Can the National System of Reseachers Save Ukrainian Science?

In the Soviet hierarchy of professions, scientists were in a privileged position. For example, at the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, a Candidate of Sciences earned 300 rubles, while a Doctor of Sciences earned 500 rubles, compared to a national average of 150 rubles. Being a scientist was prestigious because the state allocated substantial funding for research and generously honored scientists with state awards and prizes. Science, in turn, repaid this support with advanced technologies and breakthrough ideas. For instance, thanks to S. P. Koroliov and M. K. Yanhel, the USSR went into space; V. M. Hlushkov and his colleagues developed unique data-processing algorithms; and O. K. Antonov sent aloft the world’s largest transport aircraft, a record it still holds.

After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine inherited one of the largest research systems in Europe. In 1996, Ukraine had 2,856 researchers per million people, a figure comparable to those of France (2,669) and Germany (2,831). By 2021, Ukraine had only 774 researchers per one million inhabitants (other estimates are closer to 1,000 — see Figure 1), compared with more than 5,500 in France and Germany.

Due to the country’s economic difficulties and the transformation of its economy, funding for science as a percentage of GDP declined (Figure 2). The substantial reduction in funding (from 0.75% of GDP in 2010 to 0.4% in 2021) led to the closure of a number of research institutions (Figure 3) and to a decline in the prestige of scientific work.

For example, according to the Ukrainian Chemists Union, in 1991 the country’s chemical industry had 42 scientific institutions, whereas today the sector has only six institutions of various profiles and specializations. In other words, in the chemical industry — a fairly complex sector with 37 subsectors and roughly 3,800 economically active enterprises — only a few industry-specific institutes remain. They have survived and, even under extremely difficult conditions, continue to maintain their research position and work on competitive developments.

Young people are not entering science because of low salaries and low social status of researchers. It is therefore not surprising that the scientific community is gradually “aging” (Figure 4). Today, the largest age group of researchers are over 65; in 2020, they accounted for one-fifth of all scientists. Around 40% of researchers are over 55 years old. Although the largest share of researchers (51% in 2020) falls within the 30-50 age range, the declining proportion of young researchers is a troubling trend. While damaged or destroyed research infrastructure can be rebuilt, restoring human capital requires decades of training and the demanding professional preparation of scientific and academic staff.

With a base salary of UAH 13,034 for a senior researcher at the National Academy of Sciences in 2025, the situation could hardly be different. According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, in 2025, wages in the “scientific research and development” sector were slightly below the national average — UAH 22,692 compared to UAH 23,460. The full-scale invasion worsened the situation: according to a survey of nearly 3,000 researchers, more than 80% reported a deterioration in their financial situation, and 30% stated that funding for their research had been discontinued.

In its 2024 report, Analysis of War Damage to the Ukrainian Science Sector and Its Consequences, UNESCO states that as a result of Russia’s aggression, 6.3% (5.5 thousand) of Ukrainian researchers were forced to emigrate to other countries, and 5.5% (4.9 thousand) became internally displaced persons, while around 30% of all researchers have been forced to work remotely. The structure of research funding has also changed: before the full-scale invasion, foreign sources accounted for up to a quarter of total financing (Figure 5), whereas in 2022–2024 this share did not exceed 16%, likely due to the emigration of researchers and the discontinuation of funding for some projects. Since 2022, the international community has provided support to Ukrainian scientists through fellowships and various exchange programs; however, this support is a temporary measure, as most of these programs are not designed for extended periods of time.

The alarming changes in the human capital base of Ukrainian science urgently require government intervention to preserve — and possibly strengthen — the country’s scientific sector. The Ministry of Education and Science recognizes this trend and attempts to reverse it. Recently, the ministry prepared the Concept for Supporting and Developing Human Capital in the Field of Scientific and Technological Activity (“National System of Researchers of Ukraine” — NSR-Ukraine), which is “aimed at identifying, recognizing, supporting, and promoting the best Ukrainian researchers and academic staff who have achieved outstanding results in scientific and technological activity, have made a significant contribution to the development of the country’s science, and at providing them with further individual financial support.” The government approved this concept on 2 December 2025.

In its introductory section, the Concept correctly identifies the main problems of Ukraine’s scientific sphere and highlights the need to resolve them. However, it then turns to the ranking-based evaluation of individual researchers’ achievements, with the possibility of subsequently providing them with additional funding and public recognition.

According to the minutes of Concept discussion, in 2025–2026, an additional monthly financial stipend of about UAH 9,000 will be available to 1,700 individuals (as of the end of 2024, the total number of researchers was 42,700). However, first, it is unclear what will happen with the rest of the research community. And second, raising salaries alone is not enough, because productive scientific work requires modern equipment, access to databases, colleagues’ research results, and more.

At the same time, the set of indicators for ranking researchers essentially replicates the indicators used in the state attestation of research institutions. However, indicators designed for institutions cannot always be applied to individual researchers. For example, grant projects are usually implemented by institutions or research teams. Therefore, the proposed evaluation model does not account for the synergy that arises within a team of researchers, nor for the differences in access to equipment and other conditions necessary for productive work.

Publication activity (another factor proposed in the Concept evaluation system) can vary significantly depending on the field (in “complex” fields, it will naturally be lower), as well as on the length of a researcher’s career and their position. Thus, senior scholars generally have better publication records, partly due to opportunities for co-authorship and longer professional experience. 

In addition, past achievements are an imperfect predictor of a researcher’s ability to implement research today or in the future, especially when the work is collective.

In 2019, the Lviv City Council launched the “Lviv Researchers System” (LRS), under which it allocated annual stipends of UAH 72,000–120,000 to 62 researchers. Participants were selected according to 17 criteria similar to those proposed in the draft Concept of the National System of Researchers. These criteria included not only the number of publications and citations, but also the number of patents, participation in Ukrainian and international grant programs, involvement in conferences and expert groups, supervision of young researchers, and other factors. A similar comprehensive approach to evaluating researchers — including the factor of “contribution to society” — is proposed by the consortium of European research universities. At the same time, the consortium advises against relying only on quantitative indicators. It suggests to complement them by qualitative assessments of researchers’ work by qualified experts. The LRS program was likely discontinued, and we were unable to find assessments of its impact — that is, whether the scientific productivity of its participants increased.

A similar approach to supporting researchers at the national level was introduced in Mexico, where the National System of Researchers (NSR) has been operating since the mid-1980s. Its creation was a response to the mass emigration of scientists from the country, primarily to the United States (Pauro et al. 2016). However, because overall funding for science remained lowl, this program — as well as others introduced in parallel (for example, grants; see Sandoval-Romero and Larivière, 2020) — did not stop the outflow of researchers (Czaika, 2018). Mexican scholars generally acknowledge the positive impact of the NSR on science, but continue to debate whether it is appropriate to evaluate researchers’ contributions primarily on the basis of their publications and citations. Some researchers consider the NSR to be unfair and believe that it does not promote cooperation within the research community.

A major negative factor for the human capital of both Mexico and other Latin American countries is their proximity to the United States — a highly attractive labor market, including for researchers (around 80% of emigrants from Mexico live in the United States). Some American universities (for example, Stanford) have special programs aimed at attracting talented students and scientists from Mexico. The problem of brain drain is also acute in Argentina, driven by political, economic, and sector-specific factors (an outdated system that does not reward the best people). Although, according to official estimates, a relatively small share of researchers emigrated (5%), the departure of key scholars can lead to significant losses for research teams. Moreover, the actual level of emigration is significantly higher, as official statistics do not account for long-term stays abroad when researchers formally retain their positions Therefore, when designing programs for the development of science, it is important to consider that as Ukraine moves closer to the EU, the emigration of Ukrainian researchers is likely to increase. This is especially true for young researchers, who generally possess foreign language skills (although there are no specific data for researchers, representative surveys indicate higher levels of foreign language proficiency among younger people).

One of the stated goals of the NSR — supporting young researchers — seems to be not very well developed. Ukraine already has numerous prizes and scholarships specifically for young scientists (Candidates of Sciences under the age of 35 and Doctors of Sciences under 40). However, because some institutes have very few young researchers, these scholarships are effectively awarded to nearly all young scientists on an almost permanent basis, regardless of their abilities or actual achievements.

In our view, young researchers would be more interested in working either in the private sector or in a state institution, but in close cooperation with the private sector, allowing them not only to earn more but also to have opportunities for career growth, access to modern equipment, and a greater likelihood of seeing their research implemented in practice. However, this would require overcoming the private sector’s distrust of the quality of Ukrainian research, as well as likely providing businesses with certain fiscal incentives. For example, an OECD report on innovation support underscores the need for public investment in this area and notes that tax incentives are the most common instrument in OECD countries for those who invest in research and development. At the same time, the report also highlights the importance of conducting proper monitoring and evaluation of any R&D support programs.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Concept do not consider alternative approaches to addressing the challenges of supporting and developing science. In our view, a more promising approach would be to introduce a series of specialized scientific and technical competitions at various levels (national, regional, sectoral, etc.), with commissioning entities such as central government bodies, local authorities, private companies, and international partners.

It is essential to rapidly determine, at the Cabinet level and with the participation of experts from all key ministries and regions, the most pressing research areas oriented toward solving the most urgent problems of our country. The main difference between this proposal and that of the Ministry of Education and Science is that researchers would receive funding for concrete work within relevant projects, rather than a “rent” for well-prepared applications. In this case, funding would go not to individual researchers according to some formal criteria but to research teams with promising developments. As a result, specific problems in science, society, and the economy could be addressed, rather than simply improving the well-being of a small number of researchers. In our view, it would be preferable to have multiple channels for grant funding, rather than relying solely on the National Research Foundation of Ukraine. For example, in the United States, researchers can apply to the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and numerous other public and private funds and programs.

Of course, adopting yet another system of competitive funding for scientific projects will not solve all the problems of Ukrainian science. It is necessary to significantly increase salaries for all researchers to restore the prestige of scientific work and ensure the competitiveness of Ukrainian science, as well as to provide state support — on a competitive basis — for patenting the best scientific ideas abroad under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). At the same time, funds from local budgets can be used to address regional issues (large cities are fully capable of allocating part of their budgets to support scientific institutions or to commission research). Implementing this idea could create the preconditions for a genuine multichannel system of competitive funding for research and development, as well as for supporting research teams in Ukraine.

References

1. Payro S., Martinez G., Zuniga A.Growth challenges of the national system of researchers (SNI) of the national council of science and technology (conacyt) in Mexico. Rev. Actual. Investig. Educ. [online]. 2016, vol.16, n.2, pp.370-394.ISSN 1409-4703.
2. Sandoval-Romero, V., Larivière, V. The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences. Scientometrics 122, 99–126 (2020). 
3.  Matias Czaika High-Skilled Migration: Drivers and Policies. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2018.