The development of science as a social institution, as well as its interaction with diplomacy, now spawned a number of “hybrid” forms of promoting the unification of the capacity of each of these areas to address specific social and political problems of contemporary culture. Against the background clotting own potential natural science research programs in a number of countries who spoke first among the leaders of the world of science (especially physics) especially interesting are dynamics of the changing role of the scientist in the paradigm of post-nonclassical science. Italy from this point of view is a unique platform where the tradition of classical education, the political process and the modern European strategy received a particular orientation towards the sphere of application of this bias potential in the communications area. And, above all, scientific communication (including, in particular, diplomatic communications). Using biographical method based on the publicly available reference information helps to change perspectives in the analysis of the formation of philosophical and cultural foundations of such type of science diplomacy as “diplomacy of scientists”. The fate of prominent scientists (such as Bruno Pontecorvo) and less well-known figures in science, has been included in the activities of international organizations, there are no less revealing than the fate of those who did not rise to the top of science, becoming invisible “cog” in the wheel of history. Science diplomacy thus can be considered at least in two aspects. On the one hand, as “science for diplomacy” — in terms of general cultural potential of science education and scientific activity itself, deducing scientists to the level of diplomatic work. On the other — as a public diplomacy in the framework of “cultural diplomacy” does not lead to a certain status and rank, but enables to solve issues within the scientific community, is an important group communicator in international relations. The questions are appropriate to consider in the light of the idea of the creative potential of science education, the prospects of its impact on the productivity of thinking in the application of social and cultural practices based, inter alia, on the communicative competence. But even more important is the approach exposing the fundamental importance of education of any type for the formation of a mature personality, capable to realize itself in the solution of various problems with weighty social significance.
“hybrid” forms of scientific communication, philosophical and cultural studies of science diplomacy, scientists-”communicators” intellectual creativity, socio-cultural potential of fundamental education, economics of science, Italian physics.
Коммуникативный потенциал научной дипломатии — один из самых перспективных на сегодняшний день. При этом сама научная дипломатия, как известно, может быть рассмотрена в нескольких аспектах.
1. Berk P. Chto takoe kul’tural’naya istoriya? [What is the his¬tory of the culture?]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki Publ., 2015. 240 p.
2. Gusserl’ E. Krizis evropeyskikh nauk i transtsendental’naya fenomenologiya [Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology]. Logos Publ., 2002, I. 1, pp. 132-143.
3. Dve zhizni Bruno Pontekorvo, ili Razocharovanie atomnogo shpiona [Two Lives Bruno Pontecorvo, or disappointment atomic spy]. RIA NAUKA Publ. Available at: http://ria.ru/sci¬ence/20130822/957886312.html (accessed 27 June 2016).
4. Zekrist R.I. Vlast’ v usloviyakh globalizatsii (sotsial’no-filosof¬skiy analiz). Doct. Diss. [Authorities in the context of globaliza¬tion (social-philosophical analysis). Doct. Diss.]. Ekaterinburg, 2014. 403 p.
5. Istoricheskie litsa Italii [Historical face Italy]. Available at: http:// www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_i/italia.php (accessed 27 June 2016).
6. Konnov V.I. Printsipy nauchnogo samoupravleniya v sovremen¬noy sotsiologii nauki [The principles of scientific self-governance in modern sociology of science]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical sciences]. 2007, I. 4, pp. 132-147.
7. Kravchenko S.A. Modern i postmodern: «staroe» i novoe videnie [Modern and Postmodern: the “old” and the new vision of]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. 2007, I. 9, pp. 24-34.
8. Markuze G. Odnomernyy chelovek [One-Dimensional Man]. Moscow, Refl-book Publ., 1994. 368 p.
9. Medvedeva S.M. Nauchnaya kommunikatsiya v sovremennom mire: problemy i perspektivy [Scientific communication in the modern world: problems and prospects]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta [The Bulletin of the MGIMO University]. 2014, I. 2, pp. 253-255.
10. Rossiya predpochla voynu s Ukrainoy? Obsuzhdayut professor Georgiy Derlug’yan i akademik RAN Yuriy Ryzhov [Russia has preferred war with Ukraine? Discuss George Derluguian Professor and Academician Yury Ryzhov]. Ofitsial’nyy sayt Radio Svoboda [Official site of Radio Liberty]. Available at: http://www.svo¬boda.org/content/transcript/26797194.html (accessed 27 June 2016).
11. Silant’eva M.V. Problemy logiki i teorii poznaniya v sovremen¬nom gumanitarnom znanii [Problems of logic and theory of knowledge in the contemporary humanities]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2006. 48 p.
12. Solov’ev E.Yu. Sekulyarizatsiya-istoritsizm-marksizm: tema chelovekobozhiya i religii progressa v filosofskoy publitsistike S.N. Bulgakova [Secularization-historicism-Marxism: chelove¬kobozhiya topic of religion and progress in philosophical jour¬nalism SN Bulgakov]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2001, I. 4, pp. 31-37.
13. Spisok poslov Italii v Rossiyskoy imperii, SSSR i Rossiyskoy Federatsii [List of the ambassadors of Italy in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation]. Available at: https:// ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spisok_poslov_Italii_v_Rossiyskoy_impe-rii,_SSSR_i_Rossiyskoy_Federatsii (accessed 27 June 2016).
14. Sud prodlil rektoru DVFU domashniy arest do serediny iyulya [The Court has extended the rector FEFU house arrest until mid-July]. Novosti Vladivostoka na VL.ru [Vladivostok News VL.ru]. Available at: http://www.newsvl.ru/vlad/2016/05/20/147586/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
15. Farkhatdinov N. Tekhnika i nauka kak «ideologiya»: cherez 40 let na russkom yazyke [Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’: 40 years in Russian]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological Review]. 2007, V. 6, I. 2, pp. 60-64.
16. Fuko M. Intellektualy i vlast’ [Intellectuals and power]. Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu [Selected Political articles, speeches and interviews]. Moscow, Praksis Publ., 2002. 384 p.
17. Fuko M. Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tyur’my [Discipline and Punish. Birth of the Prison]. Moscow, Ad Marginem Publ., 1999. 479 p.
18. Khabermas Yu. Tekhnika i nauka kak «ideologiya» [Technology and Science as “Ideology”]. Moscow, Praksis Publ., 2007. 208 p.
19. Shestopal A.V. «Myagkaya sila» kul’turny modulyatorov sovre¬mennykh modernizatsionnykh protsessov [“Soft power” cultured modulators contemporary modernization processes]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta [Bulletin of the University of MGIMO]. 2012, I. 6, pp. 168-171.
20. Glagolev V.S. Cooperation of technologic and scientific knowl¬edge in development of European culture / V sbornike: European Science and Technology materials of the VI International re¬search and practice conference. 2013. Pp. 171-174.
21. Franzen J. Metaethics, ontology, and epistemology in American sociology: Emile Durkheim and Gilles Deleuze: Dissertation. Department of Sociology. For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Colorado Spring 2012. Colorado State University. 139 p. Available at:http://dspace.library.colostate.edu/webclient/DeliveryManager/ digitool_items/csu01_storage/2012/07/18/file_1/169317 (ac¬cessed 18 July 2016).
22. Manzi J. What social science does-and does not-know // City Journal. 2010. T. 20. № 3. Available at: http://www.city-journal.org/html/what-social-science-does-and-doesn’t-know- 13297.html (accessed 5 July 2016).
23. Slaughter Sh. Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state and higher education / Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades. The Jhon Hopkins University Press. Valtimore, 2010. 384 p.
