Fundamental and applied science: contribution to the economy মৌলিক এবং ফলিত বিজ্ঞান: অর্থনীতিতে অবদান

 Fundamental and applied science: contribution to the economy

Too many "nebulae" that have long existed in the sky of our science, more and more have recently been added. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the law “On Science and the State Scientific and Technical Policy”, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation “On the Doctrine of the Development of Russian Science”, “On Measures for the Development of Fundamental Science in the Russian Federation and the Status of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, etc., as well as The concept of reforming Russian science for the period 1997-2000. Without pretending to analyze the numerous problems associated with the reform of the scientific sphere, the authors offer only one question for discussion - about the place and role of fundamental science.

The question of fundamental science is quite simple and understandable. But through the efforts of leaders and officials from science, it has been turned into a fig leaf that protects expensive and sometimes useless research from the eyes of the uninitiated. At the same time, fundamental science is directly linked to the “big” science in Russia and its official person, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Science itself is not defined in the Law on Science. Instead, the concepts of scientific and scientific-technical activity are used, which are divided into fundamental and applied. The first is to obtain “... new knowledge about the basic laws of the structure, functioning and development of a person, society, the environment”, the second is aimed “... mainly at applying new knowledge to achieve practical goals and solve specific problems.” This far from indisputable definitions are based on the target classification of scientific research, which over the past 30-40 years has led to the fact that not only research but also sciences, primarily the sciences of nature, have come to be called fundamental. These are physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and some others that have become the “most-most”. In contrast, technique and technology are classified as applied (read - second-rate) sciences, since they do not reach the level of fundamental ones. Separation according to this principle entails very real discrimination, primarily in the distribution of funds. Meanwhile, the main and fundamental difference between the natural (fundamental) and technical (applied) sciences is completely different - in their different objective functions. The main purpose of the natural sciences is the knowledge of objects, phenomena, processes of development of nature and society, their laws. The main goal of technical sciences is the creation of objects of nature of the “second kind”, that technogenic environment in which people live and which V.I. Vernadsky called the noosphere. Both fundamental and applied research is carried out to obtain new knowledge with the fullest possible use of what is already known and available. In the first case - to obtain new knowledge about nature and society, in the second - about what and how it is advisable to do. Therefore, it would be more correct to call fundamental research analytical, cognitive, and applied - synthesizing, allowing to materialize new knowledge.

Let us turn to the results of scientific research, i.e. to a scientific, intellectual product. Creative, constructive knowledge as the fundamental principle of innovation and the potential for the production of new material values ​​is of undoubted interest for the economy and has a tangible consumer value. Therefore, such an intellectual product has a market value, is sold and bought, used as an authorized capital, etc., providing its owner (not necessarily the author) with commercial benefits for a certain time. Unlike synthesizing knowledge, cognitive knowledge, being made public, belongs to all mankind and is borrowed free of charge for any purpose (education, other research, etc.). It does not matter who bears the cost of obtaining cognitive knowledge. This type of intellectual product is protected not in its essence, but only in the form of representation, as works of literature and art. The essence of the main intellectual product of the natural sciences is not recognized as an object of industrial property by either international or domestic legislation. Gone is the experience of the Soviet discovery registration system, which, however, also did not secure ownership of these results, remained unclaimed.

So, fundamental sciences, or cognitive research, designed to multiply and develop knowledge about the surrounding nature and society, from a financial point of view, cannot be profitable and even self-sustaining. It is well known that fundamental research requires enormous expenditures. Even taking into account the fact that part of such research provided applied scientific work of a military nature, a significant proportion of it is not returned to society in any form. The more such studies are carried out, the greater the burden on the budget. We are proud that domestic science has made and is making a great contribution to the global treasury of cognitive knowledge. Probably, on a personal level, it is very interesting to “satisfy your own curiosity at the expense of society”. But what is left for ordinary taxpayers to think if the lion's share of the funds allocated for science as a whole is spent on fundamental research? Engaging in fundamental science is an even more irrational form of management than the sale of unprocessed raw materials abroad, which nevertheless brings at least some profit to the country. 

Well, what about other countries? Do they prioritize basic science in the hierarchy of national priorities? Even in such a richest country in the world as the United States, at all levels, up to Congress, there are long and thorough discussions on the financing of large scientific programs paid from the budget, scrupulously comparing planned costs and expected results. In 1996, of total US spending on science, only 16%, or $29.8 billion, was spent on basic research, 21%, or $38.8 billion, on applied research, and 63%, or 115. $8 billion for development*. Thus, applied research and development accounts for the lion's share of government spending - 84%. We do not have data on private investment in science, but it seems that this trend is even more pronounced there. In our country, the picture is just the opposite. Moreover, far from all the money allocated by the state reaches the scientists who directly extract cognitive knowledge. A significant part of them goes to the maintenance of numerous administrative add-ons.

Developed countries, saving money, joining forces to create experimental centers, refuse to work on the entire spectrum of fundamental research, not to mention all sciences. The concept of reforming Russian science does not give a clear idea of how and in what direction this reform will go. All the same approaches, all the same arguments from the standpoint of our uniqueness and the internal logic of science itself. It seems that this “fateful” document will change little in the fate of Russian science.

Nobody is against cognitive science. It's about something else - can we, as a society, today afford to spend money on all the traditional areas of fundamental and exploratory research? Wouldn't it be better to choose some of them that promise serious and quick improvements in the life of an "ordinary" citizen, leaving others until better times?

Most of us expected that the Concept would clearly formulate the criteria (you can borrow those for which Soros grants are issued), the basis for choosing priority areas of scientific research, the principles for rationalizing spending on science, and, finally, provide for a funding mechanism in which funds will go directly to scientists. Then our fundamental science would stop begging, shooting, and declaring hunger strikes.

It must be said that in many cases, applied, constructive research can be carried out on the basis of "foreign" fundamental knowledge. This is confirmed by Japan, which is by no means a leader in the field of fundamental sciences, but in terms of applied research, it certainly occupies one of the leading places in the world. Some will argue that "fundamentalist" scientists will not be able to conduct applied research. Fortunately, this is not the case. Apart from "pure" theorists, who, by the way, do not require large funds for their research, the talent of most researchers does not perish at all if it is directed towards constructive research. The history of science is replete with examples confirming this. Let us recall at least our great compatriots N.E. Zhukovsky, P.L. Kapitsa, N.D. Zelinsky and many others. Moreover, purposeful creative research aimed at satisfying various human needs, with an unskewed scale of social values, is able to maintain the enthusiasm of scientists to a much greater extent than the search for abstract fundamental truths. We just need to reorient our thinking from “military” to “civilian”. So, if the fundamental knowledge obtained by Russian scientists in the field of coherent radiation generation were used for the benefit of man, then we would not be the last in laser information technology. 

So the opportunity has arrived for the last missing connection in the legitimate chain of thinking regarding the convenience and inclination of specific investigations. Need should be viewed as those concentrates that are pointed toward accomplishing a more elevated level and nature of human existence. Sadly, the Concept of Reforming Russian Science talks close to nothing and is suppressed regarding this. Along these lines, it isn't at each of the issues of at last choosing researchers who direct principal research, giving inclination to those occupied with applied science, or rearranging scant assets among authorities, the contraption, and researchers for the last option. In addition, applied science is very ready to accommodate itself. There is no compelling reason to look far for models: toward the finish of November last year, a South African appointment showed business interest in Russian advancements and hardware for the cloth business, fleece handling, the creation of composite materials utilizing regular filaments, and various different turns of events.

In conclusion, let us try to formulate our proposals on the principles of organizing scientific activity in the transition period, especially since Deputy Prime Minister V. Bulgak himself suggested continuing the discussion on this topic, including pages of the magazine "Electronics: NTB".

The most expedient would be the following scheme for the implementation of work financed from the federal budget. The state should finance, first of all, work on the selection of priority areas of scientific and technological development and projects related to their implementation. The stages of work on the selection of priority areas should include: forecasting scientific and technological development with the obligatory use of the results of patent research and other patent information; choice of priorities; competitions for the right to implement projects; evaluation of development results; legal protection of development results in Russia and (if necessary) abroad; competitions for the right to use R&D results; control over the use of development results. The performers of each stage are determined in an open competition with absolute publicity of the results. Russian and foreign legal entities and individuals are allowed to participate in the competition without any restrictions (except for making a decision at the stage of evaluating the results of development and monitoring the use of the results).

In order to stimulate innovative development, it is necessary to introduce tax incentives for scientific and technical organizations (STO) and enterprises that create and use intellectual property objects, primarily for income tax and value-added tax, as well as provide for a mandatory assessment of such objects for subsequently accelerated depreciation and the use of released funds for the scientific and technical development of NATO.

From financing NTOs, one should move to finance specific R&D, transferring funds directly to the research supervisor of the topic and giving him the right to dispose of these funds in the interests of the most effective implementation of the task. It is also extremely important to change the orientation of higher education by expanding the classification of scientific specialties and shifting the focus of training specialists from defense to civilian topics.