FOOTNOTES 



1. G. A. Dorokhova, "Sovershenstvovaniye sistemy 

 organov upravleniya naukoy," Sovetskoye gosudarstvo 

 i pravo , 6 (1972), p. 60fn. 



2. M. I. Piskotin, V. A. Rassudovskiy , and M. P. 

 Ring, eds., Organizatsionno-pravovyye voprosy ruko- 

 vodtsva naukoy v SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), p. 141. 



3. US-USSR Joint Working Group in the Field of 

 Science Policy, Subgroup 1 — Planning and Management 

 of Research and Development, "USSR Short Answers to 

 US Questions Relating to USSR Research and Develop- 

 ment Planning and Management," Washington, D.C., 

 National Science Foundation, February 20, 1976, pp. 

 3-4. 



4. Ibid . , pp. 4-5 . 



5. Ibid. , pp. 12-14. 



6. Dorokhova, "Sovershenstvovaniye sistemy organov 

 upravleniya naukoy," pp. 64-65; Piskotin et al, Organ- 

 izatsionno-pravovyye rukovodstva naukoy v SSSR , pp. 

 187-192, 205. It is not surprising that the idea of 

 creating state committees for science and technology 

 in various republics, modeled after the Moscow body, 

 has been urged and discussed, apparently at the high- 

 est levels. See Dorokhova, "Sovershenstvovaniye sis- 

 temy organov upravleniya naukoy," p. 65. There is a 

 state committee for science and technology in Georgia, 

 but it is subordinate to the Georgian republic Coun- 

 cil of Ministers, not to the USSR GKNT. 



7. For example, the USSR State Committee on Inven- 

 tions and Discoveries is "predominantly oriented to 

 regulating the initiatives and proposals coming from 

 below." Only 30 percent of its recommendations are 

 accepted by the ministries and departments. See Ye. 

 Artemyev and L. Kravets, Izobreteniya — novaya tekh- 

 nika — upravleniye (Moscow: Ekonomika, 1974), pp. 63, 

 179-180. Another Soviet critic similarly notes that 



80 



