Transforming science in Kazakhstan: key steps for advancement

Science in Kazakhstan today looks like a sprinter on the starting line trying to accelerate while dragging a heavy sack on his back. That sack is filled with underfunding, gaps in human capital, weak infrastructure, inflated requirements, and bureaucracy.

The facts speak for themselves. In 2024, Kazakhstan spent 219.7 billion tenge on science-just 0.16% of GDP. By comparison, Israel spends about 6%, Japan over 3%. Kazakhstan has 1,141 researchers per million people, below the global average of 1,516, and far behind Canada’s nearly 3,900. Even then, the official figures are inflated-anyone employed “in science,” from a university bookkeeper to a lab’s maintenance worker, is counted as a researcher.

The National Academy of Sciences highlights another structural problem: an enormous imbalance in higher education. In 2024, Kazakhstan produced 147,000 bachelor’s graduates but only 677 PhDs. That’s a ratio of 218:1. In the U.S., it’s 35:1. This is a dead-end model: the system churns out degree holders but fails to produce a new generation of researchers.

And yet, science is not dead. In 2024, Kazakhstani authors published 3,176 papers in Web of Science-20% more than the year before. The share of publications in top-tier (Q1) journals is 32%-still below the global average of 47%, but improving. As analyst Bulat Kenesov notes, progress is visible, but the quality gap with the world remains wide.

So the key question is: what must be done for Kazakhstan’s science to not just survive, but to advance?

Refocusing Priorities

Kazakhstan’s current funding model is skewed toward large state program-targeted projects (PCFs), which absorb significant budget resources. Their effectiveness and contribution to real scientific progress remain unclear and often controversial. Meanwhile, small grant programs-designed to support young researchers and small labs-face severe shortages, barely covering basic needs.

For sustainable growth, two steps are essential. First, raise science funding to the planned 1% of GDP by 2027. Second, build a more balanced funding system. This requires a full audit of PCFs to measure their scientific and economic impact, and a partial reallocation of funds toward youth-oriented programs like Zhas Galym (“Young Scientist”) and the Young Researchers’ Competition.

These programs deliver measurable results-publications in high-ranking journals, patents, practical applications-while serving a strategic purpose: creating a new generation of researchers. Prioritizing them both improves the efficiency of public spending and secures the continuity of scientific talent. This is critical for Kazakhstan’s long-term competitiveness and global integration.

The “1% Rule”

By law, natural resource companies in Kazakhstan must allocate 1% of their revenue toward science. On paper, this is a major source of potential funding. In practice, however, its implementation is opaque. Funds often go into corporate projects or are directed into areas unrelated to science infrastructure and research.

To make this mechanism effective, contributions must be centralized and tracked through a public state registry showing both inflows and spending. This would ensure transparency and prevent misuse. Priority areas should be clearly defined: upgrading shared laboratories, purchasing modern equipment, funding research grants, and supporting the commercialization of results.

If fully enforced, the “1% from resource users” rule could substantially boost science funding every year, accelerating the development of the sector. Instead of a formality, it should become a real instrument for strengthening Kazakhstan’s scientific capacity.

Reforming the National Science Councils

Kazakhstan’s National Science Councils (NSCs) were originally created as a key tool for evaluating and selecting research projects. In their early years, they fulfilled this mission. But over time, the academic community has come to view their work as lacking transparency. The outcomes of funding competitions often raise questions: by what criteria are projects supported, why are some rejected while others succeed? The process appears opaque, fueling concerns about lobbying and subjectivity.

To restore trust and ensure objectivity, a serious reform is needed. The most effective solution would be a shift to a digital evaluation system with full anonymization of applications, engagement of independent experts (including at least 30% from abroad), and the publication of final scores for all participants. A robust appeals process should also be built in, allowing researchers to challenge decisions transparently.

Technology can play a decisive role. A blockchain-based platform could record every evaluation and decision in an immutable digital ledger, eliminating the risk of results being altered retroactively and guaranteeing maximum transparency.

In short, the outdated NSC mechanism should be replaced with a modern digital platform that guarantees fairness, independence, and accountability in the distribution of research funding.

The Problem of Delays

Kazakhstan’s current grant system faces another chronic issue: late disbursement of funds. Formally, grant-funded work begins in January. In reality, the money arrives months later. A typical cycle looks like this: competitions are announced in November, results are published in April, contracts are signed in June, and the first tranches are only paid in September. Yet researchers are expected to submit reports by November of the same year. This means they must present results for a period when they had no actual funding.

The consequences are damaging. Research quality suffers, reporting becomes formalistic, and documentation often looks artificial. Real experiments are postponed or scaled back, and research teams lose motivation. The mismatch between official timelines and actual financing undermines trust in the funding system and creates risks for academic integrity.

One solution is the adoption of digital grant management systems. A blockchain platform could record each stage of the competition and funding process in a tamper-proof registry. Smart contracts would enable automatic transfers of funds according to a pre-set schedule, triggered once interim milestones are verified. This would eliminate delays, ensure transparency, and give research groups predictable financing.

Global experience shows that digital platforms can reliably manage large financial flows. For Kazakhstan, implementing such tools in the science sector would be a major step toward improving efficiency, transparency, and trust in the grant system.

Academia and Councils

Today, Kazakhstan’s National Academy of Sciences and the Councils of Young Scientists look more like clubs of interest: people gather, talk, sigh, and go home. Yet these are the groups that know best what the system really lacks: modern equipment, proper internships, trained specialists, and, of course, basic transparency.

If these institutions were given more authority, they could become true centers of influence-not just discussion forums. They could set research priorities, shape grant evaluations, and defend the interests of young researchers. For now, their voices are often drowned out by bureaucratic noise, even though the scientific community expects them to bring fresh energy and honest insights from the inside.

Academicians have already highlighted critical issues: the massive imbalance between bachelor’s and PhD graduates, the shortage of equipment, and the weak quality of training. These are valuable insights, but their reports are usually read only within a narrow circle. What’s needed is for the voice of scientists to directly shape policy-by setting priorities, accrediting journals, and participating in expert evaluations.

The Status of Scientists: From Survival to Professional Growth

Kazakhstan’s researchers today face insufficient social and professional support. Salaries remain low, benefits are limited, and the prestige of the profession is weak in the public eye. Compared with other sectors, the imbalance is striking: a commercial specialist has far better chances of securing a mortgage or supporting a family than a PhD with decades of research experience. As a result, many young professionals choose business or emigration instead of continuing a scientific career at home.

Reversing this trend requires a package of measures. First, researchers need competitive salaries. Second, the social package must expand to include preferential mortgages through state programs (such as Otbası Bank), medical insurance, and guaranteed access to childcare for scientists’ families. Third, a system of “career elevators” should be introduced, providing clear steps for progression-from young researchers to leading scientists and project heads.

The key principle is that science must be treated as a full-fledged profession, not a side job. A scientist should be able to focus on research, while also mentoring the next generation and driving innovation. Such policies would raise the prestige of the profession, keep talented youth in science, and build a sustainable talent pipeline for the country’s long-term development.

Auditing University Leadership

A significant number of department heads and deans in Kazakhstan’s universities neither speak English nor have recent publications in international journals. Yet they are the ones setting the course for scientific development in their institutions. The lack of language skills and research competence among leaders lowers the quality of education and blocks integration into the global scientific community.

What is needed is a systematic audit of university leadership qualifications. English proficiency and international publications must become mandatory requirements for academic leadership roles. For those who fall short, professional development programs, language courses, and research internships should be provided. Scientific leadership must be in the hands of specialists who are actively engaged in research and familiar with modern international standards.

Branch Campuses Without Science

Kazakhstan’s Minister of Science and Higher Education, Sayasat Nurbek, has launched a policy of opening foreign university branches in the country. Prestigious international universities are already establishing campuses, presented as a tool to improve education and science. On the surface, the idea looks positive: global universities bring their programs, standards, and potentially strong professors. For Kazakhstan, which wants to become a regional education hub, this is a logical step-especially if branches focus on high-demand fields like IT, engineering, and medicine, and are set up in the regions to expand access to quality education nationwide.

But the policy needs a critical look. Will these foreign campuses integrate into Kazakhstan’s scientific ecosystem, or remain isolated “enclaves”? Will they develop local research capacity-or just focus on teaching, which seems more likely? Much depends on ministry policy. Branches should be required to cooperate with local universities and research institutes, engage Kazakh scientists, and contribute to joint research. They could also be obliged to invest in research infrastructure, creating shared laboratories and innovation hubs. That way, the benefits go beyond student education to strengthening domestic scientific capacity.

Competition with foreign branches could also push local universities to reform. Still, it’s important to avoid a scenario where Kazakh institutions are put at a disadvantage from the start. The best approach is partnership-faculty exchanges, joint grants, and research clusters around branch campuses. Overall, the initiative to open foreign branches is a step in the right direction, but only if domestic universities are strengthened in parallel, rather than sidelined.

Journals for the Sake of Checkmarks

Another chronic problem in Kazakh science is the system of “recommended journals” overseen by the Committee for Quality Assurance in Science and Higher Education (often referred to as KOKSNVO journals). To defend a dissertation or receive a scientific title, researchers are required to publish in these journals. The goal is noble-to encourage domestic publishing-but the reality is far less inspiring. Many of these journals are of poor quality, barely read outside Kazakhstan (or even inside it), and contribute little to global science.

This creates a paradox: researchers spend time and energy publishing in outlets that matter only to local attestation commissions. Requirements are often excessive. In the social sciences and humanities, for example, doctoral candidates are required to publish in internationally indexed journals-a condition not even demanded at some of the world’s top universities.

The system needs reform. Only high-quality journals should remain on the list, and for the humanities, alternatives should be introduced-such as external peer reviews of monographs and dissertations.

Grants: Not Every Project Needs a Three-Year Clock

Currently, all research grants in Kazakhstan are issued for three years. That’s too long for fast-moving projects, and too short for fundamental research. It’s like giving the same exam time limit for physics and philosophy.

The solution is flexibility: researchers should be allowed to choose the length of their projects, anywhere from one to five years. Funding should be disbursed in stages, with checkpoints along the way.

Business and Science: Heroism or Profit?

Today, for a Kazakh company to adopt local scientific developments is almost an act of heroism. It’s far easier to buy a ready-made technology from abroad.

To change this, businesses need incentives: lower profit tax (15% for companies using Kazakhstani research, 10% for exporters), tax holidays for new firms, access to soft loans, and venture capital funds. With these tools, adopting local ideas would become profitable-not heroic.

Science Without Equipment = Ideas Without Results

Right now, 44% of researchers in Kazakhstan work without access to modern equipment. Even with talent and ideas, full-scale research is impossible. The lack of proper facilities lowers the quality of experiments and limits publication output.

The solution is to expand funding for shared-use laboratories, invest in equipment for research universities, and establish national centers of competence. Such infrastructure would form the backbone for competitive research and the training of a new generation of scientists.

The Science Fund: A Bridge or a Barrier?

Kazakhstan’s Science Fund was meant to be a bridge between academia and business. In practice, it has become more of a bureaucratic filter. Researchers complain about complex procedures, long review times, and weak support for projects after initial funding is awarded.

The 2024 Law on Science and Technology Policy also remains largely declarative. It lacks mechanisms for targeted infrastructure financing and offers no real incentives for business.

To fix this, the Fund must simplify its procedures, involve investors in project selection, publish transparent reports, and genuinely connect science with the economy.

Brains Going Out, Few Coming Back

Kazakh scientists leave the country actively-but rarely return. International collaborations are limited, and top-tier publications are concentrated mostly in just one place: Nazarbayev University.

Kazakhstan needs to launch “reverse flow” programs, establish joint labs with foreign universities, and set KPIs for local universities on international projects. Only then can the current brain drain be transformed into a circulation of ideas.

Kazakhstan’s science stands at a crossroads. It can continue to survive “at any cost” and remain a country defined by raw materials. Or it can choose a strategy of development and become a country of ideas.

For this to happen, funding must increase, the “resource 1%” mechanism must finally work, the National Science Councils must be reformed with transparent digital evaluations, and scientists must be given proper equipment, professional status, and ties to business.

If these steps are taken, then in ten years Kazakhstan will be known not only for oil and uranium, but also for technology, discoveries, and innovation.