otto (06/26/82)
I think that to say that Japan, the USSR, and the USA are all alike in their potential for scientific research is to misunderstand an important reality: today, more than ever before, scientific research depends a great deal on the services and products provided by the society the research is performed in. Thus, whereas I think all would agree that raw scientific talent is distributed *normally* throughout the populations of all countries, the research that those contries can perform might be radically different, one from another. I would like to focus on the differences in support for scientific research provided by the USA and the USSR. My information for the following comes from several sources: the economic theory comes from my Father, a professor in economics; direct observations come from trips I have made to Eastern Europe as well as the Soviet Union. As is well known, the primary difference between the economies of the two countries is that the Soviet Union has a centrally planned economy, whereas the USA has a market economy. With a centrally planned economy, all decisions about the major allocation of resources is made by a central group of people; with a market economy such decisions are distributed to many people in many parts of the economic structure. One major problem with asking a central group to make *all* decisions about the allocation of resources in a certain area is that usually the details to keep track of in that area--what's important, what's not important, what works, and what doesn't work--is so mind-boggeling that no one can keep track of it all or understand it all. As a result, decisions by the central planners tend to be overly general and hamhanded, rather than subtle and appropriate. This tendency for inappropriate decision making can be aggravated by placing people on the decision-making committee based on their political beliefs, not on their knowledge of the areas their decisions will affect. (Of course this happens in in Washington too, but with distributed decision making the incompetence of any one individual has less effect.) One example of the disasters possible with this kind of system was mentioned by Solzhenitsyn in *The Gulag Archipelago*, where the central decision maker Lysenko ordered seeds for the Spring planting to be cast on the Winter snow, where they were to sprout and grow as soon as the snow melted. What actually happened was that the seeds swelled up, grew moldy, and died. The fields so planted lay empty for a year. Those who knew better than to follow the absurd instructions were labeled as *wreckers* of the Soviet agricultural system for not following instructions and were sent to Siberia. But enough of theory. The hard reality is that the supply of goods and services in the Soviet Union today is almost non-existant when compared with Western standards. The quality of the products that *are* available is low. After drinking the same poor beer across the USSR, from Siberia to Moskow, I asked why they didn't have a second brand of beer so that the quality would be improved by competition. The answer was that the making of two brands of beer would have involved the needless duplication of resouces; it was more efficient to have just one brand of beer for the entire country. Services in Russia also tend to be poor. When I was in Bratsk, the Intourist people decided to impress the group I was with (a group of West Germans) with the telephone service available. In the morning, before we left for a tour of the area, we were each asked to write down a telephone number in Western Europe we wanted to call. We were told that by the time we got back from our tour that evening, some 8 hours later, that the connections would be completed and we could make our calls. What struck me the most in this situation was how proud these Russians were of what they were showing us. Clearly, for them, this was the latest in technological advancement. A call *outside the country*, and in only 8 hours! Wow! We in the West take the availability of many goods and services for granted. And we take their high quality for granted. How quickly do you think your research could progress if you were *continually* plagued with problems such as the following: As a respected Soviet Scientist you read an interesting article in the one copy of CACM your research group is permitted to receive. You want to Xerox the article for your files. Now let's see, how do you convice the Ministry of Science to put someone on the problem of how to make a Xerox machine . . . . . . ? But wait, the political consequences must be considered. A Xerox machine would be a threat to the State. It would permit the easy copying and wide distribution of samizdat (underground publications). No, its too risky even to ask. You don't want to risk even *appearing* to support the samizdat movement. So you pull out paper and pencil and start to copy the article by hand . . . George Otto Bell Labs, Indian Hill ----------------------
Anonymous (06/27/82)
#R:ihuxi:-17400:uiucdcs:12700004:000:755 uiucdcs!Anonymous Jun 26 23:47:00 1982 I think you oversimplify the problem, and do the Soviets a great disservice. The problem is that you are comparing them with the USA, when in fact, that is a faulty comparison. After the the revolution, the people in power were handed a country with no major industry, a large and mostly illiterate peasent population and very little scientific resources. From this, they have managed to westernize their country and come close to USA standards, all a lot quicker than we did. Admittedly, their political system has problems, but that's been discussed elsewhere. I only wish that both the USA and the USSR would kiss and make up so that the world could spend the $500,000,000 spent per day on weapons alone for something more exciting and productive.
kolstad (07/03/82)
#R:ihuxi:-17400:uiucdcs:12700006:000:413 uiucdcs!kolstad Jul 2 18:42:00 1982 Come close to western standards? I have an explorer post and a computer club: 40% of the kiddies in the explorer post have their own microcomputers (w/disks, s/w, etc). The computer club runs 40 kiddies on plato -- 4 CDC 6400 mainframes, 40Mb of swapping MEMORY, 13000Mb of disk. These kids range from 7th to 12th grade. I don't believe Soviet technology comes close to this one particular western standard.
grunwald (07/04/82)
#R:ihuxi:-17400:uiucdcs:12700007:000:1154 uiucdcs!grunwald Jul 4 14:59:00 1982 The problem remains that you look at soviet technology from the context of american technology when the two are not comparable. The USSR came out of WWII with a large number of it's production facilties (what little they had) blow to shreds. They had famaine and large numbers of dead. Many of the dead were the people who would be needed to rebuild their country. To not realise the great strides made by the Soviets is to do them and yourself a disservice. Underestimating their ability and determination to never have these things happen to themselves has caught the USA with it's pants down several times -- when the USSR detonated its first atmoic weapon, when they lanuched Sputnik, when they detonated the hydrogen weapons and when they earnestly got involved in a space program. It bothers me for some reason that people are so unwilling to see that despite their obviously uncool political setup, the USSR has made more advances in the time given then most other countries. To ignore said point is to open the door to contempt, something that can not be afforded between two superpowers who have enough power to destroy life as we know it.