¹ Partiinost' literally ‘partyness’ can also be translated as party-mindedness, partisanship or party loyalty.

² At the XXV Party Congress (February 1976) there were 15,694,187 members of the CPSU including 636, 170 candidate members, ‘KPSS v tsifrakh’, Partunaya zhizn, No. 10(05 1976), p. 13.Google Scholar For a discussion of the size of the party apparatus see Hough, Jerry F., ‘The Party Apparatchiki’ in Stalling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Croups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), p. 49Google Scholar; Barghoorn, Frederick C., Politics in the USSR (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972), p. 55.Google Scholar

³ Organizationno-ustavnye voprosy KPSS (Moscow: Politizdat, 1973), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

⁴ Medvedev, Roy A., On Socialist Democracy (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 110.Google Scholar Also see Avtorkhanov, A., The Communist Party Apparatus (Cleveland and New York: Meridian, 1966), pp. 134–5, 153–7.Google Scholar

⁵ On 1st January 1976 there were over 390,000 primary party organizations marginally over 6,000 of which, or 1·5 per cent, were in scientific establishments, ‘KPSS v tsifrakh’, Partiinaya zhizn'. No. 10 (05, 1976), p. 18.Google Scholar

⁶ Pravdin, A. (interviewed by Mervyn Matthews). ‘Inside the CPSU Central Committee’. Survey, xx (1974), 95–104.Google Scholar

⁷ Raionnyi Komitet Partii (Moscow: Politizdat, 1974), pp. 129–236Google Scholar; Avtorkhanov, , The Communist Party Apparatus, pp. 142, 157Google Scholar; Hough, Jerry F., The Soviet Prefects: The Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Medvedev, , On Socialist Democracy, p. 121 and V. Lesnichii, ‘Partorganizatsiya i nauchnotekhnicheskaya intelligentsiya’, Partiinaya zhizn', No. 18 (10 1968), p. 56.Google Scholar

⁹ Of seventy-five seminars operating in one of the Novosibirsk raions, one quarter studied the works of Lenin, fourteen the economic problems of socialism, twelve the internal and external policy of the CPSU and forty-five the philosophical problems of the natural sciences. Alferov, M., ‘Ideinaya zakalka nauchnykh kadrov’, Partiinaya zhizn', No. 15 (08 1972), P. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For example Alferov, . Partiinaya zhizn'. No. 15 (08 1972), p. 59.Google Scholar

¹¹ The term nomenklatura is defined in the following way: ‘In Soviet administrative usage nomenklatura refers to a list of key job categories and descriptions, for the filling of which a given party committee or governmental or other agency is held responsible.’ Barghoorn, , Politics in the USSR, p. 181.Google Scholar

¹² Medvedev, , On Socialist Democracy, p. 121.Google Scholar

¹³ A number of Soviet and Western observers have noted the autonomy of science and the consequent difficulties of evaluating and planning research, among them Nesmeyanov, A. N., ‘Nauka i Proizvodstvo’, Kommunist, No. 2 (01 1956), pp. 38–9Google Scholar; Lange, K. A., Organizatsiya Upravieniya Nauchnymi Issiedovaniyami (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), pp. 95–105, especially pp. 102–3Google Scholar; Zaleski, E., Weinert, H., Amann, R., Berry, M. J. and Davies, R. W., Science Policy in the USSR (Paris: OECD, 1968), p. 571.Google Scholar P. L. Kapitsa has written extensively on the planning and leadership of science and also the relations between science and ideology, see ‘Teoriya, Eksperiment, Praktika’, Ekonomicheskaya Gaieta, 26 03 1962, p. 10Google Scholar and ‘Effektivnost’ Nauchnoi Raboty’, in the pamphlet entitled Teoriya, Eksperiment, Praktika (Moscow: Znanie, 1966), pp. 24–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On party control over appointments in science and the political education of scientists, see section 3 below.

¹⁵ For example Suslov, M. A.'s speech reported in Pravda (18 03 1976), p. 2.Google Scholar For an interpretation of the significance of the Scientific-Technical Revolution for Soviet society see Dryakhlov, I. I., Nikishov, S. I., Pletnikov, Yu. K. and Shukarin, S. V., Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya i Obshchestvo (Moscow: Mysl', 1973), pp. 5–19.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gvishiani, D. M., Mikulinskii, S. P. and Kugel, S. A., Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya i Izmenenie Struktury Nauchnykh Kadrov SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), p. 131.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya, p. 112.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Computed from Narodnoe Obrazovanie, Nauka i Kul'tura v SSSR (Moscow: Statistika, 1971), p. 153Google Scholar; see also Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya, p. 52.Google Scholar On the differences between university disciplines and other higher educational courses see Zinoviev, S. I., Uchebnyi Protsess v Sovetskoi Vysshei Shkole (Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1968), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

¹⁹ At the end of 1973 there were i, 108,300 scientific workers of all types in the USSR. Vestnik Statistika, No. 4 (1974), pp. 87, 89.Google Scholar

²⁰ In 1970 55 per cent of the scientists and scholars employed in the USSR Academy of Sciences were natural scientists (mathematicians, physicists, chemists and biologists) and in 1972 54 per cent of the 79,918 scientists and scholars employed in the USSR Academy of Sciences together with the academies of sciences of each of the fourteen non-Russian republics were natural scientists, almost half of whom were in physical and mathematical sciences. Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya, p. 113Google Scholar; Vestnik Statistiki, No. 4 (1974), p. 91.Google Scholar

²¹ In 1970 48–2 per cent of the 34,788 scientists and scholars (nauchnye rabotniki) of all disciplines employed in the USSR Academy of Sciences had higher degrees in comparison to 26·7 per cent of the total 927,709 scholars in the Soviet Union at the time. Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsia, p. 113Google Scholar; Narodnoe Obrazovanie, pp. 245, 253.Google Scholar On material differentials between USSR Academy of Sciences and the rest see Zaleski, et al. , Science Policy in the USSR, p. 411Google Scholar and Lebin, B. D. and Tsypkin, G. A., Prava Rabotnika Nauki (Leningrad: Mysl', 1971), pp. 138–9Google Scholar, and also Matthews, Mervyn, ‘Top Incomes in the USSR: Towards a Definition of the Soviet Elite’, Survey, xx (1975), 1–27.Google Scholar On prestige differences between different disciplines see Yanowitch, M. and Dodge, N. T., ‘The Social Evaluation of Occupations in the Soviet Union’, Slavic Review, xxviii (1969), 619–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Ustavy Akademii Nauk SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), pp. 166–83Google Scholar; Rassudovskii, V. A., Gosudarstvennaya Organizatsiya Nauk v SSSR (Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1971), pp. 32–49.Google Scholar

²³ Ustavy Akademii Nauk SSSR, pp. 170–4Google Scholar; see also Medvedev, Zhores A., The Medvedev Papers (London: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 108–12.Google Scholar

²⁴ See fn. 5 above.

²⁵ In 1951 90 per cent of the research establishments of the USSR Academy of Sciences were located in Moscow or Leningrad, in 1965 65 per cent of them were still located in these two cities. Komkov, P. D., Karpenko, O. M., Levshin, B. V., Semenov, L. K., Akademiya nauk SSSR shtab Sovetskoi nauki (Moscow: Nauka, 1968). pp. 5 and 200–1.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘O rabote partiinogo komiteta fizicheskogo instituta imeni P. N. Lebedeva Akademii nauk SSSR’, Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika (Moscow: Politicheskaya literatura, 1974), p. 276.Google Scholar

²⁷ In addition to the resolution itself see Yagodkin, V., ‘Partiinaya zhizn' v nauchykh kollektivakh’, Kommunist, No. 11 (07 1972), p. 52Google Scholar and Kozhemyako, V. in Pravda, 2 12 1970, p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁸ Chaplin, V., ‘Raionnyi komitet partii i nauchno-tekhnieheskaya intelligentsia’, Kommunist, No. 7 (05 1974), p. 48.Google Scholar

²⁹ Yamolovich, O., ‘Ideinaya zakalka nauchno-tekhnicheskoi intelligentsii’, Partiinaya zhizn', No. 16 (08 1970), p. 54.Google Scholar

³⁰ For example the party secretary of the raion which contains Akademgordok describes the ‘inexperience of a certain part of the scientific intelligentsia’ which, he says, increases its vulnerability to foreign anti-Soviet influences. ‘Ideinost' uchenogo’, Sovetskaya Rossiya, 28 08 1970, p. 2.Google Scholar See also Yagodkin, , in Kommunist, No. 11 (07 1972), p. 59Google Scholar and Leningrad sociologists who emphasize the need to counter the bourgeois concept of deideologizatsiya (de-ideologization) popular amongst scientists, Kugel, S. A.', Lebin, B. D. and Meleshchenko, Yu. S., Nauchnye kadry Leningrado (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973), p. 140.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Chastichnye izmeneniya v ustave KPSS, vnesennye XXIV s ezdom KPSS', Partiinaya zhizn' No. 9 (05 1971), p. 12.Google Scholar

³² Commenting on the role of party organizations in scientific research institutes the secretary of a Leningrad raikom writes ‘As is well known the heart of the organizational work of party committees is the selection of personnel and checking on performance.’ Makov, Yu. S., Partorganizatsiya Nll (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1968), p. 5.Google Scholar

³³ Sergeev, V., ‘Partiinaya organizatsiya nauchnogo uchrezhdeniya’, Kommunist, No. 6 (04 1972), p. 100.Google Scholar

³⁴ Yagodkin, , in Kommunist, No. 11 (07 1972), p. 62.Google Scholar

³⁵ Sergeev, , in Kommunist, No. 6 (04 1972), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

³⁶ Yamolovich, , in Partiinaya zhizn', No. 16 (08 1970). p. 56.Google Scholar

³⁷ Yagodkin, , in Kommunist, No. 11 (07 1972), p. 59.Google Scholar

³⁸ Yagodkin, , in Kommunist, No, 11 (07 1972), pp. 58–9.Google Scholar

³⁹ T. D. Lysenko was dismissed from his post as director of the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Genetics in February 1965, Medvedev, Zhores A., The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 233.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Merton, R. K., ‘Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cv (1961), 470–86.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 185Google Scholar; Mulkay, M., The Social Process of innovation (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 29, 31–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Mulkay, , The Social Process of Innovation, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the social role of publication in the natural sciences see Price, Derek J. de S., ‘Science and Technology: Distinctions and Interrelationships’ in Barnes, Barry, ed., Sociology of Science (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1972), pp. 166–80Google Scholar; Mulkay, , The Social Process of Innovation, pp. 23–8Google Scholar; Gaston, Jerry. Originality and Competition in Science (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 130–58.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See for example, Nesmeyanov, A., in Kommunist, No. 2 (02 1956), pp. 33–48Google Scholar, especially p. 34; Price in Barnes, , Sociology of Science, pp. 173–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Price in Barnes, , Sociology of Science, p. 167.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Barinova, Z. B., Vasil'ev, P. F., Granovski, Yu. V., Mul'chenko, Z. M., Nalimov, V. V., Mapasnikov, E. V., Orient, I. M., Preobrazhenskaya, G. B., Strakhov, A. T., Terekhin, A. T., Faberova, T. L., Shcherbakov, Yu. A.. ‘Izychenie nauchnykh zhurnalov kak kanalov svyazi’, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, No. 12 (1967), 3–11.Google Scholar Two of these authors used the information published in this article in a later book in which they also reported a similar study of three areas of biology. They omitted the data from their overall conclusions as it was considered atypical of science in the USSR, noting:

A very special position is occupied by the three areas of biology. Here the level of publication is significantly lower than in the other branches of knowledge. The effort expended by other countries on the development of these areas of biology is distributed proportionately to their effort in chemistry and physics. It is interesting to note that a sharp non-correspondence of effort can be observed only in our country.

Nalinov, V. V. and Mul'chenko, Z. M., Naukometriya (Moscow, 1969), pp. 138–45, 147.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Nalinov, and Mul'chenko, , Naukometriya, p. 146.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Barinova, et al. in Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, No. 12 (1967), p. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ These complaints are noted by Nalimov, and Mul'chenko, , Naukometriya, pp. 164–9Google Scholar; Golovanov, I. V., ‘Sistema upravleniya naukoi v SSSR i voprosy ee sovershenstvovaniya’ in Nauchno upravlenie obshchestvom, vyp 3 (Moscow: Mysl', 1969)Google Scholar; Medvedev, , The Medvedev Papers, pp. 121–6.Google Scholar A survey carried out among 532 natural scientists in eight establishments of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Leningrad showed that 28·6 per cent of the aggregate working time of the sample was expended on information work. Kugel, ', Lebin, and Meleshchenko, , Nauchnye kadry Leningrado, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Balashev, L. L., ‘Voprosy nauchnoi informatsii v oblasti biologii’, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya No. 2 (1967), pp. 9–12Google Scholar; Nalimov, and Mul'chenko, , Naukometriya, pp. 153–6.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Price, Derek J. de S.. Little Science, Big Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), pp. 1–32Google Scholar; Leiman, I. I., Nauka kak sotsial'nyiinstitut (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), pp. 68–90Google Scholar; Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya, pp. 55–63Google Scholar; Osnovnye printsipy i obshchie problemy upravleniya naukoi (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 135, 143.Google Scholar

⁵² Price, in Barnes, , Sociology of Science, pp. 167–8Google Scholar: Mulkay, , The Social Process of Innovation, PP. 23–4. 35.Google Scholar

⁵³ Nalimov, and Mul'chenko, , Naukometriya, pp. 163–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The most comprehensive criticisms of Soviet restrictions on scientific communication are to be found in Zhores A. Medvedev's books.

⁵⁵ For the descriptions of censorship of ‘Nature’ see Medvedev, , The Medvedev Papers, footnote on p. 131Google Scholar and of ‘New Scientist’ see White, Sarah, ‘With Apologies to Karl Marx’, New Scientist, 13 06 1974, p. 693.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Joravsky, David, The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 161Google Scholar; Medvedev, , The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko, p. 197.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Nalinov, and Mul'chenko, , Naukometriya, pp. 119–23, 162.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Whereas foreign and domestic reputations of Soviet Nobel Prize winners in the natural sciences tend to cohere the opposite tendency is observable in literature.

⁵⁹ Dornan, Peter, ‘Andrei Sakharov: The Conscience of a Liberal Scientist’ in Tokes, Rudolph L., ed., Dissent in the USSR (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1976), pp. 362–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Graham, Loren, ‘The Reorganization of the USSR Academy of Sciences’, in Juviler, Peter H. and Morton, Henry W., eds., Soviet Policy-Making (London: Pall Mall, 1967), PP. 133–59Google Scholar: Zaleski, et al. , Science Policy in the USSR, p. 204.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Salisbury, Harrison E., ed., Sakharov Speaks (London: Collins and Harvill Press, 1974), pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

⁶² Medvedev, , The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko, pp. 111–36Google Scholar; Moore, Barrington Jr., Terror and Progress, USSR (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 139–48.Google Scholar

⁶³ Semenov, N. N., Nauka i obshchestvo (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 210–32, especially p. 220Google Scholar: Kapitsa, P. L., ‘Teoriya, Eksperiment. Praktika’. Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, 26 03 1962. p. 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Valery Shelest is the son of P. Ye. Shelest, formerly a member of the Politburo and first secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukraine: see Radio Free Europe Research, communist Area 0749 (9 10 1970).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Manifesto II in Salisbury, , ed., Sakharov Speaks, pp. 116–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Igor Shafarevich is a member of Sakharov's Committee on Human Rights.

⁶⁷ Medvedev, , The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko, pp. 217–19.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Toth, Robert, ‘The Political Chemistry of Science’, Guardian, 19 06 1975, p. 16Google Scholar; Izvestia, 28 11 1974, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Sakharov, A. D., Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1969), p. 51Google Scholar; Pravdin, , ‘Inside the CPSU Central Committee’, p. 103.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Kuhn, T. S., ‘Scientific Paradigms’Google Scholar in Barnes, , Sociology of Science, p. 84Google Scholar; Mulkay, , Social Process of Innovation, pp. 19–21Google Scholar; Jevons, F. R., Science Observed (London: Allen and Unwin, 1973). PP.69, 76–7Google Scholar; Hagstrom, W. O., The Scientific Community (New York: Basic Books, 1965), pp. 9–12Google Scholar; Becker, Howard S. and Carper, James, ‘The Elements of Identification with an Occupation’, American Sociological Review, xxi (1956), 341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Kuhn, in Barnes, , Sociology of Science, pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

⁷² Rutkevich, M. N. and Filippov, F. P., Sotsial'nye Peremeshcheniya (Moscow: Mysl', 1970), pp. 138–9Google Scholar; Rubin, B. and Kolesnikov, Yu., Student glazami sotsiologa (Rostov: Rostovskii Universitet, 1968), pp. 70–1.Google Scholar

⁷³ For example the party secretary responsible for Akademgorodok warns ‘Together with original scientific literature so called “information” from time to time also percolates through to us mobilized to serve the purposes of “psychological warfare”.’ Yanovskii, in Sovetskaya Russiya, 28 August 1970, p. 2; Shevtsov, N. S., Rukovodyasnaya rol' KPSS v razvitii estestvennykh nauk (Moscow: Moskovskii Universitet, 1968), pp. 27–31.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The continuing scarcity of highly qualified scientists is shown by the small increase in the proportion of scientists gaining research degrees in spite of a massive expansion in the number of scientific workers over the last two decades. Between 1950 and 1973 the number of Soviet mathematicians, physicists, chemists and biologists increased by six and a half times from almost 32,000 to more than 206,000. In 1973 37 per cent of them possessed higher degrees in comparison to 35 per cent in 1950, having dipped in the intervening years to as low as 27 per cent in 1963 and 1964 following several years of very rapid expansion, before recovering in the late 1960s and 1970s when expansion moderated. Vestnik Statistiki, No. 4 (1974), p. 91Google Scholar and Narodnoe khozyaistvo SSSR v 1963, p. 590Google Scholar; v 1904g, p. 700; v 1973g, p. 176 (Moscow: Statistika, 1965, 1965. 1974).

⁷⁵ In 1970 there were almost seven million specialists with higher education in the USSR, 475 per cent of the 1950 figure. Gvishiani, et al. , Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Revolyutsiya, p. 59.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ On the geographical concentration of scientists see p. 182 above. In 1968 48 per cent of the scientists and scholars employed in the USSR Academy of Sciences were under 35 years old in comparison with 26 per cent in 1950. During the intervening years the average age fell from marginally more than 41 to 38. In the institutes of the Siberian division of the Academy of Sciences at Akademgorodok 85 per cent of the scientists were under 45 in 1966. Semenov, L., ‘Nekotorye voprosy vozrastnoi struktury kadrov i ee vliyanie na nauchnyi potentsial’ in Upravlenie, planirovanie i organizatsiya nauchnykh i tekhnicheskikh issledovanii, tom 3 (Moscow: VINITI, 1970), pp. 438–42.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Many of the ideas expressed in this conclusion can be found in Lewin, Moshe, Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates (London: Pluto Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Lewin, , Political Undercurrents, p. 292.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Medvedev, , On Socialist Democracy, pp. 48–59.Google Scholar Half of all scientists and scholars of all disciplines with higher degrees have been party members since the late 1950s. However, incomplete evidence strongly suggests considerable difference between disciplines even within the natural sciences themselves, but more especially between the natural and the more politically sensitive social sciences. For recently published overall figures see ‘KPSS v tsifrakh’, Partiinaya zhizn', No. 14 (07 1973), p. 17Google Scholar and Narodnoe khozyaistvo v 1972, p. 131.Google Scholar