Planning and Leadership in the Soviet Scientific System

  • Peter Kneen
Part of the Studies in Soviet History and Society book series (SSHS)


The previous chapter dealt with informal groups which grow up among natural scientists. Although these groups play a crucial role in the generation of scientific knowledge, it is through the formal institutions of the academies of sciences that plans are formulated, tasks assigned and resources allocated. The question which this chapter addresses concerns the degree to which the informal relationships of science can be accommodated by the Soviet Union’s system of centralised institutions, plans and leadership.


USSR Academy Administrative Authority Informal Research Informal Relation Soviet Scientist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Ustavy Akademii nauk SSSR, 1724–1974gg (Moscow: Nauka, 1974) pp. 166–7; for discussion of the role of the USSR Academy of Sciences see Osnovnye printsipy i obshchie problemy upravleniya naukoi (Moscow: Nauka, 1973) p. 180; V. A. Rassudovskii, Gosudarstvennaya organizatsiya nauki v SSSR (Moscow: Yuridicheskaya Literature, 1971) pp. 32–49;Google Scholar
  2. L. V. Golovanov, ‘Sistema upravleniya naukoi v SSSR i voprosy ee sovershenstvovaniya’, in Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, vyp. 3 (Moscow: Mysl’, 1969) p. 44; Organizatsionno-pravovye voprosy rukovodstva naukoi v SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1973) pp. 208–9.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Ustavy Akademii nauk SSSR (1974) pp. 175–6 and 178–9; K. A. Lange, Organizatsiya upravleniya nauchnymi issledovaniyami (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971) pp. 168–88; Osnovnye printsipy, pp. 189–91.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    V. A. Kirillin, Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, no. 5 (1976) p. 48; Osnovnye printsipy, p. 46; see also Loren R. Graham, ‘The Role of the Academy of Sciences’, Survey, vol. 23, no. 1, (Winter 1977–8) p. 119.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Osnovnye printsipy, pp. 192–6; see also Yu. Sheinin, Science Policy: Problems and Trends (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978) p. 203.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    John Löwenhardt, ‘Scientist-entrepreneurs in the Soviet Union’, Survey, vol. 20, no. 4 (Autumn 1974) pp. 116–17.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    G. M. Dobrov, V. N. Klimenyuk, V. M. Odrin and A. A. Savel’ev, Organizatsiya nauki (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1970) pp. 62–4;Google Scholar
  8. I. V. Sergeeva, ‘Kollektiv i lichnost’ v nauke’, Sotsial’nye issledovaniya, vyp. 3 (Moscow: Nauka, 1970) p. 185;Google Scholar
  9. I. I. Leiman, Nauka kak sotsial’nyi institut (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971) pp. 163–72.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    G. M. Dobrov, V. N. Klimenyuk et al., Organizatsiya nauki, p. 86; Effektivnost’ nauchnykh issledovanii, p. 241; Thane Gustafson, ‘Why Doesn’t Soviet Science Do Better Than It Does?’, in Linda L. Lubrano and Susan Gross Solomon (eds), The Social Context of Soviet Science (Folkestone: Wm Dawson, 1980) pp. 48–54;Google Scholar
  11. Zhores A. Medvedev, The Medvedev Papers (London: Macmillan, 1971) pp. 165–7.Google Scholar
  12. For comment on the operation of the material-technical supply system and the political significance of maintaining its centralised structure, see Moshe Lewin, Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates (London: Pluto Press, 1975) p. 280;Google Scholar
  13. Hedrick Smith, The Russians (London: Times Books, 1976) pp. 227–8Google Scholar
  14. and Robert Kaiser, Russia: The People and the Power (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977) pp. 304–6.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    A. V. Rzhanov, ‘O nekotorykh putyakh povysheniya effektivnosti fundamental’nykh nauchnykh issledovanii’, Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, no. 2 (1982) pp. 41–7. On the material-technical supply system as a cause of dissatisfaction among scientists see V. Zh. Kelle et al. in Sotsio-logicheskie problemy nauchnoi deyateVnosti (Moscow: Institut sotsio-logicheskikh issledovanii AN SSSR, 1978) Table 6, p. 127; see also G. M. Dobrov, V. N. Klimenyuk et al., Organizatsiya nauki, pp. 47, 67–9 and 86–7;Google Scholar
  16. B. A. Frolov, ‘Motivatsiya tvorchestva v nauchnom kollective’, in SotsiaVno-psikhologicheskie problemy nauki (Moscow: Nauka, 1973) p. 150; V. Semenov, ‘Fond dlya nauki’, Pravda (21 December 1968) p. 2; I.I. Leiman, Nauka kak sotsial’nyi institut, p. 142.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    V. Zh. Kelle et al. in Sotsiologicheskie problemy nauchnoi deyatel’nosti, Table 6, p. 127; see also B. A. Frolov, in Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie problemy nauki, pp. 147–52; V. V. Poshataev, ‘Nauchnyi kollektiv kak sfera formirovaniya individual’nosti’, in Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom, vyp. 5 (Moscow: Mysl’, 1971) pp. 201–2; Thane Gustafson, in L. L. Lubrano and S. G. Solomon, The Social Context, pp. 46–7.Google Scholar
  18. 30.
    SotsiaVno-psikhologicheskie problemy nauki, p. 150; S. A. Kugel’, ‘Struktura i dinamika nauchnykh kadrov’, in Upravlenie, planirovanie i organizatsiya nauchnykh i tekhnicheskikh issledovanii, torn 2 (Moscow: VINITI, 1971) p. 236.Google Scholar
  19. 31.
    P. L. Kapitsa, Teoriya, Eksperiment, Praktika (Moscow: Znanie, 1966) pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peter Kneen 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Kneen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations