Playing by Postmodern Rules

Interview with Minister of Industry, Science, and Technology, Andrei Fursenko

Mr. Fursenko, don't you think that in the last twenty to thirty years, science has been a bit bewildered and that our knowledge of the natural world is no longer moving ahead by leaps and bounds?

That's debatable. Many scientists would disagree with you, but if you want to know my opinion, I believe that we can call the current interval the "Lego Era." Today, it is important to learn how to build technological systems out of diverse pieces of scientific knowledge. These systems are more important in and of themselves than their components. In this sense, the scientific, or if you will basic, toolkits are becoming more of a priority relative to the results of scientific investigation and to the object of study. This is a notable difference: in the 60s we talked about "semiconductors," and now we say "nanotechnology." The ability to connect two atoms seems more important than knowledge of the atom itself. Now, perhaps, the fundamental question is not "what" but "how." However, it is easier psychologically for us to think in categories of objects rather than processes, and for this reason, the process is not seen as basic science.

If we are talking about government technology policy, for example at your ministry, what is more important, "how" or "what?"

I believe that the ministry's goal is to create the conditions for an effective innovation economy, in other words, the toolkit, and this is exactly "how." The ministry should not be involved in choosing high-tech industry priorities, for instance, or answer the "what" question. It should help create an effective expert system that selects these priorities.

What is the tool that is most lacking from this "toolkit?"

I think we lack a clear definition of intellectual property rights. At present, they are only established as the exclusive right to an object though patents and industrial prototypes. But the so-called results of technological activity, which come from scientific teams funded by the government, are not part of this system of rights. Yet they are the most interesting from a commercial perspective. At the same time only one percent of these results are used in legitimate economic exchange. Currently, there are psychological barriers in making the decision to hand these results over to their author. People ask why something was created with government money and then given away for free. At a recent cabinet meeting, the Ministry of Finance suggested that we should monitor all transfers of intellectual property strictly and keep it under state jurisdiction.

What do you recommend?

We need the developers of intellectual property created in state-funded institutes and design bureaus to be able to officially acquire ownership of it and to put it to commercial use. Without this step, intellectual property will be stolen and we will knowingly create unequal conditions for our developers and scientists: the greater part of new legalized knowledge comes to Russia from abroad.

You stated that it is more important for your agency to get an answer to the questions "how" but without at least an approximate notion of "what," you can't strategize. Russia absolutely needs a national technology strategy. We can't avoid the unpleasant matter of selecting our priorities.

Let's be straightforward. We aren't looking for priorities right now. We don't have any money for priorities. We are talking about indices that we need to pay attention to when we will choose them. Meanwhile, we are also looking for tools to help us make this choice. And excuse me, this isn't just abstract modeling or moving pieces around a chessboard. We can't test this toolkit on guinea pigs. This is something on a different scale, an economic scale. It's not possible to have any economic effect that can be heard above all the background noise with only a million rubles.

Remember how the Count of Monte Cristo came to Baron Danglars and ask