The Evolution of Academies of Sciences in Post-Soviet Central Asia
Aikerim Bektemirova
Photo: The Academies of Sciences in Central Asia stand at a crossroads, redefining their roles in rapidly evolving research landscapes. Photo by Patrick Federi on Unsplash
For decades, the Academies of Sciences served as the cornerstones of scientific research in Soviet republics.
The Soviet model distinctly separated teaching and research,
- with the Academies driving knowledge production
- while universities focused on disseminating established ideas.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Central Asia’s Academies of Sciences—in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan*—have undergone profound transformations. These changes—ranging from liquidation and reorganization to the restoration of state funding and centralization—reflect the unique challenges and opportunities each country faces in redefining its scientific ecosystem.
* The Tajik Academy of Sciences has undertaken structural reforms, including the consolidation of 10 scientific institutes into five to streamline its organization. However, the limited available information makes it difficult to fully assess the scope and significance of these changes compared to other academies.
Turkmenistan:
From Closure to Rebirth of Scientific Ambitions
Turkmenistan offers a striking example of how the Academy of Sciences has navigated significant reforms in response to shifting political priorities and evolving economic conditions.
The Academy was liquidated in 1995 under President Saparmurat Niyazov. This decision was accompanied by regressive educational reforms, including
- the reduction of combined primary and secondary education to a total of nine years,
- a nearly 75% cut in university enrollment,
- the closure of correspondence and evening classes,
- and the abolition of postgraduate studies (e.g., aspirantura).
These measures devastated the scientific community: by 2010, 1,550 researchers had emigrated and a further 900 had passed away, leaving an elderly group of experts (850 out of 950 scientists were over 70).
In 2009, Niyazov’s successor, President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, reinstated the Academy as part of broader efforts to revitalize Turkmenistan’s education and science sectors. Accompanying reforms extended university programs to a standard five years, increased university enrollment, established new universities, and reinstated postgraduate studies.
Despite these initiatives, economic instability—rooted in heavy reliance on hydrocarbons and exacerbated by low gas prices, halted gas exports, and poor agricultural yields—has severely constrained funding. In 2019, the government announced plans to phase out financial support for the Academy over the following three years, which would result in the closure of four out of nine research institutes and a 30% reduction in staff.
This trajectory underscores the critical link between economic stability and the sustainability of scientific institutions.
Kazakhstan:
Dual Academies and the Struggle for Scientific Leadership
In Kazakhstan, the Academy has undergone a series of contentious reforms since the early 2000s, highlighting the complexities of balancing state control with institutional autonomy.
The 2002 reorganization of the Academy into a public association sought to democratize science and reduce state involvement but instead deprived the institution of critical government funding and institutional support. Left reliant on unstable alternative resources, the Academy faced institutional decline, with diluted membership standards eroding its credibility and prestige.
Efforts to restore the Academy’s prominence culminated in its 2023 transformation into a state-controlled joint-stock company, rebranded as the National Academy of Sciences under the President of Kazakhstan. Membership standards were overhauled to prioritize scientific merit, with a rigorous three-stage selection process involving expert evaluations and final voting by the General Assembly.
Despite these efforts, the restructuring has been marred by internal conflicts, leadership changes, and disputes over the Academy’s function, membership, and assets. A particularly contentious issue has been the continued existence of the “old” Academy, in its public association form, alongside the newly established state-affiliated Academy. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education proposed formally dissolving the “old” Academy, but its members resisted, citing the institution’s foundational role in establishing and shaping the current organization, as well as its historical contributions.
Ongoing disputes over legitimacy illustrate the complexity of managing transitions in scientific governance while safeguarding institutional independence, as well as underscoring the difficulty of fostering a unified scientific ecosystem amid competing visions.
Kyrgyzstan:
Integrating Academia and Universities for Scientific Reform
Kyrgyzstan has taken a different approach, focusing on integrating its Academy of Sciences with universities to enhance research capacity.
Historically, the Academy served as the primary institution coordinating national research efforts, supported by constitutional provisions. However, reforms initiated in 2023 transferred the Academy’s 11 research institutes to universities, with a view to expanding research capacity across higher education institutions.
Critics caution that transferring research institutes to universities risks diluting the Academy’s expertise and undermining its coordinating role. For instance, the reassignment of the Institute of Humanities and Regional Studies to Osh State University and the Institute of Economics to the Kyrgyz Economic University has raised concerns about the erosion of the Academy’s capacity for independent research.
Furthermore, universities often lack comparable scientific capabilities. For example, the Academy’s Hirsch index of 32 exceeds that of major universities such as Kyrgyz National University (18) and Osh State University (13). This disparity has fueled fears of a decline in overall research quality and a diminution of the Academy’s ability to lead nationwide scientific efforts.
Thus, the integration represents a bold initiative to reform Kyrgyzstan’s scientific ecosystem. However, the absence of clear frameworks for joint research and knowledge-sharing undermines the intended synergy between the Academy and universities.
Ultimately, these changes highlight a broader tension between modernizing scientific governance and preserving the Academy’s traditional role as the cornerstone of Kyrgyzstan’s research infrastructure.
Uzbekistan:
Reviving a Scientific Powerhouse through State Commitment
In contrast, Uzbekistan demonstrates the potential of state-led revitalization. After decades of neglect, the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan is undergoing a revival, driven by state involvement aimed at centralizing research capabilities and re-establishing the Academy as the principal hub for scientific research.
A key milestone in this transformation was the 2017 return of ten research institutes to the Academy, reversing earlier reforms that had transferred these entities to universities. Among the reinstated institutes are the Institute of History, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Institute of Ion-Plasma and Laser Technologies, Institute of Mechanics and Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Institute of Chemistry and Physics of Polymers, Institute of Oriental Studies, Institute of Archaeological Research, Institute of Uzbek Language, Literature, and Folklore, and State Museum of Literature.
This reintegration represents a deliberate effort to consolidate research under the Academy’s framework, strengthening its institutional capacity and ensuring a unified approach to scientific development.
Leadership within the Academy has also been revitalized through resumed elections for academicians after an 18-year hiatus. In 2017, 32 new members were elected, followed by an additional 16 in 2023, signaling a renewed focus on intellectual and scientific leadership.
Supporting these efforts, the government has allocated dedicated funds sourced from patent fees, international grants, and charitable contributions. These funds are directed toward establishing advanced laboratories with high-tech equipment to facilitate cutting-edge research; covering the costs of registering intellectual property abroad to promote innovation; and financing research internships for scientists at leading international centers to foster collaboration and skills development. These measures, alongside the creation of new regional branches like the Navoi branch, underscore the Uzbekistani state’s commitment to building a unified research ecosystem.
The revitalization of Uzbekistan’s Academy of Sciences highlights the critical role of state commitment and strategic centralization in fostering scientific innovation. These reforms showcase the government’s comprehensive approach to strengthening research infrastructure and enhancing the nation’s scientific capabilities.
The Future of Academies of Sciences in the Post-Soviet Era
Central Asia’s Academies of Sciences stand at a crossroads, navigating economic, political, and institutional challenges as they redefine their roles in rapidly evolving research landscapes.
- Turkmenistan grapples with the consequences of economic instability
- Uzbekistan demonstrates the potential of robust state intervention
- Kazakhstan’s efforts reveal the complexities of balancing state control with institutional autonomy
- Kyrgyzstan’s reforms highlight the tension between modernization and preserving traditional roles.
The future of these historic institutions depends on progressive reforms, sustained investment, and a clear vision for their place in national and global research ecosystems.
Whether evolving into independent hubs of innovation or becoming integral components of national strategies, their success will hinge on adapting to contemporary demands while leveraging their legacies.
Collectively, these experiences underscore the critical interplay of governance, funding, and innovation in shaping the future of science in the region, offering valuable lessons for other nations facing similar challenges.
0 Comments