The aspects of Russia's international scientific cooperation are analyzed in the article from viewpoint of quality and quantity. The upscale of disciplinary and geographical frameworks of international cooperation, development of new interaction instruments and forms are documented. However, at ministerial level, there is still no sufficiently distinct stance on national priorities in the scientific and innovative development, and thus on priorities in the international cooperation sphere. The latter cannot develop beyond a broader economic and political context, and its success depends on what domestic conditions are created to perform the exploratory activity.
The article evaluates science sectors and effectiveness of scientific research in the countries forming the BRICS group, as well as the current state of scientific and technological cooperation among the group members. The science sectors of the countries under consideration differ markedly, while facing similar problems relating to government regulations and external environments. The differences exist in total expenditures on research and development (as a share of GNP), in the scope of governmental funding (large in Russia and India, but small in China), and in the distribution of allocations among various areas and types of R&D activities. China appears to have the most well-adjusted science sector among the BRICS members. It includes not only strong universities but also high-tech companies that invest actively into research and development. The overall impact (inferred from citation indexes) of fundamental and exploratory research performed in BRICS countries remains low. BRICS's scientists prefer to collaborate with their colleagues from the world-leading countries rather than with their fellows from BRICS. Yet, in contrast to the world trend, in all BRICS countries, except Russia, a share of internationally co-authored publications is now decreasing. BRICS members have more similar interests and priorities in technological development, including infrastructural and large technological projects, than in science. Currently, bilateral cooperation in technology prevails, while the projects involving all members of the group still remain at the stage of preliminary evaluation and discussion. Russia cooperates most closely with China and India, including joint projects in such high-priority directions as new materials, photonics, biomedical, space and information technologies. For Russia, cooperation in technological development appears to be of most interest because it can lead not only to introduction of new technologies but also help to create large Russian innovative companies. Development of successful multilateral cooperation in science and technology among the BRICS members is the key for this group, originally formed for geopolitical reasons, to evolve into an effective economic union.
The article deals with the issue of reform of budgetary organizations in the science sector in Russia as an important prerequisite for creation of a market-oriented national innovation system. Quantitative characteristics of the network of budgetary organizations are analyzed as well as the directions of changes and specificity of government measures aimed at transformation of the budgetary sector. Scenarios of possible reforms are suggested and potential consequences and risks of delayed reforms are analyzed.
It is not easy to reform the science in accordance with modern economic and sociopolitical tasks, to achieve the transition to innovation economy. Many countries fail to do it, despite perfect strategies. To solve the most complicated problems new approaches are needed, as well as the freedom from imitative approaches. Key issues are: the reality of tasks, matching the challenges, regular monitoring and effectiveness evaluation of regulation measures applied.
The article analyzes modern theory that explains the specificity of relationships among government, science and business in innovation systems - the "triple helix" concept. Factors that determine the appearance of new theory are systematized. The peculiarities of formation of "triple helix" in Russia are described, including the development of science, business and the system of government regulation in innovation sphere. The conclusion is made that currently in Russia only double linkages are formed.
The article describes the results of the inventory of the unique research equipment conducted by IMEMO RAS in 2009-2010 as an order from the Ministry of Education and Science of the RF. The methodology used for the survey was partially based on the EC experience which is also presented in the article. The results of the analysis suggest that the unique equipment is more actively used in RAS institutes rather than in universities. However the speed at which equipment is renewed is higher at universities, due to the special government policy. The most severe problems related to support of unique infrastructure are associated with the lack of financing and resources for technical maintenance. In conclusions possible directions for improvement of the government policy towards research infrastructure are outlined.
