Science policy in Russia: The social-epistemological dimension

Alexan­dra F. Yakovl­e­va
Lomonosov Moscow State Uni­ver­si­ty

Sci­ence pol­i­cy in Rus­sia: The social-epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dimen­sion

Abstract. With­in the frame­work of the new polit­i­cal cycle, sci­en­tif­ic pol­i­cy in Rus­sia is becom­ing one of the pri­or­i­ties of the Russia’s author­i­ties in form­ing a pos­i­tive image of the coun­try and defend­ing the inter­na­tion­al inter­ests of the state. In the con­text of the adop­tion of the Sci­en­tif­ic and Tech­no­log­i­cal Devel­op­ment Strat­e­gy and the imple­men­ta­tion of the Nation­al project “Sci­ence”, the dis­cus­sion of the goals of sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment is reach­ing a new lev­el of rela­tions in the tri­ad ‘sci­ence-soci­ety-pow­er’. How­ev­er, with­out under­stand­ing the key prob­lems that exist in the field of sci­ence-soci­ety-pow­er, it is quite dif­fi­cult to out­line strate­gic pri­or­i­ties, and con­sis­tent­ly move to achiev­ing them. Analy­sis of the basic ideas and val­ues that shape strate­gic pri­or­i­ties in polit­i­cal deci­sion-mak­ing in the field of sci­ence requires assess­ing pri­mar­i­ly the com­pli­ance of mech­a­nisms and tools aimed at devel­op­ing and imple­ment­ing the sci­ence pol­i­cy (basi­cal­ly, with regard to social tech­nolo­gies for their imple­men­ta­tion) with these ideas and gen­er­al ten­den­cies in the de-vel­op­ment of sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge in Rus­sia. The author sug­gests a the­sis that the author­i­ties’ steady atti­tude to sci­ence just as an instru­ment serv­ing a par­tic­u­lar sphere of pub­lic life and pro­duc­tion – of edu­ca­tion, tech­nol­o­gy and inno­va­tion – rather than a sys­tem of com­plete­ly spe­cial val­ues and a social insti­tu­tion ensur­ing the achieve­ment of the goals of sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge, does not con­tribute to devel­op­ing a coher­ent sci­en­tif­ic pol­i­cy in Rus­sia. The arti­cle dis­cuss­es the pos­si­bil­i­ty and neces­si­ty of a future mod­el that would rest on the devel­oped sys­tem of inter­ac­tion para­me­ters in the tri­ad ‘sci­ence-soci­ety-pow­er’, both reflect­ing the specifics of their mutu­al per­cep­tion and demon­strat­ing the chan­nels of their com­mu­ni­ca­tion. The con­cep­tu­al analy­sis of the struc­tur­al and sub­stan­tive changes in the com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­text of domes­tic sci­ence, occur­ring in recent years, allows to fix the prob­lem areas.

Key­words: state sci­ence pol­i­cy of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion, sci­ence, soci­ety, author­i­ty, sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tions

DOI: 10.5840/dspl20192445


  1. Alberts, B., Kirschn­er, M. W., Tilgh­man, S., Var­mus, H. Res­cu­ing US Bio­med­ical Research from Its Sys­temic Flaws, Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, 2014, vol. 111, no. 16, pp. 5773–5777. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1404402111.
  2. Bre­tag, T. Con­tract Cheat­ing Will Erode Trust in Sci­ence, Nature, 2019, vol. 574, pp. 599.
  3. Felt, U. (ed.) Know­ing and Liv­ing in Aca­d­e­m­ic Research. Con­ver­gence and Het­ero­gene­ity in Research Cul­tures in the Euro­pean Con­text. Prague: Insti­tute of Soci­ol­o­gy of the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of the Czech Repub­lic, 2009. 246 pp.
  4. Fochler, M., Felt, U., Muller, R. Unsus­tain­able Growth, Hyper-com­pe­ti­tion and Worth in Life Sci­ence Research: Nar­row­ing Eval­u­a­tive Reper­toires in Doc­tor­al and Post­doc­tor­al Sci­en­tists’ Work and Lives, Min­er­va, 2016, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 175–200. DOI:10.1007/s11024-016‑9292-y.
  5. Gohberg, L.M. (ed) Otech­estven­na­ia nau­ka i nauch­na­ia poli­ti­ka v kontse XX v. Ten­dentsii i osoben­nos­ti razvi­ti­ia (1985–1999) [Domes­tic Sci­ence and Sci­en­tif­ic Pol­i­cy at the End of the Twen­ti­eth Cen­tu­ry. Trends and Fea­tures of Devel­op­ment (1985–1999)]. Moscow: Fond sovre­men­noi istorii; MGU Publ., 2011. 320 pp. (In Russ­ian)
  6. Greben­sh­hiko­va, E.G. “Tretjia mis­si­ia” uni­ver­site­ta: ot vtoro­go tipa proizvod­st­va znani­ia k “troinoi spi­rali” inno­vat­sii [The “Third Mis­sion” of the Uni­ver­si­ty: From the Sec­ond Type of Knowl­edge Pro­duc­tion to the “Triple Helix” of Inno­va­tion], Iaroslavskii ped­a­goguch­eskii vest­nik. Guman­i­tarnye nau­ki [Jaroslavl Ped­a­gog­i­cal Bul­letin. The Human­i­ties], 2011, vol. 1, no. 4. pp. 270–274. (In Russ­ian)
  7. Knorr-Ceti­na, K. Epis­temic Cul­tures: How the Sci­ences Make Knowl­edge. Cam­bridge, MA; Lon­don: Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1999. 352 pp.
  8. Kasavin, I.T. Kak voz­mozh­na politich­eska­ia filosofi­ia nau­ki? [How Is a Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence Pos­si­ble?], Epis­te­mologiya i Filosofiya nau­ki / Epis­te­mol­o­gy & Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence, 2015, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 5–15. (In Russ­ian)
  9. Kislit­syn, S.A., Nek­tarevska­ia, Ju.B. Aktu­al­nye prob­le­my vza­imod­eistvi­ia nauch­noi eli­ty i politich­eskoi vlasti (na mate­ri­alakh istorii nau­ki Rossii i SShA) [Actu­al Prob­lems of Inter­ac­tion of Sci­en­tif­ic Elite and Polit­i­cal Pow­er (On Mate­ri­als of His­to­ry of Sci­ence of Rus­sia and the USA)], Gosu­darstven­noe i munit­si­pal­noe upravle­nie. Uchenye zapis­ki SKAGS [Pub­lic and Munic­i­pal Admin­is­tra­tion. Sci­en­tif­ic Notes], 2010, no. 4. pp. 102–117. (In Russ­ian)
  10. Mironov, V.V., Mirono­va, D.V. Filosof i vlast: sluchai Haideg­gera [Philoso­pher and Pow­er: The Case of Hei­deg­ger], Voprosy filosofii [Prob­lems of Phi­los­o­phy], 2016, no. 7, pp. 21–38. (In Russ­ian)
  11. Shestopal, E.B., Selezne­va, A.V. Sot­siokul­turnye ugrozy i ris­ki v sovre­men­noi Rossii [Socio-cul­tur­al Threats and Risks in Mod­ern Rus­sia], Sot­si­o­logich­eskie issle­dovani­ia [Soci­o­log­i­cal Stud­ies], 2018, no. 10, pp. 90–99. (In Russ­ian)
  12. Volo­darska­ia, E.A. Dinami­ka imidzha nau­ki v prot­sesse razvi­ti­ia issle­dova­tel­skikh umenii stu­den­tov [Dynam­ics of the Image of Sci­ence in the Devel­op­ment of Research Skills of Stu­dents], Psikho­logich­eskii zhur­nal [Psy­cho­log­i­cal Jour­nal], 2009, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 14–31. (In Russ­ian)
  13. Yakovl­e­va, A.F. Sovre­men­na­ia nau­ka i “dukh” kap­i­tal­iz­ma [Mod­ern Sci­ence and the “Spir­it” of Cap­i­tal­ism], Poly­l­o­gos, 2018, vol. 2, no. 2. DOI: 10.18254/S0000046-2–1. Avail­able at:–1-ru/ (accessed on Octo­ber 20, 2019). (In Russ­ian)
  14. Yakovl­e­va. A.F., Tru­fano­va. E.O. Sot­sial­nye roli uchenogo: ot eskapista do menedzhera [Social Roles of a Sci­en­tist: From Escapist to Man­ag­er], Voprosy filosofii [Prob­lems of Phi­los­o­phy], 2015, no. 3, pp. 72–82. (In Russ­ian)

Comments are closed.