The 131st session of the JINR Scientific Council was held on 24 – 25 February in a mixed format co-chaired by JINR Director RAS Academician Grigory Trubnikov and Academician of the National Academy of Science of Belarus Sergei Kilin. Grigory Trubnikov made a report on the scientific results of 2021. JINR Director commented on the session, fields of further development of the Institute, as well as answered the questions of the JINR Weekly Newspaper.

– Grigory Vladimirovich, the current session of the Scientific Council is fateful in some sense. How do you evaluate the reaction of the members of the Council to your report?

– I think they were interested. I did not expect so many detailed questions. The first report at the session was traditionally very informative. The audience needs some time to digest information, and the brain does not perceive it immediately. But this time, right after the report, about ten members of the Scientific Council made comments and asked questions without waiting for the invitation from the co-chairman of the session. And all the questions were substantial. All of them were related to major scientific fields, the competitiveness of our scientific programme, the correlation of plans with resources and plans of other world laboratories, the adequacy of self-evaluation and the realisation that we are not alone in this race, that there are many participants.

I am very grateful for the questions, including about our so-called flagship projects on life sciences, applied research. We found it significant to take into account the tasks of future users when we were formulating the programme. It means that these are the tasks that determine our terms of reference encouraging us to develop new breakthrough technologies. Of course, we should make a big effort for this. We addressed the Member States, scientific centres, and universities to determine the niches not yet occupied in which JINR could be the most efficient in terms of science. We asked what record parameters are necessary for these tasks of the facility, so that to ensure that it would be in demand during at least five-ten years. Thus, medical accelerators, applied beams at the NICA complex, the thing being created by FLNR, facilities for applied studies – all this has been assembled following this principle. As for life sciences, I think that by omitting common words and by grasping mainstreams at many scientific institutes of the world we formulate the programme within fairly narrow but interesting directions, in which we could be the strongest. It is not a secret that medicine, radiobiology, neural sciences, genomic technologies are now the most financially intensive sector of scientific research. The largest resources, both human and financial, go to this sector. And it is very important for us not just to enter fashionable words in the plans, but to focus on those tasks and those areas in which we can be competitive. And our main competitive advantage is a unique set of experimental facilities.

Discussing the life sciences programme, we understand that there are only two or three places like Dubna in the world. For example, RIKEN with its large-scale base of various accelerators with various energy spectra of particles. Or Germany with its centre in Darmstadt that has several sources and many groups of which are engaged in biology and medicine. And maybe there are two or three centres in the United States. But there are no other places like JINR uniting facilities for gamma quanta, electrons, protons, heavy ions, and a wide range of energies. And we are going to develop this advantage of ensuring an opportunity to conduct a whole range of studies by arriving just once for a short period of time.

And of course, balance between internal and external projects, internal and external experts is important. This should be treated very carefully. I believe that after the report by three vice-directors on the details of certain experiments, the range of questions will be the most “hot”. And this is right since we are expecting from the Scientific Council non-biased, open, fair evaluation of our opportunities not just in a particular isolated place, but in the global scale where there are a lot of similar centres and facilities. So, the Scientific Council representing about 40 laboratories world-wide, its experts have clear understanding of this world, so their recommendations and criticism are most valuable for the Institute. This session is really historic for us in a sense. Because this is the first try. The material is underprepared. But it is the most interesting because we now help each other to set the priorities.

– Maybe it is worth recalling that a certain “warm-up” on the so-called “prioritization” of projects of the new seven-year period took place at the recent meeting of the JINR Science and Technology Council. Was it then when participants discussed the concept of the new seven-year plan for the first time?

– You know, I would say that the STC is the main arena to discuss it. The STC for me is the most significant platform. And the most interesting one. With whom else, if not with your employees, in the native environment in which you have grown up and which is the most critical, to discuss the future of the Institute? This should be perceived in a way that people criticising something do not protect themselves but their business, their research fields, and teams. And they always do it constructively despite the degree of emotionality and the form of expression. This is vital. I also said at the very beginning of my report at the STC meeting that this site is the most important in the chain of the Committee of Plenipotentiaries, the Scientific Council, the international group. That is, we ourselves form our future inside the Institute.

– Since the Council will consider the new seven-year plan, please comment on it.

– The logic we are building now is as follows. The next seven years may be called the harvest period. In the middle 2000s, the Member States determined the fate of the Institute, its place in the world landscape, and then, when they agreed on support, they consolidated. The next almost two seven-year periods are about investments in the development of the Institute. Our staff has been greatly updated. For example, the staff of the NICA complex for the last seven or eight years: from 2009 to 2017, 400 people came. Think about this figure! In science, every person, every head is a force. It’s not a factory nor a financial institution. Every person is unique in science. A new infrastructure has been built. There are new accelerators at FLNR and VBLHEP. Life sciences are under development at LRB. Since 2013, DLNP has been participating in developing the Baikal-GVD. The Govorun supercomputer has been created and is now enhancing at MLIT. Several new spectrometers have been commissioned at the IBR-2. All this should operate for our users from the Member States. So we would like to focus the maximum resources in next seven years on the experimental facilities around these accelerators, the collider, thus to support people and increase the human capital of the Institute. We would like the staff of the Institute to grow by about 1,500 people by 2030. Not only facilities but working places, the infrastructure, and many other things are necessary for it. This is a huge and complex task. I am sure that it will be important for the Member States to see that their investments made during two seven-year periods pay off.