The first thought that comes to mind: science is needed to create iPhones and other technical joys. This is slyness, since iPhones are the fruit of technological and engineering activities. The same can be said for weapons. An atomic bomb is a kind of iPhone, only more complicated.
Fundamental science Is a rather strange phenomenon. It does not provide immediate, immediate benefit. Moreover, it is impossible to predict which kind of basic science will benefit in the future. You can plan what and in what order you will study, but unlike applied sciences, the result can be arbitrarily distant. As the great mathematician Hardy said, “you need to deal with either the theory of numbers or the theory of relativity, since only these two sciences have no useful applications (especially in military affairs) (Apologia Mathematici, 1940)”. However, today number theory is used for transactions over the Internet. Electronic payments are nothing more than heavy number theory.
1. Basic science useful as a whole, and has proven it many times. Sir Michael Faraday justified all investments in basic science for several thousand years: in the 19th century, he studied abstract electromagnetic phenomena and discovered electromagnetic induction. In addition, basic science is useful for everyone at once. The research results are used by all of humanity. But if a particular fundamental scientist says that he knows what is the use of his research, he is either lying or going to open a startup. In the United States, the transformation of scientific research into startups is well established: 90% of them fail, the remaining 10% justify all investments.
2. You can use an example from Soviet life: science is needed to have a good warhead (nuclear physics) and a rocket to deliver it (mathematics and mechanics). This explains why the Soviet Union had wonderful physics and no wonderful biology - no special efforts are required to create bacteriological weapons. Scientists stop doing basic science when they prove they are useful. When the trumpet calls, mathematicians and physicists become engineers.
3. Another useful property science is a state expertise. Different projects are brought to the officials. There must be someone with sufficient qualifications to understand whether this project is violating the first law of thermodynamics, or not. If you bring the project of a perpetual motion machine to the State Duma, I assure you, there will be a deputy who will start pushing it through.
4. There is a reverse classic example. In 1939, Einstein wrote to Roosevelt that articles on nuclear physics had ceased to be published in German journals. It was a theoretical area of science - it never occurred to anyone that it could be used in practice. And suddenly the publications stopped. Einstein realized that research had moved to the level of technology. The state needs people who are able to track such things.
5. Finally, higher education. If the state wants to have modern applied scientists - engineers, technologists, biotechnologists, they must learn from people who are engaged in modern fundamental science. Otherwise, we will reproduce technology from twenty years ago.
In every society there is a small percentage of people who are engaged in science, because they know how to do it, they like it. The social experiment, which was carried out in Russia, proved that people will be engaged in science, even if they do not pay their salaries and buy reagents. A reasonable society knows how to use for the common good what some particular people are best able to do. The question is how to organize it. This requires an Academy of Sciences - a public institution that is reproduced in all developed countries. If an element is reproduced, then it is useful. If all mammals have eyes (except those that live in caves), then eyes are useful.
In an academic environment there is a meme: "Give me money and leave me alone, bastards!". On the other hand, there are people who have been saying for twenty years that if the Academy is not reformed, the Huns will come and reform it in their own way. This is what we observe. Higher education and basic science are useful as a whole, but if you pull out one particular professor, nothing will change. But if you pull out all the professors, then education and science will come kirdyk.
Dr. Philip Handler was the President of the US National Academy of Sciences. This article is based on his presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. It was devoted to the attitude of society to scientific and technological progress - a problem that has been discussed in recent years, sometimes quite sharply, in many countries.Some time ago I saw a discussion on TV with several ladies and gentlemen dressed in a variegated mix of dacron, nylon, dinel and other modern synthetic materials. Ladies and gentlemen came to a unanimous opinion (while swallowing tranquilizer pills in between) that science and technology did not live up to their hopes and that now mankind should abandon science, which they equated with technology, and look for some other way to better life.
When asked what the acceptable alternative was, the answer was general silence. Then one of the participants in the discussion looked at his watch and noticed that he had to hurry on the plane. He was at a television studio in New York, and two hours later he was due to have a business meeting in Boston. No one saw irony in this whole situation ...
And so I again have to stand up for science and technology.
Cursing science and technology has become a nationwide entertainment in the United States. Only yesterday they were recognized as a cornucopia, from which only useful and good can erupt. And now we are told that talk of the atom evokes visions of apocalyptic nuclear annihilation, radioactive fallout and harmful genetic mutations; what is heavy. barking industry is inseparable from air, ocean and river pollution; that fertilizers and insecticides designed to improve agricultural productivity contaminate food and soil; that the miracle of mass private transport has become a major source of air pollution; that amazing advances in new pharmacology are causing ugly children and drug addiction; that the microminiaturization of electronics entails an invasion of privacy and leads to an impersonal machine culture; that a growing understanding of the human brain and genetic mechanisms could turn into tyranny; that advances in sanitation and medicine lead to overpopulation; that contraception promotes immorality and family destruction and carries the threat of genocide.
Every sane person joins his voice to those who condemn the barbaric plundering of the planet's resources, the pollution by mankind of its own nest, a sudden indifference to history and traditions, and even more so the use of technology to support military adventures. But among all the accusations listed, only some are painfully real, some are exaggerated, and many are simply fictional.
I am alarmed at the ease with which people without sufficient competence casually lavish curses on science, making it responsible for all the abuses resulting from the unregulated use of technology and technology.
I deny that science itself is responsible for our social failures. Rather, I tend to share the view that science and technology should not be seen as limitless unbridled forces to which man should humbly submit. The problem is not where blind technology takes us, but how it can help us get where we want to go.
Like most scientists, I share Glenn Seaborg's belief that "Knowledge is born not endowed with moral qualities. It is a person who applies them in accordance with the norms of behavior he has developed. It is a person, not knowledge, that is the cause of violence."
True, such a statement is too superficial: scientists cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences of applying the knowledge they have discovered; they should come out with warnings if they have the gift of foresight and wisdom. But please understand that this is very rare in reality. When Robert Oppenheimer announced after Hiroshima that scientists had known sin for the first time, he made this tortured statement retrospectively, although the possible consequences of an atomic explosion were already well known to him in advance. Examples of foresight that we would all willingly subscribe to are extremely rare. And scientists cannot be blamed for this ...
I consider it necessary to speak out in defense of science, but not at all because it suffers from insufficient public support. True, federal spending on science in the United States has declined by almost 20-25% since about 1967. Nevertheless, our science remains remarkably productive, and we can boast of maintaining a leading role in most areas of modern scientific thought. Nevertheless, the climate in which our science lives is undergoing latent changes, the consequences of which, apparently, will still make themselves felt in full. Various hidden shifts and changes in American thinking seem to be directed against scientific research, against rational scientific thought.
I am alarmed by the fact that there are at least 30 times more astrologers in the United States than astronomers, that 20 times more money is invested in astrology per year than in astronomy. As far as I know, astrology is undergoing a computerization process. The growing popularity of Eastern mysticism, the revival of primitive religious cults - all these are phenomena that, undoubtedly, do not ruin our society, but they deprive us of young creative minds. Anti-rationalism, conquering the minds of young people, is taking on a menacing scale and is regressive in nature.
In the scientific community itself, dissatisfaction with science is also ripening. And this can be explained. Science education becomes a farce when imposed on uninterested and intellectually untrained people. It would be a deep misconception to believe that anyone can conduct successful scientific research. Each and every one should be guaranteed only the opportunity to become a scientist, but not a scientific career. Research activity itself is an area where competition is inevitable, both because of the costs associated with science and because scientific progress is unthinkable without the process of natural selection. Society allocates significantly more people to science than truly original or fruitful scientists can emerge. But the scientific system must function in such a way that both capable and mediocre scientists are represented in it. The latter are gradually eliminated, the former come out ahead. It is this process that seems to be causing stormy objections today from the losers in science who fear any healthy competition.
Some academic extremists argue that since new knowledge can most easily be used by those with political and economic power, the accumulation of knowledge must inevitably lead to a concentration of power and thus - to tyranny.
The potential is not to be denied that there is truth behind all these worries. Society, willy-nilly, must balance the potential danger of science with the potential benefit from it. Maintaining the status quo is both impossible and undesirable; suggesting a return to the "good old days" that never really happened is absurd. A comprehensive and thorough study of the problem is required, a public assessment of science and determination of the expediency of scientific research is required. It is these two trends that have emerged in the scientific community itself.
The first is connected with the idea that scientists have nothing to do, that in fact all the basic laws of nature have already been discovered. Strikingly, this idea was most clearly expressed in 1971 by Dr. Glass, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who stated that “great concepts, fundamental mechanisms and basic laws are now known. For all future times they are open today, here, during the lifetime of our generation ... We are like the discoverers of a great continent, who penetrated its borders and mapped the main mountains and rivers. to clarify numerous details, but endless horizons no longer exist. "
If this were indeed the case, it would be shameless to suggest that gifted young people strive for a scientific career. But I deny that this is true. Statements like this have often been made in the past and have been refuted each time by subsequent developments.
An equally serious and, perhaps, even more painfully widespread tendency is the opinion that it would be best not to develop some areas of science. The chronic resistance of any society to the invasion of knowledge, which can significantly change the generally accepted views, is clearly manifested in the public's aversion to the so-called genetic engineering and its potential manifestation - the creation of multiple copies of one human person through "cloning". While I myself would strongly oppose this turn of events, I am more worried that many people, including scientists, are demanding that we do not even try to continue any basic research that will someday make these fears real. ...
My counterarguments are not only that the likelihood of such consequences is too small. I will add that the burning of books in the Middle Ages proved to be even more evil than reading books. And resistance to the advancement of science is the modern equivalent of burning books. Any arbitrary decision to renounce knowledge not only deprives society of its rights, but inevitably entails the erosion of the moral foundations of such a precious, fragile and delicate thing as civilization. And in any case, such decisions are in vain, for all the same, someday someone will find out something.
Society should just as stubbornly defend the rights of science to conduct experiments that will yield true knowledge, as it should determine in the future how this knowledge should be used. Otherwise, we will revive the times of obscurantism.
In a certain way, the decline in the attractiveness of a scientific career is associated with these issues, perhaps this is a consequence of the growing specialization of scientists. When you concentrate all your attention on studying the mechanism of action of an enzyme or the nature of nerve impulses, it is really difficult to think about broader horizons of science. But it has always been this way, and only a few really outstanding scientists managed to create guidelines for everyone else, only their work took them beyond the boundaries of the usual, only they discovered connections between scientific disciplines. And yet there are still many opportunities for such discoveries. Confirmation may be the recent invasion of genetics and neurophysiology by physicists, or through the fruitful, albeit short-lived, influence of Linus Pauling on biochemistry. The rest of us should be comforted by the fact that the high degree of specialization of research work allows us to mold the bricks from which the building of science is being erected. Only a very few can be the architects of this building, and tomorrow, like today and yesterday, such individuals will make themselves known.
Please understand that my concern is that the trends summarized above, taken together, may deter young people from science. It's about the future of science and its value to society ...
Some scholars may find deep satisfaction in statements such as Sir Brian Flowers made: "Science, like art, gives expression to the deepest aspirations of the human spirit and thereby enriches our lives. It makes profound changes in our understanding of the world around us and our place in it."
I agree with this statement and have felt enriched throughout my adult life. But it is possible that many consider it controversial that serving science itself can be a worthy goal. Relatively few fully share the scientist's enthusiasm for the breathtaking beauty of natural phenomena. But this is not such a problem. Another thing is important. All really educated people should clearly understand the possibilities of science and participate in making those decisions that determine the impact of science on the life of society. For science is the most important ingredient in our culture and the main means of shaping our future.
They say that many people are frightened by the discoveries of science: the infinity and hostility of the cosmos, revealed by astronomy; attempts to explain the secrets of the brain from a purely physical point of view; proof that biologically a person is closer to a chimpanzee than a horse is to a donkey; the conclusion that life is an inevitable consequence of purely chemical reactions that began with the formation of the Earth several billion years ago, and that similar reactions can take place in the vastness of space.
Other people are not afraid of science, but simply do not want to understand the fantastic ingenuity of the mechanism of photosynthesis or the elegant simplicity of the structure of DNA, which allows it to copy itself and control the many functions of a living cell. I'm not even talking about the discoveries of tectonics, which explained the continuous process of changing the earth's crust, or about the beauty of the structure of crystals.
For all these people, ignorance turns into a personal loss - similar, for example, to the inability to understand music, art, or poetry.
However, my dismay grows when these same individuals complain that basic scientific research is increasingly abstract and not directly related to the needs of society. Those who openly make such statements, apparently, are unable to understand either that knowledge itself is the goal of humanity, nor that it is impossible to accurately predict the practical use of all fundamental discoveries.
Intolerance towards pure science finds expression in the demands for a radical reorganization of universities (always the source and custodian of the great traditions of science) into institutions dealing with individual major problems. It is proposed to create in universities institutes of urban construction, external relations, transport, environmental sciences and the like, while minimizing the role of the departments of chemistry, economics, and so on.
The practical needs of society, indeed, require more and more attention from the fundamental sciences, and it is necessary to create certain organizational mechanisms to address them. I also do not question the fact that universities can successfully tackle these problems.
However, such organizational mechanisms should exist in parallel with the classical scientific disciplines, but in no case instead of them.
The practical problems facing society are too acute. But they are just as impossible to resolve by concentrating ignorance as by soothing promises. Instead, we need the accumulation of information and analysis of a large number of facts, clear formulation and practical testing of all possible solutions. And those decisions must be based on the best research that can be done. The boundaries of scientific disciplines are also the boundaries of our civilization, and our only hope is to achieve a universal understanding of this. It is this and only this that will enable us to resolve the problems we face.
Science is the cornerstone of modern civilization. Science is extremely important not only for the survival of Russia, but also for the progressive development (the same survival) of all mankind.
This awareness does not lie on the surface, so the key role of science is often incomprehensible. Hence, such questions arise as "Why is the development of science important for Russia?" and "Do we need this science at all?" Let's try to simply and briefly (as far as possible) answer these really big and difficult questions.
Patterns of historical development or the Kargokult trap
Today and most of the entire foreseeable history, a person is in the stage of transition from an unconscious existence, subordinate to the spontaneous processes of physical, economic, social, etc. nature, every element under control and putting it at the service of man. This driving contradiction of historical development is ideally reflected as the main philosophical contradiction between idealism and materialism, between magical and scientific thinking.
These two types of thinking represent different stages in the development of human self-awareness.
Magical thinking based on sensory-emotional belief and perception has dominated most of all human history. And in the absence of anything better (due to the infant immaturity and weakness of man), it performed its explanatory, unifying, socially stabilizing, etc. roles in the early stages of man's existence, when in reverential horror he gave in to the forces of nature, attributing to them bizarre fantastic explanations , just like a child clothe in amazing fantastic flesh the night shadows and rustles that frighten him.
Despite the historically relatively short period of dominance of this form of self-awareness, humanity owes the overwhelming part of the modern benefits of civilization and the achieved level of power to scientific thinking based on rational logic and practical experience.
Magical thinking - an obsolete, regressive form - is a degenerate model of a black box, a hypothesis that did not know experimental verification and was immediately declared an eternal truth purely on the basis of belief, superficial inferences, tradition or imitation. The content of the black box is recognized as fundamentally incomprehensible, and ritual manipulations at its entrance are declared mystical "knowledge", a sacrament that allows, de, to get the desired results at the output. So the experimental monkey understands what actions must be imitated in order to pass the test and get the sweetness, completely not understanding the meaning of the actions that it performs. So the savage islanders, seeing how white people unload food from a transport plane, build their own model of the plane from mud and sticks so that the gods, who send food to this world for the performance of the proper rituals, send tasty canned food to them (kargokult). So the fat pop is important to sprinkle "holy water" on the rocket and on the mournful faces of morally degraded engineers and effective managers in order to "guarantee" a successful launch.
Scientific thinking is a white box model. It is designed to answer the question “how”: how is the “box” producing the desired results arranged, how external conditions affect its work, how, without resorting to dancing with a tambourine and sacraments, how to reliably obtain a reproducible practical result: learn to solve problems, produce canned food, design, make and launch rockets, etc.
And in the light of what has been said, one does not need to be particularly mentally gifted to understand that a scientific approach is the path leading to success, and the dense, militant deception of the Kargokult does not lead to anything good.
The long-term relevance of science: the path to freedom and a brighter future
Science becomes a powerful productive force and in every possible way expands the capabilities of man, increases the degree of his freedom. Already today, thanks to the achievements of science, man is able to repeat most of those "unheard of" miracles that were generated by the imagination of the ancient compilers of "divine" scriptures.
We not only unspeakably surpassed that fantasy in terms of all kinds of effects with fire and light and other tricks that hit the impression, but also, under certain conditions, we can control the natural elements (organizing or preventing floods, erasing mountains and cities from the face of the earth, etc.), create new species of animals and plants, make tens of thousands of "three fish" on an industrial basis and regularly supply them to places where in ancient times this fish was never seen, we can restore vision to the blind (by curing, for example, cataracts), and even return to life of the dead (resuscitation medicine).
From many of the attributes of our everyday life, the most notorious ancient dreamers would have had a kondraty if they had to look at them with at least one eye: cars, airliners, high-speed trains, military and construction equipment, electrical appliances and machines, etc. What would the compiler think texts on papyrus, clay tablets or birch bark, if, for example, he was shown an ordinary smartphone on which you chat with friends or read news on the Internet on the way to the metro? What would they say about a zombie box with 4K resolution?
And this is only the area of completely real achievements. There is nothing to say about the area of illusion, which is represented, for example, by the cinema and the gaming industry: not only all Abrahamic religions rest here, but even Hinduism and Buddhism. Imagine how a naive medieval fanatic would be crushed by such visions!
Of course, our capabilities in many plans are still relatively modest. But the development of science is still only at the very beginning. A distant, but visible perspective of this development is the practically divine power of man with an unprecedented power over matter through knowledge and an unprecedented increase in the degrees of freedom.
Perspective is a future without struggle for existence, lack of necessary, institutionalized cannibalism, forced labor, disease and even death. This is complete power over space, over one's own human body, over social matter. This is a bright future that science fiction, development programs and progressive ideologies today anticipate, and to which there is only one path: science.
The short-term relevance of science: survival
Until this bright future comes, we have to reckon with the unfriendly semi-spontaneous reality obsessed with wild passions. And in these conditions, science is a guarantee of security and existence itself, it is strength and power.
Scientific and technological progress leads to a constant increase in the technological level, and military power grows along with it.
It has long been noticed that hardened by adversity, representatives of wild backward societies are more enduring, stronger, more decisive, angrier, etc., than the pampered representatives of civilized societies. But in endless battles and wars, it is the civilized who invariably win, shooting Papuans from helicopters with almost impunity. The civilized are armed with science.
Anyone who does not invest in the ongoing scientific race will inevitably fall behind the cutting edge of technology and be destroyed. You can't trample a stick against a machine gun. Even a small lag in this area promises a lagging country big troubles, such as greater losses in a potential conflict, greater vulnerability, greater tension of forces, etc. Technological advantages by themselves, of course, do not yet guarantee victory, but seriously distort the balance of power ... There are more than enough illustrative examples of this and horrific catastrophes of the scale of entire civilizations in history.
Science is modern real magic, capable of creating not imaginary (in the style of "one grandmother said"), not illusory, but absolutely real miracles. Any society that wants to change life for the better, that wants tomorrow to be better than yesterday, cannot do without science. Russia is no exception, especially since the very contribution of Russia to the scientific progress of mankind is significant.
Just as for Russia, as for any other countries claiming independence, the rejection of science in modern conditions that are not at all friendly is tantamount to suicide. If you don't want to spend money on science, get ready for endless suffering.
The first reaction of the Russian man in the street (in the best sense of the word) to the words about the plight of domestic science, especially fundamental, is the condemnation of the position of those in power. However, having learned, for example, that the average cost of producing one more or less decent scientific article in the field of molecular biology and microbiology, often devoted to a rather private issue, even from the point of view of a specialist, amounts to 2-6 million rubles, many citizens who do not have a direct attitudes towards scientific work, they begin to reasonably think about how expedient it is in the current situation to pay for such an expensive curiosity of scientists. Are the officials wrong in this regard, insistently demanding the development of "innovation", the transition of research work into experimental design and subsequent commercialization?
I dare say that on the whole they are not very right. If the productivity of domestic fundamental science in places remains at an acceptable level: albeit slowly and with a creak, many teams manage to publish their research in good international journals, many of our scientists are known in the world scientific community, etc., then science-intensive products are the fruit of Russian scientific (and not only design) developments, especially in the field of biological sciences familiar to me, is a rare object. There are, of course, a few exceptions that rather confirm the general rule. This happens mainly because there is no justified demand in industry for the implementation of real (i.e., those that can actually be obtained within a reasonable time frame and for the available money) scientific results. Cases when some "innovative" product is brought by the inventors of its idea directly to commercialization are very rare not only in our country, but throughout the world. And there are very few specific orders for a really solvable problem coming from people who clearly understand what and why they need (i.e. from a competent Customer) in the domestic market. Perhaps, in some areas, for example, in the defense industry, aviation and space technology, the situation is better, but I am not an expert in these matters and therefore I will not develop this topic.
It turns out that from the point of view of direct financial efficiency, investments in domestic biology and most other areas of fundamental research have been and will remain unprofitable for a long time. So what does the Russian taxpayer pay for when the Ministry of Finance transfers certain (in the opinion of scientists, sharply insufficient) amounts for scientific research, including basic science? Let's try to figure out what science is for precisely Russian society, taking into account the specifics of the current situation.
Science for society or society for science?
First of all, it is necessary to make a reservation that the very thesis that the main purpose of science is to satisfy the needs of society is not completely indisputable. In Soviet times, for example, there was a popular philosophical concept (apparently going back to Aristotle) that the meaning of Man's existence is the self-knowledge of the Universe through the medium of thinking matter, i.e. you and me. In this paradigm, the question why society should pay for science has a very clear answer: being, at least not the only, but one of the most powerful tools of cognition, science serves to realize the goal of the existence of society itself, both Russian and world. That is, in a sense, the tram is not intended for the public, but the public is for the tram. However, I dare to suggest that in our pragmatic time, few citizens are ready to put up with the multibillion-dollar spending of budgetary funds to achieve the abstract meaning of life (which they have the right to see in a completely different direction). Therefore, we will nevertheless discuss the functions of science in the maintenance and development of Russian society.
Is it worth doing what the Germans will do anyway?
Obviously, the direct purpose of science is the production of new knowledge. However, if we analyze publications in almost any area of natural sciences (I say “almost” because there are, fortunately, some exceptions), then it turns out that most of the new results are produced outside the Russian Federation. And with such a balance that if Russian science disappears one fine day, foreign scientists, of course, will be very upset, they will grieve about some Russian colleagues, but in general this sad event will not affect the progress of science very strongly. Unfortunately, a similar statement can be made regarding the role of Russian science in the progress of technology. I do not want to say that we are not doing anything sensible. I only affirm that the world around us will easily live without our contribution to the common treasury of knowledge and technologies. But if science suddenly "covers" in the United States, global progress will be greatly slowed down for quite a long time.
Does it follow from the above that we pay part of our taxes in vain and that it would be cheaper not to conduct our own research, but simply to purchase a subscription to world scientific journals and wait a bit until the answers to our questions appear on their pages? From my point of view, no. The fact is that the primacy of scientific research proper over other social functions of science is indisputable only from the point of view of the scientists themselves. From the point of view of society - I will emphasize once again that we are talking about Russian society - its other functions can be much more important. Likewise, today the main function of the army (especially the strategic forces) is not so much the conduct of battle as the psychological deterrence of potential aggressors. But this role will not be fulfilled if the preparation of the army for a real battle ceases to be the main goal of both the military themselves and those who are responsible for their armament and supply.
Prestige item
As in the case of the army, the function of impressing foreign observers is also inherent in fundamental science, albeit to a much lesser extent. This is the so-called international prestige. In this area, it is not so much the general level of scientific research in the country that is essential, but the presence of bright works, world-class "stars", such as Nobel laureates. In the context of this task, the government's activities to create so-called centers of excellence by massive injections of money into individual research centers and groups (such as the mega-grant program) looks logical, although not necessarily effective. However, the Russian Federation is not a world show, and the main tasks of our science are aimed at our own interests, and not at the formation of ideas about us outside.
Our earthly compass
As Mikhail Gelfand rightly noted in one of his recent interviews, trouble will come not when there is no one to write an article in Nature, but when there is no one to read what others have written there. The perception and transmission of scientific knowledge obtained in the world is, apparently, a much more important function of Russian science than the direct receipt of new information on its own.
A related function of science is the expert assessment of what is happening. In particular, competent explanations to the public about new technologies or emerging threats. Moreover, the really existing distrust of the West does not allow our society to perceive the expert opinion of foreign scientists, especially when it comes to such burning issues from the point of view of the layman as GMOs, swine or bird flu, mad cow disease, pathogenic E. coli in vegetables or the asteroid hazard ...
However, the competence of experts is created and maintained only through their actual work in science. Please note: journalists almost never turn to university professors for comments on such issues, but they always try to get explanations from scientists, even if they work in a different area. By the way, the authors of most good scientific reviews are, as a rule, actively working researchers or (quite rarely) people teaching at universities, those who have directly worked in laboratories in the past and continue to actively communicate with active scientists.
Better or better?
Unlike some small countries, such as Belgium or Norway, which are fully integrated into the Western world and may not support the work of their scientists in all significant subject areas, but support several local, but very high-quality research areas, providing them with the best personnel (due to tough competition) and resources, Russian society is to a certain extent distanced from Western civilization (I do not condemn this feature of ours, but simply state its presence). Under these conditions, the functions of knowledge transmission and expertise require the preservation of the so-called “Great” science in Russia, i.e. a network of scientific centers covering almost the entire front of modern scientific knowledge. In this situation, it is vitally important for us to avoid profanation of scientific work, which in recent decades has become a real scourge of Russian science. This is largely a consequence of a prolonged crisis of underfunding, which has led in many institutions to the degradation of human resources and the loss of the normal functioning of the professional community, lowering internal standards to an unacceptable level. As a result, in most Russian scientific journals, the quality of reviewing manuscripts has dropped to a level that makes it possible to publish almost any nonsense, maintaining the status of a scientist in the absence of real competence. In my opinion, what Russia needs now is not a few scattered groups of excellent researchers gathered "in ivory towers" capable of publishing from time to time in the journals Nature and Science, but a normally functioning system of institutes and university laboratories, the vast majority of groups in which regularly publish in mid-level journals, in their respective fields. In my field of science, for example, I think it expedient to require at least three international publications when defending doctoral dissertations (and, preferably, not in any, but in decent journals with an impact factor of at least 1.5-2).
Learn to teach
An equally important function of fundamental science is participation in the training of personnel, both scientific and teaching and technical personnel. The need for direct contact with good working scientists for the full training of future teachers and doctors does not raise doubts among the majority of colleagues working in higher education. The presence of a conditionally available reserve of scientific personnel for nevertheless emerging meaningful applied projects (not ministerial "innovatics", but real work for competent customers) also requires that these personnel be trained somewhere and do something before they are involved in the applied project. The only field of science that really works in Russia, at least biological, is fundamental research (although, as I said, there are some exceptions). By the way, becoming a good applied scientist, capable of managing a complex project and generating its ideology, is much more difficult than becoming a scientist working in fundamental science. The fact is that for applied research, in addition to scientific competence, one must also have a very good understanding of the realities of the practical field (i.e., be able to switch between very different styles of thinking), as well as possess a certain psychology that allows one to work effectively for an applicable result. This kind of talent is found less often than just a scientific one, and such cadres are forged in today's Russia precisely in the midst of strong laboratories conducting fundamental research.
Mind, honor and conscience?
A similar, but not identical to educational, function of science is to ensure the presence in society of a certain percentage of people for whom scientific thinking is basic and natural. And, on the other hand, the formation of standards for such thinking, guidelines to which one can be equal. Despite the seemingly artificiality of this function, in terms of its meaning, it is comparable to all the others. The simple presence of people who have absorbed concepts such as "control" and "reliability" into flesh and blood, always remembering that the meaning of a statement depends on the accepted definitions of terms and concepts, as well as an even larger number of people who regularly communicate with the first (relatives, friends, students), significantly improves the mentality of society, allows you to resist mythologization and distortion of scientific truths, limits the exit of unscientific styles of thinking (for example, religious, administrative, magical) beyond their inherent areas of applicability. In other words, thanks to us (scientists) for what we are (modesty is undoubtedly one of my most important virtues. - Author's note). By the way, perhaps in 2018 we should seriously consider nominating a new president from among respected natural scientists.
Organizational conclusions
Thus, in general, from the point of view of the public good, Russian science benefits not so much directly from scientific achievements, but mainly by side fruits of its existence. But if scientists have at least a little to believe that scientific research is not the main thing in their work, all the benefits of this public institution will evaporate as if by magic. In exactly the same way, our defenses will disappear if soldiers and generals believe that they will never have to fight.
Therefore, I believe the state should change its policy in the field of science, reduce the intensity of "innovative" rhetoric and not try to form lists of "critical technologies", directions of scientific breakthrough and socially significant problems. It would be better to provide the support of scientific teams in exchange for meeting reasonable requirements for the quality and productivity of their work. In modern Russia there is no intellectual center capable of directing scientific activity on a national scale. But in light of the above, this is unnecessary. It is quite possible to allow science to develop, obeying its internal logic, because what really matters for society is not what a particular team of scientists does, but how well it does it.
I continue to think about V. Shubinsky's book about Lomonosov.
The author rightly asserts that Lomonosov did not make fundamental discoveries in science like the laws of Galileo, Newton or Leibniz, remaining at the level of his teacher Wolf, an encyclopedic philosopher who had a qualified opinion on all the main issues of science of his time.
What is the reason is clear. Galileo and Newton were the products of a very advanced civilization, they were guided by ordinary scientific curiosity and the desire to profit from their inventions (like Galileo or Huygens). When they thought about questions of mechanics, the idea did not occur to them simultaneously with the formulas to start writing poetry about their subject. Science remained a science for them - and that was all. Lomonosov pursued completely different goals, and these goals have remained with us to this day. Firstly, he needed science to build a developed civilization in Russia, to make up for lost opportunities and for the subsequent overtaking of European competitors. Secondly, he was a scientist-poet, who continuously sang what he was studying, who looked at the world of experience with the eyes of a contemplator. In science, he was seduced by the opportunity to comprehend the highest beauty of Being. Neither Lomonosov himself nor Russia had anything third since the time of Lomonosov.
We are still captivated by these two goals. We want to use science to civilize the country and overtake our neighbors. Why is the country still not civilized? Science has been developing for about three hundred years, but the goal is still the same. The country is not civilized because the worldview of our people lacks scientific curiosity and scientific rigor of thinking, and this, in turn, is a consequence of a dislike for order. In our universities, they were engaged in anything - drunkenness, political struggle, bureaucratic careers, but among the motivations for admission of young people to university there was almost no simple interest in how the world works. However, despite the dislike for order and sciences, for the discipline of life and thought, in Russia there has always been a poetic attitude, a desire to join the beautiful, to experience delight, inspiration, and charm with beauty. From this comes the most productive and most general type of Russian scientist — the poet and mystic. Hence Lomonosov, Tsiolkovsky, Mendeleev, Vernadsky, Chizhevsky, Vavilov. Poets, subtle souls, discoverers of beautiful patterns. contemplators of the universe. Everyone else is in their shadow. Kurchatov, Kapitsa, Landau became possible (including administratively) only thanks to the ideas and insights of Vernadsky, Korolev, despite the genius of his engineering thought, is forever a follower of Tsiolkovsky, all modern botanists and breeders, strict and pedantic, are inspired by Vavilov's insights. Butlerov has much more discoveries and disciples than Mendeleev, but he is always second, because, although a mystic, he did not rise to such generalizations. At the same time, not a single law of electricity, magnetism or mechanics was deduced by the Russians, but a huge number of inventions and innovations became possible only thanks to Russia. And here the third goal of the Russian scientific path is revealed - the invention of curiosities and the creation of miracles. Lomonosov was not interested in this, but Kulibin was his contemporary.
Why do Russians want curiosities and wonders? Why doesn't a savvy flea dance? This is the same question. The creation of a savvy flea is not necessary in order to make it a functioning apparatus, but in order to amuse, to show off, to mock the existing order. To break this order, to say to the Creator: how can we do without you! This is an amazing paradox of consciousness when a believer decides to be rude to what he believes in, and as a result dies, very pleased with his rudeness. Invented by the Russians for the sake of fun and courage is seriously borrowed by Western serious minds, and the result is a well-working, useful and therefore profitable thing.
So, all our scientific achievements can be reduced to just three motivations: a) to catch up and overtake (this includes the defense industry); b) admire the beauty of the world; c) make fun of both order and beauty. Until the people fall in love with the order of life and thought, there is no need to talk about any serious and massive movement towards knowledge and science. Lomonosov's example speaks volumes about this.
What is the general conclusion from this? Science in Russia cannot be reproduced by independent efforts. Periodically, a German vaccination is needed, an extract of Western professors for the Russian departments, significant funds to provide internships for Russian students in the West, expert analysis of Russian dissertations by Western scientists. If there is something lacking in the composition of the people, then it must be administered intramuscularly or intravenously. No other way.
Saved by
