Estonian Physicist: Active and Productive

Abstract

Letters from: [ Jaak Aaviksoo ][1] [ Karl Rebane ][1] Richard Stone's article “Estonian researchers lead the way in science reform” (News & Comment, [4 Oct., p. 29][2]) gives a realistic picture of recent developments in science administration in Estonia. We are encouraged to continue in this direction. However, the article represents Karl Rebane, the former president (1973–1990) of the Estonian Academy of Sciences (EAS) and member of the Russian (formerly Soviet) Academy of Sciences, a physicist of international reknown, as merely an aged enemy of Estonian scientific reform. This is definitely not true. Rebane's contribution to physics as well as to Estonian scientific organization has been remarkable. It is true that he headed the EAS during the last 17 years of Soviet domination and was forced to resign in the wave of the liberation movement. But he also managed, in spite of all difficulties, to build up an institution of international competitiveness, which has been clearly demonstrated during the past few years when we have had the chance to compete for research grants internationally. Rebane is still an active and productive physicist who deserves our respect. # {#article-title-2} Stone's article includes critical statements about me as the former president of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. In these statements, my behavior and role in Estonian science reform are not portrayed correctly. Many documents show that, as the president of the EAS (and before that, the vice-president and member of the academy presidium), I initiated and introduced measures directed to and successful in promoting democracy and effectiveness in the EAS and also in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. In the Soviet academy, I was chairman of the Joint Council for Optics and deputy of the USSR People's Congress (elected by the Soviet academy, together with Yuri Ossipyan, Andrei Sakharov, Vitalii Ginzburg, and several other progressive academicians), and a member of the Commission for Science and Education of the USSR People's Deputies Congress. I proposed and started to implement the science grant system in Estonia and was one of the activists implementing the grant system in Soviet science. I acknowledge, however, that I was and still am firmly against hasty, unreasonable changes and, especially, against populism and populists in science. If Estonian science is relatively strong, how can one ascribe that to measures taken 1 to 3 years after the change of the presidium? The state of Estonian science is the result of hard and well-focused work in the EAS and universities promoting effective cooperation between them and contacts with the West (strongly limited but alive even in the Soviet years). My reelection as EAS president in 1987 showed that I had a “normal size” opposition, with the number of “against” votes being far from sufficient to replace me. Nevertheless, soon thereafter, activities began that resulted in the dismissal of the whole EAS presidium. The procedure of impeachment was ignored, and the very new and democratic constitution of the EAS was violated. An objective analysis would reveal that the years of dissolution of the Soviet Union and the first years of Estonian independence brought hard times for science in our country, and especially for the EAS. This was caused by a drastic decrease of financing, and also by the inability of the new president, who came to power after the independence of Estonia was reestablished in 1991, to have good relations with the people. The positive factor that helped keep Estonian science alive was the remarkable increase in contacts with the West and support from the West. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.275.5299.461f [2]: /lookup/volpage/275/29