You are here

What is better to pursue science or be bound up in it?

1903. Сторінки альбому (5)


Ideally, any Academic staff of higher educational institution should be a subject (carrier) of a three balanced, ideally harmonized features, incarnations: teacher (methodologist, didactics); educator; scientist (researcher, scientist) But it is only ideally. And what we can see in reality? In vitro, so to speak? Oh, it depends.

It was in different ways in Soviet times. And now it is also not in the same way.

On my opinion the requirement of a high level of teaching (educational point here is relegated to the background) from the SRI employee is impossible and unnecessary: it is usually contraindicated for teaching and pedagogy. This must be learned for a long time. Throughout the life.  It would be better them to write. Silently.

As it happens that the structure of our science was formed and represented by academic science, university science and branch science. I am speaking about Soviet times when there was a lively academic science. Today the science is ruined. It is killed exactly as the manufacturing industry. Don’t you have a faith anymore?  Okay lets count :"Bolshevik" is killed, "Arsenal" is killed, "Artem" is killed, "Radar"is killed "Point" is  killed, "VEDA"is  killed, "Petrel" is killed.

For instance in 1985  there were 24,000 workers, 1,500 enterprises supplying high-tech products, strong research units complex, quite competitive in the international market products


And what we can see today? There are about 1.2 thousands of employees. What do they do?! No one knows. Maybe they make lighters. Or, as it was on "Bolshevik", engaged in a figure skating and for certain trade the import. Or, as it was on the former flagship textile industry - DShK - (now "Darynok"), raise their "merchant" level.

So as you can notice the situation is not so bad. It is much worse. The science is merely alive in universities, especially in so-called famous historical universities as Kiev University and Polytechnic (and some others) in Kharkiv, Lviv, Donetsk universities and polytechnics because of inertia, infinite devotion, self-sacrifice of  teaching staff and all other employees of the university.

Friedrich Engels once wrote, quote (not because it is written by Engels, but because it is truth): "If a technical need appears in society, it promotes science forward more strongly than a dozen universities."

I have already told about the industry. Do you want to hear about the destiny of Universities or you will guess by your own? So what we can do? Maybe return back? First of all our time is irretrievable and secondly God forbid!

Famous academician Loctev told about all that irrelevances in his posts to «KP» (№ 27 on September 16, 2010 - Ed.). He tells – In Soviet time the science was as a hobby on weekends, on holidays, on vacation, or in the night as relaxation for  teacher (after 12 groups and 4-6 flows). But it was a science! There were discoveries, inventions ,suggestions ...

At that time the science included many points: objectification, materialization, incarnation. In KPI was so-called economic theme, was "defense industry", planned budget science. And there were a good results! There were know-how, exclusive technology, hi-folder. There was everything. And where is it now? 

Where is a big country there is a big loses.  Almost everything was ruined, captured by someone in hazardous 90s.

Not even for the beads (as in due time colonizers exchanged gold from Papuans in New Guinea) but each and every  "for free" . The progressive West cleaned out with Soviet shovel our best researches and developments ,our best engineering, and technological developments and also secret materials . They were doing this through the system of grants, scholarships, etc.

Is this a secret for someone? And while they taking our heritage away they made us accustomed to the idea of inferiority, backwardness, And at the same time they wanted us to strive for Europe.

And who was learning geography by heart? Most people haven’t any accurate opinion. They want to live better in so-called "civilized world." We should respect ourselves.

But anyway, I have no intention to return at Soviet times when the science was developing at a strict ranges.

I won’t talk about the natural sciences and engineering - let the representatives of relevant segments of science think about this by their own.

I will talk about the so-called humanities. There was a continuous nightmare. What was the science when new ideas and discoveries in the field of history, philosophy, economics, etc. were not advocated not encouraged not implemented in life?

Well, at least by the type of technical and natural sciences , although there was everything: laughter, and sin, and tears.  By the way, the amount of talks about the protection of intellectual property, the need for real staging of patent case , the introduction of scientific developments in life have been remaining as talks for 20 years.

Now and then author and publisher's relations resemble relations of suzerain and vassal. Having already more than  300 publications, 11 of them - books, I remember those few hryvnias,  (for hens on laughter) which I received as a fee from  several (much less than a dozen!) magazines . It seems that in the imagination of publishers (editors, etc. ) the word "fee" sounds like a curse (well, at least - as obscenity).

Where is our money ?! Someone is using our ideas. Some sells our books and magazines . And who is the priority in a bundle of "author" - "publisher"? And who will live without one? And who is will not? It is a rhetoric question.

I think before sharing hours, load, etc. at universities we should answer these fundamental  substantive, existential questions.

And among them, in particular, the following: Who said it, and the more scientific and impeccably proved that fundamental science should be represented by mathematics, physics, chemistry, some more natural and technical sciences, but not by scientific philosophy, scientific Humanity and social studies?

Maybe we continue to live at this conditions because once upon a time "techie"  went into politics? Of course, the resistance of materials - is difficult. And who proved that the resistance of people, humanity - is easier? Our policy represents the level of our lives. So everyone should be involved in science! But it shouldn’t be because of the             obligation but because of love.

It is like a "lovemaking". Is there any difference?

With respect to readers
B.V.Novіkov, doctor of philological sciences, professor


Електронний кампус

Інформаційні ресурси

Викладачі КПІ

GitHub репозиторій