The National Academy of Sciences is now in a state of nervous tension. Mykola Tomenko, Deputy Prime Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, hit upon the following idea in a recent press interview: “The majority of institutions at the Academy of Sciences should be incorporated into the university system in order to produce concrete results rather than squander money. As for academic degrees, I take a categorical stand: it is impossible, even physically so, to combine a high administrative office with the writing of a doctoral or postdoctoral thesis. Speaking recently to the chairman of the Central Degree-Awarding Commission, I demanded that scholastic pursuit be separated from business and public administration. We must stamp out corruption in this commission and will soon find a way to re-certify our academics. I think this will be a fine opportunity for many former and current bureaucrats at least to get acquainted with the subject of ‘their’ scholarly publications.”
Yes, a poor country is unable to appropriate sufficient funds for academic research. The 2005 budget has earmarked UAH 938 million for the Academy of Sciences. According to the press service of the Ministry for Education and Science, the new government is not going to increase this amount. Academics have been picketing the Cabinet of Ministers for years on end, demanding better funding. Another serious, outstanding problem is the brain drain: more than 5,600 academics have left Ukraine, including 500 or so university professors and instructors. Mr. Tomenko’s words have touched a raw nerve. With unprecedented fervor scholars have begun discussing the situation and ways to improve it. Their comments of the past few days defy description: scholarship is in its death throes, it died a long time ago, leaving behind a cumbersome monument called the National Academy of Sciences, etc.
Vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences, Anton NAUMOVETS, made the following comments to The Day concerning the current debate:
“It would be good if advice were dispensed based on an in-depth analysis. We want people, especially newcomers, to come see us; then they would get the right picture. We can prove that we are not freeloaders. These accusations are unjust, because we are severely cash-strapped. It is common knowledge that we receive less than 0.5% of the GDP instead of the required 1.7%. We are capable of making a notable contribution to this country’s development, provided there are favorable conditions for this.” Dr. Naumovets admitted that members of the academy are hurt by and indignant at Mr. Tomenko’s unjust accusations. The academician considers the proposal to subordinate academy research to universities unconstructive. “I agree that we must strengthen links between research and education, but we should not ignore such things as interdisciplinary links and studies. They are very important. Only the Academy of Sciences, an integrated mechanism, is capable of establishing such links. If not for the academy, researchers from different fields would be speaking in different languages,” he said.
The Day also asked a number of other scholars for their opinions.
Volodymyr KUZNETSOV, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences:
“Before changing anything, you have to find out what we have, i.e., take stock of the achievements of Ukrainian fundamental scholarship. Only then, on the basis of these results, can you choose the right direction for the reform and establish certain criteria for it. Without a doubt, researchers should be judged on their scholastic contributions, not their positions or titles.
“The government should also finally decide whether it needs fundamental research in the first place. The Soviet government absolutely did not need it, nor did the previous president, and by all accounts it is not required now, either. The aim of fundamental research is to obtain new knowledge about man and nature. Do the bureaucrats need this? Our state is doing nothing to create conditions for obtaining new knowledge. Check the reports of any research institute, just for a laugh: you won’t find any concrete results of activities or any new knowledge. You’ll only find a list of publications and reports of the institute’s associates. So if the state finally does decide that it needs research, it must first of all create favorable conditions for obtaining new knowledge and eliminate conditions for useless endeavors.
“How can this be done? Today, the system of scholarly research employs some 30,000 to 50,000 people, depending on whom you consider a scholar. It should be determined if among them there are scholars who really do high-profile work, i.e., whether they have had works published abroad and have been invited to international conferences. It is very important that foreign researchers take an interest in what a scholar has achieved in a certain field. In a word, you have to spotlight individuals who really work and then restructure the entire research system to cater to these individuals. Only then can you verify if these people have met expectations. To sum up, scholarship may be reformed, but this should be done judiciously.”
Volodymyr SHKODA, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences:
“It is certainly a good idea to hold re-certification. For instance, the USSR had 25% of the world’s total number of researchers. In other words, every fourth researcher in the world worked in the USSR. Eighty percent of Soviet scholars worked for the military-industrial complex. While military-oriented studies are no longer required, the scholars are still there. Besides, the academic world is getting old because young people are shunning scholarly work. Instead, all kinds of nearly retired quasi-academics have come rushing in just because the ‘academic pension’ is much higher than the ordinary one: 1,500-2,000 hryvnias. They are trying to ensure that they will be taken care of in their old age. Yet, in spite of the obvious necessity, it will be very difficult to conduct re-certification because those who are pushier and closer to the bosses will be re- certified first, while young talented academics will be chased out — somebody will have to be kicked out.
“It may seem that disbanding the National Academy of Sciences is too radical a decision. The academy is like a maternity ward. You can renovate it, but a few years later minor repairs and routine maintenance will no longer do. So this maternity ward should either be burned down or converted into a garage because babies can no longer be kept there. So this problem has to be solved once and for all. The only way out is to close the academy: the state will find that this is cheaper to do than just ‘papering over the cracks.’ When you burn down a maternity ward, you kill all the bacteria.
“Research is undoubtedly a very useful thing. We must also remember that we are a poor country incapable of matching the academic glory of the Soviet Union. A poor country cannot afford to do fundamental studies. This kind of research is done to maintain the image and reputation of a country, while we have to watch every kopeck, not our image. Harvard University’s budget is 18 million dollars a year, so they can afford to make discoveries. Of course, scholarly research must be aimed at concrete innovations, not at satisfying somebody’s curiosity.”
Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, Doctor of History, chief research associate, Institute of Sociology:
“Mr. Tomenko thinks that the academy’s institutions are incapable of outstanding achievements, given their current state, so it would be better to follow the European way and place these institutions under the control of universities. In reality, it would be strange to expect the academy’s institutes to demonstrate anything outstanding at all. For outstanding ideas are born in the heads of geniuses, not in institutes. It would be also extremely naive to expect any stupendous decisions from the governmental department in charge of humanitarian matters. The question is different: the academy’s researchers are not making outstanding discoveries but are doing a host of things to promote technological progress and to implement standards and rules of life based on modern scholarly achievements. So, from this point of view our scholarship does need to be reformed. This is a very serious problem, indeed.
But please don’t talk immediately about the European way because there are several European ways that differ greatly from one another. The Eastern European countries that have considerably overtaken us on the road from the socialist system — Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland — have not abolished their academies of sciences or made them a sort of a base for universities. On the other hand, Georgia is known to have disbanded its academy of sciences. That country is by and large on the front line of scientific development. But the point is that Georgia’s Academy of Sciences was entirely different from Ukraine’s. Naturally, it would be naive to suggest that our researchers can do as much as those in the leading European countries or the United States. But research does not only perform the function of making scientific discoveries. This misunderstanding can lead our society down a blind alley. Research also performs a host of other functions, expert evaluation being the most important of them. This may include monitoring the application of modern scientific achievements by governmental bodies, the implementation of modern scientific knowledge in real life, training research staff, etc. Not only should these functions not be viewed in the context of the abolition of the Academy of Sciences but, on the contrary, they should be entrusted to the latter. From this viewpoint, the academy should certainly undergo reformation.
As for the tasks that the government is facing in this connection, a serious program, rather than ‘comments off the cuff,’ should be the criterion of any reform. Only when such a program is drawn up with the participation of the academy’s most active and highly skilled experts will we be able to say whether or not we need the Academy of Sciences in its current state and how long it will take to transform it in the light of modern scholarly trends, without any loss to society. To draw up this program, we must have a special commission in which scholars, not bureaucrats, will be the decisive force. For this reason, I think that establishing this kind of commission, accompanied by a broad public debate, should be the first step toward reforming our academy. Incidentally, we conducted quite an interesting survey in 2002. The question was: If you were asked about the best way to develop Ukraine, whose opinion (what categories of individuals) would you trust the most? The respondents placed academics first (27.6%), journalists second (23.4%), neighbors, friends and relatives ranked third, while political leaders were only in fourth place.
“The problem of re-certifying the research staff has also come to a head and is now the talk of the town — and justly so. This certification should be conducted with due account of the criteria established by world academia: publications in internationally renowned scholarly journals, participation in high-profile scholarly, especially international, projects, the ability to work with current specialized literature that mostly appears in English and other international languages, computer knowledge not only at the level of mechanical producing and printing out a text but also at the level of handling data-processing programs, etc. If certification is carried out with due account of these factors, it will be possible to identify our scholars’ true contribution to world scholarly efforts. Some of our academics consider themselves outstanding because they are mentioned thousands of times in the Internet. This is naive. All it takes is some commonly known stupidity, and there will be thousands of references to you in the Web. This is not a criterion of selection. Naturally, worldwide criteria should be complemented with our own, which correspond to the realities of our life. It would be very important to formulate such criteria, taking into account the knowledge that has been accumulated in the field of liberal arts and social sciences.
“There is also the problem of training young scholars. It is an open secret that the academy is getting old. Of course, dismissing everyone who has worked there for decades and replacing them with young people would be tantamount to destroying the system of replicating our research staff. First of all, you have to create conditions that would attract young people to the Academy of Sciences, namely, expand the doctoral study system, establish graduate and re-training schools, as well as in-service teacher training courses at the academy’s institutions. In many respects, the latter sector clearly does not meet the requirements of contemporary worldwide scholarship owing to our past staff training system. I think this direction is extremely important. Otherwise we’ll be meekly watching the most talented young scholars and students go abroad and work for the benefit of other countries’ scholarship.”
