Irina Dezhina: Beware of Poverty and Affluence
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Doctor of Economics Irina Dezhina, Head of Group on Science and Industrial Policy at Skoltech Institute, met with RIAC Program Director Ivan Timofeev and Senior Analyst Yaroslav Menshenin of Skoltech Space Center to talk about Russia’s science policy.
Doctor of Economics Irina Dezhina, Head of Group on Science and Industrial Policy at Skoltech Institute, met with RIAC Program Director Ivan Timofeev and Senior Analyst Yaroslav Menshenin of Skoltech Space Center to talk about Russia’s science policy.
Dr. Dezhina, you once said that the experience of reforms to Russian science in the 1990s has shown that even if you begin to build something new, the old does not necessarily disappear. Moreover, a part of the new often adapts to the old, instead of the opposite. Is this estimation still true with regards to the ongoing reformation of the Russian Academy of Sciences?
To a certain extent, it is. The RAS is being formally converted into a Western-style club of scientists, which means quick reforms, improvements to the working environment, less red tape and a removal of conflicts of interest.
However, we are seeing more bureaucracy (although it may be attributed only to the period of transition) and the rise of the same survivalist attitudes in the science community that were specific to the early 1990s. The RAS is much less a club than a new academy with new objectives and salaries for full-time academicians and corresponding members that have more than doubled in comparison with the past. In other words, the model is very different from Western practices.
On the other hand, there are institutions that have resisted adapting to the old status quo scheme and remain innovative. One example is the Russian Venture Company (RVC) which has significantly diversified its activities and has not clung to the past, but adapted to the new environment and goals.
You also said that the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Russian Foundation for Humanities and the Bortnik Foundation of the 1990s offer success stories of implementing foreign practices. How have they been so successful?
Irina Dezhina
These foundations emerged as winners because in 1992-1994, i.e. when they were established, the country lacked a system of basic laws that could define the economic rules for organizations. Neither a Budget Code nor a Civil Code was in place, key documents that would define the framework for the operations and financing of foundations. Those were the days for establishing unique bodies that featured the most well-designed elements from foreign practices.
With time, such opportunities faded away, and the foundations had to revise their charters, which no longer met the requirements for being effective organizational and legal structures.
Since 2005, quite a few development institutions have appeared in Russia, among them the RVC, RUSNANO, the Bank for Development, the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, Skolkovo Foundation, etc. Given the fact that they were established with the basic laws already in place, they must have had a much harder time compared to the institutions that were founded in the 1990s.
There is no universal template for organizations of this kind and thus a fair assessment of the difficulties is a difficult task. First, each institution offers something unique and is designed made to solve a certain set of problems. Second, these institutes differ enormously in the resources available to them. Third, some of them – Skolkovo Foundation, Russian Science Foundation, technology and innovation areas, and RUSNANO – are lucky enough to enjoy intentionally favorable regulations.
RUSNANO has been granted huge budget allocations, exempted from bankruptcy statutes, and given wide liberties in the field of entrepreneurship. Skolkovo’s carte blanche is even wider, as well as the objective defined as creating a model for country-wide implementation. In addition, the high degree of political status also attracts more attention. And, as you know, it is always more difficult to work under a microscope – one has to be on the defensive even if the results still need time to mature. Currently, the Russian Science Foundation appears to be in the same situation.
In fact, having too much money appears to be as tricky as having too little money. The science on scientific research has long known the connection between financing and scientific productivity, which increases with the amount of incoming funds, but at a certain point stalls and may even drop.
Since their inception, these development institutions have been keen on international cooperation. Will the worsening relations with the West bring about extra hurdles and challenges?
Of course, they will be affected by the sanctions and the overall chill with the West, which possesses the most advanced science and technology institutions and is extremely helpful in view of cooperation. Settling intergovernmental and official matters is going to become more complicated. Since the development institutions are a part of the wider intergovernmental groups, they are suffering from cancelled and delayed meetings over the past year, with many pending decisions still frozen. Even slightly sanctioned sectors are going to be damaged.
The development of new products, especially in the high-tech sector, invariably implies the protection of intellectual rights. How developed are the relevant mechanisms in Russia?
The process of developing these protections in Russia began back in 1992 with the adoption of the then revolutionary Patent Law. The introduction of the Civil Code Part Four opened a new stage of development through the gradual adaptation of national norms and rules that conformed to international standards.
The issue is very complicated. For example, transferring rights for inventions generated by government financing can be quite challenging. There are problems with Russian patenting rules and the general patenting grounds. Sometimes the patent process is used for statistics and record-keeping rather than for commercial purposes. Then we have the issue of enforcement, which brings in issues related to justice, the qualification of judges and what not.
At such, intellectual property right are important but hardly critical – interviews with high-tech entrepreneurs show that the problem is easier to solve than issues connected to economic regulation and the business environment.
Learning to Study Is the Key
The article “1,000 Labs: New Principles for Scientific Organization in Russia” written by you and Professor Ponomarev insists that the key factors for scientists include free movement, the availability of scientific contacts, a comfortable bureaucratic climate and accessible education. How would you describe the current availability of these preconditions?
Until recently, the trend had been quite positive. Scientific ties were prioritized in science and innovation policy, with several major programs launched to attract key foreign minds.
These include the programs of mega-grants, support for diaspora-led joint projects, and the accession of five Russian universities into the global Top 100 by 2020 – the so-called Program 5/100/2020 that allocated substantial government funds to 15 universities to set up international laboratories.
As far as equipment is concerned, generous sums for purchasing up-to-date technology were given to national research universities, federal universities and universities selected for the implementation of strategic development programs.
But things are changing. First, international cooperation has been affected by the sanctions and geopolitics. For example, last December, the European University in St. Petersburg held a conference of scientists from the diaspora which vowed to refrain from discussing Russia’s foreign policy, but debates still broke out.
Second, the declining ruble makes experimenting in Russia extremely costly, first of all if imported materials and reagents are involved.
Third, we are in for lower R&D allocations, since government spending is its main financing source. Hence, we expect worsening material conditions for scientific endeavors, as well as changing mechanisms and priorities.
Finally, there is still no clarity about the consequences of the RAS reform launched in 2013. In the short term, the results are hardly encouraging, although the moratorium on deals with academic property and personnel decisions has been extended through 2015. The changes should become more palpable after all of the limitations have been lifted and the restructuring of institutions begun.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
