Tulokhonov Arnold Kirillovich Federation Council. Arnold Tulokhonov left the Federation Council: “I'm not Obama, I can't say a farewell speech. The richest people should live in the richest land
Tulokhonov Arnold Kirillovich - heads the branch of the Russian Geographical Society in the Republic of Buryatia from 1998 to the present. Specialist in the field of geoecology. Scientific director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Geography, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia, Honorary Citizen of Ulan-Ude, Member of the Supervisory Board of the Foundation for Assistance to the Preservation of Lake Baikal.
Graduated with honors from the Faculty of Geography of the State Irkutsk University with a degree in geographer-geomorphologist.
In 1975, in connection with the construction of the Baikal-Amur Mainline, he was invited to the Geological Institute of the Buryat Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Three years later, he became the scientific secretary of the Siberia program of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The main result of the program was the development of the Ozerninsky ore cluster and a number of effective measures to develop the productive forces of Buryatia.
In 1985 he defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic "Geomorphological analysis and development of the relief of intracontinental orogens."
In 1988 he became deputy chairman of the presidium of the Buryat Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Nature Management Problems, which three years later, on his initiative, was transformed into the Baikal United Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Chita Institute of Natural Resources of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Department of Chemistry of the Buryat Institute of Natural Sciences were included as structural subdivisions.
Within the framework of the joint institute, systematic research in the field of sustainable development of the Baikal region was launched for the first time, supported by Academician V.A. Koptyug.
Under the scientific guidance of A.K. Tulokhonov, two federal target programs for the protection of Lake Baikal and the rational use of the natural resources of its basin (1994 and 2001) were developed and approved, as well as by-laws to the law of the Russian Federation “On the protection of Lake Baikal”. Baikal".
A new stage in the scientific activity of Arnold Kirillovich is research on the reconstruction of the paleoclimate and the development of ecological tourism, the development of relevant geopolitical approaches to the implementation and examination of large investment projects in Asian Russia. One of the important areas of this work is the environmental and economic cooperation programs with China, Korea and Mongolia.
He is the organizer of the creation of the Association of Academic Geographical Organizations of North Asia. The main objective of the association is to develop scientific recommendations on environmental protection and rational use of natural resources in the territories of the countries that are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Develops a completely new scientific direction for the comparative study of the deltas of the world's largest rivers, as natural biofilters and indicators of changes in natural and anthropogenic impacts.
He is the initiator of holding in Ulan-Ude, together with the NATO Scientific Committee, major international conferences “Baikal as a world model area for sustainable development” and “Baikal as a World Natural Heritage Site”, as well as numerous events through the Global Environment Facility, UNESCO, the Living Lakes Foundation ”, UNEP.
In 2007, he organized a new specialty "Nature management" at the Buryat State University on the basis of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Deputy editor-in-chief and member of the editorial board of the journals Geography and Natural Resources, Region: Sociology and Economics. On his initiative, since 2004, a subscription popular science magazine "The World of Baikal" has been published. He is the author of more than 300 scientific papers.
For more than twenty years, he has been leading research on the restoration of traditional nomadic animal husbandry in the cryo-arid regions of North Asia. The practical implementation of these works was the creation of the first scientific and experimental farm in Russia to preserve the gene pool of native animals "Baikalekoprodukt".
For achievements in scientific, scientific, organizational and social activities, he was awarded numerous awards, including the Order of Honor, the title of Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, the State Prize of the Republic of Buryatia, etc.
The history of chess has at least one and a half thousand years. Invented in India in the 5th-6th centuries, chess has spread throughout the world, becoming an integral part of human culture. There is an ancient legend that attributes the creation of chess to a certain Brahmin. For his invention, he asked the raja for an insignificant, at first glance, reward: as many wheat grains as there would be on a chessboard if one grain was placed on the first cell, two grains on the second, four grains on the third, etc. It turned out , that there is no such amount of grain on the entire planet (it is equal to 264 − 1 ≈ 1.845 × 1019 grains, which is enough to fill the storage with a volume of 180 km³). So it was, or not quite, hard to say, but, one way or another, India is the birthplace of chess. Not later than the beginning of the 6th century, the first game known to us related to chess appeared in northwestern India - chaturanga. It already had a completely recognizable “chess” look, but fundamentally differed from modern chess in two features: there were four players, not two (they played a pair against a pair), and the moves were made in accordance with the results of throwing dice. Each player had four pieces (chariot (rook), knight, bishop, king) and four pawns. The knight and king moved in the same way as in chess, the chariot and bishop were much weaker than the current chess rook and bishop. There was no queen at all. To win the game, it was necessary to destroy the entire army of opponents. The transformation of chess into an international sport Since the 16th century, chess clubs began to appear, where amateurs and semi-professionals gathered, often playing for a cash bet. Over the next two centuries, the spread of chess led to the emergence of national tournaments in most European countries. There are chess publications, at first sporadic and irregular, but over time gaining more and more popularity. The first chess magazine Palamede was published in 1836 by the French chess player Louis Charles Labourdonnet. In 1837 a chess magazine appeared in Great Britain, and in 1846 in Germany. In the 19th century, international matches (since 1821) and tournaments (since 1851) began to be held. The first such tournament, held in London in 1851, was won by Adolf Andersen. It was he who became the unofficial "chess king", that is, the one who was considered the strongest chess player in the world. Subsequently, this title was challenged by Paul Morphy (USA), who won the match in 1858 with a score of + 7-2 = 2, however, after Morphy left the chess scene in 1859, Andersen again became the first, and only in 1866 Wilhelm Steinitz won the match against Andersen with a score of + 8- 6 and became the new "Uncrowned King". The first world chess champion who officially held this title was the same Wilhelm Steinitz, who defeated Johann Zuckertort in the first match in history, in the agreement on which the expression "world championship match" appeared. Thus, a system of succession of the title was formed on a whim basis: the one who won the match against the previous one became the new world champion, while the current champion reserved the right to agree to the match or reject the opponent, and also determined the conditions and venue of the match. The only mechanism capable of forcing the champion to play with a challenger was public opinion: if a strong, admittedly, chess player could not win the right to a match with the champion for a long time, this was considered as a sign of the champion’s cowardice, and he, saving face, found himself forced to accept the challenge. Typically, the match agreement provided for the champion's right to a rematch if they lost; victory in such a match returned the title to the previous owner. In the second half of the 19th century, time control began to be used in chess tournaments. At first, an ordinary hourglass was used for this (the time per move was limited), which was rather inconvenient, but soon the English amateur chess player Thomas Bright Wilson (TBWilson) invented special chess clocks that made it possible to conveniently implement a time limit for the entire game or for a certain number of moves . Time control quickly entered into chess practice and soon began to be used everywhere. By the end of the 19th century, official tournaments and matches without time control were practically non-existent. Simultaneously with the advent of time control, the concept of "time pressure" appeared. Thanks to the introduction of time control, special forms of chess tournaments with a greatly reduced time limit arose: "quick chess" with a limit of about 30 minutes per game for each player and "blitz" - 5-10 minutes. However, they became widespread much later. Chess in the 20th century At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, the development of chess in Europe and America was very active, chess organizations grew larger, more and more international tournaments were held. In 1924, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) was created, initially organizing the World Chess Olympiads. Until 1948, the system of succession to the title of world champion that had developed in the 19th century was preserved: the challenger challenged the champion to a match, the winner of which became the new champion. Until 1921, Emanuel Lasker remained the champion (the second, after Steinitz, the official world champion, who won this title in 1894), from 1921 to 1927 - Jose Raul Capablanca, from 1927 to 1946 - Alexander Alekhine (in 1935, Alekhin lost the world championship match to Max Euwe, but In 1937 he regained the title in a rematch and held it until his death in 1946). After the death in 1946 of Alekhine, who remained undefeated, FIDE took over the organization of the world championship. The first official world chess championship was held in 1948, the Soviet grandmaster Mikhail Botvinnik became the winner. FIDE introduced a system of tournaments for winning the title of champion: the winners of the qualifying stages advanced to the zonal tournaments, the winners of the zonal competitions advanced to the interzonal tournament, and the winners of the best results in the latter took part in the candidate tournament, where the winner was determined in a series of knockout games, who had to play the match against the reigning champion. The formula for the title match has changed several times. Now the winners of zonal tournaments participate in a single tournament with the best (by rating) players in the world; the winner becomes the world champion. The Soviet chess school played a huge role in the history of chess, especially in the second half of the 20th century. The wide popularity of chess, active, purposeful teaching of it and the identification of capable players from childhood (there was a chess section, a children's chess school in any city in the USSR, there were chess clubs at educational institutions, enterprises and organizations, tournaments were constantly held, a large amount of special literature was published) contributed to the high level of play of Soviet chess players. Attention to chess was shown at the highest level. The result was that from the end of the 1940s until the collapse of the USSR, Soviet chess players almost completely dominated world chess. Of the 21 chess Olympiads that took place from 1950 to 1990, the USSR team won 18 and became a silver medalist in one more, 11 of the 14 chess Olympiads for women were won during the same period and 2 "silver" were taken. Of the 18 draws for the title of world champion among men in 40 years, only once a non-Soviet chess player became the winner (it was the American Robert Fischer), and twice more the contender for the title was not from the USSR (moreover, the contender also represented the Soviet chess school, it was Viktor Korchnoi, fled from the USSR to the West). In 1993, Garry Kasparov, who was then world champion, and Nigel Short, who became the winner of the qualifying round, refused to play another match for the world championship under the auspices of FIDE, accusing the federation leadership of unprofessionalism and corruption. Kasparov and Short formed a new organization, the PCA, and played a match under its auspices. There was a split in the chess movement. FIDE stripped Kasparov of his title, and Anatoly Karpov and Jan Timman competed for the title of FIDE world champion, who at that time had the highest chess rating after Kasparov and Short. At the same time, Kasparov continued to consider himself a "real" world champion, since he defended the title in a match with a legitimate contender - Short, and part of the chess community was in solidarity with him. In 1996, the PCHA ceased to exist as a result of the loss of a sponsor, after which the champions of the PCA began to be called the "world champion in classical chess." In fact, Kasparov revived the old title transfer system, when the champion himself accepted the challenge of the challenger and played a match with him. The next "classic" champion was Vladimir Kramnik, who won a match against Kasparov in 2000 and defended the title in a match with Peter Leko in 2004. Until 1998, FIDE continued to play the title of champion in the traditional order (Anatoly Karpov remained FIDE champion during this period), but from 1999 to In 2004, the format of the championship changed dramatically: instead of a match between the challenger and the champion, the title was played in a knockout tournament, in which the current champion had to participate on a common basis. As a result, the title constantly changed hands and five champions changed in six years. In general, in the 1990s, FIDE made a number of attempts to make chess competitions more dynamic and interesting, and therefore more attractive to potential sponsors. First of all, this was expressed in the transition in a number of competitions from the Swiss or round robin system to the knockout system (in each round there is a match of three knockout games). Since the knockout system requires an unequivocal outcome of the round, additional games in rapid chess and even blitz games have appeared in the tournament regulations: if the main series of games with the usual time control ends in a draw, an additional game is played with a shortened time control. Sophisticated time control schemes began to be used to protect against hard time pressure, in particular, the "Fischer clock" - time control with an addition after each move. The last decade of the 20th century in chess was marked by another important event - computer chess reached a high enough level to surpass a human chess player. In 1996, Garry Kasparov lost a game to a computer for the first time, and in 1997, he also lost a match to Deep Blue by a one-point margin. An avalanche-like increase in the performance and memory capacity of computers, combined with the improvement of algorithms, led to the fact that by the beginning of the 21st century, public programs appeared that could play at the level of grandmasters in real time. The ability to connect to them pre-accumulated bases of openings and tables of small-figure endings further increases the power of the machine's play, completely relieves it of the danger of making a mistake in a known position. Now the computer can effectively prompt a human chess player even at the highest level competitions. This resulted in changes in the format of high-level competitions: tournaments began to use special measures to protect against computer prompts, in addition, they completely abandoned the practice of postponing games. The time allotted for a game has also been reduced: if in the middle of the 20th century the norm was 2.5 hours for 40 moves, then by the end of the century it decreased to 2 hours (in other cases, even up to 100 minutes) for 40 moves. Current state and prospects After the unification match Kramnik - Topalov in 2006, FIDE's monopoly on holding the world championship and awarding the title of world chess champion was restored. The first "unified" world champion was Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), who won this match. Until 2013, the world champion was Viswanathan Anand, who won the 2007 world championship. In 2008, a rematch between Anand and Kramnik took place, Anand retained his title. In 2010, another match was held, in which Anand and Veselin Topalov took part; Anand again defended the title of champion. In 2012, a match was held in which Anand and Gelfand took part; Anand defended the champion's title in a tie-break. In 2013, Anand lost the title of world champion to Magnus Carlsen, who won the match ahead of schedule with a score of 6½:3½. The championship formula is being adjusted by FIDE. In the last championship, the title was played in a tournament involving the champion, four winners of the challenger tournament and three personally selected players with the highest rating. However, FIDE has also retained the tradition of holding personal matches between a champion and a challenger: according to the existing rules, a grandmaster with a rating of 2700 or higher has the right to challenge the champion to a match (the champion cannot refuse), provided that funding is secured and deadlines are met: the match must end no later than six months before start of the next World Cup. The progress of computer chess mentioned above has become one of the reasons for the growing popularity of non-classical chess variants. Since 2000, Fischer chess tournaments have been held in which the initial arrangement of pieces is chosen randomly from 960 options before the game. Under such conditions, the huge array of opening variations accumulated by chess theory becomes useless, which, according to many, has a positive effect on the creative component of the game, and when playing against a machine, it significantly limits the advantage of the computer in the opening stage of the game.
Doctor of Geography, professor. Member of the expert council of the national award "Crystal Compass".
|
|||||||
| Predecessor | Vitaly Borisovich Malkin | ||||||
| Successor | Tatyana Evgenievna Mantatova | ||||||
| Birth |
September 3(1949-09-03
)
(69 years old) Zakuley village, Nukut region, Ust-Orda Buryat-Mongolian National District, Irkutsk region , RSFSR, USSR |
||||||
| The consignment |
|
||||||
| Education | Irkutsk State University | ||||||
| Academic degree | Doctor of Geography () | ||||||
| Academic title | Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences () | ||||||
| Activity | geoecology | ||||||
| Awards | |||||||
| Website | binm.ru | ||||||
| Scientific activity | |||||||
| Scientific sphere | geoecology, geographer | ||||||
| Place of work | Baikal Institute of Nature Management SB RAS | ||||||
| Media files at Wikimedia Commons | |||||||
In 2001-2013 - Director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2013-2017 - Member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from the Government of the Republic of Buryatia. Deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia IV and V convocations.
Biography
For three years, he completed a large amount of contractual work commissioned by the Baleizoloto plant and put on the balance sheet more than 10 alluvial gold deposits with a total reserve of over 2 tons of metal. The results of these studies formed the basis of the candidate's dissertation "The main stages of the development of the relief of the Shilka middle mountains and the assessment of placer gold content", which A. K. Tulokhonov defended in 1976 at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics.
On his initiative, in 1977, the Small Academy of Sciences was established in Ulan-Ude, which is still operating today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat ASSR was organized. In 1986-1988 - Head of the Department of Science of the Buryat Regional Committee of the CPSU. In 1988, A. K. Tulokhonov was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Buryat Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Nature Management Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Today it is the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences - the only institute in the system of academic science where natural resource research is inextricably linked with the development of environmentally friendly technologies and the economics of nature management.
Since 1996 - member of the Academy of the Northern Forum (Finland), member of the International Association of Academies of Sciences (MAAN) of the CIS; since 1998 - full member of the Russian Ecological Academy; since 2000 - full member of the Academy of Mining Sciences. He was a member of the editorial board of the journal Region: Sociology and Economics (2000-2004). In 2004, he became the initiator of the creation and chairman of the scientific council of the journal "World of Baikal".
Member of the Academic Council of the Russian Geographical Society (since 2005). In 2008-2010, he was a member of the Coordinating Council of the Corporation for the Development of Transbaikalia, executive editor of the encyclopedic reference book Baikal: Nature and People, scientific organizer of the International Expedition Worlds on Baikal using deep-sea manned submersibles Mir-1 and "Mir-2", hydronaut "Baikal-2008".
2016 has been declared a decisive year in the implementation of reforms in Russian science. However, the majority of academicians assess the results of the reform as unsatisfactory. What is the reason for such a sharp assessment,Arnold Tulokhonov , member of the Federation Council, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, asked, host of the Hamburg Account program on the Public Television of Russia.
was born in 1949 in the village of Zakuley, Irkutsk Region. In 1971 he graduated from the Faculty of Geography of the Irkutsk State University. He began working as a junior researcher at the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry. In 1976 he defended his Ph.D. thesis at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1988 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences. In 1988, Arnold Tulokhonov was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Nature Management Problems, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2003 he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 2013, a member of the Federation Council from the executive body of state power of the Republic of Buryatia.
- Arnold Kirillovich, you have already entered the history of the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since you were the only member of the Federation Council who publicly opposed the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the form in which it was proposed. Tell us what made you react so strongly to these changes.
— I am still the only member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Federation Council. And, probably, I understand better than others what follows the reforms that are taking place today. Therefore, a deep knowledge of this issue allowed me not only to vote against, but to speak out and explain why this should not be done. But, unfortunately, this success was temporary.
- We have few members of the Academy among the members of the Federation Council ...
- The question, probably, is not in this. The question is that in our country, in general, today science is treated as a second-class category. Unfortunately it is so.
— Now the results of the next stage of the reform of Russian science are being summed up. What would you note as the main results, the most important events? Where are we now?
“First of all, we stirred up the society. Maybe even the state. This is the main result. If we talk about the details ... We got results that are exactly the opposite of what this reform wanted. In general, I am a deep pessimist by nature. And now I see that today there is no body in the state that is responsible for the development of the Academy of Sciences. FANO is responsible for property, the money is in the Russian Science Foundation, and the Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for university science. And if you ask what the state of academic science is now, we have no one to simply answer. We see that the bureaucracy has grown. 40% of young researchers of the Siberian Branch, according to opinion polls, are ready to go abroad. The entire Academy of Sciences has grown old by three years. Today, as a result of the merger of the three academies, there are academicians who do not have publications.
- Do not have scientific publications at all?
- Yes. First of all, we are talking about the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Did we achieve this? Probably not. So I pose the question again. Before it's too late, let's get back to the results of this reform. Unfortunately, the reform of housing and communal services, the reform of the police, the reform of education, the reform of health care received exactly the same results. Today I cannot explain why this is so, but the government, of course, the Academy of Sciences and the Federal Assembly, should probably think about this first of all. I recently spoke on this topic at a plenary session of the Federation Council.
- You wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin. And they sent the same letter to Valentina Matvienko, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Sergei Evgenievich Naryshkin. This letter speaks of the destruction of science in Siberia. What exactly do you mean by this? What processes cause you such anxiety?
There are two specific examples. The first is that since April 1, 11 specialized institutes have disappeared in the Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center: the Institute of Forestry and Timber, the Academician Kerensky Institute (this is a world institute), the Institute of Chemistry and Technology, the Institute of Biophysics, which develops closed space biological systems ... They are combined with the Institutes of Medical direction and agricultural profile. I think that this is already a certain lower limit that can be reached in the process of these reforms.
And the second: FASO has gathered 15 directors of academic institutions of the Irkutsk region for the purpose of merging. And there is exactly the same situation - the Institute of Animal Husbandry, the Institute of Traumatology are merging with the Institute of Geography, the Institute of Geology and other academic institutions.
I think that even in a sick imagination it is difficult to imagine anything like this, but today, unfortunately, this is happening. And naturally, as a member of the Federation Council, as a member of the Academy of Sciences, I openly expressed my indignation and asked our state leaders to intervene, because Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin said in his address to the Federal Assembly: Russia's national priority in the 21st century is the accelerated development of the eastern regions. But how can the eastern regions be developed without the development of academic science?
You just need to remember history. When we had crises of the civil war, Lenin invited Krzhizhanovsky and asked him to develop a GOELRO plan, which was implemented in 10 years. Further, we are no longer talking about the atomic project, space successes. We are talking about the fact that in 1957, when the task of developing the natural resources of Siberia arose again, the not very literate Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev created the Novosibirsk Academic City in the remote taiga, created the system of the Siberian branch. And as a result, the largest oil and gas fields appeared in Western Siberia, the world's most powerful collider on colliding beams was built in Novosibirsk, and the scientific substantiation of the Baikal-Amur Mainline was completed. This is the contribution of academic science to the solution of Eastern problems.
Unlike the recent past, we no longer have a Gulag, no Komsomol, patriotism has remained only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents again took up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show the way out of these crisis situations. I think that the moment has come when it is necessary to give scientists a state order, to tell them what to do next. Instead, we are solving the opposite problem.
- The head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations Mikhail Kotyukov visited this studio. And when asked about the merger and reorganization of institutions, he answered that they occur on a voluntary basis. Do you remember, there was such a wording in the Soviet years - "at the request of the working people"?
- Absolutely right. There is another side. In the same place, the question remains behind the scenes: if you do not unite, then we will reduce you. Naturally, people understand that there is no other job, because a scientist is a scientist. He can't work on the machine. Therefore, many voluntarily-compulsorily go for it. But I, as a person in control of the situation, working within these teams, can frankly say that not a single team in the established scientific divisions of the structure will voluntarily agree to this.
- In addition to being a member of the Federation Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences, you are the scientific director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management. Please tell us how the reform of science affected your institute. How did you and your colleagues feel?
There are two things that are hidden there. First, the directors of institutes are forced, according to the May decrees of the president, to raise salaries twice as high as the regional ones. At the same time, the budget component is reduced by 10%. That is, the director of the institute must "get" the money and fulfill this indicator, which allows the institute to exist.
- And what is happening?
- A minority of institutions raise money, and a lot of it. And the director of the institute redistributes them within the institute so that this “curve” goes up. Two questions arise: why should the director raise salaries when the budget is cut? Second: a group of, so to speak, "freeloaders" appears within the team, who, without working, begin to receive this salary. Moreover, quarrels and squabbles begin within the team. This is exactly the same as it was in the health care reform, when some doctors receive money, while others do not. And the team begins to break this system of unequal relations. And in general, it seems like a good idea. But then let's give a decent salary, and we will determine it according to the criteria that are set. But if the state does not give a salary, then I, the director of the institute, must, instead of buying a device, look for money for a salary. Therefore, these two points are of fundamental importance. And they are not visible from the outside.
- Not so long ago, the General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences was held. And at this meeting there were very harsh speeches and very harsh assessments of the results of the reform of Russian science. And many speakers referred to the speech of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, to his formula that as a result of the reform, not the Academy should be for FASO, but FASO for the Academy. And therefore, there were proposals to make FANO a manager of affairs within the Russian Academy, to make it, as it were, a department inside, that is, to actually reverse the reform. Do you think the Academy has enough strength to actually lobby for the return of the law?
- I think that the Academy does not have enough of these forces. This I frankly see. But I think both sides are wrong. The question is on a completely different plane. The Academy of Sciences is not needed by FASO. The State needs the Academy of Sciences in order to get out of this crisis today. This is the main motive that today we are trying to “break through” in all government bodies. But, unfortunately, they do not understand this. And why? Because our state today does not see a long-range policy. The state does not have such an order as an atomic project, a space project, BAM, the development of the Arctic. Today this order is not available. Therefore, when there is no order, the Academy of Sciences also begins to solve its particular tasks. And this point needs to be emphasized today. The state stands at a very dangerous line. I repeat once again: without the Academy of Sciences, without academic research, let alone foreign geopolitics, we have no way out. And this is the highlight of today.
- Arnold Kirillovich, and when you try to discuss this with your colleagues in the Federation Council who are not connected with science, do you see support from them? Are you able to convey it somehow? Or is it your, as they say, personal pain?
- Not. I think most people understand. And when I voted against the law on limiting the age, I was supported by a significant number of my senators who see that science today should be different, it should be in demand. I am a member of the International Relations Committee, and today I am very worried about what is happening in our country's east. We understand that the western borders are closed to us. But we have three states in the east: Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, which we hardly talk about. 7000 km border with Kazakhstan. And what will happen if Nazarbayev leaves, what will be the policy? This should worry us. There is a 3,000 km border with Mongolia and 4,000 km with China. Today, the main wealth there is people. There are about 20 million people left. Do you understand what a small fraction of the whole country is? We need to save them.
“People are leaving Southern Siberia and the eastern territories…
— The entire Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District are in a negative population balance.
Why are people leaving?
“Because they don’t see prospects, they don’t see attention. I think that the desire to give everyone a hectare of land is a mockery of people. When Stolypin mastered Siberia, the Far Eastern frontiers, he said something completely different: here is money for you, here are tools for you, here is land for you, here is forest for you. But the most important thing that the governor has to say is that we, the state, provide you with sales. Close to China, Korea. You work, produce, pray to God, just do not drink vodka, and we will provide you with sales. Producing is not a problem. The most important thing is sales. But there are no people on our distant borders, there is no point of sale.
- Good. You say that people are leaving Siberia. Could you give some specific examples related specifically to science, to young scientists? What happens in your institute, for example, with young people? What dynamics do you see? Why are people leaving?
“People go into business, go where there is money. And education doesn't matter anymore. Because b about most of them have already left. Why has the departure curve decreased? Because the right people, rich in knowledge, left. And today the rest are leaving. There are specific examples.
The Institute of Nuclear Physics is the largest institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, with about three thousand employees. During the years of these reforms, 300 people left. You can imagine - from one institute. Moreover, there are alumni associations at Novosibirsk University - they have about three thousand people who work abroad.
— Yes, the Novosibirsk diaspora.
- Yes. It is made up of alumni. But why did we prepare these graduates? They invested a lot of money, a lot of knowledge. Where are the results? And today we are facing a fact: the departure of every graduate of the Physicotechnical Institute, Moscow State University, St. Petersburg University is an economic disaster for the country.
- Let's then determine what can be changed in the field of state policy in relation to science. How to fix the current situation?
— The main condition for the development of science and the usefulness of science is its independence. It makes no sense to evaluate such a target indicator as salary. If an institute receives a large salary, this does not mean that it is effective. We are not going that way. We argue all the time that there is nuclear physics, mathematics, fundamental sciences. But we must understand that for such a huge country as Russia, there is another science - spatial economics. And today, more than ever, we must worry about the fact that the expanses of Siberia and the Far East are being developed in clusters, in the interests of the state.
To do this, it is important to save the Academy. But what is the Academy of Sciences in Kyzyl, in Barnaul, in Chita? This is the only intellectual core. If we destroy it, then the system of higher education will collapse at the same time, because all scientists teach. Higher education will lead to the collapse of the secondary education system. And today thousands of children leave the district for the central city, from the central city to Moscow and further abroad. And this conveyor, thanks to the USE, works like a clock. And today their parents are coming for them. We will get an intellectual desert. I openly told our minister about this.
So, what can be legally done to prevent this from happening? That is, the law on the Russian Academy of Sciences should affirm its independence and autonomy, decision-making? Do I understand you correctly?
- The law on science has been adopted today, and it must be observed. But what is FANO for? Property - for God's sake, let's use it rationally, we don't mind. But please don't define science policy. Because science policy should be determined by scientists. Faraday did not receive his discoveries by government order. This is the fruit of the intellectual thinking of an individual, and a talented one at that. And talents, as a rule, are, firstly, rare, and secondly, they have a very bad character, and they do not always fit into the system of social relations.
- So you spoke about the state order, about the need for the state to set tasks. Nuclear project, GOELRO and so on?
- There are several levels. The task, for example, of an institute in Tuva is one. He doesn't have to think about nuclear physics. He is thinking about how to help the region get out of today's economic crisis. Then we are talking about the Siberian branch, which should work out the strategy for the development of Siberia. Because when I see the federal program "Far East", I openly tell Mr. Trutnev, presidential envoy in the Far Eastern Federal District, that this is not a program. This is a set of individual measures for the construction of plants and factories, in which there is no state interest, but there are interests of individual governors. Today we need a new Gosplan, which solves not regional problems, but the tasks of Russia in today's conditions.
Naturally, it is the same with fundamental science. The state order can be divided into applied science and fundamental science. Fundamental science is a very special thing. Here the state order may or may not be. But today we must think about the fact that the world is on the eve of new technological breakthroughs, where there will be new additive technologies, there will be artificial materials, and maybe we will already move away from the resource economy. Without science, we will never do this. We see that our very eminent scientists, three Nobel Prize winners, are working abroad. The Russians have received four Fields Prizes and many other physical awards. Konstantin Batygin, working in the States, has discovered a new planet. They all left here with our education. And if we do not keep them here today, then Russia has very weak prospects.
- Good. Besides autonomy and defining a scientific strategy for the Academy, what else do you think needs to be done?
- Funding, of course. In May decrees, Putin wrote a figure: 1.77% of GDP for fundamental science. Worldwide, less than 2% in developed countries do not. And keep in mind that their GDP is different for everyone. But today we have written 0.3% in the budget. Can you imagine? The decrees say 1.77%, we get 0.3%. And with this funding, we will never become world leaders. But now I'm talking about something else. At the discussion of the budget in our Federation Council, I told Mr. Siluanov, the Minister of Finance, that we do not have a “science” line in the Russian budget. If you look carefully, there is housing and communal services, there is education, there is medicine. There is no "science" line. I say: dear minister, why is there no “science” line? He hesitated a little and said: and money for science should be given by the oligarchic community. “I,” I say, “have not seen such oligarchs today.” And we parted ways on that. And after that, this is the result.
- At the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences there was a speech by Boris Kashin, a deputy of the State Duma. He said: how can we expect an adequate reform of science in such a system of governance of the country, close to the 1870s, when decisions are actually made individually, and why do we think that the reform of Russian science should be some kind of special, in contrast to other reforms that are adopted in the same way? He pointed to a managerial crisis. Question: what levers do you see here, how can this be changed?
- You can't change yourself. It's me, a member of the Academy, roughly speaking, I'm not afraid for my work. The rest are afraid for their work, for their future. This fear has been sitting since the time of Stalin. And today, oddly enough, this fear is intensifying. Further, the reforms are indeed different. But why do we always look to the West? Look at China. China took the structure of the Russian Academy of Sciences one to one. Today there is the Chinese Academy of Sciences, there is the Engineering Academy of Sciences, there is the Academy of Social Sciences, which is much larger in terms of funds than the Academy of Sciences itself, there is the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. There the head of the laboratory has a company car. I personally know some Chinese scientists. They have no concept of asking for money. They write an application - and in a month and a half everything that is needed comes. Today, my colleagues in China can retire and buy an apartment and a car. For your retirement! Their social problems have been solved, and a scientist in China is socially protected. China's success is the success of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They have a diaspora abroad, which can come to these conditions at any time. She goes there only to study, then returns. And here, if smart people left, then probably forever.
“Then I have a final question for you. Tell me, please, if the Academy is being reformed separately outside the general strategy of science in the state, then, of course, a lot of disagreements arise. What science strategy does Russia need? Without an answer to this question, it is impossible to reform the RAS or individual universities - do you agree?
- Absolutely right. Science must be in demand in society. This is the cornerstone. I can't talk about too big lofty matters. I'll just give you one sentence. Some say that in such a difficult time we cannot afford to invest in science, that supporting scientific research is still a luxury in those moments when everything is determined by necessity. I strongly disagree. Our prosperity, security, health, ecology and quality of life now more than ever depend on science. And it is today that reminds us that we must bet on science. This, unfortunately, was said by Barack Obama two months after his inauguration. And one to one, I think, we should broadcast this phrase, this situation to today's Russia.
One that didn't shoot?
Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov suddenly became the favorite of the academic public, refusing - the only one of the senators - to vote for the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Indeed, in modern times it was a courageous act, quite worthy of going down in history, that's the first question of the published interview - about this. But then the details begin...
A negative attitude towards the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences united a wide variety of people. And if the minority pointed out that the reform was necessary, but carried out by unsuitable methods, the majority asked to simply fall behind and leave everything as it was. Preferably - as it was under the Soviet regime. Arnold Kirillovich is such a vivid representative of this point of view that even in the repeatedly edited interview there were interesting passages like, say, this one: “Unlike the recent past, we no longer have a Gulag, no Komsomol, patriotism has remained only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents again took up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show the way out of these crisis situations.” I do not want to interpret this passage as a call for the revival of science through the return of the Gulag, but the semantic series itself - the Gulag, the Komsomol, patriotism, the Academy of Sciences - makes me shudder. Or, about scientific substantiation of the Baikal-Amur Mainline,- I really want to ask an expert on spatial economy: but is it nothing that BAM never paid off, and it undermined the resources pretty much?
But the main thing is not even these reservations and not the fantastic ideas of the corresponding member and director of the institute about the surrounding reality (the Fields Prize is physical, while Chinese scientists “There is no such thing as asking for money. They write an application - and in a month and a half everything that is needed comes.). The mantra repeated all the time is essential: "Today we need a new State Planning Committee,"- and further: “I think that the moment has come when it is necessary to give scientists a state order, to tell them what to do next”, because "when there is no order, the Academy of Sciences also begins to solve its own private tasks." This is really very bad. Because attempts to tie science to the immediate needs of not very understanding bosses are not only naive (that’s what they believed - and even that, there are reasons not to believe, because many such academic promises ended in zilch), but also strategically dangerous (all of a sudden will see distant politics). And then everyone can say goodbye to their favorite private tasks and joyfully switch to ... here is the senator's answer: “We always argue that there is nuclear physics, mathematics, fundamental sciences. But we must understand that for such a huge country as Russia, there is another science - spatial economics". Well, or at worst nuclear project, space project, BAM, development of the Arctic.
In fairness, directly opposite passages immediately follow: “The main condition for the development of science and the benefits of science is its independence”, “Faraday did not receive his discoveries by state order.” How it fits in one head - I do not understand.
The split in the scientific community between supporters of transparent, independent fundamental science included in the international context and admirers of the State Planning Commission and the state order has not disappeared; the joint rejection of the ongoing reform only slightly obscured it. One can dislike the modern Russian government both for the fact that it is too reminiscent of a scoop, and for the fact that it does not reproduce it enough. How long this water truce will last and to what extent one can count on a situational alliance with the restorers of the Union in the fight against the most odious reformist plans - I have no ready answer. I'm afraid none.
Mikhail Gelfand
Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov(b. 1949) - Soviet and Russian scientist, public figure, specialist in the field of physical and economic geography. In 2013-2016, he was a member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, was a member of the committee on science, education, culture and information policy. Member of the Academic Council of the Russian Geographical Society and the Presidium of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2001-2013, he was the director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since 2016 he has been the scientific director of the BIP of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia IV and V convocations.
Biography
V. P. Savinykh at the 14th Congress of the Russian Geographical Society in St. Petersburg V. P. Savinykh, A. K. Tulokhonov and L. G. Kolotilo discuss the book prepared for publication "Russian Geographical Society. 165 years of service to the Fatherland"Born on September 3, 1949 in the village of Zakuley (now Nukutsky district, Ust-Ordynsky Buryat district, Irkutsk region) in the family of a rural teacher. In 1966, after graduating from the Nukut secondary school, he entered the Faculty of Geography at Irkutsk State University. In 1971 he graduated with honors with the qualification "geographer-geomorphologist" and was assigned to work in the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry of the USSR Ministry of Nonferrous Metallurgy. He began his career as a junior researcher.
For three years, he completed a large amount of contractual work commissioned by the Baleizoloto plant and put on the balance sheet more than 10 alluvial gold deposits with a total reserve of over 2 tons of metal. The results of these studies formed the basis of his Ph.D. thesis "The main stages of the development of the relief of the Shilka middle mountains and the assessment of alluvial gold content", which he defended in 1976 at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
On his initiative, in 1977, the Small Academy of Sciences was established in Ulan-Ude, which is still operating today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat ASSR was organized. In 1988, A. K. Tulokhonov was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Nature Management Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Today it is the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences - the only institute in the system of academic science where natural resource research is inextricably linked with the development of environmentally friendly technologies and the economics of nature management.
In 1988, by the decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, she was awarded the degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences for the dissertation "The Origin and Evolution of the Relief of Inland Mountains (on the Example of the Mongolian-Siberian Mountain Belt)".
1991-2013 - Director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
From 1992 to the present - Advisor to the President of the Republic of Buryatia and the Chairman of the People's Khural on environmental issues.
From 1996 to the present - a member of the Academy of the Northern Forum (Finland), a member of the International Association of Academies of Sciences (IAAS) of the CIS.
Since 1998 - full member of the Russian Ecological Academy.
2000-2004 - Member of the editorial board of the journal Region: Sociology and Economics.
From 2000 to the present - a full member of the Academy of Mining Sciences, a confidant of V.V. Putin in the election of the President of the Russian Federation.
2001 - Member of the Presidium of the Political Council of the Buryat regional branch of the party "Unity" (United Russia).
2002 - by the decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, the academic title of professor was awarded.
2003 - elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
2004 - the initiator of the creation and chairman of the scientific council of the magazine "World of Baikal".