A scientist living in Russia is often asked two questions: “Why haven't you left?” and
“Is it still possible to work there?” The best response to the first question is, “Why
should I?”—which either terminates the conversation or leads to a stimulating discussion
about the fate of the world. The second question, however, deserves a serious answer. In
fact, this is the question that every one of us keeps asking ourselves.
There is no simple answer. The biggest problems we face are brain drain, inadequate
infrastructure, and lack of money (or perhaps, lack of money, lack of money, and lack of
money). In the Soviet Union, fundamental science was supported to a great extent by
military expenditure. Thus, it is not surprising that Soviet physics and mathematics were
more successful than other fields, such as biology. In the 1990s, military spending on
science declined sharply, although the exact numbers are hard to estimate. This year, the
direct funding of science constitutes only 1.78% of Russia's national budget (an additional
0.46% is allocated to the space program), although the law stipulates that this figure
should be at least 4%. Still, this funding amounts to 46.2 billion rubles (approximately
US$1.6 billion), more than twice the amount spent in 2000. Although this figure looks
negligible compared with spending on science in the United States and many European
countries, it could still be sufficient to support existing actively working groups at a
reasonable level.
Funding
There are several mechanisms for distributing funds for research. The major share comes
via Russia's Department of Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Academy, unlike
its Western analogs, not only acts as a consulting body of experts, but also has the
authority to distribute money (Figure 1). The funds come both as long-term support for
scientific institutes and as National or Academy research programs. The former covers base
salaries, which are small even by local standards (about US$200 per month for a laboratory
chief), and basic infrastructure (water, electricity, etc.). This system of long-term
support inherited all the old Soviet ills, such as the lack of correlation between
scientific output and the level of funding. As a result, the available resources are spread
thinly over hundreds of labs, most of which are just barely alive. The National or Academy
research programs can provide funding at a higher level, sometimes even enough to do
experimental research. However, the procedure of establishing such programs, though
formally competitive, is often not transparent, and a major role is played by the so-called
“administrative resource” (Allakhverdov and Pokrovsky 2003).
Money is also distributed through the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR). The
decisionmaking mechanism used by RFBR is closer to Western standards, and involves
anonymous refereeing followed by board discussions. Although its grants are rather small
(at most, several thousand dollars per year for a maximum of three years), they provide
important additional support for many small and mediumsized groups that may receive several
such grants for different projects. In addition, RFBR supports the publication and
translation of books, travel to international conferences, the organization of conferences
in Russia, and similar activities. Unfortunately, several programs (in particular, support
for young scientists) have recently been transferred from RFBR to a newly established
government office, and have thus become less independent.
Collaboration
International collaboration and research grants are a major source of support for many
active research groups (Table 1). Several agencies and foundations have programs for
Eastern Europe, Russia, and/or former Soviet republics. Some of them, such as the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute (Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States), fund individual groups;
others—for example the International Science and Technology Center (Moscow,
Russia)—stipulate that projects should be submitted jointly by academic and military
researchers; and some agencies—in particular, European INTAS (Brussels, Belgium) and the
American John E. Fogarty International Center (Bethesda, Maryland, United States)—support
collaboration between Russian and Western laboratories.
Another source of financial support is direct collaboration between Western and Russian
laboratories. Even after a relatively short visit, the salary of a visiting researcher
abroad can be stretched for several months back home in Russia; even more importantly,
experimental biologists visiting foreign labs have access to modern instruments and
chemicals, which allows them to do modern research. The hosts of such visits are often
(although definitely not always) recent immigrants from Russia, and in such cases the
collaborations may have roots in older days (Box 1).
As well as supporting Russian science directly, international collaboration plays an
important indirect role because it is less influenced by local politics. In fact, one of
the main positive impacts of the New York–based International Science Foundation set up by
George Soros in early 1990s was that it demonstrated the possibility of open competition
with clearly defined rules—something unheard of in Soviet times—and thus served as a model
for the RFBR, which was organized at approximately the same time.
Unfortunately, international ties, especially with the United States, have been
adversely affected by recent changes in visa procedures, which have become lengthy (leading
to many missed conferences) and, even worse, completely unpredictable (e.g., Brumfiel
2004). The grapevine distributes stories of “bad words” that should be avoided when
describing one's research area during an interview at the consulate. Examples of such words
include the adjective “nuclear” (even within a innocuous terms like “nuclear magnetic
resonance”) or, more recently, anything that involves “bacteria.”
The demand for fundamental and even for applied biological research from Russian
industry is almost nonexistent. The pharmaceutical industry is content to produce generics,
while Russian biotech companies are still exploiting old strains developed in the Soviet
Union. However, some laboratories are conducting outsourced research, and there are now
research outposts of Western and Japanese companies in Russia organized as standard
industrial labs. On one hand, this work is a dead end for Russian scientists, because the
results of such research normally cannot be published. This is a serious problem,
especially for young scientists who want to establish themselves. On the other hand,
royalties from patents or commercialization of the products can be used to support further
research. One group that has followed this path successfully is Sergey Lukyanov's lab at
the Shemyakin Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry in Moscow, Russia. They have developed the
subtractive hybridization technique for enrichment of clone libraries by rare transcripts
or specific genomic fragments (Rebrikov et al. 2004), and are distributing it via a company
called Evrogen (http://www.evrogen.com/about.shtml).
Infrastructure and Bureaucracy
Another major problem is the degradation of infrastructure. Only a few labs can afford
modern equipment and instruments, and for many others, even standard chemicals are too
expensive. This leads to a vicious circle: without equipment, a lab cannot conduct
experiments at the level demanded by highimpact journals—and without such publications, it
cannot compete for large grants. Smaller RFBR grants, while simpler to obtain, are
insufficient to purchase large pieces of equipment, and funds from several grants or
several years cannot be combined due to bureaucratic restrictions. Thus, the only hope for
these labs, apart from international collaboration, is a personal connection with senior
bureaucrats that might result in an (un)expected windfall.
Having the funds to purchase modern equipment abroad is only the first hurdle; the many
conflicting rules and restrictions, inefficiency, and corruption within the system can
subsequently hold up the process. Some items, such as tissue samples or animals, are
virtually impossible to import legally. The process of clearing the shipments through
customs is a difficult, timeconsuming job. Grigory Kopelevich, the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute's Russian representative, recalls a story of a grantee whose microscope was
stopped at customs because the box contained two screwdrivers not specified in the order.
Fortunately, to resolve the issue, it was sufficient to present one of the screwdrivers to
a customs officer as a gift.
Even basic access to journals is a problem, especially outside the main research
centers. Indeed, out of a random sample of ten major universities where electronic library
catalogs were available via the Internet, only six had subscribed to
Nature , and only two to
Science . More specialized journals are available only in Moscow and
perhaps St. Petersburg. This is partially offset by the proliferating open-access journals
from the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central, free electronic versions of older
issues provided by some journals, free subscriptions for Russian academic institutes
granted by some publishers or purchased by international foundations (e.g., the
e-library.ru project organized by the RFBR and supported by the Open Society Institute [the
Soros Foundation, based in New York] and the Department of Education) (Table 2), reprints
at authors' Web pages, and last but not least, colleagues abroad who break copyright laws
by e-mailing PDF files; there is even a popular bulletin board coordinating this activity.
However, these are only partial solutions. Russia is not considered a developing country,
and thus is excluded from many international efforts that provide free access to journals
(such as HINARI). Moreover, many journals have page charges, but no Russian grants cover
these, and the cost of publication may be prohibitively high for many groups.
Brain Drain
These problems, along with low salaries, have naturally led to a huge brain drain.
Entire generations have been decimated (Box 1); the dearth of researchers at the postdoc
level, has caused a gap in the teaching and maintenance of scientific traditions. Many labs
now consist of older chiefs and senior researchers, and graduate students who plan to leave
immediately after getting the candidate degree (the equivalent of a Western doctorate).
“Leaving” does not necessarily mean leaving the country; many capable young people go into
business. While that might be good for the country in general, it is bad for science, at
least in the short term. However, even emigration is not a completely negative thing; it
creates a network of collaborators, and in many cases enhances ties with the international
community.
Despite all this, science in Russia is very much alive. Not-yet-Nobel-prizewinner Alexei
Abrikosov's repeated exhorations to the scientific community “to help all the talented
scientists leave Russia and to ignore the rest” were met by universal disgust (Hoffman
1993; Leskov 1993; Migdal 1993). There are several competitive Russian labs doing
first-rate research and publishing in the top-tier journals. Old habits die hard; even in
these days, very decent results are often published in Russianlanguage journals, the best
of which have impact factors that are around 1. Each year, many intelligent and capable
students enroll in universities, and competition for admission is steadily increasing from
the lows of the mid-1990s. There are also well-attended international conferences in
several Russian cities.
Prospects
What can be done by the international community to support what is left of Russian
science? Of course, direct support in the form of competitive grants is important,
especially if there are few restrictions on spending; even the most carefully considered
procedure cannot foresee all possible situations. But even more useful is the creation of
joint research centers, such as the one opened by the international Ludwig Institute for
Cancer Research (LICR) based jointly in Zurich, New York, and London, and the Belozersky
Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology of Moscow State University in Moscow, Russia. This
research center began with limited support for several stronger groups, and is gradually
moving toward integration of a research program in Moscow with other LICR projects, and
real collaboration between Moscow groups and LICR labs elsewhere.
One of the most essential elements of successful research is access to up-to-date
information. Consequently, any initiative that provides open access to scientific
literature and databases is extremely useful. Seminars, lecture courses (such as the Moscow
University [Moscow, Russia] cycle on oncology and immunology sponsored by LICR;
www.oncoimmunology.ru/index_e.htm), and the participation of Western scientists in
scientific conferences in Russia are important not only because they provide a fresh
understanding of emerging trends, but also because they create personal contacts between
Russian and Western scientists that often lead to fruitful collaboration.
By contrast, some other types of joint project may be less successful. Artificial
programs aimed at creating various participant “networks” usually do not work as expected,
and training programs in Western universities often attract potential emigrants rather that
those willing to continue active research inside Russia.
The contribution of the international community cannot be the sole decisive factor in
the future growth of Russian science. Important as it is in this transition period, it is
no substitute for a systemic change. The ills of Russian science are not unique; the same
issues have been raised by scientists from other Eastern European countries (e.g., Wojcik
2004). Even the existing funds could go much further if scientific policies were more open,
better structured, and more competitive. Large grants should be provided, on the basis of
well-defined criteria, to only the strongest labs doing the best research. An often-heard
opinion that no independent review is possible in a small, well-entrenched community is
irrelevant, since international boards of experts can be formed—the example of the Soros
foundation clearly demonstrates that this is feasible. However, smaller pilot grants are
also needed to support young scientists and labs contemplating new projects. This would
create competition at all levels and provide doctoral students and postdocs with an
incentive to stay in Russia and enroll in a strong lab. But again, the procedure for
awarding such grants should be well defined, transparent, and independent from
administrative influences.
Thus, the traditional model of top-down distribution of funds must be changed, and this
may be difficult. The current system of decision making by Russian funding agencies is
clearly inadequate. Moreover, the problems of Russian science mirror the problems of
Russian society in general, and it would be naive to expect that they will be solved
overnight, even given the political will. Still, if successful, this combination should
provide both high-level research in established fields and sufficient flexibility to find
new directions.
