T-

What to do with science Editorial

We live in an era of great change. For four thousand years, the world has evolved along an ascending logarithmic curve. The population has been growing all the time, but in the last 50 years - a historically insignificant period - there has been no growth. In physics, this phenomenon is called " phase transition": first there was an explosive growth, and then it suddenly stopped. The world could not cope with its development and tried to solve new problems in the old ways. The consequence of this approach was the First and Second World Wars, and later it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Phase transition in the development of mankind

Now the rate of growth of the human population is falling, we are experiencing a phase transition. What happens after this critical transition? All developed countries are now experiencing a crisis - there are already fewer children than the elderly. That's where we're heading.

This makes people change their way of life, way of thinking, methods of development. The distribution of the labor force is also changing. All over the world, small towns and villages are dying out. In America, which is ahead of us in this regard by only 30-40 years, 1.5% feed the country, 15% are employed in manufacturing, and 80% in the non-productive sector - the provision of services, management, healthcare, education. This is a new world that we are entering, in which there is no peasantry, no working class, but only the "middle class".

The role of science in the new world

We usually divide science into fundamental and applied. The period of introduction of the achievements of fundamental science is 100 years. For example, we now enjoy the fruits of quantum mechanics, which appeared in 1900. Fundamental science requires little money, say, one conventional unit.

Applied science develops in 10 years: these are new inventions, the implementation of new ideas that have been developed over a hundred years. Applied science requires 10 conventional currency units.

And then there is production and the economy. If you have a well-established production, you can re-profil it in one year, but this will require 100 conventional units of money.

In one case, your motive is knowledge, in another, benefit, in the third, development and income. We must remember how little money is spent on fundamental science and what great results it brings. Fundamental science needs to be financed now so that in 100 years it will pay off a hundredfold.

Such is the economics of modern progress.

The development of Russian science

The development of Russian science should lead us out of the crisis. To do this, we must enter the world of science. Soviet science developed in a closed space, it had contacts with the outside world, but was closed. And our education was at a very high level, and we still keep the brand. There are many Russian graduates in the leadership of huge international corporations with a multi-million dollar turnover. We have our own way of teaching and we don't need to imitate anyone else.

The main obstacle to the development of innovation is not the lack of money, but bureaucracy. People in the nuclear department say that if they were now instructed to create an atomic bomb, they would not have completed this project in the right time: they would simply drown in a bureaucratic swamp. The fight against bureaucracy is a political task.

When our scientists, headed by Kurchatov, were assigned to develop an atomic project, they were all under forty. Young scientists can and should participate in big projects, their brains are still working. And now no one wants to reckon with them.

We need to change the priorities of our science. Our specialists are now leaving for other countries - this is how they solve problems that the state should solve. In tsarist Russia, the best students and young scientists were sent abroad for 2-3 years to prepare for a professorship. Pavlov, Mendeleev, and many other representatives of world science have gone this way. It needs to be restored.

When I spoke to Stanford University in 1989, I was told that there were 40,000 Chinese students in America. There were 200 Russians then, and now there are thousands of them, and they even say that American universities are a place where Russian scientists teach Chinese.

Our tasks are integration into world science, self-reliance in the field of education, development of economic, legal and other ways to get rid of the bureaucracy's control over inventors and those who are ready for innovation.

Innovators always oppose the authorities. And they always got results. In the minds of such people, political protest moods also arise - in the Soviet Union they originated in academic campuses, in closed scientific institutions. Sakharov worked in the most closed place in Russia.

In recent years, physicist Sergei Kapitsa has been engaged in historical demography, trying to understand history using the methods of exact sciences. He considers humanity as a single system, the development of which can be described mathematically. This helps to model long-term social processes. From this approach to history, a whole science has grown - cliodynamics where demographics play an important role.

The fact is that, studying the growth of the Earth's population, the Austrian physicist and mathematician Heinz von Foerster discovered the so-called law of hyperbolic growth, which promises mankind considerable troubles. He argues that if the world population continued to grow along the same trajectory along which it grew from 1 to 1958 AD, then on November 13, 2026, it would become infinite. Förster and co-authors titled their paper about the discovery in Science in 1960: "The End of the World: Friday, November 13, 2026 from the Nativity of Christ."

In reality, this is, of course, impossible. But modern science knows that systems that find themselves in such a situation usually experience a phase transition. This is exactly what is happening to humanity right before our eyes: having reached some critical indicator, the growth rate of the world's population after the 1970s is rapidly falling, and then stabilizes. Kapitsa calls it a "global demographic revolution" and argues that developed countries have already experienced it, and developing countries will survive it in the near future.

Interestingly, the starting point of Kapitza's lecture is the same as Hans Rosling's, but their approach and conclusions are completely different. If for Rosling a slowdown in population growth is a chance to avoid catastrophe, and we must make every effort to achieve this, then for Kapitsa it is an inevitability that we can neither hasten nor avert. According to him, we are experiencing the most significant event in the history of mankind, and the scale of its consequences is difficult to imagine and overestimate: the global demographic revolution affects all areas of our lives and leads to a rapid change in everything - the structure of states, the world order, ideologies, values.

Only culture and science will help us cope with the ongoing changes, adapt to new conditions of life, which means that those communities that understand this will be in the most advantageous position. Russia has all the possibilities, but for this it is necessary to do several very important things.

Why, Zhores Ivanovich, cannot the activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences be reduced to expert functions?

The Academy of Sciences in Russia is the leading scientific organization. And to limit it only to expert functions means to lead the matter towards the liquidation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And, let me remind you, it has a special history - in many respects different from how the system of scientific research was built and developed in other countries.

But before we had Kurchatov, Korolev, Keldysh - there was someone to generate ideas and promote large-scale projects. They were respected not only by fellow scientists, they were considered in power. And now there were no titans? Or is this feeling wrong?

It is both so and not so.

The development of science is subject to the general principles of the development of civilization. And science, in its turn affects this development. The Minister of Energy of Saudi Arabia once said that the Stone Age ended not because there was a shortage of stone, but because new technologies appeared. I fully agree with him.

And here, as an example, is the development of information technology, to which your humble servant has put a lot of effort. On the one hand, this is a huge step in so many things: the emergence of the Internet, the development of biomedicine ... And on the other hand, a lot of pseudoscientific things have appeared, it has become possible to manipulate people, even deceive them and earn big money on this.

Benefit found in another?

Yes. They began to speed up the development of information technologies and everything connected with them. Scientific research, primarily fundamental, seems to have faded into the shadows. Much less money is allocated to them.

But the personality factor, you are right, plays an important role in this. The USSR Academy of Sciences conducted advanced scientific research in many areas. And the presidents of the academy - S.I. Vavilov, A.N. Nesmeyanov, M.V. Keldysh, A.P. Alexandrov are outstanding scientists, with outstanding scientific merit. If Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov had lived a little longer, he would have received the Nobel Prize, which was received by his student for the discovery of Cherenkov radiation.

Alexander Nikolayevich Nesmeyanov is the creator of almost all polymer technologies. Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh, even before being elected president of the Academy, was known for open publications in the field of aviation. He also made a huge contribution to the work of our scientists on the atomic bomb, became a theorist of astronautics and the Soviet rocket program ...

And the reform of the Academy of Sciences - the first after the war - was also carried out by Mstislav Keldysh ...

Exactly! And I must say, the attitude towards this reform within the Academy itself was at first difficult. But if we look from our days, we will see: the structure of the Academy of Sciences, all its departments were substantiated and formed under Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh. The reform was successful.

Today? Maybe even now we need time to objectively assess the pros and cons of reforming the Russian Academy of Sciences?

Now, I am convinced, the situation is completely different. We dealt the hardest blow to the academy with the 2013 reforms. I consider it a mistake to mechanically merge the Russian Academy of Sciences with the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Agricultural Academy. Compare: The Academy of Sciences of the USSR is approximately 700 people: 250 academicians and 450 corresponding members. Then, already under the leadership of Yu.S. Osipov, its number reached 1350. The country became half as large, the Academy twice as large. Isn't it strange?

And the merger of the three academies in 2013 is a blow from which it is difficult to recover. The swollen RAS became uncontrollable.

Do you think the Academy of Sciences should not be so big? And FANO will not help her?

What help are you talking about? They took away all the property and said: you are engaged in science, and FASO will deal with the property. Excuse me, how can one engage in science without property, without proper rights?! They changed the charter and began to say that the Academy should perform expert functions. And she, I repeat, has a special history and its own evolution. Our academy was originally created as an academic university, including a gymnasium and a university. Scientists teach classes at the university, and university students teach classes at the gymnasium.

You sought to develop a similar principle, already at the modern level, using the example of the St. Petersburg Academic University you created. Does the experience of the St. Petersburg Physics and Technology Institute, where you worked for a long time, and the entire school of Academician Ioffe help in this?

It helps, but the difficulties are huge. And the reason is the same: science must be in demand by the economy and society. It will happen when it changes economic policy in the country. But already now we must train personnel to meet the challenges of modern science. Let's not forget: all the Nobel Prizes that have come to our country have been awarded to employees of three institutes - FIAN in Moscow, Phystech in Leningrad, and even the Institute of Physical Problems in Moscow. But Pyotr Kapitsa and Lev Landau, who worked in it, also left the Fiztekh. That is, these are two research institutes in which world-class scientific schools were created.

Abram Fedorovich Ioffe, when creating the Faculty of Physics and Mechanics of the LPI, was guided by Phystech. Then he quite rightly believed that the development of engineering education should be based on very good physical and mathematical training. Today, there have been tremendous changes in science. Information technologies, new achievements in biology and medicine play a huge role. And in education, we must take this into account.

Therefore, we are introducing basic courses in physiology and medicine at our academic university, thoroughly preparing children in information technology and programming. At the same time, we retain basic training in condensed matter physics, semiconductor physics, electronics and nanobiotechnologies.

It's hard to study now. But the leap into the future will be successful if we guess from which joint directions new revolutions in science will be born.

Can you give any prediction?

I think the main expectations are somehow connected with nanobiotechnologies. Today, we are just approaching - on the basis of the same microchips, we are trying to analyze everything that is done in a person. And then new things open up that have yet to be comprehended.

We know the chicks of the “Joffe's nest”, we have the honor to talk with one of them. Do your graduates travel far? And where are they more successful - in science or business?

They are in demand by scientific schools in the West. Many of them go there. Abram Fedorovich did not have such a problem - the Fiztekh was standing nearby, where the chicks of his nest were really in demand. And today the St. Petersburg Institute of Physics and Technology, like the FIAN in Moscow, has slid far down. Because there is no demand - there are no high-tech industries in the country that would require both new developments and properly trained personnel.

There is a real problem with the demand for our graduates at home. To some extent, our alliance with Skolkovo helps to solve it. Today, the academic university has a center that works on Skoltech programs. It arose later than our university, but its program is close to the ideology of an academic university: it is imperative to develop education in related fields.

Today, thank God, Alexander Kuleshov, an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a specialist in information technology, has become the rector of Skoltech. With him we understand each other much better and agree faster than with his predecessor, Edward Crowley.

And Skolkovo as a whole, as a big project, did not disappoint you?

Ultimately, no. And Skoltech will develop. There you can try new approaches to education, which we are going to do together.

Under what conditions could the chicks from your nest return to Russia? Is megagrants for such a case the right incentive?

I have a special relationship with this. I am against such mega-grants. Who wins and receives them? Researchers who have achieved serious results abroad. But they, as a rule, already have a family in the West, the children are growing up. And they think about their future life there. Yes, they will come to us for a big grant for some time. And even, I fully admit, they will conscientiously fulfill their obligations - they will open a laboratory. To immediately after this again leave. And then what?

Laboratories will remain...

Academic science certainly has outstanding achievements in many areas, including aviation, space, and the nuclear industry. Are there developments of this level now? Or are we forever “stuck in the past”?

I think there is potential. For example, in astrophysics, in condensed matter physics. I know for sure that we have scientists who master this material at the world level, and in some ways surpass it. It is more difficult for me to talk about the same things in physiology, in medicine, in biochemistry. But I think that they exist there as well - in a number of Moscow institutes, in Novosibirsk, in St. Petersburg. Therefore, we try to develop these areas at our university.

But what hurts today? I don’t want to name names, but before my eyes there are examples when young people make a scientific career, receive an academic title, a degree, and immediately go to administrative work. I have nothing against public service as such. But now it is acquiring some kind of hypertrophied scale in our country. Became something of a bait for young people ...

In the Urals, in Turinsk, I have a sponsored school that bears my name - I studied there from the fifth to the eighth grade. From my fund we pay scholarships to the best students. I recently got out there, I ask: where do you guys want to go after graduation? They unanimously - to the civil service, to the provincial administration, somewhere else. But so that the salary was high ...

I can't imagine something like this in the 50s and 60s! They would call it: science, a new plant, a large construction site ... And what, excuse me, is there an interest in being an official? It turns out that there is interest: he will get more money.

The question is from those who have not gone to the officials and are still thinking about what to devote themselves to. If it were not for those discoveries for which you were awarded the Nobel Prize, what would not happen in our lives now?

There would be no smartphone, Internet, fiber optic communication. And even earlier, CD players, DVD movies, and VCRs. There wouldn't be much. Because all modern electronics and all modern information technologies are built on two things: on silicon chips (this is Jack Kilby in our general award) and semiconductor heterostructures. Even today, heterostructures have a great future - I will show this in figures.

When Kilby and later Robert Noyce made the first integrated circuits, there were a few transistors in total. And today we already have a billion transistors on one silicon chip.

How far have the technologies of their production gone?

Yes. If the first integrated circuits (this is the 70th year) had about ten thousand transistors on a chip, and the dimensions were tens of microns, today the transistor has dimensions of only ten to fifteen nanometers. And on one chip - a billion transistors! I won’t guess how many years exactly, but I definitely believe that there will be a chip on which a trillion transistors will be placed. And in the human brain, I note for comparison, only 80 billion neurons. This means that one chip will have more capabilities than the human brain.

How to achieve this? Now the dimensions of the chip are units of nanometers. We cannot further reduce them. The way out is to move from the so-called horizontal chip to a vertical one. Such a transition would require new heterostructures. So, these two things - silicon technology for chips and semiconductor heterostructure technology - once again form a breakthrough tandem. Now for electronics in biomedicine.

Together, it is important for us to make sure that all this is created and developed for the benefit of a person, and not to his detriment.

For many years, almost the entire 20th century, the Military-Industrial Complex was the main customer and consumer for the Academy of Sciences in one person. What now? Does he remain a driver for Russian scientists?

I would say otherwise. Academic science has always created the foundation for the military-industrial complex, but the foundation is not momentary. What we are doing today, and what we are training personnel for, will be in demand in ten to fifteen years. And it is in demand not only by the military-industrial complex, but by all scientific and technological progress.

My friend and colleague, President of the Royal Society of London and Nobel laureate George Porter, said this about it: “All science is applied. The only difference is that certain applications are in demand and appear today, while others will come centuries later.”

But bitcoin is a new word in everyday life and a new phenomenon. How do you feel about him?

Negative. It's all made up. And money should have a real value and a real background.

But I have a very good, positive attitude towards Belarusians and Belarus - this is my homeland. Yes, I recently read that everything is allowed in Belarus. Maybe there the management thinks that they can win something on this? I don't know, I don't think...

The digital economy is not an easy thing. Yes, it is developing - electronic instead of paper. However, on this, alas, you can steal, and a lot.

Many people remember your optimism and your forecasts regarding solar energy - have they not changed?

No. The future belongs to her, and this is undeniable. In the future, it is able to cover all the needs of the inhabitants of the Earth.

And what are the chances of nuclear generation? Will it develop or eventually fade away?

I think it will develop. Ultimately, everything is decided by the economy. First of all, they will develop what is more profitable today. Solar energy will become economically profitable, I think, in 20-30 years. When we understand that energy needs to be developed in international cooperation and the Sahara desert should belong to the entire planet, the economic benefits of solar energy will become undeniable. In the south of our country, it can be economically profitable right now ...

And will the topic remain relevant for space?

Of course! Here, for decades, it determined the entire development of space research both here and abroad. If my memory serves me right, the first two satellites managed with built-in batteries, and the third one was already mounted solar panels. Since then, the Americans began to put them. In the lower orbits - flint, in high - our solar batteries on heterostructures. Then we were in the lead: the Americans didn't have it yet, but we already bet.

Then, after the collapse of the USSR and all subsequent events, we could no longer be leaders. For the reason that before, in Soviet times, we allowed ourselves to manufacture solar panels using expensive technology, using expensive materials. And even then, new approaches and technologies began to emerge that needed to be developed ...

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N. MOISEEV.

Presentation of diplomas and congratulations to the 1997 Phystech graduates.

Academician V. M. Glushkov (left) and his students - Doctors of Science V. P. Derkach, A. A. Letichevsky and Yu. V. Kapitonova.

Professor, Doctor of Biology N. F. Reimers at the International Ecological Conference in the USA. August 1989

Participants of the first Soviet-American symposium on partial differential equations in the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok (1963). Center photo: Academicians I. N. Vekua and M. A. Lavrentiev.

In order to understand and evaluate the processes taking place in the world, to see trends and be able to identify the general directions of efforts that should be made, it is necessary to find a reference point, a kind of foundation on which a scientific analysis of the situation under study can rely. Such a support can be the idea of ​​society as a kind of self-organizing, continuously evolving system, in which there is a regular mismatch of the spiritual and material worlds. These worlds are interconnected, but their correlation is by no means unambiguous. There are happy periods when the development of a person's spiritual world far outstrips his material needs, and then a happy era begins in the development of society, its culture, and its economy. Apparently, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that followed it were just such periods. But the opposite also happens, when, despite the development of the needs of the material world, there is a degradation of the spiritual world. Its treasures remain unclaimed, like the Library of Alexandria, which was burned down by the early Christians. And then comes the Middle Ages - timelessness, throwing humanity back for centuries, dooming it to grief and blood. I am afraid that we are on the verge of such a period and that great intellectual efforts will be required not to step over it.

Where are you, future Huns,
What a cloud hung over the world!
I hear your cast-iron clatter
Through the still undiscovered Pamirs.

Bryusov was right in everything, except for the "undiscovered Pamirs". They are open, they are here, they are around us, this is our current reality, this powers of the world of this, living today and little understanding of what is happening on the planet today. These are megacities and the current mass media - the most striking manifestation of our intellectual degradation, or, if you like, the coming Middle Ages. If we can't stop him!

Today there is a lot of talk about the ecological crisis, about the country's transition to the model of "sustainable development", about the economic crisis and many other phenomena of the same nature. All this is true - humanity is really going through a crisis and not so much an ecological as a civilizational, if you like, discord of the system that has established itself on the planet in recent centuries. And what is happening in our country is only a fragment of this global process.

It seems to me that everything that happens is much more complicated than it is commonly imagined. I think that the civilizational potential that was laid down by the Neolithic revolution is practically exhausted. I am convinced that humanity is approaching a turning point in its development. Once, back in the Paleolithic, a person experienced something similar: the biological development of the individual gradually began to slow down, giving way to social development. And in such a gradual restructuring was a vital necessity for our biological species. I will not guess what the new channel of human evolution should become, what its scenarios might be. I will dedicate this article to just one question. It will remain extremely important, no matter what path of development the biological species that calls itself "reasonable man" chooses.

It will be about the education system, about passing the baton of culture and knowledge. All those bifurcations, or, using the terminology of the French mathematician Rene Thom, catastrophes through which the formation of mankind passed, were resolved "naturally", that is, by selection mechanisms. Either at the level of organisms, or at the supraorganismal level - hordes, tribes, populations, peoples. The process of perestroika dragged on for millennia and cost our ancestors a sea of ​​blood. Today this path is impossible: it will mean the end of history, and not according to Hegel or Fukoyama, but the real end.

And whatever path of development mankind chooses in order to preserve itself on the planet, it can only be the choice of the mind, based on science, on knowledge. Only they can alleviate the difficulties that people have to cope with. This means that science and education must meet the level of these difficulties. But if we seriously think about the content and methods of modern education, we will easily find that the existing traditions in education, primarily in university education, do not correspond to the needs of today. And this crisis is perhaps the most dangerous of the totality of contemporary crises. Although for some reason they hardly talk about it.

The formation of university traditions began in the Middle Ages. The first university was founded in Bologna in 1088. It consisted of a number of schools - logic, arithmetic, grammar, philosophy, rhetoric. As the range of issues facing society expanded, new disciplines arose. At the same time, scientists increasingly became narrow professionals, understanding each other worse and worse. The same happened with technical schools, the original purpose of which was to teach crafts. Many of them turned into higher educational institutions, and some, like the famous Moscow Higher Technical School, became full-fledged technical universities in the last century. And all higher educational institutions had one thing in common - multi-subject, the desire for narrow specialization, the gradual loss of the universality of education. The Russian higher school held on the longest, but even it gradually began to lose the breadth of education, to follow the ideology of hard pragmatism.

The high school all over the world is becoming like the Tower of Babel, the builders of which understand each other worse and worse and have very little idea of ​​the architecture of the tower and the purpose of construction! Excess and unstructured information give rise to informational chaos. And he is the equivalent of ignorance, loss of vision of true values.

These circumstances could not pass unnoticed. As early as the 1950s, the remarkable British novelist and professor of physics, Charles Percy Snow, wrote about the gulf between liberal arts and science education. Moreover, he drew our attention to the fact that two different cultures and two different ways of thinking are emerging.

And that was just one aspect of the problem. In general, everything turned out to be much more difficult. The development of science and technology in the twentieth century has acquired a completely new character. These are no longer scientific and technological revolutions, but a certain process "with aggravation", as they say in synergetics. It is characterized by a rapidly increasing rate of innovation and technological restructuring, which means changes in the living conditions (and survival) not only of individuals, but of nations as a whole. The existing system of education is obviously not ready for such a turn in the "history of people". I had to experience this first hand.

In the mid-1950s, I was appointed dean of the aeromechanical faculty of the then-famous Phystech. The faculty rapidly expanded and turned into an incubator of specialists for our aerospace industry. The number of disciplines taught increased rapidly. We have clearly not kept pace with the development of technology. At that time I was a professor at the Department of Physics of Fast Processes, as the Department of Explosion Theory was coded then. It was headed by the future founder of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician M.A. Lavrentiev. Therefore, first of all, I began to talk about my difficulties and doubts with Mikhail Alekseevich.

As a result of rather lengthy discussions, a principle was developed: it is necessary to teach not so much individual particulars as the ability to learn new things and move away from standards. Indeed, none of us can say what specific knowledge our pets will need in a rapidly changing world in 15-20 years. The specialist must become above his craft and easily switch to a new one. And standards should be temporary and born not in ministries, but where science is being done.

This principle has met with many objections. Indeed, it is not only debatable, but also very difficult to implement. And it imposes quite difficult and, most importantly, unusual requirements on the teaching staff. In those years, I taught many different courses and always tried to find reasonable compromises between professionalism and the breadth of the view on the subject, on its inclusion in the "general picture of the world." My courses were sometimes subjected to very sharp criticism. Mathematicians said that instead of proofs I limited myself to "evidence", and physicists accused me of teaching not physics, but "models of physics". And they were all right - that's exactly what I wanted to achieve. In hindsight, I can only blame myself for not building bridges between different disciplines clearly enough. And I am still convinced that the principle that we formulated more than 40 years ago is universal for university education: one must teach in such a way as to make it easier for a person to learn the new things that he will have to face.

One of the most acute problems of modern education is the fight against the growing information chaos. With the expansion of the scope and intensity of scientific and technological progress, the number of connections between people and especially between different fields of knowledge is growing very rapidly. But the amount of information that falls on a person in this case grows many times faster. As a result, the necessary (and not only useful) information is drowning in the chaos of "noise", and with modern methods of information selection, that is, with existing system formation, it can be almost impossible to identify the desired signal, especially to interpret it.

Within the framework of one of the faculties of the Physicotechnical Institute in the 1950s and 1960s, we seem to have managed to do this, relying on the fundamental principle that I spoke about above. But even the entire Institute of Physics and Technology is only a tiny part of that grandiose “teacher” system, on the effectiveness of which the fate of the people and the country directly depends. And the formulated principle, however necessary, is clearly insufficient when it comes to the whole system. What else is needed? In what direction should the education system, especially university education, be reformed? These questions are extremely relevant today.

I do not at all pretend to be a revolutionary reformer: as a principled opportunist, I am opposed to any revolutions. Any adjustments and reforms must be balanced and gradual. Especially when it comes to education and culture, which are consecrated by age-old traditions that did not arise by chance. Therefore, I will express only some considerations, also based on personal experience.

In the 1970s, a computer system (a system of computer models) was created at the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, capable of simulating the functioning of the biosphere and its interaction with society. With its help, a number of studies were carried out, one of which - an analysis of the consequences of a large-scale nuclear war - received a wide public response. Even new terms appeared - "nuclear night" and "nuclear winter". But, probably, the most important consequence of the analysis was the understanding that the natural sciences in the near future will be able to answer the question: what is that forbidden line that a person in his relationship with Nature has no right to cross under any circumstances.

But the behavior of people is determined not only and not so much by the knowledge that arises in the natural sciences. And here we have to recall again what Charles Percy Snow said. Society cannot survive without knowledge of the house in which it lives, that is, without knowledge of the world around it. But they lose all meaning if society is unable to harmonize its behavior with the laws of this world and their consequences. Thus, it turns out that the second fundamental principle that should underlie modern university education is the integrity of education - scientific, technical and humanitarian.

Quite a few researchers and teachers both in Russia and in other countries have come to understand this principle. They came in different ways, for different reasons. And they talk about it in different ways too. Some of them are about the humanization of scientific and technical or engineering education. Others - about the need for science education for the humanities. Or they formulate their vision of the inferiority of modern education in some other way. But the essence of such thoughts is the same: all the sciences that we teach our pets have the same goal - to ensure the future of human existence in the biosphere. With the modern power of civilization and the complexity of the relationship between Nature and man, all the efforts of people should really be based on this reality. Environmental education, if the term is appropriate, should become the backbone of modern education.

And one more thing: we need to transfer not just a relay race of experience and knowledge, but also a relay race of foresight! With the current pace of changes in living conditions, with the growing threat to the very existence of mankind, it is no longer possible to focus only on traditions and past experience. The task of the Human Collective Mind is to look beyond the horizon and build its development strategy taking into account the interests of future generations. The above concerns, first of all, university education. For it is precisely here that the intellect is forged, on which the future of the human race depends.

But how can this be achieved? Any revolutions and distortions are very dangerous here. An active but restrained search is needed. All that has been said relates to problems common to the entire planetary community. But how is this refracted in our Russian reality?

In addition to the planetary crisis of culture and education that I spoke about, our specific Russian crisis is also superimposed in our country. A wave of ignorance, especially in management structures, is gradually turning into a tsunami that can sweep away the remnants of education and culture. Sometimes it seems to me that we have no choice but to follow the advice of Bryusov, with which he ends the poem, the first lines of which I took as an epigraph to this article:

And we, wise men and poets,
Keepers of secrets and faith,
Let's take the lit lights
In catacombs, in deserts, in caves.

But maybe worth a fight? Maybe not all is lost? And it is still too early to take away to the catacombs those lights that were lit in our country more than a thousand years ago!

And I think that this desire is experienced by many. It is no coincidence that the congress on environmental education at universities, which was organized in June 1997 in Vladimir by the Russian Green Cross and the city administration, received 520 reports from different parts of the country. This means that the Russian intelligentsia is not going to go into the catacombs!

Our country and its economy are in a catastrophic situation today. I will not repeat well-known facts. But do the powers that be realize that they are chopping the root on which, perhaps one day, the tree of Russian civilization will grow again? After all, scientific teams are collapsing, scientific schools are dying. The old peasant principle of "preserving the seed" is being violated: no matter how hungry it is in winter, don't touch the seed until spring! Higher education, research teams, a high level of education of the nation - this is the main support, the guarantee of the country's further development. And now, for all the troubles that have already fallen on higher education, a reduction in the number of universities is also being prepared.

Do those who start such cases realize that the elimination of several institutions such as the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow Higher Technical School, Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow Power Engineering Institute is enough to stop the development of Russia for a century? Sometimes it seems that someone with a skillful and cruel hand seeks to destroy a possible competitor in the field of human intellect. However, this "someone" can be both ignorance and conceit! Which, of course, is no better.

Let's look back: after all, we have had to rise from our knees more than once, we have experience in overcoming catastrophic situations. Let's remember the Patriotic War. In the most tragic period, when the country was tormented by fascists, we found the strength and ability to implement the scientific program of creating a nuclear shield. There was a clear understanding - without this we will become the backyards of the planet.

Our state in those years did even more - unlike Germany, it managed to maintain its scientific schools. And my generation, having removed their shoulder straps after the war, joined these schools. Ten years later, we became the second scientific power in the world. For everyone scientific conferences in the 1950s and 1960s, Russian was spoken along with English. The nation was gaining self-esteem - a fact no less important than success in the economy! For some reason this is forgotten now.

Scientific schools - a phenomenon that was characteristic of Russia and Germany - are not just a collection of specialists working in one field. This is an informal team of researchers or engineers with a sense of responsibility for the fate of the case, and for the fate of each other. It takes many decades to create a scientific school, as for any tradition. In Germany they were destroyed by fascism. And they still haven't recovered! Germany is still deprived of that scientific and engineering significance, that position in the intellectual world that it had before the Nazis came to power.

Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with one of those high-ranking destroyers of science, whom our people are unlikely to ever remember with a kind word. It was about the fate of Russian science. And the thought sounded: "Do we need to develop science, because it's cheaper to buy licenses." To the misfortune of our people, this is not just the thought of one of the half-educated who consider themselves intellectuals, but a point of view consistently put into practice! The supposed decline in the number of institutions of higher education confirms my assertion.

In this conversation, my opponent brought what seemed to him an absolutely irrefutable argument - the example of post-war Japan, which bought licenses, and did not spend billions on education and fundamental science. I had a counterargument - the same Japan! In 1945, both we and Japan started from scratch. But Japan had the Marshall Plan and the most favorable market conditions, and we were rising on our own, and the management was far from the best. However, in the early 1960s, the gross domestic product per capita in the USSR was 15-20 percent higher than in Japan. And then a quiet restructuring took place there: the state began to interfere in the economy, a landmark was taken for domestic market and development of domestic "know-how". And in the late 70s the picture was already completely different.

Thus, if in general a new Middle Ages is approaching the planet, in which politicians who can’t see beyond their own noses, businessmen who know how to please the basest feelings of a person, and narrow artisans will rule the ball, then Russia has a place in the hallway of this medieval hostel!

It is impossible to reconcile with such a prospect! About the rising wave of incompetence and misunderstanding of what is happening, about clan and industry interests, about the inability of our country to accept the challenge of continuously accelerating scientific and technological progress - in the circles of scientific and engineering intelligentsia they began to talk long before the start of perestroika. Perhaps such a frontier, when the inevitability of the impending systemic crisis in the Soviet Union and our rollback from the forefront, was already obvious, was the failure of the Kosygin reforms, the transition to the production of a single series of computers and, accordingly, the elimination of the domestic line of BESMs.

And many of us already then, in the 70s, began to look for those forms of activity in which we could, to the best of our abilities, at least somehow influence the course of events, at least slow down the oncoming degradation and prepare new positions for the future take-off . Academician V. M. Glushkov fought desperately at meetings of the military-industrial complex, academician G. S. Pospelov wrote books and lectured on the principles of program management. I took up the problems of the relationship between man and the biosphere, believing that the inevitable ecological crisis would be the purgatory that could lead humanity to moral renewal. And the way through it is the improvement of education, the desire to give it a sharp environmental focus.

I have written several books about this, which have sold in fairly large circulations. Together with my colleagues at the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, we have developed a computer system as a kind of tool for quantitative analysis of possible scenarios for the interaction between the biosphere and society. I was sure, and now I think the same way, that our domestic traditions, the high level of education of the nation, the education system itself, which began to take shape in the last century and received a unique development in the 20th century, give Russia a chance to take its rightful place in the planetary community and find itself in among the leaders creating new civilizational paradigms.

It turns out that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. It inspired and gave some hope. One of my associates was the late Professor N. F. Reimers. (See his articles in Science and Life, Nos. 10, 12, 1987; Nos. 7, 8, 1988; No. 2, 1991; No. 10, 1992) It turned out that we both thought about the need for such a reform of university education, which would make ecology, in its modern sense, as the science of one's own home, the core of the educational process. Moreover, we both thought about environmental education, especially for the humanities, and were confident that the 21st century would become the century of the humanities, which, based on natural science knowledge, would form the foundations of a new human civilization with its new morality.

We even came up with a scheme for such a restructuring and possible organizational experiments. I went to the "authorities" a lot and met a generally benevolent reaction. It seemed that we were on the verge of new important organizational decisions.

But then the collapse of the Great State took place. There are quite a few people in power who do not care about the country's thousand-year-old traditions, about Russian science and education. It already seemed to me that all plans should be put an end to.

Thank God - I was wrong!

Once S. A. Stepanov, an employee of the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR, shortly before the liquidation of this ministry, gathered a small group of specialists and proposed the creation of an independent, non-state environmental university with a humanitarian orientation. It was the same idea that Reimers and I discussed. But then the idea of ​​creating a private university did not occur to us. This required "new thinking" and knowledge of the potential of the new organization of the state.

In September 1992, the first student was admitted to the university, which was named the International Independent Environmental and Political University - MNEPU. S. A. Stepanov was elected rector of the university, N. F. Reimers - dean of the Faculty of Ecology, I became president of the university.

So, the university took place. In 1996 there was the first graduation of bachelors, in 1997 we already graduated specialists with a full 5-year term of study. This year we plan to graduate the first masters.

The creation of MNEPU is just the first experience, a drop in the ocean of necessary things. But I am constantly striving to affirm the absolute of gradualness. From the fact that there is a need for a radical improvement in education and for determining its status in society, it does not at all follow that a revolution must be made. It is required to gradually and prudently forge new principles, to introduce them into life, testing them by experience.

And in this context, small non-state universities can be invaluable for the future of our country. State universities have to work within the framework of fairly strict standards, it is difficult to introduce new ideas, new programs, new teaching methods there. It's hard to experiment. And small non-state universities may turn out to be the lookouts of our domestic "teacher" system.

I am convinced that the time will come when our authorities will be able to think about the future of the Russian peoples, and then the hearths that we are working on now will be very necessary for the civilization in which our country, I hope, will take its rightful place.

LITERATURE

N.N. Moiseev about education:

How far to tomorrow. In three volumes. M.: Publishing house MNEPU, 1997.

Volume I. Free reflections (1917-1993).

Volume II. The world community and the fate of Russia.

Volume III. Time to set national goals.

The destroyed scientific and technological potential, the one that our country had in the days of the USSR, cannot be restored, and it is not necessary. The main task today is to create a new, powerful scientific and technological potential in Russia at an accelerated pace, and for this it is necessary to know exactly the true state of affairs in science and higher education. Only then will decisions on management, support and financing of this area be made on a scientific basis and give real results - says the chief researcher of the Institute for Scientific Information in Social Sciences (INION) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the Center for Informatization, Social and Technological Research and Scientific Analysis (Truth Center ) Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology and Ministry of Education Anatoly Ilyich Rakitov. From 1991 to 1996, he was an adviser to the President of Russia on issues of scientific and technological policy and informatization, and headed the Information and Analytical Center of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation. In recent years, under the leadership of A. I. Rakitov and with his participation, several projects have been carried out devoted to the analysis of the development of science, technology and education in Russia.

SIMPLE TRUTH AND SOME PARADOXES

All over the world, at least, so the majority thinks, science is done by young people. Our scientific staff is rapidly aging. In 2000 average age academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences was more than 70 years old. This can still be understood - great experience and great achievements in science are not given immediately. But the fact that the average age of PhDs is 61 and candidates 52 is alarming. If the situation does not change, then by about 2016 the average age of researchers will reach 59 years. For Russian men, this is not only the last year of pre-retirement life, but also its average duration. Such a picture is emerging in the system of the Academy of Sciences. In universities and branch research institutes on a nationwide scale, the age of doctors of science is 57-59 years, and candidates - 51-52 years. So in 10-15 years science may disappear from us.

Thanks to the highest performance, supercomputers are able to solve the most complex problems. The most powerful computers of this class with a performance of up to 12 teraflops (1 teraflop - 1 trillion operations per second) are produced in the USA and Japan. In August of this year, Russian scientists announced the creation of a supercomputer with a capacity of 1 teraflop. The photo shows frames from TV reports dedicated to this event.

But here's what's interesting. According to official data, over the past 10 years, university competitions have grown (2001 was a record year in this sense), and postgraduate and doctoral studies have been "baking" young scientists of the highest qualification at an unprecedented rate. If we take the number of students studying at universities in the 1991/92 academic year as 100%, then in 1998/99 their number increased by 21.2%. The number of graduate students of scientific research institutes has increased during this time by almost a third (1,577 people), and graduate students of universities - by 2.5 times (82,584 people). Admission to graduate school tripled (28,940 people), and the output was: in 1992 - 9532 people (23.2% of them with a dissertation defense), and in 1998 - 14,832 people (27.1% - with a dissertation defense). dissertations).

What is happening in our country with scientific personnel? What is actually their real scientific potential? Why do they age? The general picture is this. Firstly, after graduating from universities, not all students are eager to go to graduate school, many go there to avoid the army or live freely for three years. Secondly, the defended candidates and doctors of science, as a rule, can find a salary worthy of their title not in state research institutes, design bureaus, GIPRs and universities, but in commercial structures. And they go there, leaving their titled supervisors the opportunity to quietly grow old.

Leading universities provide students with the opportunity to use modern computer technology.

Employees of the Center for Informatization, Socio-Technological Research and Scientific Analysis (Truth Center) studied about a thousand websites of firms and recruiting organizations with job offers. The result was as follows: university graduates are offered an average salary of about $300 (today it is almost 9 thousand rubles), economists, accountants, managers and marketers - $400-500, programmers, highly qualified banking specialists and financiers - from $350 to $550, qualified managers - $ 1,500 or more, but this is already rare. Meanwhile, among all the proposals there is not even a mention of scientists, researchers, etc. This means that a young candidate or doctor of science is doomed either to work at an average university or research institute for a salary equivalent to 30-60 dollars, and at the same time constantly rush to looking for third-party earnings, part-time jobs, private lessons, etc., or get a job in a commercial company not in their specialty, where neither a candidate's degree nor a doctoral degree is useful to him, except perhaps for prestige.

But there are other important reasons why young people leave the scientific field. Man does not live by bread alone. He still needs the opportunity to improve, to realize himself, to establish himself in life. He wants to see the future and feel at least on the same level with foreign colleagues. In our Russian conditions it is almost impossible. And that's why. First, science and the high-tech developments based on it are in very little demand in our country. Secondly, the experimental base, educational and research equipment, devices and devices in educational institutions are physically and morally obsolete by 20-30 years, and in the best, most advanced universities and research institutes - by 8-11 years. If we take into account that in developed countries technologies in science-intensive industries replace each other every 6 months - 2 years, such a lag may become irreversible. Thirdly, the system of organization, management, support of science and research and, most importantly, information support remained, at best, at the level of the 1980s. Therefore, almost every really capable, and even more so talented young scientist, if he does not want to degenerate, seeks to go into a commercial structure or go abroad.

According to official statistics, in 2000, 890.1 thousand people were employed in science (in 1990, more than 2 times more - 1943.3 thousand people). If we evaluate the potential of science not by the number of employees, but by results, that is, by the number of patents registered, especially abroad, sold, including abroad, licenses and publications in prestigious international publications, then it turns out that we are inferior to the most developed countries by tens or even hundreds of times. In the USA, for example, in 1998, 12.5 million people were employed in science, of which 505,000 were doctors of science. Natives of the CIS countries among them are no more than 5%, and many grew up, studied and received degrees there, not here. Thus, it would be wrong to say that the West lives at the expense of our scientific and intellectual potential, but it is worth assessing its real state and prospects.

SCIENTIFIC-INTELLECTUAL AND SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

There is an opinion that, despite all the difficulties and losses, aging and outflow of personnel from science, we still retain the scientific and intellectual potential that allows Russia to remain among the leading powers of the world, and our scientific and technological developments are still attractive to foreign and domestic investors, however, investments are scanty.

In fact, in order for our products to win the domestic and foreign markets, they must be superior in quality to competitors' products. But the quality of products directly depends on technology, and modern, especially high technologies (they are the most profitable) - on the level of scientific research and technological development. In turn, their quality is the higher, the higher the qualifications of scientists and engineers, and its level depends on the entire education system, especially higher education.

If we talk about the scientific and technological potential, then this concept includes not only scientists. Its components are also the instrumentation and experimental park, access to information and its completeness, the system for managing and supporting science, as well as the entire infrastructure that ensures the advanced development of science and the information sector. Without them, neither technology nor the economy simply can work.

A very important issue is the training of specialists in universities. Let's try to figure out how they are prepared using the example of the most rapidly developing sectors of modern science, which include biomedical research, research in the field of information technology and the creation of new materials. According to the latest Science and Engineering Indicators handbook published in the United States in 2000, in 1998 spending on these areas alone was comparable to defense spending and exceeded spending on space research. In total, 220.6 billion dollars were spent on the development of science in the United States, of which two-thirds (167 billion dollars) - at the expense of the corporate and private sectors. A significant part of these gigantic funds went to biomedical and especially biotechnological research. So they were in the highest degree cost-effective, since money in the corporate and private sectors is spent only on what makes a profit. Thanks to the implementation of the results of these studies, health care, the state of the environment have improved, and productivity has increased. Agriculture.

In 2000, specialists from Tomsk State University, together with scientists from the ISTINA Center and several leading Russian universities, studied the quality of biologist training in Russian universities. Scientists came to the conclusion that traditional biological disciplines are taught in classical universities. Botany, zoology, human and animal physiology are available in 100% of universities, plant physiology - in 72%, and subjects such as biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, soil science - only in 55% of universities, ecology - in 45% of universities. At the same time, modern disciplines: plant biotechnology, physical and chemical biology, electron microscopy - are taught only in 9% of universities. Thus, in the most important and promising areas of biological science, students are trained in less than 10% of classical universities. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, Moscow State University. Lomonosov and especially Pushchino State University, which operates on the basis of the campus, graduate only masters, postgraduates and doctoral students, and the ratio of students and supervisors in it is approximately 1:1.

Such exceptions emphasize that biology students can receive professional training at the level of the beginning of the 21st century only in a few universities, and even then they are not perfect. Why? Let me explain with an example. To solve the problems of genetic engineering, the use of transgene technology in animal husbandry and crop production, and the synthesis of new drugs, modern supercomputers are needed. In the USA, Japan, and EU countries, they are powerful computers with a performance of at least 1 teraflop (1 trillion operations per second). At St. Louis University, students had access to a 3.8 teraflop supercomputer two years ago. Today, the performance of the most powerful supercomputers has reached 12 teraflops, and in 2004 they are going to release a supercomputer with a capacity of 100 teraflops. In Russia, there are no such machines, our best supercomputer centers operate on computers of much lower power. True, this summer Russian specialists announced the creation of a domestic supercomputer with a capacity of 1 teraflop.

Our backwardness in information technology is directly related to the training of future intellectual personnel in Russia, including biologists, since computer synthesis, for example, of molecules, genes, decoding of the human, animal and plant genomes can give a real effect only on the basis of the most powerful computing systems.

Finally, one more interesting fact. Researchers from Tomsk selectively interviewed professors of biological departments of universities and found that only 9% of them more or less regularly use the Internet. With a chronic shortage of scientific information received in the traditional form, not having access to the Internet or not being able to use its resources means only one thing - a growing backlog in biological, biotechnological, genetic engineering and other research and the absence of international relations absolutely necessary in science.

Today's students, even at the most advanced biological faculties, receive training at the level of the 70-80s of the last century, although they enter into life already in the 21st century. As for research institutes, only about 35 biological research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences have more or less modern equipment, and therefore only there research is carried out at an advanced level. Only a few students of several universities and the Educational Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (created within the framework of the "Integration of Science and Education" program and has the status of a university) can participate in them, receiving training on the basis of academic research institutes.

Another example. The first place among high technologies is occupied by the aerospace industry. Everything is involved in it: computers, modern control systems, precision instrumentation, engine and rocket science, etc. Although Russia occupies a fairly strong position in this industry, the lag is noticeable here too. It concerns to a large extent the aviation universities of the country. The specialists of the MAI Technological University who participated in our research named some of the most painful problems associated with the training of personnel for the aerospace industry. In their opinion, the level of training of teachers of applied departments (design, engineering, calculation) in the field of modern information technologies is still low. This is largely due to the lack of an influx of young teaching staff. The aging teaching staff is not able to intensively master the constantly improving software products, not only because of gaps in computer training, but also because of the lack of modern technical means and software and information systems and, which is far from unimportant, due to the lack of material incentives. .

Another important industry is the chemical industry. Today, chemistry is unthinkable without scientific research and high-tech production systems. Indeed, chemistry is new building materials, medicines, fertilizers, varnishes and paints, the synthesis of materials with desired properties, superhard materials, films and abrasives for instrumentation and mechanical engineering, the processing of energy carriers, the creation of drilling rigs, etc.

What is the situation in the chemical industry and especially in the field of applied experimental research? For which industries do we train specialists - chemists? Where and how will they "chemize"?

Scientists from the Yaroslavl Technological University, who studied this issue together with specialists from the ISTINA Center, cite the following information: today the entire Russian chemical industry accounts for about 2% of the world's chemical production. This is only 10% of the volume of chemical production in the United States and no more than 50-75% of the volume of chemical production in countries such as France, Great Britain or Italy. As for applied and experimental research, especially in universities, the picture is as follows: by 2000, only 11 research projects had been completed in Russia, and the number of experimental developments had fallen to almost zero with a complete lack of funding. The technologies used in the chemical industry are outdated compared to the technologies of developed industrial countries, where they are updated every 7-8 years. Even large plants, for example, those producing fertilizers, which have received a large share of investments, operate without modernization for an average of 18 years, while in the industry as a whole, equipment and technologies are updated after 13-26 years. By comparison, the average age of US chemical plants is six years.

PLACE AND ROLE OF BASIC RESEARCH

The main generator of fundamental research in our country is the Russian Academy of Sciences, but its more or less tolerably equipped institutes employ only about 90,000 employees (together with service personnel), the rest (more than 650,000 people) work in research institutes and universities. Basic research is also being carried out there. According to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, in 1999, about 5,000 of them were completed in 317 universities. The average budget cost for one fundamental research is 34,214 rubles. If we take into account that this includes the purchase of equipment and objects of research, the cost of electricity, overhead, etc., then only 30 to 40% remains on the salary. It is easy to calculate that if at least 2-3 researchers or teachers participate in fundamental research, then they can count on an increase in wages, at best, 400-500 rubles per month.

As for the interest of students in scientific research, it rests more on enthusiasm than on material interest, and there are very few enthusiasts these days. At the same time, the subject of university research is very traditional and far from current problems. In 1999, universities conducted 561 studies in physics, and only 8 in biotechnology. That was thirty years ago, but it shouldn't be today. In addition, fundamental research costs millions, and even tens of millions of dollars - with the help of wires, cans and other home-made devices, they have not been carried out for a long time.

Of course, there are additional sources of funding. In 1999, 56% of scientific research in universities was funded by self-supporting work, but they were not fundamental and could not radically solve the problem of forming a new personnel potential. The leaders of the most prestigious universities that receive orders for research work from commercial clients or foreign firms, realizing how much “fresh blood” is needed in science, have begun in recent years to pay extra to those graduate and doctoral students whom they would like to keep at the university for research or teaching work, to purchase new equipment. But only very few universities have such opportunities.

BET ON CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES

The concept of "critical technologies" first appeared in America. This was the name of the list of technological areas and developments that were primarily supported by the US government in the interests of economic and military superiority. They were selected on the basis of an extremely thorough, complex and multi-stage procedure, which included the examination of each item on the list by financiers and professional scientists, politicians, businessmen, analysts, representatives of the Pentagon and the CIA, congressmen and senators. Critical technologies were carefully studied by specialists in the field of science, science and technometry.

A few years ago, the Russian government also approved a list of critical technologies prepared by the Ministry of Science and Technical Policy (in 2000 it was renamed the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology) of more than 70 main headings, each of which included several specific technologies. Their total number exceeded 250. This is much more than, for example, in England - a country with a very high scientific potential. Neither in terms of funds, nor in terms of personnel, nor in terms of equipment, Russia could create and implement such a number of technologies. Three years ago, the same ministry prepared a new list of critical technologies, including 52 headings (still, by the way, not approved by the government), but we cannot afford it either.

To present the true state of affairs, here are some results of the analysis performed by the TRUE Center of two critical technologies from the last list. These are immunocorrection (in the West they use the term "immunotherapy" or "immunomodulation") and the synthesis of superhard materials. Both technologies are based on serious fundamental research and are aimed at industrial implementation. The first is important for maintaining human health, the second - for the radical modernization of many industrial productions, including defense, civil instrumentation and engineering, drilling rigs, etc.

Immunocorrection involves, first of all, the creation of new drugs. This also includes technologies for the production of immunostimulants to fight allergies, cancer, a number of colds and viral infections, etc. It turned out that, despite the general similarity of the structure, the studies conducted in Russia are clearly lagging behind. For example, in the United States, in the most important area - immunotherapy with dendritic cells, which is successfully used in the treatment of oncological diseases, the number of publications has increased by more than 6 times over 10 years, and we had no publications on this topic. I admit that research is underway, but if they are not recorded in publications, patents and licenses, then they are unlikely to be of great importance.

Over the past decade, the Pharmacological Committee of Russia has registered 17 domestic immunomodulating drugs, 8 of them belong to the class of peptides, which are now almost not in demand on the international market. As for domestic immunoglobulins, their poor quality makes it necessary to satisfy demand with foreign-made drugs.

And here are some results related to another critical technology - the synthesis of superhard materials. Research by the well-known science expert Yu. V. Granovsky showed that there is an "introduction effect" here: the results obtained by Russian scientists are implemented in specific products (abrasives, films, etc.) produced by domestic enterprises. However, even here the situation is far from favorable.

The situation with the patenting of scientific discoveries and inventions in this area is especially alarming. Some patents of the Institute for High Pressure Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued in 2000, were claimed as early as 1964, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975. Of course, it is not scientists who are to blame for this, but systems of examination and patenting. A paradoxical picture has emerged: on the one hand, the results of scientific research are recognized as original, and on the other hand, they are obviously useless, since they are based on technological developments long gone. These discoveries are hopelessly outdated, and it is unlikely that licenses for them will be in demand.

This is the state of our scientific and technological potential, if you delve into its structure not from amateurish, but from scientific positions. But we are talking about the most important, from the point of view of the state, critical technologies.

SCIENCE SHOULD BE FAVORABLE TO THOSE WHO CREATE IT

Back in the 17th century, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that people are driven by profit. 200 years later, Karl Marx, developing this idea, argued that history is nothing but the activity of people pursuing their own goals. If one or another activity is not profitable (in this case we are talking about science, scientists, developers of modern technologies), then there is nothing to expect that the most talented, first-class trained young scientists will go into science, who will move it forward almost for nothing and in the absence of a proper infrastructure.

Today, scientists say that it is unprofitable for them to patent the results of their research in Russia. They turn out to be the property of research institutes and, more broadly, of the state. But the state, as you know, has almost no funds for their implementation. If new developments nevertheless reach the stage of industrial production, then their authors, at best, receive a bonus of 500 rubles, or even nothing at all. It is much more profitable to put the documentation and prototypes in a briefcase and fly to some highly developed country where the work of scientists is valued differently. “If ours,” one foreign businessman told me, “we would pay 250-300 thousand dollars for a certain scientific work, then we will pay yours 25 thousand dollars for it. Agree that this is better than 500 rubles.”

Until intellectual property belongs to the one who creates it, until scientists begin to receive direct benefits from it, until they make radical changes on this issue to our imperfect legislation, to the progress of science and technology, to the development of scientific and technological potential, and therefore , and it is pointless to hope for an economic recovery in our country. If the situation does not change, the state may be left without modern technologies, and therefore without competitive products. So in a market economy, profit is not a disgrace, but the most important incentive for social and economic development.

BREAKING TO THE FUTURE IS STILL POSSIBLE

What can and should be done so that science, which is still preserved in our country, begins to develop and becomes a powerful factor in economic growth and improvement of the social sphere?

First, it is necessary, without postponing for a year, or even for half a year, to radically improve the quality of training for at least that part of students, graduate students and doctoral students who are ready to remain in domestic science.

Secondly, to concentrate the extremely limited financial resources allocated for the development of science and education on several priority areas and critical technologies focused exclusively on boosting the domestic economy, social sphere and state needs.

Thirdly, in state research institutes and universities, to direct the main financial, personnel, information and technical resources to those projects that can give really new results, and not to scatter funds on many thousands of pseudo-fundamental scientific topics.

Fourth, it is time to create federal research universities based on the best higher educational institutions that meet the highest international standards in the field of scientific infrastructure (information, experimental equipment, modern network communications and information technologies). They will prepare first-class young specialists for work in the domestic academic and industrial science and higher education.

Fifth, it is time to make a decision at the state level to create scientific, technological and educational consortiums that will unite research universities, advanced research institutes and industrial enterprises. Their activities should be focused on scientific research, innovation and radical technological modernization. This will allow us to produce high-quality, constantly updated, competitive products.

Sixth, in the shortest possible time, by a government decision, it is necessary to instruct the Ministry of Industry and Science, the Ministry of Education, other ministries, departments and administrations of regions where there are state universities and research institutes to start developing legislative initiatives on intellectual property issues, improving patenting processes, scientific marketing, scientific educational management. It is necessary to legislate the possibility of a sharp (stage-by-stage) increase in the salaries of scientists, starting primarily with state scientific academies (RAS, RAMS, RAAS), state scientific and technical centers and research universities.

Finally, seventh, it is urgent to adopt a new list of critical technologies. It should contain no more than 12-15 main positions focused primarily on the interests of society. It is they that the state should formulate, involving in this work, for example, the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the Russian Academy of Sciences and state industry academies.

Naturally, the ideas about critical technologies developed in this way, on the one hand, should be based on the fundamental achievements of modern science, and on the other hand, take into account the specifics of the country. For example, for the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein, which has a network of first-class roads and a highly developed transport service, transport technologies have not been critical for a long time. As for Russia, a country with a huge territory, scattered settlements and difficult climatic conditions, then for it the creation of the latest transport technologies (air, land and water) is really a decisive issue from the economic, social, defense, environmental and even geopolitical points of view, because our country can connect Europe and the Pacific region with the main highway.

Taking into account the achievements of science, the specifics of Russia and the limitations of its financial and other resources, we can offer a very short list of truly critical technologies that will give a quick and tangible result and ensure sustainable development and growth in people's well-being.

Critical ones include:

* energy technologies: nuclear energy, including the processing of radioactive waste, and the deep modernization of traditional heat and power resources. Without this, the country may freeze, and industry, agriculture and cities may be left without electricity;
* transport technologies. For Russia, modern cheap, reliable, ergonomic vehicles are the most important condition for social and economic development;
* Information Technology. Without modern means of informatization and communication, management, development of production, science and education, even simple human communication will be simply impossible;
* biotechnological research and technology. Only their rapid development will make it possible to create a modern profitable agriculture, competitive food industries, to raise pharmacology, medicine and healthcare to the level of the requirements of the 21st century;
* environmental technologies. This is especially true for the urban economy, since up to 80% of the population lives in cities today;
* rational use of natural resources and exploration. If these technologies are not modernized, the country will be left without raw materials;
* mechanical engineering and instrument making as the basis of industry and agriculture;
* a whole range of technologies for light industry and the production of household goods, as well as for housing and road construction. Without them, talking about the well-being and social well-being of the population is completely meaningless.

If such recommendations are accepted and we start financing not priority areas and critical technologies in general, but only those that are really needed by society, then we will not only solve Russia's current problems, but also build a springboard for jumping into the future.

EIGHT CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BOOST THE ECONOMY AND WELFARE OF RUSSIANS:

3. 4.

5. Rational nature management and exploration. 6.

Academician Russian Academy natural sciences A. RAKITOV.

Literature

Alferov Zh., acad. RAN. Physics on the threshold of the XXI century. - No. 3, 2000

Alferov Zh., acad. RAN. Russia cannot do without its own electronics. - No. 4, 2001

Belokoneva O. Technology of the XXI century in Russia. To be or not to be. - No. 1, 2001

Voevodin V. Supercomputers: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - No. 5, 2000

Gleba Yu., acad. NASU. Once again about biotechnology, but more about how we get out into the world. - No. 4, 2000

Paton B., President of NASU, acad. RAN. Welding and related technologies in the XXI century. - No. 6, 2000