Dr. Serhii Huliienko on Ukrainian Science, International Collaboration, and Membrane Research Frontiers
How does Dr. Serhii Huliienko explain international collaboration, membrane science frontiers, and pseudoscientific claims in Ukraine?
Dr. Serhii Huliienko is an associate professor at the National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute,” specializing in membrane separation, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and process simulation. His research examines fouling, regeneration of spiral-wound modules, concentration polarization, mass-transfer resistance, BaCl₂ separation, CFD analysis, spacer design, and channel-curvature effects. Across experimental and mathematical studies, he contributes to optimizing pressure-driven membrane technologies for chemical engineering, wastewater treatment, separation-equipment design, and broader industrial applications.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Dr. Serhii Huliienko about international collaboration, Ukrainian scientific infrastructure, and frontiers in membrane science. Huliienko explains that cooperation with Western partners is increasingly important. Institutional legacies of the centralized Soviet-era scientific system can make international partnership-building difficult. He identifieskey research frontiers: active membrane-layer structure, separation mechanisms, predictive modelling, molecular dynamics, and biomedical applications. The exchange also addresses speculative claims, homeopathy, “water memory,” and the importance of evidence-based skepticism in public science.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have been told quite consistently that international collaboration has increased significantly, both from a desire to connect with the Western world and out of necessity. Is that generally true across disciplines?
Dr. Serhii Huliienko: Yes, and we are trying to develop this. It is very important and a fast way to grow professionally. But for me, it is difficult to start without prior experience. The first time I contacted a scientist abroad was in 2022. A scientist from Morocco once asked me for advice. It was interesting, but it was only a small interaction.
I have tried to write proposals for international collaboration programs, but they have not been successful so far. It is still difficult for me to understand what exactly I should do to develop this cooperation. I think I am still at the beginning of this process.
Some colleagues in my faculty have international collaborations, but they work in slightly different fields. In those areas, it may be easier to establish partnerships. My work involves large industrial systems, which makes collaboration more complex compared to fields with more accessible applications, like consumer-level technologies.
I think it is necessary to further develop this direction, especially for cooperation with large industrial partners and markets.
Jacobsen: There are many talented scientists in Ukraine, but they lack resources and infrastructure. At the same time, there are many institutions in the European Union that need talented scientists and already have strong resources. Do you think there could be long-term benefits for both sides through collaboration?
Huliienko: Yes, I think so. But there is another issue in Ukraine. Many managers in science, including heads of academic institutes, are older, and many of them still have what I would call a “Soviet mindset.”
This comes from the Soviet system, where science was organized differently. It was based on centralized planning, with direct connections to government structures, and there was little or no collaboration with foreign partners.
Because of this, many scientific supervisors of postgraduate students still follow this model. Young researchers work under their leadership and focus mainly on their dissertations, without gaining much experience in international collaboration.
So when young scientists enter the field, they often lack experience in building partnerships with international colleagues. This becomes a problem for Ukrainian scientists in developing global cooperation.
Jacobsen: Where is the frontier of research globally in your field? By “frontier,” I mean the boundary between what we know and what we are still trying to understand, the leading edge of knowledge.
Huliienko: In membrane science, one frontier is understanding the real structure of the active layer in semipermeable membranes. About 30 years ago, many people thought these membranes were non-porous. Now, research suggests there may be internal structures or forces that influence separation. New methods, such as magnetic resonance and other advanced techniques, may help clarify this.
Another frontier is understanding the true mechanism of membrane separation. Current approaches include thermodynamic models, solution-diffusion models for non-porous membranes, and pore-flow models. In the future, we may better understand the real mechanism and develop more accurate predictive models for equipment performance. Molecular dynamics may play an important role here.
Jacobsen: What about interdisciplinary frontiers?
Huliienko: In related areas, there are many directions. One important area is medical applications of membrane processes, such as artificial kidneys, artificial lungs, and other biomedical technologies.
For example, artificial organs and materials like artificial skin are important developments. These applications connect membrane science with medicine and biology.
Jacobsen: What parts of your field could be extended into more speculative or future technologies, ideas grounded in science but not yet achievable? Some ideas could be extended from current principles, but the technology is still far from practical realization. It is more like science-based speculation, possible in theory, but not yet feasible with current methods.
Huliienko: Do you mean what is broadly understandable to the public, or something else?
Jacobsen: Good question.
Huliienko: Many membrane systems can now be purchased by anyone through building-supply or industrial-equipment retailers, so I do not think this area is very abstract for people.
Even hemodialysis became a widely discussed topic in the media around 2017, when there was a shortage of medical resources for this process. I do not think this leads much into science fiction. Some people still try to promote ideas like “water memory.” It was discussed already in the 1980s.
In 1988, Jacques Benveniste and colleagues published a controversial study in Nature. They reported biological effects from extremely dilute preparations of anti-IgE antibodies. This became a basis for “water memory.” Subsequent controlled investigations failed to establish the claimed effect. Similarly, Masaru Emoto claimed emotions could affect water crystal structures. These claims have not been established through rigorous, independently replicated experimental evidence.
Jacobsen: In Canada, there is the Centre for Inquiry Canada, a scientific and skeptical organization. Centre for Inquiry Canada supported legal action concerning the marketing and sale of homeopathic products through pharmacies. The concern is that people may rely on these instead of effective medical treatments, which can waste time, money, and hope.
Huliienko: I remember that homeopathy was quite popular in Ukraine about 20 years ago.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Serhii.
