Appendix I Figure 2 Photograph of SuperOx Superconducting Cable from
Diagram 2 The USSR Scientific and Technical Organisation
204 Ibid., 2; the word ‘Bolshevich’ is shown as in the original. 205 Ibid., 1.
206 Ibid. 207 Ibid., 2.
According to Spearman, ‘This organization shows the close relation between the government, the research institutes and design bureaus, industrial production, and the academic community. It is intended that this organization will assure that training, research, and production are directed toward the priority needs of the central government.’208 This structure was ensured by Soviet law in which the Soviet Constitution played the primary role.
The functionality and interaction between the system’s elements was underpinned by the fundamental rights, freedoms and duties of the citizens of the USSR as established in the leading national act, the Soviet Constitution, through the clauses on social development and culture privileges, in which the Article 26 read: ‘In accordance with society's needs the state provides for planned development of science and the training of scientific personnel and organises introduction of the results of research in the economy and other spheres of life.’209 It also implied that the system of education was designed to fit the overall purpose of the development of science.
The right to education was secured in the Constitution and ensured through the broad provision of all forms of education. Meanwhile, as described in the text:
208 Ibid.
Guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work are proclaimed in Article 47 as follows: Citizens of the U.S.S.R., in accordance with the aims of building communism, are guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work. This freedom is ensured by broadening scientific research, encouraging invention and innovation, and developing literature and the arts. The state provides the necessary material conditions for this and support for voluntary societies and unions of workers in the arts, organises introduction of inventions and innovations in production and other spheres of activity.210 In accordance with Constitution, the Soviet system was obliged to create the conditions, incentivise its citizens to get them involved into development of science, technology, and culture (which were indicated as integrated phenomenon) as well as to facilitate the whole process in order to sparkle invention and innovation. The latter was viewed as a foundation of the production.
Spearman outlined ‘the basic principles of public education in the U.S.S.R., as established by legislation, as follows:
• Equality in obtaining an education, regardless of race, nationality, sex, religious attitude, or social status.
• Compulsory education (through 8 years in 1958; through 10 years introduced in 1975). State and public character of all educational institutions.
• Free choice of language – Russian or some other language spoken in the U.S.S.R. (Russian is essential, however, for those who aspire to advance in the party, government, military, etc.)
• Free tuition at all levels of education.
• A unified system of education and continuity of instruction at all institutions.
• Unity of instruction and communist upbringing between school, family, and society in raising the younger generation.
• Linking education of the younger generation to meet the requirements of life and of the building of a communist society.
• A scientific approach to education with constant improvement based on the latest developments in science, technology, and culture.
210 Ibid., 3.
• Humanism and high moral principles in education and upbringing. • Co-education of boys and girls.
• Secular character of education ruling out religious influences.’211
The main features of the SES can be illustrated through the example of the Yeysk Higher Military Aviation School.212 Spearman made use of the five Soviet textbooks on aviation to illustrate the developed level of the indigenous industry (the footnote below).213
According to Spearman, in engineering, ‘the U.S.S.R. produced greater numbers of graduates at persistently growing rates compared to the U.S. which produced a smaller number of engineers at an essentially constant rate.’214 He went on to say, ‘The U.S.S.R.’s rate of growth and increasing number of graduates [in engineering] is readily apparent, having grown from about 100,000 in 1960 to over 300,000 in 1982. The U.S. rate of growth is imperceptible and the number of graduates has remained constant at about 50,000 for the past twenty years.’215
211 Ibid., 4. 212 Ibid., 9-10.
213 Ibid., 10-11, referring to the following:
• Aeromechanics of Aircraft by V. B. Baydakov and L. N. Ivanov-Emin, Moscow, 1965. Translated by USAF as FTD-MT-24-250-67. This book outlines the fundamentals of aeromechanics, properties of the atmosphere, characteristics of wings, modern methods of aerodynamic investigations, stability and control, aerodynamic and ballistic design. The book contains a section on interference effects including the theory and use of the transonic and supersonic area rule. The book is intended for use by students in technical aviation schools and medium- level technical personnel in the aviation industry. (It should be noted that there is ample evidence of the use of techniques such as the area rule in Soviet aircraft.)
• Control of Supersonic Aircraft by F. I. Sklyanskiy, Moscow, 1964. Translated by USAF as FTD-MT-65-89. This book contains sections on the equations of motion, stability and controllability, transonic and supersonic effects, supersonic aircraft design methods, control forces, automatic control systems, future control developments (including electric controls), deformation effects, and aspects of safety of flight and emergency control. • Design Principles of Rocket-Ramjet Engines for Unmanned Flight Vehicles by B. v. Orlov, G. Vu. Mazin, et al,
Moscow 1967. Translated y USAF as FTDMT-24-208-68. This book, intended for students of senior courses of technical universities, contains sections on the design and characteristics of inlets, internal ballistics of rocket- ramjet engines, propellants, operating and working characteristics of rocket-ramjet engines, design of rocket- ramjet flight vehicles, automatic control systems for engines, and fields of application.
• Vertical Landing and Takeoff Aircraft by V. F. Pavlenko, Moscow 1966. Translated by ASI as FSTc-HT-23- 887-68. This book, intended primarily for students at military and civil aviation institutes, sets forth features of design and performance of a variety of types of VTOL aircraft. Attention is given to power plants as the most important and decisive factor in VTOL design, stability and control, transition flight, jet interactions, and safety. It is interesting to note that one of the concepts included for a composite power plant VTOL design is quite similar to the YAK-36 Forger aircraft that was deployed on the Kiev cruiser in 1976.
• Helicopters, Selection of Design Parameters by M. N. Tishchenko, A. V. Nekrasov, and A. s. Radin, Moscow 1976. Prepared for publication by W. Z. Stepniewski and W. L. Metz, International Technical Associates, Ltd. for AVRAOCOM, Ames Research Center, Contract No. NAS2-10062, April 1979. This book may be of direct use to practicing engineers or for an academic course on the design of rotary-wing aircraft. The book deals primarily with transport-type helicopters and covers optimization parameters, effectiveness evaluation,
maximum-payload criteria, technological factors related to blade weight, and cost criteria. One figure in the book is of interest since it illustrates an eight-blade rotor hub, and the new Soviet Mi-26 Halo heavy-lift helicopter uses, for the first time, an eight-blade rotor.
The emphasis is in the original.
214 Ibid., 11. 215 Ibid., 12.
According to Spearman, overall, the USSR’s progressive growth in the numbers of graduates and the growth rate for the fields of natural sciences exceeded that of the US as shown in the following figure:
Figure 1 US/USSR Higher Education Graduates by Specialisation, 1960-1975216
This was defined by an ‘emphasis on engineering and natural sciences in the U.S.S.R. and emphasis on social sciences in the U.S. [which was] a reflection of the national priorities and objectives as perceived by the state in the U.S.S.R. and as perceived by the students and the schools in the U.S.’217
Spearman concluded the NASA memorandum with the following statement:
At the heart of the matter, the Marxist view that economy and technology are directly proportional appears to be evident […] The intensity and the
216 Ibid., 15. 217 Ibid., 11
organization of the academics, coupled with practical work experience, and the persistent political indoctrination, provides the potential for a highly- educated and highly-dedicated Soviet in the work force, military, or government. In any event, if the state-controlled system can be maintained, the Soviet Union will continue to be a dominant factor that cannot be ignored in world political, economical, technological, and military matters.218
Overall, the NASA report outlined the connection between the development of the social and education base and the development of S&T on the one hand, and a Soviet leadership in technology on the other, emphasising the importance of technology for the economy.
In 1970 Mstislav Keldysh, President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR from 1961 to 1975 and a leading scientific organiser of the Soviet space programme, made multiple statements in an article concerning Lenin’s personal involvement in matters of setting science and education as national priorities for Soviet policy.219 Keldysh directly connected the Soviet launch of Sputnik on 4 October 1957 to the Soviet education and science policy founded by Lenin who, ‘from the first, realized the importance of the role that science was to play in the rebuilding of his country.’220
Referring to Lenin’s article Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909),221 Keldysh observed: Our knowledge is relative, Lenin wrote, and knowledge of nature progresses by gradual improvement in scientific thought approaching ever closer to the truth. The great discoveries in physics at the turn of the century prove one thing, he said, namely, the inadequacy of the mechanistic concept. Matter does not "disappear" but manifests itself in new, more concrete forms, hitherto unknown, providing science with a deeper understanding of the physical properties of matter and the interrelations existing between its different states and conditions.222
218 Ibid., 12. The words ‘work force’ and ‘economical’ are referred as in the in original.
219 Keldysh, Mstislav, 1970, Lenin and Development of Science, Lenin and Education, Science, Culture, The UNESCO Courier, 6-11; retrieved on 02.07.2017 from the Web,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001844/184442eo.pdf; hereafter referred to as Keldysh.
220 Ibid., 6.
221 Lenin V.I., 1909, Materializm i empiriokrititsizm, Kriticheskie zametki ob odnoi reakzionnoi filosofyi
(Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy), Moscow, OGIZ, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoi literatury, The 1946 Edition; hereafter referred to as Lenin, 1909.
According to Keldysh, Lenin contributed to the philosophy of science which later developed into the foundation of the methodology of contemporary science223 and emphasised the interconnection between social and natural sciences in the revolutionary’s own words of 1922: ‘Natural science is progressing with such speed and undergoing such revolutionary upheavals in every field that the sciences cannot do without philosophical conclusions.’224 Keldysh continued citing Lenin to outline the importance of technology and culture for development in Soviet philosophy: ‘[T]he genius of man's mind was used to provide the benefits of technology and culture to a part of the population, depriving the others of the basic essentials, education and progress. Now, all the wonders of technology, all the conquests of culture are to be the heritage of all people.’225
Keldysh argued that Lenin’s contribution was not limited to theory and emphasised Lenin’s role in the establishment of Soviet science policy. In particular, the academician wrote, ‘Lenin was deeply conscious of the tremendous importance of science for development. He kept a permanent eye on all matters having to do with the organization of scientific research in the Soviet Union, and lost no opportunity to promote the maximum use of science and technology to improve the standard of living of the population.’226 Keldysh included in the article evidence of relevant Lenin’s decrees and orders which established or expanded research in various disciplines including geology, physics, aviation, optics, and engineering.227 In particular, ‘[t]he activities of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences received his special attention. For Lenin, the participation of this scientific institution in the economic development of the country was of capital importance,’228 wrote the academician.
In Soviet developmental policy, the role of the Academy of Sciences was viewed as prevailing ‘in bringing about a revolutionary change in the advancement of the country […] to mark its entire later development. Within half a century, the little coterie of scientists it had been composed of before the revolution, became a scientific centre of the very highest importance which was to direct the development of the natural and social sciences throughout
223 Ibid., 8. 224 Ibid. 225 Ibid., 9. 226 Ibid., 8. 227 Ibid., 9 228 Ibid.
the nation.’229 The institutionalisation and expansion of scientific research in the Soviet Union were outlined by Keldysh as follows:
[In] 1917 the Academy had only one research centre which consisted of a few laboratories and museums. Today it controls 210 scientific establishments including 160 research institutes all of which are contributing to the development of modern science. With a complement of some 250,000 research workers, the Academy's personnel has multiplied one hundredfold and its present budget is astronomical when compared to the meagre sum expended in the earlier years.230
The policy led to the establishment of research in all the republics of the USSR, in which each Academy conducted research in the entire spectrum of modern disciplines, excelling at some particular of branch of research. For Ukraine they were cybernetics, solid state physics, geology, and physical chemistry; for Armenia – astrophysics; for Georgia – theoretical mechanics; for Uzbekistan – the chemistry of alkaloids; for Kazakhstan – the geological research; for Azerbaijan – the petrochemical studies; for Latvia – organic synthesis, etc.231 Special attention was given to the development of fundamental research and the applied sciences in Siberia where Novosibirsk was developed as the coordinating centre. It took ‘the lead in certain branches of Soviet research and […] won world recognition for its pioneering work. New branches of the Academy [were] established in the Urals, the Far East, and other parts of the country.’232
Meanwhile, ‘[t]he Academies of the Republics play[ed] a large part in solving particular regional problems. Those of Central Asia [paid] special attention to the scientific culture of cotton crops, the study of deserts and their exploitation and seismological problems.’233 Keldysh pointed out that, apart from the SAS, research in agriculture, medicine and education was conducted in separate academies. He emphasised, in particular, ‘the brilliant successes of Soviet mathematics, discoveries in the field of radio-electronics, Soviet contributions to the theory of solids, the theory of resistance, aerodynamics and mechanics,’234 as well as in chemistry – to ‘the development of the theory of chain reactions, contributions to organic 229 Ibid., 10. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid., 11. 232 Ibid., 10. 233 Ibid. 234 Ibid.
chemistry, and the chemistry of elementary organic combinations. Soviet scientists have shown the way towards the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and have enunciated the basic principles for the ultimate achievement of controlled nuclear reactions.’235
According to Keldysh, Soviet urban planning established the republics’ Academy of Sciences in the national capitals as the central places of growth which had spill-over effects in other spheres of development. They were accompanied with around 800 establishments of higher education throughout the country which also carried out research in a wide spectrum of fields. One of the key characteristics of Soviet science was viewed in the close connection established ‘between fundamental research and the resolution of economic problems of a practical nature. For their part, those scientific organizations that serve[d] the various specialized sectors of the economy participate[d] widely in helping to solve the great problems of science,’236 concluded Keldysh, emphasising the primacy of research in modern economic development and the interconnection of science and production.
According to I.G. Kurakov’s Science, Technology and Communism, Some Questions of
Development, science was a direct productive force in the Soviet society:237
The tasks of science should not be limited only to the study and analysis of natural and social phenomena. Scientists should not only explain such phenomena or discover the objective laws of the development of nature and society; they should also work out methods for their practical utilization in order to ensure the continual and rapid development of the productive forces of society and to create the material and technical basis of communism.238
In Kurakov’s account, the mankind had been developing due to all the human knowledge accumulated, and if not for science, ‘society would have to start its development all over again from the Stone Age. The tremendous material destruction in our country made by the Nazi invaders was overcome in a short time largely because we had men with an even higher level of knowledge than before the war.’239 Thus, in his view, science played an irreplaceable role in material production and represented the main factor for the
235 Ibid.
236 Ibid., 11.
237 Kurakov, chapter 1, Science as a Direct Productive Force in Society, 1-13, and in particular, 1. 238 Ibid., 3.
development of the productive forces in the period of full-scale communist construction in the USSR. Meanwhile, techniques, technology and the organisation of production derived from science defining labour productivity, according to Kurakov.240
While describing the methods and meaning of science, the scholar emphasised the essential social significance of knowledge. In his view, knowledge can be accumulated, primarily, through practice and experience, and ‘secondly, through purposeful investigations, constructive studies and generalizations of practice, in other words through science, which is itself a generalization of practice. For a long time the type of knowledge that accumulated through practical experience was the sole source of knowledge in society […] In our time science represents the basic source of fresh knowledge and consequently, science is also the basic means of increasing the social productivity of labour.’241
According to Kurakov, the increase in labour productivity defined the growth of the national income stemming from the higher productivity of labour and making the volume of the total social product larger: ‘As is well known, the growth of labour productivity is basically due to the application of new science and technology. Thus, the fulfilment of the targets for the growth of labour productivity, defined in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., depends largely on the development of science.’242 This connected the development of both science and the
Soviet society.
As a Soviet scholar during the times of the Cold War, he claimed the superiority of the Soviet economy over all the capitalist countries due to its prevailing number of labour with a high standard of knowledge as the result of the Soviet development of science and education as follows:
Forty per cent of all workers and 23 per cent of the collective farmers in our country have received higher and secondary education. The total number of qualified engineers engaged in the economy of the U.S.S.R. amounted to 1,135,000 in 1960, as against 525,000 in the U.S.A. In the academic year of 1961/62 the number of students per 10,000 inhabitants amounted to 120 in
240 Ibid., 12.
241 Ibid. 8. 242 Ibid., 35.
the U.S.S.R. and to 111 in the USA; Japan had 63 in 1960/61, France 44 in 1959/60 and the Federal Republic of Germany 34.243
Meanwhile, Kurakov explicitly warned of the disadvantages of the existing Soviet system of material incentives claiming that the system was ‘not sufficiently closely connected with the productivity of labour’ and called for its fundamental change.244 In particular, he wrote the
following: ‘The implicit slogan “fulfil the plan at any price” gradually came to be accepted by a considerable number of economists and managers and became a serious obstacle to the growth of the national economy.’245 In his approach, as the improvement of planning was one of the basic tasks of science, the latter was to provide ‘the continuous improvement of