1 Price, Don K., The Scientific Estate, 1965, p. 118 Google Scholar. Cf. also Gilpin, R. and Wright, C. (eds.), Scientists and National Poficy-Making, 1964 Google Scholar; Lakoff, Sanford A., Knowledge and Power, 1966.Google Scholar

2 Marx, K., Capital, 1, 1915, Chicago, p. 26.Google Scholar

3 In ‘What are the “Friends of the People”?’, Lenin, V. I., Sochineniya, 4th ed., vol. I, 1941, P. 308.Google Scholar

4 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1959, no.5, p.7.

5 loc. cit. articles 2 and 4.

6 On the annual report cf. the charter, article I; on expenditure cf. Zaleski, E., Kozlowski, J. P., Wienert, H., Davies, R. W., Berry, M. J., Amann, R., Science Policy in the USSR, OECD, 1969, p. 263.Google Scholar

7 Cf. KPSS v Rezolyutsiyakb, 1954, vol. 2, p. 256.

8 Quoted in Joravsky, D., Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917–32. 1961, p, 223.Google Scholar

9 On Soviet debates about science and philosophy during this period cf. Joravsky, op. cit.; on the reform of the Academy cf. Graham, Loren R., The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party 1927–32, 1967 Google Scholar; for a recent Soviet view of the relationship between the party and scientists of. Ul’yanovskaya, V. A., Formirovaniye Nauchnoy Intellientsii v SSSR 1917–199gg., 1966.Google Scholar

10 An analysis of the organization of the Academy of Sciences and the ethos of science during the Iast years of Stalin’s rule can be found in Vucinich, A., The Soviet Academy of Sciences, 1956.Google Scholar

11 Medvedev, Z. A., The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko, 1969 Google Scholar, provides fascinating insight into some aspects of the politics of Soviet science. An earlier draft of the same work is to be found in Grani, no. 70, pp. 127–66, and no. 71, pp. 78–161, 1969.

12 Cf. The Situation in Biological Science, Proceedings of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR, Session, July 31-August 7, 1948; 1949. Cf. Scientific Session on the Physiological Teachings of Academician I. P. Pavlov, 1951.

13 cf. Vucinich, op. cit., ch. 6 and pp. 103–6; Medvedev, op. cit., pp. 117–3 I.

14 A. Zhdanov, ‘Vystuplenie na diskussii PO knige G. F. Aleksandrova “Istoriya Zapadno-yevropeyskoy Filosofii”,’ 1951, p. 44. The speech was made in 1947.

15 Stalin, I. V., Concerning Marxism in Linguistics, Moscow, 1950, p. 22.Google Scholar

16 ‘Za svobodnuyu, tvorcheskuyu, nauchnuyu kritiku,’Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1950, no.8, p.13.

17 loc tit.

18 Ibid., p. 12.

19 Cf., for example, what appears to have been the final meeting of the council: ‘O resheniyakh IX sessii Nauchnogo Soveta po problemam fiziologicheskogo ucheniya I. P. Pavlova,’Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1953, no. 6, pp. 61–2.

20 Cf. N. V. Turbin, ‘Darvinirm i Novoya Ucheniye o Vide’; Ivanov, N. D., ‘O Novom Uchenii T. D. Lysenko o Vide’, in Botanicheskiy Zburnal, no. 6, 1952, pp. 798–818, 819–842.Google Scholar

21 Polanyi, Michael, ‘The Growth of Science in Society, ’Minerva, vol.5, no.4, Summer 1967, p. 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 ‘Nauka i Zhizn’, Kommunist, 1954, no. 5, p. 10.

23 G. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, 1958, p. 420. Maksimov was criticized for his ‘nihilistic views about one of the most important theories in modern science (relativity theory)’ and removed from the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofi.

24 Medvedev, op. cit., pp. 137–8.

25 Ibid. The reasons for Lysenko’s resignation are probably much more complex than this in view of his relationship with Malenkov, and opposition to Khrushchev. Cf. Sidney I. PIoss: Conflict and Decision-Making in Soviet Russia. A Case Study of Agricultural Policy, 1953–1963, 1965, passim. It is clear, however, that from about 1957 on Lysenko enjoyed Khrushchev’s support, perhaps because Khrushchev was able to use him as a pliant supporter in arguments with other experts.

26 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1956, no.6, p.49.

27 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1956, no.3, p.14.

28 Cf. Omyel’yanovsky, M. E., ‘Zadachi Razrabotki Problemy “Dialekticheskogo Materializma i sovremennogo yestyestvoznaniya”,’ Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1956, no. 10 Google Scholar; Filosofskiye Problemy Sovremennogo Yestyestvoznaniya, 1959, p. 650.

29 Cf. Filosofskiye Problemy Sovremennogo Yestyestvoznaniya, p. 589.

30 The proceedings are published in Filosofskiye Problemy.

31 Cf. P. N. Fedoseyev’s opening speech at a conference on physiology and psychology in 1962, in which he criticized the effect of the personality cult on physiology and psychology. Filosofskiye voprosy fiziologii vyssbey nervnoy deyatel’nosti i psikbologii, 1963.

32 Cf. Medvedev, op. cit. pp. 138–139; Wetter, op. cit. p. 464.

33 Cf. Medvedev, op. cit. pp. 221–43.

34 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1965, no. 3, p. 111.

35 Nauka i Zbizn’, 1965, no. 4, p. 43.

36 Cf. the report and discussion in Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1965, no. 11.

37 Medvedev, op. cit., p. 234.

38 Medvedev, op. cit., p. 241.

39 Hagstrom, W. O., The Scientific Community, 1965, p. 52.Google Scholar It is clear that in terms of such a model secrecy will introduce distortions into the behaviour of the scientific community, both by restricting communication between scientists, and by making it difficult for scientists engaged on secret research to obtain the recognition of the community.

40 Cf. Nesmeyanov, A. N., ‘Nauka i Proizvodstvo’, Kommunist, 1956, no. 2, p. 39 Google Scholar; also Keldysh, M. V., Vestnik Akademii Nank, 1961, no. 7, p. 22.Google Scholar

41 Dobrov, G. M., Nauka o Nauke, 1966, p. 26.Google Scholar

42 Cf. Zaleski et al., op. cit., p. 534; Davies, R. W., Science and the Soviet Economy, 1967, p. 14.Google Scholar

43 Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, n.d., Moscow p. 548.

44 Osnovy Marksizma-Leninizma, 1959, p. 689.

45 Programme of the CPSU, 1961, part two, section 1.

46 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1961, no. 7, p. 4.

47 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1961, no. 7, p. 96.

48 Programme of the CPSU, 1961, part one, section 4.

49 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1954, no. 11, p. 88.

50 Cf. Vucinich, op. cit., pp. 33–5.

51 Cf. Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1955, no. 3.

52 Fed’kin, G. I.: Pravovyye Voprosy Organisatsii Nauchnoy Raboty v SSSR, 1958, p. 49.Google Scholar

53 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1956, no. 6, pp. 3–50.

54 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1956, no. 11, p. 7.

55 Cf. Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1959, no. 5.

56 Cf. Zaleski et al., op. cit., pp. 227–31.

57 Vestnik Akademii Nauk, 1963, no. 6, p. 17.

58 Cf. Graham, Loren R., ‘Reorganization of the USSR Academy of Sciences’, in Juviler, P. H. and Morton, H.W. (eds.), Soviet Policy-Making, 1967, pp. 135–61.Google Scholar

59 Cf. Graham: ‘Reorganization…’; and Zaleski et al., op. cit., pp. 202–3.

60 Pravda, 12 April 1961, p. 1; translation in A. G. Korol, Soviet Research and Development, 1965, pp. 325–9.

61 Vucinich, A., ‘Science’, in Kassof, A. (ed.), Prospects for Soviet Society, 1967, p. 337.Google Scholar

62 Cf. Korol, loc. cit

63 Cf. Zaleski et al., op. cit., pp. 202–3.

64 Cf. ibid., pp. 570–2.

65 Cf. ibid., p. 394; also Decisions of the Plenum of the Central Committee, CPSU held in July 1955, Moscow, 1955.

66 de Solla Price, D. J., Little Science, Big Science, 1963, 111.Google Scholar

67 For a description by a Soviet writer of the difficulties he faced in trying to form an ‘invisible college’ cf. Nalimov, V. V., ‘Kolichestvennyye Metody Issledovaniya Protsessa Razvitiya Nauki,’ Voprosy Filosofii, 1966, no. 12, pp. 43–5Google Scholar.

68 Volkov, G. N., Sotsiologiya Nauki, 1968, p. 234.Google Scholar

69 Cf., for example, Volkov, op. cit., for a very general discussion of the field, also A. I. Shcherbakov: Puti soversbenstvovaniya organizatsii truda nauchnykb sotrudnikov, 1966. Mirskaya, Ye. Z., ‘Kommunikatsii v nauke,’ VoprosyFihsofii, 1969, no. 8, pp. 107–15.Google Scholar

70 Dobrov, op. cit., is probably the best general Soviet discussion of the science of science.

71 ‘In recent times, the number of scientists called on to participate in the work of the governmental apparatus, even at the highest levels, has increased.’ Quoted in Zaleski etal., op. cit., p. 205.

72 Cf. Robert C. Wood, ‘The Rise of an Apolitical Elite’, in Gilpin and Wright (eds.), op. cit., pp. 41–72. The technological education received by the great majority of the political leadership presumably makes it easier for scientists and technologists to communicate their demands and priorities to the politicians and administrators; conversely, it may make the politicians less likely to attribute superior powers of insight and wisdom to the scientists.

73 Cf., for example, ‘Matematicheskiye Metody v Ekonomike,’Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 8, 1960, pp. 100–20; ‘Ekonomisty i Matematiki za “kruglym stolom’”’, Voprosy Ekonomiki, 1964, no. 9, pp. 63–110.

74 Cf. for example, Levada, Yu A., ‘Kibemeticheskiye metody v sotsiologii’, Kommunist, 1965, no. 14 Google Scholar; Blauberg, I. V., Yudin, E. G., ‘Sistemnyi podkhod v sotsial’nykh issledovaniyakh,’ Voprosy Filosofii, 1967, no. 9.Google Scholar

75 An ex-Soviet science journalist has described this current of belief. According to him, Soviet scientists ‘regard the political and economic systems as working, in cybernetic terms, without feedback and with an enormously high level of noise. To continue the analogy, this means that the system must be destroyed and another one built up…. They still hope for some change at the top, in some way similar perhaps to those that have occurred in Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia.… Today they think this kind of change is inevitable. They are thinking in terms of a technocracy—rule by technologists and scientists—as a transition stage before some more democratic system can be installed. Although this talk sounded rather strange to me, I found it to be quite widespread among scientists, except for those that are cynics and sceptics, and there are many of them.’ Leonid Vladimirov, ‘Soviet Science – a Native’s Opinion’, New Scientist, 28 November 1968, p. 490.

76 Sakharov, A. D., Raznryshkniya o progresse, mirnom sosushchestvovanii i intellektual’noy suobode, 1968.Google Scholar

77 Svidorov, N., ‘Partiinaya Zabota o Vospitanii Nauchno-Tekhnicheskoy Intelli-gentsii’, Kommunist, 1968, no. 18, p. 40.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., pp. 40–1.

79 Pravda, 1 April 1968, p. 2.