The present and future state of Russian science is one of the key factors of national security. Now it is especially relevant - the leaders of many defense enterprises say that for weapons The new generation has no scientific background.
To the question, what are the prospects of Russia in this area, should have been the answer “The strategy of the scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation for the long-term period”. The Ministry of Education announced a competition for the creation of such a document, and, judging by the website of the department, won the Higher School of Economics and the Center for Strategic Research under the leadership of Alexei Kudrin. The project posted on the federal portal http://regulation.gov.ru/ really answers the questions posed, but in its own way. The collapse of the Russian education and the elimination of domestic science will continue. Therefore, the plan of the next “operation against the will of the patient” should be discussed in more detail, especially since we are the very “patient”.
Raw material appendage
In order for science to play an important role in the defense of the country and its economy, the circle of reproduction and innovation must be closed: analysis of problems, development trends and the space of opportunities - goal setting and planning - basic research and training of specialists - applied development - development work, creation of technology - the introduction of goods to the market or the realization of new opportunities in a different way - investing the proceeds from this activity in all elements of the cycle - analysis of problems tends to new situation, etc. In the USSR, the circle of reproduction of innovations was closed in one way, in the USA it was different. In the new Russia, it is open.
The essence of the matter can be explained using a simple analogy. In order for the car to drive, it needs to have a windshield, a navigator and a steering wheel, and a motor and wheels are also needed.
The role of the windshield plays a system of scientific information, allowing you to see where to go. This system has collapsed. For example, the Russian State Library writes 350 foreign scientific journals. If we take into account that Naukovets in 2004 have counted thousands of scientific disciplines in 72, receipts in the RSL are insignificant.
The navigator is the fundamental science and education system. Conventionally, we assume that they cost one ruble. The Minobr, actively taking on the scrapping of both, achieved some success. For example, in 2013, the reform of Medvedev-Golodets-Livanov was implemented, as a result of which the Russian Academy of Sciences took away research institutes and transferred them to the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (FANO). This glorious department had to perform economic functions, look after the property transferred to the use of the RAS scientists (buildings, laboratories, test sites, experimental fields). But through the FANO the financing of the institutions went, and whoever pays, he orders the music. Therefore, business executives began to steer scientists and engaged in the merger of institutions. Obviously, to lead was easier. The project under discussion refers to the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Apparently, the authors of the document are unaware that they no longer exist, and the RAS has become a club of honored professors, a severed head of the hero, with whom Ruslan talked in a Pushkin poem.
The role of the engine is applied science, which, on the basis of knowledge obtained during basic research, offers new technical solutions, creates prototypes, prototypes, etc. It is in this sector that 75 percent of inventions are made, and it costs 10 rubles already. Most of this key sector, which was supposed to be engaged in research and development (R & D), was destroyed in the 90-s. At many large defense enterprises in Russia there are simply no units that are seriously engaged in research. Many of them are now trying to revive the Soviet developments, and probably this is correct when there is no other. But one should not forget that a quarter of a century has passed since Soviet times and the world has not stood still.
The wheels are large high-tech companies. They create reliable, efficient technologies, conduct research and development (OCD), produce products and bring them to the world market. This sector is already 100 rubles. Obviously, the main consumer of technology is industry. In this case, the major role in the global arms market is played by large companies leading OCD, R & D, and sometimes fundamental research. For example, Lockheed has a turnover of 36 billion dollars, which is comparable to half of the defense budget of Russia. Recently, this company has developed a new launch vehicle.
Unfortunately, large high-tech companies have not emerged in Russia during the reforms. Those that are, look much more modest than foreign competitors. In addition, after many years of collapse of our manufacturing industry, they were planted on the “needle” of Western components. The situation is very complicated, requiring effective management, especially considering the defeat of military science.
But the authors of “Strategy” are big optimists. It turns out that we are experiencing a “stage of transition to the innovative development of Russia (2007 - n. Century), characterized by the creation of tools and the implementation of measures aimed at supporting innovative activity. During this period, innovative international development institutes, state-owned companies in knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy were created, world-class research and development support measures in the university sector were strengthened, federal tools and digital infrastructure were formed, implementing unified approaches to the management of government scientific organizations, including Russian universities and institutes Academy of Sciences ... "However, it is not clear why in such cases the share of our Fatherland in the world market of high-tech The output is only 0,3 percent.
The recognition of German Gref, one of the ideologists and organizers of the Russian reforms, which was voiced at the Gaidar forum in 2016, is interesting: “We lost the competition, I must honestly say. This technological enslavement - we were among the countries that lose, in the list of downshifting countries. Countries and people who have managed to adapt on time and invest in it are winners. ”
Under the conditions of the sanctions, the question of import substitution became acute, primarily in the interests of the defense industry. Experts estimate the number of positions to be replaced in the tens of thousands, while the current capabilities of the country allow replacing several hundred per year. So Gref's assessment is much closer to reality than the optimism of the authors of the Strategy.
Another thing is how we came to such a life, turning a technological and scientific superpower into a raw material appendage, a third world country.
Creative Kudrinsky Center
According to the authors of the Strategy, the most important trends affecting national science policy are the so-called big challenges (probably, this is the creative work of the Kudrinsky Center). There are five of them: “the exhaustion of the traditional resources of the socio-economic growth of industrialized countries; slowing the reproduction of the natural environment due to the growth of anthropogenic load; the industrial revolution and the allocation of a limited group of countries with a new technology package; increasing the complexity and reducing the controllability of sociotechnical systems; a demographic transition and a change in a person’s lifestyle. ”
On the one hand, it is nice that our science takes on all global challenges. This is reminiscent of the era of the futurists, the "chairmen of the globe." And on the other hand, somehow it all very much looks like a “new thinking” of the times of Gorbachev’s, which turned out to be thought-provoking.
What are the goals of Russian science, according to the "strategists"? There are four of them: “to ensure the receipt of significant results that respond to the long-term challenges of the development of the global economy (and indeed, the world scale); to function as a single social institute "science - technology - innovation" (it is not clear, but it sounds nice); integrate into the global research and development markets (this is the main thing!); Acquire and maintain leadership in new and actively developing areas of knowledge ”(and what to do with the old ones, the lag in which grew rapidly in the years of no-time?).
In other words, the tasks set by the authors of “Strategy” have nothing to do with the acute problems facing Russia. According to the "strategists", it is difficult to expect any benefit from domestic science. Let him fulfill his decorative functions, dream of global problems and his future greatness, and integrate himself on third roles in “global markets”.
But common sense suggests otherwise. In fact, Russia's military budget in 2014 was 84 billion dollars, in China - 216 billions, in the USA - 610 billions and 950 billions - from NATO as a whole. The hard thing is to defend the Fatherland at a time when opponents spend ten times more on their army and weapons. To successfully cope with this task, we need scientific and technical breakthroughs. Readers of the "MIC" do not need to explain that nuclear weapons in the XXI century is not a panacea. A high-intensity cold war is being waged against Russia, and scientific and technical breakthroughs in the military-industrial complex are a guarantee that it will not turn into a hot one. Science has a lot to do here.
The main opportunities and the greatest risks of the 21st century are likely to be associated with a person, his health, development and the use of creative abilities. Every third scientific work in the world is now performed in the field of medicine. Great success has been achieved. According to the international journal The Lancet, from 1990 to 2013 a year, the total life expectancy in the world has increased by an average of 6,2 a year, and a healthy life (without diseases that significantly reduce its quality) - by 5,4 a year. Unfortunately, Russia is lagging far behind. Our citizens began to live only a year longer on 1,7, and their healthy life was extended by 1,6 years. According to this indicator, Russia is in the 109-th place from 189 countries.
Finally, the new industrialization. With the announcement of sanctions against Russia, the remnants of the new Mind, and the Gaidar paradigm, stating that we will buy everything abroad, and the mantra about the "inevitability of globalization" dissipated overnight. There was a question: what can we do ourselves? Before the sanctions began, in 2013, Russia's imports exceeded 300 billion dollars - the budget of a huge state. It became obvious that the preservation of our sovereignty is connected with import substitution, and it is connected with the new industrialization. And here the role of science is enormous. It is necessary to build factories, revive or create entire industries on a new technological basis. And this is a planning, a strategic forecast ... If domestic science seriously took up the solution of such problems and achieved success, this would be more than enough.
Following the mathematical tradition, we will argue from the opposite. Let us imagine that this is not being done and everything goes approximately as proposed in the “Strategy” under discussion. The backlog from the West, and therefore its dependence on it, will grow even faster than now. The standard of living in comparison with the leading countries will continue to fall. This will prepare the ground for the crisis of the elites and the "orange revolutions", and then the matter of technology.
At a recent meeting with economists at the President of the Russian Federation, Alexei Kudrin put forward a proposal to enter the second and third roles in the world economy. To which Vladimir Putin replied harshly: Russia does not trade in its sovereignty. This fully applies to this “Strategy”, the authors of which do not see Russia in the top league of countries that determine the scientific and technical development of the world. However, there is no alternative - in order to preserve sovereignty, we will have to be the first in many areas of science and technology.
However, we must pay tribute to the developers - the document turned out to be “creative”. Along with the classical liberal mantras there are many curious stories in it.
From the classics: “To transform the research and development sector, the key task of state institutions is changing - the management and administration functions of a network of scientific organizations are minimized, efforts are directed towards developing a regulatory system that provides knowledge that stimulates their development, access to the national and global technology and high-tech market . At the same time, the activities of the authorities are focused on creating high-quality and affordable services necessary for the realization of the creative, intellectual potential of research and development teams. ”
In short, the state should withdraw from science, remove the functions of goal-setting, focus on “services” and “regulation”.
And in the world, the opposite is being done. The countries that are leaders in science and technology development - the USA, Japan, China, Finland, South Korea, Singapore have scientific strategies, set ambitious tasks for scientists and invest huge amounts of money in science (not forgetting to control the results). You can appeal to the experience of the new Russia. There, from where the state "left", degradation began very quickly, which ended in collapse.
My colleagues see in this part of the "Strategy" the incompetence of developers who want to step on the rake again. In my opinion, here is shown the optimism of the doctor and his penchant for research. If the drug did not work nine times in a row, then maybe it will work on the tenth?
Among the implementation mechanisms of the Strategy, a “new simplified system for assigning scientific qualifications based on presenting a set of obtained results and recognizing their significance for the development of science, economics and society directly by leading organizations with state participation exclusively in legal regulation, supervision and maintenance, is proposed ... "
Qualification is not assigned - it is achieved by intense and independent work, so, probably, we are talking about assignment of scientific degrees. According to the "strategists", the state should go and from here ... The Higher Attestation Commission of the USSR was a serious authoritative organization. However, in Yeltsin's times, it was turned into a modest department of the Minobra, which led to the degradation and disintegration of the system of certification of scientific personnel. This collapse is proposed to complete. Obviously, the state should also leave this place, having left everything to the “leader organizations”. It is interesting what dissertation councils will be taken to assess the significance of the “set of results” for the economy and society. It seems to be their business - science, and "economy and society" are on the other side.
Now about the novels. The “Strategy” says a lot about the “openness” and “transparency” of science. For example: “Increasing the transparency of science, the availability of information on the results of research and development, and their large-scale inclusion in educational programs of leading scientific universities contribute to effective interaction with society.”
I note that our weapons are effective primarily because the results of research and development, which were carried out during its creation, remain closed and opaque. And all the competition in the high-tech sector is based on the fact that some companies learn to do what others do not know, and are not eager to share secrets. A bright future has not yet come. And generally it’s somehow undemocratic to deprive a piece of bread of huge intelligence communities interested in our technologies and developments ...
Another finding: “The dominant function of universities is the release of not individual specialists, but interdisciplinary project teams of like-minded people.” Truly everything is new - well forgotten old! This is a brigade method! My father told me that in 30, they tried to teach at school. Who can read - let him read, and assessment - the whole team. Who can count - let him work for everyone. But then this wonderful experiment somehow failed.
There are many other interesting finds in the “Strategy”. There are also “re-export of technologies”, “system of philanthropy”, “collaboration of scientists, engineers and technology entrepreneurs”, “high capitalization of organizations”, “engineering and production consortia”, “formation of the institute of“ main researchers ”,“ branding of territories ”,“ attracting young foreign scientists ”,“ champion companies ”,“ redesign of state programs ”... As you can see, creativity on creativity.
What is the result? Success will be:
“Entering the top ten countries in the global competition rankings for talent;
At least 30 of Russian centers of excellence, universities, Russian territories, high-tech companies are included in the top 100 leaders of relevant international rankings of innovation, scientific and technological development;
growth of funds for research and development from foreign sources ".
Europe will help us! Let's enter the ratings, and everyone will be happy!
At a recent meeting, Army General Makhmut Gareyev complained that there was not a single military man in the leadership of the Military Historical Society of Russia. Apparently, here is the same situation. Judging by the text, “Strategy” was written by economists, financiers, “effective managers”. Probably, this is also natural - science and technology are too serious things to be trusted by those who have an idea about them.
I wondered for a long time what genre to include the discussed “Strategy”. Probably for pornography, in a good, philosophical sense of the word. The classic of postmodern philosophy, Jean Baudrillard, used this term to mean essays that deprive the meaning and meaning of what they describe. If this document is called "Strategy", then where do next?
Nevertheless, I advise readers of the "MIC" not to dismiss this text, which is posted on the federal portal, where you can leave a review. Our society needs feedback. Without it, things will not go better. The science, education and technologies of Russia, directly related to defense and national security, are too serious things to be left to the “strategists” hired by the Ministry of Extraction.