Tweet
ON THE ISSUES OF SCIENCE
13 November 2008
"Noravank" Foundation
On November 5, 2008 in the Committee for Science and Educational of
the National Assembly were held hearings devoted to science problems
in the context of national security. A talk was given by "Noravank"
Foundation Director, political scientist Gagik Harutyunyan.
In the context of today's global systematic crisis occur changes of not
only geographical and geopolitical character; first of all is changed
global system of values. Virtual, speculative perceptions prevailing
in the past have a tendency to turn into real values. In this sense
knowledge is more than a real resource: it is noteworthy that some
experts suggest accepting currencies named INFO or INTEL instead of
dollar or euro. Another characteristic trait of up-to-date processes is
the raise of state factor in all the fields which grounds application
of not only liberal but first of all state-institutional approaches.
Up-to-date global moves remind 1990s and the Karabakh war, in which
the victory of the Armenian party the western experts condition by our
technical supremacy, as in the sense of material resources the enemy
had considerable advantage (let's mention that the term technology
expresses the commonness of knowledge resources) and it is difficult
not to agree with this situation: at that, the present realities are
not that unequivocal.
In the past we talked about the problem that in the Soviet
scientific system Armenia's leading position was only conditioned
by our traditional approaches to knowledge and our national
peculiarities1. It is known that today our scientists publish
more works in authoritative scientific journals than in Georgia and
Azerbaijan in spite of the fact that in those countries more resources
are allocated for science. Thus, we can once again state as a fact
that we have human resources of desirable quality and in the future
we will be able to regain our position in the scientific field.
National science: In the Third Republic a lot of reforms have been
effected in almost all the fields but the scientific one. This field
seems to have been left out of the state system, become autonomic
and the state-science dialogue has acquired a monotone character:
representatives of science ask for means from the state, and the
latter one refuses it to them. It has come to prove about lack of any
strategy in science and in this sense let's remember the postulate
of strategy according to which if you don't have your strategy,
you are the subject another one's strategy.
At that, scientific-educational field is the most important part of
national security's information segment. In this sense, perhaps it
is worth interpreting the perception of national science, which is
often perceived in quite a primitive way: one can hear that science
is a universal conception.
At that, the conception national science has a distinct definition:
it is the science serving the national interests. In this sense not
only scientific fields directly relating to Armenians and Armeniacy
may be national, but also, for example, astrophysics or another fields
where there are leading scientific schools and resounding success. Such
a leadership raises our country's rating and it is not a mere moral
factor: these realities are taken into account in various structures
and rating lists, which in its turn, raises confidence in the very
country in the international community thus influencing its security
and economy.
In this very context one should take into consideration that sometimes
science is treated with mere economic criteria, which is inefficient
not only because it is a thankless task to make such calculations:
It is to be known that the very scientific-educational system ensures
reproduction of national elite of necessary quality, thus, formation
of compatible state and society, which is the main pledge of national
security.
Let's mention that our society thinks that it is possible to have
a good educational system without the scientific one. It is also a
mistake, as it is known that the whole educational hierarchy is based
on the scientific level - from pre-school education to post-graduate
course.
Methods of organizing science: There is no=2 0need to discuss the
problems of collapse of the Soviet scientific system to which we
have turned in our publications and devoted tens of analyses. To
my regret I should state as a fact that the analysis of braking up
of this system's Armenian segment has appeared beyond the sight,
it is sometimes forgotten that the imperial scientific system no
longer exists and the poor means are used on, for example, studding
gender problems of the Arabic world. These are the remnants of the
Soviet science, which are to be got rid of and shaped a compact and
compatible scientific system. At the same time, it is important to
state as a fact that we don't begin that process from a clear page
as we have got the heritage of the very Soviet's scientific system
which by objective or subjective reasons we have treated roughly,
however, there are still some resources remaining.
>From this standpoint it is to be given brief description of organizing
science.
The tradition of European "research universities" coming from Middle
Ages to patronize only separate gifted scientists who were engaged in
the problems they were interested in - the results were especially
striking in Germany, however, it split up after the collapse of
Nazi regime.
Institutional - state financing inherent to Soviet academic system. It
was efficient till 1980s; however, it was degraded in parallel with
the common system. Let0s mention that in the Communist Party Central
Committee a special committee was made to reform the system, but the
USSR collapsed. At present a new committee has been created in Russia
to be engaged in that issues, the service reports of which Academician
Sergeyev has kindly placed at the deposal of "Noravank."
Grant system, which is especially efficient when the researches made
are to be given logical end.
At present innovative structures have become widely spread, for
example, there are 30 thousand innovative companies in the RF, however,
according to the observations of Dan Medovnikov, they don't work
efficiently without institutional forms of organization. Innovative
activity is the field of researches that have specific way of thinking,
and it is considered nonsense to claim for innovative suggestions
from academic institutions.
Today an opinion has been shaped that it is a methodical mistake to
accentuate any separate way of organizing science. It has been very
well perceived by Americans, who make a good use of all the ways
of organization and their modifications. It is noteworthy that such
approaches also win in Russia's conception about science.
Thus, one can state as a fact that complex and synthetic approaches
are formed in science organizing field and they are to be considered
perceptible for organizing Armenian national science.
What to do and what not to do: At least the Academy of Science should
not be split up - it contradicts our interests. From the one hand,
one should get rid of the syndromes of the former scientific system and
form a new one, however, one shouldn't destroy the existing, but make
use of what we have and make an up-to-date scientific system, where
are to be used both institutional and liberal-commercial methods. To
discuss these problems it is necessary to form an inter-departmental
committee. As the first step it is necessary to improve the scientific
infrastructure, qualitatively increase financing of the field,
and raise the statues of a scientist. It is extremely important to
have non-standard, innovative approaches in this field and not to
expect any dividends in this most difficult first stage, otherwise,
the losses will prevail.
Comment