President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergeev - RBC: "The rights of scientists are obscenely violated"

President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev told RBC why business is not investing enough in Russian science,do scientists continue to communicate with foreign colleagues and what are the prospects for fundamental research Alexander Sergeev

On breaking off contacts with foreign scientists

Why Russian companies invested little in science

On the Nobel Prize for RUSSIA and the recognition of Sputnik V

On the allocation of money for the salaries of scientists

About the expertise of the Russian Academy of Sciences

About informal associations of scientists and how to talk with the authorities

On the election of the President of the Academy of Sciences

Read on RBC Pro Pro How to lift sanctionsfrom a person or company. Step-by-step instructions Instructions Pro What the COURT considers an infringement of personal data,usaby 50%. Which areas will suffer less Forecasts Pro In the PR market - deformation: experts are asking for millions for nothing Pro Paleo Diet Cases. Eat what nature intended

"We must provide interesting work"

- You recently acknowledged that against the backdrop of a special military operation, the outflow of Russian scientists abroad, primarily young ones, resumed, including due to the emergence of various Western programs. What alternatives can Russia offer to stop this leak?

- In the context of talking about the future, the question of organizing scientific work, how we will achieve our scientific and technological sovereignty, is seriously. Maybe it is not so acute yet that it needs to be urgently addressed, but it is obvious that actions must be taken in the not so distant future.

There has always been international cooperation in science, and scientists all over the world are accustomed to cooperate. These are joint trips to conferences, and scientific research, and the operation of megascience installations that are built together, and then different countries receive temporary quotas for work at this installation. People leave to work there, someone comes back - there was a balance in a certain sense. The flow of intelligence in one direction was compensated by the flow of intelligence in the other direction.

This normal routine of life in international distribution has been largely disrupted. If we expect that in the coming years there will be a restoration of international scientific cooperation, then the acuteness of the questions “what should we do now?” will soften. If the situation is different, then we need to take steps in relation to our science. The scientist is primarily kept by interesting work. Even abroad, people very often leave not because they are chasing a long DOLLAR or euro, but because they can realize their ideas only abroad, in certain scientific centers: to conduct an experiment, to confirm or refute their ideas.

In the mentality of a scientist, the result of life is not to become a rich man. Scientists are realized when they achieve scientific success and receive recognition from the international scientific community. Therefore, we must provide interesting work that would be interesting to scientists and would be in the interests of our country. This is what needs to be done.

In our current conditions, when we talk about technological sovereignty, first of all, we need to look at applied research.

Alexander Sergeev  - President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Graduated from Gorky State University. N.I. Lobachevsky (now - Lobachevsky University, located in Nizhny Novgorod), Sergeev's scientific interest is plasma physics, laser physics. In 1987 he defended his thesis for a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences at the Institute of Applied Physics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, later he defended his doctoral thesis in the same discipline, in 2012 he became deputy DIRECTOR for scientific work of the institute. In 2016 he became an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 2017 he was elected president of the academy. Sergeev is a member of the Presidium of the Presidential Council for Science and Education, he is also a member of the Presidential Council for Strategic Development and National Projects. In 2020, he was awarded the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, IV degree.

“By the way, about Megascience. At SPIEF, you said that Russia invested in the project in Hamburg, but now it cannot use it. Are there many such cases?

“Indeed, our esteemed colleagues at the megascience facilities — at the XFEL X-ray free electron laser in Hamburg, at the FAIR project in Darmstadt and at other facilities — have imposed restrictions on the participation of Russian scientists, despite significant Russian investments. This is a highly politicized situation. A year or two, maybe less, our experiments will not continue. Likewise with other countries.

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

The United States takes the toughest position: not to let Russian scientists in for research and not to let American scientists work with Russian ones. That is, a ban is placed on the collaboration of teams of laboratories or individual scientists. If an American scientist continues to interact with a Russian colleague, sanctions may be applied by the authorities, and state funding will not be allocated. That is, this is not even in relation to a university or a laboratory, but to an individual. It is obvious that the rights of scientists and, in general, humanitarian aspects are obscenely violated.

Did you personally feel it? In the spirit: "Alexander Mikhailovich, call when the military operation in Ukraine is over"?

- Unfortunately yes. In March, we got in touch with our colleagues in different European countries, several teleconferences were held. Not scientific, but to discuss the situation - how best to maintain ties. We saw that in a number of cases such contact was interrupted. Colleagues told us that they were recommended from above to stop contacts for the time being. Even chatting with just friends is really difficult now.

But the discussion of scientific topics with Europe still continues, foreign colleagues are present online at some conferences. Colleagues still invite us to come to some international conferences and make presentations. For example, there will be a conference on chemistry in Spain. The French maintain some contacts. We are very grateful for your understanding. But in general, there is more caution here: let's postpone [interaction] until some of the coming weeks, months, when the situation will be more transparent.

On the other hand, some countries want to use this situation to their advantage. Our scientists are actively invited: come to work, we will provide all the conditions. This is reminiscent of the situation in sports, when Russians are invited to perform at world championships, the Olympics, but without an anthem and national symbols. If I forget about my belonging to Russia when an article is being written, then they take me as an author. Not always, not everywhere, but it is.

"Business will be interested in investing in science only if it will make a profit as a result"

— Minister of Science and Higher Education Valery Falkov recently said that he expects practical, applied results from Russian scientists. Does this mean that fundamental research will be reduced? And how do you respond to the fact that for almost 30 years of the existence of modern Russia, it has not been possible to produce its own smartphone here?

— It is obvious that science should now be more applied. There is no infringement on the dignity of a scientist here, because he always wants to see the implementation of his idea - a product, a diagnostic tool or a vaccine. Now academic institutions should assume the role of sectoral institutions. Branch science has suffered great losses over the past decades in comparison with academic science. From a system where the state took care of everything, we moved on to a system where industrial science should be taken care of by large companies interested in implementing the results of scientific developments.

But business will be interested in investing here only if, as a result of these developments, it will make a profit and use it further in order to reinvest in science. When such a connection appears, we will be able to talk about a full-fledged innovation system. We have examples of large companies that have very good positions in the international market and that have serious projects with Russian scientists. But so far, this hasn't happened.

It was often discussed why large companies that feel good in the market should order developments from Russian scientists. But if it was more profitable for them to order abroad, they did it. It is illogical to reproach them for not investing in our developments, they live according to the laws of capitalism. Probably, this is a question for the state regulator. Why didn't the state conduct business in such a way that these companies receive benefits when they invest in our developments?

In recent years, we have seen that 1% of GDP, which went to our science, did not want to grow at all. But if you look at how much our companies invested in research and development, sending money abroad, taking results from there and implementing them here, it will be more than 2%. And this is not bad, because we now have a goal to bring investments to 1.65% of GDP by 2030. Now is the right moment, our companies can no longer spend money on [foreign] developments, and we really hope that they will pay their attention to our scientists. Then there will be this bond, which we dreamed about.

— Can you name successful examples of interaction between Russian science and large Russian companies?

— I would focus on our state corporations. First of all, it is Rosatom. This is a corporation that takes on a lot of things, not only our nuclear technologies, but also issues related to modern quantum technologies, new materials, the development of the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route. Rosatom is creating our icebreaking nuclear fleet, and this is a lot of scientific developments that are in demand in practice.

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

Or composite materials. For many years there has been a discussion that import substitution is not taking place here. Rosatom took up this problem. And now, at the wing level for the Russian MS-21 aircraft, we have the technology localized in the country. This is an example of how we, having called on our scientists, learned how to produce carbon fiber with the required parameters.

Also the Breakthrough project. Last year, construction began on the complex, which is based on a closed cycle in nuclear power, which uses both fast neutron reactors and slow neutron reactors. This makes it possible to solve many problems at once: nuclear power is becoming much safer, uranium reserves are secured for a millennium ahead. We are also creating the image of a new nuclear industry that provides a "green" future for our planet.

"The Nobel Prize is politicized"

Can Russia now be called a leader in some areas? Are we still capable of claiming the Nobel Prizes?

- It must be admitted that the Nobel Prize, of course, is politicized. But if we do not take nominations for the world, economics and even literature, but take the natural sciences - physics, chemistry - then more objective approaches work here. Without a doubt, we can also claim Nobel Prizes in these areas. We are strong in nuclear physics, in the field of accelerator physics, in space physics.

A great success was the launch of the Spektr-RG spacecraft. This satellite is usually mentioned primarily in connection with a discussion about how to deal with the German telescope that is on board the Spektr-RG. There are two telescopes: our ART-XC and the German E-ROSITA. Both observed the starry sky, discovered many new sources of X-ray gamma radiation, and created new maps of the Universe. At the end of February, Germany asked us to turn off E-ROSITA, we did it. Now this telescope does not give any information. But there is a proposal to turn on this telescope and work on it ourselves. Our scientists still ask to be careful, because working with someone else's telescope, to which we are not allowed, can lead to unpredictable consequences. But this is an example where we are leaders. Without us, this spacecraft would not have flown.

— This year, the developers of Sputnik V and Kovivak became academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But the WHO did not recognize Sputnik V, although the necessary measures were initiated long before the conflict in Ukraine. Do you think the recognition of the vaccine against the background of the special operation is still possible?

 — Sputnik V is in the WHO recognition phase. It's not science anymore, it's just business. Who will just let him enter the international market, where giants like Pfizer have been doing business with WHO for many years? You can penetrate the global high-tech market only if the product you have made has qualities that absolutely dominate the qualities of other products that are already there. In our developments, in what we offer for the world market, we must be qualitatively stronger.

“There is an injustice that scientists feel”

“Now we are actively discussing the “decoupling” of Russian science from international scientific bases, such as WOS (Web of Sience) and Scopus, and reorientation to a national system for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific research. But publication in international journals, in addition to prestige, meant independent expertise of the international scientific community. In the transition to the Russian system, don't you see the danger in publications on the principle of "this is your own" without attention to the quality of research?

— Citing publications shows that the scientific world is in demand for the results of your work. We really have to compete in the quality of our publications with the whole world. But if some international database says that it excludes us from the lists, then we need some other benchmarks, such as RSCI (Russian Science Citation Index. -). It is possible that we, together with colleagues from CHINA , India, BRICS, will also propose other citation indices. There will always be links to high-quality breakthrough publications, wherever they are published.

But even now, colleagues send their articles for publication both in Science and other journals, and they publish normally there. There are political attempts to isolate Russian science, but there is no need to go in cycles.

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

— You explained that it would take 10 million rubles to translate one journal published by the Russian Academy of Sciences into English. per year, that is, approximately 1.5 billion rubles. for all magazines.

The whole world reads in English. If you publish in Russian, you will simply not be noticed. We very much look forward to the allocation of funds, we are even surprised that during the two years that have passed since our proposal was formulated and positively received, this not very large amount of money has not been allocated. We offer those journals that close this year a contract with Pleiades Publishing, which has been translating and distributing the translated version of RAS journals abroad for many years, to independently translate, publish and distribute. If we do not find support from the authorities, we will look for money from sponsors. Although, of course, the publication of scientific works of Russian scientists is a matter of state.

- In June, Russian scientists publicly asked the government to raise the base salary, because after the high-profile story with the Novosibirsk scientist Anastasia Proskurina, who complained to the President of Russia about the low salary, one gets the feeling that the increase did not happen. What is happening with the salaries of scientists and do you expect to allocate large funds now?

— In 2018-2019, when the president’s instruction was being implemented, according to which scientists should receive salaries twice the average for the region, all or most institutions felt this increase. But this happened very variegated across the country, because the regions differ greatly in average salaries. And if, say, in Moscow it is really a “deuce” - this is very serious money, then in Karachay-Cherkessia, where our famous world-class Special Astrophysical Observatory is located and many outstanding scientists work, this is different money.

Scientists in regions where the average salary is low, indeed, practically did not feel the increase. And people are doing some kind of joint development, and if you imagine a team, some of which work in Moscow, and some in Karachay-Cherkessia, then there is an injustice that scientists feel.

These questions were raised before the government and the president, instructions were given to somehow level the situation. But, unfortunately, it did not work out, this difference is felt. As before, we have to state that scientists who do the same work with the same results, who work in the regions of our country, receive less salary for this. All this has largely hit the institutes located in scientifically significant regions, in Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Perm, Nizhny Novgorod.

When they made the transition to this middle "deuce", scientists were often simply transferred to a fraction of the stake. There is a command that the employees of the institute should receive salaries twice as large. You can really try to ensure that they receive large salaries, or you can transfer them to part-time jobs. You transfer part-time, the person continues to receive the same salary. In a significant number of cases, they did just that. The alternative is to lay off people at the institute.

The Ministry of Education and Science shares our concerns and is trying to smooth this situation out. There are programs in which the regions mainly participate, for example, the REC program - the Scientific and Educational Center. They are made not in Moscow or St. Petersburg , but in the regions, and there is additional money that comes to the region from the center. Another example is that academic institutions and consortiums of the Far East region will help finance the special Priority 2030 program for the Far East.

“Well, yes, they take a bite, but from a big pie”

- In recent years, the government has been striving to curtail one of the key areas of the Russian Academy of Sciences - the scientific examination of projects and the preparation of analytical materials. First, the Kurchatov Institute, Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, and the Higher School of Economics were exempted from the mandatory examination procedure of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This year, the RFBR is proposed to be endowed with the functions of scientific expertise. What do you see as the main tasks of the RAS under the current conditions and why, in your opinion, do the authorities consistently select the functions of the academy?

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

- There really was a cut, as you say, but before that, in 2018, the Russian Academy of Sciences received very large powers of scientific and methodological leadership of all scientific organizations and all organizations of higher education where there is science. In fact, this is an examination of the entire state assignment for science in the country. The current program of fundamental scientific research until 2030, which is coordinated by the Russian Academy of Sciences, is money management at the level of about 200 billion rubles. in year. It is also impossible not to see that the Academy of Sciences has these tools. Yes, we all got it and achieved it. Therefore, when they say that now they are biting off something - well, yes, they are biting off, but from a big pie. Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University still come to us with pleasure for expertise. Expertise allows you to highlight weak points, organizations can correct them.

- Don't you think that this elimination of the RAS as a mandatory element happened because this expertise is not needed? Perhaps they are pursuing completely different interests?

- Partially, it can be viewed as such. But the state felt that it was very important to have the right expertise in order to understand what should be supported and what should not. There are suggestions that scientific and technical expertise should not be concentrated in any one institution, say, the Russian Academy of Sciences or Moscow State University. Then you need to build a system and adopt a law that will regulate the parameters of an organization that claims to be an expert. Therefore, the main discussion concerns whether the state scientific and technical expertise should be “scattered” over a large field of organizations or should there be a single federal operator. The Russian Academy of Sciences is ready to become such an operator, we have 5 thousand experts, we have an information analytical system that allows us to automate the examination.

"Do not substitute the academy"

- Recently you criticized your colleagues: they say, it is not necessary to sign civil appeals as “academician” or “corresponding member”, you suggested signing “scientist from Novosibirsk”, etc. You yourself are a member of the 1st of July club and you yourself have previously signed appeals to draw attention to certain problems. How do you now feel about informal communities of scientists like the 1st of July club, the Trinity Variant team, recently recognized as an NGO-foreign agent? Do you consider them harmful?

- I really joined the July 1 club in 2013, when a new law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences was being discussed. The July 1 Club was a club that expressed the interests of the scientific community in the matter of such a sudden adoption of a new law on the RAS. You can join the 1st of July club, but you can never leave it.

- You seemed to regret now that you can’t get out of it. Do you want to go out?

- I appreciate my participation in the activities of the club in the first months of its operation and respect all its members, although I do not always share its positions. As the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, today I must first of all take care of the unity of the academy. As soon as I became president, colleagues from the club came to me regularly, and we critically weighed our positions on various issues. I believe that there must be informal associations of scientists, and scientists must express their position on the organization of science. This is also completely normal.

- The appeal that I mentioned was not about science, it was about a military operation. That is, you allow such appeals of scientists that they designate themselves as "corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences", "academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences" only in relation to science? If they speak out about politics, they can no longer present themselves that way?

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

— Yes, we are talking about political statements, about the civil position of scientists. Without a doubt, scientists should be able to express their citizenship. The question is in what form positions are expressed. If this form contains words offensive to the authorities, I believe that this should not be done categorically. Not only in relation to the authorities, but also in relation to other public institutions and people.

I think that it’s not worth just flaunting the fact that you are a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is normal to express a civil position, moreover, unfortunately, now many people do not speak out, but rather remain silent. But do not substitute the RAS - this is not a public organization, the academy is a state organization, a state function.

- You know that scientists always show a civil position - both in the USA and even in the USSR. And I don't remember that Pyotr Kapitsa, for example, signed "a scientist from Kronstadt."

- And you don't have to. It is necessary - Kapitsa. Everybody knows. And in the same way here - just write your last name, and that's it.

“If we go knocking helmets on the Humpback Bridge, will we achieve more?”

- About the forthcoming elections of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences in September. Why are you running for a second term? You are being criticized for being a somewhat opportunistic president, for being very cautious, for careful interaction with the authorities. How do you respond to such critics?

- In the program that we formulated together with my colleagues five years ago, the first point was precisely the consensus with the authorities, without which it will not be possible to develop science in our country. Because science is mainly supported from the state budget. When we do not reach an agreement in understanding how this science is organized, further protest movements or insults do not lead to anything good. I have remained in this position and will continue to offer it, it leads to a normal result.

Now we are in favor of this position on the part of the HEAD of the country and on the part of the government. They support the existence and promotion of the Academy of Sciences in a proactive manner. We use our right to coordinate the appointments of heads of institutes, and on issues of removal, and much more. It is impossible to live without consensus.

Photo: Andrey Lyubimov / RBC

Further, in what sense is opportunistic? I discuss with everyone, I say: what do you think, if we go knocking with helmets on the Gorbaty Bridge or block Leninsky Prospekt, will we achieve more? You will not achieve it either tactically or even more so strategically. But it is necessary to take an active position, expand the functionality of the RAS, return to the academy its proper role, so that everyone sees and recognizes this.

In 2013, the Academy of Sciences was deprived of significant powers, it was an act of distrust of the authorities in relation to the RAS. First of all, it was necessary to restore trust. The authorities and the Russian Academy of Sciences must trust each other, without this nothing will come of it.

The interview with the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev was recorded before the FSB detained on suspicion of treason the head of the laboratory of quantum optical technologies of Novosibirsk State University Dmitry Kolker, who later died, and before the detention and subsequent arrest also on suspicion of treason, the chief researcher of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (ITAM) of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Anatoly Maslov.

RBC asked the head of the academy to comment on the case of scientists, the press service of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences forwarded questions about this to the FSB.