244 
The State Committee’s activities in ocean uses can be viewed in 
the wider context of debates over centralized science policy manage- 
ment in the Soviet Union. The committee is the result of an almost 
continual process of experimentation in which the responsibilities have 
shifted between the various forms of the State Committee, Gosplan, 
the Academy of Sciences, and the ministries and other state commit- 
tees. These other institutions still maintain powers in science manage- 
ment, but, both Gosplan, with the responsibility for overall economic 
planning and coordination, and the Academy of Sciences which is 
concerned with research, have been affected by the extension of the 
State Committee’s responsibilities.'*24 The State Committee for the In- 
troduction of Advanced Technology in the National Economy was 
established in 1947, abolished in 1951, restored in 1955, reorganized 
in 1957 and 1961, reformed in 1963, and reorganized again in 1965.1? 
The State Committee for Science and Technology is composed of 
various departments, with subsectors and science councils for study 
and work on particular issues. A number of institutions and organiza- 
tions are attached to it.'2* The Committee’s chairmen between 1947 
and 1965 have been high government officials with a background 
in armaments and defense technology. The present Chairman, V. A. 
Kirillin has a political and technical background. A member of the 
Academy of Sciences since 1962, he served in higher education as 
head of the Secretariat Department on Science, Higher Educational 
Institutions, and Schools (1955-63), and as Vice President of the 
Academy of Sciences (1963-65). Since 1965 he has served as Chair- 
man of the State Committee and Deputy Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers. He became a member of the Central Committee in 
1966. Dzerhman Gvishiani, another prominent member of the Com- 
mittee, is the son-in-law of A. Kosygin. As one of the Vice Chairmen 
with an expertise in management and organization problems, he comes 
in frequent contact with international issues. The State Committee 
has a number of other members who are extensively involved in 
ocean issues. ; 
The problems involved in centralized direction of science policy 
are difficult and it is not obvious that the Soviet system is seeking 
complete central control. Both the listing of State Committee responsi- 
bilities and a description of the budgetary procedures for funding 
scientific research indicate that some autonomy is built into the system 
of science policy and science management. The extensive OECD study 
of science management in the Soviet Union stresses the change in 
the Committee’s responsibilities from a previous emphasis on coordina- 
tion of research and development to one of ‘“‘ensuring the cohesion 
of state policy in the field of scientific and technical progress.’’4 
The Committee’s tasks include determining basic tendencies in science 
and technology development and compiling lists of the most important 
research projects; organizing the dissemination of information; and 
working to increase the efficiency of scientific research. The study 
'21Graham argues convincingly, however, that some members of the Academy of Sciences actually 
wanted to cut back its responsibilities and limit them to the field of pure science. Loren R. Graham, 
“Reorganization of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences,”’ in Soviet Policy Making eds., Peter H. Ju- 
viler and Henry W. Morton (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967), pp. 133-161. 
122 Zaleski, 52 ff. Loren R. Graham, “‘The Development of Science Policy in the Soviet Union,” in 
Science Policies of Industrial Nations, T. Dixon Long and Christopher Wright, eds., (New York: 
Praeger Publishers, 1975), p. 37 ff. 
123 Zaleski, p. 60. 
124-Zaleski, p. 58. 
