There was a time when Armenia had the most developed science in the region, but now this field is almost “dead”. The long and hard way that scientists have to pass in order to get a ranking as a scientist now costs 25.000 dram. How long will our science survive in such conditions? How long can it go on when the world is developing at a rapid pace? I talked about these issues with doctor of physical and mathematical sciences Hrant Matevosyan, who has specific ideas on how to get back Armenia’s scientific potential and develop it.
– Why did Armenian science get into a crisis?
– The most important thing that we failed to do after getting independence was create an independent institution of experts. Scientists should have chosen several fields and directions in that large scientific sector, which could develop in Armenia and which the Armenian government could support. The problem is that our country failed to organize fair, independent and free analysis, which might enable us to choose those fields and directions.
– The government has provided financial support for some programs in the field of science since 1992. Doesn’t that have any positive results?
– At the beginning, when providing financial support, they based it on a principle of “themes of science”. Later they saw that the mentioned method contained many flaws and in 2005 they brought back the former method of “base financing”. However, the distribution was done in a very simple way; they distributed the financial sources according to “themes” and “bases”. There have been attempts to reform the management system of sciences too, but those attempts were unsuccessful. With the purpose of coordinating science, they created several commissions that had to operate on the basis of non-governmental principles; in 1991 they founded a governmental commission, in 1996 – with the prime-minister, in 1997 – with the president (only one session was held), in 1998 – the prime minister (there were no sessions at all) and in 2005 – at the National Assembly. All those attempts failed because they didn’t do the job well.
– Can the current scientific issues be solved if the government manages to provide the necessary financial aidt?
– I am sure that even if the government manages to increase financial aid, the field will not have a tangible development and all those financial resources will be stolen just like they are being stolen now. It will not even make the scientific field attract young people. As for that matter, all fields may end sooner or later if there is lack of young people and new ideas. If things go at this rate, in several years we may lose all the scientific institutions that we have created throughout the years and be left with an international quality level of standards.
– Nowadays, young people get grants and leave for abroad to work and they feel that their work is appreciated in foreign countries. Which scientific field do you think is in the worst condition?
– Due to grant programs some fields could survive and recruit young scientists. But alas there are no grants provided for Armenological sciences and the sciences of national character. International organizations don’t provide grants for developing our national scientific fields.
– Now the scientists of your generation are preserving science. What may happen in the future if young scientists leave for abroad?
– You are right; young people don’t tend to be involved in science. Scientists get 25.000 dram per month. It doesn’t matter if that wage is increased by four times; it still won’t attract young people because they need money to take care of their families. My generation, which used to work before the declaration of independence, still exists and continues working. But the time will come when our science will stop and that’s a serious issue.
– What kind of solutions do you think there are?
– I think that should consist of three phases interconnected with each other. In the first phase we should make functional and institutional changes in the system of science management. Currently, science is not managed well. The current laws don’t define the relationships between different scientific structures, their rights, responsibilities and the management methods. We have to create a new legal ground for this field. The management of the whole scientific field should be concentrated in one institution, which may manage the sciences, technical development and technologies. This will enable the government to save much money that it spends now in different departments in ministries involved with sciences, as well as save money from cutting down the number of such departments in the national academy of sciences. In the second phase, we should organize scientific inventory in the whole territory of the country. The experience of these 15 years shows that it is impossible to create an independent experts’ institution in Armenia based on only our resources. We should conduct an independent experts’ research to find out which sciences are important for Armenia. This research may enable us to know which fields are important for us and may help us play a major role in international sciences. This will help solve two problems. First, it will help us find out which are the most important scientific fields to develop in the country and whether the financial aid will be stolen or not. Second, based on the scientific institutions that have already been formed, we may create new big scientific institutions that can have educational, scientific and production centers. In the third phase we should finish the formation of big scientific institutions and manage the territories that the biggest institutions have. It is worth mentioning that the territories are the same as they used to be 20 years ago, but the number of employees are much less. As a result of these three phases we may have a science development plan, amended legislation, an active scientific and institutional system, which will coordinate the development of big scientific, productive and educational institutions of the country. Furthermore, there are more recommendations and this process should continue. What I’m saying is real and can be made a reality.
– What is being done now?
– It would be better to say what has not been done so far. Our biggest failure is that we didn’t have a common strategy for science development and that served as a firm basis for flaws and failures. This means that scientists developed their part of the field themselves and it is strange how they could survive so long and keep their fields at such high levels. In fact, during these years the national academy of sciences of Armenia didn’t speak out and didn’t do anything to stop the scientific field from collapsing.
– Recently, a commission was founded supported by the president and prime-minister and the goal is to make serious reforms in the field of science by 2007. May that help the scientific field or not?
– I hope that the decisions made by that commission will make those responsible for the field to do something good. Two months ago the national academy elected a new board. They are going to organize new elections for the positions of heads of 30 institutions with help from the academy. Institutions are bodies and its directors appear to be implementers of state policy. They should always keep the feedback in order to keep contact; the recommendations made by the directors may play a key role in changing state policies. The newly elected board is like a specific “indicator”. It will show whether those who administer the academy and other similar institutions really want to develop the field or this is just one more attempt that will fail once again. In other words, things will be looking good for science in the autumn. We’ll see what will happen.