Academic science - from the national innovation system to the economy and knowledge society

V. A. Vasin, L. E. Mindeli,

k. e. Sc., Leading Researcher, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Honored

Institute for the Development of Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences, scientist of the Russian Federation,

(IPRAN RAS) Institute for the Development of Science RAS

[email protected](IPRANRAN), Director

[email protected]

The article deals with the problems of interaction between science and society in the context of the transformation of knowledge into the main resource of social economic development. It is shown that the synthesis of scientific and non-scientific knowledge will entail a wide range of institutional innovations. The paramount importance of strengthening the social status of science, its state support for the stability of the Russian economy and social stability is emphasized.

Key words: economy and society based on knowledge; national innovation system, integration of knowledge, national knowledge resource, polymodeling of science, communication between scientific and government structures.

The growing pace of scientific and technological progress is constantly complicating the phenomenon of human civilization. The consequences of decisions made at various levels of the managerial hierarchy, through multi-link chains of technological, economic and socio-cultural communications, affect the life of all more representatives of numerous social strata. The echo of socio-economic events and trends observed in individual countries and regions of the world is felt in many corners of the globe, thousands of kilometers away from the original source. Along with space, time is also subjected to powerful compression. During the existence of one generation, several paradigms of technology, technology and 8 social practices are replaced.

^ The complication of the structures of society is also reflected in

^ science itself. Here we mean not only the advanced development of the material, technical tools of scientific knowledge. The differentiation of 21 scientific disciplines and directions, the growth of the complexity of research work are accompanied by a systematic< плинарным характером многих значимых результатов. 0 Научное сообщество становится все более чувстви-X тельным к внутренним и внешним пертурбациям социальной структуры.

The progressive dynamics of science and society inevitably leads to significant problems in their relationship. The most frequently asked question is the ratio of society's costs for the development of the scientific sphere and the return received from research. No less heated discussions are unfolding around the subject of limits and restrictions in the dissemination of scientific achievements and technologies, ethical aspects of the research activity under study. The tonality of the discourse associated with the participation of various strata of society in the definition of topics is increasing. scientific works and directions for using their results.

For Russian science the general context of growing public doubts is exacerbated many times over by the specifics of the historical period the country is going through. The dismantling of the socio-economic system, which at least declared its reliance on science and technology as the most important engines of the economy and society, turned into a total lack of demand for scientific products. The absence of any clear strategic course and national ideology in the new government turned in practice into an attitude towards enrichment at any cost, which turned out to be a severe knockdown for science, which was unable to function on an exclusively commercial basis. Nevertheless, many scientific structures have demonstrated literally miracles under these conditions.

survival, to a certain extent retaining a unique potential.

In the course of the reforms, the Russian scientific body underwent almost complete amputation of one of its primary components - sectoral institutions. The desire for momentary profitability pushed most economic entities either to the unrestrained exploitation of the accumulated scientific and technological base, or to the predominant use of imported technologies. Thus, academic science turned out to be the only consolidator of efforts to preserve and enhance the unique Russian research traditions.

The theses about the transition to an innovative development path that appeared in the “fat” years of the beginning of the century gave scientists hope for strengthening the positions of the research sphere. However, the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which began in 2013, reflected the real depth of the crisis in the relationship between science and society, its government institutions. The way out of this situation is fateful both for Russian science, its global significance, and for the country as a whole.

The search for a way to restore the image of science in the Russian society requires new approaches to assessing the social significance of research, including fundamental research. They are determined by both global trends and specific challenges facing our country.

Prerequisites for the analysis of the interaction between science and society in modern conditions

The modern positioning of scientific knowledge in society is very multifaceted and contradictory. It is significantly differentiated by regions and states of the world. The indicators of the trends that have developed in the considered perspective are the share of spending on science in national and local state budgets, business investment in research and development, the dynamics of public opinion about the research field and scientists, the level of popularity scientific career among young people and other characteristics of the scientific community. Generally speaking, we can name two poles of concentration that focus the attitude of society towards the research field.

On the one hand, the world community is expanding and deepening the ideas that have developed in previous centuries about scientific knowledge as the main transforming force of civilization, a powerful resource for economic growth, duration and quality of life, a paramount component of the growing cultural layer of human life. It is generally recognized that scientific achievements and the technologies created on their basis multiply the physical and intellectual capabilities of a person, the quantitative and qualitative growth of his needs, as well as the degree of their saturation, the potential for creativity and self-realization, the intensity of communications from the family to the global level. The prospects for further scientization are associated with a deepening of ideas about the micro and macro levels.

the material world, penetration into the secrets of living matter, the human body and intellect, the convergence of natural scientific, technical and sociocultural knowledge.

On the other hand, one cannot fail to note the growing degree of disappointment in the forces of science in society. The primary catalyst for such views is, of course, the use of scientific results for the constant improvement of weapons and other means of destructive influence on a person and his psyche in the interests of various kinds of antisocial structures. The negative perception of research activities is also influenced by the increasing cost of adding new knowledge, the increasingly indirect connection between research topics and everyday needs of people, the aggravation of environmental and ethical problems of conducting scientific research, the implementation of their results, excessive political engagement of scientific institutions, the impossibility of solving acute problems. global problems and the mitigation of conflicts, the eradication of poverty and misery solely through the development of science. These worldview attitudes, which do not completely deny the social usefulness of science, but do not connect the future of mankind with it, can be called a kind of neo-obscurantism.

Ultimately, the core of discussions about the coherent evolution of science and society is the connection between scientific activity and practice. In turn, the dialectics of modern socio-economic dynamics can also be traced in line with the symbiosis of two opposites. Post-industrialism (covering theories of information, consumer, network, "green" society, etc.) has become the basic vector of new theoretical paradigms that reflect future social practices. The corresponding concepts are based on a sharp increase in the role information resources, the gradual transition from mass production to the production and provision of services focused on the individual consumer with his specific features and preferences, the adaptation of economic activity to the tasks of the harmonious development of man, society and the environment. The “superstructural” manifestations of post-industrialism were the landmarks of postmodernity, multiculturalism, tolerance, etc.

At the same time, the voices of reindustrialization supporters are being heard more and more, in many developed countries measures are already being taken to revive industrial potentials on a new technological basis. It becomes obvious that the movement towards post-industrial technological structures requires a solid national and international foundation that ensures the reproduction of traditional-type general economic resources. The search for new social bonds organically fit into the contours of neo-industrialism, allowing the formation of capital supports necessary for an adequate assessment of ongoing events and the actions of their actors.

The structure of the space of paradigms of interaction between science and society

The imposition of opposing ideologies about the social role of science on the opposition "post-industrialization - neo-industrialization" in the most general view forms a space of ideas about further ways of co-evolution of science and society (figure).

As follows from the figure, the IV quadrant includes views on the need to turn science to current economic and social needs. They are reflected in such administrative and managerial realities as a hypertrophied focus on research efficiency, the search for increasingly sophisticated performance criteria even for purely exploratory scientific work, the rejection of a number of costly and long-term mega-science projects, etc. When building new mechanisms for the relationship between scientific structures and society, it is important to separate the positive trends in the formation of innovation belts around scientific centers, the activation of the relationship between science and industry from unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of scientific research, the complete subordination of the scientific community to administrative arbitrariness and populist sentiments.

Quadrant III reflects criticism of science aimed at producing results that are potentially hazardous to human health and environmental sustainability, leading to the accelerated depletion of non-reproducible resources. The target is also the conduct of research that is contrary to the norms of universal morality, religious beliefs, aesthetic ideals. An illustration of such a creed can be such protest movements as anti-globalism, which criticize the use of scientific research, primarily in the interests of the financial and industrial elites, large political groups, the countries of the so-called golden billion. This segment can also include the spread of various kinds of anti-, pseudo- and parascientific ideas that replace the cognitive orientations of human life with disorienting scholastic tightrope walking.

Of course, post-industrial social structures imply a rejection of all-consuming rationality, a certain degree of return to the original “roots” of the existence of an individual and society, a harmonious combination of scientific research with other forms of perception of reality. However, it is important to avoid weakening social status scientific activity, the degree of connectivity of the national and international research space, ensuring the continuity of intergenerational and interparadigm relay races in the scientific field.

Quadrant II involves further building up the production potential on the basis of new scientific achievements, accelerating their practical implementation. It is expected that new high-tech industries and industries will regularly appear, new types of high-tech products and services will emerge and be mastered, and competition will develop that stimulates high-tech innovations. Corresponding changes in the structure of the scientific sphere are also predicted - the activation of interdisciplinary work, which requires convergent production technologies, the allocation of "service" science serving management needs ("science 2.0"), the formation of technoscience, a clear distinction between pre-competitive, non-competitive (for example, in the public sector) and competitive stages of research, etc.

Although the growth in demand for scientific products from the industry is an important component of the formation of the resource base and the social legitimacy of scientific structures, one should not succumb to the "industrial euphoria" and forget about the original ideals of scientific creativity, orienting the scientist to the disinterested search for truth.

Quadrant I marks the transfer to the scientific base of almost all types of economic and social practice. The turnover of intellectual property rights created in the course of research and development is becoming an essential component of economic flows and reproductive mechanisms. The intrinsic value of scientific activity increases by an order of magnitude. The scientific potential, the ability to perceive scientific achievements are turning into the primary formative of world and national wealth, the intellectual capital of firms, and the social status of a progressive individual. At the same time, a significant reverse influence of the values ​​and norms of the scientific community on the goals and evaluation criteria throughout the socio-economic space is also expected. The measure of success will be not only profit and gross domestic product, but also sustainable development, social stability, building up the cognitive platform of society.

The global socio-economic dynamics suggests that the most likely forecast for the foreseeable future can be the concept of the economy and the knowledge society, integrating progressive processes in the material foundation of society with a distributed reproduction of social intelligence.

To date, many criteria for the formation of the economy and society have been proposed.

ny. Among the most significant of them are:

growth in the share of industries related to the generation of knowledge in macroeconomic indicators; a corresponding increase in the proportion of people employed in these areas;

large-scale investments in science and education as strategic state priorities; priority development of high-tech, knowledge-intensive industries;

the increasing contribution of the intellectual component to the capitalization of enterprises; a sharp increase in the volume of services, including intellectual ones;

priority development of the information and communication technology sector; outpacing growth in the turnover of high-tech products, intellectual property rights;

the paramount importance of knowledge in a successful career as a specialist;

implementation of "intellectual rent" by leading economies, regions and corporations; other.

Without belittling the importance of quantitative indicators of a cognitive society, we consider it necessary, first of all, to clarify the qualitative essence of the emerging "new" economy and society. It seems that this process can be described as a gradual integration of the national innovation system into the structures of the socio-economic organism. The results of this symbiosis are, on the one hand, the constant expanded reproduction of knowledge as the basis for the economic turnover of innovations, and, on the other hand, the transformation of the system of socio-economic relations under the influence of cognitive imperatives.

The formation of national innovation systems as complexes of stable relationships between economic and social entities regarding the generation, dissemination and implementation of innovations has become a natural reaction of the world's leading economies to the exhaustion of the possibilities of the old industrial model. The first warning about the impossibility of the full-fledged functioning of innovative complexes exclusively "in their own juice" of advanced industries was the large-scale bankruptcy of firms in the information and communication sector, which was observed in the United States in the early 2000s. The mechanisms of autochthonous innovative development that have developed within the NIS are gradually penetrating into traditional sectors and industries. matured in the avant-garde industries approaches to professional competencies, the practice of innovative management, radical innovations in labor relations are transformed into a necessary set of knowledge and skills, forms of labor organizations for specialists of any competitive economic structure. At the same time, the scientific picture of reality becomes that basic cultural prism through which the worldview of the modern person is formed.

Due to the above randomness of the change social structure Russia's national innovation system is still incubatory and fragmented. We have shown that it is precisely academic science that is called upon to become its integral element and, moreover, its integrator. The innovatively directed interests and values ​​necessary for the formation of an effective NIS can be introduced into Russian reality primarily through the deepening of the traditions of fundamental scientific research, the popularization of science as a force that unites society. Thus, on the shoulders of Russian fundamental science lies the burden of the generator of innovative system formation and the function of a navigator to bring science to the trajectory of the economy and the knowledge society.

Modification of the functions of science at the stage of transition to the economy and knowledge society

The problems of including science in the processes of formation and development of a cognitive society are considered by us along three axes outlined in the course of research into the problems of scientific and social integration. The first of them is the adaptation of the functioning of the research sphere to the new realities.

Undoubtedly, the era of the cognitive society will increase the significance of the traditional functions of science as the bearer of its title resource. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure the complex, systemic nature of the obtained scientific knowledge, which in turn implies the further intensification of inter-, trans- and multidisciplinary research. The rate of updating knowledge is increasing many times over, and this implies an active search for new ways to increase productivity. scientific work. Produced scientific knowledge will increasingly be subject to various kinds of economic evaluation (commercial, quasi-commercial, non-commercial, etc.) in comparison with the costs of certain resources for their receipt.

The role of science as a translator of acquired knowledge into the economy and society is also being updated. The range of "packages" that adapt the transferred scientific knowledge to the needs, specialization and level of competence of the accepting party is becoming more and more extensive. Further differentiation of scientific knowledge transfer channels is required, among them are more and more clearly focused (serving specific consumers), diffusion, frontal, popularization, etc. scientific teams. The realities of the knowledge society will require strategic and operational changes in the structure of research efforts in the fields and directions of science. In particular, the discourse of metaknowledge is emphasized. Studies of the processes of the genesis of knowledge and its typology, patterns of circulation, reproduction and consumption of knowledge

new resources, the creation and evolution of appropriate social institutions will be deployed at the intersection of natural, technical and social sciences. The urgent task of science is also the construction of systems for comprehensive monitoring of the economy and the knowledge society, the development of adequate practical recommendations.

Along with the fundamental role of the scientific potential, the knowledge society is characterized by a large-scale distribution of its other forms and substances. The methods of classification and coding of knowledge created by science, the mechanisms of their accumulation and turnover, technical means processing and depositing are called upon to act as prototypes of the circulation of society with a holistic baggage of knowledge of various types. Only under the "umbrella" of science is an effective synthesis possible various forms perception of reality.

The central place in this aspect is occupied by the process of integration of knowledge of a diverse nature. First, scientific understanding of cognitive synapses along the steps of the hierarchical ladder is required - from the interweaving of diverse forms of cognition of reality into the worldview constructions of an individual to the creation of the necessary public institutions of synthetic knowledge. Secondly, it is important to study scientifically the issues of the integrity of the knowledge aggregate, the construction of convenient "bridges" (for example, link schemes) between its components. The need for such systems is already reflected in numerous endeavors, from attempts to formulate a so-called theory of everything to the creation of synthesizing Internet portals. Thirdly, the expansion of the cognitive platform of society will be accompanied by "scientificization", the mathematization of many ways of perceiving the world, which will entail innovations in the structure and organization of research.

The prospects for the interweaving of scientific knowledge and its everyday counterparts deserve a separate discussion. Historically, scientific knowledge has stood out from heuristic, and in this sense, the era of the knowledge society is marked by the restoration of their unity on qualitatively new foundations. A clear proof of this thesis is the growing role of the so-called implicit, undocumented knowledge. In the world science of science, the process of personalization of knowledge is interpreted as an organic combination of "know how" and "know who". The illustrations of the implementation of intercognitive relationships are, in particular, the scientific analysis of the historical evolution of folk tales, the theory of behavioral economics, the syncretization of traditional and folk medicine, etc. The rational combination of scientific and practice-accumulated ideas should be distinguished from attempts to “theoretical” disguise various kinds of pseudoscientific concepts.

Both for science itself and for cognitive socio-economic practice, the key problem is the articulation of the qualitative content of knowledge and its physical shell. The rapid growth in the power of information processing tools implied the phenomenon of the so-called digital knowledge obtained by covering large arrays.

data. Numerous computational procedures can both reveal and obscure significant substantive bifurcations. The latter is fraught with serious prognostic errors and, as a result, gross managerial miscalculations. It is science that is able to form orienting beacons for developing a rational line of behavior in the labyrinths of the “computer kingdom”.

The scientific sphere is called upon to act not only as an integrator, but also as a primary accumulator of a knowledge resource. The systematization algorithms accumulated by science, the “preservative” cleaning and processing of information, its distributed deposition will have to be projected onto other forms of cognition of reality. Regarding the role of science in ensuring the safety of knowledge potential, it is necessary to say not only about the scientific basis for the development of documentation carriers and the creation of social mechanisms for the transmission of undocumented knowledge, but also about the procedures for the timely transfer of archives to new generations of material carriers and public relay races. Without scientific prototyping, it is impossible to provide for the regular reproduction and updating of the entire body of knowledge on the principles of completeness, relevance and verifiability.

The scientific foundation is an integral substantive and methodological prerequisite for the formation of a nationwide knowledge resource. Along with topical issues the substantive content of the national megacognitive resource, mechanisms and principles of access to it, the issues of creating organizational, institutional and information and communication platforms aimed at synthesizing various types of knowledge are on the agenda.

The discourse of absorption of an increasingly large-scale conglomerate of knowledge by the individual and society seems to be a priority area of ​​scientific research. The central place in this perspective is occupied by the evolutionary adaptation of the psychophysiological capabilities of a person to the architectonics of knowledge arrays and flows. Further, they require scientific study of the ways of embedding the multi-knowledge paradigm in the upbringing and life of the individual, taking into account his abilities, motives, interests, and the state of the eco-environment. Finally, a comprehensive analysis of the metacognitive aspects of the functioning of various communities - families, educational institutions, production teams, social structures and networks, etc. - will be required.

A new challenge for scientists is the patterns of international circulation of knowledge of various nature. If scientific knowledge is inherently international, then other knowledge arrays are essentially contextual, determined by national socio-cultural specifics, socio-economic and climatic conditions of the existence of peoples, the structure of languages, etc. The following functions can be distinguished in the corresponding research space:

Activation of transdisciplinary generation

knowledge about present and future trends in the world

development, integrating the results of work on the theory of international relations, international comparative studies, global studies and other areas;

Integration of multi-civilization and world-system approaches to the analysis of the world economy, science and culture;

Revealing the patterns of generation and circulation of knowledge as a world process, the formation of a global knowledge aggregate, ways of synthesizing diverse ideas about the essence of knowledge;

The role of knowledge as a global economic resource;

Place of knowledge interactions in various mechanisms international cooperation, scientific and technical cooperation;

Embedding knowledge interfaces in international information and communication systems;

Features of Russian lexical, scientific and social interpretations of knowledge in comparison with international practice, prospects for active positioning of the country as a generator and carrier of unique knowledge;

Necessity and measures of regulation of the international transfer of knowledge.

Russian science, as an integrator of the national innovation system, has such additional functions as promoting the dissemination of scientific and technological achievements in everyday practice and adapting them to the needs of traditional industries; integration of scientific knowledge and heuristic ideas about the logic of the innovation process into synthetic innovation knowledge; ensuring the unity of the scientific, technical and social aspects of the innovation process; development of a transdisciplinary, problematic approach to the implementation of systemic innovations, etc.

Deepening of cooperation principles in the functioning of scientific structures

The second core, penetrating the bonds of science and society in the new conditions, is the development of cooperation between science and various institutions of the economy and society. The intersubjective nature of knowledge determines the deepening of integration relationships on a societal scale. The integration of knowledge predetermines the growth of intensity and a qualitatively different level of cooperation within the scientific community, as well as its interaction with the surrounding socio-economic environment. An additional incentive for partnership is the counter-chrematist nature of the knowledge resource, its multiplication in exchange processes.

The central landmark is the growth of the knowledge component in the internal and external cooperation of researchers and research teams. The realities of the knowledge society are reflected in the scientific sphere not only through the joint production of scientific results (in particular, the increase in the number of scientific publications prepared in co-authorship), but also through the interweaving

research methods and paradigms, the collective accumulation of knowledge about the nuances of providing funding for scientific work (for example, about the intricacies of drawing up grant applications), ways to put scientific achievements into practice, etc. uniting the scientific picture of the world with its other perceptions.

Among the numerous segments of the integration of scientific knowledge with practical experience, the process of decision-making in economics, politics and other areas of the exercise of public authority stands apart. Thus, the skill of a modern manager implies the possession of not only scientific ideas, but also a kind of managerial art, economic "flair", accounting for informal interweaving in a regulated object, specific skills, prompt adaptation to rapid changes in input information, etc. General prospects for the scientific service of choice management impacts are associated both with the allocation of a specialized sector of science (the mentioned "science 2.0"), and with the integrated development of the scientific base for determining key competencies, selection, training and professional testing of decision makers.

The bicognitive nature of decision-making processes leaves a peculiar imprint on the stability of the scientific potential itself. Indeed, it is practically impossible to determine the optimal scale of resource support for research activities only on the basis of rigorous calculations. The share of research and development costs in the budgets of a state, region, firm, etc. is formed under the influence of both global trends and analog comparisons, the socio-political context, the credibility of justifications for expected effects, etc. At the same time, the genesis of the economy and society knowledge opens up new reserves for the full integration of scientific activity into the functioning and reproduction of socio-economic organisms. In particular this applies fundamental research, the results of which in most cases do not promise a quick and immediate practical return. The cooperation of the structures of scientific knowledge with various spheres of life transforms fundamental scientific knowledge into an essential element of a strategic resource that ensures the stability and reproduction of the cognitive society, an intergenerational vector of accumulation of national and global intellectual potential. By means of knowledge jointly generated with related fields, the products of fundamental science are able to receive a charge of economic evaluation necessary for inclusion in economic circulation. The cooperative co-evolution of "pure" science with activities that are less abstract for an ordinary citizen, fertilizes theoretical knowledge, facilitating their perception by the general population, and implies glossary interfaces that strengthen the social base of scientific search.

Since knowledge is largely the ability to foresee further development events, the positions of the institute of forecasting and relevant structures are being strengthened in the cognitive society. The results of predictive scientific research and future ideas will organically merge into a toolkit not only for prediction, but also for the directed construction of an image of the future. Foresight mechanisms that have developed in the leading countries can be considered a forerunner of the combination of various kinds of knowledge in forecasting practice.

Important task science - the development of mechanisms for replenishing national and world repositories at the expense of the so-called local knowledge and traditions accumulated in certain territories1. Regional scientific structures are designed to integrate scientific universals spatial development with unique local representations of business entities and the population. The multifaceted process of forming knowledge localities on the basis of centers of scientific and intellectual potential, high-tech clusters is gaining momentum.

In the architecture of a cognitive society, a significant burden falls on such structures as the articulation of science with other forms of social consciousness.

These relationships differ significantly in strength and nature. Thus, the scientific and educational spheres have a common genotype, almost synchronous trajectories of formation. However, the knowledge economy and society place new demands on scientific and educational integration. The main task is the transformation of educational practices from a simple transfer of a certain amount of information to students into the development of skills for independent search, comprehension and application of various types of knowledge.

The constitution of the knowledge thesauri of new generations should be accompanied by a departure from the concept of providing educational services, systemic education of a person who is able to integrate acquired knowledge of various nature into worldview guidelines and a life position aimed at active inclusion in the generation of new knowledge, participation in the circulation of knowledge resources throughout life. Mutual enrichment scientific analysis educational processes and rich practical teaching experience will be more and more intensively generalized into multidimensional pedagogical knowledge, a valuable application of which, as we see it, will be differentiated ways of combining psychophysiological and environmental factors in the formation of a personal phenotype, interactive interaction between a teacher and a student, a deeper understanding of the nature of the transfer of undocumented knowledge and competencies, etc.

In a number of other integration duets involving the scientific sphere, the interaction has so far been sporadic and discrete. These include, for example, the relationship of scientific

1 Unfortunately, Russian science is still feeling the consequences of curtailing local history research in the 1930s.

and artistic, aesthetic awareness of the world. Of course, in a number of cases, scientific achievements inspired artists to create masterpieces and, conversely, artistic images(illustration - Science fiction) sometimes helped scientists find the right path of scientific research. The intensification of the interactions between science and art in the contours of the knowledge society produces symbiotic scientific and aesthetic knowledge. Recent manifestations of its formation in Russian culture include the novel Megagrant by E. Kokurina, the films Sensual Mathematics and Literal Geometry, and others. intuitive, conscious and passionate, thesaurus and sensual in epistemological practice. Already now there is a significant increase in the creative capabilities of writers, architects, artists, composers, etc. through the use of scientific knowledge and its material incarnations, including through computer technology. In turn, one can expect an increase in the influence of aesthetic ideals on the paradigms of research processes, up to the appearance of indicators of the "beauty" of scientific concepts.

There are also institutions of social consciousness, primarily religion, with a very difficult history relations with science, which even led to the mutual physical destruction of adherents (the inquisition of the bonds of Soviet repression against the clergy). Nevertheless, on the threshold of the knowledge society, antagonism is replaced by a gradual rapprochement of positions. The Church cannot but recognize the spread of the achievements of scientific knowledge as a natural realization of the cognitive-transformative abilities of a person laid down by the creator. The practice of religious worship is increasingly associated with the use of modern technology. At the same time, for many scientists, faith has become a declared or subconscious spiritual support on the complex and winding paths to truth. Without the coherence of scientific knowledge and the vital imperatives of faith, it is practically impossible to axiologically fill the scientific space, develop moral and ethical standards for choosing research topics, methods for conducting them, and using the results obtained. Representatives of various scientific disciplines and intellectuals of the church are on the path of laying the foundations of scientific and spiritual knowledge, covering the issues life meanings, value aspects and guidelines for the improvement of man and society, the articulation of the secular and spiritual sides school education, elimination of interfaith conflicts, etc. The knowledge society is able to provide very comfortable "platforms" for the interaction of science and religion, while providing them with the necessary independent enclaves in the knowledge aggregate.

The goal of multi-vector cooperation between scientific and non-scientific institutions of cognition seems to be the formation of a kind of collective mind. Important

the scientific prerequisite for its formation is the creation of conditions and algorithms that provide opportunities for making a feasible contribution to the social conglomerate of knowledge for each individual or social structure. No less relevant are scientific approaches to the genesis and reproduction of an array of knowledge effectively distributed among differentiated groups of bearers of social intelligence. Thus, the development of a cognitive society is characterized by a superposition of two coherent tendencies - the synthesis of various types of knowledge and the integration of knowledge generated at various points in the socio-economic space. It seems that a comprehensive scientific interpretation of the above-mentioned basic realities of the cognitive society should be based on the principles of the qualitative evolution of the phenomenon of the noosphere noted by V. I. Vernadsky, which has reached the emergence of a new, knowledge-based “shell” of civilization.

Focusing on the prospects for cooperation of Russian academic science with other institutions and subjects of knowledge generation, it should be emphasized that the convergence of knowledge of various nature is in many respects in tune with the national research and worldview traditions of the universal view of being, the philosophy and ideology of cosmism. This circumstance additionally emphasizes the fundamental role of fundamental science in building a national innovation system, a full-fledged economy and a knowledge society. It finds practical expression in the agreements on cooperation between the structures of fundamental science and innovative production actors (for example, between the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Venture Company, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the state corporation Roscosmos), which provide access for high-tech sectors to the results of fundamental research.

It is also necessary to note the connotation of scientific truth and the ideals of justice that is vital for Russia. Generating popular ideas about the “correct” social structure and income distribution, approaches to the moral assessment of public figures, specific judgments about the role of legislative and legal mechanisms form a kind of aggregate of egalitarian imperative-value and law enforcement knowledge. Its synthesis with scientific ideas produced by socio-humanitarian disciplines can become a powerful tool for gathering the spiritual, intellectual forces of the nation, opposing internal and external destroyers of the moral and ethical foundations of society, in a certain sense, modern Minin and Pozharsky.

Formation of a public climate favorable for scientific activity

The third component of the successful assimilation of science into the cognitive society is the formation of a social community that is comfortable for scientific activity.

atmosphere. The very definition of the knowledge society implies a high social status of the work of researchers. The transformation of knowledge into a leading socio-economic resource is accompanied by the widespread dissemination of both the actual scientific results and knowledge about science, which has made a significant contribution to the progress of civilization over the centuries, and the pro-humanitarian foundations of research activities. There is a significant increase in the number of people who, to one degree or another, come into contact with scientific research practice in their daily life. At the same time, the increase in the volume of knowledge in many cases does not reduce, but, on the contrary, increases the space of the unknown, thus creating new fields for the efforts of the research corps.

At the same time, the competition for “minds” is intensifying, which science has to experience from other components of the sphere of knowledge. This is especially true for the social sciences, because along with scientists, politicians, entrepreneurs, the media, and representatives of other institutions defend their points of view on ongoing processes. The era of knowledge is characterized, therefore, by a sharp tightening of the requirements for the reliability and completeness of scientific information, the forms of their "submission" to the public. Positive for the fate of science forecasts follow from a number of essential predicates of the economy and the knowledge society. One of the central ones is radical changes in the mechanisms of interaction between the individual and society. The release of knowledge to the forefront of resource potentials is able to modify the structure of consumption by reducing the share of material goods and increasing the share of non-material, intellectual and spiritual components. The related transformations in the structure of the terminal values ​​of the individual, the creative, personal-creative and cognitive-communicative saturation of labor, the indestructibility of knowledge in the process of consumption, the personalizability of knowledge assets can become factors in reducing the degree of antagonism in the process of distributing the social product, weakening the corresponding class and stratum conflicts.

The responsible function of forming the theoretical and methodological base of the knowledge economy falls on science. It is relevant to develop consensus methods for “dissolving” financial bubbles and stimulating investment in the real sectors of the economy, reducing the share of “power” determinants of economic decisions in favor of cognitive ones. The breadth and depth of "miscalculation" of economic development options are rapidly increasing in parallel with the speed of modern computing systems. The concept of prolonging a traditional market transaction for subsequent transactions seems to be very promising. It should be noted that the active involvement of knowledge in economic circulation does not undermine commodity-money relations, but modifies their schemes in accordance with new realities. In particular, the expansion of the spectrum of use values ​​by knowledge phenomena enhances the function of money as a measure of heterogeneous goods.

Their network nature appears to be an integral attribute of the knowledge economy and society. Positioning in networks is becoming more and more important as a resource and result of activity. Informal scientific structures, such as "invisible colleges", served as a prototype for many network socio-economic structures. The gradual replacement of vertical-hierarchical relationships of subjects with horizontal ones intensifies the exchange of knowledge and activates the diffusion of scientific results both by enriching the palette of channels for their translation, and due to the disappearance of many objective and subjective barriers. Territorial expansion and densification of networks are becoming a powerful spatial factor in the growth of research potential.

To improve the typology of networks, to study their diverse structures and algorithms of action, the dynamics of changes in composition and structure, a powerful scientific and analytical foundation will be required. No less relevant is the study of the conditions for combining gradual substitution and additivity of hierarchical and horizontal interactions in a socio-economic organism of a cognitive type. A necessary prerequisite for the effectiveness of the network phenomenon will be the search for ways to increase the level of negotiability of economic and social actors. The development of the most fruitful ways of implanting scientific structures into the "webs" of the cognitive society is also urgent.

Building an economy and a knowledge society cannot be considered in isolation from the issues of sustainable development, the harmonious co-evolution of man and the environment. It is with the formation of the "collective mind" that the prospects for reducing the anthropogenic burden on nature and the consumption of exhaustible resources are associated. The symbiosis of heterogeneous scientific and non-scientific knowledge is necessary to comprehend the whole complex of interrelations between the technogenic and natural in the life of mankind, to develop an environmentally friendly strategy and tactics of behavior. The solution of many global environmental problems involves the synergy of knowledge produced by different countries and the world community as a whole.

Only on a scientific basis can a synthesis of the technical and social aspects of environmental protection be ensured. In world science, there is already a shift in the structure of the research front, an increasing share of funds spent on work related to humans and wildlife. The development of convergent technologies is based on interdisciplinary research, which makes it possible to give productions a nature-like character. An important area of ​​humanitarian research is the development of tools to stimulate environmentally friendly economic and social behavior. Scientific advances and innovations are designed to combine comfortable human life with landscape recycling and biodiversity.

The formation of a cognitive society is accompanied by an increase in the degree of distribution of virtual phenomena in various areas of the economy and society. Virtualities such as distributed

enterprises, e-banking, computer social networks, etc., are a direct consequence of the intensive application of knowledge, the synergy of its various forms. The construction of artificial digital paradigms of life activity and its environment entails the multisubjectivity of the personality, social group and polymorphism of behavioral attitudes.

The active use of any kind of social resource causes the appearance of internal patterns of its reproduction. For example, the dominant position of finance capital has given rise to its numerous fictitious, speculative, fetishistic forms. Similarly, virtualization processes reflect homeostatic trends in the knowledge aggregate. Naturally, the spread of the public "through the looking glass" also covers the scientific sphere. Virtual research organizations, crowdsourcing, distributed mechanisms for collecting scientific data, etc. are becoming common forms of scientific potential growth. However, researchers differ a high degree immersions in international, global virtual spaces.

The strengthening of the social positions of science will be facilitated by a comprehensive study of virtuality, its economic and social consequences. Probably, the construction of virtual worlds should be considered as a specific noospheric form of reflection of reality by the collective intellect. The following dichotomy awaits a scientific approach: the constructive interweaving of virtual mechanisms in the life of a knowledge conglomerate and the distraction of the population, including young people, from acute social problems. important mission sciences - development of proposals for effective public and state regulation of virtual spheres.

In addition to the full participation of science in understanding, forecasting and effective implementation of the listed and other existences of the knowledge society, the consolidation of the social status of scientific activity involves the identification of sociocultural specifics that determine an adequate national identification image of the cognitive economy and society. The diversity of architectonics of knowledge constructs seems to be an organic continuation of the polymodel nature of science, the differentiation of national innovation systems, cross-country ethnic, confessional, ethical, mental and other differences in views on the role and value of knowledge. The contours of the Russian model of the cognitive society are seen in the special attention to the fundamental foundations of the cognitive building, the spiritual saturation of the symbiosis of various types of knowledge, the dominance of social and communicative knowledge paradigms over individual utilitarian ones. The activation of knowledge generation can be caused not only by purely practical needs, but also by the cognitive aspirations of the elite of society, communicated to the broad masses of the population by cognitive-preferential impulses. In Russian conditions, the primary role in the “launch” of cognitive modernization belongs to state institutions.

The relationship between science and power in a society based on knowledge

The problems of communication between scientific and government structures in a cognitive society require a separate detailed discussion. The main directions of state participation in building the economy and the knowledge society were considered by us in (a monograph on the functioning of national innovation systems). The authorities are called upon to provide additional support to science in connection with the performance of the functions of integration, processing and translation of various types of knowledge by budgetary and non-state research structures. The state is responsible for the cumulative build-up of the nationwide knowledge resource, social protection of the leading actors in the knowledge sphere, popularization of ideas about the cognitive society in various segments of the population. Below, we will only briefly dwell on the most important characteristics of the new image of cognitive-power interactions.

First of all, let us point out the observed active symbiosis of scientific developments and the experience of state activity into specific political knowledge. Research in such scientific areas as the theory of state and law, political science, are intertwined with the understanding of politics as an art, the formation of the charisma of political leaders, etc. The genesis of political knowledge is clearly manifested in the formation of a global network of “think tanks” serving political needs . The modification of traditional and the formation of new regulatory paradigms in the cognitive era requires interdisciplinary research into the circulation of knowledge in the outline of "personality - society - state", its national characteristics.

The realities of the cognitive economy and society require updating approaches to the development and implementation of scientific, technical and innovation policies, as well as to socio-economic regulation in general. The maturation of a mega-knowledge resource is already leaving its mark, for example, on the organization of a system for protecting intellectual property rights; in Russia, it is planned to create a single regulator in this area. Diverse instruments of state policy require differentiated adaptation to cognitive substances. In some cases, it is necessary to expand the covered object. Thus, large-scale national as well as international projects and programs should be provided with comprehensive knowledge support, including a scientific and analytical component. Other measures of the power arsenal suggest an emphasis on integrative-complementary transformations. For example, building an effective knowledge circulation infrastructure includes multi-level integration of scientific and innovative infrastructure with communication networks serving the flows of non-scientific knowledge. At the same time, radical regulatory innovations can also be expected, related, for example, to government incentives and the promotion of electronic circulation of knowledge.

The vanguard of knowledge also causes changes in the spatial strategy of scientific and innovative development. In particular, the urgent tasks for Russia to accelerate the modernization of the Arctic and Far East require not only the intensification of regionally oriented scientific research, but also efforts to revive, preserve and deepen the unique knowledge conglomerates of remote areas.

Cognitive society significantly expands the horizons of public-private partnership in the innovation sphere. A clear identification of state and business preferences, the synthesis of state and commercial knowledge resources, a qualitatively different atmosphere of cooperation - all this creates the prerequisites for a fruitful interweaving of innovative subcultures of partners, covering the segment of small and medium-sized innovative businesses. It is impossible not to mention the constitution of a new cognitive area - knowledge about scientific and innovation policy, formed on the basis of scientific research, benchmarking, cognitive guidelines of the power elite, etc.

The main statist attribute of the economy and the knowledge society is the unification of the dirigist potentials of science and the state. Scientific expertise of government decisions is organically supplemented by an analysis of their conformity to the national genotype, the possible depth of absorption by the socio-cultural environment. Significantly increases the proportion of knowledge factors of the level national security, primarily due to the acceleration of the confrontation between the so-called soft forces. Cognitive communications outline the nationally identical image of civil society. The triad of Russian national foundations “autocracy - orthodoxy - nationality” developed in the century before last can be reproduced in modern conditions by the formula “power - faith - knowledge” as an indicator of a difficult and lengthy transition from a pseudo-liberal to a solidarity-cognitive trajectory of the country's movement. The transformative power of science, enriched with environmental imperatives, and the stabilizing power of the state, supplemented by stimulating tools, can become co-guarantors of long-term sustainable development.

The contours of the future economy and society outlined in the article testify to the urgent need to preserve and further increase the scientific potential. The signs of a cognitive society allow us to look at Russian fundamental science not only as a national wealth and global heritage, but also as an integral part of Russian culture, the basis of unique compositions of scientific and non-scientific knowledge. The interpretation of science as a kind of social dependent should be supplanted by the realization of the fact that without a powerful knowledge base, it is impossible for Russia to enter the new era as a leading power.

Of course, the transition of the economy and society from technocratic to new, socio-humanitarian paradigms of functioning requires appropriate

ongoing transformations in the scientific sphere itself. The institutional structure of science should clearly reflect interdisciplinary aspects, including the integration of natural, technical and social science knowledge, a problematic approach to finding answers to the problems facing the country and the globe challenges, activation of contacts with economic and social structures. At the same time, it is very important that the reforms do not undermine, but strengthen the unity of the research space, guarantee the freedom of constructive scientific research, and reflect the specifics of research activities. The interaction of science with other areas of creative, cognitive activity, the formation of social intelligence, of course, cannot be carried out according to detailed "road maps", nevertheless, it is advisable to construct bridges and polynomials that hold them together, contributing to the transformation of butt distinctions of various forms of public consciousness into their more productive intersections " overlap." The next century, in particular, could become a catalyst for the creation of such platforms. October revolution- coup. The interpretation of the Soviet period of Russian history as a unique social and scientific experiment, a deep study of the positive and destructive economic and social innovations generated by it, a thorough analysis of the reasons for the failure would contribute to the joint development of guidelines, ways of formation and directions for stimulating the Russian cognitive society.

The highway for updating the relationship between Russian science and society is the active participation of scientists, research teams in the genesis, functioning and reproduction of various integrative constructs of the knowledge society - economic value chains, innovative business networks, national public forums on topical issues of politics, economics and culture, etc. etc. At the same time, fundamental science should become the primary tool for the formation of their knowledge foundations, perspective attitudes, and stabilizers of interaction with the environment. The world's largest size of the Russian territory makes it very productive to weave scientific activity into heterogeneous regional and local architectures of production and sociocultural roots. But the main determinant of success will be the place that cognitive imperatives will occupy in the minds of the Russian elite, which assimilates social values ​​and develops the country's strategic course.

The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, project No. 14-0200345.

List of sources used

A. Volkov. When is science not enough? When there is a lot of science?//Knowledge is power. No. 9. 2014.

2. S. Pyastolov. Metaphysics of "system modernization"//Economist. No. 3. 2016.

3. E. Lenchuk. The course towards new industrialization is the main trend of economic development // Problems of Forecasting. No. 3. 2016.

4. I. T. Kasavin. Philosophy of Science: Political Revolution// Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 12. 2015.

5. A. I. Rudskoy and I. L. Tukkel. Innovation: questions of theory and staffing of innovation activity//Innovations. No. 11. 2015.

6. V. A. Vasin and L. E. Mindeli. Fundamental science - an outsider or an integrator of the national innovation system?// Innovations. No. 1. 2016.

7. L. E. Mindeli and V. A. Vasin. Building an effective national model of interaction between science and society - a strategic benchmark for state support of fundamental research // Journal of Economic Theory. No. 4. 2014.

8. S. I. Grishunin. Models and intuitive-heuristic components in the development of science. M.: LENAND, 2013.

9. B. V. Salikhov, I. S. Salikhova. Scientific and practical imperatives for the development of the modern economy of implicit knowledge// Financial analytics: problems and solutions. No. 28. 2014.

10. V. G. Fedotova. Academic and (or) post-academic science?//Questions of Philosophy. No. 8. 2014.

11. L. N. Danilenko. Rent-and-raw material model of the Russian economy and the problems of its neo-industrial transformation. M.: INFRA-M, 2014.

12. A. Arseniev. The Relationship between Science and Morality: Philosophical Aspect//Personal Development. No. 4. 2013.

13. V. I. Vernadsky. Philosophical thoughts of a naturalist. M.: Academic project, 2014.

14. A. M. Fomin, V. N. Molodin, and V. D. Ermikov. Interdisciplinary research - the main trend in the development of science in Russia // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 11. 2015.

15. S. Glaziev. Transition to a new ideology of managing global economic development//Problems of theory and practice of management. No. 6. 2016.

16. V. L. Malyshev. On the possibility of the institutional championship of Russia. M.: Economics, 2015.

17. E. Morozova, I. Miroshnichenko, I. Ryabchenko. Frontier of the network society//World economy and international relationships. № 2. 2016.

18. J. Ben David. The role of the scientist in society. Moscow: New Literary Review, 2014.

19. N. Ivanova. Innovation policy: theory and practice// World economy and international relations. No. 1. 2016.

20. V. A. Vasin and L. E. Mindeli. State structures in the formation, evolution and interaction of national innovation systems. M.: IPRAN RAN, 2009.

21. A. Todosiychuk. Science as a key factor in ensuring economic security//Problems of theory and practice of management. No. 1. 2015.

Academic science - from the national innovation system in the economy and the knowledge society L. E. Mindeli, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Director, Institute for the study of science of RAS (ISS RAS).

V. A. Vasin, PhD in Economics, Leading Researcher, Institute for the study of science of RAS (ISS RAS).

The article deals with the problems of interactions between science and society in conditions of transforming knowledge into the main source of social and economic development. The authors state that the synthesis of scientific and non-scientific knowledge would entail a wide range of institutional innovations. They stress crucial importance of strengthening social status of science and its governmental support for economic sustainability and social stability in the Russian Federation.

Keywords: knowledge economy and knowledge based society; national innovation system; integration of knowledge; national resource of knowledge; multiple model science; communications of science with government agencies.

Russian science is on the verge of great changes - scientists expect that the new Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Dmitry Livanov, known as an extremely harsh critic of the Russian Academy of Sciences, will begin a radical reform of both the academy and all of Russian science as a whole.

Immediately after the inauguration, Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that he intends to pay considerable attention to science - a number of his first decrees were connected precisely with increasing the efficiency of science and funding research work, and one of the first big speeches took place at the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Experts interviewed by RIA Novosti believe that changes are inevitable, but they fear that perestroika will destroy the old structure, and that an effective "new science" will not be created. Some of them believe that the Ministry of Education and Science needs changes no less than the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Disperse the "Ministry of Science"?

The current head of the Ministry of Education and Science, who in 2005-2007 served as deputy minister and then rector of MISiS, never spared harsh words for the Russian Academy of Science. In several articles published in the journal "Expert" in 2007-2009, he wrote that the Russian Academy of Sciences has become a "ministry of science" - with a swollen bureaucracy, inefficient spending of funds and a complete unwillingness to change. Livanov cited data according to which the scientific effectiveness of the RAS - the number of scientific publications in relation to costs - is significantly lower than that of Russian university science, not to mention foreign scientific centers.

The new minister considers it necessary to conduct an international audit of scientific institutes and laboratories, as a result of which those that do not conduct scientific research of a serious level should be closed. In addition, it is necessary to increase grant and competitive funding for scientific research, selecting projects based on the results of rigorous scientific expertise.

One of Livanov's proposals is to transfer the property of the Russian Academy of Sciences to procedural management, and to create a pension program for research workers on income from property rental. This, in his opinion, will allow 10,000 employees of retirement age to be painlessly retired, which will seriously improve the personnel situation in the Russian Academy of Sciences.

She rides herself, she presses, she gives help

Molecular biologist, Professor Konstantin Severinov considers the main problem of the RAS to be in a state of deep conflict of interest. "The Academy of Sciences (represented by a rather narrow circle of its members) itself determines the directions of research and carries them out by itself, using and distributing funds allocated by the state," Severinov said.

"I believe that this scheme is wrong in principle, since a person is weak, regardless of whether he is a good scientist or not, and the temptation to use funds for his" own "research and not give way to others is very great," the scientist explained.

He believes that under its current leadership, the RAS is not capable of solving its problems on its own.

As good example Severinov cited the program "Molecular and Cellular Biology", which has been operating since 2002, and which has transparent criteria for the distribution of funds. The main criterion for selecting the winners of the competitions is the presence of articles in leading international scientific journals.

“Since publishing in such journals requires passing through a rigorous sieve of scientific and editorial expertise, laboratories that regularly publish in such journals have in fact passed an external independent assessment and received a “quality mark,” Severinov said.

According to him, "no one prevented the academic leadership from extending this simple principle to other programs, and thereby stimulating those scientists who work at the world level," but this is not happening. "Instead, many academic curators of programs distribute funds in a non-transparent way, very often within a narrow circle of" comrades, "summed up Severinov.

"The desire to seriously change something for the better in the current ... (RAS leadership) is not noticeable. And initiatives, including those from academicians, aimed at changing the situation, do not find support from the RAS leadership," said a researcher at the Physics Institute named after Lebedev RAS Evgeny Onishchenko.

Competitions and grants, grants and competitions

The leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences constantly raises the issue of the lack of funding for science. At the same time, since 2002, the annual federal budget spending on civilian science has increased more than tenfold, to 323 billion rubles.

Experts agree that an increase in science funding is necessary, but believe that a simple infusion of money from the state budget will not improve the situation. Here, in their opinion, it is necessary to use the procedure of competitive distribution of funds with the involvement of external expertise with the participation of foreign experts.

"Funding through competitions and grants, of course, should be developed and increased, without this dynamic development of science we will not get it. But this type of funding will be ineffective without creating a transparent and independent system of expertise - this is absolutely obvious," said the academician, head of the laboratory of the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry named after Shemyakin and Ovchinnikov RAS Sergei Lukyanov.

Independent expertise will strengthen "well-functioning groups," added Sergey Popov, a senior researcher at the Sternberg State Astronomical Institute (GAISh) of Moscow State University.

"In the end, the reforms should be based on them (these groups - ed.)," the astronomer stressed.

At the same time, the reforms will be associated with the solution of emerging social problems, Yuri Simachev, deputy general director of the Interdepartmental Analytical Center, is sure.

He explained that "an individual institute may be (according to average indicators) relatively weak, but it may have strong teams" in which honored scientists work. If it is decided to close the institute, such scientists should be given the opportunity to continue their work in other institutes or universities.

"Everything should be thought out here, just cutting down (and closing down weak institutions) is wrong," Simachev said. According to him, the age limit should not be applied everywhere, since, on the one hand, there are really actively working scientists over 70 years old, and on the other hand, there is a "ballast" in the face of much younger employees of institutes.

Hirsch is good in moderation

It is believed that the measure of the effectiveness of science on different levels, from individual scientists to entire institutions, is the number of scientific articles. The experts unanimously urged not to see this as the only possible way to assess researchers.

According to Lukyanov, there are no ideal scientometric indicators, "but you need to focus on something, so you can't do without them." "The citation index and the impact factor of journals are good benchmarks, but each field of science needs its own scale, and you can't rely on them alone," the academician noted.

According to him, the h-index (takes into account the number of publications of an individual scientist and the number of citations of these publications) is very fashionable, but its value strongly depends on the age of the scientist. “As I get older, I personally like this index more and more,” Lukyanov joked.

“In addition, peer review mechanisms can be used, however, scientists with high citation rates should be involved as experts,” said Sergey Guriev, rector of the Russian Economic School (NES).

"Of course, you need to understand that in different disciplines the indices can have different meanings. In some disciplines, you need to rely more on peer review of world-famous scientists," he added.

Popov admitted that he is close to the approach, "when the initial selection of experts is carried out according to formal criteria, but in the end we have an expert assessment at the end."

“In addition, it is important to understand that nominating a person with a low citation as an “outstanding scientist” must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of this. Situations in science are very different, but explanations are necessary,” the scientist added.

"Of course, there is no need to set plans for indicators, but they must be published so that the community knows which institutions work at the provincial level and which ones at the global level," Guriev stressed.

University science needs to "grow up"

"Any attempt (to reform the RAS) will come down to increasing the bureaucratic burden on science, which will not make it any better. There are not so many ways to solve such problems, the most common one is to create a new structure in parallel or transfer the center of gravity to an existing one." social institution. Apparently, a change in the structure of science suggests itself - from academic to university," says Georgy Lyubarsky, a researcher at the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University.

At the same time, the rapid transfer of the "center of gravity" of science to universities will not be a solution to problems.

"University science is more universal and less specialized, it is less effective in its structure than academic science, it is a tool with less specialization. So it is somewhat naive to arrange competition between them. Academic science does not work for us, not because it does not win competition with universities, but for a number of completely different reasons," Lyubarsky explained.

"At the moment, the academic segment of science has great potential, and a sharp shift of gravity to universities without experience and the possibility of good mobility (scientists) can have tragic consequences. Such issues are not resolved by order. In my opinion, it is most important to understand how strong academic groups are ready to cooperate with universities," Popov said.

At the same time, he did not rule out that in the future strong research centers could emerge on the basis of some universities.

"But, of course, the main supplier of fundamental knowledge to long time the Russian Academy of Sciences will remain," Simachev stressed.

The danger of conflict

At the same time, experts warned against attempts to reform Russian science based on the interests of the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Education and Science, since this could only aggravate the situation.

"A conflict between the ministry and the top academics can lead to serious negative consequences," Popov is sure.

"I can urge (RAS and the ministry) to see something good in each other, because if both sides see only the bad, they have no basis for interaction," Simachev said.

"The compromise should be based on the interests of (strong) working groups at the level of laboratories, and not on the interests of ministry officials, members of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and directors of institutes," Popov said.

In his opinion, reforms should be carried out with the participation of representatives of such groups, and the Society of Scientific Workers (SNR), established in February this year, can become the basis for the formation of representation. According to the charter of the ONR, its goal is to promote the development of productive scientific activity in Russia and increase the efficiency of using the achievements of science.

Popov lamented that "now, unfortunately, representatives of scientists at different levels are sometimes people who are not respected representatives of science."

"Neither the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, nor the trade union of the Russian Academy of Sciences are considered by a wide range of active scientists as (their) authorized representatives," he stressed.

wishes to the ministry

The experts shared their ideas with the agency on what they would change in the work of the Ministry of Education and Science, if they had such an opportunity.

“I would transfer science funding from the ministry to a real grant system, since federal funding targeted programs and other programs through lots is more like purchasing goods than funding science. This is absolutely counterproductive for its development," Lukyanov said.

"Many problems of Russian science are caused by infrastructural problems associated, for example, with the difficulties in delivering reagents necessary for research. The Ministry could be of great help in solving these problems," Severinov said.

Onishchenko believes that "at the moment, the Ministry of Education and Science is the same doctor who should heal himself." Many scientists reproach the ministry, in particular, for the inefficient use of funds allocated under federal targeted programs.

"If Dmitry Livanov manages to put things in order at least in the field of competitive financing within the framework of the FTP, create understandable and adequate mechanisms for the formation of topics for ordering work, establish a qualified scientific examination of applications and reports on the progress of work, then this alone will be a great achievement. This task should become one of the new minister's work priorities, I think," Onishchenko said.

Popov advises the ministry "to listen more to the opinion of real scientists, to work directly with them, to rely on representative representatives (of science)."

In his opinion, such a practice would bear fruit. Popov called the introduction of an amendment to federal law No. 94 on public procurement an example of taking into account the requirements of scientists. This change removed the use of state grants for science from the law.

"The key role (in the adoption of the amendment) was played by a small group of active and productive (from a scientific point of view) young scientists," Popov emphasized.

Guriev said that plans to change the work of the Ministry of Education and Science "will soon be made public by the new minister, I agree with him." "I can only say that the ministry should become and will be even more open to the community," the NES rector added.

Presented in ch. 9 picture refers to the "academic" ( "fundamental" "pure") science, which is characterized by the fact that scientific knowledge arises here regardless of the solution of applied technical problems. If we turn to physics, then the foundations of all sections of physics will fall here, collected, say, in 10 volumes " theoretical physics" L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, numerous VIO theories and experiments that have grown in connection with the emerging inside her questions. At the same time, we are not talking about the psychological "motivational setting" of scientists, which is mentioned in the work, but about a meaningful cut. In physics, the academic science and the community in which it lives can apparently be distinguished as follows. Take the relevant branch of physics (it is easy to single out, since, as mentioned above, it has a clear foundation in the form of the RUF) and identify conferences, publications, review articles, university departments and training courses related to it. The result will be content and a community that corresponds to academic science based on the branch of physics under study. There will be some admixture of applied research, but the basis would be clear, at least for physics until the first half of the 20th century.

If we turn to the history of physics of the 19th–20th centuries, we will see that a significant direct influence of technology on the formation of a new branch of physics takes place only in the case of thermodynamics, where such fundamental elements for it as the second law of thermodynamics, the Carnot cycle and the following from them the concept of entropy, caused by the development of steam engines during the industrial revolution of the XIX century. But this is an exception. Electrodynamics, statistical physics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics are born from the solution of problems that arise within "academic" and "university" physics, without being directly influenced by the development of technology. The military-industrial interest in Germany in spectroscopic research, of course, provided rich material for the formation quantum mechanics, but it cannot be regarded as a principal direct influence. The data generated by these experiments, which were expensive for that time, provided important material for posing fundamental problems, the solution of which became one of the important components in the creation of quantum mechanics. But it was still only material that was involved in the development of academic science. The problems of the black body radiation spectrum, the photoelectric effect, the instability of the electromagnetic version of the planetary model of the atom - three of the four main problems, the solution of which leads to the birth of quantum mechanics - are born inside academic physics. Within academic physics, the material of spectroscopic studies is also used.

Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" and Galileo's theory of falling bodies do not arise from technical problems either. (Galileo solved the problem posed by Aristotle, Newton built a theory explaining Kepler's laws of motion of the planets.)

The PIO and some SIA that arise in it are involved in "applied research" that is formed around the corresponding "technical" problems in engineering practice. This applied research can be organized in "applied science" (an example of such a process is the formation of "physics of magnetic fluids"). This process is typical of the era of the scientific and technological revolution, where the density of applied research increases dramatically. Another way of forming applied science is also possible, when some subsection of academic science finds technical application (it is possible that such an example is provided by magnetohydrodynamics, which arose in the 1940s as a result of the intersection of hydrodynamics and electrodynamics, and later became the basis of plasma theory within the framework of the project on development of a controlled fusion).

The main difference between applied natural sciences from academic is that the former are formed around technical problems, for the solution of which the achievements of academic science are used, and the latter are formed around their own problems.

It is possible to single out Technical science, type of radio engineering, in the center of which are not only technical problems, but also their own special FECs (inductances, capacitors, diodes, triodes, etc.).

The processes taking place in technology, as well as socio-political processes, affect the development of academic science, but do not determine its development. Vivid examples of such influence are the "atomic project" and the political repressions of the Stalinist period in the USSR. The political repressions of Stalin almost destroyed the national school of genetics, which was in the 1920s. one of the leading in the world. The "Atomic Project" not only saved physics from such a defeat, but also gave it a powerful impetus for development. But from the point of view of the development of physics, all this is only the influence of external factors within the framework of the "external" history of Lakatos (see paragraph 6.7). Yes, as a result of the consequences of the Second World War and the arms race, at the center of which was the atomic project, the centers of fundamental physical research shifted from Western Europe in the USA and the USSR, but this did not lead to any revolutions in physics comparable to those at the beginning of the 20th century.

The scientific and technological revolution is mainly the involvement of science in the process of technological development. The reverse impact through the growth of funding and prestige, the growth in the number of scientists, sophisticated equipment and empirical material is great, but not the fact that it is decisive for the development of academic science.

The people and institutions that make up the academic community are often included in other types of activities and structures related to applied science and technology. But regardless of whether they are engaged in academic science in the main working hours and how much this activity contributes to their income, the community of scientists involved in academic science exists, and the essence of academic science has remained the same (although the forms of existence have become more collective, today it is, usually laboratories rather than individuals). The sociocultural factor, for example, in the form of a decline in the prestige of science and an increase in the prestige of money, of course, affects the well-being of academic science, but rumors about its death are clearly exaggerated.

However, in the middle of the XX century. a new phenomenon is born - "Big Science". The system-forming role here is played by a large-scale state project (most often military-technical), which involves technology, technical, applied and academic sciences, politics and economics. This leads to a sharp extensive growth of science, an avalanche-like increase in the number of researchers, institutions, journals, special attention of society and the state. Examples of such projects, both here and in the West, are the nuclear and missile projects. Let's outline them briefly on the available domestic material. It should be noted that the structure and type of activity in applied and academic ("normal", because here it does not reach scientific revolutions) sciences are very close - the construction of the VIS from the existing PIS.

The scale and variety of resources involved in such projects is demonstrated by the Soviet rocket project. To create the first combat domestic rocket R-1, cooperation was required 13 design bureaus and 35 factories, R-2 missiles - 24 research institutions, design bureaus and 90 industrial enterprises, and the first intercontinental ballistic missile R-7 required gigantic cooperation throughout the country - about 200 scientific and technical, research institutes, KB, laboratories of various ministries and departments. The creation of production capacities proceeded in the same way as in the prewar years, i.e. by attracting a significant part of the existing workshops and factories and some construction of new facilities.

"The period 1945–1953 became a time for mobilizing funds and deploying infrastructure for the atomic and missile projects of the USSR. A significant part of the material and human resources went to science, including institutes and laboratories, which soon after the priority tasks of creating rocket - nuclear weapons were solved, engaged in fundamental scientific problems. Such, for example, were the laboratories involved in charged particle accelerators... which formed the core of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna. New higher education institutions were also created educational establishments(for example, MEPhI, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology), special departments and faculties at universities and other universities", "closely associated with the institutes of the Academy of Sciences and the defense industry, focused mainly on training personnel for Sredmash and other science-intensive sectors of the defense industry." This happened against the backdrop of a sharp increase in the influx of talented young people into physics, mathematics, technical sciences... "The Soviet scientific, technical and defense-technical infrastructure almost completely absorbed an unparalleled scale (almost 10 thousand certified physicists and engineer-physicists a year!) Personnel flow .. ." .

"Leaders nuclear project, first of all, academicians I. V. Kurchatov and Yu. Sredmashevsky sphere, but also in academic institutions. Both the efforts of the authorities to support and develop physical science in the country, and the sharply increased prestige of the profession of physics, and the numerous scientific schools that have gained strength have brought remarkable results not only in the nuclear field, but also in a number of other areas of fundamental and applied science: in solid state physics and low temperatures, optics and quantum electronics, etc. . Similar processes took place in the USA. As a result, in physics (and a number of other areas), the USSR and the USA took the lead.

• The chapter was written with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation grant No. 14-03-00687.
• E. I. Pruzhinil points out that the formation of applied sciences is a “quite recent event”, characteristic of the middle of the 20th century. "The farther back from the middle of the century, the more fragmented and personal becomes the manifestation of ... dichotomy" .

Today, an indignant noise is heard from different sides that in Russia, allegedly, destroy science. This is a predictable reaction of people to information about the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). Perhaps it was precisely this kind of reaction that those people who presented in the media the relevant draft law submitted to the State Duma were counting on. In this article, I will not touch on the essence of the draft law. There is no doubt that the Academy needs to be reformed. But how to do it, so that there is sense, let those who consider themselves an expert in this matter think. I will share my opinion on the results of many years of specialized activity of the Academy of Sciences. In my opinion, over the past century these results are very close to zero! The Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences contains the following, quite acceptable and understandable words:

“3. Russian Academy Sciences is a self-governing organization that conducts fundamental and applied scientific research on the most important problems of the natural, technical, humanitarian and social sciences and takes part in the coordination of fundamental scientific research carried out at the expense of the federal budget by scientific organizations and educational institutions of higher professional education ... "

It says here that the Academy of Sciences at the state expense conducts (should conduct) fundamental and applied scientific research, and, in my opinion, the main ones should be fundamental research, i.e. research and deepening of knowledge about the basic, fundamental laws of nature, because there are many branch research institutes for solving applied problems, which quickly and successfully cope with their applied tasks.

What does it really mean?

At the dawn of the development of human society, pundits, when trying to explain this or that phenomenon of nature, were forced to temporarily introduce certain statements accepted without evidence - postulates- with the help of which some of the processes under study were later explained. With the correct development of society and science, the number of postulates should gradually decrease, as knowledge about the nature of the studied phenomena expands and deepens. It is these studies that are fundamental, and it is precisely them that any Academy of Sciences should deal with in the first place.

What do we really have? To date, our fundamental knowledge is at the level stone age, in the full sense of the word! Our academicians, and with them the rest of science, practically knows nothing(or the minuscule knows, but this is deliberately silent) about the following:

1. Science knows nothing about the structure of the universe.

Invented theories that are not based on research data are more like children's fantasies than serious works. Academicians have no idea what a "star", "black hole", "planet", "satellite", etc., really are, they do not know how they are formed, how and when they are destroyed. Academicians, following the clergy, have been saying for many years that the Earth and Humanity are unique and the only ones in the Universe, although even in the open press there have been reports that planets similar to the Earth have been found. But academics in a blue eye produce all sorts of ornate theories that are completely unrelated to reality. A strong impression is created that here the pursuit is for the originality of theories and remoteness from reality, and not for reliability (for more on postulatomania, see the article by Academician Nikolai Levashov "Theory of the Universe and Objective Reality", and about the real structure of the Universe, you can read his book "Heterogeneous Universe").

2. Science knows nothing about the structure our planet.

It is quite natural that, not knowing and not understanding the structure of the Universe, our science is absolutely sterile in relation to knowledge about the planet Earth. There are some completely stupid theories that the planets, including ours, were formed in the process of sticking space debris into one. Then, for some reason, each such garbage whole is warmed up inside, and outside it is covered with water and forests, and ... voila! Another planet is ready! It is precisely for such theories that scientists-talkers should be punished to the fullest extent of the rules of the “Holy Inquisition”. No pity! But now we would live in a completely different world ... In fact, the planets are formed from what unfortunate scientists call "dark matter" (90-95% of the mass of the Universe). In fact, this is not “dark matter” at all, but an infinite number of matters. different kind, which academician Nikolai Levashov gave the name "first matter". Primal matter, falling into the inhomogeneities of Space, begin to interact with each other, and, merging, form the so-called. hybrid matter. It is from such hybrid matters that the planets, including our Earth, and you and me, are composed (for more details on the structure of the planets and everything else, see the book by N.V. Levashov “The Last Appeal to Humanity”).

3. Science knows nothing about gravity.

Yes! All our knowledge of gravity is based on the fiction that all bodies in the universe are attracted to each other. On this occasion, even the "Law of universal gravitation" was invented. Unfortunately, in reality, nothing is attracted to anything! I repeat loudly again: nothing is attracted to anything! And the "Law of Universal Gravitation" is a shameless invention of those circles that have been trying to steer our planet for quite a long time. exhaustive evidence to what has been said exist and are given in the article by O.Kh. Derevensky "Spikers and wicks of universal gravitation" !!! Many "scientists" know about this, but are cowardly silent. For ... they are bonded people and are busy earning money for their livelihood, and not searching for the truth. In fact, gravity exists (we do not fly through the air, but walk on the ground), but the nature of gravity is completely different! More than 10 years ago, this phenomenon was very well described by academician Nikolai Levashov in his famous book "Inhomogeneous Universe" ...

4. Science knows nothing about electricity.

No matter how strange it may seem to you, but it is true! Yes, we have somehow learned how to use something electrical, but we do not know the nature of electricity at all! Baby talk about "electric current is the directed movement of electrons" suitable only for younger students, who are still very little interested. adults and responsible people what our academics should be like, first of all, they should be interested in the essence, the nature of this phenomenon, “how does it work?”. To understand it thoroughly and use it the way we need it, and not the way electricity is used by us today - as illiterate savages. In fact, the work in electrical machines is done by NOT"motion of electrons" and not electrons! This is easy to verify for any person, and academics about this they know... but they are silent. Because they have nothing more to say! They have no alternative to the generally accepted stupidity, so they are silent. At the same time, Academician Nikolai Levashov has long explained the theory of electricity and the real nature of electric current in the already mentioned book "Inhomogeneous Universe" ...

5. Science knows nothing about man.

Much to our regret, this is true. Science knows practically nothing about man. And medicine - even more so, so I won’t talk about it at all. Science knows something very, very little about the physical body of a person, which is a temporary, small part of the person himself. And he knows absolutely nothing about what actually is Homo sapiens, periodically incarnating into physical bodies, which for the time of the next incarnation become part of Man. So here it is science knows nothing about it and does not even want to listen, reveling in his ignorance and stupid obstinacy. Although, answers to simple questions, such as “what is a thought?”, “How does memory work?”, “What happens to us in a dream?”, “Where do we go after death physical body?”, just as science did not know before, it does not know now! And at those who point out such oddities to them, academicians begin to hiss angrily and advise them to read encyclopedias more carefully. Meanwhile, all these questions have long been given exhaustive answers in the most interesting books of Academician N.V. Levashova. But why academicians do not want to read them is a separate, big question that is beyond the scope of this article.

6. Science knows nothing about the history of Mankind.

Those naive stories that are given out by academicians today as the history of Mankind only cause bewilderment: how can adults try to pass off such leapfrog as the truth? Or do they themselves believe in this nonsense? Then their place is not in the Academy, but in primary school schools like repeaters! A huge number of facts have long been accumulated that leave no stone unturned on the "traditional" version of earth's history. But academicians pretend that they are blind-deaf-dumb and try to hush up such facts or, if possible, destroy them. Indeed, the "scientific approach": no fact - no problem. But ignorance of the real history of Mankind does not give us the opportunity to analyze and use the richest life experience of our ancestors. Therefore, the profanation of this area of ​​fundamental knowledge causes very serious harm to our civilization. In fact, the history of the life and struggle of our ancestors on this planet is very interesting and not at all the same as that taught in schools and universities. Our ancestors colonized this planet over 600 thousand years ago. And this was preceded by a long preparation of the solar system, the creation of full-fledged ecological niches on the selected planets for the life of our great ancestors - the Slavic-Aryans ...

7. Science knows nothing at all about the fundamental laws of nature!

In addition, today's science is not able to clearly and clearly, exhaustively and without ornate answers to many seemingly simple questions: “what is wind?”, “what is rain?”, “what is dew?”, “what what is a tide?", "what is a sea current?", "what is a hurricane?", "what is time?"... Modern "scientists", not having the necessary knowledge, prefer to communicate in their specific language, and even strive everywhere, where you can and where you can not use mathematics, forgetting (or maybe not knowing) that mathematics is neither a tool for understanding the world, nor modeling reality, but was born only as means of counting physical objects. For lack of another tool, they are trying to adapt it to the process of cognition, but this idea is doomed to failure for a number of reasons. As an illustration of this statement, I propose a short note on the attitude towards mathematics by Professor Derek Abbott from Australia ...

Mathematics is not suitable for describing the universe?

Mathematics often call the language of the universe. Scientists and engineers often talk about the elegance of mathematics when describing physical reality, referring to examples such as E=mc 2 and simple counting of real world objects. Nevertheless, discussions about whether mathematics is the basis of everything that exists, whether it is discovered by us or simply created by our imagination, as a way of describing the world, still do not subside. The first point of view refers to the mathematical Platonism, whose supporters tend to believe that mathematics was not created, but only discovered by people.

Derek Abbott (Derek Abbott), professor of electrical and electronic engineering at the University of Adelaide, Australia, argues that mathematical Platonism is wrong and that mathematics cannot give an accurate definition of reality. Professor Abbott argues for the opposite view, which claims that mathematics is a product of the human imagination, and we are trying to adapt it to the picture of reality. The results of Derek Abbott's research will be presented in more detail in the publication Proceedings of the IEEE.

In fact, Ebot's hypothesis is far from new, he is just trying to prove it through his own experience. His research is interesting in that Abbott is an engineer, not a mathematician, 80% of whom are inclined towards Platonism. According to Abbott's observations, most engineers and even physicists tend to doubt Platonism in private, although they adhere to it publicly. According to Abbott, the reason for this discrepancy is that as soon as a scientist realizes the essence of mathematics, its mental origin, he begins to see the weaknesses and shortcomings of mathematical models that are not able to describe certain properties of the physical universe.

Abbott argues that mathematics is not that good at describing reality and is definitely not a "miracle". Mathematics is very convenient when it is necessary to succinctly describe phenomena that cannot be processed with the help of our weak brain. Mathematics is beautiful, but it is difficult to use it to describe some things. “Mathematics seems like a wonderful universal language because we choose those tasks, which can be brilliantly solved with mathematics, says Professor Derek Abbott. - But on millions no one pays attention to unsuccessful mathematical models. There are many cases where mathematics is ineffective…” Abbott gives several such examples.

The clearest example is the transistor. on the basis of which our civilization is literally built. In 1970, when the transistor was measured in micrometers, scientists described its operation with beautiful, elegant equations. Modern submicron transistors exhibit effects that the old equations defy and require complex computer models to explain how they work.

Relativity of mathematics appears very often. For example, we can measure the length of a person's life and call the Sun a source of energy. But, if a person lived as long as the Universe, short life The sun would be perceived as a short-term fluctuation. From this point of view, the Sun is not a source of energy for people. Even simple counting has its limits. When counting, for example, bananas, at some point the number of bananas will be so large that the gravity of the mass of bananas will cause them to collapse into black hole. Thus, at some point, we will no longer be able to rely on simple counting.

What about the concept of integers? Where does one banana end and the next one begin? Of course, we know visually how bananas are separated, but we have no formal mathematical definition this phenomenon. If, for example, we were gaseous beings and lived as rarefied clouds among other clouds, then for us the concept of separation of solid bodies would not be so obvious. We rely only on our innate characteristics, and there is no guarantee that the mathematical descriptions we create are actually universal.

Derek Abbott is by no means going to "rip rose-colored glasses" from mathematicians. On the contrary, the scientist believes that the perception of mathematics as a tool will provide greater freedom of thought. As an example, Abbott cites vector operations and the revival of interest in geometric algebra, the possibilities of which, theoretically, can be significantly expanded.

academic science for some, not yet clear reasons, wants to know almost nothing important and interesting, although it seems that this is already everyone knows except them. Scientists have actually turned into stupid priests. Many academics today are more like fanatics than on sane people engaged in serious scientific research. The fact that the title of academician was awarded to the thief and bandit Berezovsky, who was recently executed in England by his accomplices, indicates that not all is well in the academic kingdom! Science does not actually fulfill its direct duties: it does not seek answers to the main, fundamental questions of Nature and our being.

And if science has no answers to the main questions, then we have the right to ask: what did you do for our money for a century, academic citizens? You ate sweeter than anyone, slept softer than anyone, got good housing wherever you wanted ... And how will you pay off with the Fatherland? Empty reports and exaggerated monographs, rewritten ten times by each other? Endless dissertations in which the most valuable thing is the paper on which they are printed?

No, citizens of the academics. That's not how things will work! Present, please, the real results of your selfless work for the benefit of the Fatherland! Please count like this the results we want your work for the benefits that you, your children and grandchildren have received for decades; your wives and mistresses; your relatives and friends; your friends and the friends of your friends...

If you cannot pay for everything that the Motherland has given you, believing in your promises to work conscientiously, then we have the right to call you robbers public money, in other words, thieves. And since there are thieves in the main Academy of the country, then such an Academy needs to be urgently reformed! But reform should already businesslike, and not the way it was done under socialism, where no one was responsible for anything, and where, in fact, this barren form of existence of the once Russian Academy was born.

More information on this interesting topic can be obtained at my next Internet Conferences from the series "Nikolai Levashov in the stories of friends", which I will conduct on Sunday, 22 September, in 17:00 Moscow time on the site "Keys of Knowledge". Free admission! I invite all those interested in science and near-scientific life...

Fundamental science is often called academic because it develops mainly in universities and academies of sciences.

In real life this is often true. A university professor may work part-time in commercial projects, even work part-time in a private consulting or research firm. But he always remains a university professor, looking a little down on those who are constantly engaged in marketing or advertising surveys, not rising to the discovery of new knowledge, who have never published in serious academic journals.

Academic science, as a rule, is fundamental science, science not for the sake of practical applications, but for the sake of pure science.

However, "often" and "usually" do not mean always. Basic and academic research are two different things.

Not all basic research is academic

Basic research in our country is carried out by the academic sector - the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMS), the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (RAAS), as well as the university and business (industry) sectors.

Psychologos is a basic research project in the field of psychology. But this is not an academic format.

Not all academic research is fundamental

If an academician's article in an academic journal is devoted to a specific issue that has an obvious applied, practical meaning - this is an academic applied research. Not fundamental.

The history of the formation of academic science

Initially, the Academy, in the significance of scientific communities, were either private, so -called free academies, or public institutions founded and contained at the expense of the state. They were united by one common quality - that they are engaged in science not for practical purposes, but for science itself.

The first academy of this kind was founded by Ptolemy.

But the general veil of academicism, their spirit of elitism was undoubtedly introduced by the Jewish academies in Palestine, Mesopotamia and Babylonia (1st century AD). It is Talmudic scholarship, commitment and rigor in following the Torah, claims to correct understanding and interpretation of the Law, then became the ideological core, spirit and style of the Academies.

The palm in the integration of "scholarship" and the state belongs to France. The Academy gained importance after Richelieu, in 1635, transformed the humble private society into a national institution, the Académie Francaise, which later, during the Revolution, was merged with other sister institutions under common name Institut de France. This brilliant content at the expense of the state, but strongly influenced by the government and the court, the national institution had a profound influence on the development of social thought in France. Following its model, academies subsequently began to be organized in the capitals of other European states, some of which also received the character of national central institutions (in Madrid, Lisbon, Stockholm and St. Petersburg). In Russia, the plan for the Imperial Academy of Sciences was drawn up by Peter the Great and completed in 1725. See