Aristotle (384–322 BC)
Aristotle is an ancient Greek scientist, encyclopedist, philosopher and logician, founder of classical (formal) logic. Considered one of the greatest geniuses in history and the most influential philosopher of antiquity. He made a huge contribution to the development of logic and natural sciences, especially astronomy, physics and biology. Although many of his scientific theories were refuted, they greatly contributed to the search for new hypotheses to explain them.
Archimedes (287–212 BC)
Archimedes was an ancient Greek mathematician, inventor, astronomer, physicist and engineer. Generally considered the greatest mathematician of all time and one of the leading scientists of the classical period of antiquity. His contributions to the field of physics include the fundamental principles of hydrostatics, statics, and the explanation of the principle of lever action. He is credited with inventing innovative machinery, including siege engines and the screw pump named after him. Archimedes also invented the spiral that bears his name, formulas for calculating the volumes of surfaces of revolution, and an original system for expressing very large numbers.
Galileo (1564–1642)
In eighth place in the ranking of the greatest scientists in the history of the world is Galileo, an Italian physicist, astronomer, mathematician and philosopher. He has been called the "father of observational astronomy" and the "father of modern physics". Galileo was the first to use a telescope to observe celestial bodies. Thanks to this, he made a number of outstanding astronomical discoveries, such as the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter, sunspots, the rotation of the Sun, and also established that Venus changes phases. He also invented the first thermometer (without a scale) and proportional compass.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867)
Michael Faraday was an English physicist and chemist, primarily known for the discovery of electromagnetic induction. Faraday also discovered the chemical effect of current, diamagnetism, the effect of a magnetic field on light, and the laws of electrolysis. He also invented the first, albeit primitive, electric motor, and the first transformer. He introduced the terms cathode, anode, ion, electrolyte, diamagnetism, dielectric, paramagnetism, etc. In 1824 he discovered the chemical elements benzene and isobutylene. Some historians consider Michael Faraday to be the best experimentalist in the history of science.
Thomas Alva Edison (1847–1931)
Thomas Alva Edison is an American inventor and businessman, founder of the prestigious scientific magazine Science. Considered one of the most prolific inventors of his time, with a record number of patents issued to his name - 1,093 in the United States and 1,239 in other countries. Among his inventions are the creation in 1879 of an electric incandescent lamp, a system for distributing electricity to consumers, a phonograph, improvements in the telegraph, telephone, film equipment, etc.
Marie Curie (1867–1934)
Marie Skłodowska-Curie - French physicist and chemist, teacher, public figure, pioneer in the field of radiology. The only woman to win a Nobel Prize in two different fields of science - physics and chemistry. The first woman professor to teach at the Sorbonne University. Her achievements include the development of the theory of radioactivity, methods for separating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two new chemical elements, radium and polonium. Marie Curie is one of the inventors who died from their inventions.
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)
Louis Pasteur - French chemist and biologist, one of the founders of microbiology and immunology. He discovered the microbiological essence of fermentation and many human diseases. Initiated a new department of chemistry - stereochemistry. Pasteur's most important achievement is considered to be his work on bacteriology and virology, which resulted in the creation of the first vaccines against rabies and anthrax. His name is widely known thanks to the pasteurization technology he created and later named after him. All of Pasteur's works became a striking example of the combination of fundamental and applied research in the fields of chemistry, anatomy and physics.
Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727)
Isaac Newton was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, historian, biblical scholar and alchemist. He is the discoverer of the laws of motion. Sir Isaac Newton discovered the law of universal gravitation, laid the foundations of classical mechanics, formulated the principle of conservation of momentum, laid the foundations of modern physical optics, built the first reflecting telescope and developed the theory of color, formulated the empirical law of heat transfer, constructed the theory of the speed of sound, proclaimed the theory of the origin of stars and many other mathematical and physical theories. Newton was also the first to describe the phenomenon of tides mathematically.
Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
Second place in the list of the greatest scientists in the history of the world is occupied by Albert Einstein - a German physicist of Jewish origin, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the twentieth century, the creator of the general and special theories of relativity, discovered the law of the relationship between mass and energy, as well as many other significant physical theories. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. Author of more than 300 scientific papers on physics and 150 books and articles in the field of history, philosophy, journalism, etc.
Nikola Tesla (1856–1943)
Two reports by authoritative analysts on the state of Russian science were published abroad. Their data was published by Thomson Reuters (by the way, the owners of the Web of Science portal, where all scientific publications are indexed) and the US National Science Foundation ( N.S.F.). Both reports are disappointing: despite the common opinion that the situation in Russian science (especially in the field of financing) has improved compared to the 90s, according to a number of key indicators the situation is getting worse.
NSF notes a steady decrease in the number of scientists in Russia: in 1995 there were about 600,000, and in 2007 - only about 450,000. In China, the number of scientists increases every year by almost 9%, and in Russia it decreases by 2%. The USA, EU, Japan and South Korea are increasing the number of scientific personnel moderately but steadily. If the current trend continues, then in 10 years the number of scientists in Russia and South Korea will be equal. Think about this figure: even without taking into account data on the country’s area and “cultural heritage,” it is amazing. The population of South Korea is more than three times smaller than the population of Russia.
Well, let us say, quantity does not always translate into quality. Perhaps a small number of scientists are able to work effectively and efficiently.
But even here Russia has nothing to boast about. According to a Thomson Reuters report, over the past five years, Russian scientists have published 127 thousand papers, which amounted to 2.6% of the global total. This is more than in Brazil (102 thousand works, or 2.1%), but less than in India (144 thousand, or 2.9%), and significantly less than in China (415 thousand works, or 8.4%). In addition, the trend in the number of publications is disappointing. “While other countries are increasing their scientific capabilities, Russia is struggling to maintain its current level and is even slipping back in areas in which it has historically been strong, such as physics and space exploration,” the report notes.
“For a long period, Russia has been the intellectual leader of Europe and one of the flagships of world science. Now the decline in its share in world science is not just surprising, but a real shock,”
— analysts of the British company are amazed. Even 20 years ago (perestroika was already in full swing), Russian scientists published more scientific articles than scientists from China, India and Brazil combined, and already in 2008 fewer articles appeared from Russia than from India or Brazil.
Foreigners see the main reason for the decline of Russian science in its insufficient funding. “The budgets of leading Russian institutions account for only 3-5% of the material support of similar institutions in the United States,” the report notes. The thesis about the “fat noughties” is completely refuted; for example, in 2010, funding for domestic science decreased by 7.5 billion rubles and fell below the 2009 level.
The main discovery of recent years, of course, is China. Over the past 30 years, China has increased the number of scientific results 64 times and by 2020 may overtake the United States in the number of publications. In this case, of course, one cannot resist commenting on the numerical characteristics of Chinese science. Many synthetic chemists, for example, seeing a reference to a working method from a Chinese article, are prepared in advance for failure - often the experience described cannot be repeated. One can only guess whether there is a deliberate falsification of facts or whether Chinese colleagues are hiding their working methods to protect their know-how. One way or another, this is an indicator of a low level of scientific ethics, which is unacceptable in the global scientific community. Unfortunately, the PRC is famous for this, which adds a fly in the ointment to the honeyed dynamics of development.
But let's return to Russia. One of the obvious shortcomings of our system should be considered the “ostrich policy” of scientific management and leadership. For example, in September last year, Russian scientists sent a letter to President Medvedev, which stated that “Russia has 5-7 years left for qualified scientists and teachers of the older generation to pass on their experience and knowledge to young people,” otherwise “about plans to build an innovative economy will have to be forgotten.”
However, representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences then stated that the authors of the letter were “overly dramatizing the situation.” This position was indirectly confirmed by the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Yuri Osipov. When asked by a Gazeta.Ru correspondent to comment on a letter written by prominent scientists (each of them has a very high citation index and H-index) about the state of Russian science, which was made public last week, Osipov said:
In this context, Thomson Reuters' thesis that Russia is a promising scientific partner sounds almost bitter. It seems that foreigners hope to spend the next 5-7 years saving Russian scientific heritage and experience for the world community, since Russia itself does not want to preserve this experience for itself. “For partners, the benefits of cooperation should be attractive, at least based on the historical role of Russia. However, potential partners must contribute resources to enable Russia to participate in research,” the report says.
Statistics of publications in scientific journals indeed show that Russian scientists work quite a lot in collaboration with foreign colleagues, especially for the authors of serious publications in highly cited journals. However, let’s not pretend – often these scientists are Russians only formally. Many of them have several “home ports” (institutes where they work), and the RAS institutes are not first on the list. Often, to contact such a “compatriot” and get a comment on an article, you have to call Paris or San Diego.
Russian affiliation is indicated “in case I suddenly return.”
In addition, this situation is also beneficial for fading Russian institutions: a “dead soul” actively working abroad makes it possible to report on grants and create the appearance of activity. This nature of “cooperation” is indirectly indicated by the fact that it is implemented mainly with two countries - the USA and Germany. Accordingly, the USA is generally the Mecca and Medina for scientific immigration, and Germany is the most popular among European countries in this sense.
However, if foreign analysts use quantitative characteristics to assess the effectiveness of scientists, the quality of which may be questioned, then in Russia there are simply no quantitative characteristics. Here, for example, are the principles for selecting young scientists for the Russian Presidential Prize, which will be awarded today (through the mouth of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Osipov).
“It is given for a significant contribution to the development of domestic science and innovation by young scientists and specialists. 111 independent specialists worked on the examination of the work. The best four works were determined by secret ballot. The competition even at the last stage was very high. It was very difficult to select these particular works. There was a lot of controversy and different opinions. As a result, world-class works were selected. We have accomplished scientists who are recognized not only in Russia, but also abroad.”
With all due respect to the award winners, it is difficult or impossible to assess their merits from this description. After a number of recent events and statements by high-ranking members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, it is very, very difficult to consider their examination independent. Managers simply don’t want to try to give numbers instead of beautiful words.
This is understandable. For example, the citation index of the journal “Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics” in Yekaterinburg, which the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences called, for 2008 is 0.315. Even taking into account that the average citation indices of mathematical journals are noticeably lower than, for example, physical or biological journals, this is a very low figure. There were simply no authors with foreign names in the 2009 issues. As they say, judge for yourself.
The effectiveness of science in a particular country is difficult to assess simply by reading news about the latest scientific discoveries. The Nobel Prize is given, as a rule, not for discoveries, but for the results of these discoveries. In the same way, it is not easy to understand how developed science is: what, for example, does the number of young researchers in the country indicate? Does the number of publications in international scientific journals determine the authority of national science? How can we interpret the amount of spending on science in the state? The National Research University Higher School of Economics and the Ministry of Education and Science published data on the dynamics of indicators of the development of science in Russia. The ITMO.N editors looked into the most interesting figures EWS.
Source: depositphotos.com
How much do the government and business spend on research?
In 2015, domestic spending on research and development in Russia amounted to 914.7 billion rubles, and the growth rate for the year (in constant prices) was 0.2%. As a percentage of GDP, this figure is 1.13%. According to this value, Russia ranks ninth in the world, as noted in the collection “Science Indicators”. At the same time, in terms of the share of spending on science in GDP, Russia lags significantly behind the leading countries of the world, occupying 34th place. The top five includes the Republic of Korea (4.29%), Israel (4.11%), Japan (3.59%), Finland (3.17%) and Sweden (3.16%).
What do these numbers mean? How much or little is spent on science in Russia, if we compare indicators with other countries? What factors need to be kept in mind in order to correctly assess the amount of a country’s spending on science?
« These values show, firstly, how intensively science is developing in the country on an absolute scale and, secondly, what place it occupies in the economy. GDP here acts as a denominator and allows us to normalize indicators, that is, we estimate what, relatively speaking, is the size of the research and development sector across the national economy. However, we are not comparing the economies of different countries, and it would be incorrect to say that a large economy will necessarily have a large research sector. It turns out that on an absolute scale we spend as much on science as the UK, but on the scale of the country’s economy this is quite a bit", commented the head of the department at the Institute for Statistical Research and Economics of Knowledge at the Higher School of Economics. Konstantin Fursov.
He added that, in addition to scale, it is important to understand the cost structure by funding sources. Almost everywhere in the world, except for countries with a highly centralized political system, business (the business sector) pays for science. This indicator characterizes the extent to which science is integrated into the economy of the civil sector. In Russia, the state mainly pays for science.
For comparison, in 1995 the state in Russia sponsored 67% of research; in 2014 this figure was 60%. The share of entrepreneurial investments remained approximately the same - about 27%. Over the period 2000–2015, the share of business as a source of funding for science decreased from 32.9 to 26.5%. At the same time, 64% of organizations engaged in research are publicly owned, and 21% are privately owned.
What kind of research is there more in the country?
The most ambitious in terms of costs are research in the field of transport and space systems (219.2 billion rubles), as noted in the “Science, Technology, Innovation” newsletter of the Higher School of Economics. This is more than a third (34.9%) of domestic spending on science. The direction “Energy efficiency, energy saving, nuclear energy” accounts for 13.7%, the direction “Information and telecommunication systems” - 11.9%. Such a rapidly developing area in the world as the Nanosystems Industry accumulates only 4.1% of costs.
At the same time, Russia can still be called a country of scientists and technicians. In 2005, the number of researchers employed in technical sciences was about 250 thousand people; in 2014, this figure fell by only 20 thousand. At the same time, there has been a 30-40% increase in scientists studying the humanities, but there are not many of them: no more than 13 thousand people. Three thousand more researchers devote their activities to medicine. There are quite a lot of people in Russia who study natural sciences—about 90 thousand.
As for scientific publications in journals, here too the statistics reflect the current situation: about 56% of materials are published in the natural and exact sciences, about 30% in technical sciences, and 7.7% in the field of medicine.
What does the publication activity of Russian scientists indicate?
In the period 2000–2014, Russian scientists published about 144,270 articles in journals indexed in the international Web of Science database. On average, each article was cited just over three times. In Australia, for example, the number of citations per publication was twice as high, but the number of publications was half as large. In Switzerland, there were half as many publications, but three times as many citations per article. Chinese scientists published six times more articles than Russian ones, but one Chinese article was cited only 1.5 times more than one Russian one. The situation is similar in Scopus journals, but one example can be given for comparison: Russian scientists published about 689 thousand articles there, each of which accounted for 6.5 citations. Danish scientists published 245 thousand materials there, but the number of citations per article is 25.
In this regard, questions arise. What really determines a country’s scientific potential on the world stage: the number of publications or the number of citations per publication?
« Indeed, the number of citations is more important. But not only per onearticle, but also the total citation of all articles of the state (otherwise a dwarf country may turn out to be the leader). Citation is a natural indicator, but it should not be the only one. The dominance of this indicator is already causing concern in the scientific world. Quotations are distributed according to the principle “you - me, I - you.” Russia really lags behind in terms of citations. There are several reasons. The first is the “subsidence” of Russian science for about 15 years since the beginning of the 90s. As a result, we now have a “severely thinned out” generation in science, the most productive generation for scientific results, at the age of 35-50 years. Nowadays there is a renaissance of science, but the potential is not quickly restored. The second is that citations are taken into account only by two main indexes (WoS, Scopus), in which there are very few Russian journals. Most of all they refer to their own people. Americans refer to Americans, ignoring the rest of the world, Europeans refer to Europeans and Americans, ignoring the East and Russia, etc. So here we are at a disadvantage. In addition, leading Russian journals are translated into English, and it is the translated versions that are included in the indexes (they are considered a separate publication), so if a reference is made not to the translated version, but to the main journal, then it is not taken into account. By the way, this is one of the main reasons why we have our own Russian magazine “Nanosystems: physics, chemistry, mathematics “ made it purely English, rather than creating a translated version“,” noted the head of the department of higher mathematics at ITMO University, editor of the journal “Nanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics” Igor Popov.
He also named other reasons why Russia lags behind other countries in the “citation race.” So, the problem is that citations are calculated in total, but they differ in different sciences. In Russia, mathematicians and programmers are traditionally strong, but in these areas the lists of references in articles are usually short (accordingly, the citation rate is low), but in biology and medicine, where Russian scientists are not currently leaders, the number of references is usually huge. At the same time, you cannot “get hung up” on citations. When the USSR launched a man into space, the country also lost to the United States in terms of citations, but there was no doubt about the potential of Soviet science in the world, added Igor Popov. Another expert agrees with him.
« In our opinion, the issue of assessing the influence of one or more scientists cannot be correctly resolved using one quantitative parameter (for example, the number of publications or citations). In such an assessment, it is necessary to use at least two quantitative parameters, taking into account the assessment period, scientific field, type of publications being compared, and others. In this case, it is advisable to combine quantitative assessment with expert", said a consultant for key information solutions at Elsevier S&T in Russia Andrey Loktev.
At the same time, HSE experts emphasize that in recent years there has also been a change in the trend: for a long time, the share of articles authored by Russian scientists in the Web of Science has been declining, reaching a minimum of 2.08% in 2013. However, in 2014−2015 the figure increased to 2.31%. But so far, the average annual growth rate of Russian publishing activity over a fifteen-year period is 2.3% and still lags significantly behind the global rate (5.6%). Scopus data is similar to Web of Science data.
Who does science in Russia
Gradually, the number of researchers employed in all public, private and university research centers (this means not only researchers, but also support staff) is increasing: in 2008 there were about 33,000 people, in 2014 - about 44,000 people. At the same time, the share of young researchers under 29 years of age is slowly increasing - by 3% since 2008, as well as the share of researchers under 39 years of age - by 7% since 2008. In turn, the average age of all researchers became two years higher - from 45 to 47 years.
« In my opinion, the average age of researchers is increasing because the influx of young scientists into science is objectively not so fast and in smaller volumes compared to the natural aging process. Young people tend to be more mobile, both geographically and professionally, especially in the rapidly changing world that we are experiencing now. The older generation is much less likely to change their professional path. Including these reasons, the current young generation, in principle, later decides on a professional vector. Also, let's not forget that people 24-29 years old are people born in 1988-1993. We all know well what our country was going through at that time. Therefore, when we talk about this age interval, we are talking about the consequences of the demographic hole of those years. People under 39 years of age (born in 1978 and later) were studying at school at the time of the collapse of the Union. Then the default of 1998: there wasn’t much of an opportunity to consciously define oneself professionally. And if you look at what was happening with science at the state level, I will assume that there were no incentives to do it“, - the head of the Department of Human Resource Management and Fundraising Activities of ITMO University outlined the situation Olga Kononova.
She added that the first non-classical university is actively taking measures to retain young scientists within the walls of their alma mater. Firstly, the material and technical base of laboratories is constantly updated so that researchers can implement their scientific projects. Secondly, the system of interaction between laboratories and the center is structured in such a way that it gives researchers a certain freedom of action and opportunities for self-realization. Thirdly, the university constantly attracts outstanding scientists from all over the world so that young researchers can learn from their experience, and working with the best is always interesting and motivating. In addition, the university allocates funds for advanced training and academic mobility of employees, and work with future research personnel begins with undergraduate studies.
Working with young scientists is extremely important, especially since the number of graduate students in Russia has increased significantly, the HSE report notes: in 1995 there were 11,300 graduates, and in 2015 there were already more than 26 thousand. At the same time, the number of young scientists with a PhD who successfully defended their dissertation has almost doubled. Thus, 20 years ago, 2.6 thousand people received a candidate of science degree, and in 2015 - more than 4.6 thousand. At the same time, young scientists are most interested in technical sciences, physics, and IT, and least of all in environmental management, architecture, nanotechnology and aerospace instrumentation and design.
“At present, we all realize,” wrote the German philosopher K. Jaspers, “that we are at a turning point in history. This is the age of technology with all its consequences, which, apparently, will leave nothing of everything that man has acquired over thousands of years in the field of work, life, thinking, and in the field of symbolism.”
Science and technology in the 20th century became the true locomotives of history. They gave it unprecedented dynamism and placed enormous power in the hands of man, which made it possible to sharply increase the scale of people's transformative activities.
Having radically changed his natural habitat, having mastered the entire surface of the Earth, the entire biosphere, man has created a “second nature” - artificial, which is no less significant for his life than the first.
Today, thanks to the huge scale of economic and cultural activities of people, integration processes are intensively carried out.
The interaction of different countries and peoples has become so significant that humanity in our time represents an integral system, the development of which implements a single historical process.
What is science that has led to such significant changes in all of our lives, in the entire appearance of modern civilization? Today she herself turns out to be an amazing phenomenon, radically different from the image of her that emerged in the last century. Modern science is called “big science”.
What are the main characteristics of “big science”? Dramatically increased number of scientists
Number of scientists in the world, people
The number of people involved in science increased most rapidly after the Second World War.
Doubling the number of scientists (50-70)
Such high rates have led to the fact that about 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on Earth are our contemporaries.
Growth of scientific information
In the 20th century, world scientific information doubled in 10-15 years. So, if in 1900 there were about 10 thousand scientific journals, now there are already several hundred thousand of them. Over 90% of all the most important scientific and technological achievements occurred in the 20th century.
This enormous growth of scientific information creates special difficulties for reaching the forefront of scientific development. A scientist today must make great efforts to keep abreast of the advances that are being made even in his narrow field of specialization. But he must also receive knowledge from related fields of science, information about the development of science in general, culture, politics, which is so necessary for him for a full life and work both as a scientist and as an ordinary person.
Changing the world of science
Science today covers a huge area of knowledge. It includes about 15 thousand disciplines, which are increasingly interacting with each other. Modern science gives us a holistic picture of the emergence and development of the Metagalaxy, the emergence of life on Earth and the main stages of its development, the emergence and development of man. She comprehends the laws of functioning of his psyche, penetrates the secrets of the unconscious, which plays a large role in people's behavior. Science today studies everything, even itself - how it arose, developed, how it interacted with other forms of culture, what influence it had on the material and spiritual life of society.
At the same time, scientists today do not at all believe that they have comprehended all the secrets of the universe.
In this regard, the following statement by the prominent modern French historian M. Blok about the state of historical science seems interesting: “This science, which is experiencing childhood, like all sciences whose subject is the human spirit, is a belated guest in the field of rational knowledge. Or, better to say: a narrative that has grown old, vegetated in embryonic form, for a long time overloaded with fiction, even longer chained to events that are most directly accessible as a serious analytical phenomenon, history is still very young.”
In the minds of modern scientists there is a clear idea of the enormous possibilities for the further development of science, a radical change, based on its achievements, in our ideas about the world and its transformation. Special hopes are placed here on the sciences of living things, man, and society. According to many scientists, achievements in these sciences and their widespread use in real practical life will largely determine the features of the 21st century.
Transformation of scientific activity into a special profession
Science until recently was a free activity of individual scientists, which was of little interest to businessmen and did not attract the attention of politicians at all. It was not a profession and was not specially funded in any way. Until the end of the 19th century. For the vast majority of scientists, scientific activity was not the main source of their material support. Typically, scientific research was carried out at universities at that time, and scientists supported their living by paying for their teaching work.
One of the first scientific laboratories was created by the German chemist J. Liebig in 1825. It brought him significant income. However, this was not typical for the 19th century. Thus, at the end of the last century, the famous French microbiologist and chemist L. Pasteur, when asked by Napoleon III why he did not make a profit from his discoveries, answered that French scientists considered it humiliating to earn money in this way.
Today, a scientist is a special profession. Millions of scientists work nowadays in special research institutes, laboratories, various commissions, and councils. In the 20th century The concept of “scientist” appeared. The norm has become the performance of the functions of a consultant or advisor, their participation in the development and adoption of decisions on a wide variety of issues in society.
“At present, we all realize,” wrote the German philosopher K. Jasners, “that we are at a turning point in history. This is the age of technology with all its consequences, which, apparently, will leave nothing of everything that man has acquired over thousands of years in the field of work, life, thinking, and in the field of symbolism.”
Science and technology in the 20th century became the true locomotives of history. They gave it unprecedented dynamism and placed enormous power in the power of man, which made it possible to sharply increase the scale of people's transformative activities.
Having radically changed his natural habitat, having mastered the entire surface of the earth, the entire biosphere, man has created a “second nature” - artificial, which is no less significant for his life than the first.
Today, thanks to the huge scale of economic and cultural activities of people, integration processes are intensively carried out.
The interaction of different countries and peoples has become so significant that humanity in our time represents an integral system, the development of which implements a single historical process.
1. FEATURES OF MODERN SCIENCE
What is science that has led to such significant changes in all of our lives, in the entire appearance of modern civilization? Today she herself turns out to be an amazing phenomenon, radically different from the image of her that emerged in the last century. Modern science is called “big science”.
What are the main characteristics of “big science”?
A sharp increase in the number of scientists.
Number of scientists in the world, people
At the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. about 1 thousand
In the middle of the last century, 10 thousand.
In 1900, 100 thousand.
End of the 20th century over 5 million
The number of people involved in science increased most rapidly after the Second World War.
Doubling the number of scientists (50-70s)
Europe in 15 years
USA in 10 years
USSR for 7 years
Such high rates have led to the fact that about 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on Earth are our contemporaries.
Growth of scientific information
In the 20th century, world scientific information doubled in 10-15 years. So, if in 1900 there were about 10 thousand scientific journals, now there are already several hundred thousand of them. Over 90% of all the most important scientific and technological achievements occurred in the 20th century.
This enormous growth of scientific information creates special difficulties for reaching the forefront of scientific development. A scientist today must make great efforts to keep abreast of the advances that are being made even in his narrow field of specialization. But he must also receive knowledge from related fields of science, information about the development of science in general, culture, politics, which is so necessary for him to live and work fully, both as a scientist and as an ordinary person.
Changing the world of science
Science today covers a huge area of knowledge. It includes about 15 thousand disciplines, which are increasingly interacting with each other. Modern science gives us a holistic picture of the emergence and development of the Metagalaxy, the emergence of life on Earth and the main stages of its development, the emergence and development of man. She comprehends the laws of functioning of his psyche, penetrates the secrets of the unconscious. which plays a big role in people's behavior. Science today studies everything, even itself - its emergence, development, interaction with other forms of culture, the influence it has on the material and spiritual life of society.
At the same time, scientists today do not at all believe that they have comprehended all the secrets of the universe.
In this regard, the following statement by the prominent modern French historian M. Bloch about the state of historical science seems interesting: “This science, which is experiencing childhood, like all sciences whose subject is the human spirit, is a belated guest in the field of rational knowledge. Or, better to say: a narrative that has grown old, vegetated in embryonic form, for a long time overloaded with fiction, even longer chained to events that are most directly accessible as a serious analytical phenomenon, history is still very young.”
In the minds of modern scientists there is a clear idea of the enormous possibilities for the further development of science, a radical change, based on its achievements, in our ideas about the world and its transformation. Special hopes are placed here on the sciences of living things, man, and society. According to many scientists, achievements in these sciences and their widespread use in real practical life will largely determine the features of the 21st century.
Transformation of scientific activity into a special profession
Science until recently was a free activity of individual scientists, which was of little interest to businessmen and did not attract the attention of politicians at all. It was not a profession and was not specially funded in any way. Until the end of the 19th century. For the vast majority of scientists, scientific activity was not the main source of their material support. Typically, scientific research was carried out at universities at that time, and scientists supported their living by paying for their teaching work.
One of the first scientific laboratories was created by the German chemist J. Liebig in 1825. It brought him significant income. However, this was not typical for the 19th century. Thus, at the end of the last century, the famous French microbiologist and chemist L. Pasteur, when asked by Napoleon III why he did not make a profit from his discoveries, answered that French scientists considered it humiliating to earn money in this way.
Today, a scientist is a special profession. Millions of scientists nowadays work in special research institutes, laboratories, various commissions, and councils. In the 20th century The concept of “scientist” appeared. The norm has become the performance of the functions of a consultant or adviser, their participation in the development and adoption of decisions on a wide variety of issues in society.
2. SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
Science is now a priority direction in the activities of the state.
In many countries, special government departments deal with the problems of its development; even presidents of states pay special attention to them. In developed countries, 2-3% of the total gross national product is currently spent on science. Moreover, funding applies not only to applied, but also to fundamental research. And it is carried out both by individual enterprises and by the state.
The attention of the authorities to fundamental research began to increase sharply after A. Einstein informed D. Roosevelt on August 2, 1939 that physicists had identified a new source of energy, which made it possible to create an atomic bomb. The success of the Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of the atomic bomb, and then the launch of the first Sputnik by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, were of great importance in realizing the need and importance of public policy in the field of science.
Science can't get by today
without the help of society or the state.
Science nowadays is an expensive pleasure. It requires not only the training of scientific personnel, remuneration of scientists, but also the provision of scientific research with instruments, installations, and materials. information. In modern conditions, this is a lot of money. Thus, just the construction of a modern synchrophasotron, necessary for research in the field of elementary particle physics, requires several billion dollars. And how many billions of these are needed to implement space exploration programs!
Science today is experiencing enormous
pressure from society.
In our time, science has become a direct productive force, the most important factor in the cultural development of people, and an instrument of politics. At the same time, its dependence on society has sharply increased.
As P. Kapitsa said, science became rich, but lost its freedom and turned into a slave.
Commercial benefits and the interests of politicians significantly influence priorities in the field of scientific and technological research today. He who pays calls the tune.
A striking evidence of this is that about 40% of scientists are currently in one way or another connected with solving problems related to the military departments.
But society influences not only the choice of the most relevant problems for research. In certain situations, it encroaches on the choice of research methods, and even on the assessment of the results obtained. Classic examples of science policy are provided by the history of totalitarian states.
Fascist Germany
A political campaign for Aryan science was launched here. As a result, people devoted to Nazism and incompetent people came to lead science. Many leading scientists were persecuted.
Among them was, for example, the great physicist A. Einstein. His photograph was included in an album published by the Nazis in 1933, in which opponents of Nazism were presented. “Not yet hanged” was the comment that accompanied his image. A. Einstein's books were publicly burned in Berlin on the square in front of the State Opera. Scientists were forbidden to develop the ideas of A. Einstein, which represented the most important direction in theoretical physics.
In our country, as is known, thanks to the intervention of politicians in science, on the one hand, they stimulated, for example, space exploration and research related to the use of atomic energy. and on the other hand, T. Lysenko’s anti-scientific position in genetics and speeches against cybernetics were actively supported. Ideological dogmas introduced by the CPSU and the state deformed the sciences of culture. man, society, virtually eliminating the possibilities for their creative development.
From the life of A. Einstein
The fate of A. Einstein testifies to how difficult it is for a scientist to live, even in a modern democratic state. One of the most remarkable scientists of all time, a great humanist, having already become famous at the age of 25, he had enormous authority not only as a physicist, but also as a person capable of giving a deep assessment of the events taking place in the world. Having lived for the last decades in the quiet American city of Princeton, engaged in theoretical research, A. Einstein passed away in a state of tragic break with society. In his will, he asked not to perform religious rites during the funeral and not to arrange any official ceremonies. At his request, the time and place of his funeral were not announced. Even the passing of this man sounded like a powerful moral challenge, a reproach to our values and standards of behavior.
Will scientists ever be able to achieve complete freedom of research?
It's difficult to answer this question. For now, the situation is that the more important scientific achievements become for society, the more dependent scientists become on it. This is evidenced by the experience of the 20th century.
One of the most important problems of modern science is the question of the responsibility of scientists to society.
It became most acute after the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. How responsible are scientists for the consequences of using their ideas and technical developments? To what extent are they involved in the numerous and varied negative consequences of the use of scientific and technological advances in the 20th century? After all, the mass extermination of people in wars, and the destruction of nature, and even the spread of low-grade culture would not have been possible without the use of modern science and technology.
This is how former US Secretary of State D. Acheson describes the meeting between R. Oppenheimer, who headed in 1939-1945. work to create an atomic bomb, and US President G. Truman, which took place after the atomic bombing of Japanese cities. “Once,” recalls D. Acheson, “I accompanied Oppy (Oppenheimer) to Truman. Oppy was wringing his fingers, saying, “I have blood on my hands.” Truman later told me, “Don’t bring that fool to me again. He didn't drop the bomb. I dropped the bomb. This kind of tearfulness makes me sick.”
Maybe G. Truman was right? The job of a scientist is to solve the problems that society and the authorities set for him. And the rest should not concern him.
Probably many government officials would support such a position. But it is unacceptable for scientists. They do not want to be puppets, meekly carrying out the will of others, and are actively involved in political life.
Excellent examples of such behavior were demonstrated by outstanding scientists of our time A. Einstein, B. Russell, F. Joliot-Curie, A. Sakharov. Their active struggle for peace and democracy was based on the clear understanding that the use of scientific and technological achievements for the benefit of all people is possible only in a healthy, democratic society.
A scientist cannot live outside of politics. But should he strive to become president?
Probably, the French historian of science, philosopher J. Salomon was right when he wrote that O. Copt “is not the first of the philosophers who believed that the day would come when power would belong to scientists, but he, of course, was the last who had reason to believe in it". The point is not that in the most intense political struggle scientists will not be able to withstand competition. We know that there are many cases when they receive the highest powers in government agencies, including in our country.
Something else is important here.
It is necessary to build a society in which there would be a need and opportunity to rely on science and take into account the opinions of scientists when solving all issues.
This problem is much more difficult to solve than forming a government of doctors of science.
Everyone must do their job. But being a politician requires special professional training, which is by no means limited to acquiring scientific thinking skills. Another thing is the active participation of scientists in the life of society, their influence on the development and adoption of political decisions. A scientist must remain a scientist. And this is his highest purpose. Why should he fight for power?
“Is the mind healthy if the crown beckons!” –
exclaimed one of Euripides' heroes.
Let us remember that A. Einstein refused the offer to nominate him as a candidate for the post of President of Israel. The vast majority of real scientists would probably do the same.