Born on January 10, 1954 in Moscow in the family of physicist Rem Viktorovich (1926-1977) and Elena Mikhailovna Khokhlov. Father - one of the founders of nonlinear optics, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in 1973-1977. was the rector of the Moscow state university them. M. V. Lomonosova (MSU). Mother is the daughter of academician, physical chemist Mikhail Mikhailovich Dubinin. Younger brother, Dmitry (born 1957), - physicist, corresponding member Russian Academy Sciences (RAN).

Graduate of Moscow Physics and Mathematics School No. 2 (now the Second School Lyceum). In 1977 he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Physics of Moscow State University, and in 1979 he completed postgraduate studies at this faculty.

At Moscow State University in 1979 he defended his thesis for Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (topic: "Issues of statistical physics of volumetric interactions in a polymer macromolecule"), in 1983 - the dissertation for Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (topic: "Problems of the theory of volumetric interactions in statistical physics polymer systems"). Professor (1998). In 1990 he was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 2000 - an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Department of Chemistry and Materials Sciences).

Since July 1979, he has been working at the Faculty of Physics of Moscow State University: assistant (1979-1984), associate professor (1984-1988), professor (since 1988). From 1993 to present V. Head of the Department of Polymer and Crystal Physics, Faculty of Physics, University. In 2008-2018 served as vice-rector of Moscow State University - head of the Department of Innovation Policy and International Cooperation.
From 1991 to present V. - Head of the Laboratory of Physical Chemistry of Polymers, Institute of Organoelement Compounds named after. A. N. Nesmeyanova RAS.
From 2002 to present V. - Chairman of the Scientific Council on Macromolecular Compounds of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
From 2007 to present V. - Chief Editor journal "High Molecular Compounds". In addition, he serves on the editorial boards of a number of international scientific journals.
Since 2008 - member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In July 2017, he was registered as a candidate for the post of President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (nominated by 96 members of the RAS). He was not allowed to participate in the elections because he did not receive approval from the Russian government.
Since September 28, 2017 - Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Since December 2017 - Chairman of the Scientific Publishing Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Alexey Khokhlov is an expert in the field of polymer science. The scientist’s area of ​​scientific interests is polymer physics, statistical physics macromolecules, physical chemistry polyelectrolytes and ionomers, polymer liquid crystals, coil-globule transitions, biometric polymers, etc. In particular, Alexey Khokhlov developed the theory of liquid crystalline ordering in solutions of rigid-chain polymers with partial flexibility. His developments made it possible to create polymer liquids for use in oil production (they block water layers, increasing the oil content at the outlet), new wear-resistant and biocompatible plastics, effective catalysts for the production of vitamins, etc.

Chairman of the Science Council of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (since 2013), member of the Council for Science and Education under the President of the Russian Federation (2008-2011; since 2015).
He was President of the European Polymer Federation (2004-2005). Member of the European Academy of Sciences (since 2000). Honorary doctor and professor at a number of foreign universities: State University of New York (USA), University of Copenhagen (Denmark), University of Ulm (Germany), etc.

Laureate of the Lenin Komsomol Prize (1982), State Prize of the Russian Federation 2007 in the field of science and technology ("for fundamental Scientific research in the field of polymer science"). Awarded the medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" II degree (2005), the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" Federal Republic Germany" (2012).

The scientist’s merits were awarded the Lomonosov Prize for pedagogical activity(MSU; 2005), A. Humboldt Prize (Germany; 1992), W. Paul (Germany; 2001), G. Kanig (Germany; 2016), International Prize in the Field of Polymer Technologies (Netherlands; 2005), International Prize of the Japanese Polymer society (2015).

Author and co-author of about 800 scientific publications, 10 textbooks and monographs, 25 review articles. Among the publications are “Collapse of polyacrylamide gels: the influence of mechanical deformation of the sample and the type of solvent” (1985), “On unresolved problems of statistical physics of macromolecules” (1985), “Low-frequency dielectric spectroscopy of polyampholyte gels” (2001), etc. Textbooks and teaching aids scientist: “Statistical physics of macromolecules” (1989), “Physics in the world of polymers” (1989), “Lectures on the physical chemistry of polymers” (2000), “Computer modeling methods for the study of polymers and biopolymers” (2009), etc.

Married, has two children.

​"The Hamburg Account" is smart conversations for smart viewers. The program presents the intellectuals' view of the world.

Modern science provides answers to many questions that concern society. And at the same time, it formulates even more problems at the new stage of our development. Scientists talk about this in Olga Orlova’s studio, statesmen, educators and popularizers are talking about the Hamburg account.

Guest: Alexey Khokhlov- Vice-Rector of Moscow State University. Lomonosov, Chairman of the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Olga Orlova: In Russia, a new federal law on science should be presented for public discussion. How will this document change the life and work of Russian scientists? We decided to ask the Chairman of the Council for Science under the Ministry of Education and Science about this regarding the Hamburg account. Russian Federation, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Khokhlov.

Hello, Alexey Removich. Thank you for coming to our studio.

Alexey Khokhlov: Hello, Olga.

Alexey Khokhlov. Born in 1954 in Moscow. In 1977 he graduated from the Faculty of Physics of Lomonosov Moscow State University. In 1979 he defended his Ph.D. thesis. In 1983, at the age of 29, he received a doctorate in physics and mathematics. Since 1991 - head of the laboratory of physical chemistry of polymers at the Institute of Organoelement Compounds of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1993, he has been the head of the Department of Physics of Polymers and Crystals, Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University. In 2000 he was elected academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2008, he was appointed vice-rector of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Member of the European Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Member of the Council for Science and Education under the President of the Russian Federation. Laureate of the State Prize of the Russian Federation, other international and Russian awards. Honorary professor at a number of foreign universities. Has more than 700 scientific publications. Author of 7 textbooks and monographs and 25 reviews in the field of polymer science.

O.O.: Alexey Removich, in addition to the fact that you are the vice-rector of Moscow State University, you also headed and head the science council under the Ministry of Education and Science for 2 terms. You and your colleagues are reviewing almost all the most important documents by which Russian science will live and develop. Not long ago you were looking at an important document that had been prepared. Now it has not yet been submitted to the State Duma. This new project Law on Science in the Russian Federation. Why is it remarkable, why is it important, and how will it affect the lives of Russian scientists?

A.Kh.: Indeed, in May we considered the “Law on Science, Scientific, Technical and Innovation Activities in the Russian Federation” - that’s what it’s called in full. In general, we respectfully appreciated this document, because, of course, the old science law of 1996 is outdated. There are a lot of things that need to be changed. There are not many entities that appeared in last years in Russian science. And from this point of view, a lot of new things are spelled out in law. I will give 2 examples.

There, for example, the interaction between educational organizations and scientific organizations in terms of joint training of undergraduate and graduate students. There was a problem: for the purposes of joint training, some equipment needed to be transferred from an academic institute to a university, or vice versa. These problems are quite well regulated there. There, for example, problems related to the fact that sometimes grants are made not by organizations, but by teams of scientists, have been regulated. Since they do not have accounting departments, they need to enter into intermediary agreements with scientific organizations. This term was introduced. This is what everyone gets legislative framework in the new law on science. Scientific activity is a creative activity. And from this point of view, it must be assessed by the result, and not by the number of hours spent to obtain this result.

O.O.: Your science council periodically accepts such statements on those processes or on those events in scientific life, which you consider the most important, iconic. One such statement was recently adopted. This is a statement about the development of relations with the Russian scientific diaspora. That you have adopted a special statement on this matter. Something is happening, something has alerted you, something is going wrong, are there any problems? Why was such a special document needed?

A.Kh.: The meaning of our statement is very simple. That now, in fact, the great potential of the Russian scientific diaspora that exists is used mainly in terms of mega-grants, some kind of grant funding, which is limited by the duration of the grant, and, perhaps, to a lesser extent, allows for the establishment of some long-term connections, and in general forms may be different. This does not necessarily mean fulfilling a large grant. Because the implementation of a large grant requires presence in the country for 4 months.

O.O.: Not everyone can afford it.

A.Kh.: Not everyone can. At the same time, many want to participate, they want to somehow help give lectures, interact with students, help in preparing undergraduates, graduate students, and so on. And this desire...

O.O.: Again, this is the next stage in the legalization of these relations.

A.Kh.: And this desire comes up against the fact that there is no coordinating body, a coordinating organization that would be a connecting link between representatives of the Russian scientific diaspora and our scientific and educational organizations. The meaning of our statement is that we need to think about one or more such organizations that would specialize in turning the great potential that exists to the benefit of Russian science.

O.O.: Tell me, Alexey Removich, do you see who would really be interested in this in Russia today? What departments, organizations, officials... Why am I asking this? Because it seems that you are saying very reasonable things, but there is a general vector, a mood that is heard from the authorities, from deputies, from the heads of ministries and departments. He is somehow isolationist all the time: go back to the past and fence himself off.

A.Kh.: I don’t know. I'll give you a counterexample. After all, our colleagues, compatriots who work abroad, mega-grantees, are very actively speaking out and proposing new forms of organization Russian science.

O.O.: They do, yes.

A.Kh.: Last September they met with President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and offered him new program, which has now been implemented. Presidential program research projects. Additional money has been allocated for it. And now the Russian Science Foundation is reviewing the applications that were submitted. That is, this shows that, firstly, our colleagues abroad are actively speaking out. Secondly, the authorities hear them and are trying to broadcast this vector inside the Russian Federation to our scientific organizations. I understand your question in the sense that there are certain heads of scientific organizations, sometimes some... even in the Russian Academy of Sciences, who are wary of this kind of contact. But it seems to me that this is where the authorities should show, and are actually showing, that this type of thing contributes to the modernization of Russian science, its entry to the global level, and they should be welcomed in every possible way.

O.O.: Is your statement a way to influence the authorities or a way to influence whom? Who are you addressing this to?

A.Kh.: Because we're talking about about the creation of certain organizations that should coordinate, we address this to the authorities, we address this to large organizations that can themselves, on their own initiative, become coordinators of this type of interaction.

O.O.: In September 2017, elections for the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences should take place. And you are one of those who decided to run for president. Why did you decide to do this now?

A.Kh.: Both in the 2008 elections and in the 2013 elections I supported Vladimir Evgenievich Fortov. And he is an excellent scientist. But after Fortov was elected in 2013, this situation arose with the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and he actually worked in conditions where reform was being carried out without institutions. There was a certain tug of war between the Russian Academy of Sciences and FANO. I talked a lot with Vladimir Evgenievich about the direction in which, from my point of view, it is necessary to change the style of work of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Part of the project has been implemented. In particular, the project “Professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, “Experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences” - this was really done. And in conversations before the March elections, Vladimir Evgenievich said that he was determined to implement these reforms. But now that he's already...

O.O.: He’s not running, yes.

A.Kh.: I decided that I needed to try these ideas that were discussed...

O.O.: So you want to implement something that should have been implemented, but did not work out?

A.Kh.: Yes, absolutely right.

O.O.: Let's talk about your election program then. In the newspaper "Troitsky Variant" you wrote almost a manifesto. And one of these important central points is that the Russian Academy of Sciences should deal with the problems of all Russian science, and not with the narrow corporate interests of relations with FANO, with institutes, and so on. But, tell me, what mechanisms do you see at the Russian Academy of Sciences in the form in which it now exists? Small budget, lack of administrative ties with institutions, heavy reputational losses. All this together. What opportunities do you see for the Russian Academy of Sciences to engage in science policy and in general the interests of science in Russia?

A.Kh.: Firstly, what I said, what I put forward is the provision of the law on the Russian Academy of Sciences. It really should be involved in the scientific and methodological leadership of the entire scientific sphere, and not just the institutes of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations. You understand, resources and power are achieved through an active position. There is no need to think that if the Academy of Sciences sits all the time, is silent, does not issue any statements, and somewhere from the sky some additional powers will fall on it.

O.O.: Do you want to say that freedom is not given, it is taken?

A.Kh.: Yes, absolutely right. Here I can give our science council as an example. It was spring 2013 when it was created. Even the ministry employees told me: “Well, they are creating another kind of clamp around our neck with these same scientists. Why talk to them?” But gradually, as it became clear that we were constructive, that we were trying to offer something that could be implemented, that we were also trying to delve into the problems that exist in the ministry... This, by the way, does not depend on specific personalities. This happened both under Dmitry Viktorovich Livanov and under Olga Yuryevna Vasilyeva. I just see that they are listening. Many of the things we proposed were ultimately implemented. Therefore, we must take an active position, we must try to formulate some things. And the most important thing is that they be public, so that it is clear that the things that the Russian Academy of Sciences formulate benefit both the scientific community and Russian society as a whole.

O.O.: You are the vice-rector of Moscow State University. At the same time, you are running for president of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But in the public field (and even more so in the non-public field) there is such a stable confrontation between university and academic people. That these are two different worldviews, these are different interests. How are you going to convince your colleagues at the Academy that you will reflect the interests of the academic community, and how academic you are in general?

A.Kh.: Of course, I work at my main place of work at Moscow University. But for almost 20 years I have been running a large laboratory at the Nesmeyanov Institute of Organoelement Compounds of the Russian Academy of Sciences. From this point of view, I know from the inside all the problems that exist in academic institutions. Since 2008, I have been a member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and, in general, I actively participated in all activities... Some of my proposals were implemented, some were not. But I tried to do something. And finally, the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science is not some kind of university or scientific body. You can see. All our decisions are published on our website. Is there some kind of shift towards universities compared to science in the institutes of the Academy of Sciences? Of course not. And I would think that there is no need to oppose at all. This opposition does not lead to any positive things. There are scientists. Some scientists work in scientific institutes, some scientists work in universities. It is very important to have integration.

One of the things I propose is to revive the integration program that existed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when scientists from academic institutes and universities jointly joined forces to train undergraduate students...

O.O.: You participated in educational programs.

Oh yes. It was really very important, very good program. And it needs to be implemented.

O.O.: Another problem that is now being addressed by leaders both at universities in the country and at academic institutes. This is probably what gives many people headaches right now. May presidential decrees. In 2012, Vladimir Putin said that our scientists should receive on average 2 times more than average salary by region. In Moscow this turns out to be huge numbers. I know how this problem is solved in many academic institutes of FANO, what is happening there. There, people remain the same salary, but at the same time they are told that now you do not have a full rate of 20,000 or 25,000, and this is just 0.2 of your rate. That is, the money remains the same, but people are transferred or laid off. What do you think about this, and how is it being addressed at the university?

A.Kh.: The fact is that at the university we began work on the implementation of these May decrees back in 2012. And they consistently tried to do this through different things. Attracting additional funding. Each employee of Moscow University has a certain personal rating. And the incentive bonuses or bonuses that he receives correspond to the rating that he has.

When re-elected to a position and when elected, the rating is also taken into account. But we believe that if a person’s rating corresponds to the bottom quarter of employees, then this is a certain signal, and you need to look at whether he corresponds to the position he occupies, and so on. But this work proceeded consistently.

The Russian Academy of Sciences, for reasons related to the fact that a reform took place there, has only now begun to think about it. Moscow University, by the way, is still implementing the May decrees, despite, as you say, astronomical figures. I understand that the position reasonable people, which both in the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations and reasonable directors is that it is necessary to show dynamics, it is necessary to show that, after all, academic institutions are concerned that, to put it mildly, not all employees there work at the proper level, that with they somehow carry out the work, those who work ineffectively are transferred to a share of the rate as a precautionary measure, and so on. That is, this needs to be done.

But when it comes to the fact that everyone (who works well, who works poorly - it doesn’t matter) is transferred to 0.2 - 0.5, this, of course, is completely wrong. I am sure that in preventing such a development of events, the role of the Russian Academy of Sciences, if it wants to take on this role, will be very large. In fact, it could be such an additional negotiating link, when, on the one hand, the leadership of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, on the other hand, the directors of the institutes.

O.O.: Wait, but there’s just objective reality. It lies in the fact that in order to increase the salary in those stated standards by 2 times more than the average salary in the region, this simply requires additional funding. But he’s not there. They didn't give it to me.

A.Kh.: The position of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations is that those institutes that show positive dynamics will be allocated additional funding. But if you wait for additional funding to fall from the sky, then, of course, such a position is impossible. That is, we must first start reforms, then get additional funding. But reforms like “let’s transfer everyone to half-time or quarter-time” are completely unacceptable. This is called fraud. Isn’t it clear that this is not what is written in the presidential decrees? Do those people who come up with such schemes really not understand that these schemes will become publicly known and they will be punished?

O.O.: Alexey Removich, among those of your colleagues who are also running for president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the important points of the election program is installation on megascience. That megascience are those projects that will become the engine for the development of our science, and we need to focus on them. It is clear that there are not many such megasciences. If there is one in the country, that’s good, but two is the maximum. And this is the driver, what will get us out. What do you think about it?

A.Kh.: Megascience is a very small sector of science. I'm in mine scientific activity I use quite a lot of research on polymer objects using neutron scattering, synchrotron radiation, and so on. I'm applying. Usually, by the way, not in ours... Neutron scattering - there is a good reactor in Dubna. And we do a good job there. For example, when it comes to X-ray scattering at a synchrotron, then most likely I will submit an application to Grenoble, win, an employee will go there, analyze the samples, come and that’s it. That is, what is megascience? These are some tools that are very large, but for solving some other scientific projects. Tools can never replace essence. The development of science is, of course, based on not very expensive megascience installations. Moreover, given our budget, it’s crazy to spend money on this. We need to spend money on actively developing scientific groups, mainly young scientific leaders who are doing science at the modern level. Given our budgets, focusing on megascience is completely unreasonable.

O.O.: Perhaps one of these expectations from the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences is the expectation of being deceived both by journalists and by the general public. There was a feeling that the Russian Academy should somehow turn its face to society, that some kind of interaction should be established. This issue of communication between the Academy of Sciences and the general public, with journalists, has not been resolved during this time, and this is very strange. Because we understand that science is about the future. Science shapes our future life. Maybe even for centuries. At the same time, when you go to the website of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, you find yourself in some very deep past. A huge shock to every person who tries to interact with the House of Scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences is that information on the website about what is happening in the House of Scientists can only appear once a month. Because only once a month a person comes there who has sacred knowledge, almost like an old beer recipe, one person knows how to make it.

You wrote in your article in the Trinity Option that we need to be more open, public, and not be afraid of contacts and communications. How are you going to do this? It seems to me that this car does not move at all.

A.Kh.: Indeed, I wrote this. And I confirm this that...

O.O.: Will you change the site, if anything?

A.Kh.: In general, the style of work of the presidium should be changed. Somehow it is very archaic, everything is very dull and boring. But science really means breakthroughs into the future. And the Russian Academy of Sciences is the only legislatively established body that represents Russian scientists. The Presidium should, in a certain sense, work as an ambassador of science, an ambassador of the scientific and educational community in society as a whole, in a broader sense. It is necessary, of course, to rebuild all information flows related to science. Popularization of science should be one of the first places. This is, in principle, the way the Russian Academy of Sciences is now - this should be one of the main functions of science. We need to change all this. And if we are open to society and to the scientific community, if we involve professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and in general those active scientists who work at the modern level, who want to do something for the development of Russian science, this it will only be good.

That is, the meaning of what I wrote there is that the Academy should not be directed inward, but also more broadly to the entire scientific community and to the entire society. In this direction, I suggest that the work of the Presidium should be restructured.

O.O.: In our program was the Vice-Rector of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Khokhlov.

- Alexey Removich, why did you decide to run as a candidate for the post of President of the Russian Academy of Sciences?

In recent years, in addition to my main work at Moscow State University, I headed the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. This council took an active position on many issues of scientific life in Russia (all documents we have adopted since 2013 can be viewed on the website sovet-po-nauke.ru). In addition, I am a member of the Council for Science and Education under the President of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Scientific Coordination Council of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (FANO). I tried to participate in the work of all these bodies informally and actively made my proposals. Due to this, a certain understanding of the situation and a certain experience have accumulated.

- Are you talking about transfers of institute employees to a share of the salary?

Yes, institutes are disturbed by the situation when all employees, indiscriminately, without taking into account the quality of work, are offered to switch to a share of the salary. In some institutions this is 0.2−0.3 rates. On June 13, the first ever joint meeting of the RAS and the Scientific Coordination Council of FANO took place. We discussed many important, but not the most pressing issues. And only I asked a question to Mikhail Kotyukov (head of FANO - approx. "Attic"), whether FANO really recommends doing this. And the answer was absolutely clear: no, there was no such recommendation from FANO - to transfer everyone indiscriminately to a share of the rate. This is completely wrong. There are people who practically never publish, and there are those who work intensively and successfully from morning to evening.

It is completely immoral to now offer absolutely everyone to switch to a share of the bet. The situation is clear: until now, academic institutions have not paid enough attention to the implementation of Decree No. 597, but at Moscow State University we have been systematically working on this since 2012, which is why we are generally implementing the roadmap. Now they came to their senses and decided to cheat: don’t change anything, transfer everyone to a share of the rate, due to this, formally increase everyone’s salary three to five times at once while actually maintaining it, and report on paper. That's not how it's done. It is necessary to systematically work to attract additional funding to the institutes, evaluate the contribution of each laboratory, each employee to the achievements of the institute, identify weak employees, and perhaps transfer some to engineering positions.

Now it is important to show positive dynamics in the implementation of the roadmap. And when they try to carry out the president’s orders in such a fraudulent manner, everyone understands that nothing good will come of it.

- How do you evaluate the work of the RAS Presidium?

The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences has an extremely archaic working style. As before, at every meeting we discuss some scientific report, and most of the time is spent on this. I completely disagree with this approach when there are many things that are literally outrageous.

The Academy of Sciences is one of the few legislatively recognized bodies representing the interests of scientists. This is an organization that should form a positive image of science in society. We must take care of educating society, popularizing science, talking about pseudoscientific prejudices, new achievements of world science, even if they were not made here. This is the function of the Academy of Sciences, but I cannot say that it performs it effectively.

The Academy has not proposed projects similar to the Science Festival, which we have been conducting since 2006 on the initiative of the rector of Moscow State University Viktor Sadovnichy. Now this project has grown into an all-Russian one. This is a broad movement that unites a large number of people in all regions of the country. Science festivals are attended by millions of people every year.

Another problem is that non-members of the RAS are poorly involved in the activities of the Academy of Sciences. As part of my work at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I was able to carry out one important project: according to my original proposal, a corps of professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences was formed. We have selected 500 young doctors of science who are now taking part in the activities of the academy. They formulate their proposals on many issues. And this is very good, we just need to do it more actively and with a greater degree of publicity. Professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences should not wait for authority, no authority falls from the sky, but receives it when people themselves take an active position and offer something to society and the authorities. RAS professors can issue statements on their own behalf, having legal status in the Academy of Sciences. I really hope that the initiative of these young doctors of science can be liberated, and they will really be able to offer many reasonable and useful things.

You said that scientists do not need to “wait for credentials.” It seems to me that the Russian Academy of Sciences often takes a wait-and-see approach. Its members say they are waiting to be approached by ministry working groups, and the authorities say there is insufficient participation of academy members in these working groups. How can this interaction be established?

This is what my program talks about. Of course, the academy must work to expand its powers. But they appear when reasonable proposals appear. We must, on our own initiative, formulate and publicly voice certain proposals and defend them in the authorities. This is the only way to obtain authority and carry out the projects proposed by the academy.

When our Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science was created, many ministry employees said about us: another clamp on the neck, a waste of time. They themselves admitted this to me later. But over time, since we proposed many reasonable things, the ministry employees began to listen to us, and other authorities. When we offer something, it is no longer possible to ignore it. It seems to me that the Academy, which is a much more authoritative body and also has greater powers under the law, should act this way, and not wait for any external appeals.

- Mostly they are waiting for increased funding.

There will be no additional funding until the right, good projects are formulated for which this additional funding can be received. Megagrants were able to organize themselves, formulate reasonable proposals and convey them to the president, achieving a meeting with Vladimir Putin in September. As a result, arose presidential program research projects for young scientists from leading laboratories, which is now being carried out through the Russian Science Foundation. It turned out to be possible to obtain additional funding despite the difficult situation.

And the Academy of Sciences should act in the same way. There are problems associated with postgraduate studies in academic institutions. So formulate suggestions to solve this problem. It is possible to revive the “Integration” program, which was at the turn of the 90s and zeros and which played a very positive role: the efforts of academic institutes and universities are combined to prepare senior and graduate students. They received funding through two parallel channels to jointly train young specialists.

You can think about an Academic University in Moscow on the basis of the FANO institutes; this would also make it possible to solve the problem with graduate school and many other problems. If this university is organized in a reasonable way, it will be second after Moscow State University and will be included in the top hundred of the world university rankings.

- What other projects do you propose?

There is the problem of the “age valley of death”: we have many grants for young scientists under 35 years old, but for the age range of 35-45 years it turns out that the person is no longer a young scientist, but does not yet have enough weight in the scientific community to receive other grants . On the other hand, this is the most good time to “start your own business”, to found your own laboratory. An obvious solution to the problem is grants for the organization of independent laboratories for scientific leaders from 35 to 45 years old. We are currently implementing such a project at Moscow State University.

- What might it look like? To whom and where should a scientist come to join such a laboratory?

In many cases, scientists of this age already have scientific independence. What they need is administrative independence: they must develop themselves, have their own economy and learn to be responsible for this economy. I became the head of the department at the age of 39. I can say that it was an important life school that gave me a lot. The mechanism here is clear: a competition must be announced, scientists of the appropriate age will be able to submit their applications. If they win, then the organization where they work or where they want to move should provide them with premises and several initial bets. And the initial funding for the purchase of equipment, reagents, and hiring contract employees will be provided from the grant funds. This will actually be startup financing; this practice exists in many countries.

You are the vice-rector of Moscow State University, a professor, you are actively involved in science, you work on the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science. How do you combine it all?

I try to clearly plan every day. I come to work quite early in the morning so that I can devote the most fruitful morning hours to science, and then everything else.

- What do you like most about what you do? Why do you always save time?

Since my youth I have loved to be “reading in the quiet darkness.” For me, the greatest pleasure is to be able to collect my thoughts, think about scientific results, read new article, see the results of employees, discuss with them. But life pushes us towards something else. I have developed a certain understanding of how the scientific field needs to be changed to make it more effective. And I try to convey this understanding to the scientific community, to society as a whole, and to the authorities.

Rector of Moscow State University Lomonosov commented to MK on the new appointment of his subordinate

On Monday, the Ministry of Education and Science elected the first chairman of the Science Council - a body that Minister Dmitry Livanov conceived as a new, capable one, unlike the “unpromising” RAS. As MK has already reported, these intentions and definitions offensive to Russian scientists caused a storm of protest among academicians. But it so happened that on Monday it was one of them who headed the new Council under the Ministry of Education and Science. It turned out to be the vice-rector of Moscow State University, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Khokhlov. How this happened, “MK” decided to find out from another academician, the rector of Moscow State University Viktor Sadovnichy.

Victor Sadovnichy

“I didn’t know anything about the first meeting of the Science Council,” Viktor Antonovich told the MK correspondent. - Alexey Removich did not consult with me.

- Should you?

It’s up to him to judge...

- Do you support the creation of such a Science Council?

It is still difficult for me to talk about this, because I am not familiar with its position, goals and functions assigned to its members. The Russian Academy of Sciences is a center that unites around itself all of the country’s science, fundamental science.

- Suppose you were offered to head the Science Council?

It would be very difficult. Even without this, I return home closer to midnight - I think I have enough responsibilities.

-It is clear that the RAS is the stronghold of all our science. But you must admit that some reforms would not hurt her.

The Russian Academy of Sciences, like any other large system, sometimes needs additional impulses. And I am sure that in the new realities she is able to do this without outside help.