Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung › pls › web › docs › F1466 › ...sian scientific elite, concentrating on the case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. After taking a

Jean-Paul-Straße 12 . D-53173 Bonn · Tel: +49(0) 228/833-0 . Fax: +49 (0) 228/833-199 E-Mail: [email protected] . Internet: www.humboldt-foundation.de

Arbeits- und Diskussionspapier 8/2007

Western foundations and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: The case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Table of contents

Preface Dr. Georg Schütte......................................................3 "Western foundations and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: The case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation" Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Chepurenko / Dr. Jakob Fruchtmann

Executive summary ...................................................5 1. Introduction............................................................7 2. Fundamental change in Russian scientific life ......8 3. German fellowships for Russian researchers: Ge-

neral tendencies The boom of Russian fellowships in the 1990s ..................10 Humanities, natural sciences and engineering...................11

4. The Humboldt Foundation and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: Results of the opinion poll The current situation in Russian science............................12 The influence of the Foundation on professional advance-ment and the development of international mobility ...........13 Participation in Foundation programs and professional ad-vancement...........................................................................14 International cooperation as a factor of mobility of the Rus-sian scientific elite ...............................................................17 Why do some scientific elite representatives leave Russia?

............................................................................................18

5. Russian scientists abroad: Qualitative in-depth in-terviews Current status and further perspectives..............................20 Remembering scientific life in Russia .................................20 Contacts with former colleagues.........................................21 Why Germany? ...................................................................22 About the decision to stay...................................................22 What is holding researchers back from returning to Russia?............................................................................................24 What could Russia do to attract the expatriates? ...............25 The role of the Humboldt Foundation in the personal biogra-phy of our respondents .......................................................25

6. Conclusions ..........................................................27 Appendix: Documentation of the opinion poll ...........31

Addendum 1 "The Reform of Science in Russia – Current State" Prof. Dr. Alexander J. Chepurenko ..................................................................................35 Addendum 2 "Fellowships and Research Awards of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for researchers from the Russian Federation" ..................................................37

Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung/Foundation | Western foundations and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite

Preface

Preface

When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989/1990, the world opened up for a new era of collaboration in science and research. Many Soviet scientists and scholars immediately sought to get in contact with their col-leagues in the West. Western researches were equally eager to intensify their collaboration with col-leagues in or from the East. Subsequently, the Alex-ander von Humboldt Foundation received a hitherto unknown number of applications form the Soviet Un-ion and – after the dissolution of the USSR – from Russia and the other newly independent states. From 1994 to 1999, roughly 100 to 180 researchers from the Russian Federation annually applied for Humboldt Research Fellowships. A total of 452 fellowships was granted in the 12 years following the end of the Cold War. A study on the international mobility of Russian scien-tists and scholars now looks at the effect of these sponsorship activities on the reproduction of the Rus-sian scientific elite. This study was funded by the Moscow Public Scientific Foundation and supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. An inte-rim report was already published in last year’s Ar-beits- und Diskussionspapier No. 2 of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation “Wissenschaft und For-schung in Russland – zwischen Agonie und Reform?” Now that the study has been completed the full text is available in Russian and an abbreviated version in English. The results deserve a wider discussion among scientists, science managers and organiza-tions involved in international scholarly exchanges as they shed light on tendencies of brain drain from Rus-sia to Germany and processes of brain circulation between the two countries. While scientific collaboration is intrinsically inter-national and researchers enjoy the freedom to search for their best collaborators worldwide the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation aims at fostering the brain circulation between countries. Therefore it offers vari-ous forms of support to scientists from Russia to con-tinue their research work at home once the Humboldt research stay in Germany has come to an end. Re-turn-grants provide a monthly stipend to fund scien-tific activities in the home laboratories. A linkage pro-gram funds short-term exchanges of collaborators, workshops and joint conferences of Russian and German research institutes. And the opportunity to

renew a Humboldt research fellowship to Germany for up to three months is always an option for Russian scientists and scholars to actively stay in touch with German colleagues. At the same time the Humboldt Foundation grants sur-place fellowships to the Ger-man counterparts to cover their travel expenses when they visit former Humboldt Fellows and Humboldt Awardees in Russia (and other countries). In addition, young German scholars are offered the opportunity to carry out research projects at Russian institutes, pro-vided that they choose a Russian host formerly spon-sored by the Foundation. The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation wishes to thank the authors of this study for their research ef-forts which will help to further discuss motives and mechanisms of Russian-German exchanges and collaboration in science and research. Dr. Georg Schütte Secretary General February 2007


Executive summary

Western foundations and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: The case of the Alexander von Hum-boldt Foundation

By A. J. Chepurenko and J. K. Fruchtmann Executive summary The study looks into the influence of Western founda-tions on the mechanisms of reproduction of the Rus-sian scientific elite, concentrating on the case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. After taking a closer look at the fundamental changes that have taken place in Russian science, the study shows some general influence of German fellowships on Russian researchers, considering, among other, the importance of the general political framework. The next chapter illustrates the results of an opinion poll that was held among a representative group of Hum-boldtians, followed by the results of qualitative in-depth interviews among those Humboldtians who have stayed in Germany. Some of the main conclusions of the study are the following: - While material considerations played a key role in

the decision of Russian researchers to leave their country in the early 1990s, today it is rather intra-scientific reasons that make it seem attractive to them to go abroad.

- Russian researchers have more or less adapted to the new conditions of scientific work. This includes using secondary sources of income and financing in addition to the official salary and budgetary poten-tial of their home institute.

- The main strategy of some parts of the Russian scientific elite today could be called “scientific shut-tling”: while mainly still working in Russia, they make regular use of the possibility to go abroad for a shorter period of time in order to accomplish sci-entific projects.

- Especially in the first years of the system transition Western programs facilitated the loss of human capital in Russian science (the so-called “brain drain” of the younger generation and of renowned older scientists). But, on the other hand, they have also helped to promote the careers of the core of Russian mid-age and senior scientists, to integrate them into the networks of the international scientific community and, to some extent, to evade the threat of a “peripheralisation” of Russian science.

- Western foundations have helped to preserve sci-entific life in Russia by smoothing its contradictions.

- Some members of the Russian scientific elite have become economically dependent on Western sources of financing. While this might prove profit-able on an individual basis, the general outcomes for the functionality of the Russian scientific elite as a whole are at least doubtful.

- There is a severe lack of non-governmental funding in Russia – only a small proportion of Russian sci-entists has access to federal non-budgetary funds. Along with the obvious insufficiency of state financ-ing for Russian science, this shows the enormous deficits in the creation of incentives for innovation on behalf of Russian politics and business.

- Russian scientists today will leave the country if they feel that opportunities to level out the problems associated with their scientific life in Russia with the help of Western foundations are diminishing. A de-crease in the activity of Western foundations in Russia would therefore rather increase than dimin-ish the “brain drain”, especially in fundamental re-search.

- Western funding has promoted a new culture of relations in the social structure of scientific organi-sations, oriented less on vertical than rather on horizontal forms of cooperation, thus helping to re-arrange the Russian organisational culture of scien-tific life.

- Many of the emigrants – especially those of the older generation – had not actually planned to stay in Germany. This group would generally be pre-pared to return to Russia, if only the material condi-tions were better, including those necessary for their scientific work.

- Remuneration obviously plays an important role here. Though many of the respondents who stayed abroad have managed to save a little money, their reserves are not nearly strong enough to compen-sate for a missing pension. Social guarantees could have a very positive impact on the reintegration of scientists who have gone abroad.


Executive summary

- Many Russian scientists perceive their young col-leagues abroad as a potential asset for the long-term development of science in Russia. In the long run, they could replace the ranks of Russian re-searchers and lecturers, contributing the knowledge they acquired abroad.


Introduction

1. Introduction For more than a decade now, Russian science has reflected the general contradictory development of Russian society in transition. We have been witnes-sing a deep crisis in the Russian educational system, and, in research and development, scientists have been facing problems their Western colleagues could hardly even imagine. Russian scientists, politicians and experts suddenly have been confronted with rapid changes in organisational structure, economic principles, and priorities in this sphere. They were used to representing a country with a leading position in science and technology, but all of a sudden this position was rapidly waning and future prospects seemed ever darker. Scientists themselves were fac-ing dramatic economic problems, not only in financing their research, but also – like most of their compatri-ots – simply in making a living. The sharp financial decline of the early 1990s forced scientists and scientific institutions to look for new ways of funding their work. Western non-commercial funds played a crucial role here by offering scholar-ships and project funding. This had an immense ef-fect on the socio-economics of science in Russia and led to a reorganisation of scientific management and priorities. At the same time, these foundations had a strong impact on the mobility of Russian specialists. The extent and intensity of international scientific contacts increased tremendously. Today, Russian scientists are working in the research institutes and universities of dozens of countries. This process has had a con-tradictory effect on the formation and reproduction of the human potential in Russia itself. On the one hand, the rising mobility of Russian scientists has resulted in a phenomenon often called “brain drain” and an “ex-port” of scientific and technological ideas, which probably will not develop their positive economic ef-fects in the country that took great effort in bringing out the people who had them. On the other hand, the aid of Western foundations has often made scientific work “possible in impossible times” and has helped raise the quality of the scientific work by Russian re-searchers. Both tendencies will be discussed in this paper. The German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation has played an outstanding role here. Like most funds, it became accessible to Russian researchers only after Perestroika. In the early 1990s a veritable boom

of scholarships and prizes from the Foundation to Russian researchers took place. Today, more than 800 Russian researchers are “Humboldtians”, dozens of whom are academics or corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS), even Nobel Prize winners, and a great number of whom are very highly-qualified specialists working in different spheres of R&D. More than 250 of these Humboldt fellows left Russia for a long time, some of them may-be even for good, after completing their fellowship. The following study investigates the influence of Western foundations on the mechanisms of reproduc-tion of the Russian scientific elite, concentrating on the case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation1. This seems plausible, mainly for three reasons: first, the Humboldt Foundation is one of the most promi-nent Western foundations in promoting young and promising Russian scientists as well as renowned “veterans of science.” Second, the Foundation con-centrates its efforts on the best – those, who by means of talent or scientific achievement might be called “scientific elite.” And third, the specific priorities of the Foundation have helped to form a strong net-work of fellows, former fellows and prize-winners that often holds for a whole lifetime. This ensured a com-paratively high accessibility of the empirical data nec-essary to lead the study to success.

1 The project was conducted in 2004 by a team of the Russian

Independent Institute of Social and Nationalities Problems (Prof. Dr. Alexander Chepurenko, Dr. Leonid Gokhberg, Prof. Dr. Tatiana Ilarionova, Tatiana Obydennova, Dr. Olga Shuvalova and Dr. Jakob Fruchtmann).


Fundamental change in Russian scientific life

2. Fundamental change in Russian scientific life In order to understand the fundamental changes Rus-sian scientific life has gone through in the last decade of the 20th century, let us first take a quick look at the typical career of the Soviet scientific elite before Perestroika. Traditionally, the Soviet scientific elite used to first visit an elite high school and then work at a leading Soviet research center or at an institution of higher education. Traditionally, they would first achieve a diploma with distinction, followed by a Can-didate’s and after some years - Doctor’s degree. The main selective mechanisms suggested promotion to a group of key personnel at a research center or educa-tional establishment and the acquisition of certain administrative functions, followed after some decades of a successful academic and administrative career by an election to the Academy of Sciences, which finally attributed a high scientific status to a person and definitively marked him or her as a member of the Soviet scientific elite. As far as character, ways and results of scientific careers in Russia are concerned, tremendous change has taken place during the past two decades. In connection with the crisis of the school system, some of the higher educational establishments, which could be called “smithies of the scientific elite,” as-sume the function of providing exposure to talented youth to an even greater extent than they did in So-viet times. Passing a multitude of contests, the most gifted young boys and girls are selected. As most of these contests are at present incorporated into the system of similar international competitions, foreign “head hunters” meet Russia’s young talents already at this stage. At the same time, leading foreign universities are beginning to play a significant role in shaping the future Russian scientific elite, thanks mainly to the increasingly large number of Russians going to the West for training and to the system of scholarships. Besides scientific degree and official status, grants extended by Russian and foreign foundations, as well as the demand of state and commercial sector, play an important role in shaping the potential of the new scientific leader. Abilities and skills required for effec-tive fund-raising, i.e., for drafting and submitting grant applications, are growing more and more important. At the same time, the traditional ways of the Soviet career path have lost importance.

The traditional Soviet hierarchy itself is virtually break-ing down: centrifugal tendencies are taking the upper hand; many scientific institutions are getting frag-mented. One of the consequences of this tendency is that Russian researchers are becoming less verti-cally-oriented – this applies especially to laboratories and sections that are part of a research institute’s organizational structure. Temporary associations of researchers as well as more active work of single researchers (“lone wolves”) have become common. A new type of Russian scientist is emerging. He typi-cally is a “person financially independent of an insti-tute’s administration, more or less regularly visiting his main job … for discussions with colleagues … This process is referred to as ‘atomization’ of scientific search. The scientist is alone, yet he is free to attend to several projects at a time… “ . Russia thus is los-ing an asset that was usually regarded as an impor-tant competitive edge: the advantages of collective scientific work, the existence of so called scientific schools within which future leaders grew up and tradi-tionally asserted themselves as individuals. However, this process has led to greater independence of per-sonality in Russian scientific community. Today, the acquisition of fellowships and grants – both national and (especially in the early – mid 1990s) international - has become a prerequisite for scientific careers in Russia. In order to work in most fields of science or to obtain good results in one’s scientific work, the Russian scientist has to find a contract at a leading foreign research center or acquire fellowships or grants – again, preferably with foreign funds. It is not enough merely to work at a prestigious Russian institute. Fellowships with foreign funds have become a mandatory step to achieve a successful career in Russian science and thus to become part of the Rus-sian scientific elite – even if the scientist intends to live and work in Russia for his entire life. Consequently, it is not as much formal promotion within one’s own institution as recognition in the inter-national scientific community that makes it possible to attract additional financial and other resources. This leads to an individualization of career plans and strategies in science.

Yegerev S. Pain Points of Science. Moscow, 1998, p. 43-44.

According to the data of a large-scale survey conducted by the Center of Studies and Statistics in Science (CISN), in 1996, of the total number of researchers who went abroad for work, 39% worked by personal invitations, another 18% by individual con-tracts, whereas the percentage of those who traveled abroad within the framework of exchange among research institutions equaled 10% only. The data from 2001 on experts working in the


2

2

3

3

Fundamental change in Russian scientific life

As the options for internal financing are very limited in Russia, a re-orientation to external sources has taken place. This especially includes foreign funds as a means of providing the necessary conditions of scien-tific work. Life strategies in Russian science have commecialized.

fying the so called “brain drain.” Whether this process has a positive impact on Russian science or not, it almost inevitably has a positive impact on the career of young Russian scientists.

At the same time, a membership in the RAS or other previously prestigious Russian institutions in no way ensures that matters of status, finance or other prob-lems of the institute will be resolved to its satisfaction. At best, such memberships provide more favorable conditions for competition on the narrow domestic market of grants and project financing. While Russian scientists are more and more con-cerned in funding matters, a latent segmentation of financial sources is under way: scientists with higher status and influence – usually of the older generation – aspire to budgetary financing and compete with one another, mostly for grants extended by Russian scien-tific foundations, while representatives of the middle-aged generation seek contacts with foreign founda-tions and other likely foreign sponsors. As a result we can observe a tangible differentiation of methods, forms and styles of research, especially in the social sciences. In other words, there is a “clash of genera-tions” in Russia’s science. Western grants are objectively and subjectively more favorable than Russian funds. Consequently, a new kind of competition can be observed. As Western funds are controlled by prestigious foreign universities or research centers, incentives emerge to convert them into “customers” rather than partners in cooper-ation who determine themes and methods of research and, at times, induce one-way migration of represen-tatives of the Russian scientific elite.

As a result of the fundamental changes in Russia’s socioeconomic life in general and in the management of the scientific sphere in particular, we observe an ever growing number of Russian scientists abroad. Many of them attract additional capable young resear-chers or senior colleagues, enlisting their services in

IT sphere are even more illustrative: nearly all contacts are based on invitations by foreign partners (55%) or on contracts received by researchers independently (39.4%). See: Gokhberg L.M. Stas-tistika nauki. Moscow: Theis, 2003. P.350, 351).

According to the data of the survey of CISN mentioned above, around 4.1 thousand Russian researchers – 2.6% of the total number – worked outside of Russia in 1996. Those who left had a much higher level of skills compared with Russia’s average (20% - Doctors of Science, 50% - Candidates of Science; See: Gokhberg L.M. op.cit. P.350).


4

4

German fellowships for Russian researchers: General tendencies

3. German fellowships for Russian researchers: General tendencies The general philosophy of the Humboldt Foundation is oriented on purely scientific criteria. In the spirit of the ideas of Alexander von Humboldt himself it finds that the knowledge of mankind knows neither boundaries nor borders. Nevertheless, the long-term perspective shows that geopolitical reasons and con-texts naturally did have an influence on the quantity of fellows from different countries of the world. For obvi-ous general political and geostrategic reasons, only very few Soviet researchers had the opportunity to receive a fellowship from the Humboldt Foundation in the years 1953 to 1983. It was mainly on the basis of the new German “Ostpolitik” in the early 1970s that a great quantity of fellowships was granted to Eastern European researchers. The first Soviet researchers to be invited to Germany on a Humboldt fellowship came in 1970 (the first Chinese fellows came in 1979). In the 1980s, the mass of fellowships moved from Asia to Eastern Europe.

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Table 1 shows that Russian researchers make a good sixth place in the Humboldt statistics for the 50 years from 1953 to 2003, although they had not actu-ally taken part in this “competition” in the first 30 years! Table 1: Overall quantity of Humboldt fellowships, 1953-2003

Country Fellowships

1 USA 20852 Japan 19693 India 13534 China (PRC) 11265 Poland 11056 Russia 7897 Great Britain 5308 Spain 5299 Italy 49810 France 465

Source: AvH Annual Report 2003 What had happened? Against the backdrop of Pere-stroika and the general political developments of the late 1980s, the quantity of Russian Humboldtians had boomed: from 1984 through 1993 Russian scientists ranked fourth in the statistics of Humboldt fellowships. Researchers from the USA held a steady first position in this decade, followed by their Polish colleagues, and the Japanese in third position.

The boom of Russian fellowships in the 1990s Russian researchers were third in quantity of fellow-ships from the Humboldt Foundation in the following decade. From 1994 to 2003 the first place fell to China, followed by the USA and Russia. They had actually “overtaken” their Japanese and Polish col-leagues. (Meanwhile, China had taken a „great leap,“ advancing from fifth to first in the last 20 years.) Table 2: Quantity of Humboldt fellowships, 1994-2003

Country Fellowships 1 China (PRC) 6472 USA 5043 Russia 4384 India 3755 Japan 2766 Spain 1867 France 1788 Poland 1549 Great Britain 13210 Italy 132

Source: AvH Annual Report 2003 From 1994-2003 Russia held an average of 8,3% of all fellowships – that is exactly as much as India’s share and just a little less than the share of the USA. To take a closer look at the development of this dec-ade, we compared the data for every year of the dec-ade. In this period, the share of Chinese and Indian fellowships had been rather steadily growing. There appears to be a downward tendency in the quantity of fellowships to Russian scientists. At the same time, India seems to be gathering speed, while China is roughly holding its position. These tendencies are equally shown by linear, exponential or logarithmic trends. Chart 1: Share of Russian fellowships from the overall quantity of fellowships (in % of all fellowships of the correspondent year; exponential trend line)

Source: AvH Annual Reports 1998-2003 This development can be observed quite clearly if we look at the share of Russian fellowships from the overall fellowships granted by the Humboldt Founda-


German fellowships for Russian researchers: General tendencies

natural sciences grew – in 2003 they even accounted for 84,6% of all fellowships.

tion to all nationalities. Chart 1 shows a clear decline here (again, linear, exponential and logarithmic trends show the same tendency).

From the perspective of international comparison, these proportions seem quite „normal“, although Rus-sian engineering is clearly “weaker”, the humanities a little “weaker” and natural sciences a bit “stronger” than in other countries (see Table 3). Taking the re-cent tendencies of development into account, there seems to be a trend away from the international aver-age.

The boom of Russian fellowships came to its peak in 1990-1992. Russia was not able to hold this position in the statistics; the dynamic development had weak-ened. Representatives of the Foundation explained this with the rising relative attractiveness of the United States of America, general demographic develop-ments and the exodus of young Russian researchers to business (AvH Annual Report 2003:27). Table 3: Share of the disciplines in all fellowships

from 1998-2003: International comparison (%, by country)

Humanities, natural sciences and engineering

Taking a closer look at the Russian fellowships, we find a strong dominance of the natural sciences over the humanities and a very weak position for enginee-ring. From 1998 to 2003, on average natural sciences had a share of ¾ of all fellowships granted to Russian researchers, while only 20% of the Russian fellows worked in the humanities (including economics) and a mere 7% in engineering.

Humanities Natural Sciences

Engineering

China 3,3 72,1 24,6India 2,2 77,9 19,9Russia 18,8 73,9 7,3USA 40,2 52,1 7,8All countries 21,5 67,1 11,4

Source: AvH Annual Report 1998-2003

Chart 2: Share of disciplines in Russian fellowships, 1998-2003 (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

EngineeringNat. sci.Humanities

Source: AvH Annual Report 1998-2003 Again, a closer look at the development over the years is quite conclusive (see Chart 2). A trend analy-sis (again, using linear, exponential and logarithmic methods) reveals three interesting tendencies: a) engineering has severely lost weight – having ac-counted for more than 10% of the overall quantity of Humboldt fellowships in 1998, its share continuously sank, until it completely “vanished” in 2002. b) The share of the humanities proved to be rather stable over the years, fluctuating around an approximate fifth of all fellowships, while c) the relative “weight” of the


The Humboldt Foundation and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: Results of the opinion poll

4. The Humboldt Foundation and the reproduction of the Russian scientific elite: Results of the opi-nion poll

the level of fundamental research in Russia, we noted a split of opinions, with some prevalence of positive trends: 54% of the respondents find that the level of Russian research in their respective fields of science is not below the level of international standards (15% of them even say that it is higher), and 41% insist that it is below the international level.

How do representatives of the Russian scientific elite themselves assess the state of Russian science, and what do they think about their scientific and professio-nal prospects? And what of those who chose not to return to Russia – do they see any prospects for com-ing back? These and some other questions were analyzed in the course of our project.

The assessment of the level of the applied sciences is much less optimistic: 70% of the respondents admit that applied research in their respective fields of sci-ence in Russia is below international standards, and only 10% find that applied research in Russia is abreast of or even more advanced than applied re-search in other countries.

The survey uses general statistical data, supplied by the Humboldt Foundation, an opinion poll and in-depth interviews. The opinion poll was conducted among former fellows of the Humboldt Foundation who returned to Russia after their fellowships in Ger-many had ended (about 190 respondents). The in-depth interviews were conducted with fellows who had decided to stay in Germany for a long time or to settle there for good (21 interviews).

The dynamics of Russian science are generally as-sessed rather pessimistically. Thus, when answering the question: “Has the actual state of affairs in your field of science in Russia improved, been aggravated or not changed at all for the last few years?” (see Table 4), an improvement was noted only by every fifth expert, whereas every third noted an aggravation. As Table 4 shows, natural scientists and middle-aged scholars are more pessimistic than the average.

In the opinion poll, we asked former fellows and Humboldt prize-winners about the current situation in Russian science, the prospects of conserving the country’s scientific potential, and the role of the inter-nationally renowned German Alexander von Hum-boldt Foundation in the professional advancement and international mobility of the Russian scientific elite. How do they evaluate their own participation in the programs of the Foundation, how did it affect their professional prestige and status? Why did they emi-grate, did the Foundation influence their decision? What was the state of their institutes and their per-sonal life at the time of their departure for the fellow-ship in Germany sponsored by the Foundation? We asked them about their current status, future pros-pects and what made them stay in Germany.

Table 4: “Has the actual state of affairs in your field of science in Russia improved, been aggravated or not changed at all for the last few years?” (in %)

Tota

l

Nat

ural

sc

ient

ists

Hum

anis

ts

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Improved 20 18 29 22 14 35 20No change 7 8 5 15 9 -- --There's been an improve-ment in some areas, ag-gravation in others

37 34 45 33 37 35 40

Aggravated 35 49 19 26 39 31 40Undecided 1 1 2 4 1

The current situation in Russian science In the opinion of our respondents, Western founda-tions are definitely not to blame for Russia’s current “brain drain.” As they see it, the trend to emigration is basically fueled by the low social and economic status of Russian science in general and by the problems their specific area of scientific research is confronted with. Third, the dynamics of socio-economic change in Russian society as a whole make the prospect of emigration relatively more attractive.

Our respondents demonstrated surprising unanimity with respect to the reform of Russian science that is in progress in Russia today (Chart 3). Here we see a positive appraisal of attempts to strengthen the unity of science and higher education (nearly 3/4 supported the measures and only roughly 1/6 opposed them). Equal unanimity was demonstrated in denouncing the privatization of the Academy of Science and its insti-

From a scientific point of view, the situation seems to be evaluated more positively. As for the appraisal of

For details on the current reforms cp. Addendum 1.


-- --

5

5



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Privatization of RASinstitutions

Administrativemeasures towards a

closer unity ofscience and higher

education

Transition to grant-intensive financing of

fundamentalresearch through

teams, not institutes

Focusing statefinancing on a

limited number ofscientific fields

Positive influenceNegative influence

74

36

23

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

tutions (approximately 3/4 against, only 6% supported the measures) and focusing budgetary resources on a few priority directions (nearly 2/3 against and only 1/5 in favor). There was much less unanimity in ap-praising grant-intensive financing of fundamental re-search through design teams instead of design insti-tutes: nearly half of the respondents turned out to be in favour of this idea, while a little more than one-third were against it. Chart 3: “Do you think the following reforms will have a positive or negative influence on the development of Russian science?” (in %) Quite often, our respondents turned out to be not quite up-to-date with the reform concepts: 15% had not even heard of the plans to privatize institutions of the Russian Academy of Science, 5% gave no re-sponse. Information about the idea of achieving closer unity between science and higher education was far more wide-spread – only 8% admitted to never having heard of this idea (for more detailed data, compare Table 2 in the appendix).

Yes, thanks to contactswith my former Germanfellowship partner, his staff

Yes, thanks to membershipin a club in my home town,informal contacts with otherformer Humboldtians

Yes, thanks to participationin other programs of theFoundation

No

The influence of the Foundation on professional advancement and the development of interna-tional mobility The methods of the Humboldt Foundation are orien-ted on connecting fellows and prize-winners of the Foundation to three informal “networks”: According to the principle of “lifelong contact,” a fellow can count on various forms of assistance from the Foundation even after the basic fellowship is over; second, close and lasting connections as well as personal contacts with the former German host or his staff are strongly

supported; third, within the framework of clubs and associations of former fellows an intense interchange of information, mutual support and assistance is kept up, helpful especially to younger colleagues, e.g., by introducing them to the Foundations programs. As a result, only 11% of the former fellows and Humboldt prize-winners are at present completely detached from the so-called “Humboldt family” (see Chart 4). Other forms of continued support from the Foundation – scientific equipment, computer hardware, books, financing for travel to conferences in Germany, etc. – are, less frequently, but nevertheless extensively made use of by quite a few Humboldtians. Contacts with the Foundation and its staff are kept up by ¾ of the respondents. Consequently, the over-whelming majority of Russian Humboldtians is well aware of the scientific interests and projects of their German partners. Thus, the Humboldt Foundation programs constitute an effective tool for forming “glo-cal” scientific communities around German universi-ties and research centers. Respondents of the older generation maintain the most active contacts with their former hosts; the same holds true for former fellows whose contacts with German colleagues proved to be a crucial outcome of their fellowship (for details, compare Table 3 in the appendix). Chart 4: “Do you feel related to the international Humboldt family at present? (choose all appropriate response options).”


The network of Humboldt clubs proves to be very important. This can also be said about other forms of associations based on the diverse interests of the former participants of the Foundation’s programs. Over one-third of the respondents are, in one way or another, included in these interactions, even though territorially a significant portion of the fellows are scat-tered all over Russia (more than half of them live and work outside Moscow, Petersburg, Novosibirsk and Kazan, where the clubs operate, and do not have any opportunity of socializing with other Humboldtians in their respective towns).

1

4

25

28

33

34

36

47

75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

experience in commercializing scientific results

experience in the field of fund-raising

learning from my foreign colleagues

attend scientific conferences in Germany and Europe

opportunity to save a little money

work with good scientific equipment

cultural contacts and impressions

access to scientific literature and archives

contacts with foreign colleagues

Directors of scientific research institutes and heads of institutions of higher education turned out to be most active in maintaining contacts with former Hum-boldtians. Respondents from provincial Russian re-search centers and higher educational establish-ments, as well as scientists, who went abroad for a second fellowship, do their best not to lose their con-tacts in Germany. The least active in maintaining such connections are scientists with high official status (chief researchers) and Petersburg-based Humboldtians. Humboldt prize-winners demonstrate the lowest percentage of involvement in other pro-grams of the Foundation.

Participation in Foundation programs and profes-sional advancement The survey indicates that, to former Humboldtians, the most significant result of their stay in Germany was the establishment of contacts with their German colleagues. Other important results of the fellowship were the access to scientific literature and archives, followed by general-cultural impressions from Ger-many and an opportunity to save a little money (Chart 5).

A surprisingly low percentage of our respondents stated that the acquisition of experience in the field of fund-raising and in commercializing the results of their scientific work was an important result of their fellow-ship. Apparently, Russian researchers – including representatives of the scientific elite – are convinced that it is rather not their business to seek financial resources for their scientific activity, let alone to com-mercialize the results of their intellectual labor.

The answers of natural scientists and humanists differ considerably. While the former greatly valued the opportunity to work with up-to-date equipment and to attend conferences, the latter placed greater value on libraries and archives, general-cultural impressions of

Germany and the experience of working with their German colleagues. Chart 5. “What results of your fellowship with the Humboldt Foundation proved most useful to your fur-ther scientific activity?” (choose max. three respon-ses, % of respondents) The differentiation by age-groups proved somewhat surprising. There were no prominent differences in the opinions of “veterans” and “beginners.” The origi-nal hypothesis was that younger cohorts of scientists would find contacts with foreign colleagues more im-portant, ensuring their entry into the scientific com-munity and helping them to master new methods of research. Furthermore, we expected young re-searchers to especially value an opportunity to attend conferences and to work with up-to-date equipment. Nevertheless, as the survey data indicate, the signifi-cance of the previously mentioned positive aspects of a fellowship to scientists younger than 35 proved within or even below the average values of our sam-pling. The importance of cultural impressions turned out to be lower here, too. The only item to be more frequently named by the younger generation than by other age-groups was the opportunity to save some of the money. We asked the respondents to differentiate the impact of their fellowships on their career by the period in which they received it (the Soviet-, the Yeltsin- and the Putin-period, cp. Table 5). Interestingly enough,



the survey indicates that the respondents’ opinions were strongly influenced by the historical circum-stances of their first fellowship in Germany, the rea-sons why a fellowship in Germany was of such impor-tance to their scientific careers have significantly changed. As Table 5 shows, the polled Humboldtians increas-ingly valued the opportunity to work with good equip-ment and to attend scientific conferences. On the other hand, the importance of mastering new meth-ods, of getting acquainted with techniques of fund-raising, of general-cultural impressions, as well as the opportunity of saving a little money, has obviously declined in the opinion of those whose fellowship began more recently. Contacts with foreign colleagues were valued above all by those who had come to Germany for a second fellowship. These contacts proved important espe-cially to those who, thanks to their work in Germany, managed to attain a higher academic status or to publish a monograph abroad. The opportunity to work with modern scientific equip-ment proved to be particularly prominent among the advantages of a fellowship in Germany. Above all, this was noted by the winners of national or internatio-nal prizes (50% above the average), by those who enjoyed several fellowships, by those who attained the status of a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Science as well as by those who, on the basis of their fellowship, were able to publish articles in Western peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for the access to scientific literature and archives, we found a direct relation to the number of the res-pondent’s fellowships: the more fellowships a scientist had, the more he valued these resources. The access to scientific literature and archives was also much more important to those oriented toward leaving Rus-sia for good. Besides this, our data show that growing access to the Internet does not reduce the importance of direct (“real”) access to scientific information. This probably is so because it is not yet possible to suffi-ciently obtain full-text versions of scientific publica-tions, especially of monographs or archive data, through the Internet.

Table 5. "What results of your stay on a fellowship from the Humboldt Foundation proved most useful to your further scientific activity, depending on the time of your first fellowship? (choose a maximum of three responses)"

Bef

ore

1991

1992

- 19

98

1999

- 20

05

1 – work on good scientific equipment 22 32 372 – access to scientific literature and

archives 50 39 533 – mastering working practices of fo-

reign colleagues 28 27 234 – contacts with foreign colleagues 50 87 705 – acquiring experience in the field of

fundraising (search of financing for scientific research)

6 4 4

6 – acquiring experience commerciali-zing scientific results -- 1 --

7 – opportunity to attend scientific con-ferences in Germany and Europe while on fellowship

17 32 27

8 – general-cultural contacts and impressions 56 34 34

9 – opportunity to save a little money 44 30 3310 – other 6 5 7 The survey indicates that only 5% of the participants of Humboldt programs were, after their completion, unable to improve their scientific or official status one way or another. A good ¾ of our respondents were able to publish articles in reviewed scientific journals and almost one-third wrote their thesis (see Chart 6). Taking a closer look at the data, we find that Hum-boldt award winners and Doctors of Science were promoted to a higher position roughly 50% more often than mere Candidates of Science, humanists or re-spondents aged 36 to 50 (for this and the following, see Table 6 in the appendix). The most common form of improving one’s scientific level is publishing articles in influential foreign scien-tific journals. Middle-aged scientists and the collea-gues from Petersburg made use of this opportunity a little more often than average. As far as publishing one or several monographs abroad is concerned, humanists and respondents from 36 to 50 years suc-ceed in this far more frequently. Middle-aged and elderly scientists who held their fellowship before 1991 succeeded nearly twice as frequently as the average in writing a doctoral thesis during or after participation in programs sponsored by the Foundation.



Chart 6. “Do you think your fellowship was conducive to the following?" (%)

5

12

14

15

20

27

32

77

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

nothing of the aforesaid occurred

higher academic status

raise academic status in some other form

become a national or international prize-winner

publish a monograph/monographs abroad

promotion to a higher institutional position

writing / defending a thesis

publish articles in peer reviewed scientific journals

The vast majority of our respondents regard their participation in the programs of the Foundation as an important positive factor for their further scientific activity. As a result of Humboldt fellowships, in parti-cular the opportunities for carrying out research on a state-of-the-art level and for improving scientifically and materially have significantly increased (see Table 6). A fairly impressive positive balance is also noted in such areas as the demand for scientific projects abroad as well as the prospect of continued joint ac-tivity within the framework of an existing team of re-searchers. The survey data indicate that prospects for conduct-ing research on a state-of-the-art level increased par-ticularly strongly for representatives of regional insti-tutes (more than 95% of the respective respondents) and for the age-group from 36 to 50 years. This is also especially stressed by those who managed to defend a doctoral thesis or to get promoted as an outcome of their fellowship. The prospect of improving scientific skills through a Humboldt fellowship proves to be steadily increasing over time. The later our respondents had traveled to Germany for the first time, the more often they praised the improvement of their scientific skills. But there is a notable fragmentation of opinions here among representatives of different regions: to Musco-vites, the prospect of improvement was much lower than to dwellers of St. Petersburg or to representa-

tives of other regions. Further, this seemed more important to younger scientists, too. The same can be said of those who, upon returning to Russia, de-fended their thesis, published a monograph abroad, obtained a higher academic status or got a promotion. Table 6. “Has anything changed in your scientific activity as a result of your participation in programs of foreign foundations?” (in %)

Your prospects...: As a result of participation in programs of foreign foundations …

Det

erio

rate

d

Rem

aine

d

unch

ange

d

Impr

oved

Opportunities for conducting research on a state-of-the-art level

-- 15 83

Opportunities for improving scientific skills -- 18 78

Improving material conditions 1 18 78Demand for projects, motivation to con-tinue and promote them abroad -- 24 73Prospect of continued joint activity within the framework of an existing research team/conditions for setting up such a team

1 26 70

Prospects of career development, ad-vancement in science 2 33 63

Conditions for independent fund-raising 1 36 61Scale of project financing 2 46 49Demand for projects, motivation to con-tinue and promote them in Russia 3 50 45

Prospects of commercializing results 2 77 14Prospects of registering intellectual property rights 3 84 8

Note: The total sum for each line is less than 100% because 2% of the respondents have not completed their fellowship yet and 1 to 3% of the respondents were undecided on some questions. Humboldt prize-winners and chief researchers were especially successful in financing projects on the ba-sis of their fellowship. In other words, a high aca-demic and official status made it possible for them to use the Humboldt programs with greater efficiency to finance their further research. The same holds true for those who had enjoyed two fellowships or more. In addition to this, the activities of scientists depended on the timing of their first fellowship: respondents, who had had their first fellowship during the Yeltsin-period noted growing success in research-funding much more often than others. Unlike their younger colleagues, they already had time to convert their contacts and reputation into financial leverage. Also, the views of natural scientists and humanists on this issue differ considerably: the former more frequently report changes for the better.



It seems noteworthy that only one-third of Petersburg dwellers managed to increase the scale of financing of their scientific work based on the results of their fellowship, whereas more than half the respondents from non-capital cities stressed their progress in this sphere. On the other hand, the inhabitants of the “second capital” (just like representatives of other Russian regions) managed to improve their own ma-terial situation considerably, thanks to their trips to Germany. Muscovites chose this answer markedly less often.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

commercializing results

contracts for studies in Russia

work by contract abroad

joint international scientific projects of your institute andyour foreign partners

visits of foreign colleagues to Russia initiated by you

joint international scientific projects on a personal level

invitations abroad (conferences, etc.)

By and large, the analysis of the survey data leads to the conclusion that the participation in Humboldt pro-grams has a considerable positive impact on Russia’s scientific potential – the vast majority of our respon-dents regard their participation in programs of the Foundation as an important positive factor for their further scientific activity. At the same time, this leads to a growing gap between the good and improving scientific work on the one hand and the poor material and status conditions of scientists in Russia on the other. International cooperation as a factor of mobility of the Russian scientific elite The main form of international cooperation after par-ticipating in Humboldt programs consisted of trips to scientific conferences and individual organization of / participation in international scientific projects (see Chart 7). This is illustrated particularly well by middle-age groups and by humanists. Overall, our data show rather clearly that contracts for research work in Russia are scarcely given to young scientists or those who have passed the age of 65. The same groups more frequently work abroad on contract. Most scientists who commercialized results of their research and development efforts in association with their foreign colleagues have passed the age of 65: 25% of the oldest age group have had such an ex-perience. It is probably their status that helps here: Humboldt prize-winners, Members of the Academy and managers of scientific research institutes com-mercialized results of their intellectual labor twice as often as average.

Chart 7. "Please indicate what forms of international cooperation are the result of your fellowship spon-sored by the Humboldt Foundation or by other foreign foundations (note all appropriate answers)" (in % of the number polled in each group)

Note: Around 5 % cited other activities, nearly as many were unde-cided. Table 7. “Do you use knowledge/experience acquired as a result of your fellowship sponsored by the Hum-boldt Foundation or other foreign foundations in the following areas?”

yes no Using results of research in one’s teaching activity 69 25 Sharing the fund-raising experience 44 45 Introducing young scientists to Humboldt Foun-dation/other foreign foundation programs 81 12 Dissemination of general-cultural information, personal impressions of former country of stay among one’s colleagues/students/post-graduate students

88 5

Other 5 89 Note: The sum total for each line is under 100%, since 2% of the respondents have not completed their fellowship yet and 1 to 3% of the respondents were undecided on some questions. Judging by the results of fellowships, the overwhel-ming majority of former Humboldtians become multi-pliers of information about Germany (Table 7). Over 80% of former Humboldtians introduced young re-searchers to programs of the Humboldt Foundation and of other German foundations, acting as scientific “ambassadors of Germany.” Those who went on fel-lowships sponsored by the Humboldt Foundation more than once, older scientists, Humboldt prize-winners, chief researchers and directors of scientific



research institutes are definitely more active than the average in this regard. More than two-thirds of our respondents actively use the results of their fellowship in their research and teaching activity, which is very important for an im-provement of the quality of Russian higher education. Here, the role of older researchers as well as human-ists should be stressed. The results of the fellowship are increasingly used in teaching, depending on the number of travels for fellowships, which means that an active participation in Humboldt programs is a prerequisite for permanent actualization of training courses delivered to respondents in Russia. However, Humboldtians are less active when it comes to sharing their experience in fund-raising with others. Less than half our respondents stated activities in this direction. In general, natural scientists do this more often than humanists. Scientists from peripheral insti-tutes were most active in sharing their experience in this respect. Leading researchers and professors most actively promoted their knowledge about fund-raising, whereas respondents holding administrative positions apparently are quite reluctant in sharing these skills with others. Russian Humboldtians certainly function as multipliers of the Humboldt Foundation programs. Only roughly a fifth of them stated never to have made any efforts to help other Russian scientists to obtain a Humboldt fellowship. Though comparatively reluctant in sharing general fund-raising experiences with other scientists, Hum-boldtians are quite active promoters of the foundation itself. Almost two-thirds of the respondents assisted other scientists in acquiring a Humboldt fellowship, by supplying information about the Foundation. Among these, nearly one-third actively helped with a recom-mendation. Scientists from Petersburg and repre-sentatives of peripheral institutes were more active here than Muscovites, and humanists were more active than natural scientists. Humboldt prize-winners, older researchers, as well as chief researchers and directors of institutes were especially helpful to their Russian colleagues. The latter is crucial: this indi-cates that top scientific managers evidently not only do not prevent, but directly encourage younger collea-gues to seek support from the Humboldt Foundation. All in all, the main effects of the Humboldt programs seem to consist of the dissemination of information about Germany, of furthering Russian research activi-

ties abroad and of giving assistance to the next gen-eration of Russian scientists in joining the Foundation programs. Why do some scientific elite representatives leave Russia? Our respondents voiced special concern over the phenomenon of the so-called “brain drain.” They see the risk of an exodus of young talents from Russia and, as a consequence, the threat of a new gene-ration gap – nearly half of the respondents stated this concern. But what makes scientists leave Russia? We asked our respondents for the reasons of emigration. Our data reveal four main reasons of scientific emigration: a) economic hardships, b) lack of adequate working conditions, c) the general situation in Russia and d) the lack of support for the scientific sphere by the Russian state. Intellectually, the Russian scientific community still seems to be quite attractive – it is rather the material conditions of scientific work and life in Russia that exert a repulsive effect. Further, we asked about the respondents’ own pro-pensity to emigrate (Table 8). A differentiation of the results leads to the following conclusions: the inclina-tion to emigrate clearly depends on the respondent’s family status, his age and his place of residence. Most interestingly, researchers are more inclined to emigrate, the more children they have. Families with three or more children lean towards emigration nearly three times as often as childless researchers. Obvi-ously, these parents are less concerned about the socio-cultural problems migration can cause, espe-cially for children, than about the material conditions of their upbringing. Second, young scientists are far more emigration-oriented than their older colleagues are: Every third researcher under 35 is exodus-oriented, whereas in the 36-50 age-group only every sixth scientist wishes to leave the country. In the older age-groups virtually nobody was willing to emigrate. Third, among those who worked abroad at the time of the survey, almost every second respondent was prepared not to return to Russia, which, again, is far above the average.



Table 8. Motives of emigration as assessed by the respondents Material difficulties 38

Bad working conditions (lack of equipment and personnel) 35

The macroeconomic (political) situation in Russia 35

The low political priority of science in Russia 34

Fear of loosing the possibility to do research on an inter-

national level 27

Impossibility to realize ones own ideas 26

Lack of a market for scientific products (ideas) 8

Other

а) personal problems, family 3

b) chance to work internationally in your profession 1

Under no circumstances will I emigrate 14

Hard to say 14

Is there an influence of the activity of foreign founda-tions like the Humboldt Foundation on the inclination of Russian scientists to leave the country? On first sight, numbers seem to indicate that this is so: By the year 2004, out of about 800 Russian fellows and Humboldt prize-winners, more than 250 today work at research centers abroad with long-term contracts or on a permanent basis. Nearly 100 of the latter work in Germany today. This could lead to the conclusion that fellowships lead to emigration.

Judging by our data, however, there seems to be little ground for such a hypothesis. Our data show that there is no significant relation between the respon-dent’s propensity to emigrate and the intensity of their involvement in the Foundation’s programs. If a Hum-boldt fellowship were to promote the wish to leave Russia, we should find a close relationship between the respondent’s amount of fellowships and their in-clination to emigrate. But this is not the case.

Further, we asked the respondent’s opinion on the impact of the Foundation’s programs on the dedica-tion of young researchers to Russia. The results show that the higher the activity in the field of international scientific contacts, the more often scientists claim that participating in similar programs strengthens the wish of young researchers to stay in Russia. Correspond-ingly, this group less frequently negatively assesses the impact of such programs on the “scientific exo dus.” This shows that active international contacts instead compensate for some factors that make sci-entific life in Russia unattractive and are conducive to dedicating youth to Russian science.


Russian scientists abroad: Qualitative in-depth interviews

5. Russian scientists abroad: Qualitative in-depth interviews

Finally, there were a few persons among the respon-dents who were staying in Germany within the framework of a rather short, but more or less regularly renewed contract. In other words, these people spend roughly the same amount of time in Germany as they do in Russia, therefore, to them, returning to Russia is an appropriate strategic issue of their practice of “seasonal scientific labor.” These people regard their job in Russia as their regular position, while their stays in Germany (or other countries) are seen rather as a means of improving their financial well-being and as an opportunity for full-fledged research.

In addition to the quantitative data we collected quali-tative material from Russian scientists working in Ger-many. In-depth interviews with 21 former Humboldt fellows, Russian scientists who have been working and living in Germany for years, were performed. The interviews were conducted in Berlin, the Rhein-Ruhr region, as well as in several northwestern and central German cities.

Current status and further perspectives Remembering scientific life in Russia Most of the respondents were still Russian citizens

when we interviewed them, although many of the children of those who had already been living in Ger-many for a long period have adopted German citizen-ship. This was the case especially with the émigré’s sons, who would have otherwise been drafted into the Russian Army. Those who have already become citi-zens of the FRG generally did not see themselves as “Russians,” nor did they identify themselves with Rus-sia.

One of the themes we talked about in our interviews was the memories of former life and work in Russia. What did they like, what did they dislike? What drove them abroad? The respondents usually recalled the good work and personal atmosphere at the institutes where they used to work before leaving for Germany. One of the respondents even said that what he lacked most to-day in Germany was the atmosphere that prevailed at his institute in Russia.

Only very few of our respondents had achieved the prestigious, life-long and high-paid position of profes-sor (C3 or C4 according to the German classification). Most participants of the interviews rather stated that their jobs in Germany were paid on the basis of ВАТ 1 or ВАТ 2, which is a rough equivalent to the Rus-sian position of an assistant professor or senior lec-turer. Their positions are mostly temporary, and when their contracts expire, they will have to search for other sources of financing. Many expect a more or less smooth renewal of their contracts, but most of them were still somewhat uncertain about their future. This has an impact on their life plans – in this socio-economic situation it is rather hard to rely on long-term life plans, considering, e.g. the place of resi-dence. This is sometimes not an easy situation, es-pecially for the older ones and those who have chil-dren of middle and senior school age.

“My institute suited me perfectly, and it still does. There are a lot of good experts there, and the atmosphere is quite friendly. But the salaries and instru-ments …“ (Interview with a physicist-optometrist, Cologne).

Depending on the time of their first trip to Germany, respondents describe their personal circumstances differently. Those who left for their fellowship in the early 1990s generally referred to their economic wel-fare as poor but still tolerable. As that was a time of hyperinflation and terrible economic crises, this may seem rather surprising. Those who left in the mid-1990s or after 1995 much more frequently mentioned serious financial problems that characterized their previous life in Russia. In one case the financial situa-tion of the interviewee was extreme:

A little more confident in this respect are those Rus-sian scientists who do not work at universities, but rather at major (often international) research centers that are part of long-term projects of international cooperation. Most of these scientists are confident that these projects will continue to be financed and expanded, and therefore they do not worry too much about their prospects in Germany.

“The only thing that drove me abroad – besides my eagerness to see the world and work under better conditions – was the salary. […] In Russia, I lived in a 6m3 room in a hostel and had no prospects whatsoever. No chance of ever impro-



ving my life materially. At present, at least I have a one-bedroom flat – I bought it after my fellowship in Ger-many… But now even this flat is too small: we have a 2-year-old son, which means that we need normal material conditions. Frankly speaking, I have nowhere to go. But for this alone, I would not be seeking prospects abroad.” (Interview with a mathematician-programmer, Bonn).

Very infrequently we would hear an opposite opinion. Thus, a physicist, currently employed by the Cologne Space Research Center, gave us the following de-scription of his life in Russia:

“Our university has a pretty good standing in the Russian Federation. It has always been one of the 20 leading higher educational establishments of Russia… The material means of our university were not too bad, either: from the early 1990s to the time of my departure, our laboratory received 10 to 12 grants from international and Russian foundations, i.e., two grants a year on average…Yet, there were other aspects, more important than material considerations, that made me leave: interpersonal attitudes. There was a war going on between some of the divisions and even between some of the colleagues …” (Interview with a physicist, Cologne).

As a result, he made up his mind to leave for a fel-lowship, which eventually led to a long-term stay in Germany. Contacts with former colleagues What does the relationship of our respondents to scientific life in Russia look like today? Will they still keep in touch with their former colleagues and friends? Or do they try to forget their “Russian past” instead? Many of the respondents maintained their personal and professional contacts with their “historic Father-land.” They organize joint projects, fellowships for young Russian scientists at their institute, and they come to Russia on a pretty regular basis themselves. Mostly, they are quite well informed about what is going on in the country.

“It was only after I had obtained German citizenship that I visited Russia in 1999 for the first time. Nevertheless, I have kept up the contacts with my colleagues. For example, we have joint projects with Saratov.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Potsdam).

“Not only do I stay in touch, I have kept my position as researcher there, and my publications are issued in the name of my Moscow institute. If I went back I could easily become the head of a laboratory. Besides, every year my colleagues and friends, right up to the Deputy Director of my institute, come and work for 1-3 months at my research center here: to them, this is an opportunity to earn a little more, to work with good equipment and to get acquainted with foreign colleagues… Such visits are extremely productive and interesting to both sides, therefore we plan to continue our cooperation.” (Interview with a biologist from Bochum).

True, the situation of our respondents can be quite disparate. This depends on how long they have been in Germany, which position they have achieved and whether or not they have retained their formal posi-tions at their Russian institutes. In addition, the be-havior of our respondents’ former scientific principals in Russia is very important. To give you two contrast-ing examples, here are some extracts from two inter-views:

“I am in touch with my colleagues at all levels. Our institute is rather small – less than 200 people – and they all know each other personally. We discuss problems with the director and with the chief of my laboratory. … I mean, I work here as a researcher of my institute, a useful person, because I represent the institute – for the time being. […] Since I visit Russia 3-4 times a year for two weeks, my continuous service there is recorded. To tell you the truth, I don’t know whether all this is really legal …” (Interview with a physicist-optometrist, Cologne).

“I used to communicate with my institute for a long time and continued to be in the books there, but one day, the institute underwent some restructuring and, as a



result, I was kicked out. That happened in the late 1990s. Of course I can understand their position… Although, on the other hand, nobody at the institute ever really tried to profit from my stay here. I’m an active person, and I sent them information about grants, etc., but… Anyway, I was fired, the dismissal notice given not by my research principals, but by personnel managers who don’t even know me. … In this situation, my boss failed to display his bestyqualities." (Interview with a professor for applied chemistry, Dortmund).

Why Germany? Although some respondents stood, as they said, a fair chance of working in the USA or in other countries, nobody regretted that it was Germany that would finally become the place of their permanent resi-dence. Many of them were even quite glad about this. The arguments explaining this were mainly oriented on culture and geography. In both, our respondents felt that Germany is “closer” to Russia than other countries. Besides all the differences, our respon-dents felt that the German mentality was compa-ratively close to the Russian mentality. And geo-graphically, the relatively short distance between Germany and Russia is also regarded very much in favor of Germany: Most fellows have their parents and other close relatives in Russia. Many respondents are grateful to the Humboldt Foundation for making it possible for them to stay in Germany:

“Generally speaking, the Foundation fellowship was a crucial factor that determined my stay in Germany. If not for the Foundation, I would not be in Germany now. Twice, we were about to move to the USA; attractive offers were made. But, it is so hard to leave Germany, where we have lived many years. I often reflect, what would have become of me, if I had not received the fellowship, if I had had to stay in Russia? One thing is clear: I would have quit science.” (Interview with a mathematician, Berlin).

About the decision to stay The motives for staying in Germany for good can be grouped roughly into two groups: political and mate-rial reasons. But very often it was not a vision or a clear long-term plan that led to emigration – true to John Lennon’s motto that life is something that hap-pens to people busy making plans. Most respondents said that, before coming to Ger-many, they did not even dream of staying abroad for a longer time, let alone for good. The idea to stay usually came up after they had already spent a con-siderable amount of time in Germany, as they got more and more involved in their research problems and as they were getting accustomed to life in a for-eign country.

“What are you talking about? I never toyed with the idea of staying for good: during my fellowship, it even seemed to me that I had stayed here far too long already… I went back to Russia, got married, and defended my doctoral thesis. Only after that I received an invitation to come here… I remember when I was a fellow of the Humboldt Foundation, I felt homesick so much that sometimes I even was on the point of giving up everything and going back …” (Interview with a mathematician-programmer, Bonn).

For many, the decision to stay was mainly caused by the poor condition of Russian science. Early in the 1990s, the abrupt aggravation of the situation was perceived philosophically as an unavoidable sacrifice for the transformation of the Russian society. But, as problems kept mounting and Russian science in-creasingly lagged behind the western countries in terms of both finance and management, one had the feeling that it might take several decades for the crisis in Russia to come to an end. The respondents often stated that this was the main reason for them to seek the opportunity to settle in Germany.

“As a matter of fact, when I left Russia, I thought I would be back soon. But, as the situation of Russian science continued to deteriorate on the one hand, and, on the other hand, as we began to get accustomed to life here, I slowly realized that evidently I would not be working in Russia again.” (Interview with a biologist, Bochum).



“It is very difficult to get a permanent job as a researcher in Germany. But I am also worried about what will happen when I go back. […] Again I’ll be reporting to very good people whom I respect, but whom I have outgrown, thanks to my life in Germany. To put it in a nutshell, all this will be of no further interestytoyme,yatyall." (Interview with a young theoretical physicist, Berlin).

As opposed to the group of scientists who just “hap-pened” to have stayed in Germany, those who left in the late 1980s or early 1990s very often left with the firm intention of staying for good. They were often motivated by the political situation in Russia:

“When ‘perestroika’ got under way … I began to realize that I should seek a job in the West. Yes, it is true that in its transition to democracy Russia follows a correct path, but I’m confident that Russia does not need people like me at all. At that time, to me, the Humboldt Foundation was the only opportunity to go … If my plans to stay in Germany had not worked out, I would have gone to Israel, the USA – anywhere. But I had no intention to come back to Russia from theyveryybeginning." (Interview with a geophysicist, Berlin).

“Ever since I obtained my fellowship, I began seeking an opportunity to stay in Germany: the situation in Russia was alarming in politics, economics and in science. While I was in Germany, all my acquaintances from N.N. left. Most of them are now in America. In Germany, I found a job easily and was satisfied with my work, so there was no point in going back. Since 1998, I’m a citizen of the FRG.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Potsdam).

“In 1991, my wife was pregnant. How could we have gone back? Back to the Putsch? … The political situation was so unstable, that I wanted to do all I could to stay in Germany. Besides, the institute where I work at present meets my specialization 100%, and I’m happy with myystatusyhere.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Berlin).

The only exception from those who left for Germany in the second half of the 1990s is a professor from Berlin who went to Germany under a Humboldt fel-lowship in 1998, and at present already has a perma-nent professorial rate. To him, emigration was about living in Germany rather than about leaving Russia:

“I came to Germany with a firm intention of getting a professorship here. And I got it. Working in the C-4 position is prestigious. I was lucky to have obtained a professorship so quickly. I had always wanted to live in Germany, and had learned German since childhood. When I received the fellowship, I was able to travel all over the country and met directors of institutes, presidents of scientific societies, and established the much-neededyconnections.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Berlin).

Another “borderline” case is the respondent who sought to leave for the USA and even had a fellow-ship there. When his stay in the USA was over, he decided to go back to Germany:

“I was in Germany with a fellowship program in 1993-1994. Simultaneously, I was applying for a fellowship in the USA – and I got it. So I took a leave from my Humboldt fellowship and went to America… Eventually, I returned to Potsdam and have been working here ever since. Initially, I had planned to settle in America. I never really thought that I would live in Germany. In 1998, I obtained a permanent researcher position at a university, and now going back to Russia simply doesn’t make any sense. Come to think of it, I have nowhereytoyreturnyto.” (Interview with a biophysicist, Potsdam).

Many of the respondents who admitted that they had actually intentionally left Russia somehow felt that they had to justify their behavior. As a rule they would refer to events and facts that could justify the choice they had made (presumably, mainly to themselves): the war in Chechnya, corruption, the new wave of criminality, etc.



What is holding researchers back from returning to Russia? Scarcely any of the respondents rule out the possi-bility of ever returning to Russia. However, there are certain preconditions for this. First, researchers miss social, political and economic stability and general order in Russia:

“… Above all, the situation in Russia must be reasonable and comprehen-sible. The country would have to stop being ever-changing and unpredictable.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Duesseldorf).

Second, they miss adequate living and working condi-tions:

“I must be confident I will be able to engage in research 60 hours a week, like here, instead of running about to all kinds of offices to gather God-knows-what references or making some money on the side by using my personal car as aytaxi-cab.” (Interview with an experimental physicist, Cologne).

“I don’t think anyone who left Russia will go back, given the current level of sala-ries. Imagine: we live in a 3-bed apart-ment here, while in Russia we cannot afford renting, let alone buying a nor-malyflat.” (Interview with a mathematician-programmer, Bonn).

The prospect of returning to Russia is important mostly to those who do not hold a prestigious perma-nent position in Germany and therefore are not so confident about obtaining the next long-term contract. Those who became professors in Germany do not think about going back to Russia all too seriously. Those who are approaching retirement but who have not had enough time yet to expect a decent pension in Germany, on the other hand, consider repatriation all the more seriously:

“Generally speaking, the better I under-stand the local situation, the less clarity I have regarding the time when I reach retirement. I acquired a permanent posi-tion of BAT 16 a couple of years back. Soon I’ll be 65, and what will be next?

People like me are in a difficult financial situation, we have not earned our pensions. Certainly, every now and then I think of going back to Russia. Ob-viously, one should die in due course [laughs].” (Interview with an applied chemistry professor, Dortmund).

However, other points of view were expressed, too. Here, the willingness to return to Russia was seen as mainly motivated by cultural and mental issues:

“I can’t rule out that I would accept such a proposal... In Germany, I feel fairly comfortable: we have found new friends here, and when I go somewhere on business, I’m eager to get back to Germany as soon as I can. However, this still is not our home. In a way, we shall never feel here the way we did in Russia. It’s not just that we spent our best years, our youth in Russia. Although many things have changed in Russia now, I understand every dog there, and every dog understands me. As for Germany, though I have been living here for years, I permanently feel that I don’t know this or that, and these things are important, you know… We made so many mistakes that cost us money and nerves: one must be born here and suck some things in with the mother’s milk…And this is typical for us émigrés: on the one hand, we may be compa-ratively well off, but on the other hand, we’re unhappy. That’s the price for cer-tainyelementsyofycomfort.” (Interview with a professor of applied chemistry, Dortmund).

Other reasons that hold people back from returning to Russia are a) doubts that their knowledge and skills will be really required there, b) a lack of opportunities to work at the professional level they have meanwhile achieved, and c) a lack of confidence that they will be able to communicate their research experience to anybody. Interestingly, respondents who would not rule out the possibility of going back to Russia themselves often quite categorically excluded the possibility of other Russian researchers returning in greater quantities. Apparently, even the conservatively-optimistic opin-ions they express regarding the state of their former institutes or laboratories in Russia are covered by a



stronger, "negative" opinion concerning thecurrent state of Russian science in general.

“I don’t think anybody will return now: working conditions are too different. The only thing that could be done is to abstain from firing people under com-pulsion. I mean a situation (fortunately, this is not my case: in this sense I have complete mutual understanding with the management of my Moscow institute), when the question is put point-blank: Either you quit and then you are free to work abroad wherever you please, or be so kind as to spend more time at your institute. This is stupid: people contribute as much as they can to maintaining prestige, publish articles under two signature stamps, young researchers are invited to work in the West, while the administration seeks toykickythemyout.” (Interview with a biologist, Bochum).

What could Russia do to attract the expatriates? Very often, our respondents find that a general ten-dency “back to Russia” could only be initiated by the Russian state. But they are rather doubtful about the willingness and capability of the Russian state to do so.

“I can hardly imagine this kind of situa-tion. I mean, of course some researchers will come back. Yet, business alone cannot take care of this task: Financing science, especially fundamental re-search, is something the state has to take care of. … Business alone is unable to cope with this task and it is not the responsibility of business.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Cologne).

Some of the interviewed referred to the experience of China and Brazil, where projects were started to at-tract emigrant scientists back home. But most respon-dents do not see any chance of major private or pub-lic foundations emerging in Russia that would employ leading Russian researchers from abroad, as is done in China.

“The youth will be able to return provided the Chinese experience is used: there, they provide proper conditions for promising researchers who asserted themselves as scientists and gained

recognition in the USA to return to China.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Cologne).

“There are many young people from Brazil who study and work under temporary contracts in Germany. They say there are special programs in Brazil to facilitate the return of young Brazilian researchers who have worked abroad. In Russia, we have nothing of the kind. As for those who have worked abroad, they are treated as self-seekers who betrayed their Fatherland for money. This might even be an obstacle to finding a job in Russia.” (Interview with a young theoretical physicist, Berlin).

Skeptical, but generally rather positive, was the atti-tude towards the long-term prospect of going back to Russia on a well-paid position in the areas of transfer of scientific experience or management of internatio-nal projects. In one interview, the idea was voiced that Germany at present performs the function of an “anchor” to main-tain skilled scientific personnel and keep it not far from Russia:

“Russia, which today for material reasons is unable to maintain its own science, should, in my view, be more oriented to Germany, interact with it. After a while, scientists all the same will return to their Fatherland from Germany (after post-graduate studies or after work by contract), but never from America. The authorities must have a clear understanding of this in Russia, if they thinkyaboutytheyfuture.” (Interview with a mathematician, Bonn).

The role of the Humboldt Foundation in the per-sonal biography of our respondents All respondents noted that obtaining a Humboldt fel-lowship or becoming a Humboldt prize-winner was a crucial event or even a turning point in their bio-graphy.

“Of course, the Humboldt Foundation has played a crucial role in my life. Prior to the fellowship, I had no close contacts in the scientific community. Also, I consi-



derably enlarged the list of my scientific publications. I traveled to conferences I could not have afforded, e.g. to America. I got to know people in the nearer count-ries, for example the Netherlands… In other words, thanks to the Foundation, people have come to knowyme.” (Interview with a physicist-optometrist, Cologne).

“I could have gone to America, too. But credit for the fact that I live and work in Germany now is of course to be given to the Humboldt Foundation. The Founda-tion has a name, and its fellows are people of high esteem in Germany… I got a permanent position easily because of the reference to the Humboldt fellowship in my biography.” (Interview with a biophysicist, Potsdam).

The overwhelming majority of respondents noted that they were participating willingly in activities held by the Foundation in Germany on a regular basis and maintaining contacts with former Humboldtians.

“I’ve been in touch with former Humboldtians, I invite them to come and see me. Many of them have stayed in Germany, so they constitute our circle of acquaintances. However, to tell the truth, I feel no particular need to socialize with Russians.” (Interview with a theoretical physicist, Berlin).


Conclusions

6. Conclusions Thus, including them in the formal and informal net-works of the international scientific community, West-ern funding helps these scientists to work more effi-ciently in Russia. And in this sense, it helps to pre-serve scientific life in Russia by smoothing its contra-dictions. Though it may seem paradox, Russian sci-entists today will leave the country when they feel that opportunities to level out the problems of their scien-tific life in Russia with the help of Western foundations are diminishing. In other words, a decrease in the activity of Western foundations in Russia will increase the “brain drain”, rather than to diminish it.

One of the main hypotheses of our research team was that, compared to the early 1990s, when material considerations played a key role in the decision of Russian researchers to leave their country, today it is rather intra-scientific reasons that make it seem at-tractive to them to go abroad. This hypothesis seems to have been verified in the course of our study. There has been a modest increase in the national financing of some important scientific programs and directions and Russian researchers have more or less adapted to the new conditions of scientific work. This includes using secondary sources of income and fin-ancing in addition to the official salary and budgetary potential of their home institute. Thus a new “nor-mality” of scientific life has emerged in Russia and scientists turn to Western foundations in many re-spects with the same intentions and in the same way as their Western colleagues do. Nevertheless, the material aspect still plays an important role, especially among the younger generation.

The programs of the Humboldt Foundation (fellow-ships, awards, etc.) are strongly oriented on streng-thening the intensity and continuity of international scientific networking with a long-term perspective. Thus, such programs are apt to strengthen the cadres of the Russian scientific elite in their home country by furthering exactly the strategies that make it easier and more effective for a scientist to stay in Russia. However, certain conditions must be fulfilled by the Russian side, as well, if this effect is to be achieved. On the one hand, the programs must be intelligently and effectively used by the scientists themselves. On the other hand, they have to be backed up by well-planned strategies on behalf of the scientific institu-tions they leave.

Although lately the share of Western foundations in the direct financing of science in Russia has dimin-ished, our analysis shows that they still play a very important role in the reproduction of the Russian sci-entific elite. The participation of Russian scientists in their programs is not a one-way street – while it is true that these programs have, on the one hand, facilitated the loss of human capital in Russian science, the so-called “brain drain,” they have also helped tremen-dously to promote the careers of Russian scientists, to integrate them into the international scientific com-munity, to evade a threatening “peripheralisation”, a tendency of Russia to end up on the periphery of international scientific life. This was a realistic sce-nario, especially if we take into account the weak financing and the state of the material-technical basis of science in Russia.

Consequently, the astonishing speed of adaptation to the new mechanisms of reproduction on behalf of the scientists and the learning process scientific institu-tions have been going through in the last fifteen years (a process they are still going through) have helped to shift the balance of positive and negative effects of Western funding on Russian science to the positive side. Though it may sound contradictory, one of the impor-tant outcomes of our study is the following: The more Russian scientists can count on possibilities of leav-ing and returning to their country on behalf of their scientific work, the more reason they will ultimately have not to emigrate. Therefore, the further develop-ment of the balance of positive and negative effects of Western funding is growing more and more depend-ent on international political conditions. Western fund-ing will only be able to facilitate the reproduction of the scientific elite in Russia, if they can rely, for ex-ample, on liberal visa regulations. In this respect, Russia is ultimately interested in a common humani-tarian space no less – or even more – than the EU.

For several reasons, the balance of these negative and positive effects of Western foundations on Rus-sian science has been anything but constant. The massive exodus of the early 1990s seems to lie way in the past – as our study shows, the main strategy of the Russian scientific elite, today, is rather what could be called “scientific shuttling.” That is, while mainly still working in Russia, to regularly make use of the possibility to go abroad for a shorter period of time in order to accomplish some scientific project using more contemporary technical instruments or simply in order to earn something on the side (“podrabatyvat’”).


Conclusions

The other side of the coin should not be ignored though, either. Whether by means of “scientific shut-tling” or by “subcontracting”, i.e., by factually working for Western institutions while, geographically and institutionally, working in Russia – many members of the Russian scientific elite have become economically dependent on these sources of financing. While this may help to overcome the worst difficulties of their scientific life in Russia on a short-term basis, it also influences their themes and even fields of research, as well as their scientific status. In this manner, many of them factually have become mere assistants of their Western partners or employers – highly quali-fied, but nonetheless mere assistants. While this might prove profitable on an individual basis, the ge-neral outcomes for the functionality of the Russian scientific elite as a whole are at least doubtful. It seems to be a significant signal that Western funds are just as important in the financial structure of our respondents’ budgets for scientific projects as natio-nal non-budgetary funds are. This shows a severe lack of non-governmental funding in Russia – only a small proportion of Russian scientists has access to federal non-budgetary funds. Along with the obvious insufficiency of state financing of Russian science, this clearly shows the enormous deficits in the crea-tion of incentives for innovation in Russia on behalf of politics and business. If not for these deficits, Western funding could not ever bear the risk of making the Russian scientific elite dependent. More than that, Western foundations also give researchers more in-dependence – in relation to hierarchical structures in Russia. At the same time, such financial resources “from the side” allow and promote a new culture of interrelation-ships in the social structure of scientific organisations, oriented perhaps less vertically than the traditional organisation of science in Russia implies. It instead furthers horizontal forms of networking or temporary work-groups, thus rearranging the Russian social culture of organisation of scientific life. This could be of high relevance, as it could further and stabilise new forms of cooperation that involve a stronger element of free competition. Getting connected to the networks of the international scientific community proved to be equally important for all scientists interviewed. This seemed surprising, as the study had started with the hypothesis that in-ternational contacts would be more important for younger scientists, or for people working in experi-

mental fields of research as well as scientists from the leading Moscow research centres. As the study shows this is not the case – the “demand” for interna-tional networking proved to be equally strong among the representatives of “pure theory,” like mathemati-cians or theoretical physicists, as well as among re-searchers from the province and elderly scientists. Russian scientific institutes, today, are poorly equipped with expensive scientific equipment. Their libraries often are undersupplied with periodicals as well as with monographic literature, a difficulty that cannot be resolved by access to the Internet. These problems are especially severe in the province. For these reasons the fellowships and other possibilities of participation in international activities provided by the Humboldt Foundation are in especially high de-mand by scientists from the provinces. For them there often are only very few possibilities left to stay in sci-ence – one of which is provided by the Foundation. At the same time, more or less attractive ways out of science – like going into business or administration – are far more restricted than in the metropolis, too. Consequently, the risk of dependency on the Foun-dation is higher in the province than in the centre. The political importance of federal programs – be they governmental or non-governmental – is therefore cru-cial to the further existence of science in the Russian regions. An important outcome of the study concerns the question of possible ways to regain Russian scientists from the “Diaspora” (the word usually used in Russia to characterize the emigration community and its ties) in the middle- or long-term perspective. The inter-views show that many of the emigrants – especially those of the older generation – had not actually planned to stay in Germany. Most of them have not achieved a life-long position as a professor there, either. This group would generally be prepared to return to Russia, if only the material conditions were better, including those necessary for their scientific work. Another important condition is that they be able to keep up their international contacts. Many of them are still in close private and professional contact with their colleagues in Russia, take part in summer schools or other forms of education and research in Russia. This group of respondents was generally more optimistic about the state and prospects for Russian science – they stressed positive changes, talked more about talented youth in Russian colleges etc.


Conclusions

Remuneration obviously plays an important role. Though many of the respondents who have stayed abroad could manage to save a little money, their reserves are not nearly strong enough to compensate for a missing pension, even in Russia, where some things are still a bit cheaper than in Germany. An obvious conclusion is that social guarantees could have a very positive impact on the reintegration of scientists gone abroad. Of course these problems can be tackled neither by Western foundations nor by patriotic “enthusiasm” on behalf of the scientists alone. Professor Dr. Alexander J. Chepurenko is Director of the Office for International Relations and Dean of the Faculty of Sociology at State University Higher School of Economics Moscow. He was Alexander von Humboldt research fellow in 1992-93 (University of Bonn), 1997-98 (Federal Institute of Eastern and In-ternational Studies, Cologne), and 2002-03 (Rhine-Westfalian Institute of Economic Research, Essen). Since 2003 he is also a member of the Selection Committee for the German Chancellor Scholarship-Programme for Russia.

Dr. Jakob Fruchtmann is senior researcher at Koszalin Institute of Comparative European Studies (KICES). He was Feodor Lynen research fellow in 2003-05 (Institute for Complex Social Research at the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow), and 2006 (Higher School of Economics, Moscow).


Appendix: Documentation of the opinion poll

Appendix: Documentation of the opinion poll Table 1. “Has the actual state of affairs in your field of science in Russia improved, been aggravated or not changed at all for the last few years?” (in %)

Tota

l

Nat

ural

sc

ient

ists

Hum

anis

ts

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Improved 20 18 29 22 14 34,6 20No change 7 8 5 15 9 -- --Aggravated 35 49 19 26 39 30,8 40There's been an improvement in some areas, aggravation in others 37 34 45 33 37 34,6 40Undecided 1 1 2 4 1 -- --

Table 2. “Do you think the proposed reform measures will sustain or incapacitate Russian science?” (in %)

Russian science

Is m

ore

likel

y to

be

sust

aine

d

Is m

ore

likel

y to

be

inca

pa-

cita

ted

I kno

w n

o-th

ing

abou

tth

is

Und

ecid

ed

No

resp

onse

Corporatization and privatization of RAS institutions 6 74 15 -- 5Administrative measures towards closer unity of science and higher edu-cation

71 15 8 1 5

Transition to grant-intensive financing of fundamental research through de-sign teams, not design institutes

47 39 10 1 3

Focusing the bulk of state financing on a limited number of tracks of scientific thought

22 60 13 -- 5

Table 3. “Do you feel related to the international Humboldt family at present? (choose all appropriate response options).”

Sam

plin

g as

a w

hole

Nat

ural

sc

ienc

es

Hum

aniti

es

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Mos

cow

St.

Pet

ers-

burg

Oth

er

citie

s

Yes, thanks to membership in a club in my home town, informal contacts with other former Humboldtians

36 35 36 17 35 57 38 40 13 46

Yes, thanks to participation in other programs of the Foundation

23 19 31 31 26 18 -- 22 28 20

Yes, thanks to contacts with my former German fellowship partner, his staff

74 73 74 55 80 61 86 73 73 76

No 11 13 5 17 10 10 10 12 12 7



Table 4. “What results of your fellowship with the Humboldt Foundation proved most useful to your further scientific activity? (choose max. three responses).”

Sam

plin

g as

a w

hole

Nat

ural

sc

ienc

es

Hum

aniti

es

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Mos

cow

St.

Pet

ers-

burg

Oth

er

citie

s

1 – working using good scientific equipment

34 44 -- 31 33 40 33 33 38 30

2 – access to scientific literature and archives

47 35 85 48 51 46 24 43 55 48

3 – mastering working practices of foreign colleagues

25 24 33 28 25 25 20 23 15 37

4 – contacts with foreign colleagues 75 72 80 70 78 61 86 74 83 705 – experience acquired in the field of

fund-raising (search of financing for scientific research)

4 5 -- 3 6 -- 5 6 3 2

6 – experience acquired in the field of commercializing scientific results

1 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- --

7 – opportunity to attend scientific con-ferences in Germany and Europe while on fellowship

28 32 15 21 30 21 33 30 28 26

8 – general-cultural contacts and im-pressions

36 32 49 31 43 29 24 37 37 33

9 – opportunity of saving a little of the fellowship money

33 36 23 41 27 43 38 35 18 41

10 –other 7 7 5 3 5 11 10 6 7 4 Table 5. “What results of your stay on fellowship under the Humboldt Foundation program proved most useful to your further scientific activity, depending on the time of your first fellowship? (choose a maximum of three responses).”

Total Before 1991 1992 – 1998 1999 - 2005

1 - working on good scientific equip-ment

34 22 32 37

2 - access to scientific literature and archives

47 50 39 53

3 - mastering working practices of foreign colleagues

25 28 27 23

4 - contacts with foreign colleagues 75 50 87 70

5 - acquiring experience in the field of fund-raising (search of financing for scientific research)

4 6 4 4

6 - acquiring experience in commer-cializing scientific results

1 -- 1 --

7 - opportunity to attend scientific conferences in Germany and Europe while on fellowship

28 17 32 27

8 - general-cultural contacts and im-pressions

36 56 34 34

9 - opportunity to save a little money 33 44 30 3310- other 7 6 5 7



Table 6. “Do you think your fellowship was conducive to the following?”

Forms of scientific and professional ad-vancement, career development

Tota

l

Nat

ural

sc

ienc

es

Hum

aniti

es

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Mos

cow

St.

Pet

ers-

burg

Oth

er

citie

s

1 – write / defend a thesis 32 31 44 24 39 36 5 32 28 372 – obtain a higher academic status

(including becoming a Correspond-ing Member, academician of RAS, RAMS, RAAS)

12 13 10 3 15 14 10 13 13 11

3 – get a promotion to a higher position 27 25 31 24 32 25 10 28 28 244 – become a national or international

prize-winner 15 18 5 14 15 14 24 14 15 17

5 – publish a monograph/monographs abroad

20 12 39 -- 20 32 19 18 23 20

6 – publish an article/articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals

77 79 74 72 84 68 57 76 85 72

7 – raise one’s academic status in some other form

14 15 15 10 13 25 14 20 5 9

8 – nothing of the aforesaid occurred 5 5 5 3 4 7 14 6 3 7 Table 7. “Has anything changed in your scientific activity as a result of your participation in programs of foreign founda-tions?” (in %)

Your prospects… As a result of participation in programs of foreign foundations …

Deteriorated Remained unchanged Improved

Opportunities of conducting research on a state-of-the-art level -- 15 83Opportunities for improving scientific skills -- 18 78Improving material conditions 1 18 78Demand for projects, motivation to continue and promote them abroad -- 24 73Prospect of continued joint activity within the framework of an existing research team/conditions for setting up such a team

1 26 70

Prospects of career development, ad-vancement in science 2 33 63Conditions for independent fund-raising 1 36 61Scale of project financing 2 46 49Demand for projects, motivation to continue and promote them in Russia 3 50 45Prospects of commercializing results 2 77 14Prospects of registering intellectual property rights 3 84 8

Note: The total sum for each line is less than 100%, because 2% of the respondents have not completed their fellowship yet and 1 to 3% of the respondents were undecided on some questions.



Table 8. “Please indicate what forms of international cooperation are the result of your fellowship sponsored by Humboldt Foundation or by other foreign foundations (note all appropriate answers).” (in % of those polled in each group)

Tota

l

Nat

ural

sc

ienc

es

Hum

ani-

ties

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Mos

cow

St.

Pe-

ters

burg

Oth

er

citie

s

1 – invitations to workshops, confer-ences, symposia

77 74 85 59 84 79 67 73 85 80

2 – contrasts for studies in Russia 15 14 18 3 18 18 5 19 13 73 – work by contract abroad 22 24 8 28 23 11 19 20 20 264 – joint international scientific projects

on a personal level 69 74 59 62 73 75 52 67 70 74

5 – joint international scientific projects of your scientific research institute and your foreign partners

26 30 13 17 24 32 38 31 25 15

6 – visits of foreign colleagues to Rus-sia for lecturing/work on joint pro-jects, initiated by you

35 31 41 17 33 46 57 27 38 50

7 – drawing up plans to promote re-sults of work/commercializing the results, in association with foreign partners

10 10 8 3 9 14 24 14 8 4

Note: Around 5% cited other activities, nearly as many were undecided. Table 9. “Do you use knowledge/experience acquired as a result of the fellowship sponsored by the Humboldt Founda-tion or other foreign foundations in the following areas?”

Forms of using knowledge/experience yes no

Using results of research in one’s teaching activity 69 25Sharing the fund-raising experience 44 45Introducing young scientists to Humboldt Foundation/other foreign foundation programs 81 12Dissemination of general-cultural information, personal impressions of former country of stay among one’s colleagues/students/post-graduate students 88 5Other 5 89

Note: * The sum total for each line is under 100%, since 2% of the respondents have not completed their fellowship yet and 1 to 3% of the respondents were undecided on some questions. Table 10. “Did you assist anybody in acquiring a fellowship sponsored by the Humboldt Foundation or other any western foundation?” (in % of the number of respondents in each group)

Tota

l

Nat

ural

sc

ienc

es

Hum

ani-

ties

Und

er 3

5

36-5

0

51-6

5

Ove

r 65

Mos

cow

St.

Pe-

ters

burg

Oth

er

citie

s

Supplied information on the Founda-tion, out of these:

65 62 69 59 68 68 48 59 70 74

–wrote a recommendation 30 28 39 7 27 46 52 29 33 28–other form of direct or indirect assis-

tance 9 7 15 10 9 11 10 6 15 11

Made no special effort 21 27 10 24 21 18 24 26 18 13


Addendum 1

Addendum 1

The Reform of Science in Russia – Current State The state of the scientific community in Russia, and possible measures to foster a revival of it, have been under debate for several years. A rapid deterioration of the scientific infrastructure, brain drain, waste of some pioneer know-how of Russian science etc., are clear signs of the decline of the potential of Russian society on the cusp of the 21st century. Since early 2000, an attempt to rebuild fundamental science as well as to develop an agenda of a modern State R&D and innovation policy has been one of the key obligations of the Ministry of Education and Sci-ence of the Russian Federation. According to the concept of the reform of science and the scientific environment in Russia for 2004-2008 elaborated by the Ministry, which was “adopted in general” in a gov-ernment session on December 15, 2005, there would be some key indicators characterizing progress in this area:

Source: presentation by Dmitry Livanov, Head of Department of State science and innovation policy of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, in: http://www.scientific.ru/monitor/monitoractions.html The total number of scientists receiving their fixed salary would be decreased by 20%, though those of them who would remain employed would benefit from the shortening of the personnel - their salary would be more than 3-5 times higher. The top representatives of the Academy of Science agreed with the proposed concept (despite the harsh criticism and opposition the Academy initially organized against the concept, which seemed to them to be too radical), but German Gref, the liberal Minister for Economy and Trade, as well as Minister for Finance, Aleksey Kudrin, sharply criticized the concept. Gref said that he did not under-stand the functions of the Academy. Abroad, he ar-

gued, academies are simply elite clubs of excellent scientists, whereas the funding and organizing of scientific research is the function of special institu-tions – universities, state and non-state foundations, etc. However, in Russia the Academy of Science is a public institution obliged to organize fundamental research and funded by the State. Gref mentioned that the reform concept was not con-crete, dealing with goals and intentions rather than with concrete steps of institution building and funding reorganization. Kudrin followed that the document had no economic and financial background. For instance, the aforesaid increase of science funding up to 2% of the GDP by 2010 would only be possible if the State subventions of the Russian economy were radically decreased (up to twice) and the taxation improved. Besides, the formulated measures of tax stipulation of R&D were contradictory to the current tax legislation and to Rus-sia’s international duties. So, the concept was adopted “in general” – in Russia; this often means that it will be put aside or postponed. In 2006, certain steps to diminish the financial-redistributive power of the Academy of Science and to bundle the critical volume of budgetary funding in a few crucial areas of research have been made – cou-pled with some measures to activate R&D transfer into the commercial sector (establishing of tech-noparks, state owned venture fund etc.). Nota bene: In the reform outlines which were the sub-ject of public discussions in 2004-2005, no measures and mechanisms of securing the return of excellent Russian scientists working abroad and/or of prevent-ing the brain drain of youngsters were formulated. This important part of the human component is still missing in the agenda of the Ministry of Education and Science. Professor Dr. Alexander J. Chepurenko


Indicators

2004

2008

Average salary of a scientist, thousand roubles 8,3 30

Share of fundamental research in the State budget expenses in civil science, %

51 58

Internal expenses in R&D per 1 person engaged in scientific research, thousand roubles

154 750

Share of publications by Russian authors in leading international journals, %

2,6 3,4

Addendum 2

Addendum 2

Fellowships and Research Awards of the Alexan-der von Humboldt Foundation for researchers from the Russian Federation The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation promotes the international research cooperation. It enables highly qualified scholars not resident in Germany to spend extended periods of research in Germany and promotes the ensuing academic contacts. German Chancellor Fellowships Up to 10 scholarships per annum are granted to young prospective leaders from the Russian Federa-tion who have shown outstanding potential for future leadership in their previous career. The program ad-dresses applicants from all professions and fields of study giving preference to the humanities, law, social and economic sciences, and also to the arts. Only younger scholars up to the age of 35 are eligible to apply. The monthly fellowship rate amounts to be-tween EUR 2,000 to EUR 3,500. Humboldt Research Fellowships Up to 600 fellowships per annum are granted to young highly qualified academics of all nationalities and disciplines holding doctorates, aged up to 40, resident outside Germany to carry out long-term re-search projects (6-12 months) of their own choice in Germany. The monthly fellowship rate amounts to between EUR 2,100 and EUR 3,000. Sofja Kovalevskaja Awards The grant is geared to young scientists and scholars under the age of 35 from abroad with outstanding research records allowing them to finance their own working groups at in Germany and to cover their living expenses. Recipients of the award will be granted funding totalling up to 1.2 million EUR to conduct research of their own choice during a period of four years. Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research Awards Approximately 20 awards annually are granted to young, top-rank, foreign academics, under the age of 45, who are already recognized as outstanding re-

searchers in their fields, for their achievements in research to date. The award-winners are also invited to spend an extended period (6-12 months) in Ger-many working on a research project of their own choice together with specialist colleagues. The award may amount to a maximum of 55,000 EUR. Humboldt Research Awards Up to 100 Humboldt Research Awards are bestowed annually on internationally-recognized foreign scien-tists and scholars. The award is granted in honour of a life-time's academic achievement. There is no age limit. The award may amount to a maximum of 75,000 EUR. Furthermore, internationally acknowledged scientists from the Russian Federation can be nominated for the Helmholtz-Humboldt Research Award and the Max Planck Research Award. Feodor Lynen Research Fellowships for young scientists from Germany to sponsor research stays in the Russian Federation Up to 150 fellowships are granted annually for highly qualified German scholars younger than 38 from all disciplines to carry out long-term research projects of their own choice outside Germany at research insti-tutes of former Humboldt guest-researchers abroad. Applications may be submitted for long-term research stays of between 1 to 4 years (Long-Term Fellow-ships) or 9 to 18 months within a period of three years (Short-Term Fellowships). The monthly fellowship rate depends on the fellow's age, marital status and host country. Sponsoring opportunities for alumni The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation offers vari-ous funding opportunities for its research fellows after the successful termination of the initial sponsorship, e.g. additional research visits to Germany, participa-tion at conferences in Germany, long-term research collaborations between institutes in Germany and abroad, donations of academic literature and scientific equipment, research visits by German scientists and scholars, and organisation of scientific conferences for former Humboldt research fellows. For more detailed information please see: http://www.humboldt-foundation.de.


Documents

Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung › pls › web › docs › F1466 › ...sian scientific elite, concentrating on the case of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. After taking a