High-Tech Algebra
Academician Yuri Zhuravlev is sure Russia could make money from science if it could capitalize on research that falls between basic and applied science.
Aug 27, 2003
Academician Yuri Ivanovich Zhuravlev is Deputy Scientific Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences Center for Computer Sciences, Professor at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and Moscow State University, and Chair of the Applied Mathematics and Information Science Section of the Mathematics Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Zhuravlev suggested and developed a theory of local algorithms, and introduced and studied algebraic functions on algorithms. Last year, Foreksis, a company organized by Zhuravlev's students, won the Russian Innovation Competition with its project entitled "93Applying Objective Computer Analysis to the Customer Bases of Communications Providers and Insurance Companies" (see "The Cassandra Algorithm"), which was awarded the Bortnik Fund Prize.
Dr. Zhuravlev, why in your opinion, did Russia succeed in aviation, rocket, and atomic science, but lost the computer race? Many often refer to ideological pressure, the notion that cybernetics are the whore of imperialism...
You know, many people have speculated about this. All the same, in contrast to genetics, in cybernetics we managed to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff was the major press campaigns and philosophical discussions that condemned computer scientists. At the same time, computing centers were set up at the Ministry of Defence without any particular stir and various projects got major financing.
Our first computers were just as powerful as American ones, and in terms of usability were a step ahead them. The Americans didn't have anything close in terms of ease of programming to our lamp-based computer, Strela. But then the USSR set up a monopoly. Even before transistors came into common public use, all the engineering firms involved in this kind of research were closed. Those in charge said, "Why do we need lots of competing organizations?" Commissariats, when they were encouraging aviation in the 1930s, never even thought of doing something like that. Lavochkin and Yakovlev worked in tandem, along with Mikoyan and Gurevich. In atomic and rocket science, artificial competition was also created.
Has Russia then been left behind forever, at least in areas like hardware?
My field has three main directions, hardware, software, and brainware. In the first area we are behind, without a doubt. And do you know what happened with software? I have had to work on several large-scale applied projects, and our people just can't stand making mass-produced software, or anything mass-produced at all. They get bored. Almost all of our good software programmers were women. Women are just good at it; it's like sewing. At the same time, our competitors, especially the Asians and South Americans, are also really good at it. I think that sooner or later we will enter the market, but we will only capture a small share of it.
So, are you implying that we need to focus on brainware? That we should create new algorithms, computing methods, and so on, or in other words, do unconventional projects and let the Chinese and Indians take care of the software?
Yes. And let me add that even the Americans aren't very good at brainware. They just can't do it and are doing everything they can to make sure the world of brainware doesn't go commercial.
And what do we end up with? We develop brainware here, and then one of us publishes our results. A basically new algorithm, even a radically new algorithm or solution method, becomes public property. Why should people have free access to algorithms but not to programs? Especially when there is a lot more to algorithms. They demand higher qualifications, a longer education, and a special kind of brain. Almost anyone can learn to program. Not just anyone can learn to create brainware. The moment we finally understand that we need to sell solutions to unique problems, solutions that are in fact works of art, we will make good money off science. My experience shows that with a little skill and trying, these kind of unique things sell very well.
But this is actually closer to basic science and, to exaggerate a bit, it will be hard to sell Newton's Law. It's free for all.
You can't sell Newton's Law, of course; it's of a higher order. But the division into basic and completely applied science is too simplistic. Between them lies a whole field we could capitalize on. The Russian Innovation Competition, sponsored by "Expert", saw many of this kind of in-between projects, I think, including among the competition's winners.
There are things that seem basic on one hand, but that on the other hand have a major practical effect with only the slightest amount of follow-up. But you can't get to them from below; you can only get to them from above, by coming from basic, abstract science. The most important thing is to learn to publish your results so that you don't give everything away at once. You keep certain key details as industry secrets. Sure, help yourself to the theory, but if you want to know exactly how the system works, you'll have to pay. We learned this approach from the Americans, by the way.
American scientists are marketing their applied sciences?
That's correct. In basic science, of course, things are different. If you pull something like that there, you get slammed for it immediately. But in the applied and in-between sciences, this approach is highly developed. As they created the language for this, the Americans are running the market for this information, setting the standards, and trying to keep everyone else out.
Well, Russians also did a number on their own applied and in-between sciences, when the Academy of Sciences was reformed in 1961 and many fields that were considered too mundane were excluded. This change was supported by some of the biggest scientists, by the way.
Yes, they kicked out applied scientists in the early 60s. They regretted this later and it took a long time to get them back. There was pressure from two sides. On one hand, Khruschev wanted to reduce the size of the Academy and send scientists further away from Moscow. On the other hand, there has always been a large contingent in the Academy that believes that art is art and science, science. For instance, there are pure mathematicians who shudder at the phrase \\u8220\\'93applied math. For a long time, it was very for anyone involved in applied math to became a member of the Academy. However, basic science, without which the applied sciences can't exist, also has another important function. Basic research, to use a military term, is a sort of reserve for the main command. If Russia has enough really good basic scientists, it will always have a reserve to draw on for various applied projects. Pure scientists help to solve the most concrete of problems, and not always on such a grand scale as the atomic project.
How much as basic science suffered in the last decade?
It has been badly damaged, but its roots have survived. It has been most damaged in the areas that require expensive equipment and where science is expensive. Thank God, our field is not expensive, and that means we are still surviving. But you know, here's an interesting observation. I have been lecturing at the Physics Institute and have been chairing the department at MSU for a long time. For a while there was a clear collapse, as the new generation did not go into science. Around three years ago, young people again began to choose more difficult majors. The most interesting thing is that you can't say that their motive is to get a good education and leave the country. No, they stay and become graduate students. Moreover, this year, the university saw massive competition for graduate positions in some of the most difficult areas of science. Another observation is that if you look at the press from the 1990s, there was really anti-scientific, or even more broadly anti-technological, campaign being waged. The second it stopped, the number of popular scientific magazines increased.
Similar campaigns appeared in the West. But their criticism of science seemed a bit more constructive perhaps. Recently, a book by American journalist John Horgan "The End of Science" was translated into Russian. The book criticizes science in general, including its present stage. Horgan basically argues that the exponential expansion of scientific knowledge has stopped, as you can only discover Newton's Law or Schroedinger's Equation once. The current generation is doomed to witness a gradual decrease in the expansion of scientific discovery.
I do not agree with that at all. Humanity is currently using only a minute fraction of what is actually out there. An extremely minute fraction. In truth, if we consider all plausible natural laws, then what we know is just the first few steps. The scientific knowledge we have gained about the world since Newton is like the a thin layer of foam on the surface of the sea.
Zhuravlev suggested and developed a theory of local algorithms, and introduced and studied algebraic functions on algorithms. Last year, Foreksis, a company organized by Zhuravlev's students, won the Russian Innovation Competition with its project entitled "93Applying Objective Computer Analysis to the Customer Bases of Communications Providers and Insurance Companies" (see "The Cassandra Algorithm"), which was awarded the Bortnik Fund Prize.
Dr. Zhuravlev, why in your opinion, did Russia succeed in aviation, rocket, and atomic science, but lost the computer race? Many often refer to ideological pressure, the notion that cybernetics are the whore of imperialism...
You know, many people have speculated about this. All the same, in contrast to genetics, in cybernetics we managed to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff was the major press campaigns and philosophical discussions that condemned computer scientists. At the same time, computing centers were set up at the Ministry of Defence without any particular stir and various projects got major financing.
Our first computers were just as powerful as American ones, and in terms of usability were a step ahead them. The Americans didn't have anything close in terms of ease of programming to our lamp-based computer, Strela. But then the USSR set up a monopoly. Even before transistors came into common public use, all the engineering firms involved in this kind of research were closed. Those in charge said, "Why do we need lots of competing organizations?" Commissariats, when they were encouraging aviation in the 1930s, never even thought of doing something like that. Lavochkin and Yakovlev worked in tandem, along with Mikoyan and Gurevich. In atomic and rocket science, artificial competition was also created.
Has Russia then been left behind forever, at least in areas like hardware?
My field has three main directions, hardware, software, and brainware. In the first area we are behind, without a doubt. And do you know what happened with software? I have had to work on several large-scale applied projects, and our people just can't stand making mass-produced software, or anything mass-produced at all. They get bored. Almost all of our good software programmers were women. Women are just good at it; it's like sewing. At the same time, our competitors, especially the Asians and South Americans, are also really good at it. I think that sooner or later we will enter the market, but we will only capture a small share of it.
So, are you implying that we need to focus on brainware? That we should create new algorithms, computing methods, and so on, or in other words, do unconventional projects and let the Chinese and Indians take care of the software?
Yes. And let me add that even the Americans aren't very good at brainware. They just can't do it and are doing everything they can to make sure the world of brainware doesn't go commercial.
And what do we end up with? We develop brainware here, and then one of us publishes our results. A basically new algorithm, even a radically new algorithm or solution method, becomes public property. Why should people have free access to algorithms but not to programs? Especially when there is a lot more to algorithms. They demand higher qualifications, a longer education, and a special kind of brain. Almost anyone can learn to program. Not just anyone can learn to create brainware. The moment we finally understand that we need to sell solutions to unique problems, solutions that are in fact works of art, we will make good money off science. My experience shows that with a little skill and trying, these kind of unique things sell very well.
But this is actually closer to basic science and, to exaggerate a bit, it will be hard to sell Newton's Law. It's free for all.
You can't sell Newton's Law, of course; it's of a higher order. But the division into basic and completely applied science is too simplistic. Between them lies a whole field we could capitalize on. The Russian Innovation Competition, sponsored by "Expert", saw many of this kind of in-between projects, I think, including among the competition's winners.
There are things that seem basic on one hand, but that on the other hand have a major practical effect with only the slightest amount of follow-up. But you can't get to them from below; you can only get to them from above, by coming from basic, abstract science. The most important thing is to learn to publish your results so that you don't give everything away at once. You keep certain key details as industry secrets. Sure, help yourself to the theory, but if you want to know exactly how the system works, you'll have to pay. We learned this approach from the Americans, by the way.
American scientists are marketing their applied sciences?
That's correct. In basic science, of course, things are different. If you pull something like that there, you get slammed for it immediately. But in the applied and in-between sciences, this approach is highly developed. As they created the language for this, the Americans are running the market for this information, setting the standards, and trying to keep everyone else out.
Well, Russians also did a number on their own applied and in-between sciences, when the Academy of Sciences was reformed in 1961 and many fields that were considered too mundane were excluded. This change was supported by some of the biggest scientists, by the way.
Yes, they kicked out applied scientists in the early 60s. They regretted this later and it took a long time to get them back. There was pressure from two sides. On one hand, Khruschev wanted to reduce the size of the Academy and send scientists further away from Moscow. On the other hand, there has always been a large contingent in the Academy that believes that art is art and science, science. For instance, there are pure mathematicians who shudder at the phrase \\u8220\\'93applied math. For a long time, it was very for anyone involved in applied math to became a member of the Academy. However, basic science, without which the applied sciences can't exist, also has another important function. Basic research, to use a military term, is a sort of reserve for the main command. If Russia has enough really good basic scientists, it will always have a reserve to draw on for various applied projects. Pure scientists help to solve the most concrete of problems, and not always on such a grand scale as the atomic project.
How much as basic science suffered in the last decade?
It has been badly damaged, but its roots have survived. It has been most damaged in the areas that require expensive equipment and where science is expensive. Thank God, our field is not expensive, and that means we are still surviving. But you know, here's an interesting observation. I have been lecturing at the Physics Institute and have been chairing the department at MSU for a long time. For a while there was a clear collapse, as the new generation did not go into science. Around three years ago, young people again began to choose more difficult majors. The most interesting thing is that you can't say that their motive is to get a good education and leave the country. No, they stay and become graduate students. Moreover, this year, the university saw massive competition for graduate positions in some of the most difficult areas of science. Another observation is that if you look at the press from the 1990s, there was really anti-scientific, or even more broadly anti-technological, campaign being waged. The second it stopped, the number of popular scientific magazines increased.
Similar campaigns appeared in the West. But their criticism of science seemed a bit more constructive perhaps. Recently, a book by American journalist John Horgan "The End of Science" was translated into Russian. The book criticizes science in general, including its present stage. Horgan basically argues that the exponential expansion of scientific knowledge has stopped, as you can only discover Newton's Law or Schroedinger's Equation once. The current generation is doomed to witness a gradual decrease in the expansion of scientific discovery.
I do not agree with that at all. Humanity is currently using only a minute fraction of what is actually out there. An extremely minute fraction. In truth, if we consider all plausible natural laws, then what we know is just the first few steps. The scientific knowledge we have gained about the world since Newton is like the a thin layer of foam on the surface of the sea.