OREANDA-NEWS. December 21, 2010. The meeting focused on the results achieved by state-run funds that support research and development. Prime Minister Putin noted that there are a number of tools that the government and private businesses in Russia can use to foster the development of science and innovation. According to the prime minister, it is important for these state-run funds to determine where in this system they are most needed and where there are no alternatives to them.

Vladimir Putin’s opening remarks:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

Just recently, on December 1, we held a government meeting on the performance of state-run funds that support research and development. I suggest we revisit these issues at this meeting of the Government Commission on High Technology and Innovation.

Let me remind you that construction of this facility began in a bare field in 2000. The first building was constructed and work has continued since then. It is going well on the whole. I would like to note that these state-run funds perform three jobs. First, there is support for fundamental science. This was followed later by support for innovative small and medium-sized businesses, which ultimately became a second, independent aspect of their work. Third, there is support for research in the humanities.

During the trying years when funding for science and research was scarce, these funds played a positive role by providing targeted support to the most important, the most needed research.

In total, these funds have financed about 120,000 projects. They have helped publish over 4,500 research papers and carry out more than 1,000 research expeditions.

These funds have also been providing support for young researchers. For example, there is a very popular programme for creative young people called the Youth Science and Innovation Contest. Fittingly, the acronym for the programme’s name [in Russian] spells ‘umnik’ [or ‘smart person’ in Russian]. Under this programme, more than 4,000 innovators have received about one billion roubles for their businesses.

It should be noted that the Development Fund for Small Businesses in the R&D Sector is closely cooperating with Vnesheconombank, Russian Venture Company and the RusNano corporation. In fact, together these development institutions form the infrastructure for innovative and high-tech businesses.

We understand that these funds are important and needed. This is why we have set aside over 10 billion roubles for them this year. They received the same funding, or even slightly more, in 2009. In fact, in 2009 and 2010 we remained where we stood in the pre-crisis year of 2008. In 2011 we intend to allocate 11 billion roubles from the federal budget for these funds.

This money should be spent reasonably and carefully on truly breakthrough research projects, on various research teams’ unique and original ideas and on encouraging innovation projects with commercial prospects.

I would like to underscore that there are a number of tools that the government and private businesses in Russia can use to foster the development of science and innovation. I’m referring to government programmes, targeted research and development funds (which are companies in which the government is a stakeholder), and private investment and venture funds.

It is important for these state-run funds to find where in this science and innovation support system they are most needed and where there are no alternatives to them.

These funds should not become mini-ministries or double the functions of government scientific bodies or academies. Nor should they work according to governmental patterns and templates. They should not fear changes. Their work should be guided by today’s realities and, most importantly, they should foster direct dialogue with the people their work is meant to benefit – researchers and research teams. The cornerstones of these funds should be publicity, transparency and accountability to the public. I would like to speak about several issues related to this point.

First, it is important to work closely and actively with those who apply to these funds for grants, consult with them and help them fill out paperwork so that bureaucratic formalities do not impede the process.

Second, researchers need to understand how their applications will be evaluated and what guarantees there are that the evaluations are unbiased. There must also be a way for them to find out the result at the end of the evaluation.

There should not be even the slightest cause for researchers to allege that the grants are awarded only to projects submitted by people who are close to the fund. Therefore, it is important for evaluations to be independently and randomly checked.

Third, these funds should become even more open. My request is that you post on the internet not only applications and projects that have been awarded grants but also reviews of all the applications submitted so that experts can see what applications were submitted and which one was awarded a grant.

Naturally, the web portals of these funds have to provide complete information on the practical results of projects benefitting from government assistance.

Fourth, I believe that medium-term plans for all state-run funds have to be drawn up. These plans have to include performance criteria. We raised this issue at the government meeting on December 1.

The process of preparing and implementing these plans has to be as transparent and public as possible and should involve representatives of scientific circles.

In addition, I propose setting up a system to monitor how the results of government-funded projects are put to practical use. The money is spent, results are achieved. So, what are these results? Are they gathering dust on shelves somewhere or on computer sites and are not being used at all? Or have these results been put to practical use and are contributing to the real economy or to the advancement of basic research? We need a system to monitor the practical outcomes of these projects.

Finally, today we will choose the topic for our commission’s next meeting. I know that there are some proposals. Please tell me about them.

Let’s get down to work.

Let’s start with expert review. I was discussing this with Mr Fursenko (Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko) on our way here today. He believes that the expert review system is streamlined and that a truly respected expert community has formed over the past several years. But I would like to emphasise that even outside this expert community, information has to be available on how this system works and what products it delivers.