Vol. 11, No. 2, 2025

.

This opinion piece critically examines the transformation of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) following its 2013 reform, highlighting systemic issues in its membership composition. The author argues that the 71% postreform surge in academicians (to 941 by 2025) has eroded the prestige of RAS titles, exacerbated by the election of non-scientists (officials, politicians, business figures) and instances of nepotism. Drawing on historical precedents from the USSR era, the paper advocates for legislative reforms to restore academic integrity. Key proposals include legally defining «scientist» to exclude non-professionals, reinstating USSR-style justification protocols for new academic seats, restricting financial benefits to active researchers, and leveraging the newly established RAS Trusteeship Council to enforce criteria. The article underscores the urgency of these measures to prevent further devaluation of RAS authority and ensure Russia’s scientific development.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the world scientific practice has significantly increased interest to the role of high technology in socio-economic development. At the same time, the debate has intensified about the extent to which a country can consider itself technologically independent, even if it possesses technologies that ensure food, industrial and environmental independence. The article considers the concept of technological sovereignty, its peculiarities in the context of modern digital technologies. It also considers approaches to elaboration of priorities in science and technology in leading foreign countries and in the Russian Federation, that provide the basis for ensuring technological sovereignty at the national level. It’s pointed out that actually in Russia there is no national center for monitoring, management and evaluation of the results of the implementation of programs and projects within the framework of the state S&T policy, especially of the results of the implementing S&T priorities. Such a situation poses significant risks in the light of ensuring the technological sovereignty of the country. The article substantiates the necessity of implementing a centralized approach to establishing the science and technology management system.

This article examines current trends in interdisciplinary research, driven by dual imperatives: societal and economic demands for practical solutions, and the intrinsic evolution of scientific inquiry. The growing prominence of such research reveals fundamental challenges in reconciling methodological frameworks across disciplines and transferring research principles between fields.This study aims to develop a system analysis-based approach for evaluating the compatibility of research principles across diverse scientific domains. Achieving this objective necessitates a critical analysis of the prevailing contemporary classification of sciences – formal, natural, social, and humanities disciplines. This classification profoundly shapes the potential for methodological exchange between fields and provides the foundation for enhancing interdisciplinary research to better align national scientific advancement with societal needs.Key findings identify significant barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly methodological incompatibilities between sciences of differing complexity. The research proposes system analysis as a tool for assessing compatibility across formal, natural, social, and humanities disciplines. The central conclusion demonstrates that the direct application of methodologies from simpler sciences (e. g., physics) to more complex domains (e. g., biology) is often ineffective, while formal sciences serve as universal facilitators of disciplinary integration.

This study compares national scientific and innovation indicators with the sustainable development management goals of organizations and territories. Its purpose is to determine the extent to which indicators of scientific progress, innovation development, and the innovative economy align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. The Global Innovation Index (GII), compiled annually by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), serves as the primary data source.Noting Russia’s gradual decline in the GII rankings, the author emphasizes the critical importance of defining the role of science and innovation in achieving balanced socio-economic and environmental sustainability at macro, meso, and micro levels. The information and methodological framework draws on an analysis of Russian regulations governing innovation processes, alongside data from WIPO and the United Nations.Key findings identify: (1) the types of innovation exerting the strongest and weakest influence on sustainable development management processes for organizations and territories; (2) the distinct roles of the innovation environment, social innovations, economic innovations, and ecological innovations in fostering balanced sustainable development for economic entities; and (3) specific sustainable development management objectives that are either omitted or inadequately reflected in the indicators used to assess scientific and innovation progress at national, sectoral, and corporate levels.

The article explores the phenomenon of development institutions focused on the scientific and industrial sphere. In different periods of time, they have played a crucial role in the accelerated formation of structures adequate to the challenges of the time.The purpose of the article is to identify the problems of Russian development institutions and to develop directions for their transformation.Development institutions are heterogeneous: they can be both formal and informal, as well as aimed at catching up or advancing development. Domestic development institutions are facing the need for a qualitative change in their business model.The activity of innovation activities is directly dependent on the state of the sales markets: a long-term positive market situation reduces the risks of introducing new products, which activates research and inventive processes. The inventive process is presented in the article in the form of five phases: the actual invention of technology, the assessment of suitability for production, recognition of value by the market and recognition by interest groups. Each subsequent phase is characterized by increasing organizational resistance.The emergence and rapid development of unmanned aerial vehicles shows that a new product can appear at the intersection of development lines of different-quality products, incorporating their best properties and creating a fundamentally new product.According to the author, it is necessary to design future needs, taking into account interest groups, but not the interests of consumers. For this purpose, it is necessary to formalize a new type of participant in the scientific and technical sphere – an innovative designer.