First Financial Therapy, Only Then the Scalpel of Reforms

In my opinion, we can only speak about the reform of scientific research (which The Day has begun to discuss on its pages) after the authorities, and, first of all, the executive, have given, at last, an unambiguous answer to the question whether Ukraine needs science. Oddly enough, there has been no answer yet, although back in February 1996, addressing the all-Ukrainian conference on the problems of research, Leonid Kuchma said, “A country without science is a country without future.” Since then, very nice resolutions have been passed on the top-priority development and funding of research, and a new version of the law On Scientific and Technological Research was adopted, timed to coincide with the eightieth anniversary of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. But when it was coming to the point, the ministry of finance always lacked money for research. Deprived of funds, Ukrainian science was being gradually strangled in the hugs of fervent love of all branches of power, which made us doubt that the latter understood the importance of scientific research for the state. This is still an open question, and only after we get a positive answer to it in the shape of specific actions can we get down to the second question of precisely what kind of science Ukraine needs. The answer to this should contain clear-cut requirements for the research sphere and ways to reform it from such imperatives.

It would be wrong to say that academic research has ground to a halt over the years of independence. Some reforms have been carried out, and the Academy of Sciences leadership has been trying to act judiciously and reasonably in order to avert heavy losses. For example, they have cut by almost 40% the total number of employees, streamlined its network of research institutions, and spelled out the principles of budget funding distribution, as well as compiled a list of facilities that are our national wealth and subject to first-priority funding. But it is now clear that these were the steps aimed at the Academy’s survival rather than the reforms it really needs. Yet, it could not have been otherwise. There was no question of reforms when the starting conditions (above all, funding) were constantly changing.

It is not as simple as it seems to identify the top research priorities. We already have had the sad experience of rejecting genetics and cybernetics in the 1950s, which brought all too obvious results. On the one hand, we should indeed pay more attention to the fields in which we have world class achievements and are competitive on the international stage. But the inability to implement and even more often the lack of interest in implementing or at least selling at a profit the research results achieved causes a situation such that we give them away for a song. Participating in the so-called international cooperation, a panacea from the viewpoint of the respected Dr. Les Kachkovsky, the state is in fact subsidizing a foreign uncle with our own intellect. I am not aware of even one instance when this kind of cooperation brought our science any dividends, apart from negligible increments in researchers’ salaries.

On the other hand, without paying adequate attention to the development of those research fields where we lag behind but which are important for creating up-to-date high technologies, Ukraine will be doomed for a long time if not forever to importing high-tech products or becoming a market for obsolete technologies. The former is quite expensive and out of reach for our economy, and the latter will turn us into a technological junkyard in the intellectual wilderness.

There has already been so much said about such a sore point as research funding that I will only touch upon one issue, the search for funding sources other than the state budget. Under the current conditions of economic crisis, the customer, no matter how much he is interested in putting some new high-tech processes into practice, is not in a position to pay for them, while commercial entities that have money do not need research achievements because they are practically not engaged in production.

Today a considerable number of academic research institutes carry out contractual projects, but the customers are mostly agencies that are themselves financed from the budget. Therefore, chronic nonpayment under these projects has become the rule. The problem could be alleviated a little by the State Innovation Fund by granting loans to help put high tech products into production. But it is impossible for research institutes to secure such credit, for the law prohibits using state-run property as collateral. Hence this fund will turn into a new feeding-trough for the commercial entities and a source for patching holes in our sieve-like budget.

Thus, like it or not, the state budget still remains the only feasible source to finance academic research today. One can reduce funding to the minimum or discontinue it altogether, but then we will have to admit frankly that Ukraine does not need science.

The most favorite question of the Ministry of Finance bureaucrats is where to find the money? If the authorities had implemented at least a fraction of the recommendations of professional economists, instead of putting them in a drawer, and were helping to put applied research results into production, the budget would have money. If tax concessions granted to entities close to the authorities were cut by a mere 10%, this would provide ample funds for solving all the financial problems of research.

Reforms in scientific research and its “general headquarters,” the Academy of Sciences, are really necessary, but research itself now looks, figuratively speaking, like a gravely ill patient who needs surgical intervention but is in such an anemic condition that the scalpel of reforms could be lethal. To avoid this, the operation should be carefully thought out and preceded by intensive care, while the patient should be given at least a little more to eat. Only then will the operation be a success. Of course, if the surgeon is interested in keeping the patient alive.