only limited flexibility at the level of the insti- 

 tute, design bureau, and individual researcher. In 

 the US, however, S&T activities are highly flexible, 

 responding to changing conditions at all levels from 

 the national to the individual research scientists 

 The innovation cycle is more sequential and dynamic 

 than in the Soviet Union, with more review and re- 

 evaluation as development proceeds. 



Neither the US nor the Soviet Union has mapped any 

 firm normative rules or fixed indicators to guide 

 strategy and policy development in science and tech- 

 nology. Until recently in both countries, science 

 and technology had generally unrestrained standards 

 and unlimited drawing accounts. The need for con- 

 straint was seen in the US in the 1960s. In the 

 1970s, the Soviets tried to define a set of "basic 

 indicators," such as the technical and economic indi- 

 cators established by Gosplan in 1974, but these are 

 incomplete. The measure of inputs remains by default 

 simultaneously the measure of output because of the 

 absence of any precise norms for planning and alloca- 

 tion. Yet the need for standards is real. Three 

 general criteria are being used: technical, economic, 

 and social. Technical considerations have been fore- 

 most in both the US and the USSR. The S&T effort has 

 focused on big military, space, and nuclear programs. 

 With such programs, science policy has enjoyed the 

 advantage of being stable and specific, limited to a 

 small domain of government activity and particular 

 projects. 



Increasingly, however, science policy has needed 

 to reflect the social and economic effects of techni- 

 cal progress. In particular, national attention in 

 the US is focusing on the implications of technologi- 

 cal change for the environment, health, and public 

 safety. Government regulation in these areas has ex- 

 panded greatly, to the point where private industry 

 feels a threat to its own S&T initiatives. The eco- 

 nomics of S&T are also being stressed, although no 

 clear market or economic criteria for federal funding 

 of civilian scientific R&D have been developed. A gov- 



317 



