By Ph.D. Igor Bobin & Ph.D. Natalia Petrovskaya
Once upon a time, when we were still studying in
graduate school, at one of the workshops-trainings in psychology, we expressed
our key idea in which we see the main condition for our creative implementation
as scientists: "That we do not want to have bosses!" Then this
statement of ours caused surprise among graduate students and professors of
that country, which is not completely free from totalitarianism (not free in
their own heads first of all): "How is it without bosses?" Then we
ourselves did not fully understand why this idea was important for us, we just
felt like that, and this statement organically burst out. Later we fully
understood it, and this became our credo for all our scientific activity.
Indeed, the head, scientific adviser and spiritual
guru is needed only by a novice young scientist. On the contrary, a made
scientist should have neither leaders nor authorities.
Only one truth is credible for a
real scientist as for any creative person.
Of course, we will be opposed by the multi-member voices
of scientists from numerous universities, research institutes, R&D centers,
etc.: "How then can a scientist build a career?" But if we turn to
the fountainhead with the question "What is a true scientist?"
then we will see such signs of a real scientist, they are well known from
classical philosophy:
⦁ A
sincere desire to comprehend the truth (Without substituting the goals of
cognition for a career, status, etc. Without this one point, there is no
scientist);
⦁ Non-conformism
(Independence from other people's opinions, from "likes", fashion
trends);
⦁ Cosmopolitanism
(Independence from the interests of a country, religious or national group,
region, university, research institute, department, scientific school, etc.);
⦁ High
competence in their field. Wide scientific interests (Ability to
independently learn the truth, that is, to solve key problems and draw
conclusions at the interfaces between sciences. The ability to prove the
correctness of their judgments by rigorous calculations for himself, not by
voting);
⦁ Openness
of knowledge (Ability to openly and in a clear language to share acquired
knowledge with the whole world, transfer his own knowledge to other areas, and
not hide knowledge in "closed" journals);
⦁ High
responsibility (Ability to be fully personally responsible for the
results);
⦁ High
morality (The desire to increase good in the world, not to increase evil,
not to participate in lies);
⦁ Self-restraint
(The desire to avoid excesses).
We ourselves sincerely try to adhere to these
principles, and this inevitably led us from the university to the independent
science.
Indeed, transferring these listed categories to real
life, we see that a researcher at a university or research institute (if he is
an organic and integral element of this hierarchical structure, not a
dissident) can no longer automatically be a true scientist. It has other goals
and objectives.
This is an employee, performer, teacher,
administrator, manager, leader, city man of science, anyone, but NOT SCIENTIST
in the original antique sense of the word.
Any career sets almost insurmountable boundaries for
genuine scientific activity; any voting on a scientific issue immediately
obscures the truth with the opinion of the majority (usually mediocre). For a
long time (tens of years) we were and worked in such large teams in different
qualities, including university top management (administration, rector's
office) and we personally know the pros and cons.
Such deeply structured and regulated scientific teams
as universities and research institutes in any country are characterized by:
⦁ High
conformism (A necessary condition for a successful career. A researcher
must take generally accepted points of view. If his opinion differs from the
generally accepted one, contradicts the opinion of an official guru, he will
inevitably become a dissident, even if his point of view is correct. This
happened to us. Also there is great the influence of scientific fashion. They
do not what is needed and important, but what is fashionable, and a career goes
faster);
⦁ Researchers
are not free to make independent decisions (Boss takes the money and poses
impossible tasks for the researchers);
⦁ Serving
the group interests (Sometimes this is directly related to participating in
a lie. A great desire to give out wishful thinking, not yet begun as finished,
etc.);
⦁ Incompetence
of scientific employees as a whole, narrow specialization (Each individual
highly specialized employee does not have the knowledge and skills sufficient
to independently carry out a major scientific task. Therefore, a large team is
needed. For the same reason, there is a fear of global problems, because
employees do not understand, do not represent what the world needs and how to
create it. There is no broad vision of the problem, wide scope. Large
scientific teams are contradictory and slow in global tasks, them easier to
solve particular problems: to count the bubbles and particles, etc.);
⦁ Collective
“responsibility”, or rather, collective irresponsibility for results (Inevitable
erosion of responsibility in a large highly specialized team, which is very
convenient for managers and employees);
⦁ Low
morality (Replacing morality with the interests of the collective and work
ethic, cynicism, appeal to the laws of wildlife: "The Law of the
Jungle", "Food Chain", etc. The unprincipled career building
even to the detriment of scientific results);
⦁ Scientific
feudalism (Organically derived from the medieval origin of universities and
carefully preserved. This is manifested in everything: external attributes,
names, charters, traditions and mentality. "... This is my department
(chair)!"; "... The honour of the department obliges...! ". This
also implies the clan nature of universities);
⦁ Clanism
(Groups of official scientific feudal gurus and their vassals. They operate
at a university or research institute for life. They are fed at the expense of
serf post-docs, graduate students and students. Hence, there is a constant struggle
of clans for their privileged position, which takes away the main forces and
time. Science here is deeply secondary);
⦁ Great
connections between universities and the elite (Due to the need for elite
children to study. Hence the prestige of a career at the university, much is
forgiven for the university. Apparently the main role of universities is
educational, slightly covered by scientific romance);
⦁ Priority
of educational activities before scientific at universities (Lectures and
exams are public and it cannot be cancelled, but the quality of research is
difficult to verify);
⦁ Closed
knowledge (They hide their articles in "closed" journals (Why?),
which not everyone can get to know. As a result, the same studies are often
carried out in different countries, the scientific progress stalls);
⦁ Low
material efficiency of scientific research as a minimum of the benefit/cost
function (This follows from the natural interests of a large team to
consume as much as possible in conditions of "unlimited" resources.
Example: a large state corporation. It is very convenient for managers and
employees of universities and research institutes and is very inconvenient for
customers of scientific products).
What is the annual budget of a major famous
university? Billion dollars or more? What great has the university issued in
science this year? Almost nothing? However, as well last year, too (however, according to formal indicators in the
reporting - everything is in order). The main thing is that articles in closed scientific
journals are regularly printed; there are few who will see and check them. The
fact is that it is unprofitable for a university, as a large social organism,
to be especially prolific in science (research institute as well). He is fed by
time. And the university is usually inclined to stretch time.
We, as personal researchers, have been free of all
this for many years and do what we consider necessary and promising as well as
a writer, artist or composer. We openly publish our results. The return to this
serfdom of the university we see only in nightmares.
The effectiveness of our research is high. Motivation
is excellent. You will ask why?
The high material efficiency of personal scientific
research as a maximum of the benefit/cost function follows from the natural reflex of an individual
person, to do as much as possible in conditions of limited resources, i.e. -
thrift, as opposed to the wastefulness of anonymized large groups. Plus,
motivation to work for yourself, not for extraneous (Examples: the building a
family budget, a budget for a small or medium private company - they are always
super-efficient).
Thus, our desire for personal research is not a whim,
but the need to solve complex scientific problems, which in principle cannot be effectively solved in
the cumbersome traditional scientific team (as we have shown) even with a
gigantic budget.
We all know talented individuals who changed the world
with their scientific and philosophical work (Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo
Tolstoy, Nikola Tesla, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Grigori Perelman and many, many
others). For us, they are ... no, not idols, but professional and moral
guidelines in our creative scientific work.
We do not unequivocally affirm that universities and
research institutes are very bad, and our personal research is excellent.
Universities are not competitors to us. So different budgets and different
tasks. However, in the world there are a huge number of complex scientific
problems that are beyond the cumbersome and clumsy structure of the university
and research institutes, but are gracefully solved by our scientific team.
Given our competence as scientists, creative freedom
and relatively modest budget, the result of our personal scientific research is
often stunning with its grandeur, global nature and practical significance for
all of humanity, seriously.
We are ready to share our
knowledge and skills with you!
Join us to make a breakthrough
into the future with us!
Ph.D. Igor Bobin & Ph.D. Natalia Petrovskaya
