OSI PAPER ON RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE PROBLEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00706R000200030005-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 30, 2003
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: March 25, 1952
• Content Type: MEMO

15TANDARDFORMN~pproved For Rel~ese 2
Office Memo~^an
'ro :Deputy Assistant Director for Operations
FROM p & C Staff
25X1
STATES GOVERNMENT
DATE: 25 March 1952
susJECT: OSI paper on Russian Scientific Literature Problem
1. In view of the common 00/OSI interest in obtaining an NSCI77
for the ir~teLl.igence e~cploitation of foreign 'literature" and the basic
si~--i.lari~y between their draft (which is limited to Russian, but nat to
scientific literature) and our draft, it seems that we should try to
reach a compromise solution with OSI. Points on which we agree with
OSI are:
a. That processing of foreign publications (indexing, abstract-
ing, translating, etc.) for the purpose of the advancement of U.S.
science and industry and the wide dissemination of such informa-
tion for these purposes (outlined in the Turkevitch paper) is not
an intelligence function and should not be performed b9 CIA.
This Agency is interested in having it done by one outside agency
(the National Science Foundation, the Library of Congress or
Mr. Turkevitch himself) for three reasons:
(1) To use the abstracted and translated material
for our own intelligence evaluations, and to spare our
cleared linguists for work on classified materials.
(2) To give it to our consultants for more specialized
evaluations.
(3) To get better-informed and educated consultants.
It seems that the over-all problem of the "free exchange" of
scientific information; the need of USSR information by U.S.
industry for preparation of counter-measures, and the general
dissemination to the public of abstracts, translations, etc.,
is NOT the responsibility of the DCI to bring up to the President
for action. In the scientific field, it should rest with RDB
or some inter-service scientific committee (including the AEC)
and it would be better for the DCI to get the RDB to go to the
President than to go himself with this suggestion about the
National Science Foundation. In addition, the DCI has an
interest in protecting and preserving the flow of 'open" USSR
publications, and this might be jeopardized by a new and large-
scale effort to exploit the available sources and tell every-
body about them, even if the project were undertaken by a non-
intelligence agency. The Soviets have already cut off the
applied industrial publications (as OSI shows i.ri their recent
SI/261) and they might cut down on pure science publications
if they realized their use by U.S. science and industry. The
security aspects of the problem (which Turkevitch calls
"ridiculous~~)need to be weighed against the advantages of such
Appro~ue?eDaase 2003/12/04 : C~lP81-007068000200030005-9
,~
w. .. ,
 Approved For Reioase 2003/12/04~CIA-P81-00706R0~200030005-9
25X1
b. We also agree with CSI on the need for an NSCID and
on the need for coordinating our efforts with those of other
departments. We could subscribe to most of the separate
points made iri the CSI draft cover memo to the Executive
Secretary of the NSC~ (the first part of which. talks about
Russian scientific literature, Para 2 about a~l scientific
literature, and Para 3 about Russian literature (apparently
including economic, political, etc.) if the problems were
dealt with logically and separately.
c. Ln the CSI Staff Study we could concur in Para 2 a,
b, c, and possibly d--with reservations on the effects of
the latter on the continued receipt of USSR material. All
of these statements refer to USSR scientific material only.
The following paragraphs are where CSI gets mixed up between
scientific and non-scientific categories,
25X1A
~~~~~~
Approved For Release 2003/12/04 : -RDP81-007068000200030005-9