Expert Foresight Session

"The Future of Science in the 21st Century: Development Strategies"

August 25, 2021, venue Gorchakov Foundation, Moscow.

Moderator of the expert Foresight session Alexander Ageev, Russia, Doctor of Economics, General Director of the International Research Institute for Management Problems MRIAS, Head of the Department of Business Project Management of the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Professor of the Faculty of Public Administration of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov; President of the International Academy for Future Studies, Director of the Research Institute for Economic Strategies, member of the RAS Coordinating Council for Forecasting, Academician of the Russian and European Academies of Natural Sciences, author of more than 500 scientific papers;

The civilizational processes of the beginning of the 21st century caused a huge mass of problems. Over the past twenty years, the number of natural disasters has quadrupled; it has been proven that the danger of many radioactive waste extends over a period of hundreds of thousands of years; the massive use of antibiotics, which has accelerated the evolution of microorganisms, is likely to make many diseases that are not too serious today, fatal tomorrow; global climate change is associated with many new threats of tomorrow. And the events of recent years have shown that the whole world is interdependent in the face of major threats - from epidemics to counteracting negative trends in the economy and the social sphere, which have become global.

Mankind is on the verge of many more new dangers and post-industrial risks. And it is natural that the 21st century has put science before the fact of the need for acceleration and fundamental changes, including the strategy of scientific research, solving fundamentally new problems and super-tasks, analyzing possible historical alternatives and changing development algorithms, and possibly rethinking the future trajectory of our civilization.

And since all super-tasks are interdisciplinary, this implies the existence of a common language and common ideas about the local, global and strategic problems of mankind. There is also an acute need to communicate more clearly to representatives of science and analysts from different countries, continents, sociocultural and religious strata and to transfer knowledge by different generations of researchers and youth.

In this regard, within the framework of the program of the international youth forum "The Future We Want: Foresight2100", with the participation of forum experts and representatives of the expert community of Moscow, a side event was organized on the sidelines of the Gorchakov Foundation - an expert Foresight session.

The Session was attended by 20 experts from different countries, including Jonathan Tennenbaum, Germany-USA, Elena Rovenskaya, Russia-Austria, Eduard Lozansky, USA, Alberto Gasparini, Italy, Leena Ilmola-Sheppard, Finland, Matthew J. L. Airet, Canada, and a number of leading experts from Russia. Most of them are doctors of sciences (technical, physical and mathematical, geographical, economic, cultural, philosophical, sociological).

During the session, the following issues were considered:

1) How to predict and model the future of science in the context of global processes and problems?
2) What prospects, according to the experts - participants of the Foresight session, should be built in their fields of knowledge?
3) What is required from scientists for science to act as a driver of positive change?
4) What are the most important problems facing science itself?

For the first two questions:
- How to predict and model the future of science in the context of global processes and problems?
- What prospects, according to the experts - participants of the Foresight session, should be built in their fields of knowledge?

The moderator of the session, Alexander Ivanovich Ageev, directed the participants to discuss the distant prospects for the development of science, its possible breakthrough in the current conditions of global challenges. The conversation unfolded in several directions, and as a result of the brainstorming discussion,

9 groups of risks and opportunities for the development of science in the period up to 2050 and 2100

1) Forecasting Science
2) Biosphere resources
3) Urban planning and resettlement
4) The device of society:
5) Cyberspace, digitalization, artificial intelligence
6) Sphere of management
7) World order
8) Culture and education
9) Global scientific and public initiatives - Further, the experts presented their own positions on a number of points and gave

Analysis of the current state of risk groups and opportunities for the development of science

1) Forecasting Science:

Sidelnikov Yu.V. (Russia): “It is necessary to consider the possibilities of forecasting both science in general and its individual areas. To analyze the difficulties of identifying the object of forecasting, to justify the selection of effective tools for its forecasting and the choice of the lead period. To identify the reasons for the difficulties in modeling science as a whole, a separate direction or section, as well as the difficulties in using statistical methods. I guess that:

• for the development of science and its qualitative forecasting, constant monitoring of scientific criteria and the concept of scientific argumentation and their development is necessary;

• it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the concept of an object as a subject of research has become much more vague in some areas;

• for a scientific explanation of some experimentally discovered phenomena, there is a need to create a new, more complex picture of the world. This picture of the world should be based on new meanings, so far poorly embodied, and not only in terms, but also in concepts.

I. A. Birich (Russia) and O. V. Shlykova (Russia) took part in the discussion regarding the last position. In their opinion: "there are no new meanings, because the efforts of the natural and human sciences are separated, there are no cultural values in the created scientific projects."

Jonathan Tennenbaum (Germany): “People's thinking will change. They will study not objects, but processes, because life is a process. The language of scientific argumentation will change, which will attract student youth to science and science will acquire a mass character, phenomenology will be studied, and the scientific elite will be engaged in theory.”

Rovenskaya E.A. (Austria/Russia): “The current situation in science creates systemic preconditions for a crisis of confidence in science. Giving a lot of weight to scientometrics, quantitative (for example, the number of published articles or the number of citations) and formal (for example, the impact factor of a journal) indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity leads to the fact that scientists are interested in publishing a large number of original papers, but not in checking and rechecking already put forward hypotheses and facts. Since scientific activity is carried out by people, they can make mistakes, especially where the research relies on a complex experiment or complex computer code. A very small inaccuracy can lead to very different results, and it is often almost impossible for an outside expert - for example, a reviewer of an article or its reader - to notice such an inaccuracy. In addition, many results and conclusions used in applied areas, for example, for decision making in economics, are based on a number of assumptions. Checking the robustness of the results used and conclusions to the selected assumptions is a thankless task from the point of view of the formal criteria for the success of scientists currently practicing, especially if, as a result of such a check, the results and conclusions turn out to be robust. As a result of this, at present, the volume of scientific knowledge is actively expanding in all disciplines, however, it is not known how much of this knowledge contains errors, inaccuracies and misinterpretations. Thus, the development of science is more and more like building a castle in the sand.

Kochurov B.I., Chernaya V.V. (Russia): “I will dwell on the forecast of my science - geography, which includes natural and socio-economic parts. It has come a long way: from the description of nature, economy, population on the territory of the Earth to complex natural and economic systems (geo-eco-sociosystems). In the future, this science is about the effectiveness of the functioning of geo-eco-sociosystems. Predicting the future of geography is based on evolutionary and systemic approaches, modeling and using the fractal method. Of the problems of forecasting in geography, one can distinguish: the creation of a system model of a geoeco-sociosystem; identification of parameters of the geoeco-sociosystem; balance of components; fractality of components; component performance (growth at minimum cost)”.

Chernaya VV (Russia): Several specific projects for the long term were proposed. In the field of urban planning about the possibilities of landscape modeling and diagnostics of territories for these purposes.

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): In the future, “in particular, the financial and economic sphere should change. Today, it lives a parallel life and has a very weak relation to the activities of people, but should serve the ecosphere, which includes the needs of the ecology of the planet, humanity and the individual.”

2) Resources of the biosphere:

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): Let's proceed from the following definition: "Resources of the Biosphere can be called the share of its living tissues that can be withdrawn without violating the harmonious life of the Biosphere as a whole."

Kochurov B.I., Chernaya V.V. (Russia): “The use of natural resources - nature management - should be carried out along the line of increasing the efficiency of nature management. This poses a challenge to science on a global level and of great social significance. It is necessary to develop a new methodology for the development of human civilization and, on its basis, create promising technologies that provide not only a reasonable level of economic development, but also the preservation of the natural environment surrounding man. Improving the efficiency of nature management involves the development of manufacturing industries, the service sector (service industries), ecopolises, techno-ecopolises, agro-ecopolises, eco-territories, technology parks, etc.”

Leonov V.A. (Russia): In considering this problem and emerging risks, it was noted that “recent events related to the spread of coronavirus infection around the world have shown that humanity is not ready for such challenges. It is also not ready for the challenges of nature - for hurricanes and tsunamis, fires and earthquakes, meteorite falls and a number of others. And if some of these threats can be local or predictable, then climate change is a process, although predictable and rather long, but global and practically uncontested. Most climatologists agree that in the coming century we will face a serious warming of the climate caused by technogenic processes, provided that the industrial development of our society does not change the pace. Various estimates give disappointing forecasts, the consequence of which will be an inevitable rise in the level of the world ocean (according to various estimates from 0.5 m to 5 m) by the end of the 21st century. This will lead to the fact that part of the territories located at the level of the world ocean and, especially, below it, will be flooded. In Russia, serious changes will affect the Caspian lowland, which means that the most fertile territories will be flooded. The situation will be even worse in areas where permafrost prevails. The gradual thawing of frozen soils will lead to swamping of the territories, and all structures once built will begin to collapse. Territories will no longer be habitable. Such territorial deformations caused by global climate change can greatly change the forecasts and plans for the development of industry, transport, mining and food supply around the world. The struggle for territories and resources, as well as the migration of a large number of the population, especially from those states that will completely go under water, will inevitably cause military conflicts.

Some of the experts pointed to the aggravation of the ecological crisis and even the approach of an ecological catastrophe or collapse, with a sluggish reaction from managerial personnel. (B.I. Kochurov (Russia), A. Gasparini (Italy), Leonov V.A. (Russia).

3) Urban planning and resettlement:

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “The concepts of urban planning and resettlement, which played a huge positive role, have reached the limit of their development and have come into conflict with modern requirements - it is necessary to develop not territories, but a person located in any territories. A transition to urban planning is necessary, i.e. to the principles of transforming cities into biosphere-compatible and developing people:
- awareness and recognition of the unity of Man and Nature, Man is an element of Nature and the city must be integrated symbiotically into the Biosphere, which is a more complex and developed formation than human civilization;
- it is proposed to calculate a triple balance: the number of population, places to meet the needs of the population, the availability of biosphere resources; the balance is observed - development is positive, not observed - development is also there - but negative, degrading; balances for the city, system of cities, regions and countries; for the planet Earth, the triple balance has not been observed since the mid-80s of the last century.
- satisfaction of the natural rational needs of a person: life support, rest and recreation, power, mercy, gaining knowledge, creativity, connection with the Cosmos; the implementation of the above points creates a favorable environment for life;
- providing conditions for social activity: halls, clubs, etc.; this creates a comfortable living environment;
- the implementation of all the previous points creates a safe living environment.

Human needs have not changed for several thousand years, only the “style” of their satisfaction changes depending on civilization, ethnic group, surrounding nature, etc.

Kochurov B.I., Chernaya V.V. (Russia): “The future of the state is determined by the presence of cities with a high level of comfort, convenience, security, attracting people, investments and technologies. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed attitudes about the future of cities. Modern cities turned out to be not adapted to various kinds of pandemics and viral diseases, they are also increasingly vulnerable to non-communicable diseases. It is necessary to radically change the attitude to planning, improvement, architecture. It is necessary to create ecological and urban planning structures based on the ecological and urban planning balance, urban-ecological diagnostics and landscape approach, expand public spaces, green areas, introduce smart technologies and involve local communities in solving urban planning problems.”

4) The device of society:

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “Sciences about society and society itself should proceed from the understanding that the priorities of Nature are higher than the priorities of Mankind, without Nature there simply will not be a person. Accordingly, interethnic and intercivilizational conflicts should be considered not as the beginning of hostilities for global destruction, but as an opportunity for mutual recognition of different civilizations, ending either in the recognition of the rights of others, or in the exchange of traditions.

Rovenskaya E.A. (Austria/Russia): “The novel coronavirus pandemic has shown that large masses of the population in all countries do not understand how science works, what can be expected from it and what should not be expected. Pseudoscience and various forms of obscurantism find great support and interest among citizens, while what "real" scientists say is often ignored and not trusted. These phenomena demonstrate the underlying problem of low "scientific literacy" of the population, which creates great risks for the safety of society and the environment. In critical situations that require rational approaches and coordinated actions of different parts of society based on facts, misunderstanding and distrust of people in scientific knowledge and recommendations based on it can be fatal.”

Leonov V. A. (Russia): “We live in a very rapidly changing world, and the way of life familiar to many can, in a short period of time, be transformed to suit modern trends, far from being for the better. Thus, in 2016, Sberbank PJSC fired more than 400 lawyers preparing claims, due to the fact that the neural network prepares such statements much better, and in the first half of 2021 alone, 130 branches were closed in the country in order to stimulate growth digital channels for accessing financial services. And this is not our future, this is our present.”

5) Cyberspace, digitalization, artificial intelligence

Ageev A.I. (Russia): "There are no ethical standards for evaluating the work of the Internet."

Zavarukhin V.P. (Russia): "The digitalization of society is a big risk for science."

Jonathan Tennenbaum (Germany): "First of all, it is necessary to point out the fundamental difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence due to the latter's creative potential."

Shlykova O.V. (Russia): “It should be noted that: “the linear thinking of artificial intelligence is an illusion of intelligence, and therefore the excess of its functions and significance often leads to mechanistic and primitive results of the processes in which it is used.”

Kochurov B.I. (Russia): "Unfortunately, early maturing computer technologies are being introduced, not caring about the consequences."

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): "According to psychologists, the constant use of artificial intelligence leads to the stupefaction of the brain of its users."

Birich I.A. (Russia): “We must support the struggle of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the need to develop a humanitarian expertise of any technological innovations related to humans, started by Academician I.T. Frolov".

Sidelnikov Yu.V. (Russia): “It is necessary to consider the risks of losing control over the development of artificial intelligence. Moreover, not in the primitive concept of risk.

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “All this is implemented through computer programs; by definition, there is no intelligence in them, but the intelligence of the creator of the program and the intelligence of the customer of the program are embedded. Such programs should be subject to testing for "side effects", which in some cases are the main ones. It is necessary to take into account the real possibility of creating “computer slavery”, moreover, the intellect of one customer of the program will process the intellects of all free and involuntary users in its millstones and unify the intellect of children.”

Leonov V. A. (Russia): “What will happen in two or three decades? The most cautious forecasts give every reason to believe that artificial intelligence (AI) will manage public transport, in stores instead of cashiers we will be served by AI, in banks instead of tellers we will communicate with AI, instead of security officers only AI will keep order. The list can go on and, perhaps, many will agree with the opinion that life does not stand still and such decisions are only for the good. However, a logical question arises: what will happen to the army of released and unsettled workers, a significant part of which will be in adulthood and which will not be able to retrain for other specialties for various reasons? There is no answer to this question yet. The problem will affect not only our country, but almost all countries that are more or less developed in economic and technological terms. Considering that the fourth industrial revolution, focused on the complete exclusion of a person from the technological process of production of goods, is actively walking around the world, the problem of employment will have very serious consequences, since the structure of society sometimes changes faster than the technologies that support it. It is possible that the new world order will be based on social stratification into creative creators and ordinary consumers.”

6) Scope of management:

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “All modern control systems have put the world on the brink of a catastrophe, namely a biospheric catastrophe, which, unlike crises, will happen only once, indefinitely, in the coming decades, if radical measures are not taken. It is necessary to move on to Geocracy or Earth power, the control of the planet Earth by its Globe, Biosphere and humanity. This function will be implemented by the Governments. The earth is the producer and owner of all "resources", a person only redistributes them and uses them as "raw materials", for which he not only does not pay a penny, but he does not have enough intelligence to produce this very raw material. This is a transition to another economy, to the circulation of resources, once withdrawn from Nature. It is extremely important to introduce an organizational and economic system for the creation and use of innovations for all areas of activity.”

7) World order:

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “The biosphere is an absolute value for humanity, it was created by the Biosphere and a person must serve the mother's organism. People live and act in the nervous system of Planet Earth. The world order is based on the establishment of harmonious relations between humanity and Nature, on symbiotic interaction, on respect for Nature and following its deep laws, which are not yet known to everyone.

Lozansky E. (USA): “There is no doubt that the role of artificial intelligence in social development will continue to grow and in almost all areas. However, it is precisely in matters relating to the world order that its application should be approached with great caution. At present, relations between the major nuclear powers have reached a critically low level. Each side is ready to deliver an inevitable retaliatory strike against the enemy if an attack is signaled. Considering that it is impossible to completely eliminate errors even in the most advanced computer networks, it is unreasonable, from my point of view, to leave the decision on the further existence of human civilization in the hands of artificial intelligence. By the way, there are cases when it was a person who made the right decision at the last minute and canceled the action proposed by the computer, thus preventing a catastrophe.

8) Culture and education:

Shlykova O.V. (Russia): “When predicting and modeling the future of science in the context of global processes and problems, it is important to pay attention to the prospects not only of Big Science, but above all of humanitarian knowledge. What will be the culture of science and the scientist as a whole, the status of philosophy, cultural anthropology, cultural studies as a science of culture in the system of scientific knowledge. Social and humanitarian knowledge, which is the fundamental basis of science and reflects, first of all, the system of values and meanings that society shares and preaches, is being increasingly and purposefully ousted from educational programs and scientific discussions. This means that the dominant of any science should be, first of all, meanings and values: humanistic, and not rigidly focused on monetization, colonization of new territories, resources and other growing trends.

In the priority field of humanities is the future of the cultural and civilizational world that we are constructing, the fundamental values of the World are cultural norms, diversity issues that move and nourish the World, expanding its framework to a cultural and civilizational paradigm.

The human problem is acute. Man gradually becomes a historical tradition and succumbs to artificial intelligence or the perspective behind the Human mind? The humanities highlight the problem of "filling", the qualitative use of free time, which is released from a person due to the digitalization of routine processes, the reduction of the working day. Opportunities for creative self-realization in art and science are expanding not only offline, but also in a remote world - online modes. The humanities and cultural institutions are responsible for how well a person will master his free time. The place of digital humanities in the system of sciences, the cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary development of modern science, which is growing in the future. International scientific communications, cultural and educational exchange are necessary, because it is important to protect together the legacy received from previous generations, think about what values and scientific achievements constitute the “cultural core” of what we will pass on to new generations, what we can and can give to others civilizations.

Yurkevich E.V. (Russia): “Consideration of the problems of increasing culture inevitably led to a distinction between the concept of “culture” as a characteristic of civilization and the concept of “culture of communications”. Regardless of the cultural values of museums and theaters, the concept of communication culture is characterized by a person's desire to know the reaction of others to his actions. The absence of such a culture determines the outstretched legs in the subway, or carelessly manufactured parts (the latter determines the culture of production, which is a special case of the culture of communications). Teaching such a culture is not a banality, but a prime necessity.

So, an important scientific problem is the development of provisions that determine the formation of a culture of communications that unites both the culture of production and the culture of the family. Further, the creation of centers of awareness of the culture of communications is required. Such centers should be formed for children in schools and universities, but also for adults at work. An important scientific problem in education is the creation of its focus on the formation of knowledge. The information that schoolchildren and students receive is only information resources. They will become knowledge when they are structured according to their importance for those who receive these resources.

One of the most important problems facing the organizers of education is to ensure a culture of communication in educational institutions. Its presence, as a feedback, is a necessary condition for the sustainability of knowledge formation. The introduction of humanitarian disciplines into the curricula will determine the possibility of directing the management of the creation of priorities in information resources in accordance with the adopted strategy for the development of the country's economic complex. Financing the formation of knowledge is a public (not commercial) task of implementing the country's strategy. The problem of transferring education to the sphere of production is posed. The transition to a new stage of digitalization of the economy, the creation of artificial and hybrid intelligence tools is possible only with the help of specialists with creative thinking and interested in the accelerated development of new technologies in Russia. Therefore, educational institutions should become the production of such specialists as the means of production of an intellectual product.

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “Ethnic groups arose in various natural conditions, in various historical epochs and consolidated their life experience in their culture and mentality. National cultures are a "genetic cultural fund" for the future of mankind, which it is desirable to preserve for many years to come. I believe that the cultures of different countries, and even more so civilizations, often contradict each other. Practically all wars had as their formal (!) pretext precisely the difference in cultures. I personally support the formulations of O. V. Shlykova and E. V. Yurkevich, but they are very European and do not correspond to the concepts in Asia, Africa and South America.”

9) Global Science and Public Initiatives

Ilyichev V.A. (Russia): “Planet Earth is not only a place for human life, but Life itself. Man is an element of this life and his task is to preserve and develop it. Science can make recommendations by understanding the depth of the problems at hand. In the absence of real ideas about the foundations of Life, ignorance dressed in scientific camouflage can lead to a situation where the possible horizon for predicting the future will be halved from 80 years.

Kochurov B. M. (Russia): “Academician N. Moiseev called for cooperation between scientists and politicians when he wrote about the need for co-evolution of nature and society after his study of the state of the biosphere as a result of a nuclear strike. Co-evolution is, first of all, a complete rejection of wars, including in the activities of scientists.”

Lozansky E. (USA): “It is necessary to build bridges between US and Russian scientists. Thus, there is an International Center for Public Diplomacy at MEPhI.”

Question 2: What is required from scientists for science to act as a driver of positive change?

Here are some of the positions of experts on this issue:

Zavarukhin V.P. (Russia): “We need to work on the future image of science”

Tennenbaum J. (Germany), Birich I. A. (Russia): “This image will arise as a result of a new breakthrough in fundamental physics, which has not happened for 100 years and which will definitely be in the next 30-50 years.”

Rovenskaya E. (Austria, Russia): “We need to take care of the validity of scientific knowledge, we need to check the results of each other’s scientists, and not trust this process to AI programs”

Sidelnikov Y. V. (Russia): “The picture of the world is changing, and therefore new meanings of scientific activity are needed”

Matthew J. (Canada): “The geniuses of ancient thought broke patterns, they were simultaneously representatives of philosophy, science and art. Doesn’t this dictate today the need to develop a universal language of understanding in the dialogue of different sciences and different cultures?”

Tennenbaum J. (Germany): "As a physicist and pianist, I see very well the connection between science and culture. Harmony is needed in the inner and outer world of a scientist, which is associated with his systemic thinking and purposefulness in development - all this brings happiness to a person."

Kochurov B. I. (Russia): “Culture in science is, first of all, the responsibility of a scientist for his activity. The bigger the scientist as a person, the stronger his responsibility. Let's raise the Vernadskys".

Ilyichev V. A. (Russia): “It is necessary to distinguish well today knowledge, consciousness and awareness as functions of scientific activity. There are many of the former, but few of the latter, otherwise we would have understood long ago that the biosphere is the living substance of the planet, which originated along with it. Nature is alive, but the galaxy? The flow of information in a biota is 20 times more powerful than in any AI.”

The discussion of this issue was briefly summarized by A. I. Ageev (Russia): “The development of a new worldview and a new picture of the world should become such a driver of positive changes. The meaning of life concerns not only the individual, but the entire social environment, including the scientific one: I see this as the need for an ecological and humanistic understanding of the scientific activities of scientists around the world.

Question 4: What are the most important problems facing science?

During the discussion of this issue, the following aspects were touched upon:

Stefanovsky D.V. (Russia): “Fundamental sciences, and the applied sciences that follow from it, are poorly provided technologically today.”

Yurkevich E.V. (Russia): “Now the academic system is fading, since the managers of the Russian Academy of Sciences are not scientists themselves. There are no leaders. The economics of science was born artificially, on a desk with the help of mathematics, and not in real laboratories.

Birich I. A. (Russia): “It is necessary to understand that Vernadsky’s theory of the noosphere is a scientific development of the philosophy of Russian cosmism, which was also formed by his contemporaries from N. Fedorov to A. Chizhevsky and P. Florensky, with whom he was in correspondence . Today, this theory of Vernadsky is not supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences, it has signs of metaphysics, but if we talk about the worldview of the future, then it will be Vernadsky's teaching about the noosphere with all its secrets, the disclosure of which will help humanity stop destroying life on the planet and start a new axial time for the development of civilization. Sphere of Mind (noosphere): this concept combines scientific ideas about the 8th shell of the Earth and humanitarian ones, since we are talking about the development of the human mind. The peculiarity of this mind is in its ethical content, adherence to universal human values, concentrating around the idea of protecting Life in the Universe (development of the Anthropic principle). With the adoption of the noospheric worldview, the countdown of the new Axial Time begins, since this worldview is based on the new abilities of the mind for synergistic thinking, synchronizing the work of the left and right hemispheres.

Ageev A.I. (Russia): “Science has ceased to be a subject of independent activity. IN AND. Vernadsky raised the banner of science to the planetary level, but we dropped it, science today is not in demand as actively as it was 30 years ago. Clogged with petty topics, there is an inventory and commercialization of science. There are no criteria for expert management decisions that are passed on to AI. At present, the characteristics of the noospheric paradigm of the development of science and other new paradigms - Green Cosmonautics, Semantic Universe, Living Earth, Co-evolution, Sustainable Development - have been formed.

Results of the Expert Foresight session:

1. Results of the discussion:

- As a result of the discussion in the format of "brainstorming", 9 groups of risks and opportunities for the development of science in the period up to 2050 and 2100 were identified, an analysis of their current state was made;
- Identified challenges to the criteria of scientificity in the XXI century - objectivity, objectivity, evidence;
- The factors of transformation of "quasi-sciences" into science, blurring of the boundaries of science itself and the growth of people's involvement in scientific activities, transformation of the focus of science from objects to processes, fields, waves, complex entities were assessed;
- Particular attention was paid to culture, the meanings of science and life in general.

2. Conclusions are drawn and a number of constructive proposals are made:

- The holding of this session of experts was very relevant, including for the youth forum;
- Science has ceased to be a subject of independent activity.
- It is necessary to build bridges between US and Russian scientists (there is an International Center for Public Diplomacy at MEPhI).
- It is necessary to involve students in international cooperation in the field of culture.
- For the future, for a more thorough analysis of the results of the expert session and their use by the participants of the youth forum, it is necessary to postpone the session to the beginning of the Forum.
- It is supposed to issue the materials of the conducted session:
- provide the results of the session to the relevant structure of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to the website of the Center for Modeling the Future and to the participants of the youth forum.