In a pivotal move, the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences has urged the highest levels of government to temporarily suspend direct control over research institutions. The request comes after a long period of centralized oversight and mandates aimed at guiding scientific work across the country. The aim is to pause the daily grind of audits and external checks that many researchers say slow down innovation, while still preserving the core mission of science as a public good. The proposal envisions a different model for how scientific work is evaluated and regulated—one that mirrors the flexibility the private sector often enjoys when pursuing breakthrough ideas, but within a framework that protects the integrity and quality of research.
The core idea presented is to abolish or significantly reduce routine inspections of research facilities, arguing that such controls can become a bottleneck to timely discovery and creative experimentation. By drawing a parallel with the sector where businesses are relieved from excessive oversight in certain conditions, proponents say science could gain the space it needs to explore high-risk, high-reward projects. The discussion emphasizes moving away from a culture of constant scrutiny toward a trust-based approach that relies on merit, transparency, and verifiable results. In practical terms, proposals would seek to transfer emphasis from frequent, formal inspections to outcome-focused assessments that better align with the realities of modern research, including collaboration with industry and international partners.
Alongside this shift, the proposals highlight a renewed emphasis on how science interacts with industry under today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape. The so-called technological curtain—the wave of new tools, digital platforms, and cross-disciplinary methods that blur traditional boundaries—demands an updated framework for cooperation. This framework would define clearer pathways for joint ventures, technology transfer, and shared infrastructure, while safeguarding scientific independence and the reproducibility of findings. The academy argues that a constructive relationship between science and industry can accelerate practical applications, support national resilience, and stockpile knowledge that benefits society at large. The focus is on balancing entrepreneurial agility with rigorous peer review, ethical standards, and public accountability.
Within this broader strategy, there is also a recognition of the cultural and procedural shifts needed inside research institutions themselves. The Russian Academy of Sciences contends that governance should empower scientists to pursue ambitious lines of inquiry without being hamstrung by excessive oversight. This includes revising appointment practices, grant allocation processes, and the management of research programs to reward originality and collaboration rather than mere compliance. The overarching objective is a more dynamic ecosystem where institutions can respond to emerging technologies, shifting global priorities, and the needs of industry while preserving the core values of scientific integrity and public service.
In a note related to the academy’s public position, it was indicated that members should refrain from signaling their participation in the academy when expressing personal civic views. This distinction is presented as a procedural safeguard to ensure that personal opinions are not conflated with official positions of the institution, thereby maintaining clarity for observers and partners both domestically and abroad. The statement underscores a commitment to separating individual advocacy from the collaborative, institution-wide mission of advancing science and shaping policy through evidence-based reasoning and transparent discourse.