Designing Science. Humanitarian Aspects of the National Project “Science”

The paper argues that humanitarian aspects of the national projects approved today in Russia are not quite distinct and are perceived by many experts as “mysterious”. Special attention in the project “Science” is paid to a problem of publishing activity. The author notes that the greatest lag on this position is observed on the spaces where the world science develops most intensively. Two imaginaries of the scientific sphere are offered: “national science enterprise” and smart organism. The cardinal difference of structure of the scientific enterprise, in comparison with production is emphasized. The environment plays a much more essential role in this case. Sharp changes in the scientific sphere (“swings of the ship”) can destroy not only the environment, but also a cultural kernel of the complex system of science. The metaphor of a smart organism can be applied in this regard in the most part because complex systems of modern science include sets of communities of scientists (including — network communities), and these communities make collective decisions, generating new events, decisions, knowledge, institutional forms. One of the developing forms is the “citizen science”. “An administrative financial canopy” over research projects can be considered here as a positive factor. The structures like Information and library council of RAS, INION RAS perform as “memory carrier” of a living organism of science. Thus, it is important to develop structures that are built to store and structure knowledge, to introduce such formats of social and economic researches as experimental platforms: pilot farms which are necessary not only for development of agroscience, but also for testing of new ways of living, different types of the enterprises in industry, in science, open databases.

1. Egerev S.V. Nauka tolpy i nauka grazhdan // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. 2018. № 3, s. 153–162.

2. Interv’yu A.Dynkina na portale RSMD, URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/comments/litsom-k-cheloveku/ (obrashchenie 21.03.2019).

3. Nauka. Tekhnologii. Innovacii: 2019: kratkij statisticheskij sbornik / N. V. Gorodnikova, L. M. Gohberg, K. A. Ditkovskij i dr.; Nac. issled. un-t «Vysshaya shkola ehkonomiki», M.: NIU VSHEH, 2019

4. O reformirovanii Rossijskoj akademii nauk (po materialam ehkspertnogo oprosa). — M., INION RAN, 2013.

5. PASPORT nacional’nogo proekta (programmy) Nauka. / URL: http://government.ru/projects/selection/740/35565/ (obrashchenie 21.03.2019).

6. PROTOKOL Zasedaniya rabochej gruppy Soveta po prioritetnomu napravleniyu nauchno-tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya Rossijskoj Federacii «Vozmozhnost’ ehffektivnogo otveta rossijskogo obshchestva na bol’shie vyzovy s uchetom vzaimodejstviya cheloveka i prirody, cheloveka i tekhnologij, social’nyh institutov na sovremennom ehtape global’nogo razvitiya, v tom chisle primenyaya metody gumanitarnyh nauk» ot 16.07.2018. URL: http://imemo.ru (obrashchenie: 22.03.2019).

7. Pyastolov S.M. CHto oznachaet «Prostranstvo vosprinimaemosti»: k opredeleniyu termina//EHkonomicheskij vestnik rostovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2006. t.4, №2, s.17–34.

8. Pyastolov S.M. Politicheskie sostavlyayushchie metodologicheskogo individualizma na primere formirovaniya nacional’noj innovacionnoj sistemy // TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2015. Tom 13. № 2, s. 84–94.

9. Pyastolov S.M. Genezis i perspektivy transdisciplinarnosti //TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016. Tom 14. № 2, s. 139–158.

10. Razvitie koncepcij i modelej izmereniya innovacij: materialy nauchno-prakticheskogo seminara / referativnyj obzor: S.M.Pyastolov. Referativnyj zhurnal INION RAN, GRNTI 12, seriya «Naukovedenie», Social’nye i gumanitarnye nauki, otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura, 2017. seriya 8, № 3, c. 97–106.

11. RINKCEH: Informacionno-analiticheskie materialy. Moskva, 2018. URL: http://www.extech.ru (obrashchenie: 22.03.2019).

12. Rossijskaya nauka v SCOPUS i WoS / tekst: E. Erohina / Indikator, / 2019. URL: https://indicator.ru/article/2019/02/08/rossijskaya-nauka-v-scopus-i-woskolichestvo-ili-kachestvo (obrashchenie: 22.03.2019).

13. Strategiya nauchno-tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya Rossijskoj Federacii. Utverzhdena Ukazom Prezidenta Rossijskoj Federacii ot 1 dekabrya 2016 g. № 642. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/law/hotdocs/48053.html/(obrashchenie: 22.03.2019).

14. Colatat R. An organizational perspective to funding science: Collaborator novelty at DARPA//Research Policy, 2015. № 44, rr. 874-888.

15. Collingridge D. The management of scale: Big organizations, big decisions, big mistakes. London, England: Routledge. 1992.

16. David P. and Foray D. Economic Fundamentals of the Knowledge Society. Policy Futures in Education, 2003. Vol. 1, N. 1, rr. 20-49.

17. Flink T. and Kaldewey D. The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor. Research Policy, 2018. № 47, rr. 14–22.

18. Genus A. and Stirling A.. Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation// Research Policy, 2018. № 47, rr. 61–69.

19. Giustiniano L. et al. The dark side of organizational improvisation: Lessons from the sinking of Costa Concordia/ Giustiniano, Luca & Cunha, Miguel & Clegg, Stewart/. Business Horizons, 2016. № 59, rr. 223–232.

20. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2017.

21. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Open Source Software Policy Options for NASA Earth and Space Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

22. Nordmann A. Responsible innovation, the art and craft of anticipation//Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2014. n. 1 (1), rr. 87–98.

23. Stirling A. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices// Energy Research & Social Science, 2014. n. 1, pp. 83–95.

24. The maturing of gamification research. Editorial //Computers in Human Behavior, 2017. n. 71, rr. 450–454.