Our children have to learn much more at school than we do. And their heads are the same size as their parents. Therefore, either it is necessary to reduce some disciplines, such as astronomy, or change the education system. In fact, there is no choice, says Vasily Filippov, one of the most interesting young Russian entrepreneurs in the field of high technology.

Alexander Grek

Vasya Filippov is not a media personality, and I met him by chance. But after just a few minutes of conversation, I was struck by its scale, and the conversation dragged on for hours. Vasily is a classic child from an academic St. Petersburg family, his father and mother are professors in the field of physics and mathematics. So since childhood, Vasya had no doubts about what to become: a physicist, of course. My main hobbies are mathematics, physics and programming. It turned out well: Vasily won the All-Russian Physics Olympiad, although he only took bronze at the international one. He entered the Faculty of Mathematics, as he puts it, “to fundamentally know mathematics,” and in the third year he transferred to the Faculty of Physics. At the same time, I was getting my teeth into coding, for a long time torn between my passion for quantum field theory and programming. In general, the typical life of, say, a physics and technology student.

Also, which is typical for students, I founded a startup with friends. But then everything went atypical. The startup specialized in programs for handheld computers, PocketPC, the predecessors of modern smartphones. “When PocketPC first came into my hands in 1999, there was a complete feeling that you were holding the future in your hands. A device from the future,” recalls Vasya. At that time there were no resources for developers. The guys decided that they would write articles on how to program PocketPC. We don’t know anything ourselves, but we will teach everyone. And since there was no one else but them, they suddenly turned out to be experts. “How was the article written? - recalls Filippov. “You don’t know anything, you sit down, figure it out, and then write.” Suddenly there was an influx of orders.”

For the first two years we did it for others, and then we decided to make products under our own brand - SPB Software. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was very difficult to do something in Russia for the whole world. It's difficult and scary. The first five products didn't work. The sixth one went better. The seventh is even better. The eighth became number one in the world. Then the company became number one in the world. And after some time - number one by a wide margin. Six of the top 10 sold programs for PocketPC were from St. Petersburg.

SPB Software has become a world expert in the field of PocketPC. Only Microsoft knew this system better than the guys. At first, St. Petersburg residents learned to make very good products, and after a while - very successful ones. At some point, the Google search engine for SPB first returned SPB Software, and only then St. Petersburg. After PocketPC, the company began developing products for Android, programs for mobile television, cellular operators, and eventually the company was bought by Yandex.

Nobody except us

“After that, I worked at Yandex for three years, and I really liked it there - a wonderful company and good people,” Vasily tries to clearly explain the incredible - how he left the company where everyone is trying to get into. — But objectively, I understood that Yandex would cope without me. But if I don’t implement my idea about education, maybe no one will implement it.” But Vasily’s idea was global. And for this, he founded the international company MEL Science with headquarters in London and a development department, of course, in St. Petersburg.

“I have four children, so I know first-hand the problems of modern education. And now they need to learn much more than I taught. For example, at school I had no IT at all, in particular programming. Now this is a big important layer,” Vasily talks about what worries most parents around the world. — In ten years it will be not one, but two or three subjects only in information technology; biology has leapt forward fantastically over the past thirty years. In my school it was pistils and stamens, but today’s children have DNA, RNA, and this is all objectively very important. Today biology is almost the number one science. And all this needs to be learned. But everything that I taught has not gone away either. And their heads are the same size as mine. And the same amount of time for school. And what to do with it?"

If you reduce some subjects at the expense of deepening others, narrow specialists will leave the school, which is not very good, because too many interesting things happen at the intersections of sciences. There are many bad decisions: for example, stop teaching something - say, astronomy. There is only one good solution - to start teaching more effectively. Easy to say, but difficult to do. According to Vasily, the biggest problem in modern education is cramming. This does not work. The exam was over, everything was forgotten, there was nothing left. This is how our brain works - we are bad at remembering facts. But we remember well the essence of events, the logic of the development of things, basic principles, visual things. If you went to Paris, for example, in the tenth grade, you still remember something from this trip. Making the transition from rote learning to understanding means fundamentally improving education.

Science as a game

A good lesson has at least two parts. The first part is an experiment, a demonstration of the effect. Until the child begins to do something on his own, the level of involvement is low. As soon as you let him do something on his own, his eyes light up. He is interested - and he is yours. And the most spectacular experiments are in chemistry. They are colorful, it's magic. But the problem is that if nothing is explained, then they will remain magic, tricks. “One weekend I was doing experiments with children and caught myself thinking that I couldn’t explain to them what was happening inside,” recalls Vasily. — I went to YouTube, I thought I’d find a good explanatory video, but there’s nothing on this topic. And at that moment I realized what I wanted to do and what I would bring to this world.” Attach to the first part - a colorful experiment - an equally colorful second part that explains the effect. And if in physics, by pumping balls, you can understand some laws in mechanics, then in chemistry there is no chance. This is another reason why we decided to start with chemistry.

The first and most impressive part of the chemistry course from Vasily Filippov is the actual chemical experiments. With pyrotechnic effects, growing fancy crystals, miraculous transformations of one material into another. Usually this is where it all ends. Vasily’s main know-how is that immediately after the chemical show he can easily tell and show children what is actually happening inside molecules and atoms. If he succeeds, chemistry will become his favorite school subject.

Rocket-science

But how can you explain the essence of chemical reactions to a child in a fun way? Give him the opportunity to “dive” into the micro level, let him see with his own eyes how atoms and molecules interact. And here three-dimensional computer visualization, and especially VR virtual reality technology, is an ideal assistant. In science, as a rule, to understand the basic principles, to understand the essence, means to connect what you see with your own eyes with what is happening at the level of the microcosm. The water has boiled, and if you can see how the water molecules behave, you will understand the essence of the process. How the fastest ones break away, but the slowest ones continue to hold on to each other, and because of this the water evaporates. And when all this is connected, the picture of the phenomenon becomes complete. The child did not memorize it, but understood what was happening there. Synthesis of the micro- and macrocosm. This works well in biology (to understand, for example, how a cell works), partly in physics (there is a lot of mathematics) and great in chemistry. Instead of cramming how nitric acid behaves in different cases, we can immerse the child inside the reaction, and he will see why and what is happening there, understand and remember for many years, or even for his whole life.

After chemical experiments, children can get inside the molecules. To do this, you can use regular computers and tablets, but children perceive virtual reality best. You feel like Alice in Wonderland. Chemical miracles.

To cover a school course in chemistry, biology or physics, you need about a thousand lessons. Making a thousand lessons by hand is an unaffordable billions of investments. But this is not necessary. We need to create a platform that will allow us to do these lessons very quickly. For example, chemistry. We need to write code that simulates the behavior of a chemical reaction. It's not easy, it's really rocket science, but today it's possible. Now we can take the equations of quantum chemistry, solve them, put molecular dynamics on top of it all and show at the atomic level how a chemical reaction occurs. The same can be done with a cell in biology, modeling what happens inside it.

A specific example is salt, for example how it dissolves in water. There is only one video on YouTube that more or less correctly shows this process from the inside. If the problems are solved at this level, then the teacher can then describe the lesson in terms of a higher level. Such and such a substance in such and such a liquid, we start the dissolution process, describe the reaction, but our code simulates what is happening inside. The teacher’s task is to talk about the reaction as pedagogically correct as possible. This lesson can be done in a day or two. In this case, 1000 lessons is a daunting task. It can be done without a billion dollars.

Education by subscription

MEL Science the first subject chosen was chemistry. First of all, you need to create good chemical kits so that you can do experiments by hand. “This is very interesting work,” says Vasily, “so you sit for a month and think about how to more effectively coat a sheet of paper with electroplating. You try this method, that method. The big problem with chemical experiments is repeatability. I remember that I sat down with the children to do experiments, but they didn’t work out. And my authority as a father among my children begins to melt before our eyes. This is also difficult for an adult scientist: you try and it doesn’t work, you try and it doesn’t work. But the child simply does not have enough patience. The eyes go dark, that's all. So I decided that we will always succeed. If we make a chemistry set, we want to make the best chemistry set in the world.”

Invented by our compatriot Andrei Doronichev, the cardboard included in the set is your first pass to the world of virtual reality. In less than a year, this technology will become the standard for mobile phones, and real VR devices will replace cardboard glasses.

The problem with chemistry is that most substances look like water or ordinary salt. Now we can show any substance in VR. Each jar in the set has a code; you hold it up to your phone, and it shows what kind of substance it is, a 3D molecule, a crystal structure. You can put it in virtual reality glasses, watch it there, literally fly inside the substance. If you don’t have VR glasses, you can watch it on regular computer or smartphone screens. In March, MEL Science launched the first lessons in VR, and the first ready-made course will appear in September. When the guys started the project a couple of years ago, it seemed that virtual reality would become available in five to seven years. And here everyone was wrong - VR will be everywhere tomorrow. But the problem is that these are very, very new technologies, Vasily complains. You should always work with versions of libraries that are not yet released.

Another feature of MEL Science is the subscription. What is the disadvantage of existing chemistry kits? They give you a beautiful box for New Year or your birthday, dad does something with the child once or twice, and then it collects dust on the shelf. And this is a typical story. A subscription solves this problem. Once a month a kit arrives in the mail and, willy-nilly, forces parents to work with their child on weekends. The first to arrive is a starter kit with a variety of chemical glassware and cardboard glasses for viewing VR, which is used later. You can subscribe at any time. What complicates the task is that all MEL Chemistry assignments are not organized into a course. Classes are based on the fact that the child knows almost nothing. Only the most basic things - what a molecule and an atom are. Any experience can be a child's first experience in chemistry. Every time telling almost from scratch is the price for the fact that this is not a course.

Now MEL Science is launching a new product, and this will already be a course - with a beginning and an end. The course can replace the school curriculum. And the current set of MEL Chemistry is additional education. Therefore, the requirements for interestingness are much higher. School can afford to teach something boring because children are required to learn it, but MEL Science is not.

This is what 21st century education looks like—virtual reality glasses, a set of chemical glassware, and “weekend” subscription kits. But the main thing was not included in the frame - these are interactive entertaining stories about what happens to substances as a result of chemical reactions.

There are different markets and different needs. “I see three big directions,” Vasily Filippov’s eyes sparkle. — This is extracurricular education, in addition to school education. Like athletes, there is physical education at school, but if you want to achieve something, you go to sports sections. If you want to study mathematics, you go to a math club. And you learn there not just what you learn at school, but something completely different. Combinatorics or graph theory, which they won’t teach you at school. So it is here. Do experiments that they don't do at school and learn something new. Another product is a whole course. Study chemistry, physics or biology. And the third segment is for schools. It’s also a course, but not a replacement for the school one, but built into the school curriculum.” Now MEL Science operates in three markets: the main one is the USA, the second one is Great Britain, and Vasily does not forget his homeland - Russia. And if at first the company existed as Vasily’s personal project (let us remember that, among other things, he is a good entrepreneur), then last year the investment company SistemaVC, a venture subsidiary of AFK Sistema, invested $2.5 million in his project. And most importantly, his idea really works. Several families I know already know what to do with their children on weekends. Including myself.

(analytical report by V.V. Ivanov and G.G. Malinetsky to the Izborsk Club)

PREAMBLE

Currently, problems of the development of science are in the center of public attention. A heated debate in society was caused by a discussion in the State Duma of the bill “On the Russian Academy of Sciences, the reorganization of state academies of sciences and amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation,” prepared by the Government of the Russian Federation, which is designed to shape a new image of Russian science and determine the fate of fundamental research for decades to come. .

Economics and entrepreneurship determine today's society and state; technologies and level of education – tomorrow’s (5-10 years). Fundamental science and innovative activity – the day after tomorrow (10 years and beyond). Speaking about today's problems of domestic science, we discuss and plan the future of Russia.

Currently, there are two approaches to determining the place of science in modern society. Either science represents an essential part of the “brain of society”, solves problems that are important for the country, allowing it to change for the better its prospects and place in the world, and expand the corridor of opportunities. In this case, the state and society need to set large-scale tasks for Russian science and achieve their implementation. Either science is part of a “gentleman’s set” of “decent countries” that need to be imitated mainly for reasons of prestige, then the struggle begins for citations, places in rankings, invitations of foreign scientists who should teach us “how to work”, and the main The declared goal is the integration of domestic science into the global scientific space.

The most important metaphor in this problem is innovation reproduction cycle (Fig. 1).

For a researcher, science is the goal and meaning of activity. For society, this is a means to ensure its prosperous, safe life and prosperity now and in the foreseeable future. In response to the challenges that society faces, it, relying on science and acquired knowledge, creates new goods and services (the result of the introduction of inventions, innovations, which are now often called innovations), generates new organizational strategies, goals, and changes its worldview and ideology.

The need to do this quickly and on a large scale led in the second half of the 20th century to the creation national innovation systems(NIS) , which in their simplest form can be represented as in Fig. 2.

First, the area of ​​our knowledge and technology, the threats, challenges and opportunities that the study of the unknown can provide, is comprehended. This is a very important process that requires dialogue and mutual understanding between the authorities, scientists and society.

Then fundamental research is carried out, the purpose of which is to obtain new knowledge about nature, man and society. The difficulty of planning such work is due to the fact that it is often unclear what effort and how much time the next step into the unknown will require. In parallel with this, specialists are trained who are focused on obtaining and using new knowledge. Conventionally, we will assume that a block of fundamental science and education costs 1 ruble.

Rice. 1. Innovation reproduction cycle

Rice. 2. Organizational structure of NIS at the macro level.

Then, the knowledge gained in the course of scientific research (R&D) is translated into inventions, working samples, new strategies and opportunities. This is done by applied science, which costs about 10 rubles. It is in this sector that about 75% of all inventions are made.

After this, as a result of experimental design development (R&D), technologies for the production of goods, services, and products are created based on the results of applied research, providing new opportunities for society and the state. These goods and services are introduced into national or global markets by large public or private high-tech companies. It costs about 100 rubles.

Then what is created is sold on the market or used for the benefit of society in another way. Part of the funds received is then invested in fundamental and applied research, in the education system and experimental design developments. The circle closes.

The described circle of innovation reproduction, which is the core of the national innovation system, can be compared to a car. The system of goal setting and selection of priorities can be compared to a windshield. (In Russia it is absent - government documents name too many priorities. There are simply no resources for them.) The car has a steering wheel. The country must coordinate efforts, resources, analyze the results obtained and develop management influences on this basis. In the USSR, this function was performed by the State Committee on Science and Technology under the Council of Ministers. There is no such structure in the Russian Federation - about 80 departments can order research at the expense of the federal budget, without in any way coordinating their plans and without bringing together the results obtained...

Fundamental science and the education system play rather the role of a navigator, showing a map of society's capabilities. Luckily, they have survived so far.

Applied research plays the role of a motor. They were almost completely destroyed at the very beginning of the 1990s by the Yeltsin-Gaidar government. The latter went down in history with the catchphrase that “science can wait.” In the last 20 years, Gaidar's strategy has been largely implemented. Russian science is still “waiting”!

The role of “wheels” is played by large high-tech companies. There are practically none of them in Russia.

The problem is that an “innovative car” needs all the components to move. Attempts at unsystematic actions do not lead to positive results. No matter how much you reform the “navigator”, the car will not move without an engine and wheels. If you don’t use the steering wheel, then you end up wasting Russia’s scientific budget on an especially large scale. If you ignore fundamental science and customers who are capable of bringing the results of applied developments to the Russian and world markets, then the engine will run idle. The stories of Rusnano and Skolkovo confirm this.

The systemic nature of the development of science and technology is also manifested in the fact that they are very closely connected with other spheres of life, so we have to talk about the synthesis of efforts in different areas, about innovative development policy(PIR) see fig. 3.

Rice. 3. Components of the policy of innovative development.

The latter is a set of social development policies, scientific, educational and industrial policies that rely on available resources and make maximum use of the specific competitive advantages of the state - human, geographical, financial, energy and other resources. These resources are directed to the development of science, education, and knowledge-intensive production. As a result of this, new technologies and types of products are being created to ensure the growth rate of quality of life and the sustainability of socio-economic development at the level of the world's leading countries in this field.

Science, technology and the future

Blessed is he who has visited this world

His moments are fatal!

He was called by the all-good

As a companion at a feast.

F.I. Tyutchev

The results of the development of science and technology can be judged by the number of people on Earth and the average life expectancy. And from this point of view, the achievements of mankind are enormous.

The number of people on the planet is growing rapidly: every second, 21 people are born and 18 people die in the world. Every day the world's population increases by 250 thousand people, and almost all of this growth occurs in developing countries. Over the course of a year, our number increases by approximately 90 million people. The growth of the world's population requires an increase in food and energy production and mining at at least the same rate, which leads to increasing pressure on the planet's biosphere.

However, even more impressive than the absolute numbers are global demographic trends. The priest, mathematician and economist Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) put forward a theory of population growth at the end of the 18th century. In accordance with it, the number of people in different countries is increasing the same number of times for equal periods of time (that is, in geometric progression), and the amount of food increases by the same amount (that is, in arithmetic progression). This discrepancy, according to T. Malthus, should lead to devastating wars, reducing the number of people and returning the system to equilibrium.

In conditions of excess resources, the number of all species: from amoebas to elephants, grows, as Malthus predicted, in geometric progression. The only exception is man. Over the past 200 thousand years, our population has grown according to a much faster (so-called hyperbolic) law - the red curve in Fig. 4. This law is such that if the trends that had developed over hundreds of thousands of years were preserved, then there would be an infinite number of us t f= 2025 (in the theory that considers such ultra-fast processes, this date is called moment of exacerbation, or singularity point).

What made humans stand out from many other species? It is the ability to create, improve and transmit technologies. The outstanding Polish science fiction writer and futurist Stanislaw Lem defined them as “determined by the state of knowledge and social efficiency, ways of achieving goals set by society, including those that no one had in mind when starting the task.” Unlike all other species, we have learned to transfer life-saving technologies in space (from one region to another) and in time (from one generation to another), and this has allowed us to expand our habitat and ecological niche over hundreds of centuries.

We increasingly consider technology, the technosphere (from the Greek techne - art, skill) as a “second nature” created artificially by us. At the end of the 18th century, the outstanding French mathematician G. Monge combined technical and theoretical knowledge (gained as a result of fundamental research) in higher education and the activities of engineers, thereby laying the foundations of modern engineering.

The rate of growth of the number of people on the planet has been growing according to the same law for hundreds of thousands of years. And surprisingly quickly, within the lifetime of one generation, this trend “breaks” - the rate of population growth in the world as a whole sharply decreases (blue curve in Fig. 4). This phenomenon is called global demographic transition. This transition is the main content of the era we are living through. There has never been such a sharp turn in human history.

What future awaits humanity? The answer to this question is given world dynamics models. The first such model, linking the size of humanity, fixed assets, available resources, pollution levels, and agricultural land area, was built by the American scientist J. Forrester in 1971 at the request of the Club of Rome, which unites a number of politicians and entrepreneurs. It was assumed that the relationships between the studied quantities would be the same as in the period from 1900 to 1970. Computer studies of the constructed model made it possible to give a forecast for the 21st century. According to it, the world economy is expected to collapse by 2050. To simplify the situation, we can say that a negative feedback loop is closed: depletion of resources – decrease in production efficiency – reduction in the share of resources allocated to the protection and restoration of the environment, – deterioration of public health – degradation and simplification of the technologies used – further depletion of resources, which begin to be used with even less return.

Later, J. Forrester’s collaborator D. Meadows and his colleagues built a number of more detailed models of global dynamics that confirmed the conclusions drawn. 30 years later, in 2002, the forecast results were compared in detail with reality - the agreement turned out to be very good. On the one hand, this means that the model correctly reflects the main factors and relationships, on the other hand, that radical technological shifts that would allow humanity to turn away from a dangerous, unstable trajectory have not occurred.

If in the 1970s the conclusions made by scientists seemed unexpected, now they seem obvious.

In a year, humanity produces a volume of hydrocarbons that took nature more than a million years to create. Every third ton of oil today is produced on the sea or ocean shelf down to a depth of 2 km. In the 1980s, an important milestone was passed - the annual volume of oil produced exceeded the annual increase in reserves explored by geologists (see Fig. 5).

If the whole world wants to live according to California standards, then some mineral resources on Earth will last for 2.5 years, others for 4 years... The edge is very close.

What's the matter? In an ineffective socio-economic structure. The rapid development of science and technology has given rise to the illusion of unlimited possibilities, the chances of building a “consumer society”, and unjustified expectations of society for an easy solution to difficult socio-economic problems with the help of knowledge and technology.

In 2002, the American researcher Mathis Wackernagel proposed a number of methods for assessing the concept ecological footprint– the land area necessary to obtain the required amount of resources (grain, food, fish, etc.) and “process” the emissions produced by the global community (the term itself was introduced by William Reese in 1992). Comparing the obtained values ​​with the territories available on the planet, he showed that humanity is already spending 20% ​​more than the level of self-sustainment allows (see Fig. 6).

The recently published book by Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Carlson Hargrose, Michael Smith, “Factor 5: The Formula for Sustainable Growth,” argues that if the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) consume the same as the United States, then humanity required five planets like ours. But we have only one Earth...

Is there a way out? Yes, and this solution was found by a group of researchers from the Institute of Applied Mathematics of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the M.V. Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) under the leadership of Professor V.A. Egorova in 1973.

By studying models of global dynamics, scientists have shown that this is possible. A necessary condition in order not to leave descendants a huge landfill or desert is the creation of two giant industries in the world. The first one is engaged processing of created and generated waste for the purpose of its repeated use. The second puts the planet in order and takes care of reclamation of lands taken out of economic circulation. Recently built by academician V.A. Sadovnichy and foreign member of the RAS A.A. Akaev’s model shows that under a favorable scenario, humanity will have to spend more than a quarter of the gross global product on environmental conservation after 2050.

Humanity is rapidly heading towards a technological crisis. Science and technology have never faced such large-scale and urgent challenges. Over the next 15-20 years, scientists need to find a new set of life-sustaining technologies.(including energy production, food, waste recycling, construction, healthcare, environmental protection, management, monitoring and planning, coordination of interests and many others). Modern technologies will provide the current standard of living for humanity within the next few decades at best. We will have to turn to renewable resources, to new sources of development and create technologies that allow us to develop at least over the course of centuries. There has never been a comparable challenge to science.

Scientific and technological prospects of the first half of the 21st century

The only thing my long life has taught me is that all our science, in the face of reality, looks primitive and childishly naive - and yet it is the most valuable thing we have.

A. Einstein

At this point, technology and related applied research should be distinguished from basic science.

The complexity of the dynamics of society is due to the fact that processes that unfold at different characteristic times play a significant role in its development. The global demographic changes discussed above are superimposed on cycles of technological renewal. At the beginning of the 20th century, the outstanding economist Nikolai Dmitrievich Kondratiev showed that the economy of the leading countries was developing long waves lasting 45-50 years. Based on the developed theory, the Great Depression of 1929 was predicted, which played a huge role in the history of the 20th century.

Developing these ideas, academicians D.S. Lvov and S.Yu. Glazyev developed the theory of global technological structures (GTU), which gives a new look at macroeconomics and long-term forecasting of technological development.

During the transition between structures, a key role is played by some inventors who change the face of the economy, and with it the world as a whole, as well as the scientific achievements that made these innovations possible. In the transition from the first to the second mode, these are the steam engine and thermodynamics, from the second to the third - the electric motor and electrodynamics, from the third to the fourth - atomic energy and nuclear physics, from the fourth to the fifth - computers and quantum mechanics.

The current change in socio-economic formations is radically changing the structure of the promising technological structure. Its basis will be fundamental research, and the core will be technological sectors, which are a set of technologies focused on the priorities of Russia’s socio-economic development and based on the results of fundamental research (Fig. 7).

Note that both the key invention and the fundamental scientific theory for a given technological order are created during the development of the previous one, sometimes 50 years before they change the world.

Also N.D. Kondratiev believed that it is transitions between structures that are the causes of financial and economic crises, wars and revolutions. This is one of those unevenities in the development of the world system that the classics of Marxism wrote about. In fact, the transition to the next order is a re-dealing of the cards of History - an opportunity to create and capture new markets, develop new types of weapons, change the face of war and competition. And, of course, geopolitical actors do not miss the chance to participate in this “innovation race.”

Where is the world now? In crisis, on the way to a new technological order. The locomotive industries of the latter, around which the rest of the industry will be built, can become biotechnology, nanotechnology, new environmental management, new medicine, robotics, high humanitarian technologies(allowing the most effective development of the potential of individuals and teams), full-scale virtual reality technologies.

From a systemic point of view, the global financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009 and its subsequent waves are connected with the fact that the industries of the fifth technological order no longer provide the same returns, and the industries of the sixth are not yet ready to invest the gigantic funds available in the world.

Technological forecasts serve as guidelines, assemblage points, and efforts of many organizations. On their basis, entrepreneurs judge the demands of the state, officials - about development priorities, military officers and engineers - about future opportunities, universities - about the needs of specialists. An example of one of the generalized forecasts compiled several years ago is presented in Fig. 8 . Of course, this does not mean that the achievements listed will be achieved precisely within these periods, but it is easier to move into the future with such a compass than without it. Unfortunately, now in Russia such work is carried out seriously only by individual enthusiasts.

2010-2020s	Around 2012	Hybrid power plant based on fuel cells and gas turbines with an efficiency of over 60%
	Around 2015	Commercial high temperature superconducting cables. Telemedicine
	Around 2018	Practical Quantum Encryption Techniques
	Closer to 2020	Cars without human control
2020-2030s	2020-2025th	Quantum computers Treatment of cancer
	2022 plus or minus 5 years	Growing and replacing artificial human organs
	Around 2025	Efficient water desalination technologies
	2025-2027th	Massive commercial operation of magnetic levitation trains
2030-2040s	Closer to 2030	Hypersonic aircraft
	2030th	Achieving positive energy in thermonuclear installations
	2030s	Hydrogen technologies
	Around 2032	Lunar Colony
	Around 2037	Flight to Mars
	Closer to 2040	Average life expectancy is more than 120 years

Rice. 8. Technological forecast for the first half of the 21st century.

In addition, the development of science and technology is not only predicted in leading countries, it is planned and directed. A striking example is the National Nanotechnology Initiative, substantiated by more than 150 experts and reported to the US Congress by Nobel laureate Richard Smalley (one of the authors of the discovery of the C 60 fullerene).

This initiative was put forward by President Bill Clinton and approved by Congress in 2000. Unfortunately, the level of elaboration, organization and results obtained from implementing a similar initiative in Russia are strikingly different from those obtained in the USA and a number of other countries.

Being realists, we can assume the possibility of breakthroughs precisely in those areas of the global technological space where the backlog is greatest and changes are occurring very quickly. There are three such spheres.

In the 1960s, one of the founders of Intel, Gordon Moore, drew attention to the following pattern in the development of computer technology: every two years the degree of integration of elements on a chip doubles, and with it the speed of computers increases. This pattern, called “Moore’s law,” has been in effect for more than half a century (Fig. 9). Today's computers calculate 250 billion times faster than the first computers. No technology has ever developed at such a pace before.

Rice. 9. Moore's Law.

In technological development there is a known effect, sometimes called success on a tangent. It is usually illustrated with an example from US railroad history. During the railway boom in this country, the greatest benefits and dividends went not to those who produced steam locomotives, and not to those who built railways, but... to farmers who were able to transport grain from the American outback to large cities. Apparently, in the modern computer industry in the foreseeable future we will see “tangential success” and unexpected applications that can fill the current innovative movement in this area with new meaning.

Another area in which technological breakthroughs are occurring is related to deciphering the human genome. The bulk of the fundamental knowledge that led to explosive technological growth was obtained during the implementation of the Human Genome Program (for which $3.8 billion was spent in the United States).

During the implementation of this program, the cost of genome decoding decreased by 20,000 times (Fig. 10).

Rice. 10. Cost of deciphering the human genome by year.

The creation of an industry that grew up around this scientific and technological achievement has already had a very significant impact on the healthcare system, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and the defense complex. In the United States, 14 million people are arrested each year and have their DNA samples taken and entered into a database. Criminologists then turn to this database when searching for criminals...

The achievements associated with the Human Genome Project have become a factor in geoeconomics and geopolitics. In February 2013, Barack Obama said in a State of the Union address: “Now is the time to reach new levels of research and development not seen since the space race... Now is not the time to gut our investment in science and innovation... Every dollar we have invested in mapping the human genome , brought $140 back into our economy—every dollar!”

Another field of promising technologies and applied research can be characterized by the words interdisciplinarity And self-organization. It is these two concepts that distinguish the promising technological structure from the previous ones. Until the 1970s, science, technology, and organizations moved mainly towards greater specialization (disciplinary organization of science, sectoral industrial management, etc.).

However, then the situation began to change rapidly - the same principles and technologies turned out to be universal, applicable to solve a huge number of different problems. A classic example is a laser, which can be used to cut steel and weld the cornea of ​​the eye. Another example of a technology whose scope of application is rapidly growing is additive manufacturing methods (3D printing, 3D printers). With its help, they are now “printing” pistols along with cartridges, houses, afterburners, and even prosthetic limbs.

On the other hand, in many cases, solutions to scientific and technological problems are initially sought at the intersection of several approaches. Thus, nanotechnology initiatives are being implemented all over the world, which are aimed at developing the entire block of nanoinfobiocognitive (NBIC - NanoBioInfoCognito) technologies. However, the last decade has shown that this is not enough, that social technologies must be added to this synthesis (SCBIN - SocioCognitoInfoBioNano). The simplest examples are robotic biotechnology laboratories, in which analyzes and research are carried out by robots (the laboratory operates under the slogan “People must think. Machines must work”). In telemedicine, it has become possible to use robots for surgical operations and carry them out in a situation where the doctor is located thousands of kilometers from the patient.

The philosophy of technology actively developed in the 20th century, however, the rapid, largely paradoxical development of technology in the second half of the 20th and 21st centuries allows us to talk about ecology technology. The latter develop, interact, support and displace each other, sometimes “closing” the previous methods of production or organization. Along with classical Darwinian evolution, which is based on the triad heredity – variability – selection This is where development goals, social and economic feasibility, risk management, fundamental physical limitations and the limits of human ability come into play.

The 19th century was dominated by the illusion of the enormous possibilities of organization, both in social space and in the field of technology. But psychological data indicate that a person is able to monitor only 5-7 quantities that slowly change over time. He can take into account only 5-7 factors when making a decision. Finally, he can actively and creatively interact with only 5-7 people (with the rest indirectly or stereotypically). And this imposes very serious restrictions on the organizations that we can create, and on the tasks that can be solved with their help.

The main idea of ​​nanotechnology - as formulated by Nobel laureate Richard Feynman in 1959 - is to make perfect materials that are free of defects at the atomic level, which gives them amazing properties. (For example, carbon nanotubes are 6 times lighter and 100 times stronger than steel; aerogels - excellent thermal insulators - are 500 times lighter than water and only twice as heavy as air.) Scientists have now learned to manipulate individual atoms (for example, you can post a greeting with xenon atoms on a nickel single crystal and see him).

But if we are talking about creating materials, then the number of atoms that must be in place should be comparable to Avogadro's number. And organizing them, placing them “from top to bottom”, from the macro level to the micro level, this is impossible to do. (It will take longer than the universe exists.)

How to be? The answer and main hope in both cases is the same. This self-organization. We need to learn to move not “from top to bottom”, but “from bottom to top” - to create conditions under which the atoms themselves will take the positions in which we want to see them. And in some cases this can be done!

However, in order to follow these ideas, we must have a very good understanding of the mechanisms of self-organization and the corresponding models (in order to get exactly what we want). That is why theory of self-organization, or synergetics(from the Greek for “joint action”), is increasingly seen as the key to new technologies.

When it comes to basic research, the degree of uncertainty is much higher than in the technology space. However, even here it is possible to identify a number of vectors that determine the most likely areas of scientific breakthroughs.

To look into the future, to imagine what scientists will be doing in the next 20-30 years, in which areas the main efforts will be invested, you can look at the average citation of works in various fields of knowledge at the present time. The citation rate of articles shows how large and active the communities working in various scientific disciplines are.

From school days, most people have the idea that mathematics is the largest and most complex subject, physics and chemistry are about half as small and simpler, and biology is half as small and simpler than physics and chemistry.

However, “adult science” looks completely different today (Fig. 11). Let’s take the “heirs” of school biology - molecular biology and genetics(citation rate 20.48), biology and biochemistry (16,09), microbiology (14,11), pharmaceuticals with toxicology(11.34) – they are 12 times greater than physics(8.45), 8 times chemistry(10.16) and at 27 – mathematics(3.15) or computer science (3,32).

Rice. 11. Scientific priorities in the natural sciences in Russia and in the world.

It is interesting to compare the priorities of domestic and world science (Russia / world). The 21st century will probably be the century of man. The development of the capabilities and abilities of people and teams will become the main direction of progress. Both the main opportunities and the main threats will be associated with it, so the list of “outsiders” of the Russian scientific space, in which the gap from the world level in terms of article citation indicators is especially large, is very indicative. These are social sciences (1.02 / 4.23), as well as psychology and psychiatry (2.54 / 10.23). Here we are four times behind world indicators. And the list is completed by interdisciplinary research, where the lag becomes fivefold.

Many experts who predict the future of science pay attention to the sharp turn that is taking place in the development of scientific knowledge before our eyes. It can be assumed that the organization of goals and ideals of science in the 21st century will be very different from both classical and modern (non-classical models).

The book of Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), a writer, public figure, thinker who worked in the genre of fantastic satire, a contemporary of Isaac Newton, “Travels to Some Distant Countries of the World by Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of Several Ships,” identified two main directions of development of natural sciences. Firstly, this is a “journey to the Lilliputians”, into the world of microscale. On this path, molecular and atomic physics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and the theory of elementary particles appeared. Secondly, this is a “journey to the giants”, to a world of mega-scales, to space, to distant galaxies, to astrophysics and cosmology.

Let us note that here the opposites converge—today, studies of matter on ultra-small and ultra-large scales converge with each other.

Indeed, the Hubble and Kepler telescopes carried into outer space have made it possible to discover hundreds of different planets orbiting stars located at great distances from us. These tools showed that to explain the observed picture of the evolution of the universe it is necessary to introduce the idea of dark matter And dark energy, which account for 80 to 95% of the matter in space.

Let's return to the analogy with Gulliver. How important was the knowledge gained from the Lilliputians and giants for him? Humanity has its own characteristic dimensions on which the most important processes for it unfold. They are limited from above by the diameter of the Solar System, from below by nuclear scales (~10 -15 cm).

The path that began with Democritus, leading deeper into the analysis of ever smaller components of matter, appears to be coming to an end. “Analysis” translated from Greek means “crushing, dismemberment.” And when starting it, researchers usually keep in mind the next stage - synthesis, clarification of the mechanisms and results of interaction between the studied entities and, ultimately, self-organization, collective phenomena - the spontaneous emergence of order at the next level of organization.

Apparently, here the area of ​​our ignorance is especially close, and the prospects are the most impressive.

Twenty years ago, without pretense of completeness, three super-tasks of science of the 21st century, which will likely generate research programs and represent, using A. Einstein’s terminology, a combination of “internal perfection” (following the internal logic of the development of scientific knowledge) and “external justification” (social order, society’s expectations). Let's pay attention to them.

Risk Management Theory. The most important condition for successful management is a threat map for the controlled object. The role of science here is enormous. Recent history and many events of the 21st century have shown that at a high pace of socio-economic and technological change, control actions led to completely different results than planned.

Neuroscience. One of the major scientific mysteries that is likely to be answered in the 21st century is understanding the mystery of consciousness and the principles of brain functioning. In fact, the brain is a mystery in a technological sense - the switching speed of a trigger in a microcircuit is million times less than the firing rate of a neuron in the brain. Information in the nervous system is transmitted to a million times slower than on a computer. This means that the principles of brain function radically different from those on the basis of which existing computers are built.

To clarify these and many other questions related to neuroscience, a large research project, Brain Mapping, was launched in the United States in 2013, designed to last 10 years with a budget of more than $3 billion. The goal of the project, using nanotechnology, new generation tomographs, computer reconstructions and models, is to find out the structure of the brain and the dynamics of the processes occurring in it. A similar project is starting in the European Community.

The third task is to build mathematical history, including models of global dynamics. This research program was put forward by S.P. Kapitsa, S.P. Kurdyumov and G.G. Malinetsky in 1996. Its implementation implies the following:

• full-scale mathematical modeling of historical processes taking into account emerging computer technologies and large databases relating to the present and past of humanity;
• analysis on this basis of alternatives to historical development, similar to what is done in the exact sciences, where theories and models make it possible to predict the course of processes under various parameters, initial and boundary conditions (in this case, history appears subjunctive mood);
• building historical and strategic forecast algorithms based on these models (at the same time, history also has imperative mood).

Most scientific disciplines have gone through a sequence of stages: description - classification - conceptual modeling and qualitative analysis - mathematical modeling and quantitative analysis - forecast. Probably, in the 21st century, historical science (based on its achievements, the results of other disciplines and computer modeling) will reach the level of forecasting.

Following the ideas of V.I. Vernadsky, who perspicaciously foresaw the opportunities and threats of the 20th century, humanity will have to increasingly take responsibility for the planet and for its development over time. And here we cannot do without mathematical history. This understanding is emerging among more and more researchers.

Russian, Soviet, Russian science

“Here they are, Russia’s two primary needs: 1. To correct it, at least to bring it first before D.A. Tolstoy, about 25 years ago, the state of enlightenment of Russian youth, and then go forward, remembering that without your advanced, active science there will be nothing of your own and that in it, selfless, is the loving root of hard work, just as in science without the great labor, absolutely nothing can be done and 2. To promote by all means, starting from loans, the rapid growth of our entire industry, including the trade and maritime industry, because industry will not only feed, but will also allow hard workers of all ranks and classes to get by, and will degrade lazy people to the point of that it will be disgusting for them to be idle, will teach them order in everything, will give wealth to the people and new strength to the state.”

DI. Mendeleev, “Treasured Thoughts.” 1905

The attitude towards science in our country can be judged by how the attitude towards the academy has changed. This organization, originally called the Academy of Sciences and Arts, was founded on January 28 (February 8), 1724 in St. Petersburg by decree of Peter I. It is on February 8 that Science Day is now celebrated in Russia. Peter believed that it was urgently necessary to master a number of technologies and sciences that had been developed in Western Europe - to build ships, erect fortresses, cast cannons, and also learn navigation and accounting, and then develop your own.

In the first years of the Academy’s activity, also created according to Western European models, the great mathematician Leonhard Euler and the outstanding mechanic Daniel Bernoulli worked there. In 1742, the great Russian scientist Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov was elected to the Academy of Sciences (AS). With his arrival, important features of this scientific center emerged - a wide range of research and a keen response of scientists to the needs of the state.

Since 1803, the highest scientific institution in Russia has become the Imperial Academy of Sciences, from 1836 - the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, from February 1917 to 1925 - the Russian Academy of Sciences, from July 1925 - the USSR Academy of Sciences, from 1991 to the present time - RAS.

In the 19th century, the Pulkovo Observatory (1839), several laboratories and museums were organized at the Academy; in 1841, departments of physical and mathematical sciences, Russian language and literature, and historical and philological sciences were established. The Academy included outstanding mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and physiologists; among them P.L. Chebyshov, M.V. Ostrogradsky, B.V. Petrov, A.M. Butlerov, N.N. Beketov and I.P. Pavlov.

By the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries, the works of Russian scientists received worldwide recognition. The most famous chemist in the world now is Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev, who discovered the Periodic Law. Nobel laureates were the creators of the theory of conditioned reflexes I.P. Pavlov (medicine, 1904) and honorary members of the St. Petersburg Academy I.I. Mechnikov (theory of immunity, medicine, 1908) and I.A. Bunin (literature, 1933).

The science of the USSR was one of the most advanced in the world, primarily in the field of natural sciences. This made it possible to bring our country during the 20th century from the position of a minor semi-feudal state to a number of leading industrial powers, to create the second (in terms of GDP) economy in the world. Much in the Soviet years had to be started from scratch. In a country where about 80% of the population was illiterate, there simply was no personnel for the development of full-fledged science.

In 1934, the Academy was transferred from Leningrad to Moscow and became the “headquarters of Soviet science.” Members of the Academy coordinate entire branches of research and receive great powers and resources. They have a great responsibility. History has shown the foresight of this decision related to the new look of the academy. The works of Soviet scientists played a huge role in the Great Patriotic War.

Significant funds were allocated to finance science. In 1947, a professor's salary was 7 times higher than the salary of the most skilled worker. In 1987, Nature magazine reported that the USSR spent 3.73% of its budget on R&D, Germany - 2.84%, Japan - 2.77%, Britain - 2.18-2.38% (according to various sources).

A major role in the development of science in the USSR was played by a sharp increase in its funding in the early 1960s. The number of scientific workers increased more than 4 times from 1950 to 1965, and more than 7 times from 1950 to 1970. Since the mid-1950s, the growth in the number of scientific personnel has been linear - the country has reached the forefront. From 1960 to 1965, the number of scientific employees was tripled. The growth of national income was also very rapid and, according to Western experts, was mainly due to an increase in labor productivity. It was then that the country created a knowledge economy!

Having a science budget of 15-20% of the American one, Soviet scientists successfully competed with them in all scientific areas. In 1953, the USSR ranked second in the world in the number of students per 10 thousand inhabitants and third in the intellectual potential of youth. Now, according to the first indicator, the Russian Federation has overtaken many countries in Europe and Latin America, and according to the second, we are in 40th place in the world.

The number of publications in scientific journals is not a very good indicator of the effectiveness of science (for example, because different languages ​​are spoken by different numbers of people). However, in the 1980s, the leading group in terms of the number of publications looked like this: USA, USSR, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Canada. The British and Germans were able to get ahead only during the period of reforms that disorganized science in the USSR.

But what is even more important is not quantitative, but qualitative indicators. The science of the USSR fulfilled its geopolitical task. It made it possible to create a strong army, economy, nuclear missile shield, significantly improve the life of society and expand the corridor of state capabilities. The first satellite, the first man in space, the first nuclear icebreaker and the first nuclear power plant, leadership in many other scientific and technical projects and much more. We have something to be proud of.

11 members of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1925-1991) became Nobel Prize laureates - N.N. Semenov (chemistry, 1956), I.E. Tamm (physics, 1958), I.M. Frank (physics, 1958), P.A. Cherenkov (physics, 1958), L.D. Landau (physics, 1962), M.G. Basov (physics, 1964), A.M. Prokhorov (physics, 1964), M.A. Sholokhov (literature, 1965), L.V. Kantorovich (economics, 1975), A.D. Sakharov (Mira, 1975), P.L. Kapitsa (physics, 1975).

The attitude towards science in the USSR is perfectly characterized by the words of the Soviet song: “Hello, country of heroes, country of dreamers, country of scientists!”

Among the main reasons for the rise and great successes of Soviet science, researchers usually highlight the following:

• high prestige of science in society;
• high general level of education and science;
• relatively good material support;
• openness of science – in large scientific teams there was a free exchange of opinions on the work being performed, which made it possible to avoid mistakes and subjectivism.

Among the main problems of Soviet science are the following:

• reproduction of innovations in the “applied research – technology development and market launch” link. Some technologies were introduced into production “with difficulty”, while others “were never reached”;
• the absence of strict feedback between the assessment of a scientist’s work in a number of areas and the results obtained (the greatest successes took place where the responsibility for the assigned work was high);
• lagging behind in scientific instrument making, production of first-class reagents and much more necessary to ensure full-fledged scientific work;
• The main problem was the changing attitude towards science and its funding in the 1970s. The pay scale for scientific workers has not been revised in the USSR since the late 1940s. Salary of a doctor of sciences in the 1970s-1980s. did not exceed the salary of a driver at a construction site or a bus driver.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the reforms of the 1990s, domestic science occupied one of the leading positions in the world.

The past 20-plus years of reforms allow us to take stock as far as science is concerned. The analysis shows that we are not dealing with individual unqualified officials or unsuccessful decisions, but with a coherent, holistic strategy. This strategy was built, voiced and defended at various sites at the Higher School of Economics (HSE), the Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR) and the Academy of National Economy (now RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation). It was precisely this that was accepted for implementation by the departments supervising science in the Russian Federation. Its goal is the destruction of domestic science, depriving it of systemic integrity, influence on government decisions and the education system, reducing it to a level at which research and development made in Russia can be used “in the wings” by the leading countries of the world and transnational corporations.

It should be recognized that these goals were achieved:

• the innovation reproduction cycle is completely destroyed;
• our country, a scientific superpower in the recent past, now has “second-ten science”;
• science is directed along the colonial path, the development of scientific activity is largely blocked.

The consistency and continuity of policy is also evidenced by the strategic documents adopted recently, among which stands out the Strategy for Innovative Development of Russia for the period up to 2020, prepared by officials from the Ministry of Economic Development together with employees of the Higher School of Economics. In this seemingly most important document, designed to ensure the country’s entry into the ranks of the world’s technological powers, the academic sector of science is, in principle, not considered as a development institution. The well-known IGL bill became the legal formalization of the sacrifice of an academy with a three-hundred-year history to universities.

Formally, the IGL project provided for the creation of the Agency of Scientific Institutes, which would take over about 700 institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMS) and the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (RAASHN), as well as all the property that is under their operational management. These academies themselves merge and turn into a kind of club of scientists. The initial draft of the IGL did not envisage that this club could engage in scientific research, management of the institutes of the created agency, or educational activities (the “club” was assigned expert functions and responses to government requests). In other words, according to the authors of the project, academicians should be separated from the currently existing academic institutions.

Thus, we are talking about the destruction of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the destruction of the organization of all fundamental research in the country. The academic structure is rejected, and fundamental science is supposed to be transferred to national research universities by injecting additional funds into them and inviting foreign scientists and managers who will be able to manage them effectively.

Reformers’ arguments about the need for the IGL project to increase “publication activity” (according to the SCImago Institution, the Russian Academy of Sciences ranks third in the world in such activity after the National Center for Scientific Research of France and the Chinese Academy of Sciences), for “more efficient use of property” (which is already remains state-owned) do not withstand any criticism.

The IGL project does not contribute to the preservation and strengthening of the country's sovereignty. He doesn't work for Russia. The bill must be withdrawn. The voice of the scientific community, of everyone who understands the importance of science in Russia and connects their future with it, must be heard.

This is probably obvious to many readers. Therefore, now it is important to discuss not the scheme and reasons for the dismantling of Russian science, but the ways and forms of the most effective use of the results of fundamental research conducted in the country and the scientific and technological potential currently available in Russia.

Let's turn to quantitative data and international comparisons. In August 1996, the Law on Science and State Science and Technology Policy was approved, according to which spending on civilian science had to be at least 4% of the budget expenditures. This law has never been implemented.

The share of domestic expenditures on civil research and development in relation to gross domestic product in Russia is 0.8% (Fig. 12). According to this indicator, our country is in the third ten among the countries of the world. In terms of internal costs per researcher ($75.4 thousand), Russia is also very far behind the leaders. For example, in the USA this figure is 267.3 thousand dollars (Fig. 13).

Rice. 12. Domestic expenditure on civil research and development in relation to GDP. (Source: Science, technology and innovation of Russia. Brief statistical collection. 2012. M.: IPRAN RAS, 2012. – 88 p.)

Rice. 13. Internal research and development costs per researcher. (Source: ibid.)

According to a joint study by the Higher School of Economics and the Center for International Higher Education, of the 28 countries studied on all continents, only in Russia the salary of a professor and scientist of the highest rank turned out to be significantly less than GDP per capita (Fig. 14).

Rice. 14. Annual salary of university professors and scientists of the highest category (for Russia - senior researcher, doctor of science) relative to GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in different countries, excluding grants. (Source: Mikhail Zelensky. Where are we? (how are things going with science in Russia). TrV No. 108, p. 2-3, “The Genesis of Science.”)

The costs for the entire RAS are now comparable to funding one American university of average quality. In other words, within the framework of the current scientific strategy in Russia, science is treated as something of secondary importance and is financed on a residual basis.

Naturally, this has a detrimental effect on the high-tech sector of the Russian economy. Currently, the global market for high-tech products is worth $2.3 trillion. According to forecasts, in 15 years the demand for high-tech machinery and equipment will amount to $3.5-4 trillion. As a result of the collapse of a significant part of the manufacturing industry, Russia's share in the production of high-tech products has been constantly declining over the past 20 years and now amounts to 0.3% of the world figure. In 1990, there were 68% of enterprises implementing scientific and technical developments, in 1994 in the Russian Federation their number decreased to 20%, and in 1998 to 3.7%, while in the USA, Japan, Germany and France this level is from 70 to 82%.

Nobel laureate academician Zh.I. Alferov sees the main reason for the current crisis of Russian science in the lack of demand for its results. However, this problem is transient - science, starved of food and lacking fully trained young personnel, will eventually lose the ability to obtain scientific results that should be implemented.

In the case of scientific activity, the “sacred cow” of the Ministry of Education and Science is the citation rate of Russian articles, which is assessed on the basis of foreign databases. A similar citation analysis was carried out in detail and led to the conclusion that the current share of citations to Russian articles corresponds quite closely to Russia's GDP in the gross global product.

On the other hand, on citation change domestic work can be viewed as a result and reflection of the policy pursued by the Ministry of Education and Science.

Relative indicators - the number of scientific articles per capita (Articles Per Catita - APC) and the annual change in this number per capita per population ΔAPC show the country’s place in the global scientific space. This analysis was carried out by the researchers... (Fig. 15) using the SJR website using the Scopus database.

Rice. 15. Starry sky of science. On the horizontal axis is the relative number of articles per capita APC (Articles Per Capita) in 2010. On the vertical axis is the annual increase in the relative number of DAPC articles, on average for 2006-2010. The area of ​​the circle is proportional to the absolute number of publications in a given country in 2010. The scale of the axes in the lower graph is 7 times larger. The colors indicate: blue – Western countries with developed market economies, yellow – Latin America, purple – Eastern Europe, green – Arab oil-producing countries, red – countries of the former USSR, brown – Southeast Asia, dark gray – Africa, light blue – all others . Designations by two-letter national domain names. (Source: ibid.)

Let's comment on this drawing. For the USA, APCх10 4 =16 (i.e. in 2010 in this country there were 16 articles per 10 thousand people), ΔAPCх10 4 =1 (i.e. each subsequent year the number of articles per 10 thousand people increased by one). The total number of published articles in the United States over 5 years increased by one and a half times, or by 155 thousand. That's a lot.

The figure shows that today two scientific supergiants - the USA and China - account for one third of all world scientific publications. The USA, China, Great Britain, Germany and Japan write half of everything that comes out.

The relative increase in publications per capita in Russia is only 0.013 articles per 10 thousand people and has been steadily maintained at this level in the country for at least 15 years.

Figure 16 shows Russia's share in global scientific production in comparison with the guidance and forecast documents regulating the country's scientific field. It can be seen that plans and reality lie in different spaces.

Rice. 16. Dreams and reality. (Source: ibid.)

If this policy continues by 2018, judging by the forecast made, the contribution of the Russian Federation to world science will be 0.79%, and if we count as such the number of citations, which for domestic articles is half the global total, then it will be 0.4%.

Let's return to financing (Fig. 17).

Rice. 17. Financing of Russian science and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

(Source: Russian Academy of Sciences. Chronicle of protest. June-July 2013. Compiled by A.N. Parshin. Second edition, supplemented and corrected. - M.: Russian Reporter Magazine, 2013. - 368 p.)

As we can see, a significant share of the increase in spending on science has gone past the academy. Unfortunately, the increase in funding did not even lead to an increase in citations, not to mention more serious things. The reason for the failure of the favorite brainchildren of the Ministry of Education and Science - Rusnano and Skolkovo - was analyzed by the famous Russian specialist in the field of computer technology, academician Vladimir Betelin. Here are some of his arguments:

“For many years, the authors of the reforms convinced us that Russia’s integration into the global global economy would provide it with unlimited access to the most modern products and technologies. On this basis, science, education, and industry in Russia were reformed. As a result, in key areas for our defense capability, there is dominance of screwdriver assembly technologies and dependence on the United States. Here, in fact, are the three pillars that underlie the destructive policy that has resulted in Russia becoming uncompetitive: the gap between the citizen and the state, the focus on short-term profit and the abandonment of its own technologies...

As part of the government strategy, a whole set of development institutions was created: technology parks, foundations, Rusnano, Skolkovo, but nevertheless we have to admit that innovation policy has not achieved its stated goals.

And it’s clear why: because the creation of competitive products is associated with high risks of long-term investment of large amounts of money, for which our development institutions are not designed.”

In this situation, destroying the RAS is more than reckless.

The academy occupies a special place in our country. The bulk of the research is carried out at the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences by junior, senior and ordinary researchers. An army is powerless if it does not have privates and officers, no matter how good the generals and marshals are.

In this regard, we present the staffing table approved by Decree of the Russian Academy of Sciences No. 192 dated October 09, 2012 (after a 6% increase): junior researcher. – 13,827 rub./month; n.s. – 15 870; senior researcher – 18,274; V.N.S. – 21,040; chief researcher – 24,166; head of department – ​​24,160; director - 31,810. Any work is honorable, however, we note that up to a senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences they earn less than a postman in Moscow (20 thousand rubles / month), up to the main thing - less than a sales consultant with an average education (25 thousand rubles/month). And finally, the director of an academic institute earns, according to the staffing table, half as much as a foreman at a Moscow construction site.

And the fact that under such conditions the RAS works and obtains important scientific results means that this organization employs persistent, selfless people who do not think of themselves outside of science. Reforms will come and go, but Russian science must remain.

Is Russian fundamental science still alive? Or maybe Minister D. Livanov is right - and the Academy of Sciences is really unviable? Such questions sometimes arise when reading critical articles about Russian science in newspapers and magazines. They might also appear among our readers.

To make everything clear, let us pay attention to just a few results that have been obtained in Russian research institutes in recent years:

• Many of the most important results of modern fundamental science are related to deep space exploration. To peer far into the universe, scientists observe the same object from two points separated by a large distance. The greater the distance, the further you can look. Such systems are called ultra-long-baseline interferometers. This idea is implemented in the international project “Radioastron”, the leader of which is Russia. The Spektr-R space satellite with a radio telescope on board was launched into orbit. Another observation point was located on Earth. The distance between them was 300 thousand kilometers. This has greatly expanded our ability to explore the remote corners of the universe;
• As a result of a unique experiment conducted by scientists of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in collaboration with Russian research centers and US national laboratories, the birth of the heaviest isotopes of transuranium elements with numbers 105–117 was registered. The 117th element was synthesized for the first time in the world. Typical for transuranium elements is a decrease in half-life as their number increases. However, scientists have put forward a hypothesis that in the world of superheavy elements there should be “islands of stability” and that, starting from a certain number, the half-life will increase. Experimental work carried out at JINR convincingly confirmed this assumption. Based on these achievements, large-scale national programs for the synthesis and comprehensive study of the atomic, nuclear and chemical properties of the heaviest elements were adopted in the USA, Japan, the European Union, and China. Academician Yu.Ts. Oganesyan, the leader of these works, was awarded the State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of science and technology in 2010.
• The Joint Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences has developed a unique steam-gas technology for the combined generation of thermal and electrical energy based on domestic gas turbines with technical, economic and environmental characteristics that significantly exceed the world level. At the same time, the cost of generated electricity is two times lower than at traditional thermal power plants, and 25% lower than at combined cycle heating plants;
• The Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences has developed, patented and introduced into medical practice the technology of biological microchips (biochips), which allows for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis, hepatitis C, cancer, and allergies. Test systems based on biochips are used in more than 40 clinics and diagnostic centers in Russia and the CIS countries, and are certified for subsequent distribution in Europe;
• at the Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the “Atlas of socio-political problems, threats and risks of the south of Russia” in 5 volumes (2006-2011) was prepared and published, in which acute problems of the political, economic and social life of the population of the southern regions of the country are presented and analyzed. This work seems extremely important from the point of view of ensuring Russia's national security.

Russian science and the path to the future

Unfortunately, this is what happens to people:

No matter how useful a thing is, without knowing its price,

The ignoramus tends to tell everything about her for the worse;

And if the ignorant is more knowledgeable,

So he also drives her away.

I.A. Krylov

Following the logic and example of outstanding scientists and organizers of domestic science: Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov, Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov, Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh, the development of scientific knowledge should proceed primarily from those key tasks that society and the state solve.

What is the main task of modern Russia?

So far, the world is developing in accordance with the scenario called by the American political scientist S. Huntington “a clash of civilizations,” in which the 21st century is determined by the intense competition of civilizations or their blocs for melting natural resources. In the new technological realities, this approach is very clearly presented in the works of the American futurist Alvin Toffler: “In a world divided into three, the First Wave sector supplies agricultural and mineral resources, the Second Wave sector provides cheap labor and mass production, and the rapidly expanding Third Wave sector rises to dominance, based on new ways in which knowledge is created and used...

Third Wave countries sell information and innovation, management, culture and pop culture, advanced technology, software, education, vocational training, healthcare, finance and other services to the world. One of the services may be military protection based on the possession of superior armed forces of the Third Wave."

By the mid-1980s, the USSR was at or close to the level of Third Wave civilizations in many key indicators. The fruitless destructive reforms of 1985-2000 made Russia a First Wave country, a typical raw materials donor. About half of the budget revenue comes from the oil and gas sector, food and drug security is not ensured, and in terms of the level of medical care, according to experts from the World Health Organization, Russia until recently was in 124th place.

Ensuring real, not paper, sovereignty, moving away from the colonial scenario, moving from imitation of innovative activity to entering the trajectory of sustainable, self-sustaining development of Russia requires that our Fatherland become a civilization of the Third Wave. This is a categorical imperative for any responsible political force and for domestic science as a whole.

The course towards high technology is dictated by the geographical and geopolitical position of our country. This gives rise to a criterion for evaluating actions, projects and initiatives in the field of science and education. Whatever works to achieve the stated goal must be accepted and implemented. Projects directed in the opposite direction should be rejected and rejected.

The main reason for the current difficulties is the long-term absence of a strategic entity who would be interested in its activities and results, in its development, and, if necessary, could protect it from the next attacks of zealous reformers.

In our opinion, such entities are already appearing in Russia and setting tasks, and over time there may be even more of them. It is important that they seek solutions to the problems raised. Let's give a few examples. At a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences on December 3, 2001, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin set two tasks for the Russian scientific community. First - independent examination of government decisions and forecasts of accidents, disasters and catastrophes in the natural, man-made and social spheres. The solution proposed by the academy is the creation National system of scientific monitoring of hazardous phenomena and processes– was agreed upon with a number of interested departments, but was not accepted for execution citing the lack of regulations for the adoption of interdepartmental federal target programs, i.e. for formal reasons. And it was not fulfilled. The disasters of recent years have clearly shown that this range of tasks has become even more relevant than in the early 2000s. The assessments made show that only the implementation of the RAS proposals in the field of disaster risk management would help save many hundreds of billions of rubles.

Independent examination of government decisions requires the creation in the RAS of a specialized structure, databases and knowledge and connection to many information flows, but the main thing is inclusion of forecasts, assessments, examinations carried out at the Russian Academy of Sciences into the contours of public administration. To successfully accomplish such tasks, the status of the academy must be raised.

The second task set by the President on December 3, 2001 is testing scenarios for transferring the country from the current pipe economy to an innovative path of development. In essence, this is the problem of transforming the Russian world into a Third Wave civilization.

Over the past 25 years, Russia has undergone deindustrialization, a number of industrial areas have ceased to exist, others have reduced production many times over, and our country has lost its position in a number of world markets (Fig. 18).

A comparison of what is produced not in monetary but in physical terms clearly shows that in many respects we have not yet reached the level of 1990.

Many leading economists in Russia and RAS scientists raise the question of new industrialization of the country as a path to a knowledge economy. Primary industrialization consisted of the electrification of productive forces. Neo-industrialization is associated with the “digitization” of productive forces, with the microprocessor revolution, with the transition to labor saving, robotic production, and “green industry”. Another principle of the neo-industrial paradigm is the automated transformation of household and industrial waste into resources.

The President of the Russian Federation outlined the creation of 25 million jobs in the field of high technology in the coming decades as a priority task. It is necessary to design and develop a huge industry, train personnel, and find a niche in the world market for the export sector of this industry. A huge task!

The subject objectively interested in the activities of the academy and improving its status is society, government bodies ensuring the functioning of the education and enlightenment system of Russia. Let us admit the obvious: the path of Westernization along which the education system of the Russian Federation is following (and along which Russian science is now being directed) has led it to a deep dead end.

The experiment to combine the management of science and education within one ministry failed. It would be advisable if the centaur of the Ministry of Education and Science, which cannot cope with either one or the other, was divided into the Ministry of Science and Technology, which could really coordinate scientific research conducted in the country, and the Ministry of Education. The scientific leadership of the latter would naturally be entrusted to the RAS.

Currently, school curricula are overloaded with irrelevant material. Attempts to fight corruption with the help of the Unified State Exam have increased it many times over. At the same time, both schoolchildren and students, as a rule, do not know many basic things and have a low general culture, which negatively affects their mastery of professional skills. And the cure for this serious, long-term illness can be sought in the academy.

The educational potential of the academy is clearly underutilized. Currently, the Russian Academy of Sciences is faced with the problem of a lack of trained youth. In this regard, it seems appropriate to create a number of academic universities in the Russian Academy of Sciences to organize the training of researchers, which will make it possible to overcome the personnel catastrophe in the academy itself, in the high-tech sector of the Russian economy and in a number of fundamentally important areas of the military-industrial complex (DIC).

The attitude of Russian citizens to knowledge and to the academy is clearly evidenced by the results of a sociological survey of the population of large Russian cities, conducted from July 19 to July 22, 2013 by employees of the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences together with ROMIR, representing the association of researchers Gallup International.

About 44% of respondents are new to the activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences and do not have a position on reforming the academy, do not understand the importance of scientific knowledge for the innovative development of the country and cannot yet assess the consequences of current events. (To a large extent, this is the result of the failure of school education.) About 20% of respondents knew nothing about the reorganization of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

At the same time, 8 out of 10 respondents highly appreciate the contribution of the Russian Academy of Sciences to the development of Russian and world science, and every third believes that without it there would be no outstanding discoveries, space flights, nuclear physics, or a modern army.

7 out of 10 who are monitoring the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences believe that if the IGL project is implemented, Russia will lose its advantages in the field of fundamental research, and that this will negatively affect the prospects for the country’s socio-economic development, its place and role in the world community.

The survey showed that the level of citizens' trust in the academy is very high and is comparable to the level of trust in the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and the Armed Forces. Thus, the difference between the answers “I trust” and “I don’t trust” in favor of “I trust” for the Russian Academy of Sciences was the largest value - 39.4% compared to other social institutions in the country.

Another strategic entity that is objectively extremely interested in the development and expansion of the academy’s powers is the defense industry.

Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the defense industry, nuclear and space industries, high technologies, D.O. Rogozin drew attention to “events that in the foreseeable future may revolutionize modern ideas about methods of warfare.” These are tests in the United States of a hypersonic missile flying at a speed of more than five times faster than sound, and testing of the take-off and landing of an unmanned attack vehicle on the deck of an aircraft carrier, carried out in 2013. Let us recall the words of V.V. Putin: “Reacting to the threats and challenges of today only means dooming yourself to the eternal role of laggards. We must do our best to ensure technical, technological, and organizational superiority over any potential adversary.”

Thus, the Russian defense industry needs a strategic forecast, scientific and technological breakthroughs that will allow it to maintain sovereignty in the military sphere.

Here are a few more assessments of the current situation given by the Deputy Prime Minister:

“At the end of 2012, the Pentagon conducted a computer game, the results of which showed that as a result of a strike on a “large and highly developed country” with 3.5-4 thousand units of precision weapons within 6 hours, its infrastructure would be almost completely destroyed, and the state would lose the ability to resist ...

How can we counter this threat if it really is directed against us? This must be an asymmetrical response, using fundamentally new types of weapons. These weapons should not rely on existing telecommunications systems, which can be disabled in a matter of minutes. This must be an autonomous, self-sufficient weapon that can independently solve its problems...

It is obvious that in the near future, in order to solve this and similar non-trivial problems, we need to make a technological breakthrough, which in its scale can be comparable to the atomic project or the Soviet space program.”

Similar assessments of the situation are contained in the report to the Izborsk Club on military problems.

The first steps to allow the academy to respond to this challenge are quite obvious:

• organizing regular constructive interaction between a number of ideologists and leaders of the defense industry with RAS scientists to set key scientific tasks focused on the future development of the defense industry and the Russian Armed Forces. This should be organized at a much higher level than is currently being done in the section of applied problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The work must be carried out more actively, specifically and quickly;
• expansion and development of a system of open (and closed) competitions in the interests of the defense industry, making it possible to find new ideas and technologies, as well as people capable of working in this area;
• organization of a number of institutes in the Russian Academy of Sciences, focused on supporting the defense industry. Perhaps the organization of work in the most important areas in the mode of “special committees”, which have proven themselves in nuclear and space projects, in the development of radar, cryptography and aviation technology;
• development of a number of structures in the Russian Academy of Sciences, providing scientific instrument making in areas vital for the defense industry. The rise on this basis of metrological support for mechanical engineering and a number of defense systems. There is positive experience in the Russian Academy of Sciences and a number of other organizations in this area, but it requires active development.

Looking into the future, it is appropriate to touch upon organizational issues. Over the past year, the Russian Academy of Sciences has been preparing consolidated reports from all 6 state academies of sciences. In a number of documents, including the notorious IGL project, it is entrusted with the coordination of all fundamental research in Russia. This is a large, serious analytical, organizational, forecasting activity that does not boil down to filing and editing papers coming from scientific organizations. The Academy must create a structure that seriously, at a high level and with the involvement of leading scientists, is engaged in this important and responsible work. The basis for this has already been created. During the period 2008-2012. The “Program of Fundamental Scientific Research of State Academies of Sciences” was implemented, during which new mechanisms for organizing research carried out by various structures were developed.

At the same time, the need to combine efforts in the scientific field is becoming increasingly obvious not only to the researchers themselves. Therefore, it seems reasonable to reassign Skolkovo, the Kurchatov Institute and other “clones” of the academy related to fundamental research and the direct use of their results to the Russian Academy of Sciences. At the same time, it is necessary to determine the range of fundamental problems and technological tasks that can be assigned to these research centers.

Looking from the same perspective at the key tasks that Russian civilization will have to solve in the coming decades, we will see many entities that would urgently need a strong, effective, capable Academy of Sciences. It would be needed not for decorative or representative purposes, but for important and large-scale matters.

conclusions

1. Humanity has entered a new phase of its development. On the one hand, it is determined by qualitatively new scientific and technological changes, and on the other, by a phase of overconsumption, in which the Earth’s ability to support our existence with the use of modern technologies and the volume of resources consumed was significantly exceeded. We are already one planet short. During the lifetime of one generation, there is a breakdown of global demographic trends that have determined the life of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years. For now, we are rapidly moving toward the “crisis of 2050,” comparable in scale and severity to the depletion of resources before the Neolithic revolution.

Science has been challenged, the likes of which have never been seen in history. Over the next 10-15 years, scientists will have to find a new set of life-sustaining technologies (energy and food production, construction, transport, education, management, coordination of interests, etc.). Current technologies ensure the existence of humanity over the coming decades. We have to find and apply technologies designed to last for centuries. If previously science laid the foundations for the next technological order, now it has to design a new civilizational environment.

1. Nowadays, more than ever, there is a need for the country to rely on the allocation of resources to science and new technologies that are being created within the framework primarily of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is necessary to concentrate the efforts of domestic science on ways to solve the main, key problems for our civilization - the world, Russia. The greatest opportunities, prospects and risks of the 21st century are already associated with the development and effective use of the abilities and potential of people and teams. We must create a national system for identifying and developing talent, teach our youth to dream, ensure the operation of a number of first-class universities that are comparable and superior to the best Soviet institutions, and most importantly, give the opportunity to talented scientists, engineers and organizers to realize their ideas and plans in their homeland. These people will help solve the main problems of Russia, they will make us a civilization of the Third Wave. This is true competitiveness in the modern world.

Speaking at the Academic Council of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, the great Soviet mathematician Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov, answering a question about the main thing in the work of the faculty, said: “We all need to learn to forgive people for their talent.” This is also the most important thing for us now.

1. The analysis shows that it was the USSR, on the basis of the Academy of Sciences, that was a scientific superpower, conducting research along the entire front, achieving outstanding success in space exploration and nuclear energy, and in many other areas. At several historical milestones, the work of our scientists helped defend the country's sovereignty. Twenty years ago, Russia followed the path of orthodox liberalism. In the 1990s, the bulk of the country's applied science was destroyed, and in the 2000s, most of its educational potential. According to many indicators, Russian science is now in the second ten in the world.

Currently, we are again in a situation where the question of the future of the country is being decided. Basic research plays the role of yeast in the scientific and technological cake. On their basis, it is possible to revive applied work and military science, and raise the level of medicine and education, which has fallen greatly over the past decades.

Fundamental research is developing most successfully, actively and fruitfully at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Attempts to replace the RAS entirely or in some areas by the Kurchatov Institute, Skolkovo, Rusnano, and the Higher School of Economics, despite abundant funding, turned out to be untenable. The Medvedev-Golodets-Livanov bill on the reorganization of the Russian Academy of Sciences, based on the principle of “divide and conquer,” will destroy the Russian Academy of Sciences, paralyze fundamental research in the country and deprive us of our chances for the revival of Russia. It should be withdrawn or radically revised, with the active participation of the scientific community.

1. From a government point of view, fundamental science is objectively necessary for those making strategic decisions for the following reasons:

• for an independent examination of government decisions and the forecast of disasters, crises, disasters in the natural, man-made and social spheres;
• to test scenarios for the transition from the “pipe economy” to an innovative path of development (new industrialization and the creation of 25 million jobs in the high-tech sector of the economy);
• to develop the principles and foundations for the creation of new types of weapons that can change the geopolitical status of the country;
• for a strategic forecast that allows you to quickly and timely adjust the “threat map” for the state and highlight problems that require immediate solutions;
• for examination of large programs and projects implemented with public money. (The attempt to do the tasks of examination and forecasting without the Russian Academy of Sciences, without serious fundamental research and to assign these problems to the Higher School of Economics, the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation and foreign companies failed. These works should be entrusted to the Russian Academy of Sciences, creating the conditions for their implementation. Fundamental relative independence of the Russian Academy of Sciences from the state, ensuring the objectivity of the assessments given, and not work on the principle of “whatever you want.”)

1. The Academy of Sciences provides better opportunities than other structures for the implementation of large interdisciplinary projects - the main direction of scientific and technological development of the 21st century. However, this requires its unity and systemic integrity - close communication between various departments, between humanities, natural sciences and mathematical modeling specialists, between academic organizations in different regions of the country. The severing of ties between them, as envisaged by the IGL bill and other similar plans, will sharply reduce the country's scientific potential and worsen Russia's prospects. Today we do not know what will become main and critically important in 5-10-20 years. Therefore, we must know, understand and develop many things, which is what the Russian Academy of Sciences allows us to do.
2. Any strategic entity and any responsible political force is objectively interested in a reliable forecast, serious scientific expertise, identification of risks and new opportunities, and, consequently, in first-class scientific research. In the current conditions, it is extremely important to unite the forces of the scientific community. Therefore, the RAS should be entrusted with the coordination of all fundamental research conducted with federal money in the country, the tasks of scientific and technical expertise and the design of the future. Today, in order to make far-sighted, effective decisions in many areas - from state defense procurement to socio-economic and regional policy - one must have clear ideas about the development of the world and Russia for the next 30 years. The leading countries of the world take this very seriously, choosing their development priorities and areas of breakthrough based on in-depth scientific analysis and adjusting them, systematically taking into account the changes taking place in the world. This is how things should be done in Russia.
3. Science is most closely connected with education, which in modern Russia is in a deep crisis, caused by ill-conceived, short-sighted experiments in this area over the past 20 years.

It is advisable to divide the Ministry of Education and Science into the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Education and give the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation the rights of a federal agency. The scientific leadership of the Ministry of Education should be entrusted to the Academy of Sciences, entrusting the latter with the creation of several academic universities focused on training future researchers starting from school. This can set the bar for the entire Russian education system. RAS institutes can become the basis for basic departments at a number of universities, as was done during the creation of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. A number of educational projects at the Academy show that it is quite ready for such work. All that remains is to make a decision and eliminate the bureaucratic obstacles erected along this path.

1. The key to the fate of Russia, domestic science and the academy is goal setting. Our country should not be a donor of raw materials, and not a second-rate power, but the basis for one of the system-forming civilizations of the modern world. To do this, you should follow your own path, clearly see your long-term goals, national interests, and project for the future. To have real sovereignty, we must feed ourselves, protect, teach, heal, warm ourselves, we must equip our country ourselves and determine our future. Russian science can help with all this. She just needs to be given the opportunity to do it.

The setting of tasks for the academy and Russian science will determine its organization, structure, forms of activity and leaders ready to take on these problems.

The first Russian nuclear warhead was called RDS-1. Its developers deciphered this name as “Russia does it itself.” We were able to learn how to do this ourselves, thanks in large part to top-notch science. A challenge comparable in scale and severity has now been thrown at our country. Once again the scales of history are weighing: to be Russia or not...

Let us ask ourselves the question: what are modern education and science in the context of the formation of a person’s personality, his constant development and understanding of the world around him?

Science is a form of human activity that is aimed at structured knowledge and transformation of reality. Science is both a system of knowledge about the world and practical activities based on it. And the subject of modern science can be called the world, and the forms and types of movement of matter, and their perception in the human mind. Thus, man himself is the subject of scientific study.

In the modern world, the process of education occurs not only with the help of special social institutions, but also through self-education, i.e. acquiring skills and knowledge in a certain area independently. For self-education there is no need to attend a special educational institution; a person can study a subject that interests him using special manuals, textbooks, using examples of life situations or with the help of friends and acquaintances.

The social health of the individual and society is determined by many factors and conditions, including the level of education of a person. Education allows a person to successfully adapt to social life and is a tool for improving it. The following social adaptation levels of modern education are clearly distinguished: micro level - self-education; meso level – education in the family, individual education; macro level – education in state and non-state educational institutions, in the system of additional education; mega level – education within the framework of international educational programs, in the system of interstate cooperation, etc.

The sustainable functioning and development of education at all social adaptation levels ensures the dynamic renewal of man and society.

The study of modern social problems of young people has shown that in the last century the role of education in the development of society has noticeably strengthened. But today the key problem is that in the reformed society not only has there been a structural crisis of values, but also their role in the development of society has qualitatively changed - the new structure of public ideas about good and evil, about encouraged and condemned norms of behavior are becoming chaotic. By nature, people are free, sociable, and capable of creation. But they are deprived of these natural properties if emerging conditions interfere with the manifestations of human nature. This is exactly what we see in modern society. A person deprived of control over his work, salary, becomes alienated, distant from work, others and, ultimately, from himself. Alienation occurred in education, culture, art, family and other areas. A person entering life is influenced psychologically, on the one hand, by the media, and on the other, by the real world. Concern for the development, survival, protection and socialization of young people is gradually becoming a state matter, requiring clear organization and planning, and an increase in state care for youth.

Transformations in modern Russian society, both socio-political and economic, stimulate the modernization of the national education system. On the one hand, the national education system is directly influenced by social transformations, on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly necessary for solving government problems. Education is becoming the most important factor in the dynamic renewal of Russian society. It significantly influences the global systemic transformations taking place in Russia in all strategic directions of its development - in politics, economics, and the social sphere. Intensive integration of Russian education into the world educational system allows us to purposefully strengthen the influence of Russian culture in the process of development of human civilization, while contributing to the preservation of the national mentality.

In the last decade in Russia there has been a transition from unified to variable education. The basis of the new educational strategy is an innovative model of education management, namely management based on flexible education standards and guaranteed budget standards, strategic planning, extensive cooperation between the center and the regions, and new information technologies. The implementation of these positions will make it possible to effectively manage the system of intensively updated education.

The main tasks of education in the current period of development of the Russian state include improving the quality of education, creating social and pedagogical programs for the development of youth as a key condition for increasing the social mobility of the individual and changing the socio-psychological atmosphere in society. Within the national education system itself, the prerequisites have emerged for the transition to new models of educational policy.

Science plays an important role in this process as an innovative reserve for the development of the education system, including education management systems. Of particular importance is the organization and full-fledged financing of scientific support for the state strategy for the development of education.

Domestic science must solve the problems of implementing a program of retraining and advanced training for teachers, provide a real basis for the fundamentalization of teacher training, and the development of motivation of teaching staff. Sociological research has shown the importance of solving such problems as providing material support to teachers, modernizing the material and technical base of an educational institution, increasing the level of qualifications of teachers, improving methodological support for the pedagogical process, developing scientific research, and updating educational and methodological literature.

Modern science in many respects is significantly, radically different from the science that existed a century or even half a century ago. Its entire appearance and the nature of its relationships with society have changed. Today it represents the organic unity of three basic concepts of science: science as knowledge, science as activity, science as a social institution.

The first concept, science as knowledge, with a centuries-old tradition, is considered as a special form of social consciousness and represents a certain system of knowledge. This direction in science (reliance only on reliable, verified facts and knowledge) is rather monotonous and limited. Its social nature, creators, and material and technical base elude researchers; opportunities for a deeper and more comprehensive study of the specifics, structure, place, social role and functions of science are limited. This led to the need to study the activity and social aspects of science.

Considering science as an activity allows us to take into account the scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress, the results of which are noticeably manifested in all sectors of life and in all spheres of human activity. The process of transforming science into a direct productive force was first recorded in the middle of the last century, when an activity-based approach to science was developed, as a result of which science began to be interpreted as a special sphere of professionally specialized activity, a unique type of spiritual production.

Science as a social institution is a social way of organizing the joint activities of scientists, who are a special socio-professional group, a defined community. The purpose and purpose of science as a social institution is the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, the development of research tools and methods, the reproduction of scientists and ensuring that they fulfill their social functions.

It is impossible to overestimate the role of science in modern society . The 20th century became the century of victorious scientific and technological progress. Technologies changed production methods, there was an increasing increase in the knowledge intensity of products, and automation became widespread. Thanks to the development of science and technology, high technologies developed by the end of the 20th century, and the transition to an information economy continued. Science in modern society plays an important role in many industries and spheres of people’s lives. The level of development of science can serve as one of the main indicators of the development of society, economic, cultural, civilized, educated, modern development of the state.

As a result, firstly, demands on employees have increased. They began to be required to have greater knowledge, as well as an understanding of new technological processes. Secondly, the share of mental workers and scientists has increased, that is, people whose work requires deep scientific knowledge. Thirdly, the growth in prosperity caused by scientific and technological progress and the solution of many pressing problems of society have given rise to people's faith in the ability of science to solve the problems of humanity and improve the quality of life. Such achievements as space exploration, the creation of nuclear energy, the first successes in the field of robotics gave rise to the belief in the inevitability of scientific and technological progress, a quick solution to the problems of hunger, disease, etc.

Today, in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, science is increasingly revealing another concept - it acts as a social force. In solving global problems of our time, such as ecology, for example, the functions of science as a social force are very important. The development of scientific and technological progress is one of the main reasons for such dangerous phenomena for society and people as the depletion of the planet’s natural resources, air, water, and soil pollution. Consequently, science is one of the factors in the radical and dangerous changes that are taking place today in the human environment. Therefore, science plays a leading role in determining the scale and parameters of environmental hazards.

Let's consider the main functions of scientific knowledge. The cognitive function is the knowledge of nature, society and man, the rational and theoretical comprehension of the world, the discovery of its laws and patterns, the explanation of various phenomena and processes, the production of new scientific knowledge. The worldview function is the development of a scientific worldview and a scientific picture of the world, the study of rationalistic aspects of a person’s relationship to the world, the substantiation of a scientific worldview. The production function is designed to introduce innovations, innovations, new technologies, forms of organization, etc. into production.

And finally, the cultural, educational function lies in the fact that science is a cultural phenomenon, a noticeable factor in the cultural development of people and education. The achievements, ideas and recommendations of science have a noticeable impact on the entire educational process, on the content of programs, plans, textbooks, on technology, forms and methods of teaching. Of course, the leading role here belongs to pedagogical science.

In today's competitive and competitive production environment in our country, we need competitive creative specialists, i.e. capable of achieving success in professional activities in a competitive environment.

Recently, innovative educational technologies that correspond to the new education model have been intensively developed in our country. The main thing in the educational process is the development of a creative personality in the broadest sense, including its cognitive, emotional-volitional, motivational, and value components. This calls for professionals to take serious measures to change educational strategies.

Based on successfully tested educational technologies that promote the development of the creative abilities of young people, it is planned to introduce creativity in education, where much attention will be paid to the personal development of students to prepare them for life in the new century.

Therefore, the main goal of the country’s educational system is formulated very specifically. This is providing opportunities for the formation of an individual educational route, revealing the creative potential of the individual with the goal of the most complete self-realization, achieving the highest quality of educational standards and level of professional training.

The main role in this case is given to educational institutions, for which it is important to understand the significance and advantages of a creative approach, when the development of imagination, determination, and individuality of students will motivate them to educational activities. It is interesting that creativity and learning outcomes are not opposed, but are viewed as two sides of the same coin - creativity is perceived as the path to achieving the next stage in the acquisition of knowledge.

The task of realizing the creative potential of society to maintain and strengthen its dominant position in the global space is very clearly understood in different countries. In the United States, for example, a key focus of the strategy for promoting creativity in education is to expand the teaching of the visual and performing arts and humanities at all levels of the education system. Creative thinking, effective communication and teamwork are now seen as competencies needed by young people, alongside the traditional skills of reading, writing and numeracy. Education in the arts and humanities develops cultural competence, which reflects both the ability to perceive others and create one's own work of art, and the ability to comprehend oneself and others. In the last decade, there has been a scientific, technological and economic breakthrough in this direction in the countries of Southeast Asia. Unlike the Americans, the Japanese focus on making the most effective use of what they already have - early involvement in cognitive activity, contemplation, the use of intuition, imaginative thinking, and empirical experience. Another feature of Japanese education that promotes the continuous creative development of the individual is the cult of learning.

One of the main tasks of the modern education system, therefore, is the education of creatively thinking specialists with high creative potential. The relevance of this task is further enhanced by the fact that currently the world is experiencing a constant rise in the cost of technologies, raw materials, equipment, energy resources and a deterioration of the environmental situation, which in turn leads to global social problems in society. Solving these problems, on the one hand, creates the need for new technologies, new ideas, new knowledge, on the other hand, it requires the creation of new ways to quickly obtain and constantly update knowledge, and most importantly, it requires new thinking from every person.

Important changes are currently taking place in the education system: the philosophy of open education is being gradually implemented, which will be largely based on distance learning technologies, external studies, etc. These technologies and types of training are characterized by reduced interactivity, low regulation of the learner’s actions and require additional effort for persistent and systematic studies. The use of these technologies and types of training will be facilitated by creative, creative pedagogy. Unlike the traditional one, it relies on an independent search for ways to solve a problem. Creative pedagogy teaches students to learn creatively, to become creators of themselves and creators of their future. After all, the main capital of the present and future will not be technology, but intelligence and creative thinking.

To summarize, I would like to note that in this context, the new century is turning into a century of great intellectual battle, in which today’s schoolchildren and students are destined to become participants. One of the main tasks of the educational system is to prepare young people for life in the 21st century, so that they can control the forces of globalization, the rapidly progressing development of new technologies, demographic and social changes that are becoming the realities of today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Zinevich Yu. A., Gurevich P. S., Shirokova V. A. Philosophical sciences. M., Humanitarian, 2014

2. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. - Washington, DC: The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.

3. Personal notes and notes.

1. Why is fundamental science needed?

Louis Pasteur said: “Science must be the most sublime embodiment of the Fatherland, for of all nations the first will always be the one who is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity.” These wonderful words are quoted in the Message of President D. A. Medvedev dated November 12, 2009. However, the simultaneous reduction of the budget of the Russian Academy of Sciences by 11.8%, approved by both the Duma and the Federal Assembly, is in sharp contradiction with these words. Our political elite considered spending on science unnecessary and useless, thereby recognizing that Russia does not intend to get ahead of other nations “in the field of thought and mental activity.”

And this is happening at a time when Russian science is in a critically bad state - worse than at any time in its 285 years of existence. Funding for science is completely insufficient, and the departure of scientific youth abroad continues. If it is happening at a slower pace, it is only because there are fewer scientific youth themselves. As for financing, it is appropriate to provide some figures here.

The budget of the Academy of Sciences, with all its two hundred research institutes and centers, archives and libraries, is one billion dollars a year. There are fifty-five thousand scientific employees at academic institutes, and the total number of people financed from the Academy’s budget is more than one hundred thousand.

One billion a year is the budget of a good American university. Only part of this amount (from 1/5 to 1/3) is covered by student tuition fees and grants obtained by professors; the rest of the budget comes from funds from the state in which the university is located (if the university is public) or income from a charitable foundation ( if the university is private). The university has about three thousand teachers - professors at three levels and lecturers. And there are more than a hundred such universities in the USA.

The underfunding of Russian science is simply a glaring fact. The stipend for postgraduate students at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences is about 2000 rubles per month. What is the attitude of public opinion to this?

Some argue that losers left, unable to find a worthy place in their homeland. This statement is patently false. Many have made excellent careers in Russia - they have become professors, academicians, heads of institutes and laboratories. They did not become rich people, if this is meant by a worthy place in their homeland; on the contrary, humiliatingly low salaries forced them to leave for a place where the talent and qualifications of a scientist are valued.

You can hear other voices: yes, science is dying in Russia. It's sad, but not tragic. This is a natural, natural process. Russia can manage without science. There are societies in the world that live perfectly well without any science.

With this view of science, it remains unclear: why are expensive scientific projects being carried out in the world? Why is a hadron collider being built, the Hubble telescope launched into space, probes sent to distant planets, archaeological expeditions conducted and ancient texts studied? The answer is simple - because the world is a place where civilization develops, and science is the most important component of civilization.

We lack an adequate understanding of the role of science in human society. A widely known humorous statement by Academician. Artsimovich: doing science is the best way to satisfy your curiosity at the expense of the state. Of course, they satisfy curiosity, but it is a precious curiosity about the secrets of nature. Yes, the New York Times has a business news section every day. But once a week, on Wednesdays, an extensive tab dedicated to science news appears. The feeling that science is moving forward brings satisfaction: everything is going as it should. The progress of science plays the role of a social stabilizer. A society where science and scientists are respected is a healthy society. There is no need to fight anti-science, shamans, sorcerers and conjurers of the spirits of the dead do not flourish there.

The most important combination of words, “basic science,” is missing from the vocabulary of our political elite. Even the most responsible part of it looks at science purely utilitarianly, as an aid in the creation of new technologies. As a result, Russian science can be compared to a seriously ill patient whom no one wants to treat. It is not surprising that scientists are overcome by despair, including the “losers” who have gone abroad. Recently, a group of Russian scientists working temporarily or permanently at Western universities addressed an open letter to the President and Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation with an appeal to save Russian science. One can not agree with all the proposals contained in this letter, but one thing is certain - it was written by people who have a serious name in the scientific world and are sincerely concerned about the plight of Russian science. It caused some reactions, but, in general, the reaction of our society to it was sluggish, wary and cool.

Particular opposition was caused by the proposal to invest a lot of money in the construction of a new generation particle accelerator. This rejection says a lot about the painful state of minds in modern Russia. They are planning to host the Olympics here, citing the need to strengthen the international prestige of the country. But the construction of a modern accelerator, which, by the way, costs less than Olympic facilities and infrastructure, would raise Russia’s prestige much more. The Olympics are a one-time event that everyone will soon forget about. And the accelerator will operate for half a century, asserting by the very fact of its existence that Russia belongs to the family of civilized states. A scientific and educational center will be formed around it, and active international cooperation will take place there.

For those who believe that we do not need civilization and culture, let us turn to the practical benefits of science. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the need for innovative breakthroughs and the development of new technologies. Why not pay attention to the fact that the developed countries of the world right now, during the financial crisis, are sharply

increase spending on science? Why does American President Barack Obama say that “science is needed today more than ever,” declares science the country’s top priority and doubles funding for “the entire spectrum of basic science”? Why does French President Nicolas Sarkozy, distributing huge additional funding across five strategic areas, put education and scientific research in the first two places, and then only industry and so on? This is done because without science there will be no innovative breakthroughs. The most important function of fundamental science is that it lays the foundations for future technologies. They are not easy to predict. Neither Hertz nor Mendel, when doing their experiments, could imagine television and genetic engineering.

You should think about how much and irreversibly science changes the world, how quickly what we call progress happens. People tend to take progress for granted and not ask themselves the question: why is it actually happening? We turn on the lights, forgetting that the use of electricity is based on the great works of Faraday. We watch TV, forgetting that the iconoscope was invented by Vladimir Zvorykin. We click our digital camera without thinking about the Chinese Kuen Kao. We swallow drugs that prolong our lives without thinking about their creators. We pump gasoline into our gas tanks without thinking about who and how the oil fields were explored. But behind each of these familiar things there is a name, and this is the name of a scientist. Today there are battles to divide the largest underwater Shtokman gas field. Why is it called that? Because it was discovered on board the research vessel Professor Shtokman, named after our outstanding oceanographer Vladimir Borisovich Shtokman.

In the future, the importance of science in the life of society will only increase. Humanity cannot in any way reduce its dependence on science; it will not be possible to get off the “scientific needle”. In thirty, maximum fifty years, oil reserves will run out. What will we do then? The problem of alternative energy sources can only be solved by science. From time to time, new strains of viruses emerge, for which science finds vaccines. Anthropogenic pressure on planet Earth is continuously increasing: if global warming continues, many cities, including our St. Petersburg, will find themselves under water. Humanity will be able to confront this enormous challenge only by using the power of science on a full scale. Today in our country there are very nervous debates about Russia's past. Is there a repressed fear of the future in them?

The next most important function of science is educational. An aphorism that goes back to Plutarch is often quoted: “The student is not a vessel to be filled, but a torch to be lit.” And only those who burn themselves can ignite. The participation of scientists engaged in fundamental research in the educational process makes it possible to train truly high-quality specialists. It gives students the opportunity to breathe in the aroma of scientific creativity. Only a few of them will become professional scientists, but private and public companies engaged in the production of new technologies will receive young and valuable employees capable of making “innovative breakthroughs.”

Another important function of science is expert. A scientist cannot succeed unless he constantly questions what he is doing. Scientists represent the most sober and critically thinking part of society. Neglect of scientific expertise leads to a flood of pseudoscience falling on the country, which is extremely costly to society, especially when combined with unprofessionalism and corruption of officials.

Science not only lays the foundation for the technologies of the future, it actively participates in the creation of the technologies of today. In the dynamic West, local achievements of scientists are paid close attention: as soon as there is hope that they provide the opportunity to make some technical progress, small private companies immediately arise. This is called a “spin-off”. Investors invest in hundreds of risky areas, knowing that 1% of successful projects will recoup all costs.

Of course, scientists cannot be held responsible for introducing new technologies into industry. Specialized companies that employ hundreds and thousands of people are responsible for this. The job of scientists is scientific research, educating a new generation of professionals and an expert function. For example, a professor at a technical university and a specialist in steam turbines is not required to design new turbines. But he must know which turbines worked and are working when and where, what can happen during operation, what typical problems they have, what the critical loads are. On occasion, he will head a commission to study the causes of the accident. And he will pass on his knowledge to students, supplying the industry with newly trained specialists. This is the real place of a scientist in industry.

2. All literate humanity strives to develop science

Which countries in the world have strong science these days? The most important criterion may be the annual list of the two hundred best universities in the world. In the Western world, scientific activity is concentrated mainly in universities. Research laboratories, such as the national laboratories in the United States or the Max Planck Society in Germany, employ relatively few scientists: about fifteen thousand scientists in the Max Planck Society and two tens of thousands in the national laboratories in the United States. In Russia, there has traditionally been a somewhat greater separation of research activities and the educational process. Although employees of academic institutions actively give lectures to university students, the closest interaction between scientists and students occurs only at the master’s level, when young bachelors enter graduate school. This has its advantages: freed from the teaching load, graduate students (in Western universities they are required to work much of the time as teaching assistants) and their mentors can devote themselves more fully to scientific research. As a result, the quality of our candidate dissertations is generally higher than Western ones and without hesitation is equated to a PhD. A university will not be included in the list of the best if it does not conduct serious research in the field of fundamental sciences and does not employ world-famous scientists. The Nobel and Fields laureates located within its walls create special prestige for the university. The methodology for compiling a list of the best universities in the world is not ideal, but does not raise objections among the scientific community.

A comparison of the lists for different years shows that they are very dynamic - some universities go up, others go down. As you might expect, the largest number of top universities (52) are located in the United States. In first place among them and in general on the list is Harvard. But already in second place is the University of Cambridge in England, which ranks firmly in second place (26 universities). Third–fifth places (11 universities each) are shared by Holland, Japan and China. Canada and Germany (10 universities each) occupy sixth and seventh places. The leading countries also include Australia (9) and Switzerland (7), Belgium and Sweden (5 universities each). It should be noted that Scandinavian countries with small populations (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland) are represented very well - eleven positions on the list. France, Israel, South Korea and New Zealand each have three first-class universities. India, Singapore, Ireland and Russia have two each. Finally, one each - Italy, Spain, Greece, Austria, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia and Thailand. The Russian universities represented in the list are Moscow (155th place) and St. Petersburg (168th place). The selection of universities is quite strict. Based only on my own experience, I can name several very good American and Italian universities that were not included in this list.

So, the list of the two hundred best universities in the world includes almost all countries of the notorious “golden billion”. In addition, two, on average, quite poor countries are represented - India and China, as well as a number of so-called developing countries. More than half of humanity lives in countries with the best universities and thus developed science.

In fact, there are still “second-tier” countries that make great efforts to get on the mentioned list. These are Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Eastern European countries, Portugal, Turkey. These countries are striving with all their might to become full members of the world scientific community: they actively hold international congresses and conferences and invite foreign specialists. It would not be surprising if Iran is soon added to this list. This country is full of contradictions: on the one hand, there is an archaic theocratic regime, on the other, a rapidly developing civilization.

So, summing up, we get that the number of countries that spare no expense and effort to strengthen their scientific potential is more than forty. At least three-quarters of humanity lives in them. It is interesting to compare this figure with another. According to UNESCO, about 20% of the world's adults are illiterate, and there are only fifty countries where all children are in school. It would not be much of a stretch to say that almost all literate humanity strives to develop science. Everyone except us. We stubbornly continue to believe that pure science is carried out only by impractical eccentrics. We believe that science is too expensive.

In this regard, it is interesting to talk about the impractical Chinese, who have eleven universities that are included in the list of the top two hundred. Just ten years ago, there was only one university on this list from “traditional” China without Hong Kong - Fudan University in Shanghai. When I was invited to give a course of lectures at Peking University in 1999, this educational institution made a very modest impression. But in 2007 I went there again for a very elite conference on integrated systems and saw beautiful modern buildings, fully equipped with the best equipment. Chinese leaders spare no expense to develop their science, applied and fundamental. China hosts major international congresses and conferences one after another.

Recently a funny episode occurred, which, however, speaks volumes. More than a hundred years ago, Henri Poincaré formulated a very elegant geometric hypothesis. It was clear to everyone that its proof or refutation would be of much greater importance for mathematics than the proof of the famous Fermat theorem, which, compared to the Poincaré conjecture, looks like an extremely difficult Olympiad problem. The path to the proof was found a long time ago, but enormous technical difficulties arose along the way. Grigory Perelman, our outstanding mathematician, managed to overcome them. He published his very difficult proof in a shortened form and posted it on the Internet. Immediately, two Chinese mathematicians wrote a large book in which they filled in all the gaps in Perelman’s proof. They referred to Perelman, but tried to portray the matter as if they had done the main part of the work themselves. This is not surprising, what is surprising is that the Chinese government raised this issue to the level of national prestige and turned to mathematicians of Chinese origin living in other countries with a request to support the priority of Chinese scientists. Thank God, nothing came of this, and Perelman’s priority remained unshaken.

Let me note that I do not condemn the actions of Chinese leaders at all. On the contrary, greetings! They surround their scientists with honor and respect. At one time there were many Chinese professors in the United States in very important positions. Now there are fewer and fewer of them: they are returning to China, where they are provided with very favorable conditions, in particular, the opportunity to maintain positions in the United States. They enjoy universal respect; no one considers them traitors to their homeland. The already mentioned Kuen Kao, the 2009 Nobel laureate in physics for his work on transmitting light through fiber optic channels, who spent his scientific life in England and the USA and now lives in Hong Kong, is surrounded there with all possible honor.

It is worth touching upon the painful issue of the salaries of scientists in different countries. This can be judged by the following simple criterion: if scientists from Russia emigrate to any country, it means that the salary there is at least three times higher than in Russia. So, there are numerous cases of emigration to all “first echelon” countries, with the exception of India. They simply don’t take foreigners there. There are known cases of emigration to “second-tier” countries - to Brazil, Argentina and Turkey, to the Czech Republic and Poland. It is plausible to believe that our professors’ salaries are the lowest in all literate humanity.

The tradition of material support for scientists and deep respect for them developed in Western society no later than the beginning of the 19th century. Today this tradition has spread throughout the world. It is considered axiomatic that university professors must belong to the upper middle class. In Scandinavia, the salary of a professor is approximately equal to that of a minister. In the USA, the president of a university earns no less, and sometimes more, than the president of the country.

3. The collapse of science during the period of reforms and scientific emigration

The massive increase in funding for science that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1945 had far-reaching consequences. This not only made it possible to make an atomic bomb in four years and create a solid foundation for our outstanding space successes. The Soviet leaders turned out to be smart enough to radically improve the financial situation not only of nuclear scientists, but of all scientists without exception. The salaries of all employees with academic degrees were simultaneously increased several times. Scientists became a privileged class, and this sense of importance contributed greatly to what is called self-esteem, citizenship and free-thinking. The beginning was the “letter of three hundred” sent to the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee in 1955, criticizing Lysenko’s activities. It was signed by 297 scientists - biologists, physicists, mathematicians, chemists, geologists and others. The letter led to Lysenko's resignation from the post of president of VASKhNIL, although in 1962–1965 he was returned to this post on Khrushchev's personal initiative. By the mid-60s, a dissident movement began among scientists. At the beginning of 1966, a group of academicians and famous cultural figures sent a letter to the Soviet leadership protesting against the rehabilitation of Stalin. Then the colossal figure of Academician Sakharov came to the fore. When the human rights movement formed in 1968, scientists and people from the scientific community became key figures in it. They formed the backbone of the human rights movement, whose activities greatly contributed to the end of the Soviet period of our history. During the August 1991 coup, scientists also came out to defend the White House. They made up the bulk of the defenders.

What the new government did to science can only be called criminal shortsightedness. Taking responsibility for the economic fate of the country, Yegor Gaidar announced that we have too much science and “science can wait.” Funding for science has decreased by an order of magnitude, and accordingly, the salaries of scientists have decreased. The freedom to leave the country given to Soviet citizens even under M. S. Gorbachev in 1988–1989 made it easier for scientists to find work abroad. Contrary to the popular opinion in the media that science in the Soviet Union only served the military-industrial complex, our scientists turned out to be the most convertible Russian commodity in Western countries. This is direct evidence of how strong our science was.

The exact number of scientists who emigrated from the countries of the former USSR is unknown, since our science of statistics shares the common fate of Russian science. At a discussion on external migration held on November 11, 2009 at the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation, the estimate of the number of scientists who left varied from 60 to 250 thousand. Based on indirect data, I can judge that professorial tenure (a lifelong position, which is very difficult to obtain; to achieve this, you need to win in fierce competition) several thousand people hold professorships in universities in other countries. And for every scientist who gets a permanent position at a university, there are at least several people who are now struggling with the crisis in private companies. Many of them have advanced degrees.

The geography of the third emigration of scientists is extremely extensive. Most left for the United States, many went to Israel, England, Germany, Australia, Canada, France. Our professors work at universities in New Zealand, South Africa, Malaysia, Hong Kong, not to mention Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Scandinavian countries. All the best universities in the world have professors from Russia, and today this is a very significant diaspora. Usually at conferences on mathematics, theoretical physics, optics, oceanography (I mention only those that I attend myself), a considerable part of the audience speaks Russian.

With the “young reformers” came to power people who were superficially educated, who had picked up scraps of Western economic science - “brochure children.” Today it has become banal to compare them with the Bolsheviks, but the Bolsheviks not only destroyed, but also built. When George Soros, the only one of the powers that be, became concerned about the plight of Russian science and invested about two hundred million dollars in its support, they arrogantly did not notice his activities. Soros believed that the country was governed by civilized people experiencing temporary difficulties, and that at some stage the federal government and regions would actively join in supporting science. This did not happen, and the deeply disappointed Soros stopped his activity in Russia. He acted from idealistic motives, but in our country, struck by vulgar practicality, they saw him almost as an American spy.

References to the economic difficulties of the time cannot work. Judging by the speed with which the formation of a vast class of rich and super-rich people took place in the country, and by the fact that the outflow of capital abroad amounted to tens of billions of dollars a year, there were resources in the country. There was no civilized and competent government. And there was a false belief in the idea that getting rich quickly by a small number of randomly selected people was the engine of progress. Then there wasn't even an idea left.

It was possible to save science. In 1992, a group of scientists, which included academicians A.V. Gaponov-Grekhov, V.E. Fortov and myself, tried to implement the “State Professor” project, which involved targeted support for ten thousand doctors of science and twice as many candidates for a decent level for those times - on average, five thousand dollars a year. When we discussed this project with the Secretary of the Security Council Yu. N. Skokov, he exclaimed: “One hundred and fifty million dollars a year? Yes, all you need is just one well!” This is despite the fact that the price of oil then was at twenty dollars per barrel. However, the project did not go through. It has evolved into a much more modest program to support scientific schools. And by the time the price of oil jumped to eighty dollars, this program practically withered away.

4. The current state of Russian science and administrative voluntarism

What is the state of Russian science at the present time?

Science has not died, but its situation is very dramatic. The comparison with a seriously ill patient is quite appropriate, but the bad news is that no one knows exactly the state of this patient's health. Just as we do not have statistics on scientists who have left, we also have no data on the dynamics of those leaving and a sober assessment of the potential of those who remain. Therefore, one can only judge by personal observations. And they are next. Science has ceased to be a single whole. She lives on islands that have little interaction with each other. There are few scientific conferences held within the country; traveling around Russia has become an expensive pleasure. Paradoxically, scientists from different parts of Russia meet more often at international conferences abroad than at home. Overall, the province suffered less from brain drain than both capitals.

Science is aging before our eyes. When you go to institute seminars, you notice that mostly older people sit in the half-empty hall. The average age of scientific workers is fifty-five to sixty years. They, most likely, will no longer go abroad, and they can still teach young people. But still, this is the outgoing generation. Behind them there is a gaping void; scientists of the next generation have either left forever or spend most of the year working in foreign scientific institutions. A few young people will take up skiing, trying to learn as much as possible from their elders. Domestic scientific instrument making has perished, laboratories are equipped with obsolete equipment, and there are no reagents. The leadership of the Academy of Sciences is sluggish and lacking initiative, and does not dare to take an active position in defending the interests of science before the government.

Science is still waiting. Over the past eight years, despite some increase in the salaries of scientists, the situation has only changed for the worse. The position of the authorities remains the same: deafness to the opinions of professionals and Soviet administrative voluntarism. The Soviet Union is long gone, and voluntarism not only has not disappeared, but, having combined with the desire for personal gain characteristic of modern times, has flourished. As in Soviet times, it is carried out through noisy campaigns, such as, for example, the campaign to introduce corn almost to the Arctic Circle. Today we have a new corn - nanotechnology. Like corn, nanotechnology is a very good thing. They are successfully used to produce composite materials, in medicine for the transport of drugs, in optics, and in microelectronics. But here it turned into a nationwide campaign with strong support from above.

The inspirational, lightweight speeches of the main ideologist of the “nano-cognobio” breakthroughs, M. Kovalchuk, are very reminiscent of speeches about the need and possibility of transforming nature. The government allocates funding for the development of nanotechnology that is one and a half times greater than the budget of the entire Academy of Sciences! By decree of the President, the three most powerful physics institutes in the country are merged into the Kurchatov Institute research center, headed by M. Kovalchuk. Without the knowledge of the employees and management of the institutes, without any scientific, expert discussion! In Soviet times, administrative voluntarism was distinguished by great professionalism. Soviet officials understood that science did not tolerate monopolism, and the implementation of important programs was not entrusted to one group. The head of the center for the creation of nuclear weapons in Sarov was Yu. B. Khariton. A parallel and competing center was in Chelyabinsk, headed by E.I. Zababakhin. The same situation was in rocket science and aviation. Monopolization of science inevitably leads to its simulation and “Potemkin villages.”

Against the background of this grandiose “Panama”, the renaming of Kazan University to Volga University is a small event. But what is this if not voluntarism, combined with the Soviet-era lack of historical memory? Kazan University is one of the oldest in Russia, founded in 1804. He is rightly proud of his outstanding scientists: it is enough to name the creators of Lobachevsky’s non-Euclidean geometry and Butlerov’s theory of the structure of organic compounds. The name of the university is a brand, the more valuable the older the university is. Can you imagine Cambridge University being renamed Middle England? Or was Bolognese, the oldest in Europe, renamed Central Italian? This renaming is a vivid example, as Nikolai Leskov would say, of “administrative delight.”

Academic science is in a poor state, and there is nothing to replace it. For the historically established form of organization and management of the scientific community in Russia with the help of academic structures, there is currently no alternative visible. The course taken by the government to purchase new technologies abroad and invite specialists to work from there will completely kill Russian science. 600 billion rubles are allocated for the purchase of new technologies - an amount thirty times greater than the funding of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences! Of the funds allocated for the nanoscience bubble, only 1% is promised to academic science.

There is no alternative to the Academy of Sciences as a body capable of conducting serious scientific examination. The government's disdain for academic science is already bearing fruit: a stream of pseudoscience has swept the country. For example, a certain V.I. Petrik, a half-educated psychologist and former criminal, convicted under thirteen articles of the Criminal Code, from fraud to attempted robbery, is thriving.

Now he is a “private scientist-inventor” and scientific consultant to the United Russia party. Suffice it to say that among his numerous “scientific discoveries” is the production of electricity from the heat of weakly heated bodies, that there is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the construction of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which is a monstrously illiterate idea. However, thanks to patronage in the highest echelons of power, his water purification filters, which have not passed scientific examination, are being equipped with the party’s pilot project “Clean Water”, which is supposed to be turned into a federal program this year with funding of 15 trillion rubles.

It is difficult to find a historical analogue for the current situation with Russian science. There have been cases when civilizations perished as a result of external invasions or internal wars. But for a country that occupied one of the first places in world science to voluntarily begin to slide to last place - there were no such precedents in world history. This is perhaps what Hitler did to German science during the thirteen years of his rule. At the beginning of the twentieth century, German universities were the best in the world. Now, sixty-four years after the war, despite the fact that Germany is one of the richest and most successful countries in the world, and despite the enormous efforts made, its universities are in the same place as those of Australia, which at the beginning of the twentieth century was a country pretty retarded. Restoring what has been destroyed is incomparably more difficult than destroying it.

There is almost no time left to save Russian science. A few more years, and there will be a complete break in the connection between generations of scientists! If we do not give the surviving professionals the opportunity to pass on their scientific experience and do not open up prospects for young scientists, it will be possible to give up on Russian science.

The government is beginning to show some concern. Some programs are being adopted to attract emigrant scientists to work with students. Undoubtedly, any form of integration of Russian science into the world should be welcomed, but you need to understand that a young specialist will be faced with a choice: go to his mentor for graduate school or stay in Russia, where you will work in laboratories with outdated equipment and will never be able to buy an apartment for yourself . Everywhere in the world there is an urgent need for talented youth: there is never enough of them, and they are of great value. Only by bringing the salaries of scientists to the average European level can the “brain drain” be stopped. It is immoral and futile to expect to advance science and technology at the expense of the enthusiasm of scientific youth living from hand to mouth.

To save Russian science, there is no need to reinvent the wheel: it should return to the status that it had in Soviet times and continues to have in the world. Scientists must belong to the upper middle class, and the work of a scientist must be respected and socially prestigious. Scientists must be provided with the necessary conditions for work, and laboratories must be equipped with modern equipment. It is necessary to support all areas of scientific research equally - science is a single organism, and you need to take care of its health as a whole. An attempt to divide scientists into useful ones, whose activities bring immediate benefits, and useless ones, ignores the vast world experience. The “useful” ones can be further stimulated with grants: this strategy arose as a result of the natural evolution of Western culture. The community of scientists should be self-governing, and the administrative intervention of the state should be minimal. It should be carried out through additional funds financing priority areas.

Yes, this requires considerable funds. In 2010, the United States invests more than 3% of GDP in scientific research, China - more than 2%. For comparison, the budget of the Academy of Sciences is less than 0.3% of our GDP, which is incomparable with the American one. Nevertheless, for those who think that science is too expensive a luxury, let’s try to imagine a scenario of an undesirable and immediate future.

5. Russia without science

The first consequence of the fading of science, the departure from Russian reality of professionals engaged in science for science's sake, will be the decline of education. It is already very noticeable; we have illiterate teenagers. Some sources call the figure two million, which is most likely a journalistic exaggeration, but here’s a fact: at the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University in October of this year, 82% of first-year students failed the dictation, making from eight to eighty errors per text.

With the decline of education, we will have to say goodbye to the hope of developing new technologies: this requires highly qualified personnel. Moreover, even maintaining the existing technically complex infrastructure will become a problem, and man-made disasters, like the one that happened at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, will become commonplace.

A country that is unable to keep up with technological progress will soon become militarily helpless. In ten to fifteen years, the weapons we produce will be to future standards as a crossbow is to a machine gun. There is no point in relying on nuclear weapons. Its reproduction and maintenance also requires highly qualified specialists. And we are unlikely to be able to produce high-precision robotic tactical weapons. Or is the government hoping to buy military technology as well?

The consequence of the decline of science and education in Russia will be a complete decline in the country's international prestige. It will be impossible to restore it by any Olympic Games. Margaret Thatcher once called our country Upper Volta with rockets. This was inaccurate. We were Upper Volta - with rockets and Nobel laureates. And when we all walk away, the attitude towards us will be worse than in Upper Volta, where there have never been any rockets or Nobel Prizes. We will be treated like an unlucky merchant who squandered his father's fortune. Such people are not liked in the Protestant West, and in China they are simply laughed at. We will turn into a rogue country, and in the event of any diplomatic or military conflict, the whole world will take the side opposite to us.

Let us note that formally we will not lose science. Institutions of higher education and people called professors will remain. Dissertations will be defended, only their level will steadily decline. Scientific journals will remain, but the “impact factor” of these journals will be very low. You can print anything in these magazines, but no one will read them. Referring to what is printed in them is even more so. Sooner or later, a fatal moment will come when there will be no professionals left in Russia capable of understanding what is written in foreign scientific journals. After this, Russian and world science will turn into two non-overlapping worlds, and the first will relate to the second as the world of shadows relates to the real world. In the world of shadows, grayness will reign, but it will not reign for long: new Little Lyns will appear. When the authorities see that things are bad, they will be happy to believe any charlatan. This, in fact, is already happening.

In the “kingdom of dark people”, instead of scientific statistics there will be predictors and astrologers, instead of medicine - healers and healers, instead of historians - Fomenki, instead of engineers - inventors of perpetual motion machines. It should be expected that among such people the most aggressive and obscurantist forms of religions, the most fanatical sects, will have success. The country will turn into a very foul-smelling swamp. Those who today melancholy agree to live in “Russia without science” should think about whether they will be happy in this swamp.

However, this “swamp” phase of our history will not last very long. Social tension will increase inside, and outside - the need for mineral resources. Capable and energetic young people who have not received a good education and are not in demand by their country are explosive social material of enormous power. And the “outside” world will not tolerate for long a situation where the income from the sale of earth’s resources is shared by the so-called elite of an intellectually and morally decaying country. The idea that the mineral wealth of the Earth should belong to all humanity is already in the air. We are facing a global redistribution of property and a geopolitical catastrophe.

6. Conclusion

Concluding this gloomy forecast, we come to the inevitable conclusion: the fate of Russia depends on the fate of Russian science. Having lost science, Russia will cease to be an independent state that retains control over its territory and its natural resources. This circumstance should be used as the basis for the country’s future development strategy.

Leaving aside such “little things” as corruption, this will require overcoming the resistance of officials who want to manage science and divide scientific knowledge into useful and useless. Science doesn't owe anyone anything. Science exists to be science. As the American writer Gertrude Stein said: “A rose is a rose, it is a rose.” Let this rose bloom and everything else will follow. Science will produce knowledge, industry will use it. But the rose is a delicate plant. It needs to be watered, fed, protected from hail and frost. Science also needs care. Actually, two main conditions are necessary: ​​full respect for scientific knowledge and the profession of a scientist and adequate funding.

In 2012, the situation changed somewhat. According to Gazeta.ru, for 2012, 2013, 2014, the total funding of science is planned at the following level: 323, 327, 283 billion rubles. In terms of the share of GDP, funding for science will decline steadily: 0.55%, 0.51%, 0.39%. Almost half of this amount (in 2012 it was 149 billion rubles) was allocated to Roscosmos and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, that is, not “fundamental” science, and another 12 billion rubles is allocated to Rosatom. Of the remaining 162 billion rubles, 43 billion rubles go to the Ministry of Education and Science, and another 59 billion rubles (about 2 billion dollars) to the Russian Academy of Sciences with all its branches (http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2012/01/30_a_3979401.shtm). Note editorial board)

It should be noted that some positive changes are observed in the government's attitude towards science. In two streams, in 2010 and 2011, 79 mega-grants were distributed to stimulate the return of Russian scientists who had left and to attract leading foreign scientists to temporary work at Russian universities. The goal of the project is to organize research laboratories at universities. Each grant is for a period of three years, with an indefinite possibility of renewal for one additional year; total funding for the entire project is 12 billion rubles. As a result, 79 new laboratories have been created at universities, but their fate after the expiration of the megagrants is still very vague.

An even more ambitious plan to save domestic science is 6 megaprojects for the construction of unique experimental facilities, for which 133 billion rubles are expected to be allocated.

Against this background, the reduction in the already ridiculously meager funding of the Russian Federal Property Fund is a regrettable fact. It was decided to stop giving grants to scientists for international trips.

The takeover of ITEP, the famous Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow, by the Kurchatov Institute, controlled by M. Kovalchuk, caused a big public scandal at the end of 2011. The new incompetent leadership of the institute, having determined the areas that needed to be pursued, left about 70% of the institute's researchers engaged in fundamental research out of work. Scientific business trips, trips to conferences, youth schools are prohibited, obstacles are created to work with schoolchildren and students, and a complete ban has been introduced on foreign scientists visiting the ITEP territory.

See the article by Academician E. P. Kruglyakov, Chairman of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research: http://www.sbras.ru/HBC/article.phtml?nid=523&id=15

Currently, thanks to the wide public response that this scam caused, the party program “Clean Water” in some greatly reduced version, already without Petrik’s filters, has been released to the regions.

As you read this issue of the magazine, thousands of men and women are working hard to bring babies into the world in nine months. After about seven years, these children will go to school, and somewhere around 2030 they will find themselves on the border between secondary education and higher education. And it is quite possible that by this time the entire school and university system will be completely different. Which?

The Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI) has been developing the Education 2030 foresight forecast for several years. There is much more challenge and futuristic romance in ASI projects, which distinguishes them favorably from the documents of the Ministry of Education, where everything is about “efficiency of spending budget funds.” Here you can feel the spirit of science fiction novels: “a personal total textbook with artificial intelligence”, “the logic of game achievements”, “the use of educational environments for the reintegration of families”...

RR journalists studied the ASI forecast and talked with its authors. We compared the futuristic picture with our own experience in the field of both “official” education (the author of this text worked for a year and a half as a geography teacher in a district school) and “unofficial” education (“RR” participates in the Summer School, where they teach not only journalism, but and medicine, physics, biology, sociology, psychology, etc.).

As a result, we were able to identify several key trends in the development of education. We will not insist that all this will definitely happen. Rather, these are dreams of a desired future that will help us in the present.

Trend 1. Revision of everything and everyone

The mass school is an insanely conservative institution, much more conservative, for example, than the Orthodox Church with its traditions and rituals. The educational canon is strictly observed: the lesson lasts 45 minutes, the desks in the classroom are arranged in rows, at the beginning of the year a ceremonial assembly is held with the participation of war veterans, in the fall the competition “Dad, Mom, I am a sports family” is held, grades are given from two to five... The same the same with universities: lectures, seminars, tests, exams, deans, faculties, departments.

But the education that was created for the needs of industrialization and overcoming mass illiteracy is no longer relevant. There is a new economy on the planet, new technologies, new challenges. Globalization, computers, tablets, universal Internet, artificial intelligence, Wikipedia, machine translators...

It is enough to pay attention to such a trifle as differences in the competencies of generations. Once upon a time, an adult knew more than a child. He sewed, cooked, and plowed better. I had to learn everything from him. Today, many teenagers have a much better understanding of tablet settings than their parents and teachers.

It seems to us that the Unified State Exam or bachelor's and master's degrees are great educational reforms. In fact, this is just a minor organizational modification, nothing more. Substantive reforms are also taking place. For example, in Russian schools they are gradually moving away from the principle “the teacher speaks - the student remembers, the teacher checks - the student answers” ​​and is increasingly relying on independent research by schoolchildren - projects. Instead of memorizing numbers and dates, children explore an object themselves, be it the parental behavior of cyclid fish in an aquarium or the strategic techniques of Gaius Julius Caesar during the Gallic War. While this is being implemented clumsily and ineptly, it has already become a standard.

If education wants to meet the needs of a changing society, it must subject all its constants to revision. Well, for example, the very principle of the class-lesson system. For some reason, it is believed that people born in the same year should all go to the same classes together. Are you eight years old? Go learn the names of the herbs in the meadow. Are you fourteen? Then memorize the names of chemical elements. No one cares about your personal interests or your level of development in a particular area.

There are many experiments where people were united in study groups, regardless of age. Take the same Summer School “RR”. There, both a candidate of technical sciences and a 10th grade student can easily sit in one lesson on cosmology. This topic is not very familiar or interesting to both of them. It is not clear who is easier to assimilate it. Of course, a candidate of sciences has more experience, but a high school student remembers mythology and history better, since he recently took them.

“Now it has become clear that the differences between children of the same age and the differences between different ages are already comparable. Therefore, the idea of ​​a single-age class is invalid. And you can mix the children in the class,” said Doctor of Psychology Katerina Polivanova in an interview with RR.

The same is true with other “sacred cows” of education: the division of knowledge into subjects, the lecture system, the organization of exams. They will all undergo revision and rethinking.

Trend 2: Very personal education

The old school and the old university have no place in the world of the future. A person will be able to collect his personal education without traditional institutions. I do not rule out that in 2030, permanent study at school or university will become the lot of losers. They will say about such people: “He could not design his own education...” says Pavel Luksha, director of corporate educational programs at the Moscow School of Management Skolkovo and one of the main creators of the Education 2030 foresight forecast.

“Every student is unique,” ​​our teachers pronounce pathetically, after which they drive this unique student into the tightest possible framework. Let's say there's a geography lesson going on. The girl Ira in the first desk knows by heart more than half of the US states and their economic characteristics. She is bored. And the boy Vasya in the last desk doesn’t really understand what hemisphere the United States is in. He's scared. But the poor teacher needs to give a single standard curriculum to a single standard class. This is the current mass school.

And the education of the future is presented as a kind of construction kit that the student assembles on his own. Let's say a smart teenager at 14 years old determines that in the next year he needs to take an in-depth course in nuclear physics, learn to play the guitar, learn the basics of the Chinese language, take a short course in probability theory and practice conducting sociological research.

An ordinary district school is unlikely to provide such a kit, but this is not a problem - it’s 2030 and construction kit parts are scattered throughout the space: the Internet, universities (both domestic and foreign), multimedia textbooks, specialized courses, informal educational communities.

Of course, the student’s desire alone is not enough to determine the educational trajectory. Many will even choose the advanced couch potato course as their main subject. For this system to work, a lot is needed: psychologists-consultants, personal tutors, advanced training courses for parents. But this is quite real.

Some elements of this educational utopia have already begun to emerge. For example, in the notorious standard for high school it was assumed that a significant part of the courses would be chosen by the student himself. The progressive public reared up: “What is this going on?!” Will we listen to the student's wishes?! What if he refuses to read War and Peace?! If he doesn’t find out that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea?! Anarchy! Horror! The collapse of the education system!” Due to public pressure, the level of variability in the standard was reduced. But she still stayed.

It is expected that in the future not only the set of courses and their content will be personalized, but also textbooks. ASI experts are talking about the appearance of the “Diamond Primer”, this image is taken from the science fiction novel by Neal Stephenson: the textbook will be filled with artificial intelligence, and it will be able to select educational materials - photos, texts, videos, assignments, diagrams - to suit the needs of each specific student, and it does not matter this student is six years old or sixty. There is nothing fundamentally impossible about this.

Another beautiful metaphor: “God’s point.” The point is that the moment will come when all written information will be on the Internet, and at the same time the Network will be accessible anywhere. Already, the teacher’s monopoly on knowledge has been greatly undermined thanks to a bunch of educational sites and Wikipedia. The trend is getting worse, and the teacher must turn from a storyteller into a guide.

Trend 3. Personal portfolios

Two, three, four, five, pass, fail... Current education is based on grades. They are needed to diagnose the student. But the area in which they can measure something is too narrow. It is as if doctors were guided only by thermometer readings and ignored blood tests, x-rays and tomograph data.

In addition to tests and answers in class, the student has many other opportunities to express himself. Participation in conferences and concerts, helping friends, meaningful visits to excursions, reports, independent research, practice in real workplaces, trips to meetings, and so on. A lot of everything. It is not so easy to take this into account. Especially when we are not talking about the number of facts learned, but about more complex substances such as the ability to think or the ability to take responsibility.

The author of this material was once present at a teachers’ meeting in a district school. The director was inspired by the book about Harry Potter and decided to introduce a point system for each class. It turned out that it was easy to find reasons for deducting points: being late for class, making noise, leaving the classroom uncleaned. But there were problems with accrual - why reward if good studies or decent behavior is considered the norm and not an achievement?! As a result, the points system was never introduced.

Now in developed countries - the USA, Canada, Japan, European countries - the portfolio system is very popular. During his studies, the student accumulates diplomas, certificates, certificates, and so on - right up to reviews from his housemates. In New Zealand, according to rumors, this system has been brought to a national scale, lifetime achievements are taken into account, and both insurance and credit are tied to this. The portfolio system is starting to work for us too. True, in our version it is very formal, and does not provide any special advantages.

In the future, the accumulated baggage of achievements will become one of the key elements of the education system. And here again, information technology will make a person’s merits accessible and transparent.

A separate topic that experts love to talk about is the introduction of games into education and recording of gaming achievements. Imagine a schoolboy Vasya, who sits at the computer all day long and plays Civilization. His classmate Masha persistently crams textbooks on social studies and ancient history. Question: who better understands the structure of society? It is clear that Masha will receive the best marks. But the question is not in assessments, but in understanding. The computer toy includes resource distribution, foreign policy, economic management, and many other important things.

Correct decisions are immediately rewarded with additional points. The description of the toy reads: “As the leader of his nation, the player will have to create his own state, develop technology and economy, and establish relations with neighboring states. You can try yourself in the role of Lincoln, Napoleon, Stalin and other equally outstanding personalities.” Why not teach social sciences and social practices?

According to the forecast, play should become an important element of education. And it is likely that the portfolio of the future, along with a diploma of participation in the Russian Bear Cub competition, will contain a certificate of completion of Civilization 8.0.

Trend 4. Civil society versus state institutions

It is very important: the student must stop being an object of the educational process and become its subject. Behind this boring phrase lies the real tragedy of education, especially Russian education. Schoolchildren and students are alienated from their educational institutions. For the authorities, they are nothing more than a “student contingent” on whom certain pedagogical actions must be carried out. It's more like a factory where people are ground instead of gears. And these people perceive the educational institution as something alien, external. The university and school are not “us”, but “they”.

ASI analysts predict that the education of the future will be completely different. The university and school will become a single community, where everyone learns something from each other, everyone helps each other develop.

Here, again, it is worth turning to the example of the RR Summer School, where the principle “everyone teaches - everyone learns” is one of the fundamental ones. Now Ivan is listening to a lecture on science journalism, and in an hour and a half he will get up from his student bench and take the place of the lecturer to talk about cell apoptosis, which he understands better than everyone else present. And then both teachers and students will go wash the dishes together, because this is their common university, a common school that they are creating together. There is no “us” and “they” here; everyone here is a subject, not an object.

Of course, this happens when the educational project is outside traditional state institutions. This is rather the prerogative of civil society. It is already creating an alternative to the state when it comes to saving sick children, collecting humanitarian aid, or monitoring the integrity of elections. It is quite possible that it may also take over the education niche.

Civic educational projects are still rare, but those that exist are very effective. For example, Total Dictation can be seen as an alternative form of literacy improvement. Its scale is impressive: hundreds of thousands of participants, covering the whole world from Kamchatka to Kaliningrad, from Bolivia to New Zealand. And this is a completely new project, in no way connected with traditional structures.

It is clear that volunteers and civil activists will not be able to completely replace teachers. Most likely, we will talk about competition between different systems - public, state and commercial.

Another alternative to current universities could be some kind of student holdings, when people unite to get an education in a certain set of specialties. And in this case, deans and rectors are not omnipotent dictators, but merely employees or elected representatives.

Trend 5. Lifelong learning

Another feature that is promised in the future: education will become permanent, continuous and total. For example, through education, families can be restored to their former unity. After all, now fathers, mothers, children, grandmothers, grandfathers have crawled into their corners. Sometimes the only thing that unites them all is family scandals.

The ideal family of the future should live differently. First, a family foresight is carried out: what are we striving for together, what is each of us striving for, what do we want to achieve, what knowledge and skills do we lack for this? Then the family turns into an educational unit of society. Dad reads a course on modern history for everyone, a teenage son teaches his mother to play the guitar, a fifth-grader daughter explains musical notation to her brother, a mother retells what she learned at a training in Gestalt psychology at the age of thirty-five, and a grandmother shares her memories of the organization of medicine. under Brezhnev. A more advanced option is for families to unite with each other and form clubs and communities. Once again, traditional educational institutions are being left behind.

Trend 6. “University of Billions”

Russian universities have reasons to panic. And it’s not just about the latest attempts by the Ministry of Education and Science to find and close universities with “signs of inefficiency.” If Stanford University or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compete for students with the Volchegon Financial and Pedagogical University, it is not difficult to guess who will win.

What is a university education? This is some authoritative person - a professor - coming out to the audience and telling something. The audience writes this down and then takes an exam, that is, it demonstrates that it has assimilated the thoughts of this professor.

But why does the professor have to be in the same classroom as the students?! We listen to the music of our favorite band, although the performers are physically located on the other side of the planet.

Modern technologies make it possible to make university education accessible regardless of where a person is located - in a remote Russian village or on the West Coast of the United States. A typical example is the Coursera project, in which teachers from Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, Princeton University and other highly ranked universities participate.

Anyone can get free access to video recordings of lectures on any of the offered training courses, of which there are now more than four hundred: “social psychology”, “computer vision”, “introduction to sociology”, etc. At the time of writing this article, Coursera has enrolled 4,442,445 people from all over the world, including Russia. It’s clear that when the course “Theory of Automata” is taught by Professor Jeffrey Ullman, who at one time received the John von Neumann Medal “For creating the foundations of the theory of automata,” it is cooler than a lecture by a sad associate professor from a provincial institute.

It is possible that such supranational “universities of billions” could seriously displace traditional universities. But here the question arises: how to test the acquired knowledge? There are at least two ways here. The first is to harness the power of artificial intelligence. Text analysis systems are quite capable of evaluating even creative work such as an essay or section “C” in the Unified State Examination. Another option is based on social networks. Some students test others, and a class of voluntary tutors and mentors is formed. If desired, each professor or successful specialist can create his own army with officers, guards, reservists, recruits, etc.

The ASI forecasts say a lot about virtual worlds and planetary networks. Perhaps this really is the future. But then a deficit of real communication will begin to form. After all, a good professor does more than just give lectures. He communicates with students, reacts to their facial expressions, and shows his behavior patterns. This is real education. And in the future, it is possible that very, very elite structures will appear, in which teachers, as in Antiquity, will walk through real gardens with real students. After all, even the way the professor looked after a passing girl is also an important socializing experience for his students.

Trend 7. The rise and fall of progress. And then take off again

There is a graph on the screen. The curve starts somewhere around 2010 and goes up rapidly. Nearby are explanations: “Awareness of the education crisis,” “Fashion for technological solutions,” “Searching for answers in information and communication technologies.”

Around 2017, the curve reaches a peak and rolls down: “Collapse of the market for standard replacement solutions. Breakthrough solutions that create new standards. Wars of standards and formats. The infrastructure of new education is the next generation of ICT.” After this, the graph jumps up again, with maximum values ​​visible around 2025: “New education becomes basic infrastructure in developed countries.”

This “double hump” effect is characteristic of many innovation sectors. The businesses that remain after the “collapse” of the bubble set the industry standard, ASI experts explain.

This has happened more than once in history. When Internet technologies grew by leaps and bounds. There was euphoria. And then one day, the famous “dot-com crash” happened in 2000, when shares of telecommunications and computer companies collapsed all at once. And nothing. Today we fully use computers, the Internet, and other technological things. Most likely, the “education of the future” will face the same fate. And what seems like an awkward fashion now will turn out to be the norm by 2030.

“In Russia there is disdain for the IT sector; influential people at the very top consider it something frivolous. But in the last 50 years, all the main return on capital comes from IT, all technological breakthroughs occur there. Even in the army, the main trend now is control and coordination systems on the battlefield.”

Evgeny Kuznetsov, Director of the Strategic Communications Department of RVC OJSC

“It is important that people have made a common decision about the future and believe that it will be that way. An official's order cannot change the system for the better. We need an ideology - just like at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bolshevik party believed in communism and this allowed them to coordinate their activities to seize power. Our ideology is not political, but technocratic.”

Dmitry Peskov, head of the “Young Professionals” direction of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, one of the authors of the “Education 2030” project

“We want to provide an answer to the challenge that faces the whole world!.. By 2025, we predict the disappearance of the forms of education we are accustomed to - they will be replaced by something else.”

Pavel Luksha is the director of corporate educational programs at the Moscow School of Management Skolkovo, one of the authors of the Education 2030 project.