"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
— Lewis Carroll, English writer, mathematician, logician, and philosopher
In this edition of his blog, Eduard Galazhinsky, Rector of Tomsk State University, reflects on how — in a national climate increasingly defined by Russia’s pivot toward technological leadership — universities must once again prove their relevance and status. The discussion touches on the major challenges now confronting higher education and TSU’s response to them.
— Professor Galazhinskiy, there’s a certain suspense in how we’re framing this conversation: we’re beginning it before TSU presents its development strategy to the Priority 2030 Council — and we’ll conclude after the defense, once the results are in. Not long ago, the terms of university participation in the Priority 2030 program were revised following a Presidential Decree outlining Russia’s national development goals through 2030 and beyond, into 2036. One of the key goals now set is technological leadership. What does that actually entail — and does it mean every university needs to go 'tech'?
— To put it simply: technological leadership means having Russian technologies and products that are truly competitive in global markets. It’s not about import substitution, or even about narrowly outpacing foreign counterparts in selected industries. It’s about building an integrated national system — where science, education, and industry function in seamless coordination.
And with technological leadership comes an entire lexicon that must be internalized when designing university development strategies: high-tech products, deep-tech innovation, the “qualified customer,” and more. That last term is especially important. The qualified customer isn’t just a buyer — they are the only ones capable of judging whether a given product or technology has genuine potential for leadership, and, crucially, they are the ones who can actually order and deploy it at scale.
Incidentally, about a year ago — right after the official release of Russia’s Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development — we did a deep dive here on the blog into all of these foundational concepts.
In today’s climate, the task facing Russian universities has fundamentally shifted. It is no longer enough to generate new knowledge and develop breakthrough technologies. Now, universities are expected to see these ideas through to application, forge lasting partnerships with leading industries, and act as engines of technological transformation. At Tomsk State University — a classical university at its core — we don’t imagine ourselves becoming purely technological. And yet, the entire framework by which universities are evaluated is now increasingly oriented toward technological output. That means we must once again redefine our role in this new context — to reinvent ourselves without betraying who we are, as Confucius might say.
What we must preserve is the essence of a classical research university: deep disciplinary foundations, academic schools, and complex modes of thinking. To some, this may seem impractical in today’s world. But we understand that without fundamental knowledge, there can be no truly innovative applied knowledge. We must also improve horizontal communication across disciplines — because, more often than not, innovation happens at the intersections. And we need to become fluent in knowledge transfer: taking new discoveries and, together with our partners, translating them into technologies and products that serve industry.
Technological leadership, at the university level, is not about occasional triumphs — however impressive they may be. It’s about long-haul systems building: creating engineering centers, embedding students and early-career researchers in real-world technology development, and forging strategic alliances with business. It means becoming more than a site for ideas — it means becoming a platform for turning those ideas into world-class products and solutions.
— How have the new national development goals for the Russian Federation affected university participation in the Priority 2030 program?
The primary metric for evaluating university strategies is now their alignment with the newly revised portfolio of national development projects — nineteen in total. These have been codified in official documents and are publicly available on the Russian government’s website. These are the initiatives that will receive targeted support fr om ministries, agencies, and funding mechanisms in the years ahead.
Interestingly, when you map TSU’s existing strategic projects — many launched under the initial phase of Priority 2030 — against the new national agenda, you’ll find they align remarkably well. That said, of the nineteen national projects, there is a subset of eight or nine that have been singled out in government policy as the pillars of “national technological leadership.” These are wh ere the bulk of resources will be invested — in the development of transformative technologies and products that Russia needs to secure its competitive future.
Another structural change is in how university rankings will now be organized. The previous “tracks” — for research, regional, or ministerial leadership — have been eliminated. There is now just one track: technological leadership. Universities will be grouped accordingly into three tiers. The top tier will include institutions whose strategies receive the highest evaluations — and, not coincidentally, the largest share of funding. The second and third groups will receive correspondingly less.
This means the criteria are clear. It’s not enough for a university to express its intent to pursue technological leadership. The Priority 2030 Council will ask: Is there a team capable of implementing the strategy? Is there a plan for talent development? Is there a framework in place to make good on the ambition? These questions account for 60% of the evaluation. The remaining 40% is based on how the university performed in the previous cycle.
There are also new performance metrics. Previously, universities were evaluated on things like the number of digital departments created, the volume of continuing education programs offered, and the number of learners served. Today, those indicators remain — but they are joined by others, such as average Unified State Exam (USE) scores for incoming students. For complex, multidisciplinary institutions like ours (“TSU is a world unto itself,” as we say), we get to choose five broad academic areas on which we’ll be assessed — but these must align with our strategic priorities. If we’re claiming leadership in chemistry and security technologies, we obviously can’t submit law programs for evaluation in that mix.
Other metrics will soon come into play as well — such as graduate employment rates and average starting salaries — which are currently being finalized by the Ministry of Labor. Some indicators are already in effect, including average salaries for academic and administrative staff.
Still, perhaps the most emblematic new metric is what’s known as the Technological Leadership Index. It includes: revenue fr om research and development; income generated through the licensing of intellectual property; and revenue from the application of that IP — all calculated per faculty member. The average revenue of university-affiliated startups is also a key figure.
Notably, scientific publications are no longer among the required indicators. But as a university that sees itself as globally competitive, we continue to monitor that metric internally — and we suspect it may return in future evaluation cycles.
As you can see, the stakes have never been higher.
— How did you feel about the fact that the new rules effectively reset the rankings, in which TSU had for years secured top positions — often placing among the top ten?
— We’re only human, after all. So yes, at first, we all felt something between disappointment and frustration. But those feelings passed quickly. As we know, even the best traditions can eventually lead to stagnation. The Olympic principle — that all previous achievements are wiped clean before the next race — is one of the strongest drivers of real progress. With this approach, every university has a chance to make it to the top. And that, frankly, is the best kind of motivation.
— But realistically, not all Russian universities are capable of offering the kind of technological projects that the updated Priority 2030 program demands — especially breakthrough innovations. Can those universities still participate?
— Of course. Some universities will submit development strategies that do not include a technology block, simply because they lack the capacity to pursue it. In contrast, at TSU we are in a position wh ere not just one or two, but dozens of projects are already moving toward technological leadership. That’s why we’ve prepared a full-scale development program.
That said, under the new rules, each university must identify no more than three major initiatives as “strategic technological projects.” And that’s the right decision. No university — not even a strong one — should be expected to take on more. These projects are extremely resource-intensive. Moreover, each university is now expected to build a technological leadership fund for these projects, backed by industry partners. Ideally, those partners become what we call “qualified customers” — the ones who both invest in and validate the technologies being developed.
— Before we get to TSU’s three strategic projects, can you tell us what the overall structure of the development strategy looks like?
— TSU’s development program through 2030 is built around four “frameworks,” each aligned with a core strategic goal: Breakthrough University, Ecosystem University, Technological Leadership, and Next-Generation Talent.
Each strategic goal is supported by its own portfolio of projects. For example, within the “Ecosystem University” portfolio, one major initiative is the Big University of Tomsk — a platform for collaboration among Tomsk’s universities and industrial partners, including the creation of a joint Technology Transfer Center.
When we talk about being an “ecosystem university,” we’re talking about a university that doesn’t go it alone. Technological leadership projects are often too complex and too large in scope to be delivered by a single institution. But it’s not just about capacity — it’s also about philosophy. We’ve outlined the core principles by which we build our ecosystem, and our revised development strategy emphasizes this: only an ecosystem university can truly deliver technological leadership.
In fact, the Ministry is already forming a pool of universities that are ready to create integrated science-industry consortia and engineering centers on their campuses.
Thus, the concept of an ecosystem university involves more than just external partnerships. It also presumes the presence — either surrounding or embedded within the university — of experimental and production infrastructure capable of supporting strategic technological projects and the institution’s broader development goals.
When we reviewed our project pipeline against the national strategy for technological leadership, we identified several dozen large-scale initiatives that align with its goals. These range fr om new materials and chemistry to technologies ensuring food security and unmanned aerial systems. The list could go on.
However, under the new rules, one crucial element has become non-negotiable: the presence of a qualified customer. Without that, alignment with the strategy is incomplete. And that’s the harder part.
After multiple discussions within TSU’s Supervisory Board and a trial pitch session hosted by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education along with the Center for Technological Leadership, we decided to narrow our focus to the following three flagship initiatives.
The first is “Human Security Technologies” — a comprehensive umbrella project that encompasses a wide range of threats: technological, environmental, and even military. This includes ecological safety, food security, and national defense.
This approach allows us to showcase a major, integrated project that draws in nearly every academic domain at TSU. In many of these domains, we already have established or clearly identified qualified customers — industrial partners we know we want to work with and are ready to approach.
One illustrative example of an innovative product aligned with the university’s focus on environmental safety is the now well-known aerosampler. We presented this device during a pitch session to Russia’s Ministry of Industry and Trade and Gazprombank. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive — Minister Anton Alikhanov himself offered immediate suggestions for further use cases.
In early March, the aerosampler underwent successful testing in Anapa, wh ere oil spills had turned beach piers into emergency zones. The device was submerged to the seabed in areas with high concentrations of oil residue, broke the material into smaller fractions, and used a powerful air stream to lift it into containment vessels for safe removal. A real-world demonstration of innovation in action.
A similar pattern has emerged in the realm of food security. One area generating significant interest is our work on improving livestock breeds. Word of these developments spread quickly, and one potential qualified customer — an agricultural enterprise based in Kaliningrad — reached out to express interest. What we’re seeing is that the moment we unveil a tangible, functional product, key sectors of industry and agriculture begin engaging with us seriously.
Our second flagship project centers on low-tonnage chemical production and advanced materials. The ambition is clear: by 2030, TSU aims to establish 32 production sites and develop around 60 new technologies in this field. More broadly, Russia is currently facing a major shortfall — likely in the thousands — of innovative chemical technologies, as well as hundreds of thousands of specialists and skilled workers to implement them.
This is why the advancement of the chemical industry has become a priority at the federal level. Our project doesn’t just respond to this need — it actively helps shape the solution. It’s also worth noting that without small-scale chemistry, large-scale industrial chemistry simply doesn’t function.
At the heart of this initiative is Alexey Knyazev, acting dean of the Faculty of Chemistry and director of TSU’s engineering center. His dual role demands regular presence at both major chemical plants and the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Because without deep integration into the sector itself, no project of this magnitude can succeed.
The third key strategic project outlined in TSU’s development program is “Russian Detectors.” This refers to X-ray detectors for a range of applications. Currently, all detectors used in Russia are imported. Unless we address the challenge of producing domestic detectors, many critical areas of Russian research and development will be severely constrained.
At TSU, we already have a solid foundation for this work thanks to the laboratory led by Oleg Tolbanov. We also possess a pilot production facility for gallium arsenide (GaAs) sensors. At least three target markets have been identified for this strategic technological project, along with a clear understanding of the required investment.
It is evident that if we aim to enter the markets for GaAs sensors used in megascience infrastructure and X-ray detection, especially in medicine—where the global market is vast and rapidly growing—we will need to scale up production significantly. Our goal is to lay the foundation for an entirely new industry: Russian Detectors. At present, this industry does not yet exist—everything is imported.
– What are the key factors to keep in mind when implementing these strategic projects?
– When we talk about technological leadership projects—or those that are moving in that direction—we need to start thinking in terms like markets, investments, clients, and so on.
In Tomsk, there are a number of innovative and high-tech companies, but not that many, and their turnover is relatively modest. Meanwhile, the large corporations we need to work with are “out there,” and we need to find ways to build relationships with them. That’s why I keep reminding our project leaders that this is the moment when national projects are taking shape—and we must be part of that process. If not, we’ll end up trailing behind those who’ve already gotten organized.
Many universities—not only those in Moscow—are already highly engaged and embedded in these processes. For example, a team of 30 people fr om South Ural State University recently visited TSU. Their rector is Alexander Wagner, former vice-rector of Tomsk Polytechnic. Currently, his entire team is undergoing advanced training at Skolkovo, but they were "dropped off" here for a week to study how we are restructuring our academic programs. That alone says a lot. It means we’re ahead of the curve—and that’s something to be proud of.
That said, South Ural has its own industrial base, whereas we’re still in a very different weight category. One of their graduates has invested heavily in the manufacturing infrastructure of the town of Yuzhnouralsk in the Chelyabinsk region, purchasing state-of-the-art equipment. Having worked closely with Italian partners and acquired necessary technologies, this alumnus has built a world-class steel production facility—and continues to work closely with his alma mater, helping revise educational programs and funding a year-long training course at Skolkovo for an entire team.
Given that TSU is planning to launch an engineering education program in mechanical engineering, we agreed to join forces with our colleagues in Chelyabinsk to create a joint engineering center. On our side, the idea has sparked interest from Ivan Pushkaryov, director of the Tomsk Electromechanical Plant—one of the most advanced manufacturers in our region. If we can bring all this together—two universities, a joint program, an engineering center, and two industrial partners—we’ll effectively launch a brand-new technological leadership project.
And if we succeed, we could receive tens of millions in funding to establish pilot production facilities based at our university. That’s exactly what we need to be working on right now, even if it’s still manual effort—because that’s what leads to growth, not just in our reporting metrics but in real revenue. And without industrial partners, it’s simply not possible.
Take rare earth metals, for instance. We’re actively looking for partners in that field right now. I recently met with colleagues who’ve discovered a significant deposit in Murmansk—but it needs to be developed in a new way. We actually have some unique experience in this area, even if not at large scale. We’ve worked with rhenium before—literally extracting it from a volcano on one of the Kuril Islands. So yes, we can work with other rare metals too. This might not be our core expertise, but our materials scientists certainly have a role to play.
We need to engage institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, other universities, geologists—and build a coalition that could ultimately attract a real industrial partner.
– Is there a place for the humanities in technological leadership projects? Or are they once again being pushed to the sidelines, as has happened more than once throughout the history of Russian higher education?
Yes — if the humanities start engaging with the issues that have already emerged as national priorities. For example, the kinds of challenges currently being tackled by the State Duma. And we’ve already begun to embed ourselves into that logic. Take, for instance, what’s shaping up to be a promising direction for us: the topic of migration.
What do I mean by that? Essentially, we are moving toward the creation of a national information system for exam administration — an educational platform titled “Russian as a Foreign Language.” We’ve already developed a roadmap for it. TSU is the only university in the country that has built an integrated system that uses artificial intelligence and speech recognition during exams taken in various native languages. This is a unique advantage — our own technology — and we’re offering it to the country. It will become the national information system through which people from other countries will enter Russia for work or education.
A project like this creates space for philologists, linguists, psychologists, sociologists, IT specialists, computer vision experts, and proctoring professionals. It’s a scientific challenge, but at the same time, deeply applied. That means there’s a strong chance to secure funding to administer it.
I should say that the Socio-Humanities Engineering (SoHume) project was originally conceived as a full-cycle interdisciplinary initiative focused on producing both fundamental and applied knowledge, as well as technologies that can then be used in education, policymaking, and business. Since the launch of the project at TSU, we’ve opened and successfully run several key centers: the Siberian Center for Artificial Intelligence (in partnership with Sberbank), the Center for Cognitive Research and Neurosciences (in collaboration with Neurotrend), and the Center for Reading Research. By 2035, we plan to launch a Center for Engineering High-End Humanitarian Technologies.
The SoHume project includes 18 tactical initiatives, which are grouped into three focus areas: “values,” “cognitive enhancement,” and “embodiment.” Each cluster uses modern methods of diagnosis, analysis, and tools for working with thought and consciousness.
In the values cluster, for example, we’ve developed an interactive panel to analyze the value orientations of university students across Russia, a platform for monitoring the sociopolitical climate, tools for mapping historical memory, and instruments to forecast public trust in Telegram messaging. In the cognitive cluster, we’ve created an accelerated training program to enhance educators’ AI competence, a simulator for detecting digital Ponzi schemes, and a neural-powered “AI Evaluator” service. The embodiment cluster has introduced technologies for integrating digital elements into curricula in ways that take into account their effects on the body and perception — including a course called “Phygital Physical Education,” aimed at developing skills both in digital space and in real life.
With this level of advanced and purposeful content, SoHume absolutely qualifies as a technological leadership project. That’s the logic we should be continuing to build on.
The same goes for our educational work at TSU. Participation in the “pilot” stage has opened up new creative possibilities for our teaching staff. Over the past two years, they’ve created dozens of brand-new academic programs in terms of both content and format — including joint degree programs. One such example is the master’s program “Voice of a Generation,” which teaches students innovative approaches to youth engagement, something that’s particularly relevant today. If everything works out as planned, we’ll be able to offer our educational products to other universities as well. So let’s start thinking in that direction too.
These are our core objectives today — and they all require industrial partners. We must be ready to invest our time and energy into finding them. I’ve asked for partner meetings to be regularly added to my personal work calendar. Obviously, without active engagement from me and the vice-rectors, this system isn’t going to move. We need to involve our partners and keep their interest alive.
For example, we recently met with Sber, and it turned out they have significant needs — ones we’re in a position to address. That opens up a wide field of work for SoHume: AI-driven socio-psychological and anthropological profiling, community engagement, support for the self-development of Sber employees, and so on. And if we build that system together with them, we’ll be able to “upload” it into the university environment — wh ere our students and faculty can benefit from it free of charge.
– By now we know how TSU fared in the latest round of the Priority 2030 program. Could you share your impressions and reflections?
– First of all, I want to congratulate all of us on a successful defense and an excellent result. A total of 142 Russian universities took part in this round of project evaluations. Eleven of them, including Tomsk State University, ended up in the top group. The previous rankings were entirely reset, so all universities were essentially starting from the same place. Here’s just one example: MEPhI, a long-standing leader in the top division, this time ceded ground to Kazan Federal University.
Evaluation was based on four key criteria: the university’s development model, its strategic goals and how it plans to achieve them; the strength of its leadership team and approach to achieving leadership; and how well the university’s model aligns with the national focus on technological development and the new system of workforce training. Within the top group, we placed fifth. That’s a very strong result, and I want to thank every one of our colleagues who contributed to making it possible.
Under the updated terms of the program, each participating university was required to present at least one technological leadership project. But we structured our presentation in a way that allowed us to showcase all three of TSU’s key projects — the ones we’ve discussed earlier — as well as our university’s overall target model and a brief outline of our development policies.
The Priority 2030 Council did an enormous amount of work, having to review and discuss 142 presentations. And this time, they had no support from specialized sub-councils for research, regional, or departmental leadership — it was all under one roof. Every university team included representatives from leading industrial companies. Ours included, in addition to myself, the Governor of Tomsk Region Vladimir Mazur, Andrey Kleymenov from Gazprom Neft, TSU First Vice-Rector Viktor Dyomin, and Acting Dean of the Faculty of Chemistry Alexey Knyazev.
I think it was a stroke of luck for the Tomsk universities that their presentations were scheduled consecutively — one after another, as a block. And all of them performed well, securing a place in the Priority 2030 program, though in different groups. Clearly, the Big University of Tomsk strategy has proven its worth once again.
In the end, 119 universities were selected and grouped into three tiers. Universities in the top group — 11 in total — will each receive 1 billion rubles in funding. The second group (21 universities) will get 450 million each, and those in the third group will receive 100 million. Altogether, 30.5 billion rubles in grant funding will be distributed under the Priority 2030 program.
Tomsk Polytechnic University also joined the first group, ranking 10th. We at TSU placed fifth. The top four are: MIPT, HSE, ITMO, and Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. The point differences between those in the top five were not especially large — at least between fourth and fifth place.
As for our own presentation, what stood out most was the fact that our strategic tech project “Low-Tonnage Chemistry and New Materials” alone covers 20% of the key performance indicators in the national chemical industry project. The other two projects made a strong impression as well. “Russian Detectors” has the potential to give rise to a whole new domestic industrial sector, while “Life Safety Technologies” includes a wide array of individual initiatives, from military to agricultural and food-security technologies.
– So, what’s next? What’s the action plan following this success?
– Now that we’ve come to realize that we’ve learned to build an ecosystem of our own kind — that is, of universities and research institutes — our greatest challenge is to bring business into that ecosystem, as well as the structures that shape market conditions. In the immediate future, we’ll be meeting with the leaders of our technological leadership projects to chart the next steps toward our stated goals, define specific objectives for the year ahead, and analyze potential risks.
Then, together with the TSU Board of Trustees, we’ll make final decisions on how to allocate the budget, breaking it down by category. It’s crucial that we use this funding to build a modern infrastructure for the implementation of our core projects — and to equip the university with systematic tools that allow us to turn knowledge into technology and products.
In parallel, we’ll be holding meetings with representatives from leading companies and enterprises — both our current and potential future industrial partners. The first of these meetings will focus on the creation of a National Center for Advanced Training and Retraining in Chemical Industry. A consortium of universities with extensive experience in this area is already in place, including the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia.
To sum it up: during our project defense, it was important not just to declare our place in the country’s technological leadership agenda, but to prove that we can shape trends and define the conversation. And I believe we succeeded. Now, we need to fulfill the goals and ambitions we’ve laid out — to become a true engine of knowledge and technology transformation that delivers tangible economic results. That is the only way to not merely maintain our position, but to actually shape the future.
March 10–19, 2025
Eduard Galazhinskiy
Rector of Tomsk State University
Member of the Presidential Council for Science and Education
Vice President of the Russian Academy of Education
Vice President of the Russian Union of Rectors
Interview by Irina Kuzheleva-Sagan