As a scientist working and studying in Russia for the past 25 years, I've noted many changes as the country begins to adapt to new realities. Superficially the situation simply stagnates, but a more attentive view shows that it may be changing in some important ways.

Instead of monolithic control of science, we have a highly visible conflict between the Ministry of Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is a good thing. As both try to appeal to the public, they serve as each other's watchdogs, and so try to avoid obvious transgressions.

On the surface at least, the ministry looks more merit-based. Its strategy — as reflected in ministry documents, public statements and interviews — includes more competitive grants (as opposed to direct budgeting), peer review, international experts, and a merit-oriented hiring and salary system. But my observations and discussions with colleagues suggest that many of its programmes are still infested with kickbacks and closed-door decisions.

The academy's governing body, the presidium, while paying lip service to peer review, is, in fact, opposed to the grant system, and relies on 'scientific programmes', many of which create a conflict of interest: decisions are made by people who directly benefit from them. Clashes between the ministry and the presidium reached top levels over 'bonuses for productivity'. In May, the ministry decided to establish a system of merit-oriented bonuses based on impact factors and citation indices, talks at international conferences and other easily measurable criteria.

The academy's top management has attacked this project, suggesting that all decisions should be left to the discretion of institute directors. Admittedly, the ministry scheme is a temporary fix in the absence of a real peer-review system. Nevertheless, I think, it is a step in the right direction.

The role of international bodies has also changed. Few Russian scientists now depend on international grants, as in the 1990s. Still, as international agencies are usually free from local influences, grants such as Howard Hughes Medical Institute international scholar awards provide a much-needed example of fair, transparent competition.

Changes are slow and painful, but given our country's history, it would be naïve to expect otherwise.