was invited to give a course of lectures at Peking University, this educational institution made a very modest impression. But in 2007 I went there again for a very elite conference on integrated systems and saw beautiful modern buildings, fully equipped with the best equipment. Chinese leaders do not spare money for the development of their science, applied and fundamental. In China, major international congresses and conferences are held one after another.

Recently there was a funny episode, which, however, says a lot. More than a hundred years ago, Henri Poincaré formulated a very elegant geometric conjecture. It was clear to everyone that its proof or refutation would be of much greater importance for mathematics than the proof of Fermat's famous theorem, which, compared with Poincaré's conjecture, looks like a super-difficult Olympiad problem. The path to the proof was found long ago, but huge technical difficulties arose along the way. Grigory Perelman, our outstanding mathematician, managed to overcome them. He published his very difficult proof in an abbreviated form and put it on the Internet. Immediately, two Chinese mathematicians wrote a large book in which they filled in all the gaps that took place in Perelman's proof. They referred to Perelman, but tried to portray the matter as if they had done the main part of the work themselves. This is not surprising, but rather different: the Chinese government has raised this issue to the level of national prestige and asked mathematicians of Chinese origin living in other countries to support the priority of Chinese scientists. Thank God, nothing came of this, and Perelman's priority remained unshakable.

I note that I do not at all condemn the actions of the Chinese leaders. On the contrary, welcome! They surround their scientists with honor and respect. At one time in the United States there were many Chinese professors in very important positions. Now there are fewer and fewer of them: they are returning to China, where they are provided with very warm conditions, in particular, the opportunity to maintain positions in the United States. They enjoy universal respect, no one considers them traitors to their homeland. Kuen Kao, who was already mentioned there, is surrounded by all kinds of honor, the 2009 Nobel laureate in physics for his work on transmitting light through fiber optic channels, who spent his scientific life in England and the USA and now lives in Hong Kong.

The painful question of the salaries of scientists in different countries should be touched upon. This can be judged by the following simple criterion: if scientists from Russia emigrate to any country, then the salary there is at least three times higher than in Russia. So, there are numerous cases of emigration to all countries of the "first echelon", with the exception of India. They just don't take foreigners there. There are cases of emigration to the countries of the "second echelon" - to Brazil, Argentina and Turkey, to the Czech Republic and Poland. It is plausible to believe that our professors' salaries are the lowest in all literate humanity.

The tradition of material support for scientists and deep respect for them developed in Western society no later than the beginning of XIX century. Today this tradition has spread all over the world. It is considered an axiom that university professors should belong to the upper middle class. In Scandinavia, a professor's salary is approximately equal to that of a minister. In the United States, the president of a university earns as much as, and sometimes more than, the president of the country.

3. The collapse of science during the reform period

and scientific emigration

The multiple increase in funding for science that took place in the Soviet Union in 1945 had far-reaching consequences. This not only made it possible in four years to make an atomic bomb and create a solid foundation for our outstanding space successes. The Soviet leaders turned out to be sensible enough to radically improve the financial situation not only of nuclear scientists, but of all scientists without exception. The salary of all employees with academic degrees was simultaneously increased several times. Scientists have become a privileged class, and this feeling of importance has contributed in no small measure to what is called self-respect, citizenship, and free-thinking. The beginning was sent in 1955 to the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU "letter of three hundred" criticizing the activities of Lysenko. It was signed by 297 scientists - biologists, physicists, mathematicians, chemists, geologists and other. The letter led to Lysenko's resignation from the post of president of VASKhNIL, although in 1962-1965 he was returned to this post on the personal initiative of Khrushchev. By the mid-60s, a dissident movement began among scientists. In early 1966, a group of academicians and well-known cultural figures sent a letter to the Soviet leadership protesting against the rehabilitation of Stalin. Then the colossal figure of Academician Sakharov came to the fore. When the human rights movement took shape in 1968, academics and academics became key figures. They formed the backbone of the human rights movement, whose activities greatly contributed to the end of the Soviet period in our history. During the August coup of 1991, scientists also came to the defense of the White House. They made up the bulk of the defenders.

What the new government did to science can only be called criminal shortsightedness. Taking responsibility for the economic fate of the country, Yegor Gaidar announced that we have too much science and "science will have to wait." Financing of science has decreased by an order of magnitude, respectively - the salaries of scientists have decreased. The freedom to leave the country given to Soviet citizens back in the time of M. S. Gorbachev in 1988-1989 made it easier for scientists to find work abroad. Contrary to the popular opinion in the media that science in the Soviet Union only served the military-industrial complex, our scientists turned out to be the most convertible Russian commodity in Western countries. This is direct evidence of what a strong science we had.

The exact number of scientists who emigrated from the countries of the former USSR is unknown, since our science of statistics shares the common fate of Russian science. On November 11, 2009, at the discussion at the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation on external migration, the estimate of the number of scientists who left ranged from 60,000 to 250,000. According to indirect data, I can judge that several thousand people have tenure professorships (a lifelong position, which is very difficult to get, for this you need to win in a tough competition) at universities in other countries. And for every scientist who gets a permanent place at the university, there are at least a few people who are now struggling with the crisis in private companies. Many of them have advanced degrees.

The geography of the third emigration of scientists is extremely extensive. Most of them went to the United States, very many - to Israel, England, Germany, Australia, Canada, France. Our professors work at the universities of New Zealand, South Africa, Malaysia, Hong Kong, not to mention Holland, Belgium, Italy, Scandinavian countries. All the best universities in the world have professors from Russia, and today this is a very significant diaspora. Usually at conferences on mathematics, theoretical physics, optics, oceanography (I mention only those that I attend myself), a large part of the audience speaks Russian.

With the "young reformers" people came to power who were superficially educated, picking up scraps of Western economic science - "brochurkin children". Today it has become commonplace to compare them with the Bolsheviks, but the Bolsheviks not only destroyed, but also built. When George Soros, the only one of the powerful of this world, took care of the plight of Russian science and invested about two hundred million dollars in its support, they arrogantly did not notice his activities. Soros believed that the country was run by civilized people experiencing temporary difficulties, that at some stage the federal government and the regions would actively join in supporting science. This did not happen, and a deeply disappointed Soros ceased his activities in Russia. He acted from idealistic motives, but in our country, struck by vulgar practicality, he was seen almost as an American spy.

References to the economic hardships of the time cannot work. Judging by the speed with which the formation of a vast class of rich and super-rich people took place in the country, and by the fact that the outflow of capital abroad amounted to tens of billions of dollars a year, there were resources in the country. There was no civilized and competent government. And there was a false premise in the idea that getting rich quickly by a small number of randomly selected people is the engine of progress. Then there was not even an idea left.

Saving science was real. In 1992, a group of scientists, which included academicians A. V. Gaponov-Grekhov, V. E. Fortov and myself, tried to implement the “State Professor” project, which involved targeted support for ten thousand doctors of science and twice as many candidates for a decent level for those times - an average of five thousand dollars a year. When we discussed this project with Secretary of the Security Council Yu. N. Skokov, he exclaimed: “One hundred and fifty million dollars a year? Yes, all you need is just one well!” This despite the fact that the price of oil was then at the level of twenty dollars per barrel. However, the project did not pass. It has evolved into a much more modest support program for scientific schools. And by the time the price of oil jumped to eighty dollars, and this program has practically withered away.

4. Current state of Russian science

and administrative voluntarism

What is the current state of Russian science?

Science has not perished, but its position is very dramatic. Comparison with a seriously ill patient is quite appropriate, and the bad thing is that no one knows exactly the state of health of this patient. Just as we do not have statistics on scientists who have left, so there is no data on the dynamics of those leaving and a sober assessment of the potential of those who remain. Therefore, one can only judge by personal observations. And they are next. Science has ceased to be a single entity. She lives on islands that interact little with each other. Few scientific conferences are held inside the country, and traveling around Russia has become an expensive pleasure. Paradoxically, scientists from different places in Russia are more likely to meet at international conferences abroad than at home. In general, the province suffered less from the "brain drain" than both capitals.

Science is aging before our eyes. Going to institute seminars, you notice that older people are sitting in a half-empty hall. The average age of researchers is fifty-five to sixty years. They most likely will not go abroad, and they can still teach young people. But still - this is the outgoing generation. There is a gaping void behind them, the scientists of the next generation have either left for good or spend most of the year working in foreign scientific institutions. A few young people will sharpen their skis, striving before that to take the knowledge from their elders to the maximum. Domestic scientific instrumentation has died, laboratories are equipped with obsolete equipment, there are no reagents. The leadership of the Academy of Sciences is sluggish and lacking initiative, does not dare to take an active position in defending the interests of science before the government.

Science is still waiting. Over the past eight years, despite some salary increases for scientists, the situation has only changed for the worse. The position of the authorities remains the same: deafness to the opinion of professionals and Soviet administrative voluntarism. The Soviet Union is long gone, and voluntarism not only has not disappeared, but, having united with the desire for personal gain, characteristic of the new time, has flourished. As in Soviet times, it is carried out through noisy campaigns, such as the campaign to introduce corn almost to the Arctic Circle. Today we have a new corn - nanotechnology. Like corn, nanotechnology is a very good thing. They are successfully used to obtain composite materials, in medicine for the transport of drugs, in optics, and in microelectronics. But in our country it has turned into a nationwide campaign with strong support from above.

The inspirational lightweight speeches of M. Kovalchuk, the main ideologist of the “nano-cogno-bio” breakthroughs, are very much reminiscent of speeches about the need and possibility of transforming nature. The government allocates funding for the development of nanotechnologies, one and a half times the budget of the entire Academy of Sciences! By decree of the President, the three most powerful physical institutes in the country are merged into the research center "Kurchatov Institute", which is headed by M. Kovalchuk. Without the knowledge of the staff and management of the institutes, without any scientific, expert discussion! In Soviet times, administrative voluntarism was distinguished by greater professionalism. Soviet officials were aware of the fact that science does not tolerate monopoly, and the execution of important programs was not entrusted to one group. The head of the center for the creation of nuclear weapons in Sarov was Yu. B. Khariton. A parallel and competing center was in Chelyabinsk, it was headed by E. I. Zababakhin. The same situation was in rocket science and in aviation. The monopolization of science inevitably leads to its simulation and "Potemkin villages".

Against the backdrop of this grandiose "panama", the renaming of Kazan University into Privolzhsky is a small event. But what is this if not voluntarism, combined with the soviet lack of historical memory? Kazan University is one of the oldest in Russia, founded in 1804. He is rightly proud of his outstanding scientists: suffice it to name the creators of Lobachevsky's non-Euclidean geometry and Butlerov's theory of the structure of organic compounds. The name of the university is a brand, the more valuable the older the university. Is it conceivable that the University of Cambridge should be renamed Middle English? Or Bologna, the oldest in Europe, was renamed Central Italian? This renaming is a vivid example, as Nikolai Leskov would say, of "administrative delight."

Academic science is in a disastrous state, and there is nothing to replace it. For the form of organization and management of the scientific community that has historically developed in Russia with the help of academic structures, there is currently no alternative in sight. The course taken by the government to buy new technologies abroad and invite specialists from there to work will completely kill Russian science. 600 billion rubles are allocated for the purchase of new technologies - an amount thirty times higher than the financing of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences! Of the funds allocated for the nanotechnology bubble, only 1% is promised to academic science.

There is no alternative to the Academy of Sciences as a body capable of conducting serious scientific expertise. The neglectful attitude of the government towards academic science is already bearing fruit: a flood of pseudoscience has swept the country. For example, a certain V. I. Petrik, a half-educated psychologist and a former criminal convicted under thirteen articles of the Criminal Code, from fraud to attempted robbery, flourishes. Now he is a "private scientist-inventor" and scientific consultant to the United Russia party. Among his numerous "scientific discoveries" are the production of electricity from the heat of slightly heated bodies, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the construction of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, and the separation of radioactive isotopes by filtration, which is a monstrous idea due to illiteracy. However, thanks to patronage from the highest echelon of power, his water purification filters, which have not passed scientific examination, are being equipped with the party's Clean Water pilot project, which is supposed to be made a federal program this year with funding of 15 trillion rubles.

It is difficult to find a historical analogue for the current situation with Russian science. There were times when civilizations perished as a result of external invasions or internal wars. But for a country that occupied one of the first places in world science to voluntarily begin to slide into last place, there were no such precedents in world history. Here is perhaps what Hitler did to German science during the thirteen years of his reign. At the beginning of the 20th century, German universities were the best in the world. Now, sixty-four years after the war, despite the fact that Germany is one of the richest and most successful countries in the world, and despite the great efforts made, its universities are in the same place as those of Australia, which at the beginning of the twentieth century was a country pretty backward. Restoring what has been destroyed is incomparably more difficult than destroying it.

There is almost no time left to save Russian science. A few more years, and there will be a complete break in the connection between the generations of scientists! If the surviving professionals are not given the opportunity to share their scientific experience and do not open up prospects for young scientists, Russian science can be put an end to.

The government is beginning to show some concern. Some programs are being adopted to attract expatriate scientists to work with students. Undoubtedly, any form of integration of Russian science into the world should be welcomed, but one must understand that a young specialist will face a choice: go to his mentor for graduate school or stay in Russia, where you will work in laboratories with outdated equipment and will never be able to buy an apartment for yourself. . Everywhere in the world there is an urgent need for talented young people: they are always in short supply, and they are of great value. Only by bringing the salaries of scientists to the average European level, it is possible to stop the "brain drain". It is immoral and unpromising to expect to advance science and technology at the expense of the enthusiasm of the scientific youth living from hand to mouth.

To save Russian science, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel: it should return to the status that it had in Soviet times and continues to have in the world. Scientists should belong to the upper middle class, and the work of a researcher should be respected and socially prestigious. The necessary conditions for work should be created for scientists, the laboratories should be equipped with modern equipment. It is necessary to support all areas of scientific research equally - science is a single organism, and you need to take care of its health as a whole. An attempt to divide scientists into useful ones, whose activities bring immediate benefits, and useless ones ignores the vast world experience. "Useful" can be further stimulated by grants: this strategy arose as a result of the natural evolution of Western culture. The community of scientists should be self-governing, and the administrative intervention of the state should be minimal. It should be carried out through additional funds that finance priority areas.

Yes, this requires a lot of money. In 2010, the United States invests more than 3% of GDP in scientific research, China - more than 2%. For comparison, the budget of the Academy of Sciences is less than 0.3% of our GDP, which is incomparable with the US. Nevertheless, for those who think that science is too expensive a luxury, let's try to imagine a scenario of an undesirable and imminent future.

5. Russia without science

The first consequence of the extinction of science, the departure from Russian reality of professionals engaged in science for the sake of science, will be the decline of education. It is already very noticeable, we have illiterate teenagers. Some sources call the figure two million, which is most likely a journalistic exaggeration, but here's the fact: at the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University in October this year, 82% of first-year students did not cope with the dictation, making from eight to eighty mistakes per text.

We will have to say goodbye to the decline of education with the hope of developing new technologies in our country: for this, highly qualified personnel are needed. Moreover, even maintaining the already existing technically complex infrastructure will become a problem, and man-made disasters, like the one that happened at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, will become commonplace.

A country unable to keep pace with technological progress will soon become helpless militarily. In ten or fifteen years, the weapons we have produced will meet future standards like a crossbow to a submachine gun. There is no hope for nuclear weapons. For its reproduction and maintenance, highly qualified specialists are also needed. And we are unlikely to be able to produce high-precision robotic tactical weapons. Or is the government looking to buy military technology as well?

The consequence of the decline of science and education in Russia will be a complete decline in the international prestige of the country. It will be impossible to restore it with any Olympic Games. Once Margaret Thatcher called our country Upper Volta with missiles. It was inaccurate. We were Upper Volta - with rockets and Nobel laureates. And when we all skip, the attitude towards us will be worse than towards Upper Volta, where there have never been any rockets or Nobel Prizes. We will be treated like an unlucky merchant who squandered his father's fortune. Such people are not liked in the Protestant West, but in China they are simply laughed at. We will turn into a pariah country, and in the event of any diplomatic or military conflict, the whole world will take the side that is opposite to us.

Note that formally we will not lose science. Higher educational institutions and people called professors will remain. Dissertations will be defended, only their level will steadily decline. Scientific journals will remain, but the "impact factor" of these journals will be very low. Anything can be printed in these magazines, but no one will read them. To refer to what is printed in them - even more so. Sooner or later, a fatal moment will come when there will be no professionals left in Russia who are able to understand what is written in foreign scientific journals. After that, Russian and world science will turn into two non-intersecting worlds, and the first will relate to the second as the world of shadows to the real world. Dullness will reign in the world of shadows, but it will not reign for long: new Lysenkos will appear. When the authorities see that things are bad, they will be glad to believe any charlatan. This is actually already happening.

In the "kingdom of dark people" instead of scientific statistics there will be predictors and astrologers, instead of medicine - medicine men and healers, instead of historians - Fomenki, instead of engineers - inventors of perpetual motion machines. It should be expected that among such people the most aggressive and obscurantist forms of religions, the most savage sects, will succeed. The country will turn into a very foul-smelling swamp. Those who today melancholy agree to live in "Russia without science", let them think about whether it will be good for them in this swamp.

However, this "swampy" phase of our history will not last very long. Social tension will grow inside, and outside - the need for mineral resources. Capable and energetic young people who have not received a good education and are not in demand by their country are explosive social material of enormous power. And the "outer" world will not long endure the state when the income from the sale of earthly resources is divided by the so-called elite intellectually and morally decaying country. The idea that the mineral wealth of the Earth should belong to all mankind is already in the air. We are in for a global redistribution of property and a geopolitical catastrophe.

6. Conclusion

Concluding this gloomy forecast, we come to the inevitable conclusion: the fate of Russia depends on the fate of Russian science. Having lost science, Russia will cease to be an independent state, retaining control over its territory and its natural resources. This circumstance should be put in the basis of the strategy for the future development of the country.

Leaving aside such “little things” as corruption, this will require overcoming the resistance of officials who want to lead science and divide scientific knowledge into useful and useless. Science owes nothing to anyone. Science exists to be science. As the American writer Gertrude Stein said: "A rose is a rose, it is a rose." Let that rose bloom and the rest will follow. Science will produce knowledge, industry will use it. But the rose is a delicate plant. It needs to be watered, fed, protected from hail and frost. Science also needs care. Actually, two main conditions are necessary: ​​full respect for scientific knowledge and the profession of a scientist, and adequate funding.

See the article by Academician E.P. Kruglyakov, Chairman of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research: http://www.sbras.ru/HBC/article.phtml?nid=523&id=15

Published in "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", 2010.01.13

What and how to save in Russian science

The Academy of Sciences now has no alternative as a form of organization of scientific research.

Louis Pasteur said: "Science should be the most exalted embodiment of the Fatherland, for of all peoples, the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity." These wonderful words are quoted in the Message of President Dmitry Medvedev dated November 12 this year. However, the simultaneous reduction by 11.8% of the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences, approved by both the Duma and the Federal Assembly, is in sharp contradiction to these words.

And this is happening at a time when Russian science is in a critically bad state - worse than at any time in its 285 years of existence. Funding for science is completely insufficient, and the departure of scientific youth abroad continues.

Who and how much

With regard to funding, it is appropriate to cite some figures here. The budget of the Academy of Sciences, with all its two hundred research institutes and centers, archives and libraries, is $1 billion a year. There are 55,000 scientific employees in academic institutions, and the total number of people financed from the budget of the Academy is more than 100,01 billion a year - this is the budget of a good American university, which has about 3,000 teachers - professors of three levels and lecturers. And there are more than a hundred such universities in the United States.

The underfunding of Russian science is simply a glaring fact. Postgraduate scholarship at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences is 1500 rubles. According to external migration experts, the number of Russian scientists who have gone abroad for permanent or temporary work ranges from 100,000 to 250,000 people. And what is the attitude to these facts of public opinion? Some argue that the losers left, unable to find a decent place in their homeland. This assertion is patently false. Many have made excellent careers in Russia as well – they have become professors, academicians, heads of institutes and laboratories. They did not become rich people, if this is meant by a worthy place in their homeland, on the contrary, humiliatingly low salaries forced them to leave for a place where the talent and qualifications of a scientist are valued. Other voices can be heard: yes, science in Russia is dying. It's sad, but not tragic. This is a natural, natural process. Russia will do without science. There are societies in the world that live perfectly without any science.

With such a view of science, it remains unclear: why are expensive scientific projects carried out in the world? Why is a hadron collider being built, the Hubble telescope launched into space, probes sent to distant planets, archaeological expeditions carried out and ancient texts studied? The answer is simple - because the world is a place where the development of civilization takes place, and science is the most important component of civilization.

Our society lacks an adequate understanding of the role of science in human society. There is a bad joke that scientists satisfy their own curiosity at the expense of the state. Of course they satisfy curiosity, but it is a precious curiosity for the mysteries of nature. Yes, the New York Times has a business news tab every day. But once a week, on Wednesdays, there is an extensive tab dedicated to science news. The feeling that science is moving forward brings satisfaction - everything is going as it should go. The progress of science plays the role of a social stabilizer. A society where science and scientists are respected is a healthy society. There is no need to fight against anti-science, shamans, sorcerers and exorcists of the spirits of the dead do not flourish there.

For those who believe that we do not need civilization and culture, let us turn to the practical benefits of science.

Technology in pursuit of science

Recently, much has been said about the need for innovative breakthroughs and the development of new technologies. Why not pay attention to the fact that the developed countries of the world right now, during the financial crisis, are sharply increasing spending on science? This is done because without science there will be no new technologies and breakthroughs. The most important function of fundamental science lies in the fact that it lays the foundations for the technologies of the future. They are not easy to predict. Neither Hertz nor Mendel, when doing their experiments, could imagine television and genetic engineering.

An aphorism that goes back to Plutarch is often cited: "The student is not a vessel to be filled, but a torch to be lit." And only the one who burns himself can light it. Participation in the educational process of scientists engaged in fundamental research makes it possible to educate truly high-class specialists. It gives students the opportunity to inhale the aroma of scientific creativity. Only a few of them will become professional scientists, but private and public companies engaged in the production of new technologies will receive new and valuable employees capable of making “innovative breakthroughs”.

Science not only lays the foundation for the technologies of the future, it actively participates in the creation of the technologies of today. In the dynamic West, local achievements of scientists are paid close attention - as soon as there is hope that they make it possible to make some technical progress, small private companies immediately appear. This is called "spin-off". Investors invest in hundreds of risky areas, knowing that 1% of successful projects will pay off all expenses.

Of course, scientists cannot be held responsible for the introduction of new technologies in industry. Specialized companies employing hundreds and thousands of people are responsible for this. The business of scientists is scientific research, education of a new generation of professionals and an expert function. For example, a professor of a technical university, a specialist in steam turbines, is not obliged to design new turbines. But he must know which turbines, when and where they worked and are working, what can happen during operation, what are their typical problems, what are the critical loads. On occasion, he will head a commission to study the causes of the accident. And he will transfer his knowledge to students, supplying the industry with newly trained specialists. This is the real place of the scientist.

The hostility of state officials to science has deep reasons. Of these, only one can be justified - the modern administration has inherited a really difficult legacy. When the team of "young reformers" assumed responsibility for the economic fate of the country, new "brochurkin children" came to power, picking up scraps of Western economic science. Formed superficially, the new government announced that "science will wait," and reduced its funding by an order of magnitude. References to the economic hardships of the time cannot work. Judging by the speed with which the formation of a vast class of rich and super-rich people took place, there were resources in the country. There was no civilized and competent government. And there was a false premise in the idea that getting rich quickly by a small number of randomly selected people is the engine of progress.

New corn - nanotechnology

Science is still waiting. Over the past eight years, despite some salary increases for scientists, the situation has only changed for the worse. The position of officials remains the same: deafness to the opinion of professionals and Soviet voluntarism. Moreover, administrative voluntarism, which is also financially opaque, is gaining momentum. As in Soviet times, it is carried out by conducting noisy companies, such as, for example, the company for the introduction of corn almost to the Arctic Circle. Today we have a new corn - nanotechnology. Like corn, nanotechnology is a very good thing. They are successfully used to obtain composite materials, in medicine for the transport of drugs, in optics, and in microelectronics. But in our country it has turned into a nationwide company with strong support from above.

The inspirational lightweight speeches of M. Kovalchuk, the main ideologist of the "nano-cogno-bio" breakthroughs, are very much reminiscent of speeches about the need and possibility of transforming nature. The government allocates funding for the development of nanotechnologies, one and a half times the budget of the entire Academy of Sciences! By presidential decree, the three most powerful physical institutes in the country are merged into the research center "Kurchatov Institute", which is headed by M. Kovalchuk. Without the knowledge of the staff and management of the institutes, without any scientific, expert discussion!

In Soviet times, administrative voluntarism was distinguished by great professionalism. Officials were aware of the fact that science does not tolerate monopoly, and the execution of important programs was not entrusted to one group. The head of the center for the creation of nuclear weapons in Sarov was Yu.B. Khariton. A parallel and competing center was in Chelyabinsk, headed by E.I. Zababakhin. The same situation was in rocket science and in aviation. The monopolization of science inevitably leads to its simulation and "Potemkin villages".

Against this background, the renaming of Kazan University into Privolzhsky is a small event. But what is this if not voluntarism, combined with the soviet lack of historical memory? Kazan University is one of the oldest in Russia, founded in 1804. He is rightly proud of his outstanding scientists: suffice it to name the creators of Lobachevsky's non-Euclidean geometry and Butlerov's theory of the structure of organic compounds. The name of the university is a brand, the more valuable the older the university. Is it conceivable that the University of Cambridge should be renamed Middle English?

Time for salvation

What is the real state of Russian science? She is aging before our eyes. Going to institute seminars, you see that older people are sitting in a half-empty hall. The average age of researchers is 55–60 years. Behind them gaping emptiness - scientists of the next generation have left. A few young people will sharpen their skis, striving before that to take the knowledge from their elders to the maximum. Domestic scientific instrumentation almost perished, laboratories are equipped with obsolete equipment, there are no reagents. The leadership of the Academy of Sciences is sluggish and lacking initiative, does not dare to take an active position in defending the interests of science before the government. In general, the province suffered from the "brain drain" somewhat less than both capitals.

Academic science is in a disastrous state, but there is nothing to replace it. For the form of organization and management of the scientific community that has historically developed in Russia with the help of academic structures, there is currently no alternative in sight. The course taken by the government - to buy new technologies abroad and invite specialists from there - will completely kill Russian science. 600 billion rubles are allocated for the purchase of new technologies. - an amount thirty times higher than the funding of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences! Of the funds allocated for the nanotechnology bubble, only 1% is promised to academic science.

There is almost no time left to save Russian science. A few more years, and there will be a complete break in the connection between the generations of scientists! If you do not give the surviving professionals the opportunity to pass on their scientific experience and do not open up prospects for young scientists, you can put an end to Russian science.

The government is showing some concern. Programs are being adopted to attract emigre scientists to work with students. Undoubtedly, any form of integration of Russian science into the world should be welcomed, but one must understand that a young specialist will face a choice: go to his mentor for graduate school or stay in Russia, where he will work in laboratories with outdated equipment and will never be able to buy an apartment for himself. . Everywhere in the world there is an urgent need for talented young people - they are always in short supply, and they are of great value. Only by bringing the salaries of scientists to the average European level, it is possible to stop the "brain drain". It is immoral and unpromising to expect to advance science and technology at the expense of the enthusiasm of the scientific youth living from hand to mouth.

To save Russian science, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel - it should return to the status that it had in Soviet times and continues to have in the world. Scientists must belong to the upper middle class, and the work of a scientific worker must be respected and socially prestigious. The necessary conditions for work should be created for scientists, the laboratories should be equipped with modern equipment. It is necessary to support all areas of scientific research equally - science is a single organism, and you need to take care of its health as a whole. An attempt to divide scientists into useful ones, whose activities bring immediate benefits, and useless ones ignores the vast world experience. "Useful" can be additionally stimulated by grants - this strategy arose as a result of the natural evolution of Western culture. The community of scientists should be self-governing, and the administrative intervention of the state should be minimal and carried out through additional funds that finance priority areas.

Yes, this requires a lot of money. In 2010, the United States invests more than 3% of GDP in scientific research, China - more than 2%. For comparison, the budget of the Academy of Sciences is less than 0.3% of our GDP, which is incomparable with the US. Nevertheless, for those who think that science is too expensive a luxury, let's try to imagine "Russia without science".

Without science

The first consequence of the departure from Russian reality of professionals engaged in science for the sake of science will be the decline of education. It's already happening. We will have to say goodbye to plans to develop new technologies in our country - this requires new ideas and highly qualified personnel. Moreover, maintaining the already existing technically complex infrastructure will become a problem, and man-made disasters, like the one that happened at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, will become commonplace. Unable to keep pace with technological progress, the country will become helpless militarily. In ten to fifteen years, the weapons we have produced will be of future standards, like a crossbow to a submachine gun. Or do you hope to buy military technology as well?

It will be impossible to restore the fall of the country's international prestige by any Olympiads. We will be treated like an unlucky merchant who squandered his father's fortune. Such people are not liked in the Protestant West, but in China they are simply laughed at. We will turn into a pariah country, and in the event of a diplomatic or military conflict, the whole world will take the side that is opposite to us.

Note that formally we will not lose science. Higher educational institutions and people called professors will remain. Dissertations will be defended, only their level will steadily decline. Scientific journals will remain, but the "impact factor" of these journals will be very low. Sooner or later, a fatal moment will come when there will be no professionals left in Russia who are able to understand what is written in foreign scientific journals. After that, Russian and world science will turn into two non-intersecting worlds, and the first will relate to the second, as the world of shadows to the real world. Dullness will reign in the world of shadows, but it will not reign for long - new Lysenkos will appear. When the authorities see that things are bad, they will be glad to believe any charlatan. There are already examples of this – the notorious “Petrik case”.

In the "kingdom of dark people" instead of scientific statistics there will be predictors and astrologers, instead of medicine - medicine men and healers, instead of historians - Fomenki, instead of engineers - inventors of perpetual motion machines. Among such people, the most aggressive and obscurantist forms of religions, the most savage sects, will succeed. The country will turn into a very foul-smelling swamp.

However, this "swampy" phase of our history will not last very long. Social tension will grow inside, and outside - the need for mineral resources. Capable and energetic young people who have not received a good education and are not in demand by their country are explosive social material of great power. And the "outside" world will not long endure the state when the income from the sale of earthly resources is divided by the so-called elite of a morally and intellectually decaying country. The idea that the mineral wealth of the Earth should belong to all mankind is already in the air.

The fate of Russia depends on the fate of Russian science, and this circumstance should be taken as the basis of the strategy for the future development of the country. This requires overcoming the resistance of officials who divide scientific knowledge into useful and useless. Science owes nothing to anyone. Science exists to be science. "A rose is a rose is a rose." Let that rose bloom and the rest will follow. Science will produce knowledge, industry will use it. But the rose is a delicate plant. It needs to be watered, fed, protected from frost. Science also needs care. Actually, only two conditions are needed: respect for the profession of a scientist and adequate funding.

Vladimir Evgenievich Zakharov - Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Regent-Professor of Mathematics at the University of Arizona in Tucson (USA), Head of the Department of Mathematical Physics at the Physical Institute. Lebedev (Moscow).

27.05.2010

April marked the 70th birthday and 50th anniversary of the scientific activity of Professor, Doctor of Science Oleg Lvovich FIGOVSKII, director of the Israeli research center Polimate, leading specialist in the field of composite materials, including nanomaterials, member of the Central Board of the Nanotechnological Society of Russia.

Over the years of work at the NIIMosstroy, the Central Research Institute of Industrial Buildings of the Gosstroy of the USSR, the MNTK Antikor of the State Committee for Science and Technology of the USSR and the All-Union Research Institute for the Protection of Metals from Corrosion of the USSR Ministry of Chemical Industry, he created and headed a scientific school on the chemical resistance of non-metallic materials and corrosion protection using new types of polymer and combined coatings, created the first nanocomposite material based on liquid glass and tetrafurfuryloxylan and a number of polymeric materials with a developed nanostructure for corrosion protection.

Since 1992, Professor O.L. Figovsky continued his scientific activity in Israel, where he later headed the International Nanotechnology Research Center Polymate.

Today Oleg Lvovich Figovsky continues the conversation about the role of fundamental science in Russia.

Louis Pasteur said: "Science should be the most exalted embodiment of the Fatherland, for of all peoples, the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity." These words are quoted in the Message of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev dated November 12, 2009. However, the simultaneous reduction of the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences by 11.8%, approved by both the State Duma and the Federal Assembly, is in sharp contradiction to these words.

Given the critical role that science and innovation play in shaping the post-industrial model of development (the “knowledge society”) in the 21st century, only powers with powerful scientific and technological potential can play the role of centers of power in a globalizing world. Almost all leading countries have a well-thought-out strategy for scientific and technological development, which is ensured by the allocation of significant financial resources for these purposes.

In the emerging multipolar world, there are four main centers of scientific progress - the United States (35% of global spending on R&D in purchasing power parity), the European Union (24%), Japan and China (about 12% each). Unfortunately, the Russian Federation is not included in the group of leaders, it accounts for less than 2% of global spending on R&D at purchasing power parity and 1% at the exchange rate. This predetermines the degradation of the country's scientific and technical potential and creates a threat to Russia's national security.

The leading Western countries spend 2-3% of GDP on R&D, including 2.7% in the USA, and in countries such as Japan, Sweden, Israel, it reaches 3.5-4.5% of GDP. In Russia, this figure is approximately 1%. Both Russian-speaking scientists working abroad and domestic scientists have already written about this - the director of the Institute for the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.M. Rogov, Deputy Director of the Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.G. Malinetsky and many others. And they all note that, first of all, Russia is losing professionals in science. And the first consequence of the departure of professionals is the decline of education. We will have to say goodbye to hopes to develop new technologies in our country - this requires new ideas and highly qualified personnel. Moreover, maintaining the already existing technically complex infrastructure will become a problem, and man-made disasters like the one that happened at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station will become commonplace. Unable to keep pace with technological progress, the country will become helpless militarily.

What to do? A typical Russian question, the answer to which must be given only systematically. Here is Academician V.E. Zakharov also believes that science should be an exalted embodiment of the Fatherland: “The fate of Russia depends on the fate of Russian science, and this circumstance should be taken as the basis for the strategy for the future development of the country. This requires overcoming the resistance of officials who divide scientific knowledge into useful and useless. Science owes nothing to anyone. Science exists to be science. "A rose is a rose." Let that rose bloom and the rest will follow. Science will produce knowledge, industry will use it. But the rose is a delicate plant. It needs to be watered, fed, protected from frost. Science also needs care. Actually, only two conditions are needed: respect for the profession of a scientist and adequate funding.” These remarks are, of course, correct, but not systemic.

And now let's move on to the news of technology, because science "fertilizes new technical solutions", the development of which shows society that it (society) "cannot live without science."

Saudi Arabia has begun the first phase of a large-scale project to build a network of solar-powered desalination plants. The project will be implemented in three stages. At the first stage, a desalination plant with a capacity of 30,000 m3 of drinking water per day will be built, which will be enough to cover the needs of 100,000 people in the city of Al-Khafji. To supply this installation with electricity, a solar station with a capacity of 10 MW will be built. 129 million rials (about $35 million) are allocated for the work of the first stage, which will last three years. The implementation of the project as a whole will also make it possible to drastically reduce the cost of oil and gas for the production of desalinated water. Currently, about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day are spent on these needs, while solar energy is in abundance, and it is virtually free. Moreover, the Saudis are putting forward ambitious plans: over time (in 5-10 years) not only to switch their economy mainly to solar energy, but also to start exporting electricity received from the sun, just like they are now doing with oil.

A nanoparticle heat pump could one day cool buildings by reducing our reliance on energy-intensive air conditioners, Australian researchers report. Prof. Geoff Smith and Dr. Angus Gentle of the University of Technology Sydney reported their innovative findings in Nano Letters. Energy-intensive air conditioning is becoming a problem these days. It gets hotter, which means more energy used in air conditioning is produced (and more greenhouse gases are released). Air conditioning is a major problem in cities, which trap huge masses of heat on their surfaces, contributing to what is called the urban heat island effect.

Smith and Gentle report that they have created a coating that can be used as an efficient heat pump to reduce the energy requirement for air conditioning. Their invention is based on the fact that the radiation of certain wavelengths emitted by the Earth will be least of all absorbed by the atmosphere. It is these radiations with wavelengths of 7.9-13 microns that are most likely to be able to overcome all the necessary "path" back into space than others.

Smith and Gentle noticed that a mixture of nanoparticles of silicon carbide and nanoparticles of silicon dioxide emits thermal radiation in this "corridor" of wavelengths, and intend to use this atmospheric "window". They created a surface coated with 50-nanometer particles that can "reduce" temperatures, making them 15 degrees cooler than the environment of the Australian capital.

The new transparent and elastic material, more than 95% water, is completely safe for humans and the environment, scientists from the group of Professor Takuzo Aida from the University of Tokyo, who created the substance, said at the presentation of their invention. "Aquamaterial" is easily stretched and quickly restores its shape. To create it, scientists used mineral clay, widely used in cosmetology, and sodium polyacrylate, a substance that fills baby diapers. Water with substances added to it, when shaken, instantly acquires a gel-like form. Its strength is similar to silicone used in plastic surgery. It can withstand temperatures up to 100°C. The characteristics of the resulting material already allow it to be used in medicine for gluing tissues, and if it is possible to increase its density, then it can also be used in the production of environmentally friendly plastics.

A new nanotechnology developed by physicists at Macquarie University in Australia is based on the use of nanodiamonds for imaging, which will allow scientists to study specific cells in detail, including those infected with serious diseases and those affected by cancer. According to Professor J. Rabo, the purpose of this research project is the use of nanodiamonds that are sensitive to magnetic fields. In this case, the probe tips are used as the display device.

Nanodiamonds are made from the smallest particles of carbon, some contain impurities in the form of nitrogen atoms, which makes them sensitive to a magnetic field. J. Rabo uses these impurities to create supermicroscopes. The creation of a nanodiamond probe that allows biologists to obtain images of a single molecule is still a distant dream of scientists.

Recently, great attention has been paid to the production of fuel from biomass. Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the American company LS9 have created a strain of bacteria that directly converts plant molecules (simple sugars) and plant fiber components into diesel fuel, according to an article published in the journal Nature. This development can be further used to obtain other important chemical products, and will also contribute to the production of fuel directly from cellulose.

The authors of the development used the well-known bacterium Escherichia coli to produce biodiesel fuel. Having done more than ten genetic transformations of this organism, scientists forced the bacterium to close its metabolic cycle in such a way that, during the processing of simple sugars, E. coli produced many different fatty acids. In addition, they provided the body with genes that allow it to break down and process hemicellulose, a component of the shell of plant cells. In the future, scientists hope to endow E. coli with the ability to process cellulose, a much stronger natural polymer than hemicellulose, which forms the basis of plant tissues. This will make it possible to obtain fuel from any kind of vegetable "garbage". Biodiesel fuel can be poured into the tank of a traditional diesel car, and the engine will "digest" it. The car will drive just like a regular diesel.

However, biodiesel has disadvantages: high nitrogen oxide emissions and 20% higher fuel consumption. The increased output of nitric oxide is due to the fact that biodiesel fuel contains oxygen, while traditional diesel fuel does not. To overcome these shortcomings, researchers at Purdue University have developed an advanced closed-loop control system.

A very original method of alternative energy was developed by scientists at Princeton University. Flexible and durable rubber plates filled with piezoelectric fibers represent a new way to collect kinetic energy. The fibers consist of organic lead zirconate titanate nanofibers placed on silicone rubber plates. When the plates are bent, they generate electricity by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The applications for this technology are endless: boots that store energy from movement to power gadgets, microsurgical devices that charge from movement, and even pacemakers that use the new material instead of traditional batteries are just a few examples of possible applications.

It seems to me that the examples described above show how the development of a set of breakthrough innovations (inventions) provides a quantitative and qualitative leap in the development of the productive forces of society. Undoubtedly, the existing orientation towards the repetition of foreign technologies will make it possible to reduce Russia's technological gap, but nothing more. The task is to advance development. The cost of implementing an innovative development path, presumably, will be high. Nevertheless, only the investment, even if “powerful”, of the available resources in the development of technologies of the upcoming technological paradigms, the creation of breakthrough technologies by activating the innovative activity of Russian science is the main direction in overcoming economic crises, both present and future.

“Science must be the most exalted embodiment of the fatherland, for of all peoples the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity.” On December 27, 1822, Louis Pasteur was born, the great French biologist and chemist, one of the founders of modern microbiology and immunology. The contribution of Louis Pasteur to medicine, chemistry, biology is invaluable. But what is interesting: Pasteur spent his whole life in biology and treated people, having neither medical nor biological education, he was a chemist by education. Pasteur's work on the optical asymmetry of molecules formed the basis of a new direction in chemistry - stereochemistry. In 1857, Louis Pasteur proved the biological nature of fermentation and came to the conclusion that fermentation results from the action of microorganisms - oxygen-deprived bacteria (anaerobes). In 1861, Pasteur proposed a way to preserve liquid food products through heat treatment. This method, called "pasteurization", has found wide application in laboratories and in the food industry. Since 1865, Louis Pasteur studied the causes of silkworm disease in the south of France and found effective methods to combat this disease. Thanks to the work of the scientist, sericulture was saved in the south of France and in Italy. Since 1876, Pasteur devoted his entire future life to the study of microorganisms and the search for means of combating pathogens of dangerous infectious diseases in animals and humans. Louis Pasteur irrefutably proved that contagious diseases are caused by microorganisms (germs) that arise only through reproduction. And where microscopic "embryos" are killed and their penetration from the external environment is impossible, there are no microbes, no fermentation, no putrefaction. Pasteur proved that diseases, now called contagious, arise only as a result of infection - the penetration of pathogens into the body from the external environment. Nowadays, the whole theory and practice of combating infectious diseases of humans, animals and plants is based on this principle. It was Pasteur who developed ideas about artificial immunity and proposed a method of preventive vaccinations, in particular against anthrax (1881), rabies (together with Emile Roux, 1885). The term "vaccination" itself was also proposed by Louis Pasteur. On July 6, 1885, 9-year-old Josef Meister, bitten by a rabid dog, was first vaccinated against rabies by Pasteur. The treatment ended successfully, the boy did not have any symptoms of rabies. Shortly after the publication of Pasteur's first reports on protective vaccinations against rabies, people from all countries who had been bitten by rabid animals began to flock to him. By March 1, 1886, 350 people had been successfully vaccinated in Paris. Pasteur stations appeared in different countries, making vaccinations against rabies. In Russia, the first such station was organized in 1886 on the initiative of Russian scientists Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov and Nikolai Fedorovich Gamaleya. In 1888, the Pasteur Institute (Institut Pasteur) was inaugurated in Paris, built and equipped with funds raised by international subscription. Louis Pasteur was the first director of the institute. The great scientist was a deeply religious person. Here are his words: “The day will come when they will laugh at the stupidity of our contemporary materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature, the more I stop in reverent amazement before the deeds of the Creator. I pray while I work in the lab." For his services to mankind, Pasteur was awarded orders from almost all countries of the world - in total he had about 200 awards. Louis Pasteur died on September 28, 1895 and was buried in the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, but later his remains were reburied in a crypt at the Pasteur Institute. More than 2,000 streets in many cities around the world are named after Pasteur. In Russia, the name of Louis Pasteur is the Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in St. Petersburg. In 1961, the International Astronomical Union named a crater on the far side of the Moon after Louis Pasteur.

The Academy of Sciences now has no alternative as a form of organization of scientific research

Louis Pasteur said: "Science should be the most exalted embodiment of the Fatherland, for of all peoples, the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity." These wonderful words are quoted in the Message of President Dmitry Medvedev dated November 12 this year. However, the simultaneous reduction by 11.8% of the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences, approved by both the Duma and the Federal Assembly, is in sharp contradiction to these words.

And this is happening at a time when Russian science is in a critically bad state - worse than at any time in its 285 years of existence. Funding for science is completely insufficient, and the departure of scientific youth abroad continues.

Who and how much

• With regard to funding, it is appropriate to cite some figures here. The budget of the Academy of Sciences, with all its two hundred research institutes and centers, archives and libraries, is $1 billion a year. There are 55,000 scientific employees in academic institutions, and the total number of people financed from the budget of the Academy is more than 100,01 billion a year - this is the budget of a good American university, which has about 3,000 teachers - professors of three levels and lecturers. And there are more than a hundred such universities in the United States.

The underfunding of Russian science is simply a glaring fact. Postgraduate scholarship at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences is 1500 rubles. According to external migration experts, the number of Russian scientists who have gone abroad for permanent or temporary work ranges from 100,000 to 250,000 people. And what is the attitude to these facts of public opinion? Some argue that the losers left, unable to find a decent place in their homeland. This assertion is patently false. Many have made excellent careers in Russia as well – they have become professors, academicians, heads of institutes and laboratories.

• They did not become rich people, if this is meant by a worthy place in their homeland, on the contrary, humiliatingly low salaries forced them to leave for a place where the talent and qualifications of a scientist are valued. Other voices can be heard: yes, science in Russia is dying. It's sad, but not tragic. This is a natural, natural process. Russia will do without science. There are societies in the world that live perfectly without any science.

With such a view of science, it remains unclear why expensive scientific projects are being carried out in the world? Why is a hadron collider being built, the Hubble telescope launched into space, probes sent to distant planets, archaeological expeditions carried out and ancient texts studied? The answer is simple - because the world is a place where the development of civilization takes place, and science is the most important component of civilization.

• Our society lacks an adequate understanding of the role of science in human society. There is a bad joke that scientists satisfy their own curiosity at the expense of the state. Of course they satisfy curiosity, but it is a precious curiosity for the mysteries of nature. Yes, the New York Times has a business news tab every day. But once a week, on Wednesdays, there is an extensive tab dedicated to science news. The feeling that science is moving forward brings satisfaction - everything is going as it should go. The progress of science plays the role of a social stabilizer. A society where science and scientists are respected is a healthy society. There is no need to fight against anti-science, shamans, sorcerers and exorcists of the spirits of the dead do not flourish there.

For those who believe that we do not need civilization and culture, let us turn to the practical benefits of science.

Technology in pursuit of science

Recently, much has been said about the need for innovative breakthroughs and the development of new technologies. Why not pay attention to the fact that the developed countries of the world right now, during the financial crisis, are sharply increasing spending on science? This is done because without science there will be no new technologies and breakthroughs. The most important function of fundamental science lies in the fact that it lays the foundations for the technologies of the future. They are not easy to predict. Neither Hertz nor Mendel, when doing their experiments, could imagine television and genetic engineering.

• An aphorism that goes back to Plutarch is often quoted: "A student is not a vessel to be filled, but a torch to be lit". And only the one who burns himself can light it. Participation in the educational process of scientists engaged in fundamental research makes it possible to educate truly high-class specialists. It gives students the opportunity to inhale the aroma of scientific creativity. Only a few of them will become professional scientists, but private and public companies engaged in the production of new technologies will receive new and valuable employees capable of making “innovative breakthroughs”.

Science not only lays the foundation for the technologies of the future, it actively participates in the creation of the technologies of today. In the dynamic West, local achievements of scientists are paid close attention - as soon as there is hope that they make it possible to make some technical progress, small private companies immediately appear. This is called "spin-off". Investors invest in hundreds of risky areas, knowing that 1% of successful projects will pay off all expenses.

• Of course, scientists cannot be held responsible for the introduction of new technologies in industry. Specialized companies employing hundreds and thousands of people are responsible for this. The business of scientists is scientific research, education of a new generation of professionals and an expert function. For example, a professor of a technical university, a specialist in steam turbines, is not obliged to design new turbines. But he must know which turbines, when and where they worked and are working, what can happen during operation, what are their typical problems, what are the critical loads. On occasion, he will head a commission to study the causes of the accident. And he will transfer his knowledge to students, supplying the industry with newly trained specialists. This is the real place of the scientist.

The hostility of state officials to science has deep reasons. Of these, only one can be justified - the modern administration has inherited a really difficult legacy. When the team of "young reformers" assumed responsibility for the economic fate of the country, new "brochurkin children" came to power, picking up scraps of Western economic science. Formed superficially, the new government announced that "science will wait," and reduced its funding by an order of magnitude. References to the economic hardships of the time cannot work. Judging by the speed with which the formation of a vast class of rich and super-rich people took place, there were resources in the country. There was no civilized and competent government. And there was a false premise in the idea that getting rich quickly by a small number of randomly selected people is the engine of progress.

.

New corn - nanotechnology

Science is still waiting. Over the past eight years, despite some salary increases for scientists, the situation has only changed for the worse. The position of officials remains the same: deafness to the opinion of professionals and Soviet voluntarism. Moreover, administrative voluntarism, which is also financially opaque, is gaining momentum. As in Soviet times, it is carried out by conducting noisy companies, such as, for example, the company for the introduction of corn almost to the Arctic Circle. Today we have a new corn - nanotechnology. Like corn, nanotechnology is a very good thing. They are successfully used to obtain composite materials, in medicine for the transport of drugs, in optics, and in microelectronics. But in our country it has turned into a nationwide company with strong support from above.

• Inspirational lightweight speeches by the main ideologist of "nano-cogno-bio" breakthroughs M. Kovalchuk very much reminiscent of speeches about the necessity and possibility of transforming nature. The government allocates funding for the development of nanotechnologies, one and a half times the budget of the entire Academy of Sciences! By presidential decree, the country's three strongest physics institutes are merged into research center "Kurchatov Institute", which is led by M. Kovalchuk. Without the knowledge of the staff and management of the institutes, without any scientific, expert discussion!

In Soviet times, administrative voluntarism was distinguished by great professionalism. Officials were aware of the fact that science does not tolerate monopoly, and the execution of important programs was not entrusted to one group. The head of the center for the creation of nuclear weapons in Sarov was Yu.B. Khariton. A parallel and competing center was in Chelyabinsk, it was headed by E.I. Zababakhin. The same situation was in rocket science and in aviation. The monopolization of science inevitably leads to its simulation and "Potemkin villages".

• Against this background, the renaming of Kazan University into Privolzhsky is a small event. But what is this if not voluntarism, combined with the soviet lack of historical memory? Kazan University is one of the oldest in Russia, founded in 1804. He is rightly proud of his outstanding scientists: suffice it to name the creators of Lobachevsky's non-Euclidean geometry and Butlerov's theory of the structure of organic compounds. The name of the university is a brand, the more valuable the older the university. Is it conceivable that the University of Cambridge should be renamed Middle English?

Time for salvation

• What is the real state of Russian science? She is aging before our eyes. Going to institute seminars, you see that older people are sitting in a half-empty hall. The average age of researchers is 55–60 years. Behind them gaping emptiness - scientists of the next generation have left. A few young people will sharpen their skis, striving before that to take the knowledge from their elders to the maximum. Domestic scientific instrumentation almost perished, laboratories are equipped with obsolete equipment, there are no reagents. The leadership of the Academy of Sciences is sluggish and lacking initiative, does not dare to take an active position in defending the interests of science before the government. In general, the province suffered from the "brain drain" somewhat less than both capitals.

Academic science is in a disastrous state, but there is nothing to replace it. For the form of organization and management of the scientific community that has historically developed in Russia with the help of academic structures, there is currently no alternative in sight. The course taken by the government - to buy new technologies abroad and invite specialists from there - will completely kill Russian science. 600 billion rubles are allocated for the purchase of new technologies. - an amount thirty times higher than the funding of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences! Of the funds allocated for the nanotechnology bubble, only 1% is promised to academic science.

• There is almost no time left to save Russian science. A few more years, and there will be a complete break in the connection between the generations of scientists! If you do not give the surviving professionals the opportunity to share their scientific experience and do not open up prospects for young scientists, you can put an end to Russian science.

The government is showing some concern. Programs are being adopted to attract emigre scientists to work with students. Undoubtedly, any form of integration of Russian science into the world should be welcomed, but one must understand that a young specialist will face a choice: go to his mentor for graduate school or stay in Russia, where he will work in laboratories with outdated equipment and will never be able to buy an apartment for himself. . Everywhere in the world there is an urgent need for talented young people - they are always in short supply, and they are of great value. Only by bringing the salaries of scientists to the average European level, it is possible to stop the "brain drain". It is immoral and unpromising to expect to advance science and technology at the expense of the enthusiasm of the scientific youth living from hand to mouth.

• To save Russian science, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel - it should return to the status that it had in Soviet times and continues to have in the world. Scientists must belong to the upper middle class, and the work of a scientific worker must be respected and socially prestigious. The necessary conditions for work should be created for scientists, the laboratories should be equipped with modern equipment. It is necessary to support all areas of scientific research equally - science is a single organism, and you need to take care of its health as a whole. An attempt to divide scientists into useful ones, whose activities bring immediate benefits, and useless ones ignores the vast world experience. "Useful" can be additionally stimulated by grants - this strategy arose as a result of the natural evolution of Western culture. The community of scientists should be self-governing, and the administrative intervention of the state should be minimal and carried out through additional funds that finance priority areas.

Yes, this requires a lot of money. In 2010, the United States invests more than 3% of GDP in scientific research, China - more than 2%. For comparison, the budget of the Academy of Sciences is less than 0.3% of our GDP, which is incomparable with the US. Nevertheless, for those who think that science is too expensive a luxury, let's try to imagine "Russia without science".

Without science

• The first consequence of the departure from Russian reality of professionals engaged in science for the sake of science will be the decline of education. It's already happening. We will have to say goodbye to plans to develop new technologies in our country - this requires new ideas and highly qualified personnel. Moreover, maintaining the already existing technically complex infrastructure will become a problem, and man-made disasters, like the one that happened at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, will become commonplace. Unable to keep pace with technological progress, the country will become helpless militarily. In ten to fifteen years, the weapons we have produced will be of future standards, like a crossbow to a submachine gun. Or do you hope to buy military technology as well?

It will be impossible to restore the fall of the country's international prestige by any Olympiads. We will be treated like an unlucky merchant who squandered his father's fortune. Such people are not liked in the Protestant West, but in China they are simply laughed at. We will turn into a pariah country, and in the event of a diplomatic or military conflict, the whole world will take the side that is opposite to us.

• Note that formally we will not lose science. Higher educational institutions and people called professors will remain. Dissertations will be defended, only their level will steadily decline. Scientific journals will remain, but the "impact factor" of these journals will be very low. Sooner or later, a fatal moment will come when there will be no professionals left in Russia who are able to understand what is written in foreign scientific journals. After that, Russian and world science will turn into two non-intersecting worlds, and the first will relate to the second, as the world of shadows to the real world. Dullness will reign in the world of shadows, but it will not reign for long - new Lysenkos will appear. When the authorities see that things are bad, they will be glad to believe any charlatan. There are already examples of this – the notorious “Petrik case”.

In the "kingdom of dark people" instead of scientific statistics there will be predictors and astrologers, instead of medicine - medicine men and healers, instead of historians - Fomenki, instead of engineers - inventors of perpetual motion machines. Among such people, the most aggressive and obscurantist forms of religions, the most savage sects, will succeed. The country will turn into a very foul-smelling swamp.

• However, this "swampy" phase of our history will not last very long. Social tension will grow inside, and outside - the need for mineral resources. Capable and energetic young people who have not received a good education and are not in demand by their country are explosive social material of great power. And the "outside" world will not long endure the state when the income from the sale of earthly resources is divided by the so-called elite of a morally and intellectually decaying country. The idea that the mineral wealth of the Earth should belong to all mankind is already in the air.

The fate of Russia depends on the fate of Russian science, and this circumstance should be taken as the basis of the strategy for the future development of the country. This requires overcoming the resistance of officials who divide scientific knowledge into useful and useless. Science owes nothing to anyone. Science exists to be science. "A rose is a rose." Let that rose bloom and the rest will follow. Science will produce knowledge, industry will use it. But the rose is a delicate plant. It needs to be watered, fed, protected from frost. Science also needs care. Actually, only two conditions are needed: respect for the profession of a scientist and adequate funding.

Vladimir Evgenievich Zakharov- Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Regent-Professor of Mathematics at the University of Arizona in Tucson (USA), Head of the Mathematical Physics Sector at the Lebedev Physical Institute. Lebedev