The idea of folding the Academy into the University system has some merit, if done carefully, ensuring that appropriate departments are found, and that the University sector across the country benefits. None of these things can be guaranteed at this time, so it’s probably best that this idea is left to another day.

       The scandal surrounding the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) erupted in late June, when the government hastily submitted to the State Duma a bill to reform the RAS, which was established in 1724. The proposals include passing control of the Academy’s considerable assets and institutes to a new state agency, and merging the venerable institution with two other state academies: agricultural and medical schools. The State Duma passed a bill in a second reading on July 5. On the one hand, it is clear that the Russian Academy of Sciences in its present form needs reforms. On the other hand, many fear a new bill will cripple science in Russia, handing it over to government bureaucrats with no scientific background. A third reading of the bill is due to take place in the fall.

       What are the reasons for this government's step?

       There is little doubt that the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) needed major reform. It is under-funded, with a lot of duplication, and with many of its research institutes not functioning at the appropriate level. The age structure is clearly distorted, with far too few younger researchers entering the system. However, as always, a ‘reform’ can do more damage than good if it is ill-thought out and used simply as a cost-cutting exercise. The RAS is one of the glories of Russia, and has been for a long time. Above all, it survived the Soviet period, and in certain ways was greatly developed in that time. It was one of the few institutions that retained its autonomy, and withstood pressure (as over Andrei Sakharov, who retained the status of Academician despite pressure to have him stripped off the honour).

       The current reform plans do have an element of ‘storming’ associated with them. As is characteristic in many countries, a change is too long delayed, and then rushed through. However, in this case some of the more obviously damaging elements have been removed in the course of discussions – in particular, the idea of abolition the Academy in its entirety and of creating a new class of Academician and structures removed from the purview of the Academy.

       The idea of folding the Academy into the University system has some merit (in other words, to adopt the Anglo-Saxon model), if done carefully, ensuring that appropriate departments are found, and that the University sector across the country benefits. None of these things can be guaranteed at this time, so it’s probably best that this idea is left to another day.

       Will it be a state corporation instead of the Academy of Sciences?

       The idea of turning RAS into a public-governmental organization has been dropped at the second reading, and the plan now is for it to remain a budget-financed institution. This means it will retain budgetary autonomy. However, the idea of creating a special agency to manage the Academy remains, but this will only create duplication – even though the plan is for the new body to be chaired by the new head of the Academy, Vladimir Fortov. There will now be a ‘dual key’ system for the appointment of directors of institutions, with the Academy voice balanced by the personnel affairs department of the Presidential Council for Science and Education. The plan to merge the three unrelated academies (the other two are the Academy of Medical Science and the Academy of Agricultural Science) is particularly controversial. There are also some concerns about the procedures for depriving people of the status of Academician. There is still time before the autumn for further changes to be made.

       What is the purpose of the state in reforming the one of the last pieces of the Soviet legacy?

       The overall purpose may well be to improve Russia’s international scientific standing, but political issues are also involved. As for the former, we all know about the paucity of Russian Nobel Prize winners in recent years, the rapidly declining proportion of patents taken out by Russians in comparison with China and some other developing countries, and the remarkable absence of Russian universities in international league tables. The RAS currently has 434 scholarly institutes, which is probably too many, and certainly some of them could be merged and rendered more efficient. There is also a significant ‘brain drain’ at present, so conditions (including wages) have to be improved to retain the best scientists. Thus, there are good reasons to look at the Russian system of science and education to ensure international competiveness and to secure the basis for long-term achievement.

       However, in keeping with the tutelary instincts of the present regime, there is always the danger that inappropriate bodies (above all various non-academic bureaucracies) will be given statute powers to intervene in matters that are best left to the Academy and the experts. There is also the danger that the whole exercise will turn into a “corporate raid”, with some of the Academy’s prime locations privatised in an opaque and predatory manner. This must be a matter of grave concern. I hope that over the summer officials in the Academy and elsewhere will examine the current proposals and come back in the autumn with the appropriate changes.

       Why the reforms of such an important science structure as the RAS, are being carried out in a rush?

       As noted above, the Soviet-style ‘campaigning’ mentality is still strong in Russia. In particular, at this time the presidential administration and the Duma are haunted by fear of a new ‘stagnation’, and are thus frenetic in their activity, much of which is reactive, reactionary and retrograde. The fate of the Russian Academy of Sciences is too important to become the victim of an immediate political conjuncture. The cultural and scientific intelligentsia in Russia is one of the last bastions of autonomy and freedom, and these must be retained if Russia stands any chance of entering the top ranks of the developed nations. The best scientists will continue to emigrate if they sense a lack of the freedom that is essential for scientific work. While a lot depends on financing, the crucial factor in the social and natural sciences is ultimately is the spirit of free enquiry.

       Academy of Sciences is the leading center of pure research in Russia. Many countries have Academy of Sciences, but in the most of the leading scientific nations it is only an adviser to the nation. Can you tell us more about the structure of science in Great Britain, in the world?

       In the UK there is nothing to compare with the Russian Academy of Sciences. There is the Royal Society and the Royal Institution, as well as a new Academy of Social Sciences, but members of these bodies are almost universally also professors or researchers in universities or research institutions, such as the Medical Research Council. These bodies do participate in public debate and lobby on appropriate matters, but in recent years governments of all stripes have become more interventionist. The old Haldane principle of hands-off governance has been sharply eroded, and now the academy broadly defined it at the mercy of every whim and fancy of every passing science and education minister, each of whom wishes to make their immediate mark (usually damaging) before they move on to a more prestigious cabinet post.

       Science and education are weakly related to each other in Russia. Moreover, unlike the West, funding system is not built on grants. Western world is a valuable source of experience of scientific progress. Russia needs to rebuild the structure of science and education according to the Western model. What is your point of view on this issue?

       No model will ever work unless it is rooted in the traditions and mores of a particular society. Structures of academic and scientific research cannot be transplanted mechanically, but have to grow organically. There can be institutional innovation and development, but great care has to be taken to ensure that more is not lost than gained. Much can be learned from abroad, but even the West has diverse models – the Anglo-Saxon one is very different to the system in France, and in Germany (on which the Russian system is based) it is different again. China is successfully devising its own model, while Japan and Korea are very successful, but their models are not really exportable. Also, note that international rankings are mostly devised in the West, and thus by definition will be biased towards giving Anglo-Saxon institutions an advantage. So, Russia today needs an evolutionary reform in keeping with its mores and structure of scientific thought. It does need change, but not rushed ‘reforms’.

       How the state can manage the scientists without preventing the flight of their thought and directing their efforts on solving the state problems? Russian scientists, educated in the system of the Academy of Sciences, are in great demand in the West. Will the reform influence on the level of the Russian scientists?

       It is too early to tell whether the reform will be sufficient to retain the best scholars. A system works best when there is a diversity of opportunities and funding. In Russia today the universities are developing major research capacity, and this has already been successful not only in retaining Russian staff, but also in attracting some foreign scholars. Initiatives like Skolkovo were always partial and to a degree misguided. Russia needs a hundred Skolkovos; and Dubna, Obninsk, Akademgorodok in Novosibirsk, and the numerous other institutions all need to be adequately funded by the state while able to draw on venture capital to turn ideas into products; and for external funding (including from abroad) to be drawn on to turn pure research into prestigious publications. Organisational reform on its own will achieve nothing if it is not accompanied by a profound strategic vision and commitment to the importance and autonomy of the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.