Academic science and secrecy in the late Stalin period

As it is evident, the scientific community faced a problem. The solution to this problem were found in “The Note of Agitprop of Central Committee to M. A. Suslov on the Request of the Academy of Sciences to allow scholars to have access to the literature of special use” issued on 29 December 1950 Note of Agitprop of TsK to M. A. Suslov on the Request of Academy of Sciences to Enlarge Access of Scientists to Literature of Special Keeping // RGASPI. F. 17 (Central Committee of VKP(b) -- KPSS). Inv. 132. File 317. Fol. 158-159. and in “The instructions and the shorthand report of the Session of Editing and the Publishing department (RISO) on 16 August 1951 on preparation of works of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for public edition” Protocols of Sessions of Presidium of Editorial-Publishing Council // ARAN. Fund 454 (Editorial-Publishing Council of Academy of Sciences). Inv. 1. File 4. Fol. 1-56.; archival documents of the Publishing council of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the publishing department of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR from other years haven't survived.

The “Note of Agitprop” sent to M. A. Suslov who directed ideological work in the USSR from late Stalin until late Brezhnev periods is quite peculiar. It was issued after the reception of the letter of vice-president of the Academy of Sciences I. P. Bardin who asked to nurture a larger number of scholars who could use “literature of special use”. The letter produced an effect: “to conduct counterpropaganda” -- all the scholars with recommendations from the administration of the institutes and other scientific bodies had to have access to such kind of literature. Quite expectedly all the state services (Glavlit, Agitprop) were against this proposal; nobody wanted to go against the “tough line”. Even

V. Topchiev -- Academician-Secretary in 1950 -- did not support the request of Bardin. Nevertheless, M. A. Suslov, known as one of the staunchest supporters of the ideological campaigns in late Stalin period, was of another opinion. His resolution on the document was: “We need to consider it and to put forward proposals”. It is evident that the Academy of Sciences of the USSR did not abandon its efforts to remove the cloak of strict secrecy and isolation, and that these efforts -- in spite of all dangers -- brought about results. This is perfectly seen from the following document.

The resolution of RISO of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR adopted on 21 May 1951 and signed by the president of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR A. N. Nesmey- anov Ibid. Fol. 1-6. opened up with the report of the Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR on implementation of the thematic plan for 1950. It stated that “the number of editions in 1950 reached the highest level during the whole existence of the Academy of Sciences -- about 14 thousand `authors' folios' Ibid. Fol. 2. An author's folio amounts to about 23 standard pages.”. However, the indicators on release of scientific literature of various branches of science differed drastically (Tab.)

Table. Release of Scientific Literature of Various Branches of Science

As it can be seen, the most considerable backlog of work (848 AF) was accumulated in the Departments of History and Philosophy, Literature and Language, Economy and Law Ibid. Fol. 3.. Characteristically, that there were no problems with the publication on physics, chemistry, biology, technical science. Obviously, both Institute of Natural Science and Technical institute of the Academy adapted to the requirements of secrecy.

A temporary instruction about the rules of providing permission for scientific works of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR to be publicly released was signed by the chairman of RISO A. N. Nesmeyanov and the scientific secretary A. M. Samsonov Ibid. Fol. 15-16.:

“In the act of the expert examination it has to be specified...

That work doesn't contain any data forbidden for publication by the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 8 June 1947 “On establishing a list of information that constitutes a State secret the disclosure of which shall be punished by law” and also the corresponding orders of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

In the act of the expert it also has to be specified:

that incomplete works and researches are not included in the given edition, and data is provided only on the finished researches;

that there is no reference to the editions closed or withdrawn from open use in bibliographic materials;

that all the theses which are referred to in the manuscript or materials which are used are open;

that the work is allowed in the public domain” Ibid..

The temporary instruction was adopted, and in three months it was necessary to discuss the possibility of its implementation: specialist in human and social sciences couldn't refer to books and articles of Western scholars. “Shorthand report of a Session of RISO of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR” on 16 August 1951 Protocols of Sessions of Presidium of Editorial-Publishing Council // ARAN. Fund 454 (Editorial-Publishing Council of Academy of Sciences). Inv. 1. File 4. Fol. 17-47., chaired by

M. Samsonov, is evocative of the discussion thread:

The chairman: The purpose of the debate “is to discuss the draft of the instruction for preparation of scholarly works for release in the public domain. It is necessary to examine the introductory amendments. The project takes into consideration offers of the Department of Literature and Language and other departments Ibid. Fol. 18..

Popov: All our works on modern and contemporary history are based on the closed-access content. If we don't use it, we won't be able to publish any work on modern and contemporary history. So we used this closed-access content and referred to it without footnotes and references absolutely freely. The authors who used this literature had corresponding permission. It would be very bad if, for example, talking about American politics in the East, we didn't refer to sources. This point needs to be withdrawn...

The Chairman: Most of colleagues incline to withdraw the first part Ibid. Fol. 22..

Shparo: If a person works on the contemporary history, mainly, with the closed-access data, then in spite of its closed-access nature, he may quote and give the bibliography. All printed foreign works are in closed-access storage, but they may be published as a bibliography.

Ivanov: Two things ... are confused here. If you as a historian have gained access to such storage, and you were allowed to make references, this means that you may do that. And if another colleague from the Department of Technical sciences has written a work and refers to the book from the classified source with the stamp “strictly secret”, he may not refer to it Ibid. Fol. 25..

Popov: According to the instruction, the publishing house relieves itself of any responsibility. Ivanov: I consider that it is correct Ibid. Fol. 26-27..

Sergiyevsky: To attach the certificate to the manuscript that the author doesn't disclose the data which are not allowed in the public domain.

Popov: The reference from the relevant archival fund is required. The state has created the whole organization for reviewing the literature -- what can be kept in an open access fund and what can not. And you want the author to challenge the decision of the state organization and tell: it is possible, and it is impossible. Thus we substitute the whole state organization by the author. After that any author will tell that he won't give such a permission. This is the work of reviewers, work of institute, work of the commission which will solve this issue.

Mikhnevich: Humanitarian party Specialists in humanities and social sciences. makes most of the objections. A collection of papers “Against the Philosophizing Armour-bearers of Anglo-American Imperialism” is going to be published. All this is based on criticism of imperialistic bourgeois authors. Nobody has ever had any doubts of the problem formulated here: whether it is possible or not to mention these books. If it is impossible to mention, then it is impossible to publish such books. Another matter is if you take anti-Soviet statements and begin to discuss them. Possibly it won't reach even the scientific council of the institute, and the author will know that it can't be done. This side of a question shouldn't confuse us Protocols of Sessions of Presidium of Editorial-Publishing Council // ARAN. Fund 454 (Editorial-Publishing Council of Academy of Sciences). Inv. 1. File 4. Fol. 29.

46Ibid.Fol. 30.47Ibid.

48

Ibid.Fol. 30-31.49Ibid.Fol. 31.0Ibid.Fol. 34.51Ibid.Fol. 48--56.52Ibid.. The problem is with the other side: for example, about the theses kept in the closed-access storage. The author himself has to take care of the legality of the documents in the manuscript46.

Chairman: Concrete proposal: to attach to the manuscript the certificate that he, the author, bears full responsibility for preservation of the state secret, for the actual data provided in the manuscript, quotes, bibliographic instructions (a possibility of their revealing to the press)47 Volkov: .. .If the author bears responsibility, it is clear. But another matter is when we deal with the paper which he has to submit. Will this piece of paper save any of the reviewers, the scientific council or administration if something is not OK in it? It won't save. It is a piece of paper which means nothing48.

Mikhnevich: And this piece of paper will kill the author for his flippancy.

Volkov: This is overcautiousness which will give nothing to us and will only intimidate many authors.

Lobachev: And instead of articles and monographs only reports will be submitted. And only some desperate persons will write.

The chairman: What we have to be responsible for, shouldn't pass the author. It is the first and decisive instance, and I think it is pointless to be afraid that they won't write49.

The chairman: I work at the Institute of History. Any work undergoes scrutiny in the Scientific Council and we don't make any exceptions”50.

As a result, the following “Instruction for preparation of edition of scientific works of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for the public domain” was developed on 19 October 195151:

Not for publication

No. 19.

Annex to the resolution of the

Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR

October 19, 1951 No. 625.

Instruction for preparation of edition of scientific works of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for the public domain52:

While preparing the manuscript for printing the author is obliged:

to attach to the manuscript a written confirmation that he is aware of the content of the resolution of the Council of ministers of the USSR of 8.VI. 47.

7. For the works which are of benefit to the economy of the country and are within the competence of a particular department, it is necessary to get a permission from it.

The editor-in-chief and an editorial board bear responsibility for the content of the manuscript and provide scientific and political editing.

14. As for the Departments of Social sciences, when a work considers questions which are not connected with the materials which are not intended to public domain, the Scientific council of an institute (presidium of a branch), approving the work for the publication, notes: “It is approved for the public domain. It doesn't need an act of examination”. In all other cases examination is carried out by a usual order, including drawing up the act of examination.

Statements of examination are not to be drawn up on abstracts of Master and doctoral theses of the Departments of Social sciences, but are to be done on abstracts of theses of the following departments: Physical and Mathematical, Chemical, Biological, Geological and Geographical and Department of Technical science”.

The main objective was achieved: scientific councils of the institutes in Humanities and Social sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR could decide independently whether a work needs examination in terms of the level of secrecy or not. This opened the way to publication of the majority of works by historians, philologists and other scholars in human sciences of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Of course, the situation was far from ideal: party and ideological supervision over scientists was rigid, but scholarly community managed to defend the principles of their work.

References

Druzhinin P A. Ideology and Philology. Leningrad, 1940s. Documentary investigation. Vol. I. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012. 1360 p. (In Russian)

Esakov V. D., Rubinin P. E. Kapitsa, Kremlin and Science. Vols. I-II. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2003-2007, 655 p. (In Russian)

Haynemann M., Kolchinskiy E. I. (ed.) Behind the Iron Curtain: Myths and Realities of the Soviet Science.

St. Petersburg, Dmitrii Bulanin Publ., 2002, 526 p. (In Russian)

Kolchinskiy E. I., Smagina G. I. (ed.) Chronicle of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Vol. IV (1901-1934).

St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2007, 1075 p. (In Russian)

Komkov G. D., Levshin B. V., Semenov L. K. Academy of sciences of the USSR. Vol. II. 1917-1976. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1976, 816 p. (In Russian)

Marchenko V. Planning of Scientific Work in the USSR. Mьnchen, Institut po izucheniiu istorii i kul'tury SSSR Publ., 1953, 46 p. (In Russian)

Oreskes N., Krige J. (ed.) Science and Technology in the Global Cold War. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 2014, 472 p.

Paul T. On Riemann's hypothesis. Mathematics of the USSR -- Izvestia, 1947, iss. 11 (3), pp. 197-262. Shirokorad B. V. On the Question of Applicability of Central Limit Theorem to the Chains of Markov.

Mathematics of the USSR -- Izvestia, 1954, iss. 18 (1), pp. 95-104.

Sidorova L. A. Soviet Historical Science of the Middle of the XX century: Synthesis of Three Generations of Historians. Moscow, Institute of the Russian history of RAS Publ., 2008, 294 p. (In Russian)

Tikhonov V. V. Ideological Campaigns of the late Stalinism and Historical Science. Middle of the 1940-1953.

Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoria Publ., 2016, 424 p. (In Russian)

Tolz V. Russian Academicians and the Revolution. Combining professionalism and Politics. New York, St. Martins' Press, 1997, 236 p.

Vucinich A. The Soviet Academy of Sciences. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1956, 157 p.

Zankevich E. Kh. Towards the History of Sovietization of Russian Academy of Sciences. Mьnchen, Institut po izucheniiu istorii i kul'tury SSSR Publ., 1957, 93 p. (In Russian)

Размещено на Allbest.ru