The statem¬¬ent, which was made by the Agency for Civil Service Affairs and Anti-Corruption Activities (ACSAAA) about how the National Scientific Councils (NSC) financed doubtful projects at the expense of the state budget, and also about the formation of NSC (which was held with a gross violation of the law) was met by the country's scientific community as a hope that the rule of law will soon be restored, and justice will prevail.

It took almost a year for scientists to draw attention of the competent authorities to this problem. These scientists made numerous appeals, letters, and appearances in the media. And after 11 months, the long-awaited reaction followed. Now, scientists insist that the funds, which were received by a number of research teams with violation of law, would be readdressed to the researchers, whose work scored the greatest number of points during the project evaluation process.

I have no doubts that the ACSAAA specialists will reveal violations in connection with the financing of projects that had low scores at the evaluation stage. After all, I myself felt an unprecedented pressure in early 2018. I was first asked, and then "strongly recommended" to intervene in the process of scoring. All of my attempts to prove that interfering with a competition has all the signs of a corruption offense, and has an appropriate punishment according to the Criminal Code, did cost me a lot of time and nerves. I even openly stated this to the governance of the Ministry of Education and Science in one of my articles
(https://forbes.kz/process/science/adil_ibraev_na_etape_nauchnoy_ekspertizyi_vse_lazeyki_dlya_korruptsii_perekryityi), and also that the NCSTE would not allow the manipulation with scores. But I did not succeed in reaching out to the Committee of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science (CS MES). Projects, which were rated by experts on a low scale, still received the funding. For my integrity, I became disagreeable with the governance of the CS MES in the person of Mr. Nurseitov RS, who, by the way, was appointed to this position in violation of the current legislation. Therefore, in the nearest time, everyone will become a witness of how the question of my future as a head of NCSTE will be decided. Some work is already being done in this particular direction. According to the instructions of the Acting Chairman of the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the NCSTE Board of Directors was radically changed. Moreover, by his own order, he appointed himself as a Chairman of the Board of Directors. Three persons, which were included to the renewed Board of Directors, are unfamiliar with the work specifics of NCSTE. At the same time, a worldwide recognized scientist, an independent member of the council, was removed from the Board of Directors. I have no doubt that all of the above actions are intended to change the leadership in NCSTE, putting the "more agreeable" person there.
Everything will look as if the Board of Directors would have made a decision within the framework of the powers established by the legislation, and that's it. Thus, the same person will act as the sole shareholder and as the chairman of the Board of Directors, because it is, indeed, not prohibited by the law. Believe me, it is very convenient. It would be meaningless to say then, that the work on the organization of the state scientific and technical evaluation will be based solely on the principles of justice, independence and legality.
Although, according to the logic of the corporate governance, an assessment of NCSTE management activities for all the years of work has to be held, the results should be summed up, merits and shortcomings should be noted, gross violations if any should be identified, and only then an issue of the professional viability of the current executive body should be considered. By its legal definition, NCSTE is a legal entity with one hundred percent state participation, created to assist in the implementation of important state tasks in the field of science. Therefore, I believe that any changes associated with the management body should be reasonable and consistent. In other words, this is not a private shop.
The whole problem, according to scientists, is that science is controlled by people who have no idea how it works, how the process of cognition takes place. They treat science as a business project, setting rules and norms in the scientific field that are inapplicable to it. Therefore, science must be managed by people who understand how a scientist works, know how new knowledge arises.
The outstanding Nobel laureate Academician, Peter Kapitsa, wrote letters to Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, unobtrusively but intelligibly explaining to Soviet leaders how science is arranged, why it is a specific form of truth search, and how to make scientific research as effective as possible. Breakthroughs in the field of space, nuclear energy, the field of semiconductors and in many other scientific fields show how valuable the opinion of a scientist was. As for the modern Kazakhstan realities, it seems that managers see the scientific process in a simplistic way: as long as I am the master, you are a fool.
Whether it is given to them to understand or not, but Kazakhstani science has already come close to the moment when it will face new challenges, caused by external and internal factors to which it will have to respond, based on the principles of fair and healthy competition. It is unlikely that this is possible with the rule of law and the exclusion of the influence of unscrupulous stakeholders on the state of affairs.
External risks are dictated by Kazakhstan’s participation in various international and supranational organizations and unions and related obligations. For example, the agreement on the payment of pensions to those citizens of the EAEU countries who work in other countries of the Union is being completed. In the near future, the document will be reviewed by the EAEU governing bodies, after which it will be sent for signing. Most likely, within the next year it will be agreed, signed, and will come into legal effect. What does this mean in practical terms? Given that the EAEU provides freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labor, this means that scientists from EAEU countries can participate in competitions for the financing of scientific projects. Of course, in order to participate in competitions for grants and program funding, they will have to receive accreditation from the Ministry of Education and Science. But if we proceed from the EAEU legislation, this will not be a problem, since it contains the concept of “national treatment”. Kazakhstan is obliged to create for workers from other countries the same conditions as for its own citizens. Thus, scientists from EAEU countries will be able to participate in competitions on a common basis. And given that the EAEU is completing the work on the legal framework for the electronic procurement format, it is possible that representatives of the scientific community of EAEU countries will be able to apply for participation in competitions remotely.
As usual there are two sides of the coin. Of course, this situation can be welcomed, since the interaction and collaboration between scientists from different countries and schools methodologically enriches science, broadens views on existing problems and allows to look at them from a new angle. On the other hand, there are some concerns: can our scientists compete with the Russians or Belarusians? There is a serious difference in the scientific and innovative potential of countries in the EAEU space. It may happen that some of these funds pass by Kazakhstan’s scientists.
Another external challenge is the WTO norms and obligations taken by Kazakhstan when joining this organization. I recall that when Kazakhstan was entering the WTO, one of the benefits was the access to the world markets and to the WTO mechanism for resolving trade disputes. Along with these advantages, there are also disadvantages, which arise from our economy, which provides only raw materials. If it wasn’t for price fluctuations in the global commodity markets, this model could be alive, but unfortunately the price situation is different.
All the strategic documents of the country's development adopted in the last decade are aimed to overcome the “raw materials curse”, to the increasing competitiveness of processing enterprises, and “creation” industries, which are specialized in the value-added processing. One of the ways to achieve these goals is called the domestic high-tech production - the dense interaction production with science field. We must strive to seriously increase the effectiveness of scientific research and their subsequent commercialization if we want to attract business to the industry and agriculture. And you can’t do it without R&D. In fact, this is a value-added chain, which includes theoretical and experimental development. In the western countries, this concept is slightly wider and it also includes implementation, branding, marketing, manufacturing and sales. We need to integrate into this chain, and not into sale, where our trading business has more or less succeeded, but in to the “developments,” in order to create the first component of a competitive economy - research intensity. The concept of “strategy of the blue ocean”, taken from the one sensational book, reveals this need very well.
To understand “why we can’t succeed,” review the case with which I began this article.
The existing system of the funds distribution by the National Scientific Councils should have led to the achievement of concrete and visible results. Firstly, this is an objective evaluation of projects, which is ensured by participation of foreign and domestic specialists in the scientific and technical expertise. For our part - we have provided it. Secondly - the minimization of opportunities for abuse by public officials. Thirdly, it is the right of scientists to decide, which scientific projects are the most promising for the country, that is, the "decentralization" of science with the transfer of financial management tools from the Ministry of Education and Science to the level of - scientists themselves. As you know, there are loopholes in the existing legislation that some NSC members did not fail to take advantage of. And only due to the openness of the results of the competition, these violations became known and caused such a serious response. However, it was impossible to achieve the main effect, for which these new rules were developed. It turned out that the state again financed the near-scientific bureaucracy, and not the result, continuing to push the true scientists out of science.
This means that structural reforms are needed, and no “spot measures” would help. A word about staff of managers has already been said above. Another problem is the low demands on the results of scientific activity. The current system of evaluation of scientific achievements allows you to replace the real scientific result to a report on the process. People with advanced degrees, but not working in science, can do this at times. The presence of such people in the academic community, perhaps, was one of the reasons for the degradation of science and education, a sharp drop in the prestige of these areas.
Speaking of increasing demands, you can start with what has long been a concern for existing scientists and experts: take decisive action against plagiarists and those who create the conditions for plagiarism - the editorial boards of scientific journals, supervisors, and dissertation councils. I think that quite interesting things will turn out, and science will get a chance to get rid of random people.
The academic community can insist on changing the NSC’s voting format to an open one; increasing the requirements for NSC members in terms of their citation index; changing the timeframe for announcing competitions for projects funding.
We need a serious reform that will put at the head of science real scientists, not administrators, and near-scientific bureaucracy.
There are countries in the world that successfully develop science without a large bureaucracy.
In the US, there is no Ministry of Science. Its development is handled by the Science and Technology Policy Directorate within the structure of the presidential staff, and the area of research and development is financed by a number of federal agencies. Despite this, U.S. science is the leader in today’s world.
In France, in managing science, as in the post-Soviet countries, the state plays a leading role, mostly for financing issues, and the High Council for Science and Technology under the President of the French Republic, consisting of world scientists, determines specific promising areas of research. It is balanced by the Interministerial Committee for Scientific and Technological Research, chaired by the Prime Minister.
I deliberately cited as an example - two opposing science management models: the most decentralized in the USA and consolidated in France. But they have a common feature - scientists are engaged in the development of research and development, and officials only help them.
If we want to keep our science and bring it to the forefront, then it's time to think about it.

***

I prepared and decided to publish this article, since all our proposals for reforming science did not find a response from the governance of the Ministry of Education and Science. Or, as people far from science, they do not understand us, or science’s development is not in the sphere of their interests.

Adil Ibrayev,
President of “National Center for Scientific
and Technical Evaluation” JSC

Source: novgaz.com