MEETING OF THE US-USSR WORKING GROUP ON SCIENCE POLICY/POOR QUALITY OF SOVIET ANSWERS/SOVIET DISSATISFACTION WITH US ANSWERS/VAGUE POSITION OF USSR STATE COMMITTEE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY/GEORGIAN STATE COMMITTEE FOR SCIENCE AND TECH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00798A000500130005-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: August 12, 1975
• Content Type: IR

Approved For Release 2+0/09/11 : CIA-RDP79-00798A0O*00130005-4
Intelligence Information. Report
Thr, n:oterio! toMO;ns ;n(o?mctian affecting the Nohonol D.'en,. of the Un;ted 'top., within
Ph* mooning of the Etp;onc9e tows, Title 18. U S C. Sen 703 and 794, th r.o~ mien
tar revelation of which in any manner to on onouthonced pe.,on is prohrb;ted by law.
Meeting of the US-USSR Working Green,
on Science Polic /Poor Quality of
Soviet Answers/Soviet Dissatisfaction
DCD REPORT NO.
DATE DISTR.
NO. PAGES
REFERENCES
12 AUG 75
with US Answers/Vague Position of USSR
State Committee for Science and Tech-
nology/Georgian State t:oemittee for
Science and Technolbgy
DATE OF INFO. May 1975
1. The US delegation of the US/USSR Working Group on Science Policy
recently visited the USSR. It was difficult to discern exactly what
Soviet expectations from this program were. The Soviets seem to have
a different level of commitment than the US side. At times the Soviets
give the impression that they are not even certain themselves what
they expect from the exchange. For example, in an attempt to'give
some structure to the general exchange and provide checks or. the
activities as they develop, the US side presented an agenda of items
which proposed end papers and case studies. The Soviets agreed to the
program but their studies will not be done until 1976, and the US side
will not be able to monitor the quality of either the research or the
data.
2. Prior to this meeting, the US and Soviet sides exchanged a list of
questions with the agreement that there would be at least a five-page
- answer. to each question. Sixteen of the Soviet answers consisted of
one a~
e
o
C at the US side
wanted to avoid harping about Soviet deficiencies in this respect,
Ivanov said that the US answers did not meet Soviet expectations
either. Ivanov also mentioned that the Soviets could not believe
that the US does not have a list of national priority projects. The
Soviets know that the US annually budgets enormous sums of money, but
p b
or ess. They were drawn up by / fnu_/ Lvthenko [phonetic)
who is from the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology. It
appears as though the answers were not done by the members of the USSR
delegation but by lower-level subordinates within the SST Committee's
bureaucracy who probably were not a ';e of the open literature on the
topics covered. In formulating their answers, it does not appear that
the S&T Committee representatives drew on the expertise or advice of
other Soviet institutions.
Members of the US delegation privately expressed their dissatisfaction
with the poor quality of the Soviet answers to their Soviet colleagues
They also expressed the doubt that the Soviets were seriously interested
in the exchange. Dr. Ivan Dmitrivevich Ivanov, Institute of the USA
and Canada, reacted to this criticism by inviting one of the US dele-
gates to write a formal complaint. When he was t
ld h
etas;.tied by OC7622. r.emot hpm
?llnHO/ rLCla cctltr alrnn vn-Auu wr c f,
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP79-00798A000500130005-4
 Approved For Release 00/09/11 : CIA-RDP79-00728MM#00130005-4
I C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L
T Headquarters Cossent: CRS records show a reference to an Ivan
Lyashenko at the State Committee for Science & Technology. /
they presume these funds are allocated to a series of projects in a
descer.ding order of priorities. The idea that separate agencies line
up heir own programs or that personnel involved in precision tech-
nologies form aggregate or separate special programs rather than one
kind of optimal program is foreign to the Soviet mentality. Ivanov
also accused the US side of nitpicking over the language used in the
joint protocol issued at the end of the meeting. To the Soviets, the
US side gave the impression of not being serious about the trip and
interested only in getting a formal docurcut to take home to justify
the expense of the trip to their superiors.
4. During the meetings the Soviets maintained their official pose and
avoided relating to their US counterparts on a personal level. Soviet
perceptions of the US side differed among individual Soviets depending
on his background. Iv.nov seems to have status as some kind of special-
ist on the US although he is not an expert on US science. He has an
economic background and spent about five years at the UN. He was even
a "China watcher" for a while. Oleg Ivanovich'Larishev-, an expert on
management decision-making from the Institute of Control Problems is
another US affairs specialist on the Soviet delegation.
S. The Soviets were hesitant to reveal the degree of authority which the
USSR State Committee on S&T has, or its exact relationship to other
Soviet Institutions. When asked to define the Committee's relation-
ship to the Central Committee the Soviets declined comment. Therefore,
the degree of authority which the State Committee on S&T wields is
questionable. The Committee has conflicts with the ministries on one
side and with the Academy of Sciences on the other. Although the
Committee perceives the ministries and academic institutes as ad:-er-
saries in some respects, it also works very closely with them.
6. In the midst of their visit, the US delegates were hustled off to
Tbilisi; eorgia, with the vague impression that the Soviets wanted to
get them off their hands for a few days. While in Georgia they visited
a champagne factory and net with representatives of the Georgian State
Committee for Science and Technology which is the only state committee
for S&T on the republic level in the USSR. It has no formal links
with the USSR State Committee.for S&T in Moscow. The Soviets are
presently toying with the idea of forming other state committees of
S&T on the republic level.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP79-00798A000500130005-4