There’s good news for all those who worry that Russia will pursue imperialist aims again. Any modern regime serious about projecting power knows that science is integral to that goal. And fundamental research is expensive. A country that doesn’t diversify its economy away from a dependence on raw materials and skimps on its investments in science should probably be considered peace-loving — at least by default.
Stalin, for example, understood perfectly well the relationship between science and power. In his time, scientists were well provided for and allowed a certain latitude of freedom. “We can always shoot them later,” Stalin said.
The Soviets’ willingness to spend money on science showed results. They caught up to the United States surprisingly fast in atomic weaponry, exploding their first H-bomb in 1953. After Sputnik came the first dog, man and woman in space. There was a time when Soviet dominance in space supported the notion that the future belonged to them.
Science in the post-Soviet period took any number of hits. Much of the best talent was siphoned off in a brain drain to the West. At home, the youth preferred to work for the government, in business or in companies like Gazprom that combined both elements. Science’s prestige was damaged because advanced degrees can now, like nearly everything else in Russia, be bought.
The education system is also in crisis. The best teachers are aging and not being replaced. Scientists warn that there is only a five- to seven-year window to train the next generation of scientists. “If young people are not brought into science during this period, plans to create an innovative economy can be forgotten,” wrote 400 scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences in an open letter to President Dmitry Medvedev.
No one is more keenly aware of Russia’s need to create an innovative economy than Medvedev, who rejects “a primitive economy based on raw materials and endemic corruption.” In his vision of a new Russia, “inventors, innovators, researchers, teachers [and] entrepreneurs who introduce new technologies will become the most respected people in society. In turn, society will give them everything they need to be productive.”
It’s an excellent vision of the future, but what’s occurring in the present makes it unlikely to come true. With a few exceptions like nanotechnology, Russian science remains painfully underfunded. Russia’s 2009 budget for research and development was $5.45 billion, China’s — $136.2 billion.
Russian Academy of Sciences vice president Alexander Nekipelov stated the problem bluntly but precisely: “The state has finally to decide unequivocally whether it needs fundamental scientific research or not. The answer depends on the task the state is setting itself. If all we want … is to overtake Portugal, this can be done without big science. Many countries live perfectly well without it. If, however, the state has more ambitious goals in mind — to shape the course of history and be one of the leading powers — then fundamental research is indispensable.”
Russia’s failure to create a new national identity is evident in its relationship to science. It has yet to decide whether it wants to be a great power or could be content to overtake Portugal — or as oligarch Oleg Deripaska put it ruefully, “to catch up with the Soviet Union.” Nervous leaders from Tallinn to Tbilisi should pay attention to Russia’s science budget for a true signal of Moscow’s long-term intent. A sudden increase in spending would indicate either enlightenment or ambition with the smart money on the latter.
Richard Lourie is author of “The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin” and “Sakharov: A Biography.”