Dubina, Mikhail Vladimirovich. Mikhail Dubina: “Everything in healthcare now is a sore point - that is, Rusnano was ahead of its time

Doctor medical sciences, RAS academician Mikhail Dubina was appointed chairman of the health care committee on Tuesday, October 3. Three days later, for the first time, he answered questions from journalists working on medical topics, among whom was a Dialogue correspondent.

About the appointment

“The very fact of my appointment came as a surprise to me - out of the frying pan and into the fire, from the ship to the ball. No matter how academic I am, the amount of information is, of course, very large. Just to get acquainted with things, three days, of course, not enough, but there are also current issues and documents that have been (since August 23, when the previous chairman of the committee, Valery Kolabutin, left - Dialogue News Agency) We were waiting for the chairman's signature. The peculiarity of my position is that I have not worked on the committee before, all the people around are new.”

About the information policy of the committee

“It seems to me that we have a free country for the media and for expressing opinions, so if someone would like to prohibit and regulate communication [of healthcare workers] with the press, then it is impossible to control such a number of people - chief doctors and employees. I myself am absolutely open to all media, albeit through the press service - so that I do not drown in the stream of direct calls. But I will try to meet regularly with journalists, so if you keep piling up questions that require clarification - about the state of affairs in the committee, about current events - I am talkative in this regard.”

About self-identification

“I am pleased that the medical community accepts me, gives me credit and perceives me as one of their own, since I am a Doctor of Medical Sciences. They accuse me of being a scientist, but I am a medical scientist, and therefore, I probably know the acute problems of healthcare from a slightly different perspective - from the point of view of treatment and the search for new treatment methods. This is my specialty. I’m not only talking about oncology, but it so happens that I also know the problems of oncology from the point of view of healthcare organization. I was a temporary staff member of the WHO - World Health Organization - with the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France. But I am also a resident of our city, and I see – both from the inside and from the outside – what could be changed.”

About goals and objectives

“Why do I need this? It so happened that I am the youngest academician in St. Petersburg. And then - as in Vysotsky: the only thing better than mountains can be mountains that you have never been to before. I understand the full extent of responsibility, I realize what a huge amount of work awaits me, and the unknown of what I am now faced with at the suggestion of Georgy Poltavchenko. To some extent, this test for me is a test of skills, knowledge and abilities. I believe that I can handle this, and I really hope that the committee and government staff will help me. I will justify the credit of trust that was given to me. I love this city, I didn't want to leave it, and I want to help the residents and health care, knowing the situation. My job is to do everything in my power to give back to this great city. I take this as a great honor. Pompous words, but how could we live without them..."

photo: Ilya Snopchenko / Dialog news agency

About science and management

“I am a man of action. I understand what is involved in public service, and I realize that even if I had at least part of the time to do science, it is impossible [to combine]. I am aware that since I made such a decision (to head the health committee - Dialog news agency), then I devote myself completely to this matter. I don’t know how long this will last - after all, as they were appointed, they can be removed - but while I work, I will completely devote myself to serving the city. I use all the time, health and abilities I have to understand what needs to be changed, to hear the opinions of the professional community, city residents... and the government in order to find reasonable compromises.”

About pressing issues

“I knew from the beginning (after all, I also read newspapers and watch TV) that everything in healthcare now is a sore point. Wherever you dig, there is pain everywhere. And the need to implement the law on chief doctors (according to which, hospital directors cannot hold their positions after reaching the age of 65 - Dialog news agency)- I must obey the law, which I cannot influence. And the presidential decrees, and the budget, and the provision of pharmacies with preferential medications next year - because this is being laid down right now. The first thing I managed to do during the current work and meetings with specialists was to outline a plan for visiting places related to difficult issues. Next week I will go to the war veterans hospital to try to understand on the spot what is already being presented to me as a fait accompli. But the interpretations are ambiguous - of the chief doctors, medical personnel, and most importantly - the residents of our city... I would like to see people behind the numbers, which are already flickering in my eyes - as I did before this [appointment]. I will try not to lose this ability!

I intend to get to know all the problems locally. And there are many of them."

photo: Ilya Snopchenko / Dialog news agency

About the chief doctors

“This is a really sore point for me. It is impossible to influence the law: we are obliged to follow it. For me now the question is in what form will it be carried out? I believe that it is necessary to implement the law with a human face, with dialogue, with recognition of merit, and most importantly, with the opportunity to accept the advice of the professional medical community and the chief doctors themselves who know this work. That is, an individual approach, because you can approach it in different ways: either harshly, or still humanely. I want and will do this as a human being.”

About the advice of the medical community

“They will say about me that I’m doing science again, but in a sense, what I do is also science: if it’s about going into the unknown and achieving results, then that’s what I’m doing now. In besieged Leningrad, in our city, when there were, let’s say, a lot more problems - it was a serious test, including for the healthcare system - an academic council was created. The professional community was obliged to come to the rescue, and problems were overcome together. I’m not saying that some kind of body will be created, but, believe me, there is no shortage of people who want to help. Rather, I need, on the contrary, to sort the proposals that come in, but I will be absolutely open to accepting any proposals within the framework of common sense.”

St. Petersburg scientist Mikhail Dubina received a UNESCO gold medal for his contribution to the development of nanoscience. In an interview with Fontanka, the scientist explained what exactly he was developing and why nanotechnology was doomed to ridicule in Russia.

Sergey Mikhailichenko

While nanotechnology is perceived on social networks as a term for creating a comic effect in demotivational films, UNESCO annually awards gold medals to scientists for their contribution to the development of nanoscience. In 2016, half of the eight laureates were Russians. Among them is St. Petersburg resident Mikhail Dubina, head of the laboratory of nanobiotechnologies, first vice-rector of St. Petersburg Academic University, Doctor of Medical Sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Fontanka” asked the scientist to explain in understandable words what is wrong with Russian nanotechnologies today, if they give medals for them abroad, but in Russia nothing is really known about them, was it in vain that academicians opposed the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and what are they still doing in "Skolkovo".

– Mikhail Vladimirovich, in 2013 in the magazine “Expert” you published an essay under the pessimistic title “Twilight of Science - Decline of the Country” in response to the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Still, everything seems to have worked out, the RAS is functioning, the academicians are working?

– Science in Russia has been reformed before, but it has never happened that all the funds for the implementation of science were taken away from the scientific community.
Figuratively speaking, the academicians were driving a kind of machine. Maybe they didn't steer very well. And the car is worn out. But at the very least, it was necessary to ask the scientific community how they imagine this reform.

– And this discussion would drag on for 10 years.

– Or it was necessary to set clear goals. But it turned out that the academicians who were driving were not even seated in the passenger seat so that they could show the officials where to go. And not even in the back. They were “promoted” - they were put on the roof. So that they can show the officials the way from there, from the roof.
It is probably not for nothing that the President of our country, Vladimir Putin, has been extending the moratorium on the management of property and personnel of the Russian Academy of Sciences for the third year. This means that something was done wrong. In January 2016, at a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education, this moratorium was extended for another year.

"Fontanka.ru"

- You can bring specific example negative consequences of the reform?

– Negative consequences in science, unfortunately, do not appear immediately.

- Two years have already passed.

- And what? Formally, everything is in order: the former institutes of the three academies receive money, people are not fired for no apparent reason. Outwardly everything is fine, and there seems to be no reason to cry. Officials are organizing something, and a lot of academic property has been “found.” How can I find government property? It was state-owned, but in operational management. But they replace the directors of research institutes with people who don’t even have scientific degrees. And the negative consequences will affect later. And, probably, if there is not the same critical and urgent demand for breakthrough scientific results as during the Great Patriotic War, the consequences may never be felt. Formally, everything is there, the academy exists. But he dies.

– Critical demand can come at any minute - now there are enemies all around again, and again Russia has only two allies: the army and the navy.

- Yes, that is right. But the acute moment of realizing this has not yet arrived. For example, real awareness of the significance of fundamental scientific advances in our country in the last century really came not even before, but after the Great Patriotic War. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. When it became clear that all the achievements Great Victory, for which tens of millions of lives of an entire generation were given, can simply be erased.

But no one invented it atomic bomb out of interest, in order to then offer it to the state. For the scientific breakthrough that took place after 1945, qualified personnel and scientific directions were needed that could become the basis for the rapid implementation of the state request. And now we are moving to the point that we won’t have that either. The question will arise that we urgently need something. And the director of the institute, who knows nothing, will answer it. But he created a clearly managed, but not creative, team.

– It is believed that nanotechnology is not only a benefit, but also one of the main threats of the future.

- Absolutely right. Synthetic substances up to 100 nanometers in size not only exhibit new properties, but also pass through all biological barriers.

– Is this more serious than biological weapons?

– I believe that especially dangerous viruses are much more serious. But with the help of nanotechnology, it is possible to create targeted weapons, which in the future will be able to hit only the enemy, “bypassing” our own.

Charles de Gaulle said: “We are always ready for the previous war.” At the start next war we don't know what will win. In the 18th century and in the First World War, it was the cavalry, and the technology (artillery, tanks, airplanes) with which the Second World War began won. And the Third World War - the Cold War - began with atomic deterrence. But in the end the economy won. What will become a weapon in the future and defeat the economy remains to be seen.

– There is an opinion that in our country politics is actively destroying the economy, which, apparently, has defeated science. Or is all not lost yet?

– Problems for society, as a consequence of the harm done to science, appear after many years. The most striking example in Soviet times is genetics. From an ideological point of view, genetics was then recognized as a bourgeois science and unnecessary Soviet Union. We have not developed this area. As a result, genetics is the basis of the biopharmaceutical industry today. But we had not formed scientific directions, we had no groundwork. We destroyed it. Now the same destruction is being carried out throughout science as a whole.

“But someone, like a frog in a jug of milk, is floundering.” And he even receives UNESCO medals for this. By the way, for what exactly?

– This medal was awarded to me not for a specific achievement, but for a set of works.

– What kind of award is this, what is its reputation in the scientific community?

– To be honest, I have no idea. For me, the assessment of my colleagues is more important than the medals that are awarded. I perceive this as an achievement of the entire team working under my leadership. We are engaged in many areas, from the creation of new drugs and methods of treating oncological diseases, such as breast cancer and blood cancer, to the early diagnosis of socially dangerous diseases using the latest physical developments.

– Do you have technologies that are already being put into practice?

– In order to introduce something into practice, there must, in fact, be practice. There must be an industry. Large-scale production.

– But a whole pharmaceutical cluster is developing in St. Petersburg.

– Any pharmaceutical companies invest resources, usually relying on their own development and research. Domestic pharmaceutical production specializes mainly in generics - that is, they use knowledge about those drugs that have already been researched and have shown commercial benefits in the market, on the development of which billions of dollars have already been spent. Creating a generic and launching it on the market is the main “innovation” approach today.
Show me at least one medicine that was developed in Russia after the 80s?

– Why do Facebook and the Internet in general know so little about Russian nanotechnologies?

- Most easy way- is to compare Russian and foreign experience in the practical application of scientific developments. But in the West there is a whole industry that will demand scientific results, for example, to beat a competitor. And they demand: give us something new. And we have no one to demand. Even if now there were suddenly a lot of our own competitive developments, but who will take them here in Russia? Is there a large-scale industry of its own that will risk billions of dollars in investments in order to beat Western competitors in the market?

– Using the example of one of your developments, can we simulate an ideal situation? For example, you have a method for diagnosing cancer. In order to put it through all the tests and bring it to market, so many billions are needed, but after so many years it will be possible to use it and save half of the women in St. Petersburg from breast cancer.

- Actually, it's not like that. You don't understand everything quite correctly. We need to start from the opposite. Any customer, be it the pharmaceutical industry, or the medical industry, or the military department, needs a final, effective, competitive product. Substance, medicine, technology, etc. So, they first of all evaluate the volume of investments in order to obtain one final competitive product. If a biotech company plans to develop a diagnostic tool, it must first give grants to the scientific community or have an R&D department that will develop different approaches to the problem over time.

- And he can do this for 20 years.

– Yes, maybe this will happen within a year - no one knows. And this department will produce a lot of things, a lot chemical substances synthesizes. At this stage, costs can be determined. Next, you need to choose which of all this will work not only on cells, but also on animals. Animal research is a terribly expensive business. And then the first of four phases of human clinical trials begins. The least dangerous samples go to the second phase of testing and so on. As a result, the pharmaceutical company receives effective medicine worth up to a billion dollars, which it introduces to the market, hoping to cover costs and make a profit. But potentially effective technologies that are “screened out” at the first stages also generate income. "Raw" patents are bought by other companies to create their own product. This is what most pharmaceutical clusters in India and China do. And in Russia.

– Who are you working for if it is impossible to realize the results of your labor in Russia?

– For the future.

– The future will come, but technology will become obsolete.

– What should we do if we don’t need all this time? For example, Mendel's laws were discovered a hundred years earlier.

– Well, some kind of change is probably happening in the minds of the elite? Everyone is starting to look closely at their own home, vacation in Russia, and worry about import substitution. Do you feel like some kind of draft is blowing in your direction?

– We hear it all, but how should we feel it? Suddenly a kind rich uncle will come and ask: do you have any developments that we are ready to implement in business and spend billions of dollars?

- What if he comes? What will you tell him?

- We will say: take it. Why do we constantly publish in foreign and domestic press?

– And what development is the most “ready” today?

– For example, the diagnosis of incurable breast cancer. The biggest problem with breast cancer is that in 30% of cases, recurrence of the disease occurs even after removal of the tumor in the early stages and full high-tech treatment, including chemotherapy, immunomodulators and radiation therapy. And the problem is that no one can predict in advance whether all these treatment methods will help you or not. For women, this is fundamentally important - whether you get into a group, and you will receive relevant therapy in a timely manner, or whether you need to be in a group that obviously needs to be treated with chemotherapy. Such diagnostics are not interesting for pharmaceutical companies. But we took samples of patients for whom any therapy did not help at all, and compared them with samples of those for whom therapy helped. If we start from the person to whom the development could later be sold, this is opportunism, not science. Going into the unknown zone, not knowing what you will get and whether you can get it at all, is science. But trying to get grants and report on them on time or publish a bunch of high-impact articles together with foreign researchers is not science.

– That is, you began to search in a group that was obviously doomed.

– Yes, we started looking there. Using standard methods, even Western ones, no differences could be found. But with the technology of whole-genome sequencing of 6 million gene sections, which Stanford recently developed - and usually 600 thousand sections are looked at - differences were found. They can become the basis for diagnosing cases where a suspicious gene is detected in a patient. For example, the one for which Angelina Jolie is said to have removed her mammary glands, and perhaps in vain. Yes, disruption of the BRCA-1 gene leads to the development of breast cancer in 80% of cases. But maybe she belongs to the remaining 20%?

– Now could you answer this question?

– Not yet. But if the research is supported, we probably can. But who would need that? Pharmaceutical companies don't need this, there will be no profit here. This is obviously necessary for those women who will be treated for a long time with ineffective toxic drugs, rather than looking for new methods of treatment. But our whole world is focused on the economy, not on people.

– How do you manage to negotiate with this state, which also turns out to be focused on the economy, and not on people?

– We do not negotiate, but live in it. Here at the Academic University, not in words, but in deeds, the cult of science and education flourishes. And I am proud to work in such a team.

– Is the term “nanotechnology” used in everyday life for other purposes?

– Well, the region was named after the particle size category - from 1 to 100 nanometers. What difference does it make what you call it? Nanotechnology is determined not only by the size of particles, but also by their artificial origin, and most importantly, by the controllability of processes. They say: nanotechnological oil, or cream. Well, where is nanotechnology? What are we managing there?

– Why has nanotechnology become a household name in Russia and evokes mostly sarcasm?

– I think that this term was obviously doomed to ridicule. This is like declaring that we are transforming the world - without a more or less serious foundation of knowledge. A kind of New Vasyuki. The reason is loud statements, especially from people who really do not understand what they are dealing with.

– It turns out that Chubais is to blame, he said in 2009 that by 2015 nanotechnology should become the basis of the economy?

– Who is Chubais by education? And why did he make such statements? RUSNANO was not initially focused on science. This is commercialization. But in order to commercialize any nanotechnological development, it must first be invented. After all, the goal was to immediately create companies and sell. What to sell?

– That is, RUSNANO was ahead of its time.

– What, is it even more ahead?

– This is a fund for the commercialization of scientific developments. And Skolkovo also does not invest money in scientific research.

– But you are a member of the advisory scientific council of the Skolkovo Foundation.

– We advise when asked.

– When was the last time you were asked about something at Skolkovo?

– We meet every quarter. One or two days. We hear reports on what the clusters have done in individual areas. The fund's employees make their own decisions about what is important and what is not important. This is the business community. There, the selection of commercially significant projects is carried out by “invisible” experts - not by us. And the fact that we express our opinion does not interfere with the process - the caravan moves on.
But I believe that the progress of science will ultimately help defeat obscurantism. But, apparently, only when this obscurantism reaches its next apogee.

– So now is not the apogee yet?

– No, what are you talking about? When they say that satellites don’t actually fly and there is no space at all, then it will be time to pick up the old manuscripts and burn the next Giordano Bruno.

Here, at the Academic University, we have an oasis. No other institution in the country has such freedom of creativity, which was created by a remarkable man, scientist and citizen - the only one living in Russia Nobel laureate Academician Zhores Ivanovich Alferov. He doesn't need to assert himself. He understands that the future is growing now. And he supports scientific projects, which are not required to immediately make a profit here and now. Projects that pose obviously insurmountable, breakthrough tasks. I think that this can be compared with nuclear physicists of the 30s. How were they viewed during the period of economic growth, when the country needed new plows and tractors? What did they do in terms of power? They did not contribute to the national economy. Well, everyone wasn’t killed by the time they were really needed.

“And then they were placed in sharashkas at the camps, and there they turned out to be very useful.

– Well, probably, sharashka is the optimal way to create and develop something new. And if the country needs it, then I will be happy to go to such a “sharashka”, where talented scientists would be gathered and real tasks of a scientific breakthrough would be set, provided with the full support of society and the state.

– What will your family say to this?

– There were also families in the sharashkas - in settlements nearby.

– Do you seriously think that scientists should be rounded up and locked up somewhere on Solovki?

– Of course not. I am for the authorities to show real interest in what science is doing. And not the formal one: how much property can be transferred somewhere, how to effectively manage it or privatize it profitably, remove old people and install incompetent young directors. Show interest in the end result, not the process itself. And now, to our greatest regret, everything according to Kafka is a process for the sake of a process.??

Interviewed by Venera Galeeva,

Recently, the first vice-rector and head of the laboratory of nanobiotechnologies of the Academic University, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mikhail Dubina, received the UNESCO medal “For his contribution to the development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.” Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists talked with a scientist whose scientific interests also include the fight against cancer.

I'm skeptical about Hirsch

Mikhail Vladimirovich, two and a half years ago you told readers of Komsomolskaya Pravda that even at the very beginning of the disease, a tumor, the presence of which a person does not feel, still manifests itself: it releases altered molecules into the body - waste products of cancer cells. And your task is to learn to recognize them with the help of nanotechnologies, and, therefore, to diagnose cancer on its own. early stage. What has already been done?

I would answer this question like this. Our work continues, at the current stage the research results satisfy us. Understand, it's not that I'm trying to hide anything. It’s just that in scientific, and not only in scientific, publications, publications periodically appear where it is loudly stated: someone has already found the causes of cancer or the most effective ways his treatment. Typically, these reports are then refuted by the scientific community. But now the authors of the articles are gaining fame. I don't strive for that kind of popularity. Therefore, when we achieve truly significant results and thoroughly test them, which may not happen so soon, I will definitely talk about it.

But when the research is completed, a lot of work will be required to make it possible to apply the developed methodology in practice. Obviously, it will be necessary to create some devices and equip medical institutions with them.

Yes, but there are many problems along this path - financial, organizational and even social. Let's take any fundamental Scientific research, which, if it does not defeat cancer, will help a large number of patients recover from this terrible disease forever. Its results should be of interest to the pharmaceutical business, since it will be necessary to invest a lot of money in comprehensive clinical trials of a new drug. The production and sale of medicines is not only a very profitable business, but also an extremely expensive one. From the point of view of subsequent large sales and profit, pharmaceutical companies are rather interested not in a person’s quick recovery, but in ensuring that patients are treated for a long time... And therefore, researchers who find or potentially can find a way to completely defeat a particular disease, support is difficult to find in the pharmaceutical industry. There's no reason to expect special attention and from officials. After all, it is also more profitable for the state to immediately receive calculated income in the form of taxes from this industry.

They say that statesmen become more accommodating when scientists with high Hirsch come to them. Let us explain for readers: Hirsch is an indicator that takes into account both the number of publications in scientific journals, as well as the rating of these publications.

Yes, indeed, it is usually difficult for officials to understand the essence scientific works, especially to evaluate their potential applied significance. But with Hirsch everything is clear. Although, in my opinion, evaluating a scientist by Hirsch, and by any quantitative indicators, is the same as evaluating an artist by the size and number of paintings he created or by the names of the galleries where he exhibits his works. A scientist can make just one discovery, but it can change the life of mankind. In my opinion, the main thing is not what kind of Hirsch you have, but what you have done in science.

Americans are also “irresponsible”

It is known that one of the main causes of cancer is the weakening of the human immune system with age, which sometimes ceases to recognize the moment of the emergence of a cancer cell, the beginning of tumor development. Does this mean that people with a weakened defense system, people who often get colds in their youth, have a greater risk of getting cancer over the years?

This is not entirely true. In order not to bore readers with scientific terms, I will only say that the immune system human is a very complex and far from fully understood mechanism. Its weakening can become a “favorable” factor for the development of a tumor in the body. But there are also mechanisms that arise in the tumors themselves that protect them from the effects of a normally functioning immune system.

Yes, it is true. But citizens have always been and remain irresponsible. However, in Soviet times in our country there was efficient system mandatory clinical examination of the population, which in most cases made it possible to detect at an early stage not only cancer, but also other diseases.

I am not afraid to say that in such a prosperous country as the USA, the population is also unconscious. But they work effectively economic forces. If an American pays for insurance, but did not undergo a medical examination in a timely manner, in case of illness he will have to be treated at his own expense.

Glad I studied in a Soviet school

In our country, oncology centers are now mostly equipped with modern equipment, and they employ fairly qualified specialists. Many of your colleagues are talking about this. Why, then, do wealthy patients prefer to have surgery abroad?

I am sure that our doctors are in no way inferior to their foreign colleagues from a professional point of view. But the conditions in which one has to be treated in Russia are indeed much worse than in the West. Main problem - serious defects in a healthcare organization. Both in budgetary and paid medicine. Therefore, people with money who, for example, have been diagnosed with late-stage cancer, go to foreign clinics. After an expensive operation, the patient returns home, but then he often requires further treatment, since a relapse is possible. There may no longer be enough money for your next trips abroad. A man turns to Russian doctors. And it’s very difficult for our doctors in such a situation: they sometimes cannot get a medical history, they don’t know what their foreign colleagues were guided by when making this or that decision. And complaints begin: they say that they operated well abroad, but in Russia they cannot treat.

How do you, the vice-rector of a university that has quickly become famous, assess the current state of the secondary and higher education in Russia?

Alas, unfortunately, it is difficult for me to answer this question positively. Our Academic University was conceived as a master's and postgraduate university, that is, for further education of bachelor's and master's degree graduates from other universities. But it quickly became clear that their level of preparation was not as high as expected. That’s why we’ve been recruiting freshmen for the second year now. You know, I studied in a Soviet school and I am grateful to fate for that. Moreover. It is thanks to the education system that existed in the USSR, free at all levels, and therefore accessible to people with any income, that our country has great scientific and technical potential, which, alas, is rapidly decreasing.

But in Russia you can still study for free...

I think that this will soon come to an end. Everything is rapidly moving towards commercialization, the number of budget places in universities is constantly decreasing.

I don't think about the Nobel Prize

Mikhail Vladimirovich, why exactly did you receive the UNESCO medal?

For a set of scientific works in the field of nanotechnology that can be used to improve methods for diagnosing and treating human diseases.

Today there is only one Nobel Prize winner in the field of natural sciences- Rector of your university, academician Zhores Alferov. To be honest, are you hoping to receive this most honorable award in the world? After all, today you are one of the youngest corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

It has already been calculated that thirty years usually elapse between the research for which a Nobel Prize may later be awarded and the moment it is awarded. I don't look that far. I do what I love and try to solve current problems. For example, you need to prepare several publications on recent very interesting results, which you have not yet gotten around to. Or inspiration hasn't arrived yet. Science is creativity, and one cannot work here without inspiration.

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Medical Sciences, 45-year-old Mikhail Dubina was appointed chairman of the health care committee on October 3. Let us recall that OK-inform previously wrote that Mikhail Dubina’s predecessor, Evgeniy Evdoshenko, after a month and a half of work in the position, still did not get rid of the prefix and. O.

“I am absolutely open to the media”

The new chairman of the health department was modest, smiling and a little shy. An OK-inform correspondent managed to ask Mikhail Vladimirovich the very first questions. They concerned information policy and interaction with the media (according to some assumptions, the desire of the previous leadership to pursue a limited policy of communication between doctors and journalists caused Smolny’s displeasure, which became one of the disadvantages in the career of Evgeny Evdoshenko), as well as a second sore point last days- dismissal of chief doctors who have reached the age limit.

Mikhail Vladimirovich, it seems, was not entirely aware of the previously stated information policy, but replied: “ Good question. You know, our country is free for media statements, and if someone wanted to ban it... Considering the number of chief doctors and employees, we can hardly regulate this at all. I would like to say about myself: I am an absolutely open person to the media (preferably through the press service, so as not to drown in the flow of direct calls). Of course, as I got into the situation... I got off the ship to the ball: I was appointed to the third, today is the sixth. I was bombarded with such a volume of information that no matter how much of an academician I am, three days is definitely not enough. I will try to regularly meet with the media, cover pressing issues that require clarification and clarification, I am talkative in this regard.”

Regarding an extremely painful topic - the need to part with chief doctors who have reached 65 years of age or more - Mikhail Dubina responded as follows:

“I cannot influence the law, we are obliged to comply with it. For me, the main thing now is in what form it will be performed. In human or formal. Individual approach necessary if the law is to be complied with. You can do it harshly, or you can do it humanely. I want and will be humane.”

Let us recall that many St. Petersburg chief doctors, in a conversation with OK-inform, were offended by the formal approach of the leadership in this matter and even refused to come to the health department for the farewell ceremony.

“I see what needs to be changed in the health care of this city”

Mikhail Dubina was pleased to hear that many St. Petersburg doctors responded well to his colleague’s appointment and even called him “our man.” He also answered the question why he needed to change his academic chair to an official one.

“I am pleased that the medical community considers me one of their own, that they gave me such a credit of trust. I was once accused of being a scientist, but I am a scientist in medicine, and I know acute health problems from the other side - from the point of view of new treatments and the search for new methods. And not only in oncology. As for the organization of health care, I was a WHO employee in Europe and worked on these issues. In addition, I am also a resident of this city and I see what can be changed. Now about why I need this... I assume that I will be under a magnifying glass, including yours. But, please, these facts should not be from the category of fiction... And then - only Vysotsky: “The only thing better than mountains can be mountains that I have never been to.” I understand the full share of responsibility, the huge amount of work and its unknowns, which I was faced with at the suggestion of Georgy Sergeevich. To some extent, this is a test for me, and I really hope that I can handle it. I hope that the committee staff will help me, and I will justify this credit of trust. I love this city, I didn’t want to leave here, even to Moscow. I want to do something to help the people of St. Petersburg.”

When asked by journalists whether the academician plans to combine scientific activity with the work of the chairman, Mikhail Dubina answered negatively. “Now I am an official. I don’t have the skills to do this kind of work, but not everyone was an official at once. I hope I can pull it off."

Regarding the first decisions made and documents signed, the manager could not answer unequivocally, since, according to him, he had never encountered such work, and even in such a volume, so almost all decisions are now made on the fly.

Wherever you dig, there is pain everywhere

“The first days I work from 7 am to 1 am, there is a constant flow of information on all issues, on every section of the life of the city. Everything is a pain point: wherever you dig, there is pain everywhere. In my opinion, everything is very important. A plan has been drawn up for the next week to prioritize the most difficult issues. For example, the issue with the hospital for war veterans is a fait accompli, but there is ambiguity in interpretation. These are issues of the budget, preferential provision of medicines. I would like to see people, and I will try not to lose this desire.”