Today, dictator Lukashenka held a so-called “big conversation with scientists”. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s Advisor on Education and Science, Pavel Tereshkovich, explains why the current state of Belarusian science is not the result of “a lack of output from researchers” but a consequence of many years of dictatorial policy. He recalls Belarus’ real place in international rankings, chronic underfunding, archaic governance models, and personnel appointments that are completely detached from the scientific community.
Pavel Tereshkovich: “While education officials have not yet managed to carry out the orders to destroy the master’s degree system, Lukashenka has already found a new target for his activism. This time, it is science. And in its miserable state, as it turns out, the blame lies with the scientists themselves, who ‘do not deliver results’. Indeed, globally, the results do not look great. We’re not talking about promises to create a Belarusian electric car, a COVID-19 vaccine, or string transport. International statistics assess the level of scientific development by the number of publications in reputable journals. By this metric, Belarus ranks 79th in the world, lagging behind Macau and Nepal. Per capita, our task is to catch up with Costa Rica. Compared with Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, Belarus’ per capita indicators are five times lower, and compared with Estonia – ten times.
And who is responsible for this? The answer can be found in the Global Knowledge Index. Overall, Belarus’ positions are not that bad: in the category ‘Research, Development, and Innovation’, the country ranks 66th – between North Macedonia and Botswana in 2024. But when it comes to the ‘Research Environment’, Belarus ranks 85th, after Tanzania; and in ‘Governance’, 131st out of 141 – after Guinea.
In this context, it is hard not to mention Lukashenka’s personnel policy, under which the heads of the National Academy of Sciences have been random individuals with no connection to science, such as Miasnikovich or Karanik – or Husakou. This academic turned his inability to overcome his fear of using a computer into an ideology: supposedly, a true scholar must write their works ‘by hand’ on paper. Many institute directors ended up writing handwritten reports dozens of pages long.
The Academy of Sciences as a form of organizing research is deeply archaic. In countries that are true global leaders in scientific innovation, academies exist mostly as clubs of scientists, platforms for discussions, or venues for award ceremonies. In the 21st century, innovation is produced in science-technology clusters like Silicon Valley in the US and the Silicon Wadi in Israel. These are environments where the efforts of universities, research institutes and laboratories, and business corporations come together, supported by appropriate financial, information, and logistical infrastructure.
The problem is not only inadequate organization and management. The desire to obtain a scientific result first and only then pay for it – as Lukashenka promises – is like trying to milk a cow in exchange for a promise to feed it only if the milk turns out good. The outcome is predictable – there will be neither milk nor cow. The same is true for Belarusian science. Lukashenka has essentially killed it. There is likely no other sector of the Belarusian economy where his interference has caused such devastating consequences. The Soviet scientific legacy – which pro-government ideologues love to romanticize – has been thrown onto the scrap heap.
By the share of GDP spent on research and development – around 0.5% – Belarus ranks 68th in the world, behind Gabon, Senegal, and Tanzania. This is about five times less than the global average (2.67%). Since the early 2000s, spending on this sector has been cut in half.
But the absolute figures are even more striking. According to the National Statistics Committee, research expenditures in 2024 amounted to 1.447 billion rubles – roughly 424 million US dollars. Is that a lot or not? For comparison: the annual budget of just one university – the University of Göttingen in Germany – reaches 1.438 billion euros. And per capita? In Belarus it amounts to 46 dollars per year. In Sweden – one of the global leaders in scientific funding – this figure is 50 times higher, in Israel – 70 times.
The state’s own contribution to research and development is just over 30% (the rest comes from private business). That’s about 125 million dollars. I’ll put it delicately: it takes a rare degree of scientific and technological naivety to expect that for this money they would produce an electric car or a COVID-19 vaccine for you. Pfizer invested about 2 billion dollars in its vaccine, and its partner BioNTech – another 445 million.
Does all this mean Lukashenka simply does not have the money? No. The money simply has not been allocated to science. If even 10% of what has been sunk into the inefficient agricultural sector had been directed toward research, we would be living in a completely different country”.
