the state task for R&D remains the main financial measure of science and technology policy

The state assignment for research and development (R&D) remains the main financial measure of science and technology policy, follows from a survey of representatives of scientific organizations and universities conducted by the Institute for Statistical Research and Economics of Knowledge (ISIEZ) of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Based on the results of the study (which is a continuation of the 2017 Doing Science project), ISSEK experts compiled ratings of financial and non-financial measures, which include five indices: potential coverage; demand; success of use; significance and integral index (geometric mean of the indices of demand and significance of the support instrument).

In total, the list of financial measures includes 30 instruments. The top 5 were the state task for R&D (the value of the integral index is 81), the Priority 2030 program launched in 2021 (76), grants, awards and scholarships for young scientists (75), subsidies or government orders for R&D within the framework of state programs and industry federal targeted programs (74), grants from the Russian Science Foundation (70). Also on the list are subsidies for increasing the salaries of scientists (67), grants for updating the instrumentation base of leading scientific organizations (64). The list is closed by financing of world-class scientific projects (35), measures of the VEB of the Russian Federation (29), support for technological valleys (23) and mega-science facilities (23), grants from the Innovation Assistance Fund (20).

The list of non-financial measures includes eight support instruments. The top three include access to a database on evaluating and monitoring the performance of scientific organizations (76), to the Unified State Information System for Accounting for R&D and civilian technological work (75), and to international databases of scientific and technical information (71). At the same time, in terms of significance, the opportunity to use the latter in conditions of limited international cooperation was ranked first by the respondents.

The ISSEK notes that most of the tools are potentially available to a wide range of respondents (more than 70% of respondents), but only 40% have used them. Likely reasons are strict selection criteria and lack of awareness of respondents about available opportunities.

Venera Petrova