Proceedings of the Tomsk Order of the October Revolution and Order of the Red Banner of Labor Polytechnic Institute named after S. M. Kirov

Vol. 255　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1972

Some Issues in Science Planning

V. V. Sizov

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Political Economy)

Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, the role of science in society has changed fundamentally. The growth of labor productivity, the technical level of production, and the increase in national income depend in real terms on successes in the development of science.

The substantial influence of science on the economic growth of society was noted long ago. K. Marx already said that the results of scientific research, when incorporated into production, ensure an increase in its effectiveness. He considered the constant use by industry of the achievements of science to be a necessary condition for the progress of the productive forces. K. Marx wrote: “Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, no railways... All this is the objectified power of knowledge. The development of fixed capital indicates the degree to which general social knowledge has become a direct productive force”¹). In this statement and in a number of others Marx emphasized the idea that science is turning into a necessary part of social production. He noted that the creation of the real wealth of society depends increasingly not on the quantity of labor and the working time expended, but on the means of labor employed, “which themselves, in turn (their powerful effectiveness), depend... on the general level of science and on technological progress, or on the application of this science to production”²).

Scientific research is not carried out for its own sake. In its origin, development, and ultimate aim it is indebted to social practice. But social practice is manifold, multi—

¹) K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 46, part II, p. 215.
²) K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 46, part II, p. 221.

... the images and tasks of all science as a whole. However, the task of increasing the efficiency of social production is one of the main ones.

Of all forms of social practice, we are interested only in material production; therefore, the discussion will concern only that science which serves material production, the results of which participate in the creation of the aggregate social product.

At present no one doubts that scientific research has become a driving function and a necessary link of social reproduction, and therefore the regularities of its development are subject to the general regularities of social reproduction.

Activity in the sphere of science is becoming a sphere of economic activity, a bearer of economic, production relations. Accordingly, the labor of those engaged in the sphere of these scientific investigations is included in the labor of the aggregate worker of material production and appears as productive labor.

For this reason, one must take different approaches to determining the sources and amount of funds invested in the development of science that participates in creating material wealth, and in the development of science that creates spiritual wealth. Until now there has been no such division in the financing of science, and the bulk of the funds invested in the development of science has been assigned to nonproductive funds.

K. Marx wrote: “If the production process becomes a sphere of application of science, then, conversely, science becomes a factor, so to speak, a function of the production process...

The capitalist mode of production is the first to put the natural sciences at the service of the immediate process of production, while, conversely, the development of production provides the means for the theoretical conquest of nature. Science receives the vocation of being a means for the production of wealth, a means of enrichment”¹.

This phrase emphasizes the profound interconnection of science and production, their interdependence and mutual conditioning.

Modern production cannot develop qualitatively without progress in technology, the development of which depends on the progress of science. Conversely, science cannot develop qualitatively on its own, without connection with social practice, for science finds its logical completion only in practice. At the same time, the production process and scientific activity should be distinguished as separate spheres of the division of social labor. This separateness is characterized by the specificity of the means of labor and objects of labor employed, by the nature of the final product, and by the specificity of the functioning of the labor force. The action of science as a necessary functional part of production, on the one hand, and its allocation as an independent, separate sphere of activity, on the other, gives rise to contradictions that exist between science and production. Outwardly this is manifested in the fact that, on the one hand, the increase in labor productivity in material production at present depends by 90% on the implementation of the results of scientific research, while, on the other hand, only 30–50% of all scientific and technical achievements obtained are introduced into production².

In order to speak of resolving these contradictions, it is necessary to investigate the very process by which a scientific product is transformed into a pro-

product of material production. Scientific activity breaks down into a number of interrelated phases, and, accordingly, scientific output, as the result of this activity, is classified according to these phases by the degree of its readiness for practical use in production:

1. Theoretical research, whose product consists of scientific ideas that reveal new general laws of nature.

2. Applied research, whose product consists of work aimed at the practical application of the results of theoretical research in the corresponding branch of material production.

3. Development work, whose product consists of operating models of new equipment, technological processes, improvements, etc., created on the basis of the results of applied research. In development work the scientific idea is embodied in a material product, but this by no means signifies that the process of scientific activity has ended, or that science in this segment turns into a productive force of society. The labor of those engaged in science becomes productive only when the developments have already been introduced into industry and, as part of the productive forces, participate in the creation of material goods.

Development work is followed by the stage of implementation. Implementation is already scientific-production activity for the broad use of developments in industrial production. This stage of activity serves as the connecting link between two distinct spheres of the single system science—production.

Although the process here is already far from pure scientific activity, its elements have not yet disappeared. In the course of implementation, “urgent” scientific and technical problems arise, which often have to be solved immediately. Therefore science must have its own specialists in this segment as well, in order to resolve in good time those unforeseen problems arising in the course of implementation that were not sufficiently worked out at the preceding stages of scientific activity.

Understanding scientific activity as a set of successive phases reflecting the process by which scientific output is transformed into the product of material production provides the key to the problem of planning science. The most important methodological principle in planning scientific research must be the closest possible connection with practice. Planning methods, while reflecting the specific character of each phase of the scientific process, must ensure this connection. In characterizing the problems of planning science, it is necessary to note the distinctive nature of this sphere of activity. Methods, principles, and concepts that are customary for industry are unacceptable with respect to scientific activity, or have significance only with certain qualifications. For example, unlike directive planning of the output of a particular type of product in industrial production, planning in science is probabilistic in character.

Scientific research is characterized by uncertainty of goals, a corresponding degree of risk, etc. Therefore planning in science means determining the prospects for the development of lines of scientific research, establishing optimal proportions among the spheres of scientific activity with due regard to the future needs of society, and determining the needs of scientific institutions.

However, the problem of planning science still encounters a number of objections today. Thus, some scientists believe that scientific activity is a highly specific, creative activity, based fundamentally on brilliant conjecture and intuition. Since, they say, one cannot plan a thought or a discovery, the planning of science is therefore impossible as well. Of course, one cannot plan a scientific discovery, but one can and must plan its rational foundation—the process preceding a scientific discovery, for a scientific discovery does not arise in an empty place and without preliminary work. Moreover, the time has passed when scientific problems were solved by scientists working alone. In our time, the solution of major scientific problems is within the power only of large scientific teams that bring together scientists of various specialties and organize their work in a planned and purposeful manner.

It is sometimes asserted that a plan in science restricts the freedom of scientific creativity. Unquestionably, any plan is, to a certain extent, a restriction; but it is a reasonable restriction, since it does not allow efforts to be scattered over a multitude of problems, but directs work in accordance with definite goals and problems that are urgent and awaiting solution. All scientific research institutes have been created and are maintained by the state, which has every right to orient their work toward solving national-economic tasks in a specific sector of the development of the socialist economy. And if the results of science lag behind, or, conversely, outstrip the corresponding need for them on the part of production, the efficiency of all social production suffers from this. Since science is an organic part of social reproduction, then, naturally, while developing a socialist planned economy, one cannot have a science that develops without a plan.

From the first days of Soviet power, serious attention has been devoted to this problem. The problem of planning science was first expressed by V. I. Lenin in his work “Sketch of a Plan for Scientific and Technical Work” and in connection with the plan for the electrification of the USSR. Lenin’s ideas were developed in the works of A. A. Bakh, V. I. Vernadsky, S. G. Strumilin, and others. This problem is acquiring particular urgency at the present time, when the efficiency of social production is increasingly determined by the prospects for the technical use of new results of scientific research.

For the optimal passage of a scientific idea through a series of successive stages, it is necessary above all to maintain the proper proportions between the level of development of science and the technical level of production, ensuring the possibility of practical use of the results of scientific research. In other words, the technical level of production—determined by the availability of advanced technology, the appropriate qualifications of workers, and a certain level of scientific organization of labor—must stand in a definite relation to the development of science; it must be ready to use the obtained results of scientific research.

Violation of these proportions is manifested in practice, for example, in the fact that the costs of introducing scientific and technical achievements into production exceed the total costs of obtaining them by a factor of 5–10. Of course, science cannot passively reflect practice. The possibilities for the development of science must outstrip the capacities of industrial production to make effective use of the results of scientific research; otherwise science will not fulfill its vanguard role in relation to production. But this lead ...

must be subordinated to a definite proportion. It is necessary that science, while having an optimal theoretical reserve dictated by the internal logic of its development, nevertheless solve the urgent problems of industrial production. In other words, it is necessary that scientific output be continuously, systematically, and optimally incorporated into the process of material production.

To ensure the realization of scientific achievements in the shortest possible time, it is necessary to have optimal internal proportions in science, that is, proportions between the development of particular types of research: theoretical, applied, and technological development. The discovery of this optimality, as well as of planning methods, must proceed from the specific character of each of all the stages of scientific activity, which differ from one another in the objects of labor, means of labor, qualifications of the labor force, final product, degree of uncertainty, etc. It should be borne in mind, however, that the planning of science is closely connected with the planning of the realization of its results in material production, whose needs are constantly developing and being renewed. This circumstance largely determines the specific character of science planning. Plans in science, while ensuring the optimality of its internal proportions, must be oriented toward the optimum of the production situation—that is, so that the moment at which a new scientific and technical product is obtained coincides with the moment when production needs it.

In accordance with the form of the division of labor in science, the organizational structure of science must also take shape, expressed in the separation of scientific institutions according to the stages of the scientific process.

If one analyzes the entire organizational structure of the science–production system, one may note that, from the totality of its stages, the stage of “implementation” has dropped out. And this is far from accidental. The existing practice of relations between science and production does not create a material interest among scientific workers in the realization of their output in production. Moreover, according to the “Regulations on the procedure for concluding contracts for the performance of scientific research work,” “...all expenses for implementation are borne by the customer in the established manner. The contractor (that is, the scientific research organization) bears no costs for implementation....” If research institutes were to receive, in the form of a certain percentage, deductions from the economic effect achieved in production thanks to the realization of scientific and technical achievements, then the connection between scientific collectives and industrial enterprises would not be broken off at the act of transferring technical documentation, but would continue until the result of science had been fully assimilated in industry. The loss of this stage of activity from the organizational structure leads to unjustifiably large implementation costs. And since the costs of implementation are borne by the enterprise, enterprises often have no proper interest in it; moreover, large internal expenditures are accessible only to the economically strongest enterprises. Thus, calculations by G. A. Lakhtin, carried out at eight different enterprises in various branches, show that implementation costs, relative to the magnitude of the costs of conducting research (development), range from 46 to 780%³. Therefore it is expedient—

...would be the creation of special sectoral organizations that would deal directly with the problems of introducing the results of science into material production. The financing of these organizations should be carried out from the state budget and from the ministries’ and enterprises’ own funds. The advisability of such organizations is dictated by the possibility of accurately assessing the effectiveness of the activity of a given scientific collective. At present the activity of scientific organizations is evaluated by the final product, which in most cases is a report on a research topic, and not by the number of implemented research results. The effectiveness of activity is evaluated by the savings obtained as a result of carrying out the volume of commodity output of a research institute, which is the sum of the estimated cost of topics completed and accepted in the prescribed manner. This indicator, among other indicators currently used to evaluate the activity of research institutes, does not show the degree of participation of the given institution in material production, but shows only the expenditures on conducting scientific research.

The indicator of effectiveness in science is the degree of its practical use in social practice. Therefore scientific activity should be evaluated by the number of its results implemented, which ensure that the national economy obtains an economic effect. For this purpose it is advisable to create organizations that carry out the introduction of scientific products, filling this gap in the organization of scientific activity and practically constituting the final link in the system connecting science with production.

The planning of science must include the following points:

1. Planning the share of research work in aggregate social labor and the corresponding portion of expenditures for carrying it out.

2. Planning proportions within science itself—the optimal ratio in the development of its internal divisions.

3. Planning the subject matter of R&D in accordance with the main directions of development of the socialist economy.

4. Planning the material and technical supply of science.

5. Planning the reproduction of personnel necessary for carrying out the planned R&D.

All the component parts of the plan of scientific activity must constitute functional parts of a single whole, and the entire R&D plan must constitute a functional part of the general state plan for the development of the national economy.

Planning the share of science as a whole in the system of social reproduction must proceed from the economic effect that the national economy obtains as a result of using the results of science. An indicator of the magnitude of this economic effect may be the increase in national income obtained as a result of the implementation of scientific and technical achievements. But in this one cannot proceed from direct proportionality, that is, the greater the increase in national income, the larger the percentage of allocations for the development of science. The share of expenditures on science must constitute a constant percentage of national income, the magnitude of which (the percentage) must grow absolutely together with the growth of the absolute magnitude of national income.

The system of science planning in our country must be distinguished by the continuity of planning, that is, planning from scientific research through to the implementation of the results obtained in material production, on the basis of the coordination of plans for scientific research and production programs. The development of society is determined by the level of development of the productive forces, which in turn is increasingly determined by the level of development of science. Therefore, the planning of science, which is becoming a direct productive force of society, is acquiring ever greater relevance.

1. “From the Unpublished Manuscripts of K. Marx,” Kommunist, No. 7, 1958, p. 22. ↩

2. Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, No. 15, 1968, p. 18. ↩

3. G. A. Lakhtin, Tactics of Science, “Nauka,” Novosibirsk, 1969, p. 227. ↩