Arnold Tulokhonov: “In the country, science is treated as a second-class category. Arnold Tulokhonov: “In the country, science is treated as a second-class category. One who didn’t shoot

The history of chess goes back at least one and a half thousand years. Invented in India in the 5th-6th centuries, chess spread almost 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 rajah for an insignificant, at first glance, reward: as many wheat grains as would be on the chessboard if one grain was placed on the first square, 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 a storage facility with a volume of 180 km³). It’s hard to say whether it was true or not, but one way or another, India is the birthplace of chess. No later than the beginning of the 6th century, the first known game related to chess, chaturanga, appeared in northwestern India. It already had a completely recognizable “chess” appearance, but it was fundamentally different from modern chess in two features: there were four players, not two (they played pairs against pairs), and 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 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 enemy army. 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 monetary stake. Over the next two centuries, the spread of chess led to the emergence of national tournaments in most European countries. Chess publications are published, at first sporadic and irregular, but over time they become increasingly popular. The first chess magazine "Palamed" began to be published in 1836 by the French chess player Louis Charles Labourdonnais. 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. At the first such tournament, held in London in 1851, Adolf Andersen won. 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, but 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 to officially bear this title was the same Wilhelm Steinitz, defeating Johann Zuckertort in the first match in history, in the agreement of which the expression “world championship match” appeared. Thus, a system of title succession was established: the new world champion was the one who won the match against the previous one, while the current champion reserved the right to agree to the match or reject the opponent, and also determined the conditions and location of the match. The only mechanism capable of forcing a champion to play a challenger was public opinion: if an admittedly strong chess player for a long time could not obtain the right to a match with the champion, this was seen as a sign of the champion’s cowardice and he, saving face, was forced to accept the challenge. Typically, the match agreement provided for the champion's right to a rematch if he lost; a victory in such a match returned the championship 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 quite inconvenient, but soon the English amateur chess player Thomas Bright Wilson (T.B. Wilson) invented a special chess clock that made it possible to conveniently implement a time limit for the entire game or for a certain number of moves . Time control quickly became part of 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 no longer held. 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 continuity of 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, in a rematch, he regained the title and held it until his death in 1946). After the death of Alekhine in 1946, who remained undefeated, FIDE took over the organization of the world championship. The first official world chess championship was held in 1948, the winner was the Soviet grandmaster Mikhail Botvinnik. FIDE introduced a system of tournaments to win the champion title: the winners of the qualifying stages advanced to the zonal tournaments, the winners of the zonal competitions advanced to the interzonal tournament, and the holders of the best results in the latter took part in the candidate tournament, where a series of knockout games determined the winner, who was to play the match against the reigning champion. The formula for the title match changed several times. Now the winners of zonal tournaments participate in a single tournament with the best (rated) players in the world; the winner becomes 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, targeted teaching of it and the identification of capable players from childhood (a chess section, a children's chess school was in every city of the USSR, there were chess clubs at educational institutions, enterprises and organizations, tournaments were constantly held, a large amount of specialized literature was published) contributed to high level of play of Soviet chess players. Attention to chess was shown at the highest level. The result was that from the late 1940s until the collapse of the USSR, Soviet chess players virtually reigned supreme in world chess. Of the 21 chess Olympiads held from 1950 to 1990, the USSR team won 18 and became a silver medalist in another; of the 14 chess Olympiads for women during the same period, 11 were won and 2 silvers were taken. Of the 18 draws for the title of world champion among men over 40 years, only once the winner was a non-Soviet chess player (this was the American Robert Fischer), and twice more the contender for the title was not from the USSR (and 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 the world champion at that time, and Nigel Short, who became the winner of the qualifying round, refused to play another world championship match under the auspices of FIDE, accusing the federation leadership of unprofessionalism and corruption. Kasparov and Short formed a new organization, the PSA, and played the match under its auspices. There was a split in the chess movement. FIDE deprived Kasparov of the title, the title of world champion according to FIDE was played between Anatoly Karpov and Jan Timman, 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 thus 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 unambiguous outcome of the round, additional games of rapid chess and even blitz games have appeared in the tournament regulations: if the main series of games with regular time control ends in a draw, an additional game is played with a shortened time control. Complicated time control schemes began to be used, protecting against severe time pressure, in particular, the “Fischer clock” - time control with 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 human chess players. In 1996, Garry Kasparov lost a game to a computer for the first time, and in 1997, he also lost a match to the computer Deep Blue by one point. The avalanche-like growth in computer productivity and memory capacity, combined with improved algorithms, led to the emergence of publicly available programs by the beginning of the 21st century that could play at the grandmaster level in real time. The ability to connect to them pre-accumulated databases of debuts and tables of small-figure endings further increases the strength of the machine’s play and completely eliminates the danger of making a mistake in a known position. Now the computer can effectively advise a human chess player even at the highest level of competitions. The consequence of this was changes in the format of high-level competitions: tournaments began to use special measures to protect against computer hints, in addition, the practice of postponing games was completely abandoned. The time allotted to the game was 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 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 his championship title in a tiebreaker. 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 formula for the championship title 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 the start of the next world championship. 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 before the game from 960 options. In such conditions, the huge array of opening variations accumulated by chess theory becomes useless, which, as many believe, has a positive effect on the creative component of the game, and when playing against a machine, it noticeably limits the advantage of the computer in the opening stage of the game.

Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov(b. 1949) - Soviet and Russian scientist, public figure, specialist in the field of physical and economic geography. In 2013-2016, 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 - Director of the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management SB RAS, since 2016 scientific director of the BIP SB RAS. Deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia of the 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 Nukutsk secondary school, he entered Irkutsk State University at the Faculty of Geography. In 1971, he graduated with honors with the qualification “geographer-geomorphologist” and was assigned to work at 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 Non-ferrous Metallurgy. He began his career as a junior researcher.

Over the course of three years, he completed a large volume of contractual work ordered by the Baleizoloto plant and put more than 10 placer gold deposits on the balance sheet with a total reserve of over 2 tons of metal. The results of these studies formed the basis of his candidate’s thesis “The main stages of the development of the relief of the Shilkino middle mountains and the assessment of placer 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 created in Ulan-Ude, which is still active today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic 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 Environmental Management Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Environmental Management of the SB RAS. Nowadays this is the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management of the SB RAS - 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 environmental 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 SB RAS.

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 magazine "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 decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, the academic title of professor was awarded.

2003 - elected 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".

"Biography"

Education

1971 - Irkutsk State University named after A.A. Zhdanov (geographer-geomorphologist)

Activity

"News"

The resignation of Arnold Tulokhonov from the post of senator is a foregone conclusion

Moscow demands resignation of active senator of Buryatia

From knowledgeable sources of “Baikal-Daily” in the government of Buryatia it became known about the imminent resignation of the senator from the republic Arnold Tulokhonov.

According to our sources, the initiative for the “voluntary” resignation of the famous academician and senator comes entirely from Moscow. Therefore, this situation caused great surprise among local political players.

Arnold Tulokhonov will lose his seat as a senator?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a meeting of the Presidential Council on Science and Education, threatened to fire officials who became academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The head of state said that the ban on election to academicians and corresponding members also applies to governors, Vesti.ru reports.

Senator Arnold Tulokhonov entered the TOP-20 rating of members of the Federation Council

The representative of Buryatia in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia, Arnold Tulokhonov, ranks 11th in the ranking of senators for November. The rating was prepared by Medialogia, Tulokhonov became a "newcomer". He was helped in this by a possible ban on simultaneously engaging in scientific and government activities, as Vladimir Putin spoke about earlier.

Inform Polis: Deputy Arnold Tulokhonov gave a press conference

This event was organized by the Permanent Delegation of Russia to UNESCO and the Foundation for the Preservation of Lake Baikal (FSSOB) with the support of the government of the Republic of Buryatia, the Russian Geographical Society, the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco, the Prince Albert II Foundation of Monaco - said Tulokhonov. He also said that before the start of the conference Greetings were read out from the elected President of Russia Putin, the President of Mongolia Elbegdorj and the President of the Republic of Buryatia Nagovitsyn. Vladimir Putin's address emphasized the special role of environmental initiatives in the study and protection of the unique reservoir.

Arnold Tulokhonov was left alone

The only member of the committee who voted against was the Buryat senator Arnold Tulokhonov. According to Taiga.info, Arnold Tulokhonov, at a meeting of the profile committee, reasonably criticized the draft law on the Russian Academy of Sciences, calling it "very raw", and asked to return the document for revision. “My honor and conscience do not allow me to support him,” the senator admitted. According to Tulokhonov's forecasts, the Federation Council will approve the law on September 25, and "there is no chance" that the president will veto it.

“There is no chance that Putin will veto”

- No. I just spoke and told my point of view. I wrote a five-page analysis of this bill, where I criticized the document. It remains unclear one of the main questions - how can science be developed in Russia if it has no property? Equally, there is not a single article in the bill that really asserted the priority of Russian science, the need for its development as the main condition for modernizing the economy and for our country to become a world leader.

Arnold Tulokhonov: “This brings joy to us and benefits to the state”

- Yes, there are a lot of them. We have received fundamental scientific results. For example, at several levels at a depth of 200-800 m, I discovered ancient lake beaches. But after all, pebbles at the bottom cannot form. This discovery is unparalleled and turns geology upside down. It turns out that Baikal was once 800 meters lower and was filled four times after the melting of the glaciers. This result has no practical significance, but opens a new page in the history of Lake Baikal.

The richest people should live on the richest land

Those who are familiar with Baikal through the media will no doubt think about the “Worlds” dives and, of course, about the BPPM problem. However, environmental issues do not exhaust the range of problems relating to the Baikal territory, to which, first of all, such large territorial entities as the Irkutsk region, Trans-Baikal Territory, and the Republic of Buryatia belong. COPAH.info talks about important priorities, tasks and goals for this region with a person whose extensive list of interests includes everything related to the development of lands adjacent to Lake Baikal - Director of the Baikal Institute of Natural Resources SB RAS, Corresponding Member of the RAS Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov.

Senator from the Republic of Belarus Arnold Tulokhonov became the only one in the committee of the Federation Council on science who voted against the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences

I asked my colleagues on the committee on science, education, culture and information technology to return this bill for revision to the conciliation commission, where I was ready to take an active part.

The head of Buryatia vested Arnold Tulokhonov with the powers of a senator

I think that Vyacheslav Nagovitsyn will find a worthy replacement. And this, most likely, will be a deputy of the People's Khural, and the candidacy will be determined in the next two or three days. I can be excluded from the list of candidates immediately, since I am not a deputy of either the People's Khural, or even the City Council, - Gennady Aidaev emphasized then. Recall that the vacant seat in the Federation Council appeared after Senator Vitaly Malkin wrote a letter of early resignation from the post of senator . Malkin explained his departure from the Federation Council by the “dirty campaign” launched against him from abroad. At the same time, he said that he did not want to “dirty” the Council by doing so.

Federation.

Arnold Tulokhonov: I will not remain silent!

— In my first speech, I noted that the republican budget adopted today is no different from the same one twenty years ago. There is no thought in it. There is no concept of how to make money and how to spend it rationally. In addition, take the Russian budget - it is socially protected, not a single social item has been cut. We have reduced everything. Even agriculture was reduced threefold. And there is practically nothing about science at all. There are two articles on applied science. For its development, the government, they say, is developing a concept, territorial planning, design and construction. Moreover, it does all this almost simultaneously, although such work requires a lot of time. And here they want to do everything in one year. The Italians won the concept.

Arnold Tulokhonov: the main problem of Baikal is the lack of culture of the population

— Previously, there was no such profession as an ecologist, so I studied geography and graduated from the Faculty of Geography of Irkutsk State University with a degree in geographer. Geography is a very broad concept; it includes the study of social, natural and many other processes and phenomena. Twenty years ago, with my colleagues, I created an institute, and now it is one of the few academic institutes that deals with issues of sustainable development, or, more simply, understands how to solve modern environmental problems without harming future generations.

Tulokhonov suggested that Russian scientists emigrate in the event of a reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences

In the official message on the website of the Federation Council about the committee meeting, not a word was said about Arnold Tulokhonov’s speech in connection with the consideration of the RAS reform. The news reports that the chairman of the committee, Zinaida Dragunkina, noted the serious changes that the law underwent during its passage in the State Duma: “A lot of work was going on. The Duma moved from the third reading to the second, amendments were made, the document was significantly improved.”

2016 has been declared decisive in the implementation of reforms in Russian science. However, most academicians assess the results of the reform as unsatisfactory. What is the reason for such a harsh assessment,Arnold Tulokhonov , member of the Federation Council, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, asked, presenter 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 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 PhD 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, was reorganized in 1991 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 sharply 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, deep knowledge of this issue allowed me not just 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...

— That’s probably not the question. The question is that in our country today science is treated as a second-class category. Unfortunately it is so.

— The results of the next stage of the reform of Russian science are now being summed up. What would you note as the main results, the most important events? Where have we come to 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 the 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 answer easily. We see that the bureaucracy has grown. 40% of young researchers at the Siberian Branch, according to sociological surveys, 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, academicians have appeared 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. Is this what we wanted? Probably not. So I pose the question again. Before it's too late, let's get back to the results of this reform. Unfortunately, housing and communal services reform, police reform, education reform, health care reform received exactly the same results. I cannot explain today why this is so, but the government, naturally, 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 meeting 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 talks about 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 Forests and Timbers, 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 medical institutes direction and agricultural profile. I think that this is already a certain lower limit that can be achieved in the process of these reforms.

And second: FANO gathered 15 directors of academic institutes of the Irkutsk region for the purpose of unification. 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 institutes.

I think that even in a sick imagination it is difficult to imagine something 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, in his address to the Federal Assembly, said: 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 to develop a GOELRO plan, which was implemented in 10 years. Then we no longer talk about the atomic project or space successes. We are talking about the fact that in 1957, when the task of developing the natural resources of Siberia again arose, the not very literate Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev created the Novosibirsk Academic Town in the remote taiga and 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 using colliding beams was built in Novosibirsk, and the scientific justification of the Baikal-Amur Mainline was completed. This is the contribution of academic science to solving eastern problems.

Unlike the recent past, we no longer have the Gulag, there is no Komsomol, patriotism remains only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents have again taken up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show ways 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 solve the opposite problem.

— The head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, Mikhail Kotyukov, visited us in this studio. And when asked about the unification and reorganization of institutions, he replied that they occur on a voluntary basis. Do you remember that there was such a formulation in the Soviet years - “at the request of the workers”?

- 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 who is 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 the fact that you are a member of the Federation Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences, you are the scientific director of the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management. Please tell us how the reform of science affected your institute. How did you and your colleagues feel?

— There are two points that are hidden. First: directors of institutes are forced, according to the May decrees of the president, to raise salaries twice as high as the regional one. 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.

- So what’s going on?

— A minority of institutions generate 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 increase salaries when the budget is reduced? Second: within the team there appears a group of, so to speak, “freeloaders” 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 health care reform, when some doctors receive money, 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 give us a decent salary, and we will determine it according to the criteria that are established. But if the state does not provide salaries, then I, the director of the institute, must, instead of buying an instrument, look for money for the salary. Therefore, these two points are fundamentally important. 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, it should not be the Academy for FANO, but FANO for the Academy. And therefore, there were proposals to make FANO the management of affairs within the Russian Academy, to make it, as it were, a department within, that is, to actually reverse the reform. Do you think the Academy has enough strength to lobby for the actual return of the law?

- I think that the Academy does not have enough of these forces. I can see this frankly. 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 a nuclear project, a space project, BAM, or 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 own private problems. And this point must be emphasized today. The state stands at a very dangerous line. I repeat once again: without the Academy of Sciences, without academic research, especially foreign geopolitics, we have no way out. And this is the main point today.

— Arnold Kirillovich, when you try to discuss this with your colleagues in the Federation Council who are not associated with science, do you see support from them? Are you able to convey it somehow? Or is it your, as they say, personal pain?

- No. I think most people understand. And when I voted against the age limit law, 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 concerned about what is happening here in the east of the country. 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. What will happen if Nazarbayev leaves, what policy will there be? This should concern us. The border with Mongolia is 3000 km, with China - 4000 km. Today, the main wealth there is people. There are about 20 million people left. Do you understand how small this is for the whole country? We need to preserve 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 do people leave?

“Because they don’t see the prospects, they don’t see the attention.” I think that the desire to give everyone a hectare of land is a mockery of people. When Stolypin was exploring Siberia and the Far Eastern borders, he said something completely different: here’s money for you, here’s guns for you, here’s land for you, here’s forest for you. But the most important thing that the governor must say is that we, the state, provide you with sales. Nearby China, Korea. You work, produce, pray to God, just don’t drink vodka, and we will provide you with sales. Producing is not a problem. The most important thing is sales. But on our distant borders there are no people, there is no point of sale.

- Fine. You say that people are leaving Siberia. Could you give some specific examples related specifically to science, to young scientists? What happens, for example, at your institute with young people? What dynamics do you see? Why do people leave?

— People go into business, go where the money is. And now education is no longer important. Because b O 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, Novosibirsk University has alumni associations - there are about three thousand people in them who work abroad.

— Yes, the Novosibirsk diaspora.

- Yes. It consists of graduates. But why did we prepare these graduates? They invested a lot of money and a lot of knowledge. Where are the results? And today we are faced with a fact: the departure of every graduate of Physics and Technology, Moscow State University, and St. Petersburg University is an economic disaster for the country.

— Let’s then determine what can be changed in the field of public policy in relation to science. How to fix the current situation?

— The main condition for the development of science and the benefits 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 going the wrong way. 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. And today, more than ever, we must worry about ensuring that the expanses of Siberia and the Far East are developed in a cluster, in the interests of the state.

For this it is important to preserve the Academy. But what is the Academy of Sciences in Kyzyl, Barnaul, Chita? This is the only intellectual core. If we destroy it, then the higher education system will collapse at the same time, because all scientists teach. After higher education, the secondary education system will collapse. And today children are already leaving the region in thousands to the central city, from the central city to Moscow and further abroad. And thanks to the Unified State Exam, this conveyor works like a clock. And today their parents are coming for them. We will end up with an intellectual desert. I openly told our minister about this.

— So, what can be done legislatively 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 was adopted today, and it must be observed. But why is FANO needed? Property - for God's sake, let's use it rationally, we don't mind. But please don’t define scientific 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 talked about state orders, about the fact that it is necessary for the state to set tasks. Nuclear project, GOELRO and so on?

— There are several levels. The task, for example, of the institute in Tuva is one. He doesn't have to think about nuclear physics. He is thinking about how to help the region overcome today's economic crises. Next we talk about the Siberian department, which should work out a strategy for the development of Siberia. Because when I see the federal program “Far East,” I openly tell Mr. Trutnev, the presidential envoy to 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 the interests of individual governors. Today we need a new State Planning Committee, which solves not regional problems, but the problems of Russia in today's conditions.

Naturally, it’s the same with fundamental science. Government orders can be divided into applied science and fundamental science. Fundamental science is a completely special thing. Here there may or may not be a government order. But today we must think that the world is on the eve of new technological breakthroughs, where there will be new additive technologies, there will be artificial materials and, perhaps, we will already move away from the resource economy. Without science we will never do this. We see that our very famous scientists, three Nobel Prize laureates, are working abroad. The Russians have received four Fields Awards and many other physics awards. Konstantin Batygin, working in the States, discovered a new planet. They all left here with our education. And if we do not preserve them here today, then Russia has very weak prospects.

- Fine. Besides autonomy and defining a scientific strategy for the Academy, what else do you think needs to be done?

— Naturally, financing. Putin wrote a figure in his May decrees: 1.77% of GDP for fundamental science. Throughout the world, developed countries do not have less than 2%. And keep in mind that they all have different GDPs. But today in the budget we wrote 0.3%. Can you imagine? The decrees say 1.77%, we get 0.3%. And with this funding we will never become world leaders. But I'm talking about something else now. During 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 somewhat and said: money for science should be provided by the oligarchic community. “I,” I say, “have never seen such oligarchs today.” And we parted ways on this. And after that we got this 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 with such a system of governing the country, close to the 1870s, when decisions are made virtually individually, and why do we think that the reform of Russian science should be something 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?

- It is impossible to change yourself. I, a member of the Academy, roughly speaking, am not afraid for my work. The rest are afraid for their jobs, for their future. This fear has been present since the times of Stalin. And today, oddly enough, this fear is intensifying. Further, reforms really come in different forms. But why do we always look to the West? Look at China. China has taken the structure of the Russian Academy of Sciences one-on-one. Today there is the Chinese Academy of Sciences, there is the Engineering Academy of Sciences, there is the Academy of Social Sciences, which in terms of funds is much larger 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 such concept of asking for money. They write an application - and after a month and a half, everything they need arrives. Today, my colleagues in China can buy an apartment and a car when they retire. For your pension! Their social problems have been solved, and the scientist in China is socially protected. China's successes are the successes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They have a diaspora abroad that can come at any time under these conditions. She goes there only to study, then returns. But here, if smart people leave, they probably leave forever.

- Then I have a final question for you. Please tell me, if the Academy is reformed separately outside the general strategy of science in the state, then, of course, a lot of disagreements will arise. What science strategy does Russia need? Without an answer to this question, it is impossible to reform the Russian Academy of Sciences 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 difficult times 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, safety, health, ecology and quality of life depend now more than ever on science. And it is today that reminds us that we must rely on science. This, unfortunately, was what Barack Obama said two months after his inauguration. And one on one, I think, we must translate this phrase, this situation, into today’s Russia.

The one who didn't shoot?

Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov overnight became the darling of the academic public, refusing - the only senator - 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, so the first question of the published interview is about this. But then the details begin...

A negative attitude towards the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences united a variety of people. And if the minority pointed out that reform was necessary, but was being carried out using unsuitable methods, the majority asked to simply lag behind and leave everything as it was. Preferably, as it was under Soviet rule. Arnold Kirillovich is such a prominent representative of this point of view that even in the repeatedly edited interview there were interesting passages like, say, this: “Unlike the recent past, we no longer have the Gulag, there is no Komsomol, patriotism remains only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents have again taken up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show ways out of these crisis situations.” I don’t want to interpret this passage as a call for the revival of science by returning the Gulag, but the semantic sequence itself - Gulag, Komsomol, patriotism, Academy of Sciences - makes me shudder. Or here's another thing about scientific justification of the Baikal-Amur Mainline,- I really want to ask a specialist spatial economics: and is it okay that BAM never paid off, and significantly undermined its resources?

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 a physical one, and for Chinese scientists “There is no such thing as asking for money. They write an application - and after a month and a half, everything they need comes.”). The mantra that is repeated all the time is essential: “We need a new State Planning Committee today,”- and further: “I think that the moment has come when we need to give scientists a state order, tell them what to do next.”, because “When there is no order, the Academy of Sciences also begins to solve its own private problems.” This is really very bad. Because attempts to tie science to the immediate needs of not very understanding bosses are not only naive (so they believed - and even then, there is reason not to believe, because many such academic promises ended in nothing), but also strategically dangerous (what if, after all, will see distant policy). And then everyone will be able to say goodbye to their favorite private tasks and happily switch to... here is the senator’s answer: “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.". Well, or at worst nuclear project, space project, BAM, Arctic development.

To be fair, 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 government order.” I don’t understand how this fits into one’s head.

The split in the scientific community between supporters of transparent, independent fundamental science included in the international context and fans of the State Planning Committee and state orders has not gone away; the joint rejection of the ongoing reform only slightly obscured it. One may dislike the modern Russian government both because it is too reminiscent of the Soviet Union and because it does not reproduce it enough. How long will this water truce last and to what extent can one count on a situational alliance with the restorers of the Union in the fight against the most odious reform plans - I do not have a ready answer. I'm afraid not at all.

Mikhail Gelfand

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 Environmental Management SB RAS, Doctor of Geographical Sciences, 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 the city of Ulan-Ude, Member of the Supervisory Board of the Foundation for the Promotion of the Conservation of Lake Baikal.

He 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 becomes 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 Environmental Management Problems, which three years later, on his initiative, was transformed into the Baikal United Institute of Environmental Management of the SB RAS. The structural divisions included the Chita Institute of Natural Resources of the SB RAS and the Department of Chemistry of the Buryat Institute of Natural Sciences.

Within the framework of the united 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 were developed and approved (1994 and 2001), as well as by-laws to the RF Law “On the Protection of Lake. Baikal".

A new stage in the scientific activity of Arnold Kirillovich is research on the reconstruction of paleoclimate and the development of ecological tourism, the development of current geopolitical approaches to implementation and the examination of large investment projects in Asian Russia. One of the important areas of this work is 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 task of the association is to develop scientific recommendations on environmental protection and rational use of natural resources in the territories of countries that are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Develops a completely new scientific direction for the comparative study of 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 Territory for Sustainable Development” and “Baikal as a Site of World Natural Heritage”, as well as numerous events through the Global Environment Facility, UNESCO, and the Living Lakes Foundation ", UNEP.

In 2007, he organized a new specialty “Environmental Management” at the Buryat State University on the basis of the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management of the SB RAS.

Deputy editor-in-chief and member of the editorial board of the journals “Geography and Natural Resources”, “Region: Sociology and Economics”. On his initiative, the subscription popular science magazine “World of Baikal” has been published since 2004. 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 livestock farming in the cryoarid regions of North Asia. The practical implementation of these works was the creation of the first scientific and experimental farm in Russia for the preservation of the gene pool of indigenous animals, “Baikalecoproduct”.

For achievements in scientific, scientific-organizational and social activities, he was awarded numerous awards, including the Order of Honor, the title “Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation,” the state prize of the Republic of Buryatia, etc.