The Scientific Community between Confusion and Reactionarity

Abstract

Attempts to avoid discussing the catastrophic situation in science and higher education can have the most severe consequences for the country in wartime. The most important goal of the special operation in Ukraine is the nationalization of the elites. It was obviously not possible to nationalize the scientific community. The off–scale percentage of disapproval of thisoperation among scientists (85%) is quite an adequate assessment of the policy in the field of science and higher education. The legacy of Vladimir Vernadsky is now of particular importance. Being a hereditary opponent of the tsarist autocracy, and in Soviet times – a brave critic of the government and the dominance of official ideology, the great scientist clearly divided thegovernment and the country, which allowed him to always stand on patriotic positions, putting fundamental national interests, unchanged under any government at the forefront. If the planned economy in its Soviet outgrowth grew on domestic soil, then all the worst that destroys science, grossly deforming the value orientation of scientists and destroying the institution of reputations, came from the West. In the field of science, the West still retains its dominance to the greatest extent, having significantly lost its position in other areas – economy, politics, ideology, military power. The pro-Western orientation of most of our scientific community is due precisely to this dominance, and not to devotion to the great ideals of science, whichwere betrayed in the West much earlier than at us. These ideals require the maximum degree of separation between the science and the politics, but in practice there is a tendency to mix them. The revolutionary transformations in the country not only open up a huge front of work for science, but will allow it to dramatically increase its social status. However, this requires scientists to return resolutely from internal emigration. It is necessary to move not to the side of power, but to constructive opposition. The latter presupposes close cooperation with the authorities in some issues with its harsh criticism in others