The AKIpress correspondent met with the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Kanat Abdrakhmatov, to discuss what changes the new version of the law brings.
- The adoption of the new version of the law on the National Academy of Sciences in 2025. What changes has this brought to the work of the academy?
- At the moment, we have not yet felt the changes ourselves. This is because the law was adopted in July of last year.
After that, it was necessary to develop subordinate legislation, one of which was the charter of the Academy of Sciences. Without its approval, we could not start working. We waited a long time for it, as coordinating the document with various ministries, primarily the Ministry of Science and New Technologies and the Ministry of Justice, took a lot of time. There were significant comments, and the charter was sent back for revision several times; in some instances, we disagreed and sent it back.
As a result, these discussions took almost six months, and finally, last week, the charter was published; it will come into effect 15 days after publication. Now we expect about 10 more days, after which we can start working under the new charter.
The new charter indeed expands the functions of the Academy of Sciences. One of the key changes is the restoration of the vertical management structure: previously, the president of the Academy was elected at a general meeting, but now he will be appointed by the president of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Another important change concerns the appointment of heads of scientific institutes. Previously, they were elected by the collectives for a five-year term, but now I, as the president of the National Academy of Sciences, have the right to appoint directors of departments and institutes. In my opinion, this will significantly increase the level of accountability: if someone is not fulfilling their duties, they can be dismissed, which was not possible before.
Additionally, the age limit for electing academicians and corresponding members has changed. Previously, there were age restrictions, and we proposed setting a limit of 70 years to ensure the rejuvenation of the Academy. However, our founder, the Cabinet of Ministers, opposed this, and the age limit was abolished. Now anyone can nominate themselves, and the community of academicians and corresponding members will make the decisions.
The procedure for electing academicians and corresponding members has also changed. In 2021, the elections were held with violations, which caused dissatisfaction among part of the scientific community. Previously, elections were held at the level of departments, but now they will take place once at the general meeting of the Academy of Sciences. This, according to the founder, should reduce corruption risks.
Another important point: the Academy of Sciences now has the right to use funds received from renting its premises and land. Previously, this money was transferred to the State Property Fund, which created many difficulties. Now the situation has improved.
We have renovated our building. If you were here a few years ago, you could see the condition of the premises. Now the conditions have significantly improved, and we can adequately receive guests and hold events.
- Does this mean that with the entry into force of the charter, reforms will begin in the Academy of Sciences?
- Yes.
- Could this lead to a complete change of leadership?
- Yes.
- Are there already any decisions regarding this? Will you resign, or will this be decided by the president?
- I believe that the decision should be made by the president.
- Have you had a meeting with the president?
- No, there has been no meeting with the president. In general, I am not in a waiting mode. If I am invited and told: “Kanat Ermekovich, the new law has come into effect, thank you for your work,” I will calmly return to the Institute of Seismology and continue dealing with seismic threats, which I have done all my life.
- How many institutes are currently part of the Academy of Sciences?
- 19.
- Many do not quite understand what the Academy of Sciences does. For example, I read your publications on social media, where you often mention that decisions in various ministries are made without scientific justification.
- I think that the Academy of Sciences has not been treated very well for a long time, as for the last 30-33 years, it has been given attention on a residual basis.
An example can be the first president of Kyrgyzstan, who previously headed the Academy of Sciences. After becoming president of the country, he did not visit the academy even once in 15 years and did not adopt any laws aimed at strengthening it, although, as an academician, he was well aware of the existing problems.
After that, the attitude towards the Academy of Sciences only worsened. We found ourselves in a situation where we neither develop nor close down. Perhaps some people found it beneficial for the Academy of Sciences to disappear over time, and the building could be used for other purposes.
The situation changed with the arrival of Sadyr Nurgozhoevich. Unlike his predecessors, during his presidency, he visited the Academy of Sciences five times. This speaks to his attention to science.
With his support, salaries have been raised, which had not increased for many years, and for the first time in decades, a major renovation was carried out. All this indicates that we are on the brink of serious changes. I hope for this very much.
- How will scientific work change?
- In China, from 1996 to 2020, investment in science increased by 3299%, making China a leader in several areas. These are colossal investments, although, of course, there are other factors as well.
The Academy of Sciences and science in Kyrgyzstan currently receive about 0.05% of the gross domestic product. Compare: 3299% and 0.05% — what can we talk about? It’s good that we even exist.
- Will funding increase?
- This is a difficult question. It is gradually increasing. Today's off-site meeting of the Jogorku Kenesh committee was dedicated to issues of state orders.
In addition to the main scientific topics, we were allocated additional funds. In 2023, 300 million soms were allocated for projects that are expected to be beneficial to the national economy. We discussed what has been done with these funds.
In 2025, we were additionally allocated another 110 million soms. We are working on them as well. But if you convert this amount into dollars, it’s practically pocket change. For comparison: in 1997, I was in the USA, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). At that time, its annual budget was about 6 billion dollars — for one institute. Now, probably, it’s already 60 billion dollars, so many years have passed.
- What kind of state orders are there?
- I believe that the state order is currently being formed incorrectly. In my understanding, it is when the state comes and says: “We need new medicines, developments in biotechnology. Can you take this on? We allocate a billion soms for this.”
We discuss internally whether we can fulfill such an order, involve other institutes, create a temporary scientific team, and say: “Yes, we will do this in 3 years.” The state evaluates the composition of the team and makes a decision.
Now, however, the state order is formed differently. We ourselves propose topics that we believe will be useful to the state and send them to the government. There, they choose some of the proposals and allocate funding for them. This is essentially additional funding for work to be done over 3-5 years.
At the same time, there is often a demand for science to provide immediate effects for the economy. But academic science is fundamental science. The results of fundamental research typically manifest not immediately, but after 5, 10, 20, or sometimes even 30 years.
For example, the discovery of the structure of the atom. At that time, many asked: “What is its benefit?” Later, atomic power plants, nuclear icebreakers, and nuclear energy appeared.
Unfortunately, we often approach science with a business logic: “We will give you a million, and you will return one and a half next year.” But that is not how science functions.
Nevertheless, we have projects that can yield practical results within 3-5 years. For example, at the Institute of Geology, technologies have been developed that use local minerals to create reagents capable of significantly increasing the yield of agricultural crops. These resources are located in Kyrgyzstan but are not yet being used.
We are ready to show where these ores are and what effect they can bring. But for this, we need either state investments or interested businesses.
There are also institutes where the result cannot be measured in money. For example, the Institute of Language or the Aitmatov Institute. Their contribution lies in preserving language, culture, and spiritual values. This cannot be assessed in soms.
Because of this, there is a dismissive attitude towards the Academy of Sciences from people who are used to measuring everything solely by financial returns.
- Have relations with the ministries improved?
- Yes, undoubtedly. We closely cooperate with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and other agencies.
However, we understand that the state cannot allocate large funds for science. Therefore, we are increasingly focusing on international cooperation, joint projects with developed countries, and internships for young scientists. This is the only way to reduce the gap.
Modern research requires expensive equipment. For example, microscopes for nanotechnology cost 200-300 thousand dollars. We do not have such funds.
We are forced to work under conditions of extremely limited funding. We are ashamed that we lag behind global science. The main reason is low salaries. Young people simply do not go into science. For example, last year, the average salary in the Academy of Sciences was about 13 thousand soms.
- And how much did young employees earn?
- A young employee who just joined earned 8 thousand soms. A cleaner tells me: “I work in a cafe and earn 25 thousand soms.” She goes there for two hours, cleans up. And I, having gone through 17 years of education, earn less.
This attitude towards scientific activity is a consequence of the undervaluation of the work of specialists.
- How are we doing with forecasting? Given global warming, this is an important issue that is being addressed at the state level. Does the Academy of Sciences have any forecasts or solutions?
- We have the Institute of Water Problems and Hydropower, which seriously deals with these issues, especially water problems and glacier reduction. Our water heavily depends on the state of glaciers.
The forecasts are alarming. If the average temperature worldwide has increased by 1.5 degrees due to global warming, then here it has risen by 2-3 degrees. If this continues, in 30 years, glaciers may completely disappear in some areas.
No one knows how to preserve glaciers. There are proposals, for example, to cover them with something, but even if we assume that, we have about 6 thousand glaciers — this will not be enough in terms of money or resources. But we must be prepared for the consequences already now.
Recently, the issue of Issyk-Kul was raised — this is a very important topic. The lake is shrinking in size and suffering from severe pollution. With the increasing anthropogenic load, blue-green algae are actively growing there. At the same time, there are only a few places with treatment facilities, and all waste goes into Issyk-Kul.
Issyk-Kul is a closed lake. Previously, about 88 rivers flowed into it, now about 35, and no river flows out of it. All the water entering the lake is processed or settles as waste.
If the situation does not change, in a few decades we may face a terrible picture: a stinking lake where swimming is impossible and there will be no fish. They say it may dry up — that’s not true. But its condition may become catastrophic.
There is a concept called ecological capacity. When they say: “Last year there were 3 million tourists — great!” But how much can Issyk-Kul withstand? We must know these numbers to timely say: “That’s it, the limit.”
We understand that people need to earn money; this contributes to the budget, but Issyk-Kul is Issyk-Kul. For example, from the end of August, we could stop accepting anyone. But we have no such practice: they say “Hooray, let’s have more winter sports.”
I am for this, but everything should be based on factual data: ecological capacity, the presence of treatment facilities, water purification, and, ultimately, the availability of water itself.
I myself am from Issyk-Kul; I remember crossing the full-flowing rivers in my childhood. Now many rivers have dried up, and the glaciers that fed them have disappeared.
This problem must be addressed at the state level. A strict program is needed. We have a biosphere territory in Issyk-Kul. Do you know how many people work there? They say only five people.
Previously, it was forbidden to park cars near the water in the biosphere territory. But now temporary boarding houses have been built in the south. They say: “This is temporary.” But there are already 30 houses. Where do the waste go?
The law on the biosphere territory is not being enforced. Until there is strict state regulation, this mess will continue. The system must work by itself, like clockwork — large and small gears must work together.
- What was decided at the meeting of the committee of the Jogorku Kenesh?
- Several protocol instructions were given to the ministries at the meeting. It was discussed that other ministries should cooperate more actively with the Academy of Sciences so that our proposals and projects are given more attention.
We had questions for the Ministry of Finance — you heard about this. And the Ministry of Finance also received instructions to pay more attention to the requests of the Academy of Sciences.
These are the decisions. I cannot say that someone was specifically instructed. As always, everything is quite vague.
