Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
Connect With Us
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
Connect With Us
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Nov 17, 2025
Why funding education isn’t image-building but a strategic investment in humanity’s future. Dmitry Zimin explains the mission of enlightenment, lessons from the Dynasty Foundation and the Zimin Foundation, the ethics of philanthropy, and why books remain the core of a strong, humane society.
Please tell us why you decided to finance education in particular. Why are you doing this?
It all started with the lack of popular-science literature in post-Soviet Russia. Although I’m not the most bookish person, a significant part of my upbringing was shaped by the wonderful books of Evgeny Aisberg “Radio? It’s Very Simple!” and other “very” or “almost simple” books, by the “Kvant Library” series, and by the magazine “Radio,” which my father made sure always appeared in the house.
In general, the Zimin Foundation's mission aligns with that of the Dynasty Foundation. And the mission of Dynasty — after what is probably a typical evolution of thinking for people who suddenly became wealthy — formed around the idea of enlightenment. To explain briefly: at first, the thoughts revolve around raising one’s own children, but quite quickly it becomes clear that raising children does not require millions: yes, an expensive school, yes, a university, but the rest risks turning into spoilage. And then comes the understanding that what really matters is the world in which your children will live. And that is no longer an educational exercise or a toy for heirs — it is a matter for the most serious investment.
Enlightenment in our understanding grew out of the conviction that the more educated people there are in a society — people who understand how the world works — the more likely that society is to become successful, sustainable, and humane.
The mission of “enlightenment” had two strategies.
The first was supporting students and young scientists. This probably left the strongest impression of Dynasty. Over time, however, this strategy diminished: Dynasty was labeled a “foreign agent” in 2015 and stopped operating in Russia; secondly, security services had already begun imprisoning scientists since the 2000s, which greatly discouraged motivation; third, the government, businesses, and individuals gained much greater opportunities to fund education and scientific work, even outside of Russia. In other words, not only did obstacles appear, but so did much larger alternative sources of support. Although the slow-motion catastrophe occurring in Russia makes the task of supporting talented people inside the country relevant again.
The second strategy was to promote the development of high-quality science popularization in our case — in Russian. Within this strategy, the award Prosvetitel (“The Enlightener”) exists. Primarily, it is a prize, but we also aim to support the entire book ecosystem; one of the efforts includes supporting reading clubs and discussions on scientific and educational topics. Returning to the core idea, we can state our faith: the book is the foundation of systematic knowledge.
I should mention that after one of the Zimin Foundation structures was labeled “undesirable” and I was called a "terrorist" myself, everything I say relates to the past — for the safety of those connected with Prosvetitel. Still, I am confident that Prosvetitel will secure funding and will surely carry on its work.
The Dynasty Foundation became a symbol of supporting science and education in Russia. What lessons did you take from that experience?
We became a symbol simply because we were fortunate — we happened to be in the right place at the right time. Supporting science and education is quite a common idea; it has appeared not only in the minds of fictional characters of writers like O. Henry, where, in one story, wealthy crooks also decide to open a university, but also among real business leaders. For example, Andrew Carnegie is remembered mainly for supporting universities and libraries rather than the controversial parts of his business. It should be noted that Russian so-called “oligarchs” who amassed their wealth in the 2000s, and I believe, even those today, invested heavily — and often successfully — in education. I think our experience has been valuable for everyone. Specifically, the lesson is that administrative processes within a foundation must be very precise: it should not have too many powers and must be strictly governed by procedures — much like a well-managed business or government. And achieving that is not easy at all.
Were there cases when you invested in a person or a project and later regretted it? Many philanthropists mention this.
If you mean crooks — no, we were spared. But evaluating success, and I see the work of Dynasty and the Zimin Foundation exactly as investing rather than as satisfying one’s vanity, is a complex matter. In philanthropy, it is especially ambiguous because success cannot be measured in money.
What is success? For example, this is a positive memory of the Dynasty. The model of interaction between private money and public interest can also be seen as a success. Therefore, the activities of the Dynasty, including the appointment of the director, approval of the budget, and approval of the strategy—such as the interpretation of the Foundation's Mission—were determined by the Trustees, who were independent of us. It seems to me that we had some influence on the book market, at least in the early 2000s, and this is probably also a success. But overall, I repeat, assessing any charity is a challenging task.
One key criterion of a successful project, and by extension a successful philanthropist, is sustainability: the ability for the project to attract multiple donors and even generate revenue. Yes, generate revenue as well. Philanthropy isn't about providing services that no one is willing to pay for, but about making sure essential services are accessible to those who cannot afford them.
If a project must prove its value to different donors at different times, there is less risk of stagnation and inefficiency than if it depends on a single donor.
What projects are currently underway? What are you working on, and where is the Zimin Foundation heading?
The Zimin Foundation is heading wherever humanity is heading!
Honestly, we have an exploratory approach — the search and discovery of “what has not yet existed.” It’s called the Zimin Institutes: co-investment with universities to turn scientific ideas, sometimes even fantasies, into practical technologies. This is not business yet, and earning money is still a long way off. It’s the phase of shaping an idea into a technology ready for future private investment — but involving much higher financial risk and scale.
Co-investment means that universities provide scientific expertise, and we offer modest funding. Currently, we are collaborating with two Israeli universities—Tel Aviv University and the Technion—and one American institution, the University of Arizona.
Our traditional focus is on enlightenment. I have already mentioned the Prosvetitel award. The Redkollégia (Editorial Board) award also falls into this category because journalists, too, engage in enlightenment — perhaps the most important kind. However, for the reasons already given, I must also speak about this in the past tense. Nonetheless, I am convinced that Redkollégia will continue to exist.
From the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine, a significant portion of the funds goes to projects in Ukraine and related to Ukraine: primarily, humanitarian aid and assistance for post-traumatic stress disorder; secondly, support for libraries and school education.
We do not seek out projects in general; we don’t have “open doors” or money “we don’t know what to do with.” We focus on what we consider necessary and important.
Which areas of supporting science and scientists do you consider the most important and relevant?
About 20 years ago, the mission of the Dynasty Foundation was roughly defined as follows: the more people in a society understand — or at least are familiar with — basic sciences, the more likely they are to build a prosperous society. Back then, we considered physics and mathematics as fundamental, and perhaps chemistry as well — though I have a hereditary aversion to chemistry.
Later, I understood that any science can be fundamental — whether demography, archaeology, or astronomy. Now, I believe that the most fundamental knowledge is the one that helps distinguish good from evil. Although the award still formally separates “natural and exact sciences,” including biology and economics, from “unnatural sciences” — the humanities, history, cultural studies; I’m joking, of course. I consider ethics and philosophy in general to be the most fundamental of sciences.
The foundation is that for the existence of sciences, as well as all other human goods, you need to build something much more advanced than a pack. Or the most advanced pack. I think that the science of good and evil, as well as of being, of what is and what ought to be, is an evolutionary advantage that allowed our ancestors to "outwit" other packs.
I have no illusions that good will never finally defeat evil. Moreover, undoubtedly evil is often done by the most fierce zealots for good. But societies where the problems of good and evil are solved by discussion and debate, that is, by science and education, are more competitive than societies based on dogma and the authority of the leader.
And actual knowledge is relevant at all times—the science of the structure of the world. Not knowing how to grow grain or how to find the South or the North, you don't really think about good and evil—someone will eat it, or you will die of hunger yourself.