Английский язык для аспирантов и соискателей. Минакова Т.В. - 26 стр.

becoming the property of the whole mankind, even when a theoretical discovery
could in the future produce tangible practical benefits. Take, for example, the human
genome deciphering project: It has given a powerful impetus to a fairly “commercial”
sector – medicine.
      Has Russia really lost an opportunity to tap its results because it did not invest in
this international project?
      It has not, in theory. Yet I recently talked to a biologist, a Moscow State
University professor, who complained that Russia had not taken part in the project,
and many specialists had gone abroad. So now we do not have a single genome
textbook in Russian – how are we supposed to teach students?
      As a result, our undergraduate training establishments, including medical
institutes, may fail to ensure effective training of specialists capable of developing
genetic technology on a mass scale.
      Incidentally, it is not only in scientific research organization but also in
formulating scientific research priorities that Russia is going its own unique way. It
does not consult the taxpayer about the choice of priorities. Herein lies in fact a
distinguishing feature of the paternalistic command system: The state knows better
what the country and its citizens need. Elsewhere in the world, priority in the past few
decades has been given to life science, designed to preserve human health and extend
the human life span. For some reason, Russia continues to invest the bulk of
resources in physics and earth sciences. When the Soviet Union was surrounded by
enemies, the public agreed that building an atomic bomb was of paramount
importance. What kind of science is society ready to pay for today? Say, U.S.
Congress allocated the National Health Institute (a network of scientific organizations
conducting research projects in biology, medicine, etc.) even more money than it had
asked for.
      True, it should be understood that gaining knowledge is far from the only
function of fundamental science. Other functions – innovative, expert, social, and
cultural – are just as important for society. The education function is one of the most
important of these. It is being successfully performed in the United State where
fundamental science is concentrated mainly at universities. There is a basic difference
between American universities and ours: In America, they are not so much training
establishments as powerful scientific and educational centers. Economically, they are
an optimal structure – what with the dual use of the equipment and research
personnel (both for research projects and for training new scientists by using the
latest scientific achievements). I think that reform of our fundamental science should
move in this direction.
      Of course plenty of problems arise here. Say, research universities should not
answer to the Ministry of Education (in the West, their activity is directed by boards
of guardians). Such centers should be headed up not simply by scientists but
scientists/managers: There are very few such people among our scientific leading
lights. There are many other problems. Yet if there is a policy decision to conduct this
“velvet revolution”, organizational problems could eventually be resolved.
      So we should stop saying that fundamental science is a matter of national
prestige?
                                                                                        26