Tetiana PALADINA, Ph.D. in biology:
The reason we have no Nobel laureates has nothing to do with the Ukrainian character, our supposed peasant stubbornness and lack of enthusiasm for knowledge. On the contrary, Ukrainians show great talent in the most diverse fields of endeavor, they are given to philosophical thought and more often than not want an education for the sake of knowledge, rather than career. Many choose science, but very few can make a name internationally while working in Ukraine. This is explained by the absence of proper conditions for research and by the authorities showing no interest in supporting any such projects. Since the days of the (first) Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine has not been a fertile ground for science. The imperial governments of Russia and Austria wanted Ukraine to remain a backwater, so they kept it stagnantly provincial, which was murderous to any intellectual initiative, especially science, which unlike poetry or the fine arts, requires major funding. Given the centralized allocation of equipment, reagents, and special literature, Ukrainian science was treated as being of minor importance and subsidized and supplied on a surplus basis, except research centers working on projects for the military-industrial complex. The central (i.e., Moscow — Ed.) scientific schools imposed their concepts on the Ukrainian and other counterparts on the “periphery,” and the latter were supposed to treat them as the only correct ones. Only a handful of prominent Ukrainian scientists dared resist such pressure. Great damage was inflicted on Ukrainian science by the pogrom-like Soviet ideological campaign destroying whole scientific disciplines, pushing the nation’s scientific thought back decades. Even now, fifty years later, this backwardness is painfully apparent. Add here the need-to-know phobia, due to which findings by Ukrainian scientists remained unknown to the rest of the world. Our researchers were not allowed contacts with Western colleagues. For a number of years the Nobel Prize was formally treated as a hostile imperialistic invention. Many people plunged into research, seeking refuge from the oppressive totalitarian atmosphere, but the existing regime with its Iron Curtain could not stimulate scientific process, for progress here is possible only with truly free people.
Ukrainian independence gave rise to great expectations; people hoped that all the mistakes and shortcomings would be corrected, and that science would flourish among other things. Nothing happened. Instead, as never before Ukrainian scientists became aware of not being needed by anybody. They were now free to travel abroad and buy whatever equipment they required, but they had no money. Ukraine was gripped by crisis and total chaos. Unfortunately, the government did not make the development of science a national priority.
In a situation when budget allocations were made just to pay miserable salaries, the level of research dropped rapidly, because everything was planned using old and the only available equipment. World science is making giant strides into the third millennium, yet most Ukrainian scientists are denied even information about progress abroad, because there is no foreign literature in reference libraries, while the Internet remains both inaccessible and unaffordable to most. While great emphasis is being placed on the computerization of grade schools even in the villages, nothing like this is being done at research centers. There are several institutes engaged in research projects commissioned by foreign firms. Here more or less adequate working conditions are provided, but their activities are on a downward curve because the young and most talented scientists quit, leaving middle-aged researchers who just cannot bring themselves to leave their calling in life to the mercy of fate, having no one to pass the baton to. Some of them are academicians, recipients of the highest Soviet and Ukrainian awards, but the Nobel Committee is not likely to recognize any of them, because their works and discoveries, made behind the Iron Curtain, are little known elsewhere. Nor are they likely to be nominated as a gesture of support for Ukraine whose international prestige has suffered the last couple of years. Old scientists continue to teach the younger generation and young people, after defending a candidate of science thesis, flee abroad. They do so not only to live like normal civilized people, but also to have proper working conditions, without wasting time trying to take up any research project in Ukraine. The brain drain conveyor belt in Ukraine is still operating very well and any malfunctions can be expected only when the level of training here falls below the standards acceptable to Western universities and firms. There are likely to be a couple of future Nobel prizewinners among the young Ukrainian scientists working abroad, but a scientist’s origin is not defined by his or her country of residence or origin. Thus legendary Yuri Katermak from Drohobych was, of course, an Italian scientist, and Igor Sikorsky, born in Kyiv, was a US inventor. If Ukraine wants to join the family of developed European nations — and it has had every opportunity to do so — it must have truly advanced domestic science. This cannot be achieved without major spending, thus accumulating the critical intellectual mass as a peremptory prerequisite of scientific progress. If and when we do this, we can hope to live to see a Nobel laureate in Ukraine.
Mykhailo BRYK, Professor and First Vice President, Kiev- Mohyla Academy National University:
Ukraine was not an independent country, and you won’t find a single Nobel prizewinner from a colony anywhere in the world, especially considering the specifics of Russia’s national, educational, cultural, and Bolshevik policy in Ukraine. Suffice it to compare what Austria- Hungary and Poland did in the western regions and Russia in the eastern regions. of Ukraine. Such comparison by no means favors Russia, although neither Austria- Hungary nor Poland ever claimed the status of being Ukraine’s brothers. Second, considering Russia’s manpower, economic, scientific, technological, and political capabilities, as well as its research personnel, that country has never been among the world leaders in science (notwithstanding all legends to the contrary, meant for domestic use). The reason is primarily Russia’s outdated — rather, feudal — organization of science (suffice it to recall all those giant and sector academies of sciences, the division of science into academic — institutions of higher education — and applied — ministerial, factory, and so on). Also, recall the caste system according to which Soviet scientists were paid, so that even renowned ones earned less than certain unproductive academicians, even less than those working in nonintellectual spheres. Third, the language barrier did not and still does not help popularize Russian-language research papers (practically all scientific journals in Ukraine are published in Russian; what about English and Ukrainian language ones?). Scientists in the West do not know Russian, so they do not read Russian scientific works, even if supplemented with English summaries (as done in Russia and Ukraine). Evidence of this is the fact that there are practically no references to Russian sources. Not knowing foreign languages, particularly English (which is especially true of the older generation), being forbidden to travel abroad under the Soviets (which was especially true of those not registered as residents of Moscow), subject to total secrecy, they could not have any of their articles published in any foreign outlets. This in turn was yet another factor impeding the prestige of Soviet science. Even now international conferences are held in Russian in Russia and, of course, in Ukraine (at best with English — and Ukrainian in Ukraine — being formally proclaimed as the working languages), something never practiced anywhere else in the world, even in the countries whose languages are recognized as international by the United Nations. Also, there is a noticeable degree of scientific and political subjectivism and bias in the Nobel Committee, but this is understandable, considering everything said earlier. Experience shows that serious, fundamental studies are possible only in the presence of a solid scientific tradition and major government financing of education, the natural, and technical sciences. At present, such spending can be afforded by one to three countries or by a group of industrialized countries, but the trend is certain to gain scope and momentum. It is easy to see Ukraine’s lamentable prospects here. At the same time, there is no doubt that Ukrainians are extremely talented. Some of them have brought glory not only to Ukraine — rather not so much Ukraine as to other countries with their brilliant discoveries. Suffice it to recall just several world-known names in the natural and technical sciences: Polly, Sikorsky, Kondratiuk, Koroliov, Yanhel, Hlushko, and Smakula. We know that Ivan Franko did not become a Nobel prizewinner only because of circumstances. Lina Kostenko and George Shevelov are our contemporaries and no less famous than other Nobel laureates in literature from other countries. The list could be made much longer.
