President of the Kurchatov Institute and Secretary of Russian Public Chamber, Academician Evgeny Velikhov comments on the problems of national science, the need of education work and on the public vocation of academics in his interview for the Russkiy Mir portal.
– Why as an academic do you need this extra burden, serving as Secretary of the Public Chamber?
– The answer is simple: everything is interconnected in this world and so I’d like to do my best to promote freedom of speech and conscience as well as a civil society in which academics and researchers can stand up for their interests and rights. Alas, things have not been very good in this area: civil society is only just taking root, but our society in general is corrupt, with a complex social structure, and a low level of trust. How can we do away with this?
– But don’t academics unduly dissipate their energies? For while they are distracted from research work and get involved in public work, the younger generation believes in the netherworld en masse, in UFOs and religious cults. Don’t you think the enlightenment and education work of the academic community is failing?
– We just do not put ample effort: unfortunately, commercialization and the media assault on reason is under way all over the world. Incidentally, I used the phrase coined by Albert Gore in The Assault on Reason. These media are inspired by different forces and science tries to oppose them; but our chances look good. The problem is that the younger generation gets to know the world via the internet, rather than television. And there is a bit of everything in the internet: pseudo science and prejudices, but there’s freedom too, which means we should change our approaches. Furthermore, there is a gray or border area of knowledge between media, religion and science, and this is philosophy. By the way, these borders are very dynamic. Religion starts collaborating with science, while science is vigorously moving towards studying the human mind. Thus, what was mystique earlier is becoming clearer now. This is a good chance for sound thinking and robust society to triumph, but we should use the most of accumulated human and national spiritual experience, on the one hand, and realize that science is also needed for forward movement.
– But it’s risky to choose science as a vocation in this country: either you’ll have to starve or to emigrate in order to make an academic career.
– We do not learn lessons from our history and the authorities underestimate the role of science in the development of society and even high technologies. The society often neglects the stock of academic knowledge: we call rightist radicals liberals, although the history of national liberal thought is not a sealed book, for it is unscrambled in the works of academician Likhachev, for example – just take and use. No, we reinvent the wheel while the truth for our nation still lies on the path which Likhachev outlined as conservative liberalism.
– Why doesn’t anybody listen to our scientists?
– Something is changing here too. I met Dmitry S. Likhachev in 1987, when former assistant of President Kennedy Jeremy Wigner proposed to form the Mankind Survival and Development Foundation. Academicians Sakharov and Likhachev were among its board members. This was the first time I met him. Like any extraordinary personality, he was not very easy to deal with. He evaded superficial activity and those who appreciated the latter had a hard time with him. It was not easy to match his intellectual and spiritual mark. Perhaps for this reason academician Likhachev epitomizes the best traits of Russian intelligentsia and the high spirit of St. Petersburg intelligentsia. He was a wise man and in critical moments for the nation he positively influenced certain groups of people and through them impacted on the crucial events. Academicians Sakharov and Likhachev were held in the highest esteem but their advice was often despised.
– Is your advice taken?
– The Public Chamber is part of the civil society and it was established for its voice to be heard and heeded. Yet this is a two-way street: people in power should certainly respect the opinion of the intellectual and academic elite, but we’d also do well to listen to and understand the public servants – the nature of their reforms and their message to our society. The issue of science financing and government support of academics needs to be frankly discussed. It’s no secret that the situation with science financing is generally critical and not only at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Research financing and remuneration of scientists have recently been increased at RAS, by the way. At the Kurchatov Institute salaries are notably lower and even at RAS there is a gap between guaranteed and real wages. RAS is altogether a closed and self-regulating corporation which unfortunately promotes its narrow departmental interests. In other words, financing has been increased, but these cash flows seldom land in the pockets of talented research fellows. RAS lays no claims on itself, although it would suffice to read Twenty Years of Fruitless Efforts – a wonderful book by academician Erik Galimov – to realize that a simple financial injection, even if generous, can’t rescue Russian science. This is what happened with space research, according to Mr Galimov. Money was lavishly rained on this industry and world-class scientists worked there; yet during the recent 20 years almost nothing has been done for the space industry to develop. On the contrary: it is losing its competitive positions in the world. In this matter civil society should realize its share of guilt for the backwardness of Russian science instead of blaming the government or someone else. This is the trouble of scientists themselves who were in charge of this particular sector.
– What can be done in this regard by the Public Chamber, which is generally just sitting on the sidelines?
– The public search for balance of power in the government bodies, in different sectors of economy or science rids society of the urge to find the scapegoats or hunt for witches. The main thing is that a resonating public discussion of a problem puts different forces under control and helps work out a mechanism of looking for an optimal solution, be it science, health care or any other area. It seems to be the only way to organize bidirectional movement, whereby society and authorities listen to each other and heed each other.
– Can you give an example?
– For instance, various remuneration schemes for research fellows were discussed. We declined the idea of raising salaries at the expense of staff redundancies. But many, including myself, objected to the mere mathematical growth of wages. Any person should get the amount he or she personally earns. Eventually, the hearings at the Public Chamber, RAS and government committees led us to the understanding that while obtaining a certain fixed remuneration for their work, academics should demonstrate creative independence. This is why we do not care who earned by various contracts and how much, or who received grants and from whom. Many workers often go on business trips abroad and this also improves their material standing. But when a person gets only government-appointed wages, this is sad. If you are working on a critical problem you can easily earn an extra $500-1,000 a month. Theoreticians have a harder time compared to applied scientists, and we try to support them, but for now there are more problems than solutions.
– Do many research fellows receiving grants stay abroad?
– No, but those of our researchers who are offered contracts abroad often lead entire institutes or lines of research within the framework of international scientific cooperation. There is a different problem, though: the inflow of young scientists to the Kurchatov Institute, for example, has run low. Our undergraduates are looking for work opportunities abroad, where they can get a higher pay.
– In what direction do you think the relationship between the government structures and the Public Chamber will develop?
– I believe the main vector was set by academicians Sakharov and Likhachev in their time. This is not opposition for the sake of opposition, but painstaking efforts aimed at influencing certain groups of decision-makers for the sake of consolidating civil society.
Anton Samarin
