"Set new tasks": Valery Falkov - about young scientists and the future of Russian science

- Valery Nikolaevich, recently a very important event took place - the Congress of Young Scientists.

Was this the culmination of the Year of Science and Technology?

- In a way, yes.

Especially for young people, since this is the first youth event of this scale - three thousand people took part in the Congress, an indescribable atmosphere reigned.

- Is it possible to sum up the results of the Year of Science and Technology?

- I think we will sum up the results for a long time.

But the first results are already visible.

For example, at the Congress, we exchanged views with colleagues - both representatives of scientific institutes and universities, and those involved in public administration.

Everyone notes that thanks to the events of the Year of Science and Technology, science has become closer to schoolchildren and students - attracting the attention of young people to these areas was one of the priority goals.

Of course, there have never been such a number of events, such involvement of the professional community as within the framework of the Year of Science and Technology.

• Volunteers of the Congress of Young Scientists in Sochi

• RIA News

• © Pavel Bednyakov

And we very much hope that this will help schoolchildren and students choose science and research as their vocation and future profession.

The second - this, of course, in our opinion, is also a result - this is an obvious increase in the prestige of research activities.

This was the focus of international events.

Thus, for the first time, the UNESCO-Russia Prize was presented to them.

DI.

Mendeleev for achievements in the field of fundamental sciences.

This was done at the initiative of Russia, the prize was presented in Paris.

This year it was received by two outstanding scientists - one is our compatriot, the second is a colleague from Italy.

Also worth noting is the award "For Faithfulness to Science", which was presented in November in the Kremlin to the best representatives of the media and the public.

And thirdly, we feel that in the Russian regions there are more conditions for the development of science and related higher education, and education in general.

It seems to me that this is an important result, although it may not be completely obvious to many.

The harmonious development of the country is important, not only in the socio-economic sense, but also in the scientific and technical sense.

Simply put, we know regions where science has always felt comfortable.

These are, for example, Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Samara, Yekaterinburg, Rostov-on-Don.

However, while maintaining the pace of development of science and scientific and technological progress in these regions, it is important that Kamchatka feels comfortable, and Sakhalin, and Yakutia, and Chelyabinsk, and Kurgan, and Astrakhan, and Karelia, and many other regions.

- In education, it is customary to give grades.

How much did the year meet expectations, what mark would you give on a five-point scale?

And if Congress becomes a tradition, what role can it play in advancing science in the long term?

- The year is not over yet - there are still two and a half very busy weeks ahead.

Therefore, I would refrain from evaluations for now.

You know, they say, until the exam is over, it is better not to think about the assessment, but to calmly work to show the best result.

But if you recall the atmosphere that was at the Congress of Young Scientists, I would say this: this is a positive experience, although, of course, not everything succeeded - this is normal practice.

• MSU building

• © Konstantin Kokoshkin / Global Look Press

- An important issue is the outflow of scientists from Russia.

They have been talking about this problem for a long time, there are different assessments - someone says that everything is absolutely bad, someone - that its scale is exaggerated.

How acute is this problem now?

And what has been done in recent years to reverse the negative trend?

- Yes, in the professional and public space this problem has been discussed more than once.

There was even such statistics - allegedly about 70 thousand scientists leave Russia every year.

We have studied this issue very carefully, and such data are not entirely correct.

In fact, a total of 68.7 thousand people left Russia, and not scientists, but people with higher education.

It is also unclear whether it was a question of non-return migration or a temporary one.

This is an important point, because there is nothing wrong with our scientists going abroad.

And if they return, then there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, this is a normal practice.

Looking ahead, I will say that we have conducted our own large study, its results will be ready in about 10 days, before the New Year.

We interviewed almost all universities and research institutes subordinate to the Ministry of Education and Science, this is a large, serious sample.

We have many tools for attracting scientists from abroad - for example, the mega-grant program.

As part of the program, either our compatriots or outstanding scientists from abroad come to us to work in Russian universities.

I can preliminarily say that we do not consider the situation to be critical.

Also, our state programs of financing foreign education for the most capable students have a great influence on statistics.

- At the beginning of the year, the president proposed taking into account the level of salaries of employees in the key performance indicators of scientific institutions in order to solve the problem of imbalance in the salaries of scientists.

Are there already any practical steps in this direction?

And what is the current situation with the remuneration of junior and middle-level researchers?

- Yes, this is a very urgent task, my colleagues and I consider it one of the priorities.

In the second half of this year, we consulted in detail, requested and analyzed data from institutes and universities.

And now we are launching a big experiment to introduce a new wage system.

One of its elements will be precisely a clear relationship between the level of wages of the manager and the majority of employees.

In addition, I will say that by the decision of the president, by the end of the year, additional resources will be directed to most institutions.

Much depends not only and not so much on the ministry, but also on how funds are distributed directly at the institute.

On how successful he is in working with business, with enterprises in the real sector.

Practice shows that if an institute is not involved in real processes, if it does not win grants, does not conclude contracts for carrying out research work, then, of course, the level of remuneration there is lower than that of more successful colleagues.

• The work of the laboratories of the Moscow State Technological University "Stankin".

• AGN "Moscow"

• © Sergey Kiselev

We are interested in the fact that the funds, both state and attracted by the institute, are fairly distributed not only among established employees, but also in favor of young scientists.

During this year, colleagues have done a great job in determining the minimum wage for those who come to starting positions in research institutes.

However, this is only the beginning of a long journey.

- You have used the word "worthy" several times.

Who determines what exactly to mean by this word in relation to wages?

- Much depends, firstly, on the specific region: there is the concept of "average wages in the region" or "average labor income in the region."

And the situation differs from region to region.

Although colleagues often rightly ask questions about interregional differentiation.

It is no secret that there is a big problem of the flow of researchers to scientific and educational institutions in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where salaries are higher, and there are also advantages of a large metropolis.

- Can we say that during a pandemic, business is not up to innovations?

It is not only academic institutions that innovate, but also the RnD divisions of commercial companies.

What is the current situation in this area?

- Rather, in a pandemic, the priority for commercial companies has become the search for new strategies and adjustments to old ones.

However, we do not record a dramatic decline in interest in research and new developments on the part of business.

Yes, there is some decline, partly due to the reallocation of budgets.

But those corporations that think about long-term development, they still keep science in the focus of their attention.

In addition, there is now a tremendous surge of interest in biomedical topics.

We can see this even by the number of publications - it has grown exponentially.

We are already seeing the results of this surge - these are vaccines, new test systems, and more.

I think that this trend will continue in the coming years.

In a way, this is the answer of science to the challenges of the pandemic.

- One gets the impression that the new program of support for universities

- I cannot agree with this interpretation. This program has completely different goals and objectives. It is less focused on the development of fundamental science, since we are talking about universities. And the task is to enable universities to implement development programs. We proceed from the assumption that a significant part of the resources that universities have are currently spent on current activities. And in order to develop, additional funds are needed. And we, on a competitive basis, evaluating university teams led by rectors, the available groundwork, financed development programs. They are aimed at the emergence of new educational programs tailored to business needs. For new structural divisions, new areas of research to appear, there was an opportunity to purchase the necessary equipment. This program has a horizon of 10 years,it is not a matter of one year. Such a long agenda is, among other things, our signal to business, which loves clear rules of the game.

• University Support Program "Priority-2030"

• © priority2030.ru

- That is, it is an objective requirement of the time.

Was it different before?

- Such attempts have been made before, since 2006 the state has been trying to stimulate universities in one way or another.

This program is a signal to all universities that the most effective ones can receive additional resources for development.

We do not distribute money and resources based on past achievements, but give the opportunity to prove themselves to all universities, giving them a single starting position.

And this is a fundamentally important point.

- What, in your opinion, should be the main criteria for assessing the activities of universities and scientists?

The number of publications in scientific journals or the number of technologies implemented in real production?

- Necessary

strive for a comprehensive assessment.

We have made the introduction of technologies one of the indicators within the Priority program.

Unfortunately - it just so happened, no one set such a goal, but the story with bibliometric indicators began around 2006-2007.

Then, for the first time, these criteria were included in the strategic planning documents as a yardstick for assessing not only a particular scientist, but also entire scientific teams.

This is not a new story, in the 1990s this approach was used in the world, but then it was rightly re-evaluated.

Today we already see that this system has a serious vulnerability to manipulation.

We have grown a whole quasi-market of scientific articles and scientific journals.

Which, by and large, have nothing to do with science.

It seems to me that it is necessary to change the strategy and apply more complex systems for evaluating scientific work.

One of the additional assessment tools should be specific technologies implemented in practice, as you said.

We are now asking universities about how much they receive funds from the management of intellectual property, patents.

And we are gradually moving our scientific institutions towards the development of this direction.

However, they need to be given time, because before they did not even think in this direction.

As for scientometrics, publication indicators, they have been used for more than 15 years, they are incorporated in all program documents, in the evaluation systems of scientific funds and state programs.

Therefore, the strategy must be adjusted gradually.

- How long will this restructuring take?

- I think that in 2022-2023 we

we will correct this situation.

We are already doing a lot of work, but universities, academic institutes live in long cycles, very quick rash decisions are contraindicated here.

Obviously, we need to radically differently approach the support of Russian scientific journals and the promotion of the results of scientific work through Russian journals.

But at the same time, it is important for us not to fall out of the global context and understand how the world coordinate system works.

This delicate balance is important to maintain.

• Opening of the Academy "Higher Engineering School" of the Russian University of Transport

• AGN "Moscow"

• © Kirill Zykov

- The

-

As for the use of the best Soviet experience, of course, this should be done.

They often talk about the fundamental nature of Soviet higher education.

It gave the breadth and depth of knowledge, regardless of the chosen specialty, you received a large block of additional knowledge that formed a person as a person, you understood the world in all its diversity.

And this is important to preserve.

The second important point: in Soviet times, in addition to higher education, there was a very prestigious secondary vocational and primary vocational education.

Today we are working to increase the prestige of secondary education.

The percentage of high school graduates now going to universities is unprecedented.

In Soviet times, only 15 to 22% of graduates went to universities, there was a different motivation, a different selection opportunity.

- Returning to the previous question: are the calls to return to Soviet education just nostalgia or is there a practical potential?

- All new -

this is a well forgotten old thing.

Much of what is being discussed today as advanced research is old developments, only in a new reading, in application to the modern technological order.

I don't think it's just nostalgia, everything can be used.

Another question is that it is important for us to set ourselves new tasks, to move forward.

And this must be done very deliberately, meaningfully.

See RTD for the full interview.