Official website of the President of Russia

Transcripts   /

VLADIMIR PUTIN… I, as President of the Russian Federation, the President’s Administration and the Government will support the Russian Academy of Sciences in all the areas of its activity.

We are all aware of the heavy blows to science during the past decade. Yes, much can be attributed to objective causes. Fundamental changes have taken place in the state and society which overturned our lives, affected practically every person, not to speak of state institutions. Scientists had their full share of hardship. The average salaries of scientists are so low that I am ashamed to speak about it.

The question is not only of how well the academy has managed to fit into market relations. Scientists do not have to be businessmen, although I must say, to the credit of those present, that many of our leading businessmen come from scientific backgrounds.

I think the most distressing thing for our scientists was the knowledge that their work was no longer needed. That period has dragged on for an unpardonably long time. Today it is obvious that links between science and government must be restored and built in accordance with the requirements of the time, as they should be in a state that works effectively to meet people’s needs.

<…>

One need hardly argue today that it is impossible to meet the challenges facing society without relying on science. Science is an important resource of economic growth and national security. I am sure that scientists and industrialists are capable of putting Russia in the lead in areas where our positions have always been very strong.

In the context of the market, one has to face tough competition in promoting one’s product. So far we lack not only aggressiveness and self-confidence, but a coherent strategy in this sphere of government policy. The country counts on your support and assistance. There is a great need for constantly reviewing and if necessary adjusting the course our state is following. We must know what is in store for us. We would like the academy to speak with a full voice that will be heard by the public.

The academy, which is by definition not under the jurisdiction of any government agency, can become a vehicle for a single scientific-technical policy in the country emphasising the practical application of the latest achievements. By the way, such an approach could be helpful in financing science itself.

I have already said that scientists are not entrepreneurs and their interests lie in a different sphere. But of course, we need talented managers and modern organisers of science, including in the academy. So far, success has been very modest. One of the reasons is the dramatic “ageing” of the academy staff. The average age of a Ph.D is 50, and only 15% of university graduates take up science. It is a sad realisation, but it is fashionable and prestigious to be a banker and it is not lucrative or prestigious to be a senior research fellow. Such a public attitude is dangerous for the state.

It must be said for fairness sake that money, or lack of it, is not the only reason. The academy must be more modern, more aggressive and must be sensitive to the changing times and its demands. The state for its part should be more attentive towards its main strategic resource, the nation’s intellect.

I repeat: I don’t think the Academy of Sciences is in need of a large-scale reform. But there are a host of problems – ranging from managerial to financial – that need to be addressed. These problems should be handled very carefully after weighing all pros and cons.

Speakers here have mentioned the problems connected with taxes and rent payments, and have expressed fears lest the adoption of the new tax code adversely affect science as a whole and the activities of the academy in particular. I would like to share my thoughts with you on how this problem should be tackled. All our economic actions must be meaningful, transparent and clear. The state must fulfill all its obligations. Scientists should research and organisers should manage. There should be no undercover channels of financing. That applies to taxes, rent and all the rest.

I am aware of the scientific community’s concern over the crippling tax burden and I promise to take another hard look at the issue.

<…>

I’ll share with you the most general thoughts on what practical steps are to be taken in the short term.

First. The Government will shortly have a meeting which will for the first time discuss ways to attract young talent to science. We are planning to develop a five-year national programme to support young scientists. We will provide financial support for scientific schools, talented young scientists and increase the number of youth scientific contests.

Your recommendations on adjustments to the system of deferments for army service merit attention. It may be difficult, but we will think about it. We will also discuss the proposal of attracting young scientists to defence industry research institutions.

One should not ignore other problems, in the first place social problems. So far pitiful amounts are earmarked to address these problems.

Second, fundamental science must receive modern equipment and telecommunications. It is a disgrace that half of the academy’s institutes have no Internet access. I think that too requires a special programme.

Third is further support of science funds and fundamental research. But I draw your attention to what I mentioned earlier, the need for financial flows to be “transparent”. That is only possible if the national budget clearly states how much money will be spent and on what. Funds are a very flexible instrument, sometimes too flexible. But, I repeat, we will also work with funds. I make it a special point to reassure those who count on their support and are afraid that it will be cut off today or tomorrow. But the activities of funds must, first, be under control and, second, we should introduce direct financing of research from the budget. If the state is interested in such research let it pay, if it is not, the whole question becomes irrelevant.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following. The state cannot assume the whole burden of responsibility for the state of science. We should determine the unquestioned priorities for which the state will be fully responsible and the areas in which its function can be only of support. Ultimately, our joint work must become more effective and the Academy of Sciences must play a much larger role in the life of society and the state.