Latvian Academy of Sciences president Ivars Kalviņš: Latvia is suffering from reform diarrhea

"There is really no highly effective drug against Covid-19. And the few remedies that have been found to be sufficiently effective have been purchased by the state in minimal quantities, because, after all, we are the "success story"," ironizes academician Ivars Kalviņš, head of the laboratory of the Institute of Organic Synthesis, who was elected president of the Latvian Academy of Sciences on October 8. Today we talk about the role and place of science in Latvia, the cynicism of the ruling circles and the reluctance to invest in science, as well as about the course of the Covid-19 in our country.

You have been elected President of the Latvian Academy of Sciences (LAS). Will you leave the Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis (LIOS)?

I won't. I will continue my scientific work anyway. For a long time I have worked using my head, rather than my hands, and you can also think outside the office. Most importantly, the institute has access to scientific literature.

How did it feel when you realized - I have been elected?

Frankly, I have never coveted this position, I had offers to run in the presidential elections of the Academy three terms ago... But at that time I was elected the director of LIOS, so I realized that there I can give more to science than by working at the LAS. Scientific research institutes have the necessary base for conducting research, while the academy has been deprived of it. Consequently, the academy was transformed from an active research institution into an institution of analytical expertise.

Unfortunately, the Academy's cooperation with the legislature and the executive branch has so far failed, although that was the aim. Some authorities still feel that they have not fallen low enough to start listening to scientists. No, we are not preachers of absolute truth, but scientists have a special approach to exploring questions: we think first, only then we act. Not the other way around.How many years have we been talking about the potential of scientists not being used and science not being properly funded?

This has been happening all throughout the period of restored independence. But I would rather not say that science is not funded. Science does not need to be funded! Science needs to be invested in. We all fund, for example, public administration. But we need to invest in science to create knowledge. The next step is to follow the innovations that turn this knowledge into money. Unfortunately, this stage is the weakest for us, due to systemic errors. If a scientist is judged by how many times he is quoted and how many publications he has, then he is forced to create only knowledge. But products and technologies should be created from knowledge. But this is not the case, because in the public sector the state does not promote or stimulate this process, which is called innovation.

Why has nothing changed in this absurdity for thirty years?

Because the Ministries of Economy, Finance, and Education and Science, on whom it depends whether and to what extent investments in science will be made, have never been under the control of a single party. Each party polishes its ministry and tries pulling the bag of funding over to its side. But the whole thing started when Andris Piebalgs was the Minister of Education - he did more harm to Latvia than we can imagine, because the easiest way to destroy the country's independence is by lowering the quality of education. And this was done by Piebalgs, by ending the need for the general education of children.

But now exactly the same thing is happening - instead of general, classic education, some kind of “competence education” is offered.

It is also difficult for me to understand. I browsed a science textbook. The kind of jumble that is there is hardly conducive to learning chemistry... Such a textbook can really invoke loathing because the student does not understand anything there. Inorganic chemistry is mixed with organic, terms are not explained, regularities are not clear. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that Latvia suffers from reform diarrhea. It seems that the goal of every new minister is to come up with a new reform. But what do you want to achieve with those reforms? And why change what works perfectly? The basis of the problem is that if we do not invest in educators, from pre-school institutions to university teachers, nothing will change for the better. But for reasons unknown, it is not the investments that are happening, but some kind of reforms! And now I hear that The Institute of Organic Synthesis needs to be reformed or merged.

Merged with what?

Well, with something!

An art academy, for example?

Maybe not quite that crazy, but, for example, maybe Riga Stradiņš University (RSU). Then there will be fewer institutions. It will be easier for officials. But who will win? When the strongest wanted to unite - this was not allowed, but merging the weakest was stimulated - then there would be a smaller number of the weaklings... If a high-level research institute is added to a university that is not so strong in this field the university's performance will rise in the short term until the efficiency of the institute declines. So what is important to us? Only the ratings?

Who invented it? Ministry of Education and Science?

Yes, this trend is created by this ministry. But at one time there was an proposal in Latvia to establish research centers of national significance, and research equipment was purchased in a coordinated manner. However, no funding was provided for the centers, and the good idea remained halfway finished. And the current reform plans once again introduce instability and uncertainty in scientific institutions.

As president of LAS, do you hope to change anything in this pointless mess?

I am not a man of hope. My task is to act. Analyzing the system, we have realized what is not working or working poorly in it, and the National Development Plan 2020, if we look at it in the context of education, science and innovation, has majorly failed, because we have not come close to any of the goals. We believe that scientists need to leave the comfort zone and work directly with industry to create innovation. However, the country does not have the necessary innovation infrastructure or material and technical base for these purposes! At one time, we failed to persuade ministries to invest at least part of the European Union's previous financial allocations in creating an innovation ecosystem in the country. It was clearly stated that the Ministry of Economics will deal with innovations, and it will be an observer (!), who will wait for an innovation to appear in the private sector, which it will be able to support... Not to guide and stimulate, but to wait when something happens somewhere. But in order for scientific developments to be transformed into products and technologies, Latvia must create its own Silicon Valley based on the LAS. Once the Academy of Sciences had its own experimental factories and design offices, now no one has any of it. We do not have an innovation infrastructure in either the public or the commercial sector. There are no design offices, no diagnostic laboratories, no certification centers... We have a small economy, and in small countries, the science innovation infrastructure can only be set up by the state, and it must be aligned with the country's priorities. But these directions must be scientifically sound. According to EU officials, 37% of the money should go to the green - climate-improving - economy. Go on - bioeconomy, bioenergy, biopharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, etc. - this could be one of the innovation clusters *. The second is digitization: computer science, programming, artificial intelligence. The third - robotization, automation, that is, everything that helps to increase productivity.

Have you already talked about this with any of our state institutions?

Yes. We have sent a letter to the President, the Prime Minister, the Ministers of Education, Economy and Finance, we have talked to the National Bank, the Employers' Confederation, etc. But - to finance it all, the Latvian state must comply with the Saeima's 2019 decision, which envisaged the establishment of an innovation support fund.

And this, of course, has not been created.

Naturally not. I repeat: scientists, together with entrepreneurs, need to transform knowledge into product. But then the knowledge assessment system needs to be changed, because knowledge transfer is one of the most important components without which the industry cannot develop. There are too few qualified, future-oriented engineers in our country. How, then, will we implement the National Development Plan 2027? It requires that 52% of scientists will have to work in industry. On the other hand, there are restrictions: if a scientific institution earns more than 40% in cooperation with industry, then the institution will no longer receive public support, because then, it turns out, the scientific institution will become a commercial company! The number of doctors trained is falling every year, and 15% of all our scientists are already working abroad, mostly young people. This means that we have invested money to stimulate research and innovation in other countries. Therefore, our goal: to establish the Academy of Sciences as the Silicon Valley of Latvia, as the center of the brain, formulating the directions in which the Innovation Fund must invest funds. There is no innovation infrastructure here yet, but it needs to be created. If we create it, we will be able to attract dozens of innovative entrepreneurs. There are not many of us, and in many directions our competence has unfortunately already been lost, so we must literally pull innovative entrepreneurs with their ideas here to Latvia, finance them from the innovation fund, so that innovation plants can be created in Latvia.

Okay, let's return to the contribution of Latvian scientists...

Data from 2018 - 2257 publications in good journals, 12 inventions with the participation of scientists residing in Latvia. What exactly will the Latvian economy get from all this? Some published article collections? Once an idea is published, it is free for innovative foreign business. There are different patenting systems in America and Europe: in Europe you will never be able to patent what has already been published, while in America you can patent as your invention what someone else, for example from Latvia, has published - if, using a foreign idea, a commercially successful product is created.

Why do we have such stupid laws?

Because we are harmonizing with Europe. But the leader in innovation is Sweden. There, for public money, Professor X creates an invention, patents it in his own name and also develops it into a product or licenses it to an entrepreneur. This is called professor privilege. You will ask: what good is it - for public money a professor creates an invention and reaps the benefits for himself? But the professor will bend over backwards so that his invention can find application and someone can start producing it. As soon as someone starts producing it, employment increases, taxes start to come, the gross national product grows. Funding invested in science is being returned to the country. Everything is in the system! If we want to harvest the crop in the fall, we must sow it in the spring. But to sow, you need to plow the land. And investments are needed for the tractor and the farmer. And fertilizer must also be bought. We are told that the key is the organization and management of work, not investment. The task of the state is to judge who is harvesting better! But it turns out that there is nothing to harvest now... Well, fine, then at least let's hire consultants to teach you how to better harvest.

Everything is the other way around. Just like with our main obsession - Covid-19.

I already told you in the spring: Covid-19 in Latvia will end around Midsummer, and there will be no second wave. But only if we do not import it. What's happening now? Now there are no cases in Latvia when the disease is currently caused by the domestic virus, that is, one that is left over from pre-Midsummer viruses. We opened our borders, but did absolutely nothing to prevent the Covid-19 from returning to Latvia. We were just happy about our "success story", which now threatens to turn into an evil nightmare. At the moment, we should not look at those countries that are still doing worse than ours, but at those that are doing better. For example, in Taiwan, which has a population of more than 23.8 million and some 530 cases of infection throughout this pandemic, the death toll is 0.3 per million. Why? Because they control their borders. Everyone is tested, and if someone is infected, they are sent to a quarantine hotel or home if they live alone and can isolate themselves. They must stay there until they are healthy. But what do we do? Shut down the economy and borrow billions again? Do we have to become Europe's hardest hit country to receive another billion?

Apparently this is the real goal... Many more are interested - if we are talking about Covid-19 - how can a disease be asymptomatic?

A distinction must be made between illness (getting sick) and infection. Infected people are not always sick. But they are mostly capable of transmitting the infection. Consequently, an infected person must be subject to the same quarantine as a sick person.

So there are no asymptomatic diseases... And there is no cure for Covid-19?

There is really no highly effective drug against Covid-19. And the few remedies that have been found to be sufficiently effective have been purchased by the state in minimal quantities, because, after all, we are the "success story"! In addition, the legitimacy of the saliva test is still being denied, as somewhere in Brussels an official has not yet issued an order on it. But on September 20, New England Medicine published an article with clear evidence that the method used to detect the virus by taking samples from the nasal and cervical mucosa was less accurate than the method by taking a patient's saliva.

So we need to wait for a Covid-19 vaccine?

There are already more than 270 different variations of Covid-19 virus. This means that if a person is vaccinated against any of them, there is no 100% confidence that the vaccine will work against all its variations. And while studying the effect of the vaccine, the virus will "make" another 270 variations... This process is endless because it is an RNA virus, and in this case, errors in reading the viral genome are much more common than in the case of DNA viruses. That is why we are failing in the fight against RNA viruses, including influenza, not to mention HIV and others. Vaccines and drugs that kill viruses can partially limit the disease by using a single mechanism by which all coronaviruses enter the cell. If this mechanism is blocked, the virus will not enter the body. And you can't ask scientists to name ways to do this after the virus has broken out for half a year.

Then all that remains is to strengthen immunity?

We now clearly know that overstimulated immunity or overstimulated inflammatory response to the virus - in cases where the course of the disease is severe or moderate, is not a positive, but a negative factor. Therefore, the patient should be given immune control agents that suppress inflammation. If the inflammation is suppressed, then the person survives. If not, then they die. If the virus has entered a cell, the body destroys the cell.

The immune system fights the virus that has entered the cell so much that the body "eats" itself?

Unfortunately, it seems that way.

* Cluster - geographical concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, companies in related industries and related institutions (universities, agencies, trade associations, etc.). Within this geographical concentration, the clusters cooperate despite competition from each other (Michael Porter, Professor at Harvard University)