Category: English

Translation. Region: Russian Federation –

Source: Peoples'Friendship University of Russia

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

Artem Vanyashev, a fourth-year student majoring in International Economic Relations and Foreign Economic Activity, took first place in the prestigious International Student Debate Competition in Durban, South Africa. The event took place late last year, and the jury consisted of representatives from the BRICS network universities.

To reach the finals, Artem successfully passed the qualifying round, which received approximately 100 applications from across Russia, and then competed in the in-person round against representatives from MGIMO, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, St. Petersburg State University, and other leading universities. Ultimately, he defeated national debate champions from all BRICS countries!

Sincerity as a strategy

"The most challenging was the semifinal against the Chinese champion. It was clear he had a deep understanding of the topic and was able to formulate his thoughts on the fly. During our discussion with him, I truly understood the position I was assigned to defend. For me, this round wasn't just a debate semifinal—it became a matter of principle: I had to defend my point of view," says Artem Vanyashev.

According to the student, he prepared for the competition independently before the selection process. After reaching the finals, Daria Sergeyevna Sokolan, Deputy Dean for International Affairs at the Faculty of Economics, joined his preparation.

"I didn't read any specific literature. I constantly study materials on related topics and watch relevant video lectures. Just before the debate, I read The BRICS: A Very Short Introduction by Andrew F. Cooper," says Artyom Vanyashev.

Playing on two fronts

The book proved very useful, as all the final topics were related to the future of BRICS and its development. The student had to argue both from an idealistic perspective and from the opposite—in which case, he would point out existing problems and ask why they haven't been resolved yet.

"For example, there was a case study on the question, 'Should BRICS create its own body to evaluate countries' development?' In my argument, I argued that when attempting to build an alternative to existing institutions acting in the interests of the global West, no aspect can be ignored, including such an important one as the existence of its own evaluation bodies and agencies. The creation of such a structure does not mean abandoning cooperation with existing organizations, but it does provide participants in global economic processes with a choice and an alternative. BRICS, in turn, advocates for the development of such alternatives, so such initiatives fit seamlessly into its philosophy," says Artem Vanyashev.

In another case study on the unification of digital policies among BRICS countries, the RUDN student's opponent proposed borrowing technologies from China on mutually beneficial terms for subsequent adaptation in other BRICS countries. He argued that, with similar technological foundations, the countries could join a unified system.

"I had to speak out against it. My argument was based on the fact that China wouldn't take such steps without a tangible and strategically significant benefit for itself. Furthermore, such borrowings are fraught with the risk of creating technological dependence, which contradicts the BRICS concept. Also, if this model is truly so simple and feasible, the question arises: why hasn't any of this been implemented yet, and why isn't China already transferring its technologies to other BRICS countries?" — Artyom Vanyashev.

The secret of success

As the winner noted, there were no unexpected answers from his opponents.

"The entire debate followed my script, and I was the one setting the direction of the argument. Rather, each of my answers was a surprise to them. I think the key factor in my success was confidence. I won rounds because I firmly believed in what I was saying, and the jury sensed this conviction," says Artyom Vanyashev.

Artem advises students who would also like to try their hand at debate not to wait for an invitation but to seek out opportunities on their own. Incidentally, this was his first debate, and he doesn't plan to stop there. "Next year, I'll defend my title and plan to win again," says Artem Vanyashev.

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of the source's assertions and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

Translation. Region: Russian Federation –

Source: Peoples'Friendship University of Russia

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

Vadim Sergeevich Pokrovsky, professor and head of the T. T. Berezov Department of Biochemistry at RUDN University, has been appointed acting director of the Institute of Experimental Oncology and Carcinogenesis at the N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, which is one of the clinical sites of the RUDN University Institute of Medicine.

The new research institute will focus on developing drugs and systems, as well as fundamental research in oncology and molecular genetics. The institution's primary goal is to consolidate scientists conducting fundamental and experimental research to minimize the time it takes to move from scientific discovery to clinical implementation.

We spoke with Vadim Sergeevich to find out what his new appointment means to him, how teams will be formed at the institute, and what goals he sets for himself in his new position in 2026.

What does your appointment as Acting Director of the Institute of Experimental Oncology and Carcinogenesis mean to you? Why do you think your candidacy was chosen?

I see this as an opportunity and a sign of great trust from the leadership of the Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology and the Ministry of Health. For me, this is an opportunity to create the best center of expertise in fundamental and experimental oncology in Eastern Europe. I don't fully understand all the details and reasons for my appointment, nor do I know the possible alternative scenarios, which were certainly discussed. I'd like to think they believed in me. Perhaps this was also influenced by the fact that over the past 10 years, in my opinion, I've managed to take the laboratory at the Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology and the Berezov Department of Biochemistry at RUDN University to a new level. We've achieved a lot both in developing scientific work and in organizing events and educational programs. Winning the "Science" track and the superfinal of the "Leaders of Russia" competition in 2022, as well as receiving the Moscow Government Prize, could also have played a role. Perhaps the combination of these factors was decisive.

The new institute was created to shorten the path from scientific discovery to its implementation in clinical practice. In your opinion, what is the main bottleneck in this process today, and how do you plan to address it?

Modern changes in technologies, regulatory requirements, and the manufacturing capabilities of drugs and test systems dictate new conditions for their development. Today, we need closer ties between experimental science and clinical challenges, faster and more cost-effective transfer of applied developments from research institutes to industrial partners, and more active interaction between scientists from different specialties. This goal can and should be achieved in two ways. First, it is necessary to create a system with clear and user-friendly rules for communication, financing, project management, intellectual property management, and commercialization of developments. This objective is achieved by developing (or updating) relevant regulations within the institution. Second, it is important to manually identify specific problems and find solutions that align with the interests of the institute and the well-being of its employees.

How will scientists be consolidated? Will you form teams for specific projects, inviting specialists from different organizations?

Without a doubt, yes. Networking is one of the key factors for the success of modern scientific projects. I am a staunch supporter of supporting strong projects, regardless of their origin—whether internal or external. We need to seek out opportunities to implement them, even when they are not obvious, build new connections between people, and support them. Sometimes, with minimal effort, significant results can be achieved. If you look at the publications of our research team (department and laboratory), almost 80% of them are the result of collaboration with teams from other research institutes and universities. We have successful experience with this type of work.

Furthermore, the N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology is the largest research center in Russia in this field, with over 5,000 employees, tens of thousands of patients treated annually, and the country's most comprehensive clinical expertise in anticancer therapy. Even this internal resource is not yet fully utilized, and we need to strengthen the links between clinicians and scientists.

Do you plan to involve young scientists, postgraduate students, and students from RUDN in the institute's work? What other opportunities does your appointment open up for the university?

Scientists, postgraduate students, and undergraduates from the RUDN University Department of Biochemistry have been actively involved in the work of my laboratory at the N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology for almost 10 years. Our departments effectively complement each other, creating a genuine synergistic effect. This practice certainly needs to be expanded and strengthened. We can create new core departments within the research institute, engage undergraduate and postgraduate students, and staff from other departments and laboratories in this work, and engage scientists from the institute to supervise the coursework and theses of our undergraduate and graduate students.

What are your main goals as Acting Director this year? What areas of work will be your priority?

I have identified four key tasks for myself. The first is formulating strategic goals and building the corresponding management systems for the institute, identifying growth areas, and developing plans for the implementation of new projects. The second is the renovation of two buildings, which together house approximately 400 employees. We must create the most modern, functional, and comfortable renovation project possible, enabling cutting-edge research, and ensure its high-quality implementation. The third is reorganizing the institute's research team, opening new laboratories, and creating research groups, primarily in areas where the research institute has not yet fully demonstrated its potential: chemoinformatics and molecular modeling, metabolomics, genomics and bioinformatics, and microfluidic technologies. If colleagues have interesting ideas, now is the time to propose them. And the fourth is finding new sources of funding. Modern science requires significant investment. Given limited resources and the competitive selection of projects, we must learn to seek out additional opportunities and utilize existing ones more effectively. These are the main tasks. We are currently formulating specific goals and, I believe, will approve them in the coming months.

We congratulate Vadim Sergeevich on his appointment and wish him success in his new position, as well as breakthrough scientific results!

Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of the source's assertions and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.