An open letter of wounds to the President of the Russian Federation. An open letter from ten academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences to the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin. The reaction of Orthodox figures and organizations

issued an open letter in which he called for an end to the transfer of part-time researchers in order to imitate the implementation of Putin's May decrees.

An open letter from St. Petersburg scientists speaks of a blatant deception by which the bureaucratic system that controls Russian science pretends to increase scientists' salaries. Since the "May Decrees" were not accompanied by financial support, their implementation from the very beginning became an imitation: the heads of scientific institutions were instructed to increase the salaries of scientists without real increase, that is, on paper, by laying off employees and transferring them to half, a third, and even smaller shares of the bet. "Scientific employees (allegedly voluntarily) are transferred en masse to part-time rates (0.5 and even up to 0.1). They are also transferred to not scientific, but technical positions, which entails, in addition to moral damage, the loss of a number of rights Those employees who do not agree to such humiliating proposals are subjected to administrative pressure, demagogic accusations are made against them that they do not want to help their institute in a difficult situation, that they are "not patriots", etc. . d." – the authors of the letter explain.

If the scientific community does not defend its rights itself, then no one will defend it

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the St. Petersburg Union of Scientists David Raskin believes that scientific institutes and the department that manages them, FANO (Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations) are completely unprepared to implement the "May decrees", so they are trying by all means to create the appearance of their implementation.

– It started a long time ago, but now it has taken on a massive and systemic character, it has begun to affect too many people. Therefore, we realized that if the scientific community does not protect its rights itself, then no one will protect it. And we decided to set such an example - defending their rights by scientists, I think this should have been done right now. And I also think that if scientists are silent, then anything can be done with them without hindrance, but if they are not silent, then options are possible. And besides, it's the only thing we can do.

Instead of wage increases, there is an actual reduction in staffing and cuts in rates

According to the Chairman of the Board of the St. Petersburg Union of Scientists, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Andrey Timkovsky, news of the deplorable state of affairs began to arrive a long time ago, just this spring the scale of imitation of raising salaries for scientists has become critical.

- Alexey Khokhlov was the first to officially speak about this in March, who ran for the presidency of the Russian Academy of Sciences, but was not approved by the government. He said that the May decrees were being implemented disgustingly, that instead of raising salaries there was an actual reduction in staffing and cuts in rates, and that the salary was raised formally, in the end remaining the same, and that this was a mockery and a violation of the law. The Union of Scientists, whose members are employees of both academic and non-academic institutions and universities, receives first-hand information that employees are transferred everywhere to part of the rate, and some to technical positions, for example, to engineers, and then they are no longer subject to the May decrees on wage increases, and this is an additional disgrace. Modern science is equipped with complex instruments that require additional maintenance, requires laboratory assistants - and here we see their discrimination, which can deprive science of the necessary personnel. Based on all these data, our letter was compiled, which was presented at the conference of the Union of Scientists, which took place on April 15 and almost unanimously adopted this text. An open letter was sent to the Presidential Administration, the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences and FASO.

– And why did the Union of Scientists decide to write their letter just now?

They don’t understand the very principle of fundamental science, which works for the future, pays off in twenty years

“Because earlier these things were done selectively, but now they have taken on a general character, in all institutions, and everyone is trumpeting the implementation of the May decrees of the president. Back in March, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Education and Science said that he knew nothing about this, that there was nothing like that, but now a real wave has begun, the quantity has turned into quality. I must say that the outrages did not begin in 2013, when the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences was adopted, for which no one has answered - and will not answer, although it is clear that all beautiful intentions failed, and the leadership of science passed into the hands of officials who set the standards and criteria that do not correspond to the scientific process. But in fact, it all started back in 1992, when science was deprived of funding, and for 25 years academic science did not receive a penny for equipment, so many scientists went abroad. At that time, the ministers of education and science reproached the Academy of Sciences one by one for not producing enough output, but this is a lie: for a dollar of investment, the RAS produced more output than US institutions. Nevertheless, the neglect of science resulted in concrete actions. We have been bombarded with insane reporting, this is an arithmetic, accounting approach to science - like a nail factory. It is clear that we can have one publication that outweighs 20 others. So the attitude towards science is disgusting - from FASO to the very top.

“Don’t you think that there, upstairs, they gave up on scientists a long time ago?”

- They say beautiful words about breakthrough technologies - and that in the assessment of science and in matters of financing, the first place is given to practical benefits, breakthrough technologies. But that means they don't understand the very principle of fundamental science, which works for the future and pays off in twenty years. Remember the atomic project, all over the world, research on nuclear physics began in the 20s, and only in the 40s did the bomb appear, and then the peaceful use of nuclear physics began. More than a dozen years pass from the discoveries of the fundamental laws of the world to the creation of breakthrough technologies - this is an investment in the future, an expensive part of the budget. And when Andrei Fursenko says that science itself must earn money, and the Minister of Culture says that libraries must earn money themselves, it means that they do not understand that all this is an expense that will pay off someday. And after all, compared with the cost of an aircraft carrier or even a tank, the cost of the Academy of Sciences is just a penny! I think that such an attitude towards science reflects the decline in the general cultural level of the population. It does not understand why science is needed, if we already have iPhones, all sorts of smartphones. And the leaders of science do not understand this either - after all, they themselves have never been engaged in it. In the Western world, too, not everything is in order - they have a dominance of political correctness there, and their grant system is also vicious, it's another matter that there are dozens of foundations: if you don't receive a grant in one, you will receive it in another. Well, if you don't get it, then move on. And grants are given for obvious ideas, and not for those that Pyotr Kapitsa called crazy, but there are permanent professorial positions and temporary ones, so a certain balance is maintained. In the scientific world, Obama's speech to Congress made a huge impression: assuming the presidency, he said that America owes its current technical achievements to fundamental science 20 years ago, and in order not to be in the tail of progress in 20 years, today it is necessary to finance fundamental science. Now young people are appearing in science - so that they do not leave, they must be lured not with mega-grants, but with a reasonable organization of science at home, and not selectively, without watering one palm tree in the desert - you need to grow a forest. And do not orient them to cheap pragmatism.

- And what about the directors of institutes, it seems that they are simply forced under pressure from FASO to treat employees this way, to cut rates, for example?

– Yes, they are between the hammer and the anvil. I cannot name names, but there is, for example, such a director of one of the Moscow biological institutes, who said that he should simply follow incoming orders - and it is clear that this is so.

Chief Researcher of the Sociological Institute, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Irina Eliseeva believes that the problem is created by the Russian bureaucratic elite.

A good deed is conceived, but, unfortunately, it turns into a profanity

- May presidential decrees, issued in 2012, are socially oriented, humane, but in practice they turned into a very unsightly situation. It is necessary to increase salaries all the time so that it is significantly higher than the average salary in the region, but at the same time, the wage fund does not increase in any way. And what should directors do? They ask employees to voluntarily write statements of consent to go to part-time, quarter-time, even 1/10 of the rate. What is the average salary? The numerator is the fund, the denominator is the number of employees: and if the fund in the numerator does not increase, then, of course, the denominator should decrease, providing the so-called "growth" of wages.

- How does such an obvious deception occur on a national scale?

– There are constant discussions in different organizations, in academic institutions, and everyone runs into a dead end. The Academy of Sciences no longer directs us, FASO directs us and demands the implementation of the roadmaps of the institutes, which indicate two indicators: an exorbitant increase in wages and an increase in the proportion of young scientists. A good deed is conceived, but, unfortunately, it turns into profanity, lies, deceit, general discontent, a rift between the directorate and employees, between the directorate and FASO, between FASO and the Russian Academy of Sciences. There is a tangle of problems that can be solved in one way - a real increase in wages. Otherwise, it turns out that people are simply squeezed out of science.

Co-Chairman of the Coordinating Council of the St. Petersburg Union of Scientists Vadim Zhukov does not know why the directors of scientific institutes rushed so actively to cut rates for the sake of the appearance of wage increases this spring.

FASO leaders do not understand at all the specifics of scientific creativity and the conditions under which scientists work

– It is difficult to say why FASO is giving such instructions right now. Researchers are afraid that by agreeing to the transfer to part of the rate, they will thereby make themselves completely dependent on the administration, which promises in words to keep their previous income, but in reality may not fulfill its promise. And those who are transferred to the positions of engineers automatically lose some of the advantages of scientific workers - for example, the opportunity to register for housing. Finally, everyone is greatly outraged by the injustice: they treat scientists like this, while the directors themselves receive significantly higher salaries and solve all problems at the expense of their subordinates. In our letter, we oppose the methods by which the May decrees are being implemented. We seem to be saying: the president had something completely different in mind, his decrees speak of the need to raise the salaries of scientists, teachers and doctors up to 200%, but in practice this turns into a fraud.

The leaders of FASO do not understand at all the specifics of scientific creativity, and in what conditions scientists work. They argue like this: if an employee received money from a grant, then he should deal with this grant outside of working hours. But to separate the work on grants and on the so-called government assignments is nonsense. This is terribly harmful, in many institutes it gives rise to a conflict between scientists: the directors of institutes, on the orders of FASO, are forcing scientists who have received grants to switch to lower rates, to give up part of their salaries - otherwise these directors will not be able to raise salaries for everyone, as required by the May decrees. That is, the directors are forced to dodge and deceive, and, on the other hand, their colleagues come to the grant recipients and say: you must give up the money, otherwise we can be laid off. Or the second problem: young scientists who have just defended their thesis are transferred to engineers in order to pay them less, not to pay bonuses. Young people have fewer publications, but those who are in search may not have publications at that time, but then they can become authors of promising discoveries. There was such a wonderful academician Viktor Kabanov, a chemist, he analyzed all the Nobel Prizes in chemistry and found out that not a single work, for which the Nobel Prize was subsequently awarded, was done within the areas that were considered priority at that time. Applied research - yes, they need to be done according to the assignment, since a practical result is needed, but fundamental research should be initiative. I can tell my story: when I graduated from the university, I was a very promising student, I already had two publications, and everyone thought that I would soon defend my dissertation, but I decided that my direction had exhausted itself and began to look for a new one - as a result I defended myself not after three years, but after nine. But on the other hand, I quickly defended my doctoral dissertation, organized a laboratory for the theory of mathematical modeling, began to do completely new things, a new direction was created. Another hindrance to science is that now you have to report every three months, this is amazing unprofessionalism, which will lead to the fact that capable young people will mostly leave. I was at the 27th All-Russian Scientific and Educational Conference of Students "Intellectual Renaissance" - more than 200 people from all over Russia came to it, and there were brilliant works of schoolchildren. We have reserves, but I am afraid that the policy we are pursuing will not lead to anything good.

The scientists' letter speaks of the need to be guided by the interests of science, and not officials, contains specific proposals: the Minister of Finance - "to take the most stringent measures to punish the employees of the Ministry" responsible for financing the academic sector of science: the fact that research institutes are not allocated funds to increase salaries , in the letter is called sabotage of the implementation of the May decrees. The head of FASO is invited to severely punish his employees responsible for financing FASO institutions - as having failed in their duties. The authors of the open letter also propose to punish the directors of scientific institutes who "deliberately resort to forgery" and thereby again disrupt the implementation of the May decrees.

Scientists, academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote an open letter to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, in which they expressed dissatisfaction with the course of the reform of the academy and complained about the style and methods of work of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations. The text of the letter was published on Wednesday by the Kommersant newspaper.

Related materials

The authors of the letter, signed by about 400 people, complain about the legal status of scientific institutes and the academy itself. “Most of the problems of interaction between the Institutes and the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (FASO) arise precisely as a result of the inadequate legal status of scientific institutions and the academy itself. They are trying to apply rules that are obviously inapplicable to them from ordinary budgetary institutions to scientific organizations, completely ignoring the creative and exploratory nature of the work of researchers,” the text of the letter says.

“Scientists must “plan” how many discoveries they will make, how many and in which journals they will publish articles in the next few years. Such planning is basically impossible,” the authors of the letter say.

Scientists also note that the innovations of FASO, created in 2013 during the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), “link the planned increase in funding for RAS institutes in subsequent years with an absurd requirement for a proportional increase in the number of publications.” “In reality, a cumbersome and non-working system of science management has been created. The entire style and methods of FASO work are objectively aimed at destroying science as such, not to mention the creative atmosphere necessary for scientific activity,” the letter says.

According to the authors of the letter, it is necessary to urgently change the status of the RAS and scientific institutes, as well as return them under the leadership of the academy. “In the future, it is necessary to take a number of more serious steps, such as: a significant increase in funding for academic science and a radical revision of the structure of this funding; re-creation of scientific postgraduate studies in the system of the Russian Academy of Sciences; complete withdrawal of academic science from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Science,” the letter says.

If this does not happen, “in March 2018, the elected President of Russia will take over a country with a decapitated, dying fundamental science, unable to meet the challenges of the modern world,” the scientists add. “Nevertheless, I would like to believe that this will not happen, and that the country's leadership will correct the situation by creating conditions for the development of science in Russian institutions by free-lance scientists,” the authors of the letter hope.

The Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations is a federal executive body that is the founder and owner of the federal property assigned to RAS organizations subordinate to it.

The department was established on September 27, 2013 during the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As a result of the transformations, the RAS was merged with the academies of medical and agricultural sciences. The organizations included in the academies and their property were transferred to the management of a new federal authority - FASO of Russia. On January 8, 2014, the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev approved a list of 1007 scientific institutions transferred to the agency. In early June 2015, the government approved the rules for coordination between FASO and RAS.

They write that because of the reform of the academy, a cumbersome and inoperative system of science management has appeared in the country. Scientists should plan how many discoveries they will make and in which journals they will publish articles in the next few years.

This planning is impossible in principle, such requirements lead only to fraud and deceit. The same applies to the ridiculous calculation of "standard hours for the production of scientific products," the authors of the appeal write.

Open letter to the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin

Mr. President!

In July 2016, over 200 prominent Russian scientists wrote you an open letter (“Letter-200”) about the critical situation in Russian science and the need for urgent action by the country’s top leadership (https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3046956 ). No official response to this letter has been received, and all of its theses remain relevant. Moreover, over the past time the situation has only worsened: funding for RAS institutes has been declining; the senseless restructuring of many institutions continues, the absurd bureaucratization of science management by the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (FANO) is intensifying; there is an increase in scientific emigration from Russia of the young generation of scientists.

In September of this year, elections were held for a new President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a new Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. All candidates for the RAS Presidents became members of the renewed Presidium. In their election programs, candidates - academicians E.N. Kablov, G.Ya. Krasnikov and R.I. Nigmatulin was supported by most of the theses of "Letters-200" and his main proposal - the re-subordination of the Federal Agency of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the assignment of economic issues and property management of institutions to FASO. All scientific institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences should be an integral part of the Russian Academy of Sciences and conduct research under its leadership. President-elect of the Russian Academy of Sciences Academician A.M. Sergeev in his program also outlined the strategic goal - the joint management of the institutes by the RAS and FASO, and as a priority he pointed out the need to endow the RAS with a special state status.

Most of the problems of interaction between the Institutes and FASO arise precisely as a result of the inadequate legal status of scientific institutions and the Academy itself. Attempts are being made to apply rules that are obviously inapplicable to them from ordinary budgetary institutions to scientific organizations, completely ignoring the creative and exploratory nature of the work of researchers. Scientists must "plan" - how many discoveries they will make, how many and in which journals they will publish articles in the next few years. Such planning is impossible in principle, and the corresponding requirements lead only to fraud and deceit. The same applies to the ridiculous calculation of standard hours for the production of scientific products, which boils down to feverish adjustment to the required indicators. The number of meaningless reports and plans has multiplied. The latest innovations of FASO link the planned increase in funding for RAS institutes in subsequent years with the absurd requirement for a proportional increase in the number of publications. In reality, a cumbersome and non-working system of science management has been created. The entire style and methods of FANO's work are objectively aimed at destroying science as such, not to mention the creative atmosphere necessary for scientific activity.

There is only one way out of this catastrophic situation: an urgent change in the status of the RAS and the status of scientific institutes, and the return of the institutes under the leadership of the RAS. In the future, it is necessary to take a number of serious steps, such as: a significant increase in funding for academic science and a radical revision of the structure of this funding; re-creation of scientific postgraduate studies in the system of the Russian Academy of Sciences; complete withdrawal of academic science from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Science. These steps require time and significant financial costs. At the same time, the solution of the main problem - the return of scientific institutes to the RAS - requires only your political will.

If urgent measures are not taken to correct the described tragic situation, then in March 2018 the elected President of Russia will take over a country with a decapitated, dying fundamental science, unable to meet the challenges of the modern world. Nevertheless, I would like to believe that this will not happen, and that the country's leadership will correct the situation by creating conditions for the development of science in Russian institutes by free-lance scientists.

Academician G.A. Abakumov

Academician A.G. Aganbegyan

Academician E.B. Alexandrov

Academician A.E. Anikin

Academician Yu.D. Apresyan

Academician P.Ya. Baklanov

Academician V.I. Berdyshev

Academician A.A. Berlin

Academician A.A. Borovkov

Academician A.P. Buzhilova

Academician V.V. Brazhkin

Academician D.A. Varshalovich

Academician V.A. deaf

Academician S.G. Godunov

Academician E.I. Gordeev

Academician A.A. Huseynov

Academician M.V. Danilov

Academician E.M. Dianov

Academician V.V. Dmitriev

Academician V.A. Dybo

Academician Yu.L. Ershov

Academician A.A. Zaliznyak

Academician V.E. Zakharov

Academician Yu.A. Zolotov

Academician S.G. Inge-Vechtomov

Academician N.N. Kazansky

Academician A.A. Kaplyansky

Academician S.P. Karpov

Academician V.L. Kozhevnikov

Academician S.V. Konyagin

Academician V.M. Kotlyakov

Academician E.A. Kuznetsov

Academician M.I. Kuzmin

Academician I.V. Kukushkin

Academician G.A. Kumanev

Academician V.A. Levin

Academician S.V. Matveev

Academician Yu.V. Matiyasevich

Academician S.V. Medvedev

Academician V.P. Meshalkin

Academician P.A. Minakir

Academician S.V. Mikheev

Academician A.M. Moldovan

Academician Yu.N. Moline

Academician N.F. Myasoedov

Academician A.D. Nekipelov

Academician L.P. Ovchinnikov

Academician V.A. Plungyan

Academician V.M. Polterovich

Academician A.K. Rebrov

Academician M.V. Sadovsky

Academician A.A. Sarkisov

Academician V.I. Sergienko

Academician A.V. Sobolev

Academician N.V. Sobolev

Academician S.M. Stishov

Academician S.T. Surzhikov

Academician R.A. Suris

Academician V.B. Timofeev

Academician S.M. thick

Academician A.K. Tulokhonov

Academician G.A. Filippov

Academician A.I. Holkin

Academician A.V. Chaplik

Academician M.F. Churbanov

Academician V.Ya. Shevchenko

Academician M.S. Yunusov

Academician M.I. Yalandin

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Azatyan

Corresponding member RAS V.M. Alpatov

Corresponding member RAS M.L. Andreev

Corresponding member RAS S.I. Anisimov

Corresponding member RAS L.Ya. Aranovich

Corresponding member RAS P.I. Arseev

Corresponding member RAS S.A. Arutyunov

Corresponding member RAS V.E. Bagno

Corresponding member RAS V.G. Bamburov

Corresponding member RAS V.M. Batenin

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Belavin

Corresponding member RAS E.L. Berezovich

Corresponding member RAS V.V. rich

Corresponding member RAS D.M. Bondarenko

Corresponding member RAS A.B. Borisov

Corresponding member RAS L.I. Borodkin

Corresponding member RAS I.A. Buffets

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Vasin

Corresponding member RAS E.V. Vinogradov

Corresponding member RAS B.A. Ravens

Corresponding member RAS N.V. Gavrilov

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Gippius

Corresponding member RAS M.M. Glazov

Corresponding member RAS B.N. Goshchitsky

Corresponding member RAS V.M. Grigoriev

Corresponding member RAS V.L. Gurevich

Corresponding member RAS A.N. Guryanov

Corresponding member RAS G.V. Danilyan

Corresponding member RAS V.E. Dementiev

Corresponding member RAS A.N. Didenko

Corresponding member RAS V.N. Dubinin

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Dybo

Corresponding member RAS A.S. Zapesotsky

Corresponding member RAS Yu.A. Zakharov

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Ivanchik

Corresponding member RAS A.I. Ivanchik

Corresponding member RAS E.L. Ivchenko

Corresponding member RAS V.A. Ilyin

Corresponding member RAS G.I. Canel

Corresponding member RAS I.T. Kasavin

Corresponding member RAS S.M. chestnuts

Corresponding member RAS R.I. Kapelyushnikov

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Queder

Corresponding member RAS V.P. Coverda

Corresponding member RAS N.V. Kornienko

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Kotov

Corresponding member RAS O.I. Koifman

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Kuznetsov

Corresponding member RAS V.G. Kulichikhin

Corresponding member RAS A.R. Kurchikov

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Kuchin

Corresponding member RAS V.N. Lazhentsev

Corresponding member RAS V.N. Lykosov

Corresponding member RAS V.D. Mazurov

Corresponding member RAS A.L. Maksimov

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Maslov

Corresponding member RAS O.E. Miller

Corresponding member RAS V.L. Mironov

Corresponding member RAS V.F. Mironov

Corresponding member RAS G.A. Mikhailov

Corresponding member RAS S.A. Myznikov

Corresponding member RAS I.G. Unknown

Corresponding member RAS V.Ya. neyland

Corresponding member RAS I.A. Nekrasov

Corresponding member RAS A.I. Nikolaev

Corresponding member RAS S.I. Nikolaev

Corresponding member INJURED. Nosov

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Osipov

Corresponding member RAS B.G. Pokusaev

Corresponding member RAS S.A. Ponomarenko

Corresponding member RAS A.P. Potekhin

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Pukhnachev

Corresponding member RAS V.N. Puchkov

Corresponding member RAS V.I. Rachkov

Corresponding member RAS L.P. Repin

Corresponding member RAS A.B. Rinkevich

Corresponding member RAS V.I. Ritus

Corresponding member RAS N.N. Rozanov

Corresponding member RAS V.G. Romanov

Corresponding member RAS V.S. Rukavishnikov

Corresponding member RAS V.V. Sagaradze

Corresponding member RAS N.N. Salashchenko

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Saranin

Corresponding member RAS V.G. Sakhno

Corresponding member RAS N.N. Sibeldin

Corresponding member RAS E.V. Sklyarov

Corresponding member RAS R.L. Smelyansky

Corresponding member RAS O.N. Solomina

Corresponding member RAS N.G. Solomon

Corresponding member RAS A.P. Sorokin

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Stepanov

Corresponding member RAS N. N. Subbotina

Corresponding member RAS V.I. Suslov

Corresponding member RAS A.F. Titov

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Tishkov

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Tolstonogov

Corresponding member RAS A.V. Turlapov

Corresponding member RAS F. B. Uspensky

Corresponding member RAS V.N. Ushakov

Corresponding member RAS V.S. Fadin

Corresponding member RAS D.V. Frolov

Corresponding member RAS A.G. Chentsov

Corresponding member RAS S.V. Cherkasov

Corresponding member RAS A.A. Chernov

Corresponding member INJURED. Chernykh

Corresponding member RAS E.M. Churazov

Corresponding member RAS Yu.B. Shapovalov

Corresponding member RAS V.S. Shatsky

Corresponding member RAS I.V. Shkredov

Corresponding member RAS V.G. Shpak

Corresponding member RAS B.M. Shustov

Corresponding member RAS Yu.A. Shchipunov

Corresponding member RAS D.G. Yakovlev

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.B. Arbuzov

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Beshentsev

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.A. Burlak

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences M.I. Wexler

RAS Professor E.S. Danilko

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.S. Desnitsky

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences I.N. Zilfikarov

RAS Professor I.M. Indrupsky

RAS Professor V.V. Kazakovskaya

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.L. Karchevsky

RAS Professor E.F. Letnikova

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences D.V. Metelkin

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.V. Naumov

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.Yu. Peskov

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.I. Fake

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.V. Samsonov

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.S. Sokolovsky

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.V. Streltsov

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Shiryaev

Doctor of Chemical Sciences S.A. Avilov

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences O.V. Avchenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences P.E. Alaev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.P. Aldushin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.A. Alexandrov

Doctor of Philology M.F. Albedil

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences N.E. Andreev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.D. Aponasenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.G. Arkhipkin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.F. Drums

Doctor of Biological Sciences N.K. Belishcheva

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.S. Belonosov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.N. White

Doctor of Technical Sciences B.A. Belyaev

Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu.E. Berezkin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.Sh. Boltachev

Doctor of Historical Sciences N.V. Braginskaya

Doctor of Philology L.P. Bykov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Byalko

Doctor of Chemical Sciences F.A. Valeev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.V. Valkov

Doctor of Economic Sciences A.E. Warsaw

Doctor of Chemical Sciences S.F. Vasilevsky

Doctor of Philology Ya.V. Vasilkov

Doctor of Historical Sciences A.S. Vashchuk

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.A. Wentzel

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences N.V. Vladykin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences N.B. Volkov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.S. Volkov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.M. Volodin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences I.F. Ginzburg

Doctor of Geographical Sciences S.M. Govorushko

Doctor of Biological Sciences L.A. Golovlev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.V. Golub

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.P. Golubyatnikov

Doctor of Economic Sciences A.E. Gorodetsky

Doctor of Philology A.V. Gora

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.A. Gusev

Doctor of Geographical Sciences V.A. Dauwalter

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.V. Demidenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.L. Demidov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.A. Dykhta

Doctor of Chemical Sciences N.L. Egutkin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences K.N. Yeltsov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Eremin

Doctor of Medical Sciences N.V. Efimova

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.N. Efremov

Doctor of Biological Sciences P.M. Zhadan

Doctor of Historical Sciences V.I. Zavyalov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.B. Zalesny

Doctor of Chemical Sciences G.S. Zakharova

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences N.A. Zemnukhova

Doctor of Biological Sciences T.I. Zemskaya

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.Ya. Zyryanov

Doctor of Technical Sciences V.E. Zyubin

Doctor of Biological Sciences V.A. Ilyukha

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.Yu. Irkhin

Doctor of Biological Sciences N.N. Kavtsevich

Doctor of Chemical Sciences A.M. Kalinkin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.G. Kamensky

Doctor of Technical Sciences M.F. Loaf

Doctor of Technical Sciences A.M. Kasimov

Doctor of Biological Sciences L.N. Kasyanov

Doctor of Biological Sciences A.G. Kiseleva

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.G. Klochkova

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences A.V. Koloskov

Doctor of Technical Sciences A.V. Konovalov

Doctor of Biological Sciences Yu.M. Konstantinov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.N. Korobeinikov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences L.F. Queen

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.G. Kostov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.A. Kotov

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences R.G. Kravtsova

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences N.M. Craines

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences B.B. Crissinel

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.O. Krichak

Doctor of Philology L.P. Krysin

Doctor of Biological Sciences M.V. Kryukov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.A. Kuznetsov

Doctor of Biological Sciences V.V. Kuznetsov

Doctor of Technical Sciences O.P. Kuznetsov

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences V.V. fists

Doctor of Biological Sciences T.V. Kulakovskaya

Doctor of Economic Sciences E.S. Kuratova

Doctor of Philology L.V. Kurkina

Doctor of Philology G.I. Kustova

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.S. Kutateladze

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.Z. Kuchinsky

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Levichev

Doctor of Chemical Sciences T.V. Leshin

Doctor of Chemical Sciences O.D. Linnikov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.A. Lomov

Doctor of Biological Sciences L.A. Lomovatskaya

Doctor of Chemical Sciences P.A. Lukyanov

Doctor of Technical Sciences I.V. Lysenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.N. Magomedov

Doctor of Philology D.M. Magomedov

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences A.M. Mazukabzov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.N. Makarov

Doctor of Biological Sciences L.E. Makarova

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences V.A. Makrygin

Doctor of Technical Sciences Yu.M. Maksimov

Doctor of Economic Sciences V.Yu. Malov

Doctor of Geographical Sciences A.N. Makhinov

Doctor of Philology A.E. Makhov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.S. Medvedev

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences A.I. Melnikov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences B.M. Miller

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.S. Mingalev

Doctor of Geographical Sciences Z.G. Mirzekhanova

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Mirmelstein

Doctor of Biological Sciences T.A. Mikhailova

Doctor of Biological Sciences A.I. Michalsky

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.M. Mishin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Moiseev

Doctor of Chemical Sciences M.M. Monastery

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.S. Morozov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences Yu.I. Murinov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.V. Nazin

Doctor of Philology S.Yu. Neklyudov

Doctor of Philology M.R. Nenarokov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences V.L. Novikov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences O.D. Novikov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.G. Ovchinnikov

Doctor of Technical Sciences V.M. Orlov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.N. Ochkin

Doctor of Philology E.V. Paducheva

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.A. Commemorative

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.V. Panchenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.A. Parkhomov

Doctor of Philology A.A. Pichkhadze

Doctor of Historical Sciences N.I. Platonov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.P. Pozhidaev

Doctor of Chemical Sciences E.V. Polyakov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences N.E. Polyakov

Doctor of Chemical Sciences A.T. Ponomarenko

Doctor of Economic Sciences L.A. Popova

Doctor of Medical Sciences N.K. Popova

Doctor of Economics G.I. Popodko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.S. Potapov

Doctor of Historical Sciences I.V. Potkin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.A. Pustilnik

Doctor of Technical Sciences A.L. Reznik

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.M. Reznik

Doctor of Biological Sciences T.A. Reshetilova

Doctor of Biological Sciences A.S. Romanenko

Doctor of Biological Sciences G.A. Romanov

Doctor of Geographical Sciences V.I. Roslikova

Doctor of Technical Sciences E.Ya. Rubinovich

Doctor of Philosophy A.Ya. Rubinstein

Doctor of Technical Sciences S.N. Rukin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.N. Ryzhov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.I. Rylov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V. V. Ryazanov

Doctor of Economics S.L. Gardens

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.M. Sakerin

Doctor of Historical Sciences A.I. saxa

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.V. Sevastyanov

Doctor of Biological Sciences V.P. Seledets

Doctor of Technical Sciences Yu.I. Senkevich

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.V. Story

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences A.A. Sorokin

Doctor of Technical Sciences G.Ya. Smolkov

Doctor of Economic Sciences S.A. Smolyak

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences E.M. Solar

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences F.I. Solovyov

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences A.I. Tararin

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G.B. Teitelbaum

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences N.A. Tikhonov

Doctor of Historical Sciences G.A. Tkachev

Doctor of Technical Sciences V.V. Tyurnev

Doctor of Philology I.S. Ulukhanov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.N. Factory

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.I. Fadeev

Doctor of Economic Sciences V.V. fauser

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A.S. Fedorov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences I.A. Finogenko

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences I.N. Flerov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.D. Fomin

Doctor of Philology O.E. Frolova

Doctor of Historical Sciences D.A. Funk

Doctor of Historical Sciences N.V. Khvoshchinskaya

Doctor of Philology O.B. Khristoforova

Doctor of Chemical Sciences S.L. khursan

Doctor of Philology A.D. Cendina

Doctor of Philology T.V. Tsivyan

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences P.Yu. Chebotarev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.V. Chekalin

Doctor of Technical Sciences Yu.Ya. Chukreev

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences S.M. Churilov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences V.G. Shavrov

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.V. Shvidevsky

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences I.P. Shestakov

Doctor of Biological Sciences S.D. Schlotthauer

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences O.I. Shumilov

Doctor of Geographical Sciences V.A. Shuper

Doctor of Historical Sciences V.E. Shchelinsky

Collection of signatures continues

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

With growing concern, we are watching the ever-increasing clericalization of Russian society, the active penetration of the church into all spheres of public life. The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims the secular nature of our state and the principle of separation of the church from the system of public education. We are addressing this letter to you as the highest official of our country, who is the guarantor of compliance with the basic provisions of the Constitution.

In March of this year. The 11th World Russian National Council was held in Moscow. Among its decisions, attention is drawn to the resolution "On the development of the domestic system of religious education and science." The name is somewhat strange. If religious education is an internal affair of the ROC, then why on earth does the church care about the development of science? And does science need such care? Everything becomes clear from the following text. The resolution proposes to apply to the Government of the Russian Federation with a request “to include the specialty “theology” in the list of scientific specialties of the Higher Attestation Commission. Preserve theology as an independent scientific direction”. Moreover, the resolution contains one more insistent request "on the recognition of the cultural significance of teaching the fundamentals of Orthodox culture and ethics in all schools of the country and on the inclusion of this subject in the relevant area of ​​the federal educational standard."

As for the attempts to introduce theology into the VAK, they did not begin today. But before, VAK felt a powerful pressure that was not visible to the prying eye. After the Council, it is no longer hidden. And on what basis, one might ask, should theology, the totality of religious dogmas, be considered a scientific discipline? Any scientific discipline operates with facts, logic, evidence, but by no means faith.

By the way, the Catholic Church almost completely refused to interfere in the affairs of science (in 1992, she even admitted her mistake in the Galileo case and “rehabilitated” him). In a conversation with academician V.I. Arnold (March 1998), Pope John Paul II admitted that science alone is able to establish the truth, and religion, according to the pontiff, considers itself more competent in assessing the possible use of scientific discoveries. Our ROC adheres to a different point of view: “A dialogue between the authorities and society is necessary so that the monopoly of the materialistic vision of the world that has developed in Soviet times finally ceases in the Russian educational system” (from the resolution of the Council).

Generally speaking, all the achievements of modern world science are based on a materialistic vision of the world. This issue has long been resolved and, in this sense, we are simply not interested. There is simply nothing else in modern science. The well-known American physicist, Nobel Prize winner S. Weinberg spoke very well on this topic: “The experience of a scientist makes religion completely insignificant. Most scientists I know don't think about this at all. They are so unconcerned about religion that they cannot even be considered active atheists” (New York Times, August 23, 2005). So what are we being offered to change the “monopoly of the materialistic vision of the world” for?

But back to the Higher Attestation Commission. The introduction of the church into the state body is an obvious violation of the Constitution of the country. However, the church has already infiltrated the armed forces, the media advertise religious sprinkling ceremonies for new military equipment (launched surface and submarine ships are sprinkled without fail, but, alas, this does not always help). Religious ceremonies with the participation of high-ranking government officials, etc. are widely covered. All these are examples of the active clericalization of the country.

Let's turn now to school. The hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church call on the Government to introduce a compulsory subject in all schools in Russia - "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture". It must be said that the idea of ​​launching religion into the schools of the country has been nurtured for a long time. In the circular of Alexy II No. 5925 dated December 9, 1999, addressed to "all diocesan bishops", it is noted that "we will not solve the problem of spiritual and moral education of future generations of Russia if we leave the system of public education without attention." The final part of this document says: “If there are difficulties in teaching the Fundamentals of the Orthodox Faith, the name of the course is Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture, this will not raise objections from teachers and directors of secular educational institutions brought up on an atheistic basis.” From the cited text it follows that under the guise of "Fundamentals of Orthodox culture" they are trying to introduce to us (and again bypassing the Constitution) the "Law of God".

Even if we assume that we are really talking about the course “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture”, it has been said more than once that such a course cannot be introduced in a multinational, multi-confessional country. Nevertheless, the Council believes that the study of the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” by schoolchildren is necessary in our state, where the Orthodox make up the absolute majority of the population.” If we consider atheists of Russian nationality (of whom we have by no means as few as some people would like) without exception Orthodox, then the majority will probably turn out. But if there are no atheists, then, alas, the Orthodox will be in the minority. Well, that's not the point. Is it possible to be so contemptuous of other faiths? Doesn't this remind you of Orthodox chauvinism? After all, it would not be bad for church hierarchs to think about where such a policy would lead: to the consolidation of the country or to its collapse?

In the European Community, where inter-confessional strife has already manifested itself in all its glory, after lengthy discussions, they came to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce a course on the history of the main monotheistic religions in schools. The main argument is that familiarity with the history and cultural heritage of other faiths will help improve mutual understanding between representatives of different nationalities and religious beliefs. It never occurred to anyone, for example, to demand the introduction of the “Fundamentals of Catholic Culture”. At the previous Christmas readings, the Minister of Education and Science A. A. Fursenko announced that the work on the textbook "History of World Religions" had been completed. Orthodoxy lobbyists met the message with hostility. Meanwhile, the textbook written by the staff of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (it is called "Religions of the World") is well balanced and contains a lot of information that every person who considers himself cultured should know.

And what do we have now? A year ago, a St. Petersburg schoolgirl Masha and her dad went to court demanding that the theory of human creation by divine power (creationism) be included in the secondary school biology curriculum instead of “outdated and erroneous” Darwinism. An absurd situation has arisen: for some reason, the court must decide whether the theory of evolution, which claims that life on Earth originated over three billion years ago, is correct, or whether the theory of creation is true, which, unlike evolutionary theory, cannot present a single fact , and, nevertheless, claims that life on Earth has existed for several thousand years. It would seem that this is a question related only to the competence of science. However, Masha and her dad received support from Patriarch Alexy II, who stated at the Christmas Educational Readings: “There will be no harm to a schoolchild if he knows the biblical teaching about the origin of the world. And if anyone wants to believe that he is descended from a monkey, let him think so, but do not impose it on others. But what if we remove any evidence at school, forget about elementary logic, completely emasculate the last remnants of critical thinking, and switch to memorizing dogmas, will there also be no harm? By the way, to be sure, neither Darwin nor his followers ever claimed that man descended from apes. It was only argued that apes and humans had common ancestors. And the church has problems not only with Darwinism. For example, what does the "biblical doctrine of the origin of the world" have to do with the facts firmly established by modern astrophysics and cosmology? What to study at school - these facts or the “biblical teaching” about the creation of the world in seven days?

To believe or not to believe in God is a matter of conscience and beliefs of an individual. We respect the feelings of believers and do not set ourselves the goal of fighting religion. But we cannot remain indifferent when attempts are made to question scientific Knowledge, to eradicate the “materialistic vision of the world” from education, to replace the knowledge accumulated by science with faith. It should not be forgotten that the course of innovative development proclaimed by the state can be implemented only if schools and universities equip young people with the knowledge obtained by modern science. There is no alternative to this knowledge.

Academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

Aleksandrov E.B.

Abelev G.I.

Alferov Zh.I.

Vorobyov A.I.

Barkov L.M.

Ginzburg V.L.

Inge-Vechtomov S.G.

Kruglyakov E.P.

Sadovsky M.V.

Cherepashchuk A.M.

________________________________________

Notes:

Alexandrov Evgeny Borisovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, specialist in the field of physical optics, atomic spectroscopy, laser physics and magnetometry, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of General Physics and Astronomy.

Abelev Garry Izrailevich - Professor of the Department of Virology, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University, specialist in the field of immunochemistry and cancer immunochemistry, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Physical and Chemical Biology.

Alferov Zhores Ivanovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, specialist in the field of semiconductors and lasers, Nobel Prize winner in 2000, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Vorobyov Andrei Ivanovich - professor, specialist in the field of clinical physiology of blood and radiation medicine, director of the Hematological Research Center of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Physiology and Russian Academy of Medical Sciences.

Barkov Lev Mitrofanovich - professor, specialist in nuclear physics and elementary particle physics, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Nuclear Physics.

Ginzburg Vitaly Lazarevich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, specialist in plasma physics, crystal optics, cosmic ray and superconductivity physics, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2003, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Inge-Vechtomov Sergey Georgievich - Doctor of Biological Sciences, specialist in the field of general and molecular genetics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of General Biology.

Kruglyakov Eduard Pavlovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, specialist in the field of plasma physics, physics of condensed matter and lasers, head of the plasma physics department of Novosibirsk State University, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of General Physics and Astronomy.

Sadovsky Mikhail Vissarionovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, theoretical physicist, specialist in superconductivity, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of General Physics and Astronomy.

Cherepashchuk Anatoly Mikhailovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, specialist in astrophysics and stellar physics, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of General Physics and Astronomy.

The reaction of Orthodox figures and organizations

In response to a letter from ten academicians, the Russian Orthodox Church announced that "the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized and valued science in the past, and in the present it recognizes and values ​​it."

A number of Orthodox figures criticized the letter of ten academicians. In published materials and public speeches, there are personal attacks against academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, accusations of hatred for the Russian Orthodox Church, violation of the constitution of the Russian Federation, fulfillment of a political order and opposition to “so that people and our society would know their own culture”, etc. publications and speeches, for example, such expressions are found addressed to supporters of writing academicians and academicians themselves, such as “rudiments of the ideology of political pensioners”, “chimera of the so-called scientific worldview”, “meaningless attacks of militant atheism”. Thus, in particular, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, deputy head of the DECR, expressed his opinion about the point of view expressed by a member of the Public Chamber Vyacheslav Glazychev and in a letter from academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The head of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate, priest Vladimir Vigilyansky (in connection with the statement of human rights activists “In support of the letter of academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences”) stated: “...Behind the words of human rights activists, in fact, there is a call for new repressions on religious grounds.” The interregional public movement "People's Cathedral" accused Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vitaly Ginzburg, one of the signatories of the "Letter of Ten", a Nobel laureate, of inciting religious hatred, and appealed to the Moscow prosecutor demanding that he be held criminally liable (the formal reason for this was the comment of Vitaly Lazarevich Newspaper "Education News" in February 2007).

On August 1, 2007, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin presented his position on the letter of ten academicians, saying in particular: “The Constitution of Russia is right when it speaks of the inadmissibility of establishing an obligatory or state religion or ideology. Including, of course, materialism, positivism, agnosticism, atheism. Including in higher and secondary schools.

On August 4, 2007, Patriarch Alexy II, while in Izhevsk, said this in connection with the letter of the academicians: “The Church strictly observes the constitutional principle. The church does not interfere in the political life of the state, and the state does not interfere in the life of the church.

On August 13, 2007, Metropolitan Kirill invited a group of academicians to a dialogue, noting that behind their letter "hidden a desire to isolate the Church."

On September 14, 2007, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, deputy head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, supported the position of the president, expressing the opinion that schools should not introduce compulsory study of religious subjects (including those subjects that speak skeptically about religion) and that it is impossible force a person to be a believer against his will.

On October 31, 2007, the secretary of the Council of Orthodox Youth Organizations in Moscow, Vadim Kvyatkovsky, announced at a press conference that they had already collected more than 100,000 signatures in Moscow, the Moscow region and other regions in support of teaching the subject "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" in Russian schools; noted: "We want to demonstrate the opinion of the majority, Orthodox citizens, and not ten academicians."

Deacon Andrey Kuraev criticized the letter in detail, but noted that the public discussion around the letter could have a positive impact on the inner life of the Russian Orthodox Church. Kuraev believes that the references in the letter to the Constitution on the issue of separating the church from the school were valid only for the Soviet constitution, and not for the modern one: “The Constitution of Russia does not say a word about the notorious Leninist ‘separation of the school from the Church’.” Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation says that the Russian Federation is a secular state, religious associations are separated from the state. Article 4 of the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” (1997) repeats this constitutional norm and specifies it in the appendix to education: “In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, the state ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions ".

The discussion that arose in the Russian Orthodox Church around the letter contained critical comments in the direction of the general policy of the church and the statements of its individual representatives in relation to the letter. In particular, hegumen Peter (Meshcherinov) sharply condemned any manifestations of rudeness in response to criticism of the real or imaginary shortcomings of church life and urged us to perceive the letter as a reflection of the negative processes taking place in the church - its merging with the state, politicization, moving away from purposeful self- church work.

After the academicians' letter was published, priest Georgy Kochetkov analyzed its pros and cons. He and Archpriests Maxim Khizhiy and Dimitry Smirnov criticized the introduction of the "Law of God" into schools. In the course of one of the discussions of the “letter of ten”, Andrey Kuraev agreed that “in many schools, concepts and practices are being replaced: they announce the culturological discipline “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture”, but in fact, religious indoctrination of children begins. It's illegal and dishonest."

The reaction of representatives of other faiths

In the statement of the Muslim community of Russia "Clericalism is a threat to the national security of Russia", a protest was voiced against the replacement of the spiritual revival of multinational and multi-confessional Russia with the restoration of the feudal-state monopoly on faith, against the growing clericalism, against the substitution of the culturological school subject "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" by a religious one, bypassing the Russian constitution. creed. Among the signatories of the statement is Nafigulla Ashirov, co-chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia, head of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of the Asian part of Russia.

Damir Mukhetdinov, head of the administration of the Spiritual Muslim Board of the Nizhny Novgorod Region, spoke in support of the “letter of the academicians”: “Not sharing the atheistic worldview of the academicians who turned to the guarantor of the Constitution, Muslims fully support the very idea of ​​protecting the Constitution from the encroachments of any ideological group, clerical or anti-clerical. It is this position that is supported by the presidents of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and the Council of Muftis of Russia. If there is a Constitution that requires the separation of church and state, the equality of all religions and equidistance from both the authorities and the school, then it must be observed!”

Marat Murtazin, Rector of the Moscow Islamic University, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia, advocated the need for dialogue between traditional religions and society in solving moral, social and educational problems of society. He stressed that "if we are talking about general education schools, then, of course, there can be no compulsory religious subjects in them."

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia advocated a search for a compromise in the dissemination of religious knowledge. Her statement emphasizes that “faith should not be imposed,” but religious organizations should be able to “talk about their tradition so that a person voluntarily makes his spiritual choice.”

Elena Leontyeva, coordinator of the Moscow Buddhist Center of the Karma Kagyu lineage: “We, the Buddhists of Russia, believe that it is not necessary to teach any religious subjects on purpose, forcibly in schools.”

The hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of the Mother of God Sovereign, supporting the authors of the "letter of ten", declared that "in Russia there is still a true intelligentsia, endowed with a sensitive spiritual conscience, capable of boldly and uncompromisingly upholding the principles of humanism and democracy."

Yakov Krotov, a representative of the UAOC(u), stated that theologians who today claim to be scientists and receive degrees through the Higher Attestation Commission, thereby humiliate theology, and sharply criticized the forced teaching of "the basics of Orthodox culture."

The reaction of the scientific community

On October 2, 2007, summing up the meeting of the section of natural science education of the Moscow Society of Naturalists, Secretary S.V. Bagotsky emphasized: “... Most of the participants in the discussion, both believers and non-believers, agreed that in the current situation, introduce the Fundamentals of Orthodox culture“ does not follow.

On November 1, 2007, a letter was distributed by Academicians of the RAS G. S. Golitsyn, G. A. Zavarzin and T. M. Eneev and Corresponding Members of the RAS G. V. Maltsev iF. F. Kuznetsova. In this letter, they note that the authors of the "Letter of Ten" are not authorities in the area under discussion, and disagree with the fact that the existing penetration of the Russian Orthodox Church into society contains any threat. It is noted that the voluntary study of religious culture in state and municipal educational institutions does not violate the legislation of the Russian Federation.

In February 2008, an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation was published, which was signed by 227 doctors and candidates of sciences. The appeal expresses support for the introduction of academic degrees in theology and the teaching of religions in schools. According to the signatories, this will ensure the full enjoyment by Russian citizens of their cultural rights enshrined in the Russian constitution and international human rights instruments. Opponents are accused of imposing their own religious or ideological doctrines, intolerant attitude towards Orthodoxy and the Church. The appeal was criticized in the media, in particular, attention is drawn to the “strangeness of the letter”, in which the authors and initiators are not directly indicated, and the number 227 is in the title, while the letter was signed by 225 people (there are repetitions in the signatures), as well as to the aggressive tone of the letter. Some media suggested that the initiators of the appeal were connected with the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University.

After that, in February 2008, an Open Letter from representatives of the scientific community to the President of the Russian Federation was published in connection with plans to introduce the course "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" (EPC) in schools. By mid-April, more than 1,700 people signed the letter, of which more than 1,100 have academic degrees (candidates and doctors of science). The number of signatories to this letter is constantly increasing due to the fact that signatures continue to be collected via the Internet: anyone who reads this letter can send his signature to the organizers of the action by e-mail. The authors of the letter sharply criticize the course of the OPK, express their full support for the "Letter of Ten", subject the "letter 227" to extensive criticism. The position of the signatories boils down to the following: the introduction of the OPK will inevitably lead to conflicts in schools on religious grounds; in order to realize the “cultural rights” of believers, it is necessary to use not general education, but Sunday schools already available in sufficient quantities; theology, or theology, is not a scientific discipline.

Employees of the Ryazan Kremlin Museum-Reserve spoke in support of the "letter of ten", noting that clericalization in Russia is to the detriment of the interests of national culture and education.

The reaction of participants in the state educational process

Dean of the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University, Professor Vladimir Dobrenkov commented on the letter of ten academicians: "Ginsburg's position is not the position of the Russian, but the godless intelligentsia."

On August 8, 2007, the president of the Russian Academy of Education, Nikolai Nikandrov, stated: "I think the letter is just a good informational occasion, but any concerns here are unfounded."

The reaction of human rights and public organizations

A number of prominent human rights activists and members of the public spoke in support of the letter:

“We see how, under the guise of a religious revival, in our country, in fact, a new national-religious ideology is being formed, permeated with the denial of democracy, xenophobia and the cult of power.”

Statement of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights: “The Moscow Bureau for Human Rights opposes diktat, from whatever side it comes from, for a constructive, meaningful dialogue between representatives of academic science and believers of any confessions existing in our country, primarily Orthodoxy. Only such a dialogue can bring good results.”

President of the Russian Humanist Society Valery Kuvakin expressed support for the "letter of ten", saying that the expansion of the church could lead to a social explosion. He emphasized that “if we want to give a scientific education and if this education should be morally acceptable to everyone, then we must proceed from the principles of science and the principles of morality, which unites all of us, and not some particular denomination.”

The reaction of officials

On August 3, 2007, the Minister of Education and Science of Russia, Andrei Fursenko, called the concerns of the authors of the letter "have the right to exist." Subsequently, Fursenko told reporters that the letter from the academicians played a positive role, as it caused a wide public discussion, and that a number of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church were of the same opinion.

On September 4, 2007, the State Duma refused to support the initiative to prepare a draft statement condemning the position of the authors of the letter.

On September 13, 2007, at a meeting of the Council for the Implementation of Priority National Projects and Demographic Policy, Russian President V.V. Putin stated that the study of religious subjects in public schools cannot be made mandatory, because this is contrary to the Russian constitution. Emphasizing that he advocates raising children "in the spirit of our four religions," the president spoke of the need to "find a form acceptable to the whole society."

Photo: © Agency Moscow/Kiselev Sergey

An open letter signed by almost 400 academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as some other prominent scientists, with a call to urgently save domestic science, was sent to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Several scientists who signed the appeal, in an interview with Storm, told what prompted them to do this and what they see as an ideal model for the development of domestic science.

The researchers' appeal to the president begins with a reminder of a similar letter that was also sent to the Kremlin back in July 2016, to which, however, no response has been received.

Now scientists say that the situation worsened even more over the year. “Most of the problems of interaction between the Institutes and FASO arise precisely as a result of the inadequate legal status of scientific institutions and the Academy itself. They are trying to apply rules that are obviously inapplicable to them from ordinary budgetary institutions to scientific organizations, completely ignoring the creative and exploratory nature of the work of researchers. Scientists must “plan” how many discoveries they will make, how many and in which journals they will publish articles in the next few years. Such planning is impossible in principle,” reads, in particular, in an open letter.

Scientists also demand an urgent change in the status of the RAS and the status of scientific institutions and their return "under the wing" of the RAS. In addition, academics want "a significant increase in funding for academic research", as well as to recreate a scientific postgraduate study in the system of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The Russian Academy of Sciences told which satellite could cause a radioactive cloud in the Urals

“If urgent measures are not taken to correct the described tragic situation, then in March 2018 the elected President of Russia will take over a country with a decapitated, dying fundamental science that is unable to meet the challenges of the modern world,” the text of the open letter ends with such a warning.

One of the signatories of the open letter, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, economist Alexander Nekipelov, in an interview with Storm, said that the very appearance of FASO in 2013 was only a consequence of the approach to science that had been professed for several years in relation to the Russian Academy of Sciences. “This is a matter of shaping research directions and distributing funding. Now these functions are given to the state authority, which is FASO. We are convinced that it is better for the sphere of fundamental research to be managed by the scientific community,” Nekipelov said.

According to another academician who signed the open letter, ex-director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences Abdusalam Huseynov, FASO was once simply instructed to do something other than its own business, to manage institutions: “FASO gives only some external, formal parameters for the number of published articles and so on. Naturally, this does not lead to anything good ... Science should be led by scientists, that is, people who understand this. Scientists must be trusted - they must have room for free creativity.

Both academicians also named the ideal model for the functioning of domestic science. They believe that the Soviet Academy of Sciences was close to ideal from this point of view. Academician Nekipelov even noted that his American colleagues confess to him that the old Soviet Academy of Sciences was always an object of envy for them. Huseynov even said that the old Soviet model just needs to be "de-rust" and get rid of some already quite obvious atavisms, such as party control, and then it will work with the same efficiency.

RAS: Russian economy will recover by 2035

It is possible that other scientists may put their signatures under this open appeal in the near future. So, for example, chief researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Boris Kheyfets told a Storm correspondent that he had learned about the existence of this letter only from the media, but "totally agree with the spirit of what it says."

So far, nothing has been reported about the Kremlin's reaction to the new letter from the academicians.