Arnold Tulokhonov: “In the country, science is treated as a second-class category. Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov: biography - Why people leave

Arnold Tulokhonov was born on September 3, 1949 in the village of Zakuley, Nukutsky district, Ust-Orda Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Okrug. He grew up in an ordinary family. In 1966, after graduating from Nukutsk secondary school, he entered Irkutsk State University at the Faculty of Geography. In 1971, he graduated with honors with the qualification “geographer-geomorphologist” and was assigned to work at the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry of the USSR Ministry of Non-ferrous Metallurgy. He began his career as a junior researcher.

Over the course of three years, he completed a large volume of contractual work ordered by the Baleizoloto plant and put more than 10 placer gold deposits on the balance sheet with a total reserve of over 2 tons of metal. The results of these studies formed the basis of his candidate’s thesis “The main stages of the development of the relief of the Shilkino middle mountains and the assessment of placer gold content,” which he defended in 1976 at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

On his initiative, in 1977, the Small Academy of Sciences was created in Ulan-Ude, which is still active today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was organized. In 1988, Tulokhonov was appointed deputy chairman of the Presidium of the Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Environmental Management Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Environmental Management of the SB RAS. Nowadays this is the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management of the SB RAS - the only institute in the system of academic science where natural resource research is inextricably linked with the development of environmentally friendly technologies and the economics of environmental management.

In 1988, by the decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, Tulokhonov was awarded the academic degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences for his dissertation “The origin and evolution of the relief of inland mountains using the example of the Mongol-Siberian mountain belt.”

From 1991 to 2013, Arnold Kirillovich served as director of the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management SB RAS. In parallel, since 1992, he became an adviser to the President of the Republic of Buryatia and the Chairman of the People's Khural on environmental issues. Since 1996, he has been a member of the Academy of the Northern Forum in Finland and a member of the International Association of Academies of Sciences of the CIS. Since 1998 - full member of the Russian Ecological Academy.

From 2000 to 2004 he was a member of the editorial board of the journal Region: Sociology and Economics. Also, from 2000 to the present, he became a full member of the Academy of Mining Sciences, V.V. Putin’s confidant in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation. In 2001, he joined the Presidium of the Political Council of the Buryat regional branch of the Unity party, now United Russia. In 2002, by decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, Tulokhonov was awarded the academic title of professor. In 2003, he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In 2004, he became the initiator of the creation and chairman of the scientific council of the World of Baikal magazine. From 2005 to the present - member of the Academic Council of the Russian Geographical Society. From 2007 to 2013 he was a deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia. At the same time, from 2008 to 2010, he was a member of the coordinating council of Transbaikalia Development Corporation LLC, executive editor of the encyclopedic reference book Baikal: Nature and People, scientific organizer of the International Expedition “Worlds on Baikal” using deep-sea manned vehicles “Mir- 1" and "Mir-2", hydronaut "Baikal-2008". Since 2013, he has been a member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation from the executive body of state power of the Republic of Buryatia.

In 2016, on October 26, Arnold Kirillovich was elected academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is the author of more than 300 scientific works, including more than 20 monographs. Tulokhonov's scientific research is supported by grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation. He is the head of integration projects of the SB RAS and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Tulokhonov was repeatedly awarded state scientific scholarships.

Tulokhonov’s range of research covers almost all areas of modern geographical science in relation to Baikal Asia: from seismicity to optimization of agricultural production in arid territories. His active scientific and organizational work is combined with the popularization of scientific knowledge. Arnold Kirillovich is the author of numerous articles in the media, textbooks and books. Since 2004, on his initiative, the popular science magazine “World of Baikal” has been published. For the school education system, edited by Tulokhonov, a series of wall educational environmental maps of the Republic of Buryatia was published.

Under his leadership, research has been conducted for more than twenty years on the restoration of traditional nomadic livestock farming in the cryoarid regions of North Asia. The practical implementation of these works was the creation of the first scientific and experimental farm in Russia, “Baikalecoproduct”, to preserve the gene pool of indigenous animals.

He is a laureate of the State Prize of the Republic of Buryatia in the field of science, has gratitude and personalized watches from the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and the Chairman of the State Duma B.V. Gryzlov, was awarded honorary signs of the Ministry of Non-Ferrous Metallurgy of the USSR, the Central Committee of the Komsomol, the Ministry of Education of the USSR, the Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences. Awarded the Order of Honor “For many years of fruitful work and great contribution to strengthening friendship and cooperation between peoples” and the medal “For the construction of the Baikal-Amur Mainline.” He has the honorary title “Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation.”

Valentina Matvienko thanked the now former senator from Buryatia for 4 years of fruitful work

Today, the Federation Council prematurely terminated the powers of Buryat Senator Arnold Tulokhonov.

An application was received from Arnold Tulokhonov to resign early at his own request on January 9. The corresponding draft has been prepared, I ask you to support it,” read out the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Rules and Organization of Parliamentary Activities, Vadim Tyulpanov.

Members of the Federation Council made the decision by majority vote. Chairman of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko expressed gratitude to Arnold Tulokhonov.

Allow me to thank you on my own behalf. He was a very active, caring senator who quickly responded to problems and firmly defended the issues of Buryatia. He is a principled, persistent person; he managed to solve the issues raised. We are very grateful to him for his work,” said Valentina Matvienko.

The Chairman of the Federation Council presented Arnold Tulokhonov with a thank you note and hugged him.

After this, the former senator made a response.

I am grateful for four years that have passed in a blink. Of course, I’m not Obama, I can’t give a farewell speech. I'm not saying that we need to save Syria. We must save Siberia. I didn’t have time to do much, I hope I will still help you,” said Arnold Tulokhonov.
In turn, Valentina Matvienko invited Arnold Tulokhonov to continue working in the Federation Council as an expert.

I ask for your consent to join the commission of our expert council. So that they can help us solve problems,” Matvienko said and, having received a positive response, continued. - Amazing. We don't say goodbye. We will continue our joint cooperation.

Let us remind you about the upcoming resignation of Arnold Tulokhonov from the post of senator in the Federation Council from Buryatia “Baikal-Daily” in mid-December.

Before this, Tulokhonov was mentioned among the RAS academicians who were criticized by Vladimir Putin. The President promised to remove from government positions all those who combine service with academic activities as academicians. Shortly before this, Arnold Tulokhonov was just elected academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Deputies of the People's Khural spoke out in support of their ex-colleague (Arnold Tulokhonov became a senator from the republican parliament). And they turned to the head of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko, and the head of the presidential administration of the Russian Federation, Anton Vaino, with a statement that Arnold Kirillovich “does his job in the Federation Council with dignity and professionalism.”

As Baikal-Daily learned, with a candidacy for the post of senator in the Federation Council from Buryatia. This will be the Deputy of the People's Khural, General Director of the TV company "Arig Us" Tatyana Mantatova.

Thus, a new senator will legally appear in Buryatia in January. The documents for Tatyana Mantatova have already been sent to the apparatus of the Federation Council. She herself agreed to the appointment.

Reference:

Arnold Tulokhonov was born on September 3, 1949 in the village of Zakuley, Irkutsk region. Graduated from Irkutsk State University named after Zhdanov with a degree in geographer-geomorphologist. He began his career in the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry of the USSR Ministry of Non-ferrous Metallurgy.

On his initiative, in 1977, the Small Academy of Sciences was created in Ulan-Ude, which is still active today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was organized. In 1988, Arnold Tulokhonov was appointed deputy chairman of the presidium of the scientific center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Environmental Management Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute of Rational Environmental Management SB RAS (now the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management SB RAS). Tulokhonov headed the institute from 1991 to 2013, when he left his post and took the senatorial seat.

He was sent to the Federation Council by the head of Buryatia, Vyacheslav Nagovitsyn, after the position of senator from the executive bodies of the republic was vacated ahead of schedule by Vitaly Malkin. This was preceded by a loud scandal with the “exposure” of Malkin by oppositionist Navalny, who announced the senator’s undeclared real estate abroad and Israeli citizenship. “Well, now should I say thank you to him (Navalny)?” - Arnold Tulokhonov commented on the situation. Already at his first press conference as a senator, one of which - “Buryatia is the face of Russia, not its ass” - became a popular story.

2016 has been declared decisive in the implementation of reforms in Russian science. However, most academicians assess the results of the reform as unsatisfactory. What is the reason for such a harsh assessment,Arnold Tulokhonov , member of the Federation Council, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, asked, presenter of the “Hamburg Account” program on the Public Television of Russia.

born in 1949 in the village of Zakuley, Irkutsk region. In 1971 he graduated from the Faculty of Geography of Irkutsk State University. He began working as a junior researcher at the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry. In 1976 he defended his PhD thesis at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1988, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences. In 1988, Arnold Tulokhonov was appointed deputy chairman of the presidium of the scientific center of the Siberian branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Environmental Management Problems, which, on his initiative, in 1991 was transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Environmental Management of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 2003, he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 2013, member of the Federation Council from the executive body of state power of the Republic of Buryatia.

— Arnold Kirillovich, you have already gone down in the history of the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since you were the only member of the Federation Council who publicly opposed the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the form in which it was proposed. Tell us what made you react so sharply to these changes.

— I am still the only member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Federation Council. And, probably, better than others, I understand what follows the reforms that are taking place today. Therefore, deep knowledge of this issue allowed me not just to vote against, but to speak out and explain why this should not be done. But, unfortunately, this success was temporary.

— We have few members of the Academy among the members of the Federation Council...

— That’s probably not the question. The question is that in our country today science is treated as a second-class category. Unfortunately it is so.

— The results of the next stage of the reform of Russian science are now being summed up. What would you note as the main results, the most important events? Where have we come to now?

— First of all, we excited society. Maybe even the state. This is the main result. If we talk about the details... We got results that are exactly the opposite of what this reform wanted. In general, I am a deep pessimist by nature. And now I see that today there is no body in the state that is responsible for the development of the Academy of Sciences. FANO is responsible for the property, the money is in the Russian Science Foundation, and the Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for university science. And if you ask what the state of academic science is now, we have no one to answer easily. We see that the bureaucracy has grown. 40% of young researchers at the Siberian Branch, according to sociological surveys, are ready to go abroad. The entire Academy of Sciences has aged three years. Today, as a result of the merger of the three academies, academicians have appeared who do not have publications.

— Do they have no scientific publications at all?

- Yes. First of all, we are talking about the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Is this what we wanted? Probably not. Therefore, I pose the question again. Before it's too late, let's return to the results of this reform. Unfortunately, housing and communal services reform, police reform, education reform, health care reform received exactly the same results. I cannot explain today why this is so, but the government, naturally, the Academy of Sciences and the Federal Assembly should probably think about this first of all. I recently spoke on this topic at a plenary meeting of the Federation Council.

— You wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin. And they sent the same letter to Valentina Matvienko, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Sergei Evgenievich Naryshkin. This letter talks about the destruction of science in Siberia. What exactly do you mean by this? What processes cause you such anxiety?

— There are two specific examples. The first is that since April 1, 11 specialized institutes have disappeared in the Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center: the Institute of Forests and Timbers, the Academician Kerensky Institute (this is a world institute), the Institute of Chemistry and Technology, the Institute of Biophysics, which develops closed space biological systems... They are combined with medical institutes direction and agricultural profile. I think that this is already a certain lower limit that can be achieved in the process of these reforms.

And second: FANO gathered 15 directors of academic institutes of the Irkutsk region for the purpose of unification. And there is exactly the same situation - the Institute of Animal Husbandry, the Institute of Traumatology are merging with the Institute of Geography, the Institute of Geology and other academic institutes.

I think that even in a sick imagination it is difficult to imagine something like this, but today, unfortunately, this is happening. And naturally, as a member of the Federation Council, as a member of the Academy of Sciences, I openly expressed my indignation and asked our state leaders to intervene, because Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, in his address to the Federal Assembly, said: Russia’s national priority in the 21st century is the accelerated development of the eastern regions. But how can the eastern regions be developed without the development of academic science?

You just need to remember history. When we had crises of the civil war, Lenin invited Krzhizhanovsky and asked to develop a GOELRO plan, which was implemented in 10 years. Then we no longer talk about the atomic project or space successes. We are talking about the fact that in 1957, when the task of developing the natural resources of Siberia again arose, the not very literate Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev created the Novosibirsk Academic Town in the remote taiga and created the system of the Siberian Branch. And as a result, the largest oil and gas fields appeared in Western Siberia, the world’s most powerful collider using colliding beams was built in Novosibirsk, and the scientific justification of the Baikal-Amur Mainline was completed. This is the contribution of academic science to solving eastern problems.

Unlike the recent past, we no longer have the Gulag, there is no Komsomol, patriotism remains only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents have again taken up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show ways out of these crisis situations. I think that the moment has come when it is necessary to give scientists a state order, to tell them what to do next. Instead, we solve the opposite problem.

— The head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, Mikhail Kotyukov, visited us in this studio. And when asked about the unification and reorganization of institutions, he replied that they occur on a voluntary basis. Do you remember that there was such a formulation in the Soviet years - “at the request of the workers”?

- Absolutely right. There is another side. There, behind the scenes, the question remains: if you don’t unite, we will lay you off. Naturally, people understand that there is no other job, because a scientist is a scientist. He can't work at a machine. Therefore, many voluntarily and forcibly go for it. But I, as a person who is in control of the situation, working within these teams, can frankly say that not a single team in the established scientific divisions of the structure will voluntarily agree to this.

— In addition to the fact that you are a member of the Federation Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences, you are the scientific director of the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management. Please tell me how the science reform affected your institute. How did you and your colleagues feel?

— There are two points that are hidden. First: directors of institutes are forced, according to the May decrees of the president, to raise salaries twice as high as the regional one. At the same time, the budget component is reduced by 10%. That is, the director of the institute must “get” the money and fulfill this indicator, which allows the institute to exist.

- So what’s going on?

— A minority of institutions generate money, and a lot of it. And the director of the institute redistributes them within the institute so that this “curve” goes up. Two questions arise: why should the director increase salaries when the budget is reduced? Second: within the team there appears a group of, so to speak, “freeloaders” who, without working, begin to receive this salary. Moreover, quarrels and squabbles begin within the team. This is exactly the same as it was in health care reform, when some doctors receive money, others do not. And the team begins to break this system of unequal relations. And in general, it seems like a good idea. But then give us a decent salary, and we will determine it according to the criteria that are established. But if the state does not provide salaries, then I, the director of the institute, must, instead of buying an instrument, look for money for the salary. Therefore, these two points are fundamentally important. And they are not visible from the outside.

— The General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences took place not long ago. And at this meeting there were very harsh speeches and very harsh assessments of the results of the reform of Russian science. And many speakers referred to the speech of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, to his formula that as a result of the reform, it should not be the Academy for FANO, but FANO for the Academy. And therefore, there were proposals to make FANO the management of affairs within the Russian Academy, to make it, as it were, a department within, that is, to actually reverse the reform. Do you think the Academy has enough strength to lobby for the actual return of the law?

“I think that the Academy does not have enough of these forces.” I can see this frankly. But I think both sides are wrong. The question is on a completely different plane. The Academy of Sciences is not needed by FANO. The state needs the Academy of Sciences in order to get out of this crisis today. This is the main motive that today we are trying to “break through” in all government bodies. But, unfortunately, they don’t understand this. And why? Because our state today does not see long-term politics. The state does not have such an order as a nuclear project, a space project, BAM, or the development of the Arctic. Today this order is not available. Therefore, when there is no order, the Academy of Sciences also begins to solve its own private problems. And this point must be emphasized today. The state stands at a very dangerous line. I repeat once again: without the Academy of Sciences, without academic research, especially foreign geopolitics, we have no way out. And this is the main point today.

— Arnold Kirillovich, when you try to discuss this with your colleagues in the Federation Council who are not associated with science, do you see support from them? Do you manage to convey this somehow? Or is this your, so to speak, personal pain?

- No. I think most people understand. And when I voted against the age limit law, I was supported by a significant number of my senators who see that science today should be different, it should be in demand. I am a member of the International Relations Committee, and today I am very concerned about what is happening here in the east of the country. We understand that the western borders are closed to us. But we have three states in the east: Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, which we hardly talk about. 7000 km border with Kazakhstan. What will happen if Nazarbayev leaves, what policy will there be? This should concern us. The border with Mongolia is 3000 km, with China - 4000 km. Today, the main wealth there is people. There are about 20 million people left. Do you understand how small this is for the whole country? We need to preserve them.

— People are leaving Southern Siberia and the eastern territories...

— The entire Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District are in a negative population balance.

— Why do people leave?

“Because they don’t see the prospects, they don’t see the attention.” I think that the desire to give everyone a hectare of land is a mockery of people. When Stolypin was exploring Siberia and the Far Eastern borders, he said something completely different: here’s money for you, here’s guns for you, here’s land for you, here’s forest for you. But the most important thing that the governor must say is that we, the state, provide you with sales. Nearby China, Korea. You work, produce, pray to God, just don’t drink vodka, and we will provide you with sales. Producing is not a problem. The most important thing is sales. But on our distant borders there are no people, there is no point of sale.

- Fine. You say that people are leaving Siberia. Could you give some specific examples related specifically to science, to young scientists? What happens, for example, at your institute with young people? What dynamics do you see? Why do people leave?

— People go into business, go where the money is. And now education is no longer important. Because b O Most of them have already left. Why has the departure curve decreased? Because the right people, rich in knowledge, left. And today the rest are leaving. There are specific examples.

The Institute of Nuclear Physics is the largest institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, with about three thousand employees. During the years of these reforms, 300 people left. You can imagine - from one institute. Moreover, Novosibirsk University has alumni associations - there are about three thousand people in them who work abroad.

— Yes, the Novosibirsk diaspora.

- Yes. It consists of graduates. But why did we prepare these graduates? They invested a lot of money and a lot of knowledge. Where are the results? And today we are faced with a fact: the departure of every graduate of Physics and Technology, Moscow State University, and St. Petersburg University is an economic disaster for the country.

— Let’s then determine what can be changed in the field of public policy in relation to science. How to fix the current situation?

— The main condition for the development of science and the benefits of science is its independence. It makes no sense to evaluate such a target indicator as salary. If an institute receives a large salary, this does not mean that it is effective. We are going the wrong way. We always argue that there is nuclear physics, mathematics, fundamental sciences. But we must understand that for such a huge country as Russia, there is another science - spatial economics. And today, more than ever, we must worry about ensuring that the expanses of Siberia and the Far East are developed in a cluster, in the interests of the state.

For this it is important to preserve the Academy. But what is the Academy of Sciences in Kyzyl, Barnaul, Chita? This is the only intellectual core. If we destroy it, then the higher education system will collapse at the same time, because all scientists teach. After higher education, the secondary education system will collapse. And today children are already leaving the region in thousands to the central city, from the central city to Moscow and further abroad. And thanks to the Unified State Exam, this conveyor works like a clock. And today their parents are coming for them. We will end up with an intellectual desert. I openly told our minister about this.

— So, what can be done legislatively to prevent this from happening? That is, the law on the Russian Academy of Sciences should affirm its independence and autonomy, decision-making? Do I understand you correctly?

— The law on science was adopted today, and it must be observed. But why is FANO needed? Property - for God's sake, let's use it rationally, we don't mind. But please don’t define scientific policy. Because science policy should be determined by scientists. Faraday did not receive his discoveries by government order. This is the fruit of the intellectual thinking of an individual, and a talented one at that. And talents, as a rule, are, firstly, rare, and secondly, they have a very bad character, and they do not always fit into the system of social relations.

— So you talked about state orders, about the fact that it is necessary for the state to set tasks. Nuclear project, GOELRO and so on?

— There are several levels. The task, for example, of the institute in Tuva is one. He doesn't have to think about nuclear physics. He is thinking about how to help the region overcome today's economic crises. Next we talk about the Siberian department, which should work out a strategy for the development of Siberia. Because when I see the federal program “Far East,” I openly tell Mr. Trutnev, the presidential envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District, that this is not a program. This is a set of individual measures for the construction of plants and factories, in which there is no state interest, but the interests of individual governors. Today we need a new State Planning Committee, which solves not regional problems, but the problems of Russia in today's conditions.

Naturally, it’s the same with fundamental science. Government orders can be divided into applied science and fundamental science. Fundamental science is a completely special thing. Here there may or may not be a government order. But today we must think that the world is on the eve of new technological breakthroughs, where there will be new additive technologies, there will be artificial materials and, perhaps, we will already move away from the resource economy. Without science we will never do this. We see that our very famous scientists, three Nobel Prize laureates, are working abroad. The Russians have received four Fields Awards and many other physics awards. Konstantin Batygin, working in the States, discovered a new planet. They all left here with our education. And if we do not preserve them here today, then Russia has very weak prospects.

- Fine. Besides autonomy and defining a scientific strategy for the Academy, what else do you think needs to be done?

— Naturally, financing. Putin wrote a figure in his May decrees: 1.77% of GDP for fundamental science. Throughout the world, developed countries do not have less than 2%. And keep in mind that they all have different GDPs. But today in the budget we wrote 0.3%. Can you imagine? The decrees say 1.77%, we get 0.3%. And with this funding we will never become world leaders. But I'm talking about something else now. During the discussion of the budget in our Federation Council, I told Mr. Siluanov, the Minister of Finance, that we do not have a “science” line in the Russian budget. If you look carefully, there is housing and communal services, there is education, there is medicine. There is no “science” line. I say: dear minister, why is there no “science” line? He hesitated somewhat and said: money for science should be provided by the oligarchic community. “I,” I say, “have never seen such oligarchs today.” And we parted ways on this. And after that we got this result.

— At the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences there was a speech by Boris Kashin, a deputy of the State Duma. He said: how can we expect an adequate reform of science with such a system of governing the country, close to the 1870s, when decisions are made virtually individually, and why do we think that the reform of Russian science should be something special, in contrast to other reforms that are adopted in the same way? He pointed to a managerial crisis. Question: what levers do you see here, how can this be changed?

- It is impossible to change yourself. I, a member of the Academy, roughly speaking, am not afraid for my work. The rest are afraid for their jobs, for their future. This fear has been present since the times of Stalin. And today, oddly enough, this fear is intensifying. Further, reforms really come in different forms. But why do we always look to the West? Look at China. China has taken the structure of the Russian Academy of Sciences one-on-one. Today there is the Chinese Academy of Sciences, there is the Engineering Academy of Sciences, there is the Academy of Social Sciences, which in terms of funds is much larger than the Academy of Sciences itself, there is the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. There, the head of the laboratory has a company car. I personally know some Chinese scientists. They have no such concept of asking for money. They write an application - and after a month and a half, everything they need arrives. Today, my colleagues in China can buy an apartment and a car when they retire. For your pension! Their social problems have been solved, and the scientist in China is socially protected. China's successes are the successes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They have a diaspora abroad that can come at any time under these conditions. She goes there only to study, then returns. But here, if smart people leave, they probably leave forever.

- Then I have a final question for you. Please tell me, if the Academy is reformed separately outside the general strategy of science in the state, then, of course, a lot of disagreements will arise. What science strategy does Russia need? Without an answer to this question, it is impossible to reform the Russian Academy of Sciences or individual universities - Do you agree?

- Absolutely right. Science must be in demand in society. This is the cornerstone. I can't talk about too big lofty matters. I'll just give you one sentence. Some say that in such difficult times we cannot afford to invest in science, that supporting scientific research is still a luxury in those moments when everything is determined by necessity. I strongly disagree. Our prosperity, safety, health, ecology and quality of life depend now more than ever on science. And it is today that reminds us that we must rely on science. This, unfortunately, was what Barack Obama said two months after his inauguration. And one on one, I think, we must translate this phrase, this situation, into today’s Russia.

The one who didn't shoot?

Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov overnight became the darling of the academic public, refusing - the only senator - to vote for the law on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Indeed, in modern times it was a courageous act, quite worthy of going down in history, so the first question of the published interview is about this. But then the details begin...

A negative attitude towards the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences united a variety of people. And if the minority pointed out that reform was necessary, but was being carried out using unsuitable methods, the majority asked to simply lag behind and leave everything as it was. Preferably, as it was under Soviet rule. Arnold Kirillovich is such a prominent representative of this point of view that even in the repeatedly edited interview there were interesting passages like, say, this: “Unlike the recent past, we no longer have the Gulag, there is no Komsomol, patriotism remains only in slogans. Today, when we have Western sanctions, when our opponents have again taken up arms against us, only the Academy of Sciences, only science can show ways out of these crisis situations.” I don’t want to interpret this passage as a call for the revival of science by returning the Gulag, but the semantic sequence itself - Gulag, Komsomol, patriotism, Academy of Sciences - makes me shudder. Or here's another thing about scientific justification of the Baikal-Amur Mainline,- I really want to ask a specialist spatial economics: and is it okay that BAM never paid off, and significantly undermined its resources?

But the main thing is not even these reservations and not the fantastic ideas of the corresponding member and director of the institute about the surrounding reality (the Fields Prize is a physical one, and for Chinese scientists “There is no such thing as asking for money. They write an application - and after a month and a half, everything they need comes.”). The mantra that is repeated all the time is essential: “We need a new State Planning Committee today,”- and further: “I think that the moment has come when we need to give scientists a state order, tell them what to do next.”, because “When there is no order, the Academy of Sciences also begins to solve its own private problems.” This is really very bad. Because attempts to tie science to the immediate needs of not very understanding bosses are not only naive (so they believed - and even then, there is reason not to believe, because many such academic promises ended in nothing), but also strategically dangerous (what if, after all, will see distant policy). And then everyone will be able to say goodbye to their favorite private tasks and happily switch to... here is the senator’s answer: “We argue all the time that there is nuclear physics, mathematics, fundamental sciences. But we must understand that for such a huge country as Russia, there is another science - spatial economics.". Well, or at worst nuclear project, space project, BAM, Arctic development.

To be fair, directly opposite passages immediately follow: “The main condition for the development of science and the benefits of science is its independence,” “Faraday did not receive his discoveries by government order.” I don’t understand how this fits into one’s head.

The split in the scientific community between supporters of transparent, independent fundamental science included in the international context and fans of the State Planning Committee and state orders has not gone away; the joint rejection of the ongoing reform only slightly obscured it. One may dislike the modern Russian government both because it is too reminiscent of the Soviet Union and because it does not reproduce it enough. How long will this water truce last and to what extent can one count on a situational alliance with the restorers of the Union in the fight against the most odious reform plans - I do not have a ready answer. I'm afraid not at all.

Mikhail Gelfand

The history of chess goes back at least one and a half thousand years. Invented in India in the 5th-6th centuries, chess spread almost throughout the world, becoming an integral part of human culture. There is an ancient legend that attributes the creation of chess to a certain Brahmin. For his invention, he asked the rajah for an insignificant, at first glance, reward: as many wheat grains as would be on the chessboard if one grain was placed on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third, etc. It turned out , that there is no such amount of grain on the entire planet (it is equal to 264 − 1 ≈ 1.845 × 1019 grains, which is enough to fill a storage facility with a volume of 180 km³). It’s hard to say whether it was true or not, but one way or another, India is the birthplace of chess. No later than the beginning of the 6th century, the first known game related to chess, chaturanga, appeared in northwestern India. It already had a completely recognizable “chess” appearance, but it was fundamentally different from modern chess in two features: there were four players, not two (they played pairs against pairs), and moves were made in accordance with the results of throwing dice. Each player had four pieces (chariot (rook), knight, bishop, king) and four pawns. The knight and king moved the same way as in chess, the chariot and bishop were much weaker than the current chess rook and bishop. There was no queen at all. To win the game, it was necessary to destroy the entire enemy army. The transformation of chess into an international sport Since the 16th century, chess clubs began to appear, where amateurs and semi-professionals gathered, often playing for a monetary stake. Over the next two centuries, the spread of chess led to the emergence of national tournaments in most European countries. Chess publications are published, at first sporadic and irregular, but over time they become increasingly popular. The first chess magazine "Palamed" began to be published in 1836 by the French chess player Louis Charles Labourdonnais. In 1837, a chess magazine appeared in Great Britain, and in 1846 in Germany. In the 19th century, international matches (since 1821) and tournaments (since 1851) began to be held. At the first such tournament, held in London in 1851, Adolf Andersen won. It was he who became the unofficial “chess king,” that is, the one who was considered the strongest chess player in the world. Subsequently, this title was challenged by Paul Morphy (USA), who won the match in 1858 with a score of +7-2=2, but after Morphy left the chess scene in 1859, Andersen again became the first, and only in 1866 Wilhelm Steinitz won the match against Andersen with a score of +8- 6 and became the new “uncrowned king.” The first world chess champion to officially bear this title was the same Wilhelm Steinitz, defeating Johann Zuckertort in the first match in history, in the agreement of which the expression “world championship match” appeared. Thus, a system of title succession was established: the new world champion was the one who won the match against the previous one, while the current champion reserved the right to agree to the match or reject the opponent, and also determined the conditions and location of the match. The only mechanism capable of forcing a champion to play a challenger was public opinion: if an admittedly strong chess player for a long time could not obtain the right to a match with the champion, this was seen as a sign of the champion’s cowardice and he, saving face, was forced to accept the challenge. Typically, the match agreement provided for the champion's right to a rematch if he lost; a victory in such a match returned the championship title to the previous owner. In the second half of the 19th century, time control began to be used in chess tournaments. At first, an ordinary hourglass was used for this (the time per move was limited), which was quite inconvenient, but soon the English amateur chess player Thomas Bright Wilson (T.B. Wilson) invented a special chess clock that made it possible to conveniently implement a time limit for the entire game or for a certain number of moves . Time control quickly became part of chess practice and soon began to be used everywhere. By the end of the 19th century, official tournaments and matches without time control were practically no longer held. Simultaneously with the advent of time control, the concept of “time pressure” appeared. Thanks to the introduction of time control, special forms of chess tournaments with a greatly shortened time limit arose: “fast chess” with a limit of about 30 minutes per game for each player and “blitz” - 5-10 minutes. However, they became widespread much later. Chess in the 20th century At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the development of chess in Europe and America was very active, chess organizations became larger, and more and more international tournaments were held. In 1924, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) was created, initially organizing the World Chess Olympiads. Until 1948, the system of succession of the world champion title that had developed in the 19th century was preserved: the challenger challenged the champion to a match, the winner of which became the new champion. Until 1921, the champion remained Emanuel Lasker (the second, after Steinitz, official world champion, who won this title in 1894), from 1921 to 1927 - Jose Raul Capablanca, from 1927 to 1946 - Alexander Alekhine (in 1935 Alekhine lost the world championship match to Max Euwe, but In 1937, in a rematch, he regained the title and held it until his death in 1946). After the death of Alekhine in 1946, who remained undefeated, FIDE took over the organization of the world championship. The first official world chess championship was held in 1948, the winner was the Soviet grandmaster Mikhail Botvinnik. FIDE introduced a system of tournaments to win the champion title: the winners of the qualifying stages advanced to the zonal tournaments, the winners of the zonal competitions advanced to the interzonal tournament, and the holders of the best results in the latter took part in the candidate tournament, where a series of knockout games determined the winner, who was to play the match against the reigning champion. The formula for the title match changed several times. Now the winners of zonal tournaments participate in a single tournament with the best (rated) players in the world; the winner becomes world champion. The Soviet chess school played a huge role in the history of chess, especially in the second half of the 20th century. The wide popularity of chess, active, targeted teaching of it and the identification of capable players from childhood (a chess section, a children's chess school was in every city of the USSR, there were chess clubs at educational institutions, enterprises and organizations, tournaments were constantly held, a large amount of specialized literature was published) contributed to high level of play of Soviet chess players. Attention to chess was shown at the highest level. The result was that from the late 1940s until the collapse of the USSR, Soviet chess players virtually reigned supreme in world chess. Of the 21 chess Olympiads held from 1950 to 1990, the USSR team won 18 and became a silver medalist in another; of the 14 chess Olympiads for women during the same period, 11 were won and 2 silvers were taken. Of the 18 draws for the title of world champion among men over 40 years, only once the winner was a non-Soviet chess player (this was the American Robert Fischer), and twice more the contender for the title was not from the USSR (and the contender also represented the Soviet chess school, it was Viktor Korchnoi, fled from the USSR to the West). In 1993, Garry Kasparov, who was the world champion at that time, and Nigel Short, who became the winner of the qualifying round, refused to play another world championship match under the auspices of FIDE, accusing the federation leadership of unprofessionalism and corruption. Kasparov and Short formed a new organization, the PSA, and played the match under its auspices. There was a split in the chess movement. FIDE deprived Kasparov of the title, the title of world champion according to FIDE was played between Anatoly Karpov and Jan Timman, who at that time had the highest chess rating after Kasparov and Short. At the same time, Kasparov continued to consider himself a “real” world champion, since he defended the title in a match with a legitimate contender - Short, and part of the chess community was in solidarity with him. In 1996, the PCA ceased to exist as a result of the loss of a sponsor, after which the PCA champions began to be called “world classical chess champions.” In essence, Kasparov revived the old system of title transfer, when the champion himself accepted the challenge of the challenger and played a match with him. The next “classical” champion was Vladimir Kramnik, who won a match against Kasparov in 2000 and defended the title in a match with Peter Leko in 2004. Until 1998, FIDE continued to play out the champion title in the traditional manner (Anatoly Karpov remained the FIDE champion during this period), but from 1999 to In 2004, the format of the championship changed dramatically: instead of a match between a challenger and a champion, the title began to be played out in a knockout tournament, in which the current champion had to participate on a general basis. As a result, the title constantly changed hands and five champions changed in six years. In general, in the 1990s, FIDE made a number of attempts to make chess competitions more dynamic and interesting, and therefore attractive to potential sponsors. First of all, this was expressed in the transition in a number of competitions from the Swiss or round-robin system to the knockout system (in each round there is a match of three knockout games). Since the knockout system requires an unambiguous outcome of the round, additional games of rapid chess and even blitz games have appeared in the tournament regulations: if the main series of games with regular time control ends in a draw, an additional game is played with a shortened time control. Complicated time control schemes began to be used, protecting against severe time pressure, in particular, the “Fischer clock” - time control with addition after each move. The last decade of the 20th century in chess was marked by another important event - computer chess reached a high enough level to surpass human chess players. In 1996, Garry Kasparov lost a game to a computer for the first time, and in 1997, he also lost a match to the computer Deep Blue by one point. The avalanche-like growth in computer productivity and memory capacity, combined with improved algorithms, led to the emergence of publicly available programs by the beginning of the 21st century that could play at the grandmaster level in real time. The ability to connect to them pre-accumulated databases of debuts and tables of small-figure endings further increases the strength of the machine’s play and completely eliminates the danger of making a mistake in a known position. Now the computer can effectively advise a human chess player even at the highest level of competitions. The consequence of this was changes in the format of high-level competitions: tournaments began to use special measures to protect against computer hints, in addition, the practice of postponing games was completely abandoned. The time allotted to the game was reduced: if in the middle of the 20th century the norm was 2.5 hours for 40 moves, then by the end of the century it decreased to 2 hours (in other cases - even 100 minutes) for 40 moves. Current state and prospects After the unification match Kramnik - Topalov in 2006, FIDE's monopoly on holding the world championship and awarding the title of world chess champion was restored. The first “unified” world champion was Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), who won this match. Until 2013, the world champion was Viswanathan Anand, who won the 2007 world championship. In 2008, a rematch took place between Anand and Kramnik, Anand retained his title. In 2010, another match was held, in which Anand and Veselin Topalov took part; Anand again defended the title of champion. In 2012, a match was held in which Anand and Gelfand took part; Anand defended his championship title in a tiebreaker. In 2013, Anand lost the world champion title to Magnus Carlsen, who won the match ahead of schedule with a score of 6½: 3½. The formula for the championship title is being adjusted by FIDE. In the last championship, the title was played out in a tournament with the participation of the champion, four winners of the candidate tournament and three personally selected players with the highest rating. However, FIDE has also retained the tradition of holding personal matches between a champion and a challenger: according to existing rules, a grandmaster with a rating of 2700 or higher has the right to challenge the champion to a match (the champion cannot refuse), subject to the provision of funding and compliance with deadlines: the match must be completed no later than six months before the start of the next world championship. The progress of computer chess mentioned above has become one of the reasons for the growing popularity of non-classical chess variants. Since 2000, Fischer chess tournaments have been held, in which the initial arrangement of pieces is chosen randomly before the game from 960 options. In such conditions, the huge array of opening variations accumulated by chess theory becomes useless, which, as many believe, has a positive effect on the creative component of the game, and when playing against a machine, it noticeably limits the advantage of the computer in the opening stage of the game.

Birthday September 03, 1949

Buryat geoecologist and geographer, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Biography

Arnold Kirillovich Tulokhonov was born on September 3, 1949 in the village of Zakuley, Nukutsky district, Irkutsk region, in the family of a rural teacher.
After graduating from Nukutsk secondary school in 1966, A.K. Tulokhonov entered the Irkutsk State University at the Faculty of Geography.
In 1971, A.K. Tulokhonov graduated with honors from the university with the qualification “geographer-geomorphologist” and was assigned to work at the Chita branch of the All-Union Research and Design Institute of the Gold-Platinum, Diamond and Tungsten-Molybdenum Industry of the Ministry of Non-ferrous Metallurgy of the USSR. He began his career as a junior researcher.
Over the course of three years, he completed a large volume of contractual work ordered by the Baleizoloto plant and put more than 10 placer gold deposits on the balance sheet with a total reserve of over 2 tons of metal. The results of these studies formed the basis of his Ph.D. thesis: “The main stages of the development of the relief of the Shilkinsky middle mountains and the assessment of placer gold content,” which he defended in 1976. at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics SB RAS.
On his initiative, in 1977, the Small Academy of Sciences was created in Ulan-Ude, which is still active today, and the Council of Young Scientists of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was organized.
In 1988, A.K. Tulokhonov was appointed deputy chairman of the Presidium of the Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the same year, he organized the Baikal Department of Environmental Problems under the Presidium of the Center, which, on his initiative, in 1991. transformed into the Baikal Institute for Rational Environmental Management of the SB RAS. Nowadays this is the Baikal Institute of Environmental Management of the SB RAS - the only institute in the system of academic science where natural resource research is inextricably linked with the development of environmentally friendly technologies and the economics of environmental management. In 1988, by decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, the academic degree of Doctor of Geographical Sciences was awarded for the dissertation “The origin and evolution of the relief of inland mountains (on the example of the Mongol-Siberian mountain belt)”
1991 - present Director of the Baikal Institute of Nature Management, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
1992 - present Advisor to the President of the Republic of Buryatia and the Chairman of the People's Khural on environmental issues.
1996 - present Member of the Northern Forum Academy (Finland). Member of the International Association of Academies of Sciences (IAAS) of the CIS.
1998 Full member of the Russian Ecological Academy.
2000 - 2004 Member of the editorial board of the journal “Region: Sociology and Economics”
2000 - present Full member of the Academy of Mining Sciences. V.V. Putin's authorized representative for the election of the President of the Russian Federation
2001 Member of the Presidium of the Political Council of the Buryat regional branch of the Unity party (United Russia)
2002 By decision of the Higher Attestation Commission, he was awarded the academic title of professor.
2003 Elected corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
2004 Initiator of the creation and chairman of the scientific council of the magazine “World of Baikal”
2005 - present Member of the Academic Council of the Russian Geographical Society.
2007 Deputy of the People's Khural of the Republic of Buryatia
2008 - 2010 Member of the Coordination Council of Transbaikalia Development Corporation LLC. Responsible editor of the encyclopedic reference book “Baikal: nature and people.” Scientific organizer of the International Expedition “Worlds on Baikal” using deep-sea manned vehicles “Mir-1” and “Mir-2”. Hydronaut "Baikal-2008".

Contribution to science

A.K. Tulokhonov is the author of more than 300 scientific works, including more than 20 monographs. Scientific research by A.K. Tulokhonov was supported by grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation. He is the head of integration projects of the SB RAS and the Russian Academy of Sciences. A.K. Tulokhonov was repeatedly awarded state scientific scholarships.