OTR – Public Television of Russia: Andrei Fursenko: Throughout history and across countries, society is never fully satisfied with its education system

Viktor Loshak: This is "Very Personal," the TV show examining the principles and rules of life. Today, we will discuss how Russian science, school and higher education are developing, and why our guest did not become a historian like his father. In the studio today is Andrei Fursenko, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics and Aide to the President of the Russian Federation.

Mr Fursenko, I would like to begin our conversation by sharing my personal memory. I recall a time when your father Academician Aleksandr Fursenko, a renowned expert in Soviet-American relations, visited the editorial office of our magazine, "Ogoniok." He brought his new book, and I was sitting down with him for a face-to-face conversation.

The atmosphere in the office was very egalitarian. Suddenly, I realised that my visitor was addressing not just me, but also someone else. I turned around and saw that ten other people had gathered in my office, all listening intently to our conversation. Tell me, please, why you did not follow in your father’s footsteps to pursue a career in history.

Andrei Fursenko: In our family, there was a sense of freedom. My parents never…

Viktor Loshak: Pressured you…

Andrei Fursenko: They never insisted. Although, my mother later admitted that she really had not wanted her children to become historians. I have to note that my parents met at the Faculty of History at Leningrad State University. My father enrolled because he was passionate about history. My mother, on the other hand, chose it because studying history was a popular choice at the time.

My mother did not become a historian, and throughout her life, she expressed regrets about her decision to study history. I once told her, "If you had not entered the Faculty of History, we would not have been born." And she replied, "That is the only good thing that came from me studying at the Faculty of History." Such were the times, I suppose. As for me, I have always had an interest in history. My father once said, "In principle, I would be happy if you followed in my footsteps. But this decision must be made of your own free will."

Viktor Loshak: Just before our conversation, I spoke with your former deputy minister, Igor Remorenko.

Andrei Fursenko: Yes.

Viktor Loshak: He is now the Rector of Moscow City University. He mentioned something that I believe also pertains to you and I wanted to get your perspective on it. He said that he found his civil service work unsatisfying because the results of your efforts are often delayed, making it difficult to see the immediate impact of your work. You have been in civil service for 30 years, correct?

Andrei Fursenko: No, it has been 23 years.

Viktor Loshak: Twenty three years. Does it bother you?

Andrei Fursenko: You know, I generally believe it is very important to find satisfaction in your work. I truly enjoyed doing science and I even managed to achieve some decent results. Perhaps not groundbreaking, but certainly respectable. Then, I spent a decade working on what is now referred to as a sphere of innovations.

Viktor Loshak: Was it when you were still in St Petersburg?

Andrei Fursenko: Yes, it was when I was still in St Petersburg, and, it was all right, too. My colleague Ilya Klebanov, apparently based on the results of my work in innovations, invited me to Moscow. In fact, he was very persistent inviting me to move to Moscow and enter civil service.

Viktor Loshak: Was this during the time of the unified Ministry of Industry, Science and…?

Andrei Fursenko: It was then the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technologies, which did not oversee education. So, I moved to Moscow, and frankly, I thought it would be temporary. But it was not.

Viktor Loshak: Have there been periods in our country’s history (or even in human history) when society agreed on what knowledge should be passed on to future generations?

Andrei Fursenko: First of all, throughout history and across countries, society is never fully satisfied with its education system. There are always complaints, which is understandable. Education serves two purposes: on the one hand, it transmits a cultural code, as well as scientific knowledge, by the way.

But on the other hand, it should also drive change and improve lives. If education merely preserves the status quo, it becomes a barrier to development. Achieving this balance is challenging; and everyone has different opinions on how it should be done.

Viktor Loshak: Besides, it affects so many people.

Andrei Fursenko: It affects everyone. It is relevant to all of us. In this context, while education is closely linked to science and the creation and transfer of knowledge, it is much more than that. Education and science are indeed interconnected; yet, education is a more complex issue. It is emotionally charged, not least because everyone is an expert on it.

Viktor Loshak: If everyone is an expert on education, why do we see attempts to make ad hoc, short-term political decisions in this inherently conservative field? There has been a proposal to add new school subjects, for instance.

Andrei Fursenko: You see, only time will tell whether these are merely short-term decisions or a necessary new trend, important for societal development.

Viktor Loshak: Well, I do not know. Sometimes, these decisions seem to stem from immediate problems of some kind.

Andrei Fursenko: Sometimes, they are. But they are not always what they appear.

Viktor Loshak: There is another question that has been also sparking debate. Does funding directly affect the quality of school education?

Andrei Fursenko: Yes, it does. Do you want to know if there is a direct correlation?

Viktor Loshak: Yes, I do.

Andrei Fursenko: Let us say, the funding has been increased and education has automatically improved. No, it does not work like that. First of all, a teacher should not feel marginalised. This means that they should live in normal conditions, should have a decent quality of life. Not only because he or she is a human being and deserves it, but also because their lifestyle sends a message to students and parents, who notice how teachers live.

Viktor Loshak: They notice how their teacher lives.

Andrei Fursenko: Yes. If a teacher lives in substandard conditions, it can signal that, in fact, their position is not as respected as it really should be.

Viktor Loshak: During your tenure as Minister of Education and Science, one of your initiatives was to make schools attractive for investment. Is this a feasible idea?

Andrei Fursenko: That was not my idea. Although I realise that education – perhaps not so much at the secondary level, but certainly education in principle – can be attractive for investment. And we are seeing a range of...

Viktor Loshak: More likely at the next level? In higher education?

Andrei Fursenko: Not necessarily. There are private schools that are appealing for investors.

Виктор Лошак: Yes, there are.

Viktor Loshak: Indeed.

Andrei Fursenko: However, one should realise that sometimes this investment appeal does not always reflect the content quality. For parents, it is very important to feel that they have done everything possible for their children. In today’s complex world, parents who are engrossed in their work, their own affairs may struggle to give their children the attention they deserve.

They feel that they should spare no expense to provide a unique school environment for their children, as it is commonly believed that the best school is where you spend the most money. Unfortunately, this perception can be exploited by people who think that if they produce an appearance of…

Viktor Loshak: The perfect?

Andrei Fursenko: Yes. Then it will be attractive for investment.

Viktor Loshak: What are your thoughts on – I guess you approve, of course, but still, I would like to hear your opinion. Recently, many high-profile wealthy individuals, such as Vadim Moshkovich, Herman Gref, and Vladimir Potanin, have built and opened new schools. I do not know what their motivation was. Perhaps their children had reached the school age and it was time to send them to school, or maybe they wanted to do a good deed for the society. What are your thoughts on this movement?

Andrei Fursenko: First of all, education is an area that is traditionally underfunded. Clearly, more money should be invested in education. And not for installing, excuse my French, golden toilets in schools. There are a great many things that will enhance education, which are costly. These include equipment and learning conditions and, indeed, teachers’ salaries – salaries for good teachers.

So, any inflow of money into education, I believe, is a positive thing. This funding, however, should not be contingent on external factors such as advertising. It is desirable that even if such conditions exist, they should not impact school students and teachers.

Secondly, the people you mentioned, they are... Well, I know personally all of them and I can attest that they are genuinely concerned about the education system. I do not believe that education should be one-size-fits-all. There should be room for innovations and new ideas. 

These new ideas, however, should align with the overall system. This is crucial because education is socially significant and important for the state. The rules established by society and the state should therefore be followed regardless of who finances educational institutions.

Viktor Loshak: Recently, our scholars have been isolated from the global scientific community, of which they are an integral part. What are the impacts of this isolation, and how are they addressed?

Andrei Fursenko: Firstly, our scholars are not isolated from the global scientific community. It is nearly impossible to completely detach a scientist from the broader scientific community, especially in today’s interconnected world. They may be excluded from formal participation in certain projects. This situation is detrimental to both the projects and the scholars involved.

But I can say that this issue primarily affects high-profile projects where decisions are made by state officials rather than researchers.

Viktor Loshak: For instance, research at the Large Hadron Collider?

Andrei Fursenko: Regarding the research projects at the Collider, the final decision was made by ministers. The decision to halt or minimise collaboration was not made by scientists or the Collider’s management, but by ministers under significant administrative pressure. And many people attempted to prevent this outcome until the very end. 

This indicates that science has become even more politicised than during the Cold War era, likely because science is now more crucial for economic and societal development. What is most important now is that Russia – both its scholars and political leadership – remains open to any contacts.

Moreover, we are always eager to welcome international scholars and have no objections to our scholars’ involvement and continued participation in international collaborations.

Viktor Loshak: The times we are living right now intensify the ongoing competition for talent.

Andrei Fursenko: The competition for talent has always been tough.

Viktor Loshak: Of course, but in my opinion, in the current challenging times, we are seeing a somewhat increased brain drain.

Andrei Fursenko: Recently, on a separate occasion, President Putin quoted Mark Twain, saying, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." I will also use this quote from Twain to say that the increased brain drain we are talking about is greatly exaggerated.

There was an outflow of talent at the very beginning of the 1990s, primarily because it was very difficult to conduct scientific research in Russia due to economic reasons. Equipment and infrastructure were not provided or maintained. The economic conditions in the country were extremely challenging, and science was not a priority area for funding at that time.

Today, the situation is different. Here in Russia, scientific research is supported and conducted quite successfully. Research infrastructure is being developed, and I would say, even more intensively than in some European countries. We receive information from them quite freely, but the information channel from here is blocked – primarily in the West, especially in Europe.

Viktor Loshak: Blocked by them or by us?

Andrei Fursenko: It is blocked by them! I have been told by my colleagues who have been there recently. They were told that this is not viable, "What? In your country, the electricity will go off after two hours." When you respond, "Wait, we are building...," they reply, "What are you talking about?! All your projects are stopped." And these are researchers saying this, not politicians, but scholars.

Viktor Loshak: Are we hostile to scientists from other countries? Do we invite scholars from overseas?

Andrei Fursenko: We are open to cooperation. We have a programme to attract scholars from overseas, and it is working. We have scientists who left to work in the West, some of whom are now returning, in part because they were forced to choose between staying there or coming back here.

Viktor Loshak: When you say the West, what countries do you refer to?

Andrei Fursenko: I mean in the United States and Europe. When faced with the choice of working there or coming back to work here, some of them choose to work in Russia. The same goes for scholars in China.

Viktor Loshak: Are scholars in China also forced to make a similar choice?

Andrei Fursenko: No. I meant Chinese scientists working in the West. They face the same dilemma. I have talked to several of our eminent scholars who say that in the West, they first started pressuring the Chinese and then turned their attention to Russians.

Viktor Loshak: Mr Fursenko, throughout your working life, you have to repeatedly deal with the issues in the Academy of Sciences. Has the process of reforming and reorganising the Academy of Sciences been completed, or is it a never-ending process?

Andrei Fursenko: Look, any process related to education and science can never truly be completed. If it were ever finished, it would be like reaching the end of history, as Francis Fukuyama put it…

Viktor Loshak: All right. It is a painful issue.

Andrei Fursenko: Do you remember "The End of History?" There is no end to history. There just isn’t. We can see it, can’t we? Evgeny Schwartz has a wonderful phrase in The Shadow: "Just when you think you’ve won, life suddenly raises its ugly head again."

I think the painful reaction was not about science but about the ambitions of certain people and the interests of...

Viktor Loshak: Well, it was triggered by a violation of the established rules. 

Andrei Fursenko: Well, first of all, it was considered a violation of the status quo. Generally speaking, we are all quite conservative in our views, right? Moreover, high achievers may have their own interests, not necessarily purely scientific.

When these interests are affected by changes and their usual way of life is disrupted, it naturally causes irritation. As always, people do not acknowledge that some may be negatively affected. Instead, they denounce it as an encroachment on the sacred – namely, on science, on education, and other such areas.

But you know what? Reasonable people are always in the majority. It is true that they tend to remain silent, but they do understand and accurately perceive the situation. After all, no one wanted to offend or humiliate either the Academy or science as a whole. I can say that… Although I was repeatedly accused – both during my time as Minister and afterwards – of putting scholars at a disadvantage, and thereby disrespecting the most important scientific institutions, including, first and foremost, the Academy of Sciences.

Viktor Loshak: Yes, they called you "the destroyer of Soviet science."

Andrei Fursenko: Yes, the destroyer of Soviet science in general and the Academy of Sciences in particular. I was never a destroyer. Above all, because I simply could not go against what had been created by my father, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, who, by the way, was also a scholar.

Viktor Loshak: Your father was a Full Member of the Academy of Sciences, wasn’t he?

Andrei Fursenko: My father was Academician-Secretary of the Department of History and a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. Consequently, the word "academy" was one of the first words I remember learning at an early age. I heard a lot about the Academy from my father.

There were many complaints about issues within the Academy of Sciences – not everything was in order, so to say, "in the state of Denmark." However, despite those issues, it was generally considered inappropriate to challenge the established traditions. Yet, traditions can sometimes conflict with each other, especially in new circumstances. They can clash with…

Viktor Loshak: The time?

Andrei Fursenko: Yes, but not just with the time. They can clash with the opportunities and necessities to maintain the fundamental values.

Viktor Loshak: When your father, Aleksandr Fursenko, was Member of the Academy of Sciences, there were about 380 members, correct?

Andrei Fursenko: Well, in the Academy of Sciences, yes. However, in the Soviet Union, there were also the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. So, there were more than 380 members in total.

Viktor Loshak: Yes. Now, we have a unified Academy of Sciences with almost a thousand active members. 

Andrei Fursenko: Well, generally speaking, yes. And there is also approximately the same number of corresponding members.

Viktor Loshak: Was this unification the right decision? Doesn’t it devalue the membership in the Academy? 

Andrei Fursenko: You know, when my father was Member of the Academy of Sciences, there were several hundred members. In contrast, when the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union was first established, there were only a few dozen members. This indicates two things. First of all, it shows that science has become increasingly important and that the Academy has grown into a broader public and state institution.

In our country, the Academy has always been a state institution. It was originally established as the Imperial Academy of Sciences and was not a public organisation, association, or club.

Viktor Loshak: Unlike many academies established in the 1990s.

Andrei Fursenko: Yes. During Soviet times, which many scholars recalled when expressing their objections, the Academy of Sciences was a state institution. Moreover, it was governed much more strictly than it is now. We know how the elections for the President of the Academy of Sciences were conducted back then, don’t we?

Viktor Loshak: Well, essentially, this was an appointment.

Andrei Fursenko: Not quite. The process was as follows: The Communist Party group of the Soviet Academy of Sciences would hold a meeting. Typically, the Secretary of the Central Committee would attend and might say something like, "Here is a suggestion. I ask you to support it." Therefore, it would not be accurate to say it was a direct appointment from above. There was some room for independent thought and certain democratic procedures. For instance, the elections of members were generally quite democratic.

Another thing is that in any democratic structure... You know, it was Winston Churchill who said that: "Democracy is a terrible system, awful but by far the best system there is." In other words, any democratic structure has its flaws.

It is absolutely clear that these flaws are also present in the academic environment and continue to manifest themselves today.

Viktor Loshak: Does the phrase "continue to manifest today" mean that the reforms at the Academy will be continued?

Andrei Fursenko: Look, these flaws are internal; they stem from the Academy’s own decisions. Everyone knows that the most deserving candidate is not always the one elected. Nonetheless, these are the results of elections. And no one is going to cancel the elections procedure unless they decide to do so themselves. Do you understand?

You know, today, there is essentially only one measure of all issues that concern not only the Academy but also science in general and other areas – and that measure is reputation.

Viktor Loshak: Yes, of course.

Andrei Fursenko: This is the only measure that truly matters. Currently, the term "fake" has become commonly used in public discourse. The only way to combat fakes is through the reputation of individuals who can verify what is true and what is not. In the current era, often referred to as the post-truth era, the emotional impact of information often carries more weight than the facts themselves.

There is an annual conference held in Germany called "Falling Walls." It is traditionally timed to coincide with the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This conference typically involves closed-door discussions on various topics. In times when Russians were invited...

Viktor Loshak: Discussions on global science issues?

Andrei Fursenko: They discuss issues of world science and topics related to science. I was invited to participate in one of these conferences, where the topic was "Science in the Post-Truth Era." The main question we discussed was: How can we prevent the publication of research papers with unverified information? Overall, no one came up with any suggestions, except that it is the reputational responsibility of reviewers and publishers of scientific journals.

Viktor Loshak: Do you think that reputation in science weighs more heavily than in other spheres?

Andrei Fursenko: I think reputation has a different significance in science because there are more objective criteria for assessing it. It is easier to verify reputation in this field.

Viktor Loshak: Mr Fursenko, there is another topic related to your work as Minister of Education and Science and the concept of reputation. During your tenure, the Ministry of Education and Science shut down several pseudo-universities that had essentially lost their reputation. Is this work still ongoing, or has it been completed?

Andrei Fursenko: You know, Yevgeny Yevtushenko has a poem Bratskaya Ges (The Bratsk Station).

Viktor Loshak: It is a well-known poem.

Andrei Fursenko: In this poem, there is a section about the execution of Stepan Razin, where Razin says: "It is not for hanging boyars from the towers that I have sinned, my people. I have sinned in my own eyes for hanging too few of them." I believe that Yevgeny Yevtushenko, based on his own life experiences, reevaluated some of his views. However, I still remember what he wrote in that poem.

As a matter of fact, I was not the main contributor to the effort of shutting down pseudo-universities. While I initiated this work, it was Dmitry Livanov who contributed the most. He did a lot to improve the education system.

Unfortunately, this action sparked a strong negative reaction. Many people agreed that pseudo-universities should be closed but preferred to stay silent. Those affected, on the other hand – whether for economic or other reasons – who opposed the shutdowns, were always vocal and employed various tactics to achieve their goals.

We established quite specific requirements, that is, there were criteria by which these universities were assessed. Moreover, the goal was not merely to eliminate them but to reorganise and merge where appropriate. However, this immediately raised questions: "Who are the judges?" and "Why is one university considered better than another?"

Viktor Loshak: Can’t there be objective criteria?

Andrei Fursenko: It is very difficult to explain and very difficult to compare universities. For example, comparing universities with different specialisations is challenging. Comparing universities situated in the capital to those in the regions is also very difficult. When there is a suggestion to reorganise or shut down a regional university, the response is often: "Do you realise how negatively this will impact the region?" Indeed, without a university, the outflow of young people from the region inevitably increases.

Viktor Loshak: It is a dilemma, indeed. Mr Fursenko, I have another question related to higher education institutions – specifically, about the significance of universities ranking. Universities in our country are ranked. Does a university’s position in these rankings affect its funding?

Andrei Fursenko: No, this does not directly impact the funding. However, other objective criteria do, such as scientific achievements or the demand for people who need some kind of support.

Rankings have two aspects. On the one hand, we naturally enjoy comparisons, whether in sports or any other type of competitions. On the other hand, rankings serve as a market tool that can enhance our sense of success in business and the broader economic sphere.

A university that has a good reputation attracts more prospective students; hence, increased competition for government-funded places. Within the framework of criteria for evaluation of universities, high competition for these places is one of the factors that can help universities secure higher state funding. In other words, these factors are interconnected.

Viktor Loshak: So, the rankings could be seen as the university’s promotional activities.

Andrei Fursenko: Yes, among other things. It is not the only factor, but one of them. Why are rankings so important? Here again we return to the idea that we are living in the post-truth era. You see, there is a long-standing tradition of evaluating scholars. One of the approaches focuses on their publication activity, measured by the citation index.

Viktor Loshak: Publications.

Andrei Fursenko: Citations in journals with a high impact factor. And this brings up the issue of the reputational responsibility of scientific journals, specifically, the quality of papers they publish.

It has been said that publishing in Chinese scientific journals is now considered highly important, and also, the recognition of Chinese scholars has notably increased. This is not surprising, as China is a country that now places a strong emphasis on science, investing significant funds and attention in this field.

On the other hand, I have been told that there is a certain requirement – whether explicit or implicit, I am not sure – for scholars in China to cite their Chinese colleagues. This raises a question…

Viktor Loshak: The question of citations, indeed.

Andrei Fursenko: Or maybe this is not done by mandate. Perhaps they naturally read their compatriots more.

Viktor Loshak: But generally speaking, did China replicate our structure of science, or did they create their own?

Andrei Fursenko: China is a country that rapidly adapts and integrates the best practices of all countries across the globe. I talked to a colleague of mine, a well-known scientist who worked in America for a while and now returned to Russia. 

He told me that he had received an offer to head a laboratory in China and he was likely to accept it. Because one of his Chinese colleagues had asked him, "Why did you stay in the USA for so long? In America, I had a team of about ten people and a budget of five million dollars. Now, I have a lab with a hundred people, and China offers a budget ten to twenty times larger, along with scientific opportunities I would never have had in the US." He now wonders, "Why didn’t I leave earlier?"

You see, to some extent, it is all subjective. However, for scientists, the conditions in which they work are crucial. Ultimately, their primary ambition is to be at the forefront of scientific discovery.

Viktor Loshak: Mr Fursenko, to conclude our discussion, I would like to ask a question that might be more ideological in nature. Recently, in the humanities, we have been focusing more on our past. Perhaps we have not thoroughly studied or overlooked certain aspects of it. Anyway, I believe this shift in focus is quite significant. In a previous interview, you mentioned that "When considering the future, we will not find all the answers in our past." Maybe I am a little too...

Andrei Fursenko: You know, these are not my words. These words were spoken by President Putin when he attended a meeting of the Russian Union of Rectors. There were many speeches, but I remembered this particular phrase from his address.

He said, "We must understand that we will not be able to find solutions to all the questions and challenges of the future in the past. However, this does not mean we should ignore the past. We must deal with it because without knowing and learning from the past, we will definitely fail to find answers relevant for the future. We need to stand on solid ground." You know…

Recently, we lost one of our distinguished scientists, Evgeny Velikhov. He belonged to a generation of Russian scientists whose formative years were during the Soviet era.

Viktor Loshak: Yes, I know. He was a Laureate of the Lenin Komsomol Prize.

Andrei Fursenko: Yes. They were remarkable people, whom I consider my mentors, whom we – the previous generation – consider our mentors. Among them are Andrey Gaponov, Zhores Alferov, and the mathematician Alexander Samarskii. They all share the same belief. They would all say the same very important thing: "We stood on the shoulders of giants." In reality, they were giants themselves.

Viktor Loshak: They were giants, yes.

Andrei Fursenko: Today, as we evaluate not even the particular achievements but the overall impact of those individuals, I feel very fortunate. After graduating from the University, I began working at the Leningrad Physical-Technical Institute (Ioffe Institute). This institute was a hub for training research personnel for the atomic project and various other scientific endeavours. It served as the foundation for many research institutes, including the Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics and the Kurchatov Institute, both of which originated and developed from there. That was, no doubt, the transmission of the cultural code from one generation to the next.

Viktor Loshak: I understand it very well. The same can be said about journalism.

Andrei Fursenko: So, if we are to... The thing is each generation must contribute something of its own and must think about the future. Because if we are engaged in import substitution only… It is a trend now… Well, it means that we are utilising other people’s ideas. Yet, if we rely solely on the external ideas, we risk losing our ability to generate our own.

What is the most significant danger of import substitution? For all of us, it is important that we can do something that has already been done by someone else, as this approach is less risky. Thus, we have found a way to reduce our risks, you see? However, it also means that by avoiding risks, we may lose the capacity to create something truly original.

Viktor Loshak: These are vitally important words because everyone appears to be thrilled about import substitution.

Andrei Fursenko: This is indeed a very important issue. It is crucial because it addresses both the quality of life for people and national security. We must ensure we have the provisions necessary for our lives, such as food, medicine, a healthy environment, housing, and more.

However, if we lack our own keys to a breakthrough, we may find ourselves vulnerable to fundamentally new challenges and ideas. This vulnerability extends beyond direct threats to our national security; it also includes challenges posed by nature, for instance.

Viktor Loshak: Thank you. I truly appreciate this perspective, as it is not commonly found in the mainstream media. I would also like to ask you a question that I ask all my guests – about your rules in life. They must be really worthy of note.

Andrei Fursenko: You know, I think I am not original in my rules. Some of them I have heard from different individuals in different variations. For example, "Do what you have to do and come what may." I find this particularly important especially when things are getting tough and you do not like what is going on around you. Another rule is to always try to stay true to yourself.

Viktor Loshak: Thank you, Mr Fursenko! It was an incredibly interesting conversation!

Andrei Fursenko: Thank you!

watch the full show