Weighing Equivalent Energy

THE OTHER PATH to redefining the kilogram is based on the concept of measuring mass in terms of its equivalent energy, a principle that Albert Einstein explained using his famous equation E = mc², which relates mass and energy at the most fundamental level. Investigators would thus define mass in terms of the amount of energy into which it could (potentially) be converted. As is true of counting atoms, though, the techniques involved have considerable disadvantages. For example, large releases of atomic energy result when mass is converted into energy directly. Luckily, easier methods that compare conventional electrical and mechanical energy or power are feasible, provided that researchers can overcome problems associated with energy losses.

To get a sense of the obstacles to this type of approach, imagine using an electric motor to lift an object having mass m (against gravity). In an ideal situation, all the energy supplied to the motor would go into increasing the potential energy of the object. The mass could then be calculated from the electrical energy Esupplied to the motor, the vertical distance dtraveled by the object and the acceleration from gravity g, using the formula m = E/gd. (The acceleration caused by gravity would have to be gauged very accurately using a precision gravimeter.) In the real world, however, energy losses in the motor and other parts of the system would make an accurate measurement almost impossible. Although researchers have attempted similar experiments using superconducting levitated masses, accuracies better than one part in a million are hard to achieve.

About 30 years ago Bryan Kibble of the U.K.’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL) devised the method now known as the watt balance, which avoids energy-loss problems by measuring “virtual power”. In other words, by designing a sufficiently clever, two-part procedure, scientists can sidestep the inevitable losses. The method links the standard kilogram, the meter and the second to highly accurate practical realizations of electrical resistance (in ohms) and electric potential (in volts) derived from two quantum-mechanical phenomena – the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect, both of which incorporate Planck's constant. In the process, the technique allows the value of the Planck constant to be measured very accurately.

In the watt balance, an object having mass m is weighed by suspending it from the arm of a conventional balance to which a coil of wire is also attached with a total length L hanging in a strong magnetic field B. A current i is passed through the coil to generate a force BLi, which is adjusted to exactly balance the weight mg of the mass (that is, mg = BLi). The mass and current are then removed, and in a second part of the experiment, the coil is moved through the field at a measured velocity u while the induced voltage V(V = BLu) is monitored. This second phase finds the value of the BL product, which is difficult to determine in any other way. If the magnet and coil are sufficiently stable, so that the BL product is the same in both parts of the procedure, the results can be combined to give mgu = Vi, which states the equality of mechanical power (force times velocity, mg times u) to electrical power (voltage V times current i). By separating the measurements of V and i as well as mg and u, the technique yields a result that is not sensitive to the loss of real power in either part of the experiment (that is, heat dissipated in the coil during weighing or frictional losses during moving), so the apparatus can be said to have measured “virtual” power.

Scientists determine the electric current in the weighing phase of the watt balance procedure by passing it through a resistor. This resistance is specially gauged using the quantum Hall effect, which permits it to be described in quantum-mechanical terms. The voltage across the resistor and the coil voltage are measured in terms of quantum mechanics using the Josephson effect. This last result allows researchers to express the electrical power in terms of Planck's constant and frequency. Because the other terms in the equation depend only on time and length, researchers can then quantify the mass m in terms of Planck's constant plus the meter and the second, both of which are based on constants of nature.

The method's principle is relatively straightforward, but to achieve the desired accuracy of approximately one part in 100 million, scientists must determine the major contributing quantities with an accuracy at the limit of many of the best available techniques. Besides measuring gvery accurately, they have to perform all the procedures in a vacuum to eliminate the effects of both air buoyancy during the weighing process and the air's refractive index during the velocity measurement (which uses a laser interferometer). Researchers must also precisely align the force from the coil to the vertical direction and perform angular and linear alignments of the apparatus to a precision of at least 50 microradians and 10 microns, respectively. Finally, the magnetic field has to be predictable between the two modes of the watt balance, a condition requiring that the temperature of the permanent magnet vary slowly and smoothly.

Three laboratories have developed watt balances: the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S., and the NPL. Meanwhile the staff of the French National Bureau of Metrology is assembling prototype equipment, and that of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures is designing an apparatus. Ultimately these efforts will yield five independent instruments with varying designs, so the extent to which their results agree will indicate how well researchers have identified and eliminated systematic errors in each case. The long-term goal of these groups is to measure Planck's constant to around one part in 100 million, with the possibility of approaching five parts in a billion.

Check your comprehension

~ What are the obstacles to using an electric motor to lift an object having mass min ordertodefine mass in terms of the amount of energy in the real world?

~ Which SI units does the watt balance method link?

~ Is it possible to achieve the desired accuracy with the best available techniques?

~ Why must all the procedures be performed in a vacuum?

~ What will the degree of agreement of results of the three laboratories engaged in developing watt balances method indicate?

Weighty Future

THE LATEST RESULTS from the work on the Avogadro constant and those from the NPL and NIST watt balances differ by more than one part in a million. Researchers must reconcile this discrepancy before a redefinition of the kilogram will be possible.

Redefinition in terms of the Avogadro constant or Planck’s constant will have widespread effects, reducing reported uncertainties associated with those constants. Moreover, if Planck's constant and the elementary electric charge are fixed (by combining, for example, watt balance and calculable capacitor measurements), many other important constants would also be fixed.

The International Committee for Weights and Measures has recommended that national measurement laboratories continue their efforts aimed at measuring the fundamental constants that support the redefinition process. Researchers hope that these steps will lead to new standards not only for the kilogram but the ampere, the kelvin and the mole by 2011.

Once the redefinition is complete, a few nations will build or maintain the equipment necessary for implementing the definition directly. Those that do not will have their standards calibrated using a consensus value for the kilogram derived from the laboratory work. Still, fears of damaging or contaminating a single master reference standard should fall away because comparisons between national standards and a working standard based on the new definition could be performed as needed. The new definition would allow authorities to adjust the world mass scale in tiny steps every so often to keep it free of drift and fully locked to the best – the latest consensus and independently confirmed – value of the SI unit of mass. Such a system would be robust and stable, allowing scientific and technological progress to continue unabated.

Check your comprehension

~ Which other important constants would be fixed after a redefinition of the kilogram?

~ Will fears of damaging or contaminating a single master reference standard remain after a redefinition of the kilogram?

Unit 5

The importance of physics: breakthroughs drive economy, quality of life

By MICHAEL PRAVICA
SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL

The year 2005 has been designated the World Year of Physics to recognize physics as a foundation of not only science, but also society. The designation coincides with the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's "miraculous year" of 1905, during which he published papers on the theory of relativity, quantum theory and the theory of Brownian motion, ideas that have profoundly influenced all of modern physics. We are deeply indebted to generations of physicists for the world we understand, our security, our livelihoods and our economic prowess.

The fruits resulting from the sacrifices of these intellectual giants are ubiquitous, yet too often taken for granted. Many of our leaders no longer seem to respect or abide by the opinions of scientists, and yet they depend on the technology developed by scientists. They frequently make decisions without understanding nature, the technology we all use, and the planet-wide consequences of abusing technology.

In addition, these leaders are reducing investment in scientific research, as evident in the recent budget reduction for the National Science Foundation, which will ultimately reduce our competitiveness by frustrating our capacity to innovate and develop novel technology that is mostly initiated from scientific research.

Physics endeavors to understand the underlying laws governing our universe. By better understanding those laws, we can better interact with and harness our environment. To gain perspective into how much physics has contributed to our livelihoods, consider the following miracles from physicists: alternating current, hydroelectric power, electric motors, radio, microwave ovens, satellites, radar, modern rocketry, the solution of the DNA structure, nuclear magnetic resonance, magnetic resonance imaging, X-rays, lasers, transistors, light-emitting diodes, oscilloscopes, television, holography, and the World Wide Web (originally developed for high-energy physicists), among many others. Physicists studying fundamental natural principles, such as quantum mechanics, often invented new devices by applying these principles serendipitously or by design.

Examples of this are the transistor (miniature switch/amplifier) and diode (one-way switch), used in electronic watches, calculators, pacemakers, hearing aids, cellular phones, global positioning systems, radios, computers and LEDs. They are fundamental building blocks upon which our entire society is constructed. Applications of the laser (an optical amplifier) include bar code readers, micro/eye surgery, compact disc players and information retrieval and storage, fiber optics (most modern phone lines and medical aids use this), machining, surveying, laser printers, semiconductor fabrication, holography, and perhaps the greatest potential use, fusion.

Nuclear magnetic resonance identifies chemical species in chemistry and biology. Magnetic resonance imaging is an extension of NMR that has been vital for noninvasive glimpses into the body to find tumors, study thinking processes and understand blood flow based upon the precession of protons in a magnetic field.

The insatiable human quest for knowledge and understanding of the natural world leads to scientific theories. From these theories, new technology is created that, in turn, allows more accurate, expanded and novel experimental observations to prove or disprove theories (for example, the telescope). Thus, there is a deep symbiosis between discovery in physics (and the rest of science) and new technology.

We all benefit from the priceless contributions of physics; a small number of them are mentioned here. Economists Edward C. Prescott and Finn E. Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics in part for pointing out that new technology drives booms in economies. Contributions from physics generate many trillions of dollars for the world economy and aid our existence immeasurably.

Only science, with physics as its foundation, can solve many of the impending crises facing our society, such as global warming, overpopulation, waning energy and other natural resources, and the poisoning of our planet. Our leaders need to consult scientists in their decision making. There should be more recognition and celebration of the importance of science and scientific research by our business, social and political leaders. The public should seek leaders who are better versed in science.

Scientists need to be more vocal and strive to explain science and its deep relevance to humanity. And students should take more science courses and learn about the physical world we live in.

Now, more than ever, we need to resurrect respect and strong support for science.

Check your comprehension

~ What does physics endeavor to understand?

~ What global problems can physics solve?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-06-Sun-2005/opinion/682710.html

Unit 6

Career of engineer

If you want to have a career in engineering, you have two options from which to choose. You can be an engineeroran engineering technician. Each of these has different educational and licensing requirements, as well as different duties and salaries. See the chart below for a quick look at the differences between these two career choices. Both engineers and engineering technicians can also choose from a variety of specialties which are discussed in the individual career profiles.

Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and mathematics in researching and developing solutions to technical problems. To become an engineer one must earn a bachelor's degree in engineering. Some jobs are available for those who have earned a bachelor's degree in physical science or mathematics. Engineers who offer their services directly to the public must be licensed. Engineers held 1.6 million jobs in 2008. The highest number of these jobs were in civil engineering (278,400), mechanical engineering (238,700), industrial engineering (214,800), electrical engineering (157,800) and electronic engineering, not including computer engineering (143,700).

Educational Requirements for Engineers:

To get an entry-level engineering job, one usually needs a bachelor's degree in engineering. Sometimes a bachelor's degree in physical science or mathematics may suffice, especially in high-demand specialties. Generally engineering students specialize in a particular branch of engineering but may eventually work in a related branch.

How Do Engineers Advance?

As entry level engineers gain experience and knowledge, they may work more independently, making decisions, developing designs, and solving problems. With further experience, engineers may become technical specialists or supervisors over a staff or team of engineers or technicians. Eventually, they may become engineering managers, or may move into other managerial or sales jobs.

Job Outlook for Engineers:

In general, engineering employment is expected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2018, although outlook will vary by branch.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that biomedical, environmental and civil engineering will experience much faster than average growth, while employment in petroleum engineering, industrial engineering and geological and mining engineering will grow at a faster than average rate. Other branches will grow either as fast as the average or slower than the average for all occupations, or will see a decline in employment.

Engineering Technician

Engineering technicians often assist engineers and scientists, using science, engineering and mathematical principles to solve technical problems in research and development, manufacturing, sales, construction, inspection, and maintenance. The work of engineering technicians is more application oriented and more limited in scope than that of engineers. To become an engineering technician one must generally earn an associate degree in engineering technology. Engineering technicians held 497,300 jobs in 2008. There were 164,000 electrical and electronic engineering technicians, 91,700 civil engineering technicians, 72,600 industrial engineering technicians, 46,100 mechanical engineering technicians, 21,200 environmental engineering technicians, 16,400 electro-mechanical technicians, and 8,700 aerospace engineering and operations technicians.

Educational Requirements for Engineering Technicians:

Those who want to work as engineering technicians should have at least an associate degree in engineering technology, although some employers will hire candidates who don't have formal training. Those who plan to become engineering technicians can expect to take courses in college algebra and trigonometry and basic science. Other coursework depends on specialty. For example, those who want to become electrical engineering technicians will take classes in electrical circuits, microprocessors and digital electronics.

Advancement for Engineering Technicians:

Engineering technicians initially work under the supervision of more experienced technicians, technologists, engineers or scientists. As they gain experience they are given more difficult assignments with limited supervision. Eventually they may become supervisors.

Job Outlook for Engineering Technicians:

Employment of engineering technicians, across all disciplines, is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2018. The outlook, however, will vary by specialty. For example, job growth for environmental engineering technicians is projected to be faster, through 2018, than it will be for other occupations requiring post-secondary training or an associate degree. Civil engineering technicians will also see an increase in employment as it grows faster than the average for all occupations. Employment of electro-mechanical engineering technicians will decline.

Check your comprehension

~ Do engineers usually assist engineer technicians?

~ What are job predictions for engineers and engineer technicians?

http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/p/engineer_tech.htm

http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/a/careers_in_eng.htm

Unit 7

Text 1. Science in Russia

Ever since the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, Russian leaders have been vowing to transform their old-line, industrial society into a modern, knowledge-based economy driven by innovative science and technology. The current Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has repeated that ambition frequently — not least as a way to overcome Russia’s dependence on oil and gas exports. Unfortunately, that transformation continues to be hobbled by outdated attitudes at the top of Russia’s academic hierarchy.

A small, but telling example came to light last month when the popular online newspaper gazeta.ru published an interview with Yuri Osipov (in Russian), president of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Pressed by the reporter about the very low citation rate for articles published in Russian-language science journals, Osipov dismissed the relevance of citation indices, questioned the need for Russian scientists to publish in foreign journals and said that any top-level specialist “will also study Russian and read papers in Russian”.

From anyone else, such a response might be dismissed as an off-hand comment, perhaps reflecting a bit of stung national pride. But Osipov is head of the largest and most powerful research organization in Russia, the employer of around 50,000 scientists in more than 400 research institutes, and the publisher of some 150 Russian-language research journals. What he says and thinks has a big effect on Russian science. Moreover, the undercurrent of scientific nationalism in his remarks is widely shared by other senior members of the academic establishment — many of whom are products of Soviet times, when Russian science was pretty much an all-Russian affair.

According to the US National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report, even 20 years later there is a still steady decrease in the number of scientists in Russia.What is also eye-catching, number of domestic researchers draws level with Europe and the United States. Where as China continues to show very strong grow. China has approximately as many researchers as either the United States or the European Union (EU)!

According to the citation-analysis company Thomson Scientific, Russia is eighteenth among countries ranked by citations in the scientific literature over the past 10 years. That is a result not just of low overall funding but because management of basic science still stands on the concepts of a closed society, with a centralized administration inherited from the days of the Soviet Union. This leads to the absence of international peer review and to little motivation for scientists to produce international-level scientific results — they do not really need them to get funding from national sources. In addition, centralized funding of institutions, rather than of individual scientists, leads to resources being wasted.

Between 2004 and 2008, Thomson Reuters indexed 125,778 papers that listed at least one author address in Russia. Of those papers, the highest percentage appeared in journals categorized in the field of physics, followed by space science. As the right-hand column shows, the citations-per-paper (impact) average for physics papers from Russia during 2004-08 was 14% below the world impact figure for the field (3.57 citations per paper for Russia, versus a world figure of 4.16 cites).

Russian science is already lagging behind that of other nations. According to an analysis published in January by Thomson Reuters, Russia produced just 2.6% of the research papers published between 2004 and 2008 and indexed by the firm — fewer than China (8.4%) and India (2.9%) and only slightly more than the Netherlands (2.5%). Moreover, Russia’s publication output has remained almost flat since 1981, even as the output of nations such as India, Brazil and China was exploding. The situation is so bleak that in October last year, 185 Russian expatriate scientists signed an open letter to Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warning of an imminent collapse of Russian science unless something was done to improve the inadequate funding, strategic planning and teaching of science.

The Russian Academy of Sciences, founded in 1725, is the chief coordinating body for scientific research in Russia through its science councils and commissions. It has sections of physical, technical, and mathematical sciences; chemical, technological, and biological sciences, and earth sciences, and controls a network of nearly 300 research institutes. The Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, founded in 1929, has departments of plant breeding and genetics; arable farming and the use of agricultural chemicals; feed and fodder crops production; plant protection; livestock production; veterinary science; mechanization, electrification, and automation in farming; forestry; the economics and management of agricultural production; land reform and the organization of land use; land reclamation and water resources; and the storage and processing of agricultural products. It controls a network of nearly 100 research institutes. It supervises a number of research institutes, experimental and breeding stations, dendraria and arboreta. The Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, founded in 1944, has departments of preventive medicine, clinical medicine, and medical and biological sciences, and controls a network of nearly 100 research institutes.

The Russian Federation in 2002 had 3,415 scientists and engineers, and 579 technicians engaged in research and development (R and D) per million people. In the same period, R and D expenditures totaled $14,733.916 million, or 1.24% of GDP. Of that amount, the largest portion, 58.4%, came from government sources, while business accounted for 30.8%. Higher education, private nonprofit organizations and foreign sources accounted for 0.3%, 0.1% and 8%, respectively. High technology exports in 2002 totaled $2.897 billion, or 13% of the country's manufactured exports.

Russia has nearly 250 universities and institutes offering courses in basic and applied sciences. In 1987-97, science and engineering students accounted for 50% of university enrollment.

Check your comprehension

~ What are the results of US National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report

~ When was the Russian Academy of Sciences founded?

http://olexandrisayev.com/2010/science-in-russia

http://library.by/portalus/modules/english_russia/referat_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188910373&archive=&start_from=&ucat=28&

Text 2. Smart Russia

Owen Mathews, «Newsweek», May 18^th, 2010

Medvedev’s vision of Russia’s future is about brains, not the power of oil, bombs, or the Kremlin.

When president Dmitry Medvedev speaks about restoring Russia’s greatness he talks about building an “innovation city” in the Moscow suburb of Skolkovo, where the state will leave the nation’s best minds free to pursue the scientific and technological breakthroughs that are the bedrock of a 21st-century “knowledge economy.” Medvedev’s vision is designed to liberate Russia from what he calls a “humiliating” reliance on oil and gas exports, and to revive the greatness of a nation once known for scientific and technological achievement. “The success of the ‘Smart Russia’ movement is a question of life and death for Russia,” says Zhores Alferov, the only Nobel Prize winner still living in Russia, who was chosen by Medvedev last month as overall head of the Skolkovo project. “The idea of Skolkovo is like Noah’s ark – all our ideas of hope and survival are pinned on it.”

Whether Russia reemerges as a great power may well be determined by Medvedev’s campaign to revive its smart side. For all its inefficiencies, the Soviet state was a generous supporter of science and technology, building the world’s first artificial satellite and the capsule that put the first man in space. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, state support for the sciences collapsed, scientists fled for posts overseas, and the state itself evolved into a predator – committed in theory to the free market, but too often in practice to plundering private enterprise for profit. In the generation that separated Yuri Gagarin’s spaceflight from Putin’s election in 2000, Russia’s GDP and industrial production fell by nearly 50 percent, and with them investment in science fell from 6 percent of GDP to just 1.5 percent, where it stagnates today. The brain drain began in the 1970s as educated Soviet Jews – like the parents of young Sergey Brin, who went on to become a co-inventor of Google – headed to the free West. By the turn of the century it had robbed Russia of more than a half million of its most talented people. Putin and Medvedev both believe that the state can solve Russia’s problems – but while Putin sees the bureaucracy as the source of his power, Medvedev sees it as a corrupt obstacle to creating a post-oil economy.

Check your comprehension

~ What does president Dmitry Medvedev want to liberate Russia from? How is he going to pursue his goal?

~ Why did Russia loose more than a half million of its most talented people?

Skolkovo is the centerpiece of Medvedev’s drive to create a new kind of economy. A nondescript Soviet-era suburb 40 kilometers outside Moscow, Skolkovo is already home to Russia’s leading business school, which is (crucially) private but receives some state research money. The new innovation city is inspired by the relationship between Stanford University and Silicon Valley, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Route 128 tech firms outside Boston: a place where academic brains can find the private and government money they need to launch startup companies. The new Skolkovo will be “a real city of the future,” says oil baron Viktor Vekselberg, Russia’s 10th-richest man and Medvedev’s choice to organize the business side of Skolkovo, selecting the best ideas for the state to back as startups. Construction is already underway on a 300-hectare plot that will be protected by walls and gates. If all goes as planned, by 2014 the new city will house 30,000 to 40,000 people. Viktor Ustinov, one of Russia’s top physicists and a former pupil of Alferov’s, says Skolkovo will be a “Russian Silicon Valley” devoted to innovation in communications and biomedicine, as well as in space, nuclear, and information technologies. According to Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin’s chief ideologue, “Only the best people will go there, and they will be carefully protected … The best people will be given the very best conditions.”

Many nations have also tried to build their own Silicon Valleys. But Medvedev, however belatedly, has declared that the project is Russia’s last best hope. His 2008 blueprint for the Russian economy, called “Strategy 2020,” calls for the tech sector to make up 15 percent of exports, or 8 to 10 percent of GDP, by 2020. Currently it’s about 1.1 percent of GDP, and much of that is in military hardware. So Medvedev is pumping billions in state funds into projects including Skolkovo, the world’s biggest nanotechnology-investment fund, and a program designed to lure Russian émigrés and their companies back to the homeland. Medvedev has sent top officials on the road to drum up money for innovation bonds, and earmarked more than $10 billion for tech investment. That lags behind others – China has allocated $26 billion toward tech investment for 2010 alone – but is nonetheless a sign of seriousness.

Skolkovo’s main chance of success is that its businesses will be protected from rapacious state bureaucrats and police. Today the subsidies and special privileges that the Soviet state once lavished on science and business projects have given way to plain theft. In a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of global economic crimes, 71 percent of Russian enterprises reported being the target of such abuses by police or bureaucrats in 2009 (the worst of 33 countries in the study). Medvedev himself has publicly blasted Russia’s culture of state corruption and has attempted to seal off Skolkovo, which will have simplified laws on businesses, a simpler visa regime, tax benefits, and no thieving bureaucrats.

Check your comprehension

~Which factors are crucial for success of Silicon Valley and the like “smart cities”?

~ What are financial sources for the world’s biggest nanotechnology-investment fund?

~What can causefailure ofSkolkovo’s project?

But the trend lines are running against Smart Russia. In a couple of decades the cream of the Soviet intelligentsia will be dead, leaving behind a rotten education system. Most of Russia’s traditional research institutes long ago lost many of their best people to better-funded universities in the West, and now there’s not a single Russian university in the world’s top 100. Just as the Russian state was plundered by its servants after the fall of communism, so the assets of its academic institutions were sold off, rented out, and systematically stolen by its administrators. In 2009 the country published fewer scholarly papers and journals than India or China, and Russians won only four Nobel Prizes in the last decade, compared with 67 for the U.S. (and only one, Mikhail Gorbachev’s peace prize, in the 1990s). In the World Economic Forum’s rankings of the world’s most competitive nations, Russia has slipped 12 places, to 63rd, since Medvedev became president in 2008, and its information-technology sector has slipped four places in as many years, to a dismal 74th out of 134 countries. Some Russian businessmen, like antivirus-software designer Yevgeny Kaspersky, complain that what talent remains seems disproportionately focused on illegal activity, like the creation of the “Storm” Trojan horse that spawned a worldwide botnet infecting 1.5 million computers last year. “Russia is a nation of super hackers,” says Kaspersky, whose Kaspersky Labs is one of Russia’s few global tech businesses – devoted to blocking hackers.

Check your comprehension

~ What are reasons for and signs of Russian science lagging behind many other countries?

In some ways Medvedev’s plan to create a legitimate outlet for tech talent is quintessentially Soviet. The idea of a city for scientists harks back to Stalin’s purpose-built tech cities within the Gulag where selected scientists worked in conditions of privilege – and hatched such breakthroughs as the Soviet atom bomb. But in this era “you can’t have a centrally planned innovative economy,” warns Vladislav Inozemtsev, director of the Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies. “Nowhere in the world has a Silicon Valley blossomed because of decrees issued by bureaucrats, even if the decrees are backed up by government financing.”

The failure of central planning does not necessarily spell doom for Skolkovo, because Medvedev is guided by a more modern vision of how to use subsidies to steer business development. Already there are some success stories. One of Alferov’s former students, Alexei Kovsh, is moving his energy-efficient-lighting company from Germany to St. Petersburg, because Alferov convinced him that he could get better funding in Russia, with lower costs than in the West, and better protection from technology copycats than in China. Kovsh recently sold stakes in his company, Optogan, to the state-owned Rusnanotech and to the metals tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov. With the state as a third partner, Kovsh feels protected. Alferov hopes to repeat the experience to draw similar businesses to Skolkovo. Ranged against Smart Russia are the bureaucrats who prefer Russia to stay dumb – because they make so much money from it. Medvedev is pushing innovation as one of his “four I’s,” or pillars of modernization, the others being institutions, infrastructure, and investment. But truth be told, he’s not making much progress. Russia built just 1,000 kilometers of roads last year, compared with the 47,000 kilometers built by China. Former opposition legislator Vladimir Ryzhkov complains that the real four I’s of Russian modernization are “illusion, inefficiency, instability, and incompetence.” Yevgeny Gontmakher, a leading member of Medvedev’s favorite think tank, the Institute of Contemporary Development, says the flaw in the president’s strategy is that “they expect scientists to come and invent everything for them so there will be no need to reform political institutions.” No, Medvedev is not out to reform the political system top to bottom, but it’s also clear he understands the forces of Dumb Russia. “Corrupt officials … do not want development, and fear it,” he wrote in his 2009 manifesto, “Forward Russia.” “But the future does not belong to them – it belongs to us. We will overcome backwardness and corruption.” May the smart Russians win.

Check your comprehension

~ In what way does Medvedev’s plan differ from Soviet central planning approach?

~ Why do the bureaucrats prefer Russia to stay unintelligent?

Unit 8