Anton Klimkin - Т-инвариант / T-invariant

Anton Klimkin

Anton Klimkin
Date of incident: June 27, 2024
Type of violation: 2.5 years in prison
Institution: V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics, Tomsk

Summary: Anton Klimkin was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for “confidential cooperation with a foreign state.” The Tomsk Regional Court sentenced Anton Klimkin, an employee of the V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics. He was accused of confidential cooperation with a foreign state. As a basis for the case, the FSB took an old scientific contract between the optics institute and one of the universities of the PRC, reports First Department.

Details: Siberia.Realities writes: “The relatives know almost nothing about the case because it is classified as “top secret”, except for the sentence – 2.5 years. This is less than the minimum punishment provided for by this article. Relatives believe that such a term was awarded only because of the lawyer’s strategy – to give a confession. Anton was persuaded to do this after a year and 4 months spent in a pretrial detention center.” Siberia.Realities also writes, citing a lawyer whose name is not given, that Klimkin’s sentence is a very dangerous precedent. “What is the danger: for 275.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (cooperation with foreigners), it is not necessary to establish the fact of transfer of information constituting a state secret. This article provides for liability for confidential communication with a representative of a foreign state. As far as I know, this is the first case under this article against a scientist for communication with foreign colleagues. And “testing” this article on scientists creates a dangerous precedent, which can lead to the expansion of repressions against them, since it will not be necessary to establish the fact of transfer of any information, it will be enough to prove only the fact of communication.” As Sibir.Realii specifies, the article on confidential cooperation with foreigners, “deliberately directed against the security of the Russian Federation,” was introduced into the Russian Criminal Code in the summer of 2022. Since then, several people have been convicted under it.

Sources: First Department, Sibir.Realii.

27 June 2024

Et Cetera

Maria Vorontsova was included in the circle of the largest scientists without regard to scientometrics

Vladimir Putin’s eldest daughter is now publicly positioned as a major scientist with a “world-class laboratory”. Her Hirsch index is extremely low, which did not prevent Vorontsova from winning a large RNF grant on par with the country’s most successful scientists.

“If DOGE plans go through, U.S. scientific leadership will end.” American scientist – on Musk’s health care reform

In the coming days, the U.S. Senate is expected to confirm the new director of the National Institutes of Health. The key institution of American science has come under pressure from the Department of Government Effectiveness (DOGE), which is headed by Elon Musk. Why the reforms initiated by Donald Trump’s people are reminiscent of the situation in Germany in the 1930s and how the DOGE plans threaten the development of science – the head of one of the laboratories of the National Institute of Health told T-invariant.

Co-authors. Who and How Fabricated the Case Against Physicist Oleg Kabov?

During the trial of physicist Oleg Kabov, it emerged that the criminal case had been initiated by two of his former students. One of them, after threatening Kabov, joined the FSB (Federal Security Service of Russia), after which the second student filed a denunciation against his former scientific supervisor. It also became clear that the embezzlement case lacked any financial evidence, and that the allegations regarding the falsification of Kabov’s scientific results had been manufactured by FSB officers. The prosecution is demanding a seven-year prison term, a significant fine, and a three-year prohibition on conducting scientific research. The defendant has asked the judge to reopen the investigation. The judge must now decide whether there is sufficient information to deliver a verdict or if the case should be sent back for further investigation.