SOVIET R&D

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88B00443R001500080048-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2007
• Sequence Number: 48
• Publication Date: June 6, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
RounNG SUP
SUSPENSE
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
DC1
1,~J
0
2
DDCI
3
EXDIR
4
D/ICS
5
'Dot
6
DDA
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
C
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/Pets
14
D/OLL
15
D/PAO
16
SA/IA
17
AO/DCI
18
C/IPD/OIS
19
~rt
20
21
22
xecutive Se tor
616111
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
 Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
0 ",ill 1 UCIV 1 IAL ?
E:,.
~! ' '~' ,? ? [f' j
6 June 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
FROM: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Soviet R&D
1. I have underlined in this piece, Can Soviet R&D Keep Up the Pace?",
what seems to be two interesting compendiums of information on how Soviet
science and technology works: You might look into their availability.
2. Also, The Wilson Center has scheduled on June 26 and 27 a two-day
converence on the experience, current conditions and prospects of US-Soviet
reciprocal exchange programs. See the last page of the attached flyer.
William J. Casey
Attachments:
The Wilson Center/June 1984 Reports
The Wilson Center/Calendar June 1984
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
 Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
CAN SOVIET R&D KEEP UP THE PACE?
Bits and pieces of valuable new information about Soviet
science and technology have emerged over the last 15 years as
small numbers of Soviet scientists and engineers have emigrated
to the West. Their accounts of life inside the Soviet scientific
establishment were put together for the first time recently in two
projects just completed. One, conducted by Harvard, was based
on interviews with several hundred emigre researchers. The
other, a companion project that concluded its work in a February
24-25 conference at the Center's Kennan Institute, was MIT's
Eyewitness Seminar series. Ten of its 11 sessions brought a
leading emigre scientist together with American specialists in
his field.
"Our goal," said seminar codirector Loren Graham in his
summary of the project, "was to define the strengths and
weaknesses of Soviet science and technology and to try to
explain [them] in terms of the intellectual, political, and social
characteristics of the Soviet Union." According to Mark Kuch-
ment, codirector with Graham and a research associate at
Harvard's Russian Research Center, the group wanted "to close
the gap" between the way the Soviet R&D community is
described in the official literature on the subject and the way it
really is, and also "to bridge the cultural gap" between U.S. and
Soviet practitioners.
Graham, a professor of the history of science at MIT and a
former Kennan Institute fellow, noted that most of the eye-
witnesses thought Soviet elementary and high-school education
superior to that of the United States. Some felt this held true at
the university level as well, particularly in mathematics and
physics, two subjects in which Russia's strength predates the
1917 revolution. In other areas of fundamental or theoretical
research, as well, what Western specialists call the "blackboard
rule" is indeed in effect, Graham confirmed: "Soviet science is
likely to be strong in any area where the main tools of research
are a blackboard and chalk, and weak in areas requiring material
support, sophisticated instrumentation, the most modern com-
puters, or close contact with industry."
Another source of strength for Soviet science and technology,
according to Graham, is that Soviet society "worships science."
And he found the Soviet government's emphasis on continuity
of research no less important. Scientists in leading institutions
there, unlike many of their colleagues here, "feel free to embark
on long-term projects without fear that their budgets will be
eliminated before they can complete their work." Furthermore,
Soviet planners are apt to select a few high-priority areas of
research, both military and nonmilitary, and then to pump
money and personnel into them. So far the approach has paid off
in computers and biotechnology.
Some of these advantages, however, cut both ways. While
continuity of research in a few concentrated areas, for example,
may account for certain scientific advances, it also has a way of
stifling innovation. Thus the Soviet eyewitnesses, accustomed
to what MIT Research Associate Paul Josephson called "a
follow-the-leader approach" to taking on research, were most
surprised by their discovery that American R&D seemed to be
driven by the pursuit of scientific issues that were "hot." The
Americans found the Soviet system much less nimble. Scien-
tific institutions are rarely eliminated. The bureaucracy is "often
afraid of innovation," Graham explained, because innovation
"undermines careers and leads to unsettling changes."
A further impediment to innovation, according to Graham, is
the Soviet economic system, which provides no incentive for
putting research results into production. As a result, the Soviet
researcher seems content to publish his findings as ends in
themselves. Thereafter, he often loses interest in the topic. His
American counterpart, meanwhile, is wasting no time in either
taking the next step in the research process or beginning to
figure out how to apply his findings commercially.
"Ideology and the need for international competition really
do impel [the Soviets] to continue to try to operate a world-class
scientific establishment," Harley Balzer, a Georgetown Univer-
sity historian, concluded, but "if you did a cost-benefit analysis,
you might well close it down."
Plaguing Soviet science and technology even more directly is
the Soviet supply and distribution system. Emigres who were
interviewed said they waged an unending battle to obtain sup-
plies, not just sophisticated equipment, but nuts, bolts, paper,
simple reagents. It was not unusual, they said, to halt their
research for several weeks just to get the materials they needed
to carry on.
They reported that lines of scientific communication, too,
were inadequate. Because Soviet scientific journals are slow to
pick up Western discoveries and are censored, researchers in the
USSR are always playing catch up with their colleagues in the
West. In addition, said Bruce Parrott, professor of Soviet
studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies, the editorial boards of international scientific jour-
nals-so-called invisible colleges-include few Russians.
Again, they must go without the exchange of information that is
one of the hallmarks of Western scientific publication.
Perhaps most startling in this respect was Graham's obser-
vation that "Western scientists visiting the Soviet Union often
find that a Soviet scientist working on a given topic in one
institute does not know of the existence of another Soviet
scientist working on the same topic in another institute in the
same city. The foreigners often play the role of bringing the two
researchers together."
A final strike against the Soviet scientific establishment is its
growing anti-Semitism, according to a number of the emigres,
most of whom are Jewish. Graham predicted damage to the
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
 Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443R001500080048-5
Soviet Union's strongest academic subjects, math and physics,
from the exclusion of Jews, but noted that "the depth of talent in
these fields is so great that the damage can probably be tolerated
by the Soviet authorities."
At least two conference participants were reluctant to gen-
eralize from the eyewitness accounts. One, Linda Lubrano, an-
American University Soviet-studies professor, termed the re-
sults of the interviews "description more than explanation." Are
we looking at Soviet science or the international dimensions of
science? she asked. Do the interviewees, all top-ranking Soviet
scientists, represent rank-and-file scientists? Do they represent
the emigre scientific community or the Soviet scientific com-
munity? Do the findings show that Soviet scientists hold the
views of Soviet society at large?
Interpreting the results is equally difficult without "good
history," insisted Mark Adams, professor of the history and
sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania. "Policy
studies must be historical, because that's where other sets of
options were decided on by other decision makers. . .and we
know the consequences," he said. "How are we going to
understand how they function this year if we don't know how
they developed?" A large part of the answer, Adams suggested,
lies in an examination of the contradiction embodied by Soviet
"bureaucratic science"-the "inert" and regressive management
of what is by definition both creative and progressive.
That bureaucracy-and Soviet society as a whole-will ul-
timately determine how quickly and successfully new computer
technologies can be absorbed in the USSR, said Graham. While
the Western world is becoming increasingly aware "that the
most efficient use of computers for a great range of applications
is based on decentralized systems," the Soviet leadership, for
political reasons, can't allow that. A microcomputer or a word
processor that is hooked up to a printer and issued the proper
commands, after all, is a "potential printing press," he said.
"Anyone who remembers how Soviet dissidents of the late
sixties used to spend days painfully typing samizdat documents
on typewriters stuffed with five or six carbon copies will
understand the significance of the new technology."
Thus, the Soviets are likely to continue the requirement that
computers, like photocopiers, be "institutionally housed and
controlled," predicted Graham, who was quick to point out that
computers aren't about to "undermine or destroy the Soviet
system." But, he said, the Soviets will "pay a stiff price" for
eschewing entrepreneurship, free access to information, and
private ownership of technology, all of which make a culture
receptive to computers and enable their use to spread. "The
evidence so far seems to indicate that a wide-open, chaotic,
competitive marketplace with a staggering variety of contenders
is the best environment for producing ingenious computer
programs," Graham noted. "The Soviet Union could not dupli-
?
cate this environment without contradicting its most cherished
economic principle, the elimination of private enterprise."
The policy implications of all this, Graham cautioned, are not
that we should sell the Soviet Union short: When it comes to
science and technology, the Soviets may not be "winners," but
they're never far behind in a race that has no winners. We should
rather "encourage the use of computers in our civilian econ-
omy," a sphere in which, according to Graham, "time is on the
side of the West."
We must begin, he said, by "restraining the military tech-
nology [on both sides] that can so easily destroy us all, and on
which the Soviet Union competes rather well." Then, Graham
concluded, "the new civilian technology that is now penetrating
to the lowest levels of Western societies, and on which the
Soviet Union competes badly, will give the Western nations real
advantages in modernizing and improving their societies."
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443R001500080048-5
 Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443R001500080048-5
THE WILSON CENTER / CALENDAR
?
JUNE 1984
Monday, June 4 Workshop*
"Cinema and Social Change in the Developing World: Africa, Latin America,
Southeast Asia, South Asia"
Pat Aufderheide, freelance film critic and contributing editor, In These Times
Mbye Cham, Assistant Professor of African Studies, Howard University
Chidananda Dasgupta, Fellow, The Wilson Center; film critic, New Delhi
Luis Francia, poet, writer, critic, and film editor, Bridge Quarterly
Tuesday, June 5 Noon Discussion
"South Africa and Its Neighbors: Beyond Destabilization"
Robert Jaster, writer on southern African affairs; former Fellow, The Wilson Center
Colloquium, 4pm to 6pm
"Public-Private Interests: Entrepreneurs and the State in 20th Century Mexico"
Roderic Ai Camp, Fellow, The Wilson Center; Professor of History, Pella College
Commentators: Aziz Hamzaoui, international consultant, Washington, D.C.;
former Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Tunisia; Richard Nuccio,
Director, Latin American Program, Roosevelt Center for Policy Studies
Wednesday, June 6 Noon Discussion
"Foreign Trade: The Great Soviet Statistical Trap"
Igor Birman, Editor, Russia magazine
Colloquium, 4pm to 6pm
"Was There a German Question in Tsarist Russia?"
Ingeborg Fleischhauer, Kennan Institute Short-term Grantee; historian in
Russian and German political thought, Bonn
Commentator: Jeremy Azrael, Council Member, Policy Planning Council,
U.S. Department of State
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443R001500080048-5
 Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5
Tuesday-Wednesday, June 26-27 Conference*
"U.S.-Soviet Exchanges"
This conference will seek to assess the experience, current condition, and
prospects of existing U.S.-Soviet reciprocal exchange programs that
involve academic, professional, technical, and administrative specialists.
Thursday-Friday, June 28-29 Conference*
*by invitation
Seating is limited and must be on a first-come, first-served basis.
It is suggested that events be confirmed on the day of the event by telephoning
Louise Platt or Cynthia Ely, 357-2115.
Approved For Release 2007/08/26: CIA-RDP88B00443RO01500080048-5