In the context of the transition to a post-industrial society, science, as a system of knowledge and as a special type of human activity, is turning into an important area that permeates production, technology, economics, education, health care and politics.

Traditionally, it had a significant scientific potential, which has been developing since the 18th century. Initially, scientific activity was mainly localized in St. Petersburg and Moscow, where the first universities and structures of the Russian Academy of Sciences arose.

The infrastructure of science, as a result of the diffusion of various structural elements of its organizational structure (academic organizations, university science, etc.), is currently represented by a number of centers, in various combinations integrating various elements scientific complex. At the same time, Moscow and St. Petersburg traditionally combine university and academic science. The main part of science cities is located in the European part of Russia. At the same time, many large centers of the European part of Russia are deprived of any other elements of the scientific complex, with the exception of university science.

In the future, the territorial organization of Russian science took shape in the process of its intensive spatial diffusion and was characterized by the consistent transfer of the “center” of Russian science from Moscow to Moscow (with the subsequent hypertrophied development of its research functions), as well as the emergence of more and more new university and academic poles of scientific research. activity (in the 19th century in Kazan, Tomsk, Irkutsk, Voronezh, etc.; in the 20th century in almost all major regional centers), including a network of "science cities".

Modern science is, first of all, the scientists working in it, highly qualified personnel. In the 1990s number of researchers in Russian Federation has undergone a significant reduction. By 1992, 2.3 million people, or 3.2% of all those employed in the economy, were employed in science and scientific services. In 2002, the number of people employed in science and scientific services in the country decreased to 1.2 million people, that is, almost 2 times over the past ten years, and specific gravity this area to 1.0%. The pace of this process turned out to be unequal in individual territories of Russia.

Quite significant - over 50% - they were in a number of regions of Central Russia, as well as in certain peripheral regions of Siberia and southern Russia. At the same time, Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as some southern and northern regions, were less affected by the decline in the number of researchers - here their number decreased by no more than a third.

As a result, today many regions of the north and south of Russia, as well as most regions of the Far East, are actually deprived of real scientific potential (due to the absence or a small number of researchers). The specific number of researchers is higher than the average in a number of regions of Central Russia, in the traditional centers of science in the eastern part of the country (Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Tomsk regions).

The decline in employment in science was accompanied by a numerical growth of highly qualified personnel, including doctors of science.

The dominant trend of recent years is the territorial deconcentration of the process of increasing the number of doctors of sciences in the composition of researchers. Thus, the most significant (more than 1.5 times) increase in the number of doctors of sciences in the regions where the saturation with them was initially minimal - in the south of Russia, in a number of peripheral Siberian regions, as well as in. At the same time, many regions of the center and north-west of Russia, where the concentration of doctors of science was also minimal, showed only average growth rates - from 1.0 to 1.5 times. There are relatively few regions where the number of doctors of sciences-researchers has decreased. Against the background of a small number of regions where the concentration of doctors of science is high, the predominant part of the regions is characterized by medium or weak concentration indicators.

The current regional differences in the localization and dynamics of highly qualified personnel, in general, they correspond with the placement and performance of postgraduate and doctoral studies. In terms of the number of graduates of postgraduate and doctoral studies with the defense of dissertations (reflecting center-peripheral gradients in the territorial organization of Russian science, the situation when in some regions the entire cycle of reproduction of scientific personnel is powerfully represented, while in others it is “truncated” to one degree or another) almost half of the regions of Russia belong to the territories with an insignificant number of defenses of candidate and doctoral dissertations (that is, in fact, to the scientific "periphery"). The cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, the epicenters of the training of highly qualified personnel, including the graduation of doctoral students, stand out significantly against the all-Russian background. Somewhat inferior to them, but also have higher graduation rates from doctoral and postgraduate studies, some other traditional regions of the development of science (Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Sverdlovsk regions), as well as a number of regions of active development of science in recent decades in the Volga region, in the south and in the central part of Russia . A number of regions of Central Russia, as well as the Krasnodar Territory, Perm Territory and Omsk Region, also actively formed in the 1990s. its scientific potential, however, the number of defenses of candidates of sciences here often significantly exceeds the intensity of defenses of doctoral dissertations.

Training of highly qualified scientific personnel

The complexity of the structure of the territory of Russia, the presence of economic and culturally "advanced" regions and regions of outsiders contributes to the polarization of the geospace of modern Russian science, which is clearly visible both in terms of general (generally quantitative) indicators of the scientific process (number of researchers, training of highly qualified personnel in the regions of Russia, etc. .), as well as for more “subtle” indicators reflecting qualitative nuances, including citation of research results in the global system of scientific publications.

Accounting for the Science Citation Index Expanded, provided by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), covering such priority areas of scientific knowledge as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, research in the field of biotechnology and medicine, earth sciences, as well as technical sciences illustrates the basic features and tendencies of the territorial organization of modern Russian science: the continuing even increasing concentration of scientific activity in Moscow (half of the total amount of publications by regions of the country) and St. Petersburg; the growth of the scientific potential of a number of "second echelon" centers (Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk, Kazan, Tomsk, Irkutsk, etc.), as well as various forms of regionalization of research.

Productivity of scientific research

At the beginning of the XXI century. In terms of funding for science and innovation, Russia has moved from the group of Central European countries to the group of countries with low scientific potential. The share of research and development spending in the gross domestic product has fallen to about 1.3% (in industry, this share has recently been trending to increase to about 3%).

In the first half of the 1990s the number of organizations performing research and development has declined somewhat. To the greatest extent, this affected the number of design bureaus, design and design and survey organizations, which indicated the almost complete cessation of the design of production technologies and a decrease in innovative activity. By the beginning of 2000, the cost of the active part of the objects of the experimental base (buildings and structures, test sites, experimental installations, etc.) had decreased by almost 7 times; decommissioning and replacement of obsolete instruments and equipment with new ones was extremely low.

Despite the fact that by the beginning of the XXI century. the main part of the organizations retained the state form of ownership, the process of formation of legal entities in the form of private research institutes (especially in the sector of industrial science) was significantly outlined, the number of organizations with a mixed Russian form of ownership and with foreign participation increased. More than 6% of the personnel involved in fundamental research and scientific development currently work in privately owned organizations.

In the field of science financing, the share of direct budget financing is declining and the share of non-state sources is growing, incl. receipts from abroad (10% of total spending on science). An increasing share of government allocations is distributed on a competitive basis, incl. through special budgetary and non-budgetary funds, which serve as a transitional form from centralized financing of sectoral science to direct orders from enterprises.

Patenting of Russian developments abroad and foreign ones in Russia is being stepped up. As a result of integration into world science and the economy was the outflow of researchers to work abroad, both in the form of permanent residence, and to work on temporary contracts.

Rapid development information technologies on the basis and means of computer technology has revolutionized the processes of exchange and storage of scientific and technical information, as a result of which electronic media have significantly supplanted paper ones. Restoring a full-fledged exchange of information on electronic and paper media is the most important task of managing scientific and technical potential.

In Russia, the levels, trends and structure of funding for science and new technologies do not correspond to either current needs or the strategic task of overcoming the backlog from the leaders of the world economy. Russian science retains its position in terms of certain results of scientific activity, in terms of its contribution to world scientific production, but the lag in the implementation of results, in the levels of technological development, in the effectiveness of state scientific and innovation policy, not only from developed countries, but also from developing countries is increasing.

The main problems of the state scientific and innovation policy of the Russian Federation are inconsistency, inability to formulate and implement scientific and innovation priorities. Reduction of public funding of science to the level of small countries Western Europe did not lead to an increase in the efficiency of public spending, to progressive shifts in the structure of priorities. The reserve for optimizing the use of budgetary funds for solving the most important current problems of the economy and society, creating groundwork for the future has not been used. As a result, the repeated lag behind the leading countries in the scale of research and development in the most important areas, in the real provision of Russia's declared state priorities has deepened over the past 10-15 years and may persist in the future.

Innovative activities based on the implementation of major scientific and technical projects have not become a priority for the development of Russian private sector companies. Fragmentary data on the nature and scale of innovation activity in the fuel and energy complex and mechanical engineering suggest that, for the time being, the importance of the innovation component in the functioning of the most important component of our economy remains rather low. The same can be said about the Russian automotive industry as a whole: it is in a difficult position and has long lagged behind the global leaders in terms of innovative renewal.

Large companies that are leaders in the Russian commodity sector have relatively recently begun to form innovative strategies, while only a few are positioned as strategic innovators. Of the entire spectrum of raw materials industries, metallurgy is the most technologically advanced industry, which is characterized by a high level of processing of primary raw materials, the presence of several companies that are actively leading. The result of this was: the positive dynamics of the technological structure, consistently high investment activity, and the growth of global competitiveness.

Russian aircraft manufacturing companies are in a difficult economic situation, which is associated both with the tightening of global competition in this area, and with inconsistency and inconsistency public policy. As a result, this branch of traditional Russian haitsk is on the verge of losing the unique scientific, technical and innovative potential, and a small number of international cooperation projects do not yet provide a reliable basis for the revival of national producers.

Among the branches of the new economy in Russia, telecommunications companies are leading. A feature of the innovative model of these companies is the widespread introduction of advanced foreign network technologies, the localization of foreign technological solutions, and the active promotion of new services and products on the market. Few companies form innovative strategies associated with the stake on the independent development of new technologies, purposefully pursue a course towards the construction, formation and implementation of innovative strategies. In order to increase the science intensity of products and thereby make the companies of the new economy in the full sense of the high-tech, purposeful systematic work with innovations is necessary, including intellectual property management, interaction with state funds for R&D and innovation support, development of methods and formation of procedures for assessing innovative potential, creation and support for venture funds and other innovation infrastructure - technology parks, ITC, business incubators.

One of the main sources of innovation generation - small innovative business - today in Russia is in unfavorable conditions. The number of newly created small innovative companies is decreasing every year, and the level of technologies they promote is becoming less competitive. Most successful small and medium innovative enterprises were created in the early 1990s, i.e. based on the scientific potential of the USSR.

Prospects for the development of science in Russia

In the context of global development and taking into account the possibilities of state policy and the business sector to adapt science and innovation to global trends, the situation in the field of high technologies in Russia in the future until 2015-2020. for Russia, it can develop according to at least four options.

The continuation of current trends of low actual priority of scientific and innovative activities in the general priorities of the state and the private sector will lead to the gradual degradation of research teams in a wide range of fundamental and applied research, including those that form a new technological order. This may mean the final consolidation of Russia's status as a fuel and raw material appendage of the world's post-industrial core, with a gradual loss of the long-term foundations of competitiveness of technologically complex industries of the fourth technological order (aircraft and rocket building, nuclear industry, power engineering), which form the production basis of the country's defense capability.

Income from raw material exports is increasingly used (with active state support) to modernize the basic sectors of the manufacturing industry, transport and communications, as well as to pull up the information complex industries in the regions to the indicators of cities and leading regions. The implementation of an economic breakthrough strategy based on the technological developments of the leaders of the developed world, including through direct investment mechanisms of knowledge-intensive TNCs, can provide significant savings in time and money, but requires a high level of justification and flexibility of economic policy, built taking into account long-term global development trends.

A moderately optimistic variant suggests the possibility of a gradual positive dynamics in the public sector of science, provided that it is effectively transformed and “centers of excellence” are created in the breakthrough areas of the new technological order with the prospect of creating economically significant discoveries and innovations in the second half of the forecast period. This scenario also includes the possibility of a number of large Russian companies, including fuel and energy companies, switching to an innovative path of development, to which fierce competition in the world markets is pushing them, increasingly associated with the possession of scientific and technical knowledge, the quality of human capital and the implementation organizational and managerial innovations. The combination of these trends in the public and private sectors would make it possible to carry out a deep technological modernization of the production apparatus of the extractive and processing industries, the service sector, and housing and communal services, relying on national producers. This option requires a sharp activation and improvement of the effectiveness of the state scientific and innovation policy.

An optimistic, but the least realistic option, along with the solution of the above tasks, suggests the possibility of creating a powerful core of economically viable high-tech industries of the fourth and fifth technological modes and turning Russia into a major manufacturer and exporter of high-tech products on this basis.

In all cases, the autarkic development of any science-intensive industries, without being tied to the global market, is impossible, but full-fledged full-scale integration of Russian manufacturers into the world haitsk market is unlikely. At best, they will retain and strengthen their "niche advantages" on the basis of international cooperation and meet the needs of the country's domestic market in high-tech products. One way or another, Russia most likely will not be able to oppose the US, EU countries, Japan and China with a full range of industries of mass competitive production of technologically complex goods and services.

The destroyed scientific and technological potential, the one that our country had in the days of the USSR, cannot be restored, and it is not necessary. The main task today is to create a new, powerful scientific and technological potential in Russia at an accelerated pace, and for this it is necessary to know exactly the true state of affairs in science and higher education. Only then will decisions on the management, support and financing of this area be made on a scientific basis and will give real results- says Anatoly Ilyich Rakitov, chief researcher of the Institute of Scientific Information in Social Sciences (INION) RAS, head of the Center for Informatization, Social-Technological Research and Science Analysis (ISTINA Center) of the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Education. From 1991 to 1996, he was an adviser to the President of Russia on issues of scientific and technological policy and informatization, and headed the Information and Analytical Center of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation. Per last years under the leadership of A. I. Rakitov and with his participation, several projects were carried out devoted to the analysis of the development of science, technology and education in Russia.

SIMPLE TRUTH AND SOME PARADOXES

All over the world, at least, so the majority thinks, science is done by young people. Our scientific staff is rapidly aging. In 2000 average age academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences was more than 70 years old. It can also be understood great experience and great achievements in science are not given immediately. But the fact that the average age of PhDs is 61 and candidates 52 is alarming. If the situation does not change, then by about 2016 the average age of researchers will reach 59 years. For Russian men, this is not only the last year of pre-retirement life, but also its average duration. Such a picture is emerging in the system of the Academy of Sciences. In universities and branch research institutes on a nationwide scale, the age of doctors of science is 57-59 years, and candidates - 51-52 years. So in 10-15 years science may disappear from us.

Thanks to the highest performance, supercomputers are able to solve the most complex problems. The most powerful computers of this class with a performance of up to 12 teraflops (1 teraflop - 1 trillion operations per second) are produced in the USA and Japan. In August of this year, Russian scientists announced the creation of a supercomputer with a capacity of 1 teraflop. The photo shows frames from TV reports dedicated to this event.

But here's what's interesting. According to official data, over the past 10 years, university competitions have grown (2001 was a record year in this sense), and postgraduate and doctoral studies have been "baking" young scientists of the highest qualification at an unprecedented rate. If we take the number of students studying at universities in the 1991/92 academic year as 100%, then in 1998/99 their number increased by 21.2%. The number of graduate students of scientific research institutes has increased during this time by almost a third (1,577 people), and graduate students of universities - by 2.5 times (82,584 people). Admission to graduate school tripled (28,940 people), and the output was: in 1992 - 9532 people (23.2% of them with a dissertation defense), and in 1998 - 14,832 people (27.1% - with a dissertation defense). dissertations).

What is happening in our country with scientific personnel? What is actually their real scientific potential? Why do they age? Painting in in general terms is. Firstly, after graduating from universities, not all students are eager to go to graduate school, many go there to avoid the army or live freely for three years. Secondly, the defended candidates and doctors of science, as a rule, can find a salary worthy of their title not in state research institutes, design bureaus, GIPRs and universities, but in commercial structures. And they go there, leaving their titled supervisors the opportunity to quietly grow old.

Leading universities provide students with the opportunity to use modern computer technology.

Employees of the Center for Informatization, Socio-Technological Research and Scientific Analysis (Truth Center) studied about a thousand websites of firms and recruiting organizations with job offers. The result was as follows: university graduates are offered an average salary of about $300 (today it is almost 9 thousand rubles), economists, accountants, managers and marketers - $400-500, programmers, highly qualified banking specialists and financiers - from $350 to $550, qualified managers - $ 1,500 or more, but this is already rare. Meanwhile, among all the proposals there is not even a mention of scientists, researchers, etc. This means that a young candidate or doctor of science is doomed either to work at an average university or research institute for a salary equivalent to 30-60 dollars, and at the same time constantly rush to looking for third-party earnings, part-time jobs, private lessons, etc., or get a job in a commercial company not in their specialty, where neither a candidate's degree nor a doctoral degree is useful to him, except perhaps for prestige.

But there are other important reasons why young people leave scientific field. Man does not live by bread alone. He still needs the opportunity to improve, to realize himself, to establish himself in life. He wants to see the future and feel at least on the same level with foreign colleagues. In our Russian conditions it is almost impossible. And that's why. First, science and the high-tech developments based on it are in very little demand in our country. Secondly, the experimental base, educational and research equipment, devices and devices in educational institutions are physically and morally obsolete by 20-30 years, and in the best, most advanced universities and research institutes - by 8-11 years. If we take into account that in developed countries technologies in science-intensive industries replace each other every 6 months - 2 years, such a lag may become irreversible. Thirdly, the system of organization, management, support of science and research and, most importantly, information support remained, at best, at the level of the 1980s. Therefore, almost every really capable, and even more so talented young scientist, if he does not want to degenerate, seeks to go into a commercial structure or go abroad.

According to official statistics, in 2000, 890.1 thousand people were employed in science (in 1990, more than 2 times more - 1943.3 thousand people). If we evaluate the potential of science not by the number of employees, but by results, that is, by the number of patents registered, especially abroad, sold, including abroad, licenses and publications in prestigious international publications, then it turns out that we are inferior to the most developed countries by tens or even hundreds of times. In the USA, for example, in 1998, 12.5 million people were employed in science, of which 505,000 were doctors of science. Natives of the CIS countries among them are no more than 5%, and many grew up, studied and received degrees there, not here. Thus, it would be wrong to say that the West lives at the expense of our scientific and intellectual potential, but it is worth assessing its real state and prospects.

SCIENTIFIC-INTELLECTUAL AND SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

There is an opinion that, despite all the difficulties and losses, aging and outflow of personnel from science, we still retain the scientific and intellectual potential that allows Russia to remain among the leading powers of the world, and our scientific and technological developments are still attractive to foreign and domestic investors, however, investments are scanty.

In fact, in order for our products to win the domestic and foreign markets, they must qualitatively surpass the products of competitors. But the quality of products directly depends on technology, and modern, especially high technologies (they are the most profitable) - on the level of scientific research and technological development. In turn, their quality is the higher, the higher the qualifications of scientists and engineers, and its level depends on the entire education system, especially higher education.

If we talk about the scientific and technological potential, then this concept includes not only scientists. Its components are also the instrumentation and experimental park, access to information and its completeness, the system for managing and supporting science, as well as the entire infrastructure that ensures the advanced development of science and the information sector. Without them, neither technology nor the economy simply can work.

Highly important question- training of specialists in universities. Let's try to figure out how they are prepared using the example of the fastest growing sectors modern science, which include biomedical research, research in the field of information technology and the creation of new materials. According to the latest Science and Engineering Indicators handbook published in the United States in 2000, in 1998 spending on these areas alone was comparable to defense spending and exceeded spending on space research. In total, $220.6 billion was spent on the development of science in the United States, of which two-thirds ($167 billion) were spent by the corporate and private sectors. A significant part of these gigantic funds went to biomedical and especially biotechnological research. Hence, they were highly cost-effective, since money in the corporate and private sectors is spent only on what makes a profit. Thanks to the implementation of the results of these studies, health care, the state of environment, increased productivity Agriculture.

In 2000, specialists from Tomsk State University, together with scientists from the ISTINA Center and several leading Russian universities, studied the quality of biologist training in Russian universities. Scientists came to the conclusion that traditional biological disciplines are taught in classical universities. Botany, zoology, human and animal physiology are available in 100% of universities, plant physiology - in 72%, and such subjects as biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, soil science - only in 55% of universities, ecology - in 45% of universities. At the same time, modern disciplines: plant biotechnology, physical and chemical biology, electron microscopy - are taught only in 9% of universities. Thus, in the most important and promising areas biological science students are trained in less than 10% of classical universities. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, Moscow State University. Lomonosov and especially Pushchinsky State University, working on the basis of the campus, graduate only masters, postgraduates and doctoral students, and the ratio of students and supervisors in it is approximately 1:1.

Such exceptions emphasize that biology students can receive professional training at the level of the beginning of the 21st century only in a few universities, and even then they are not perfect. Why? Let me explain with an example. To solve the problems of genetic engineering, the use of transgene technology in animal husbandry and crop production, and the synthesis of new drugs, modern supercomputers are needed. In the United States, Japan, and the European Union countries, they are powerful computers with a performance of at least 1 teraflop (1 trillion operations per second). At St. Louis University, students had access to a 3.8 teraflop supercomputer two years ago. Today, the performance of the most powerful supercomputers has reached 12 teraflops, and in 2004 they are going to release a supercomputer with a capacity of 100 teraflops. In Russia, there are no such machines, our best supercomputer centers operate on computers of much lower power. True, this summer Russian specialists announced the creation of a domestic supercomputer with a capacity of 1 teraflop.

Our backwardness in information technology is directly related to the training of future intellectual personnel in Russia, including biologists, since computer synthesis, for example, of molecules, genes, decoding of the human, animal and plant genomes can give a real effect only on the basis of the most powerful computing systems.

Finally, one more interesting fact. Researchers from Tomsk selectively interviewed professors of biological departments of universities and found that only 9% of them more or less regularly use the Internet. With a chronic shortage of scientific information received in the traditional form, not having access to the Internet or not being able to use its resources means only one thing - a growing backlog in biological, biotechnological, genetic engineering and other research and the absence of international relations absolutely necessary in science.

Current students, even at the most advanced biological faculties receive training at the level of the 70-80s of the last century, although they enter into life already in the 21st century. As far as research institutes are concerned, only about 35 biological research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences have more or less modern equipment, and therefore only there research is carried out at an advanced level. Only a few students of several universities can participate in them and educational center RAS (created within the framework of the program "Integration of science and education" and has the status of a university), receiving training on the basis of academic research institutes.

Another example. The first place among high technologies is occupied by the aerospace industry. Everything is involved in it: computers, modern systems control, precision instrumentation, engine and rocket building, etc. Although Russia occupies a fairly strong position in this industry, the lag is noticeable here too. It concerns to a large extent the aviation universities of the country. The specialists of the MAI Technological University who participated in our research named some of the most painful problems associated with the training of personnel for the aerospace industry. In their opinion, the level of training of teachers of applied departments (design, engineering, calculation) in the field of modern information technologies is still low. This is largely due to the lack of an influx of young teaching staff. The aging teaching staff is not able to intensively master the constantly improving software products, not only because of gaps in computer training, but also because of the lack of modern technical means and software and information systems and, which is far from unimportant, due to the lack of material incentives. .

Another important industry is the chemical industry. Today, chemistry is unthinkable without scientific research and high-tech production systems. Indeed, chemistry is new building materials, medicines, fertilizers, varnishes and paints, the synthesis of materials with desired properties, superhard materials, films and abrasives for instrumentation and mechanical engineering, the processing of energy carriers, the creation of drilling rigs, etc.

What is the situation in the chemical industry and especially in the field of applied experimental studies? For which industries do we train specialists - chemists? Where and how will they "chemize"?

Scientists from the Yaroslavl Technological University, who studied this issue together with specialists from the ISTINA Center, cite the following information: today the entire Russian chemical industry accounts for about 2% of the world's chemical production. This is only 10% of the volume of chemical production in the United States and no more than 50-75% of the volume of chemical production in countries such as France, Great Britain or Italy. As for applied and experimental research, especially in universities, the picture is as follows: by 2000, only 11 research projects had been completed in Russia, and the number of experimental developments had fallen to almost zero with a complete lack of funding. The technologies used in the chemical industry are outdated compared to the technologies of developed industrial countries, where they are updated every 7-8 years. Even large plants, for example, those producing fertilizers, which have received a large share of investments, operate without modernization for an average of 18 years, while in the industry as a whole, equipment and technologies are updated after 13-26 years. By comparison, the average age of US chemical plants is six years.

PLACE AND ROLE OF BASIC RESEARCH

The main generator of fundamental research in our country is the Russian Academy of Sciences, but its more or less tolerably equipped institutes employ only about 90,000 employees (together with service personnel), the rest (more than 650,000 people) work in research institutes and universities. Basic research is also being carried out there. According to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, in 1999, about 5,000 of them were completed in 317 universities. The average budget cost for one fundamental research is 34,214 rubles. If we take into account that this includes the purchase of equipment and research objects, electricity costs, overheads, etc., then only 30 to 40% is left for salaries. It is easy to calculate that if at least 2-3 researchers or teachers participate in fundamental research, then they can count on an increase in wages, at best, 400-500 rubles per month.

As for the interest of students in scientific research, it rests more on enthusiasm than on material interest, and there are very few enthusiasts these days. At the same time, the subject of university research is very traditional and far from current problems. In 1999, universities conducted 561 studies in physics, and only 8 in biotechnology. That was thirty years ago, but it should not be today. In addition, fundamental research costs millions, and even tens of millions of dollars - with the help of wires, cans and other home-made devices, they have not been carried out for a long time.

Of course, there are additional sources of funding. In 1999, 56% of scientific research in universities was funded by self-supporting work, but they were not fundamental and could not radically solve the problem of creating a new human resources potential. The leaders of the most prestigious universities that receive orders for research work from commercial clients or foreign firms, realizing how much “fresh blood” is needed in science, have begun in recent years to pay extra to those graduate and doctoral students whom they would like to keep at the university for research or teaching work, to purchase new equipment. But only very few universities have such opportunities.

BET ON CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES

The concept of "critical technologies" first appeared in America. This was the name of the list of technological areas and developments that were primarily supported by the US government in the interests of economic and military superiority. They were selected on the basis of an extremely thorough, complex and multi-stage procedure, which included the examination of each item on the list by financiers and professional scientists, politicians, businessmen, analysts, representatives of the Pentagon and the CIA, congressmen and senators. Critical technologies were carefully studied by specialists in the field of science, science and technometry.

A few years ago, the Russian government also approved a list of critical technologies prepared by the Ministry of Science and Technical Policy (in 2000 it was renamed the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology) of more than 70 main headings, each of which included several specific technologies. Their total number exceeded 250. This is much more than, for example, in England - a country with a very high scientific potential. Neither in terms of funds, nor in terms of personnel, nor in terms of equipment, Russia could create and implement such a number of technologies. Three years ago, the same ministry prepared a new list of critical technologies, including 52 headings (still, by the way, not approved by the government), but we cannot afford it either.

To present the true state of affairs, here are some results of the analysis performed by the TRUE Center of two critical technologies from the last list. These are immunocorrection (in the West they use the term "immunotherapy" or "immunomodulation") and the synthesis of superhard materials. Both technologies are based on serious fundamental research and are aimed at industrial implementation. The first is important for maintaining human health, the second - for the radical modernization of many industrial productions, including defense, civil instrumentation and engineering, drilling rigs, etc.

Immunocorrection involves, first of all, the creation of new drugs. This also includes technologies for the production of immunostimulants to fight allergies, cancer, a number of colds and viral infections, etc. It turned out that, despite the general similarity of the structure, the studies conducted in Russia are clearly lagging behind. For example, in the United States, in the most important area - immunotherapy with dendritic cells, which is successfully used in the treatment of oncological diseases, the number of publications has increased by more than 6 times over 10 years, and we had no publications on this topic. I admit that research is underway, but if they are not recorded in publications, patents and licenses, then they are unlikely to be of great importance.

Over the past decade, the Pharmacological Committee of Russia has registered 17 domestic immunomodulating drugs, 8 of them belong to the class of peptides, which are now almost not in demand on the international market. As for domestic immunoglobulins, their poor quality makes it necessary to satisfy demand with foreign-made drugs.

And here are some results related to another critical technology - the synthesis of superhard materials. Research by the well-known science expert Yu. V. Granovsky showed that there is an "introduction effect" here: the results obtained by Russian scientists are implemented in specific products (abrasives, films, etc.) produced by domestic enterprises. However, even here the situation is far from favorable.

The situation with the patenting of scientific discoveries and inventions in this area is especially alarming. Some patents of the Institute for High Pressure Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued in 2000, were claimed as early as 1964, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975. Of course, it is not scientists who are to blame for this, but systems of examination and patenting. A paradoxical picture has emerged: on the one hand, the results of scientific research are recognized as original, and on the other hand, they are obviously useless, since they are based on technological developments long gone. These discoveries are hopelessly outdated, and it is unlikely that licenses for them will be in demand.

This is the state of our scientific and technological potential, if you delve into its structure not from amateurish, but from scientific positions. But we are talking about the most important, from the point of view of the state, critical technologies.

SCIENCE SHOULD BE FAVORABLE TO THOSE WHO CREATE IT

Back in the 17th century, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that people are driven by profit. 200 years later, Karl Marx, developing this idea, argued that history is nothing but the activity of people pursuing their own goals. If this or that activity is not profitable (in this case we are talking about science, scientists, developers modern technologies), then there is nothing to expect that the most talented, first-class trained young scientists will go into science, who will move it forward almost for nothing and in the absence of a proper infrastructure.

Today, scientists say that it is unprofitable for them to patent the results of their research in Russia. They turn out to be the property of research institutes and, more broadly, of the state. But the state, as you know, has almost no funds for their implementation. If new developments do reach the stage industrial production, then their authors, at best, receive a prize of 500 rubles, or even nothing at all. It is much more profitable to put the documentation and prototypes in a briefcase and fly to some highly developed country where the work of scientists is valued differently. “If ours,” one foreign businessman told me, “we would pay 250-300 thousand dollars for a certain scientific work, then we will pay yours 25 thousand dollars for it. Agree that this is better than 500 rubles.”

Until intellectual property belongs to the one who creates it, until scientists begin to receive direct benefits from it, until they make radical changes on this issue to our imperfect legislation, to the progress of science and technology, to the development of scientific and technological potential, and therefore , and it is pointless to hope for an economic recovery in our country. If the situation does not change, the state may be left without modern technologies, and therefore without competitive products. So in a market economy, profit is not a disgrace, but the most important incentive for public and economic development.

BREAKING TO THE FUTURE IS STILL POSSIBLE

What can and should be done so that science, which is still preserved in our country, begins to develop and becomes a powerful factor in economic growth and improvement of the social sphere?

First, it is necessary, without postponing for a year, or even for half a year, to radically improve the quality of training for at least that part of students, graduate students and doctoral students who are ready to remain in domestic science.

Secondly, to concentrate the extremely limited financial resources allocated for the development of science and education on several priority areas and critical technologies focused exclusively on boosting the domestic economy, social sphere and state needs.

Thirdly, in state research institutes and universities, to direct the main financial, personnel, information and technical resources to those projects that can give really new results, and not to scatter funds on many thousands of pseudo-fundamental scientific topics.

Fourthly, it is time to create on the basis of the best higher educational institutions federal research universities that meet the highest international standards in the field of scientific infrastructure (information, experimental equipment, modern network communications and information technologies). They will prepare first-class young specialists for work in the domestic academic and industrial science and higher education.

Fifth, it is time to make a decision at the state level to create scientific, technological and educational consortiums that will unite research universities, advanced research institutes and industrial enterprises. Their activities should be focused on scientific research, innovation and radical technological modernization. This will allow us to produce high-quality, constantly updated, competitive products.

Sixth, in the shortest possible time, by a government decision, it is necessary to entrust the Ministry of Industry and Science, the Ministry of Education, other ministries, departments and administrations of regions where there is state universities and research institutes, start developing legislative initiatives on intellectual property issues, improving patenting processes, scientific marketing, and scientific and educational management. It is necessary to legislate the possibility of a sharp (stage-by-stage) increase in the salaries of scientists, starting primarily with state scientific academies (RAS, RAMS, RAAS), state scientific and technical centers and research universities.

Finally, seventh, it is urgent to adopt a new list of critical technologies. It should contain no more than 12-15 main positions focused primarily on the interests of society. It is they that the state should formulate, involving in this work, for example, the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the Russian Academy of Sciences and state industry academies.

Naturally, the ideas about critical technologies developed in this way, on the one hand, should be based on the fundamental achievements of modern science, and on the other hand, take into account the specifics of the country. For example, for the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein, which has a network of first-class roads and a highly developed transport service, transport technologies have not been critical for a long time. As for Russia, a country with a huge territory, scattered settlements and difficult climatic conditions, then for it the creation of the latest transport technologies (air, land and water) is really a decisive issue from the economic, social, defense, environmental and even geopolitical points of view, because our country can connect Europe and the Pacific region with the main highway.

Taking into account the achievements of science, the specifics of Russia and the limitations of its financial and other resources, we can offer a very short list of truly critical technologies that will give a quick and tangible result and ensure sustainable development and growth in people's well-being.

Critical ones include:

* energy technologies: nuclear energy, including the processing of radioactive waste, and the deep modernization of traditional heat and power resources. Without this, the country may freeze out, and industry, agriculture and cities may be left without electricity;
* transport technologies. For Russia, modern cheap, reliable, ergonomic vehicles are the most important condition for social and economic development;
* Information Technology. Without modern means of informatization and communication, management, development of production, science and education, even simple human communication will simply be impossible;
* biotechnological research and technology. Only their rapid development will make it possible to create a modern profitable agriculture, competitive food industries, to raise pharmacology, medicine and healthcare to the level of the requirements of the 21st century;
* environmental technologies. This is especially true for the urban economy, since up to 80% of the population lives in cities today;
* rational nature management and geological exploration. If these technologies are not modernized, the country will be left without raw materials;
* mechanical engineering and instrument making as the basis of industry and agriculture;
* a whole range of technologies for light industry and the production of household goods, as well as for housing and road construction. Without them, it is completely meaningless to talk about the well-being and social well-being of the population.

If such recommendations are accepted and we start financing not priority areas and critical technologies in general, but only those that are really needed by society, then we will not only solve Russia’s current problems, but also build a springboard for jumping into the future.

EIGHT CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BOOST THE ECONOMY AND WELFARE OF RUSSIANS:

3. 4.

5. Rational nature management and exploration. 6.

Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences A. RAKITOV.

Literature

Alferov Zh., acad. RAN. Physics on the threshold of the XXI century. - No. 3, 2000

Alferov Zh., acad. RAN. Russia cannot do without its own electronics. - No. 4, 2001

Belokoneva O. Technology of the XXI century in Russia. To be or not to be. - No. 1, 2001

Voevodin V. Supercomputers: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - No. 5, 2000

Gleba Yu., acad. NASU. Once again about biotechnology, but more about how we get out into the world. - No. 4, 2000

Paton B., President of NASU, acad. RAN. Welding and related technologies in the XXI century. - No. 6, 2000

Since 2005, the attention of state authorities to the scientific, technical and innovation sphere has noticeably increased. This article presents the authors' view of the current situation in the field of science and innovation in Russia, and also identifies the development trends in this area based on the analysis.

On September 14, 2006, by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 563, the Government Commission for the Development of Industry and Technology was established. The appearance of this body is quite logical in view of the large-scale changes carried out over the past 2 years, mainly in terms of organization innovation processes in the Russian Federation (the appearance of state and mixed funds (venture, investment) that contribute to the introduction of scientific developments, the creation of special economic zones of a technology-innovative type, etc.). The main task of the new commission is to “ensure the interaction of executive authorities in the development and implementation of the main directions of state policy on issues related to increasing the rate of economic growth, diversifying the structure of industrial production, increasing the competitiveness of domestic products, developing the scientific, technical and innovative potential of the country, and qualitatively changing the structure of export".

The creation of the commission, as well as a wide range of issues related to the field of science and innovation, which is within its competence, testifies to the intention of the Government to qualitatively change the structure of the Russian economy, making the development of high-tech industries the basis of the state's economic growth. “According to the plan of the Ministry of Economic Development, the share of the “new economy” (communications, electronics, IT, precision engineering, space development, aircraft and shipbuilding) should grow from the current 5.6% of GDP to 8-10% in 2009-2010. Today, the main share in Russia's GDP is made up of such industries as the fuel industry, ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, chemistry and petrochemistry, and metalworking. At the same time, oil prices, which have been rising over the past three and a half years, have become the main factor in economic growth. Record oil prices guarantee us high rates of economic growth, but do not allow us to really judge its quality. In this sense, the Stabilization Fund being formed is nothing but a tool that restrains inflationary processes in the country. On the other hand, it is high energy prices that make it possible today to change the structure of the Russian economy, focusing on the development of high-tech industries. To do this, at the state level, it is necessary to take measures that would contribute to the commercialization of scientific developments. It is the implementation stage that is the most problematic in Russia today. A possible reason for this lies in the organizational structure of modern Russian science.

To date organizational structure the sphere of science and innovation can be represented as follows (see diagram 1).

Scheme 1. Organizations in the scientific and technical field

As already noted, the organizational core of the structure is the Government Commission for the Development of Industry and Technology, which is the coordinator of activities carried out by state executive bodies in the field of science and innovation, represented by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Information technologies and communications. Wherein special role when conducting scientific research and implementing developments, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) plays.

The Russian Academy of Sciences is an independent non-profit organization with state status. The RAS is mainly engaged in fundamental research in various fields of knowledge. At the same time, there are funds at the RAS that contribute to the implementation of the most promising scientific developments. These are the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (RHF), the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere. In the context of the need to preserve the integrity of the state and stabilize the economy in the first half of the 90s of the XX century, the creation of these funds was the only measure taken to support ongoing scientific research and to promote the implementation of their results.

The RFBR was established by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 27, 1992 No. 426 "On urgent measures to preserve the scientific and technical potential of the Russian Federation." The foundation is "financed from the state budget and supports scientists on a non-repayable basis" . One of the important directions in the work of the RFBR is the creation of databases on scientific developments and the provision of information about them to interested parties. The Russian Humanitarian Foundation separated from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in 1994. The main objectives of the foundation are “support for humanitarian scientific research and dissemination of humanitarian scientific knowledge about society". It is financed by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation at the expense of appropriations in the amount of 0.5% of the funds from the federal budget allocated for the development of science. The Foundation for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere was established on February 3, 1994. Since 2001, its funding has increased from 0.5% to 1.5% of funds allocated to science from the federal budget. The Fund provides financial support to high-performance science-intensive projects developed by small businesses. Financing of projects is carried out on a parity basis with small innovative enterprises. The selection of projects supported by the RAS funds is carried out on a competitive basis.

Another equally important body in the field of science and innovation in view of recent changes is the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT), which focuses on the implementation stage of developments, investing in innovative projects. The MEDT has recently formed the Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones, which also manages the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation. Among the types of special economic zones (SEZs) that have already been created and are being created, within the framework of the topic we are considering, it is important to single out technology-innovative SEZs. To date, four such zones have been created in various subjects of the Russian Federation, with their own specialization:

• in Dubna - research in the field of nuclear technology;
• in Zelenograd - microelectronics;
• in St. Petersburg - information technology;
• in Tomsk - new materials.

The purpose of creating a special economic zone of a technology-innovative type is state support for innovative enterprises by providing tax benefits to residents of the special economic zone and simplifying the customs regime. At the same time, the state assumes the obligation to build the infrastructure of the SEZ. The procedure for financing the creation of the SEZ is established by the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation represented by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the subject of the Russian Federation and the administration of the city on whose territory the SEZ was created. It should be noted that the term of the SEZ is 20 years. The main requirement for companies that wish to become residents of a technology-innovation SEZ is the technology-innovation nature of their activities in the territory of such a SEZ. In the spring of 2006, applications began to be accepted from companies that expressed their intention to become residents of these SEZs, however, contrary to the expectations of the federal and local authorities, only 7 residents are now registered in the technology-innovative SEZ (see).

Another government measure aimed at a qualitative change in the structure of the Russian economy should be the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation. It is one of the objects of state support in the implementation of investment projects. This fund was created by Government Decree No. 694 dated November 23, 2005. The sources of the fund's formation are super-incomes of the federal budget. Its volume in 2006 is 72 billion rubles and, according to former leader Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones Yury Nikolaevich Zhdanov, in 2007 may be increased to 200 billion rubles. However, on this moment the funds of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation are used primarily for the construction of social and economic infrastructure facilities of great national importance.

In turn, in order to invest in innovative projects, OJSC Russian Venture Company (OJSC RVC) was recently created. Interestingly, the creation of the company is financed by the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the Regulations on the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation clearly define the criteria that must be met by projects applying for financing from the fund. RVC OJSC does not meet these criteria. In particular, this concerns the need to go through the project selection procedure, to provide 25% of the funds necessary for the implementation of the project by the commercial organizations participating in it. In 2006, 5 billion rubles are allocated from the fund, and in 2007 - 10 billion. The responsibility for the creation of this joint-stock company lies with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, namely, it needs to ensure an increase in the authorized capital of the company, as well as "to approve the rules for conducting a competitive selection of candidates for members of the board of directors of the company who are not civil servants.

It is planned to create 10-12 regional venture funds through RVC OJSC in the form of closed-end investment funds (ZPIF), 49% of whose shares will be owned by the state. To date, the management companies of five regional venture funds in Moscow, the Republic of Tatarstan, the Perm Territory, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, and the Tomsk Region have been officially established and determined. For these purposes, 1,020 million rubles are allocated from the federal budget.

The goal set by the Government in implementing these measures is to create a venture capital industry in Russia to implement priority innovative projects by attracting private capital, as this is the most profitable tool for supporting the ideas of small innovative enterprises. However, the conditions for the functioning of funds ( high level control of closed-end investment funds by the FFMS, stringent requirements for the management company, in particular, the long term of its operation in this market in Russia, the focus of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade on a stable, low rate of return) rather indicate the intention of the Government to develop investment projects implemented by stable Russian companies. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between conventional and venture investments and promote the development of the former if the state seeks to obtain a significant economic effect from innovation.

One of the industries that the Government is betting on when creating a “new” economy is the information technology industry. This is understandable, given the recent growth rates demonstrated by both the global and domestic IT industries. According to the Minister of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation Leonid Reiman, in 2005 alone, the average growth rate of the information and communication technologies (ICT) market “compared to 2004 amounted to from 27 to 40%, while the volume of software exports in 2005 increased by 50% - up to 994 million dollars. In general, in recent years, the information technology market has grown by 20-25% per year. In 2005, the share of ICT in Russia's GDP was 5%. On the other hand, the organization of companies in this industry does not require significant investments of public and private capital, moreover, already at this stage there are Russian companies known on the world market. An example is the Kaspersky Lab Company. Today it is “an international group of companies headquartered in Moscow and representative offices in the UK, China, France, USA, Germany, Romania, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and Poland. The Company's partner network unites more than 500 companies in more than 60 countries of the world. However, this is an example of individual large companies and does not characterize the ICT industry as a whole, which is represented mainly by companies with a turnover of less than $1 million. These companies operate in conditions of fierce competition with Western corporations, so they need state support. To obtain a positive economic effect, effective measures would be to provide companies in the IT industry with tax incentives and reduce administrative barriers (in particular, simplify the licensing process). certain types activities and conducting export-import activities). The implementation of these measures is now slow.

At the same time, the Government is taking other steps that may stimulate the development of the industry. Namely, by the end of 2006, the Federal Agency for the Development of Exports in the Sphere of Information Technologies should be created within the framework of the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation, which should contribute to a significant increase in the share of Russian IT products in the world market.

Another measure of state support for the industry is the formation of the Russian Investment Fund for Information and Communication Technologies (RIF ICT) . The goal set by the Government when creating this fund is to support the implementation of innovative projects in the IT industry. This fund should become an impetus to ensure a constant flow of private investment in this industry. Oddly enough, funding for the creation of the fund, as in the case of RVC, is carried out at the expense of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation, while canceling a number of requirements for projects financed by it.

Finally, another government step towards the implementation of the developments of IT companies was the government-approved state program "Creation of technoparks in the Russian Federation in the field of high technologies" . The technology parks that have been operating so far have been created in various sectors of the economy thanks to private initiatives. For example, the Kalininsky technopark, created in the Voronezh region on the initiative of enterprises operating on the basis of Voronezhpress OJSC and with the support of the regional authorities in November 2005, specializes in the electrical and metalworking industries. Within the framework of the state program, it is planned to develop high-tech industries (nano-, biotechnologies, etc.), the catalyst for the development of which, according to the idea of ​​the government, should be the information technology industry. This is probably why the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications is responsible for the implementation of this program. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the jurisdiction of these technoparks to this ministry.

Despite the fact that the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation have a fairly wide range of powers in the implementation of state policy in the scientific, technical and innovation sphere, the main body that develops and implements state policy in this area is the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation.

One of the oldest tools to support the scientific sphere, implemented within the framework of this ministry, is the creation of science cities on the territory of the Russian Federation. The federal law defining the status of a science city was adopted back in 1999. In the conditions of the post-crisis state of the economy, in our opinion, this was the only possible measure at that time to support science in order to preserve the scientific potential and ensure the strategic goals of the state. Solving the problems of the economic and social spheres, which was of paramount importance at that stage, the lack of financial resources from the state, the gigantic amount of external debt of the Russian Federation accumulated by that time - all this and much more overshadowed the solution of deep problems of science. At the same time, one should not forget about the preservation of state security.

Thus, the adoption of the law on the status of a science city and the assignment of this status to certain territories of the Russian Federation was a formal measure at that time, contributing to the preservation of old scientific centers. At that stage of development, the choice of territories for assigning the status was determined, in our opinion, first of all, by the specialization of the scientific activity of the territories and its compliance with the strategic goals of state defense since Soviet times. Secondly, there was a unique technological base, which did not require the state to invest funds for the construction of infrastructure. Thus, science cities have made it possible to preserve the existing scientific potential of some territories and have become a tool for ensuring state interests in the scientific and technical sphere.

It can be said that only at the present stage of development has the science city finally become a really functioning tool for the development of strategic areas of science. Since 2003, the status of a science city has been assigned to new territories, while the very concept of a science city of the Russian Federation has been clarified. Since January 1, 2006, the science city has been "a municipal formation with the status of an urban district, which has a high scientific and technical potential, with a city-forming scientific and production complex" (see).

Thus, it is necessary to emphasize the following trends, based on the studied material.

First, as already noted, science cities have become and are currently scientific centers that ensure the implementation of the strategic goals of the state, including increasing defense capability, strengthening food security, and searching for new types of medicines.

Secondly, when choosing territories to which the status of a science city was assigned, priority was given to those territories that were old Soviet scientific centers and retained their potential. This trend in the implementation of state policy in the field of science and innovation continues today, and not only in relation to science cities, but also to technology-innovative special economic zones. For example, Tomsk, where a SEZ of this type was created, was a Russian scientific center back in the 19th century. Imperial Tomsk University was founded in 1878 and was the first university in Siberia and Far East. Tomsk State University actively participates in competitions for grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation (more than 500 studies have been completed over the past 5 years) and is the leader among Russian universities in terms of the number of winners of various prizes and awards.

Thirdly, it should be noted the trend of the last two years, which is manifested in the wide scope of the state campaign for the development of the scientific, technical and innovation sphere in Russia. This is confirmed by the analysis of government measures presented in the first part of this paper.

Fourthly, the ongoing state scientific, technical and innovation policy is unbalanced on a territorial basis. So, we can single out 2-3 regions where the state has concentrated its efforts. In the European part of Russia - this is Moscow and the Moscow region, in Siberia and the Far East, which represents 2/3 of the territory of Russia - these are the Novosibirsk and Tomsk regions. The Urals remained practically uncovered in this regard. For example, only in the Perm Territory government measures are being taken to develop the innovation environment. Two venture funds are being created there, one of which is initiated by AFK Sistema. This situation causes dissatisfaction, for example, in the Sverdlovsk region, where the Ural Venture Fund has recently ceased to exist. At the same time, many territories of the Russian Federation, where significant scientific research was carried out during the Soviet era (Sarov, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Territory), can be potentially priority research centers.

Finally, it is important to note that when the state implements measures aimed at the development of science and innovation, the political component of the campaign is largely ahead of the economic one. Here, the same SEZs are a striking example. Companies do not yet seek to become residents. This may be due to the high requirements for companies wishing to become residents, as well as insufficient work government agencies held in order to clarify the procedure for granting the status of a SEZ resident.

Sometimes, watching the actions of our government, there is a feeling that it seeks to solve problems by quantity, not quality. And it is to solve problems instead of changing the system. Solving the existing problem, the state is ready to direct all the resources at its disposal to this end. At the same time, it is sometimes quite enough to take several measures in time, interconnected with each other, and implement them from beginning to end.

One gets the impression that the measures taken today by our Government are aimed at supporting individual scientific centers and territories. How these measures will be implemented will largely determine the possible development paths. The first scenario may lead to the emergence of a small number of large scientific centers, which, with proper management, can become the "locomotives" of scientific and technological progress and ensure the implementation of the state's goals of building a "new" economy and a full-fledged nationwide innovation environment. In the second development option, priority state support for individual research centers may lead to a gap between them and other centers, which are unlikely to receive such support. A possible outcome will be either the disappearance of the latter, or, much worse, the unreasonable waste of resources on them without obtaining any economic, scientific effect. As a result, our aspirations to build an innovative economy will remain only aspirations, which we can only judge from archival documents.

Thus, we outlined the latest measures taken by the state in the field of science and innovation, identified trends and possible options for its development. Unfortunately, behind the grandeur of the ongoing activities, the state often does not notice small flaws that become significant barriers that hinder the process of building a full-fledged innovation environment in Russia. What will be the results of the state measures taken today, we will be able to see and evaluate them only after a few years.

Attachment 1

Annex 2

Current and potential science cities of the Russian Federation

Literature

1. "On licensing certain types of activities." Law of the Russian Federation of August 8, 2001 No. 128-FZ

2. "On the status of the science city of the Russian Federation." Law of the Russian Federation of April 7, 1999 No. 70-FZ

3. "On Special Economic Zones in the Russian Federation". Law of the Russian Federation of July 22, 2005 No. 116-FZ

4. "On the Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones." Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 22, 2005 No. 855

5. “On the establishment of an open joint-stock company “Russian Investment Fund for Information and Communication Technologies”. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 9, 2006 No. 476

6. "On the Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones." Government Decree of August 19, 2005 No. 530

7. "On the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere". Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 3, 1994 No. 65

8. “On Open Joint Stock Company “Russian Venture Company”. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 24, 2006 No. 516

10. Directions of scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activity, experimental developments, tests and personnel training, which are priority for Dubna as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2001-2006. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 20, 2001 No. 1472

11. Directions of scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activity, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priority for the city of Korolev as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2002-2006. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 16, 2002 No. 987

12. Directions of scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activity, experimental developments, tests and personnel training, which are priority for Michurinsk as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2003-2007. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 4, 2003 No. 1306

13. Directions of scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental developments, testing and training of personnel, which are priorities for the city of Reutov as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2003-2007. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2003 No. 1530

14. Directions of scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activity, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priorities for the city of Fryazino as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2003-2007. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2003 No. 1531

15. Directions of scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priority for the working settlement of Koltsovo Novosibirsk region as a science city of the Russian Federation in 2003-2007. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 17, 2003 No. 45

16. Regulations on the Government Commission for the Development of Industry and Technology. Approved Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 14, 2006 No. 563

17. Directions of scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priorities for the city of Biysk (Altai Territory) as a science city of the Russian Federation and corresponding to priority areas for the development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 21, 2005 No. 688

18. Directions of scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priorities for the city of Peterhof as a science city of the Russian Federation and correspond to priority areas for the development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 23, 2005 No. 449

19. Directions of scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental development, testing and training of personnel, which are priorities for the city of Pushchino (Moscow Region) as a science city of the Russian Federation and corresponding to priority areas for the development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 27, 2005 No. 642

20. Agreement on the establishment on the territory of the city of Dubna (Moscow region) of a special economic zone of a technology-innovative type dated January 18, 2006

21. Agreement on the establishment in the territory of Moscow of a special economic zone of a technology-innovative type dated January 18, 2006

22. Agreement on the establishment in the territory of St. Petersburg of a special economic zone of a technology-innovative type dated January 18, 2006

23. Agreement on the establishment in the territory of the city of Tomsk of a special economic zone of a technology-innovative type dated January 18, 2006

24. Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Approved by the General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences on November 14, 2001

25. Charter of the Russian Humanitarian scientific fund. Approved by Government Decree of May 7, 2001 No. 347

26. Country of Science — RFBR // Bulletin of the RFBR. - 2000. - No. 2

27. Visloguzov V. The government will refuse the "new economy" in tax benefits // Kommersant. - 2006. - September 18

Notes

Regulations on the Government Commission for the Development of Industry and Technology. Approved Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 14, 2006 No. 563. - P. 4.

Visloguzov V. The government will refuse the "new economy" in tax benefits // Kommersant. - 2006. - September 18.

Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Approved by the General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences on November 14, 2001 - P. 1.

Alfimov M.V., Minin V.A., Libkind A.N. Country of Science — RFBR // Bulletin of the RFBR. - 2000. - No. 2.

Charter of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation. Approved by Government Decree No. 347 of May 7, 2001. - P. 6.

"On the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere". Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 3, 1994 No. 65. - Pp. 1.3.

"On the Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones". Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 22, 2005 No. 855. - P. 1.

"On the Federal Agency for the Management of Special Economic Zones". Government Decree of August 19, 2005 No. 530. - Clause 5.7. - Pp. 8-11.

"On Special Economic Zones in the Russian Federation". Law of the Russian Federation of July 22, 2005 No. 116-FZ. - Art. 6. - P. 6.

Alexey Zhurov, Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation, Institute of Mathematical Methods in Economics and Anti-Crisis Management.