SCIENCE AND MORALITY: A SOVIET DILEMMA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01314R000100120019-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 26, 2004
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: March 15, 1968
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

proved For Release 2005/01/11 : CIA-RDP88-01314R000100120019-2
Science and Morality:
A Soviet Dilemma
Leading Soviet scientists search for a broader
cultural autonomy of science.
The problem of the relationship of
science to morality was widely discussed
in Russia during the last decades of the
tsarist system. Kliment Timiriazev. the
eminent plant physiologist, upheld the
Nihilist view that science is the primary
source of modern morality and the most
reliable indicator of cultural progress.
He fully endorsed M. Berthelot's asser-
tion that, since the 17th century, science
has been the only contributor to "the
improvement of the material and moral
conditions of social life" (1). He identi-
fied Darwinian evolution with cultural
progress, cultural progress with the
growing power of science, and science
with the triumphs of the moral code.
The second view, by far the most
popular in the Russian scientific com-
munity at the beginning of the century,
expressed serious doubts about both the
science of ethics and scientifically de-
termined morality. Vladimir Vernadskii,
the famous biogeologist, was the most
eloquent spokesman of this group. Ac-
cording to him, every effort to reduce
morality to science was the intellectual
product of a one-sided interpretation of
the place of science in modern culture.
One cannot appreciate the power of
science, according to him, until he un-
derstands and acknowledges its intrinsic
limitations and its complementary rela-
tions with moral, religious, philosophi-
cal, technical, and esthetic modes of
inquiry. Vernadskii recognized the great
contributions of Nihilism to the devel-
opment of rationalist thought and sci-
ence in modern Russia; but he carefully
emphasized that most scientists, influ-
enced by the writings of the Nihilists of
the 1860's, gradually abandoned Nihilist
scientism and "materialism" and learned
to live with a more modest view of
science (2).
The views of the Nihilists and Timi-
riazev. anchored in a philosophy of the
limitless intellectual and social power of
science, have become an organic part of
Soviet ideology. Vernadskii s democratic
notion of the equality of science with
other modes of inquiry has given way to
Timiriazev's aristocratic concept which
placed science on the Olympus and
made it the chief architect of cultural
progress. Moral law has become a by-
product of science; science, in official
Soviet ideology, is a structural compo-
nent of Soviet society, while the moral
code is only a superstructural deriva-
tion. Soviet society, according to Soviet
ideology, is the first political community
in which science is a crucial component
of the social base and the first society
in which morality is fully congruent
with the laws of science. "Moral truths,"
according to a typical Soviet writer,
". . . are in no essential way different
from scientific truths, as was claimed by
Kant and modern positivists .... The
concept of moral truth corresponds to
the concept of truth in general and is a
particular case of the latter" (3).
Morality is viewed not only as a
product of science but also as a subject
of scientific inquiry. In a publication
entitled the Foundations of Marxist-
Leninist Philosophy we read: "Moral
norms are principles with a scientific
foundation. The false or true nature of
moral norms can be ascertained by
means of a scientific analysis" (4).
The subordination of morality to sci-
ence in the Soviet Union has been a
part of a broader process of subordinat-
ing all modes of inquiry to the tutelage
with science. Philosophy has been pro-
claimed a study of the general principles
of scientific inquiry and every branch of
philosophical thought in open conflict
with science has been outlawed. Reli-
gion has been chastised as a negation of
science. The works of art have been
identified as special cultural expressions
of an "undivided world view" rooted in
science and contributing to a "cognition
and reproduction of reality." A poet is
not asked to be a scientist but he is
expected not to challenge the scientific
world view, as the world view of Soviet
culture.
The boundaries of Soviet ideology,
according to the official view, stay com-
pletely within the orbit of science. The
identification of ideology and science
has been advanced by ideologists, not by
scientists, and has been the main stum-
bling block in the growth of Soviet
science. It was this partnership that
made it easy for Stalin to take it upon
himself to define the ethos of Soviet
science. He formulated four major
moral obligations of Soviet scientists.
The first obligation, covered by the
infamous term "anti-cosmopolitanism,"
demanded that scientists extol the na-
tional originality and cultural indepen-
dence of Russian science. It attacked one
of the guiding ethical norms of science
-the recognition of universalism in the
accumulation of scientific wisdom. It
denied the existence of an international
community of scientists.
The second obligation called for a
relentless war on objectivism. The schol-
ar was ordered, on ethical grounds, to
ignore the truth that cast unfavorable
light on the Soviet system. There was no
room for sociology as a study of the
complex problems of Soviet social real-
ity. An important function of the social
scientist was to explain away the acute
social problems by reliance on ideology,
rather than to explain them by reliance
on the objective methods of science.
The third obligation of the scientists
was to take an active part in a war on
alien ideologies abroad and ideological
impurities at home. The duty of every
scientist was to condemn the philoso-
phies of great scientists which were in-
compatible with dialectical materialism.
Stalin's relentless campaign in behalf of
the ideological purification of Soviet
in the Soviet
swel
ce
teo
eliminating those that ac
~
J
mw auttwa is t e AAipt?dgI l RbP Re 9 91Ia 1
100
the Evolution of
Unhertlty of Mnof% Urban
12" SCIENCE. VOL. 1!9
 Approved For Release 2005101/11 : CIA-RDP88-013a1Rh0001~0 019-?~
Physics, the stimulating and delightful world view, he reassessment of the e tree al a crltt I issues related
book written by Einstein and Infeld, ethical foundations of Soviet science is to Galileo's struggle with the cultural
could not he published in the Soviet
Union in the early 1950's because it
stated that all ideas are free products of
the human mind.
The fourth obligation had its source
in the Stalinist idea of the technological
functions of science. The scientist was
pressured into contributing to the solu-
tion of imminent economic problems
and, consequently, into avoiding pure
theory, removed from the contingencies
of the day. The value of research proj-
ects was determined not by the world of
scholarship but by the Gosplan.
The Stalinist "ethos" of science inter-
fered with the inalienable right of the
scientist to define the limits of scientific
investigation, to enter into a more cre-
ative reciprocal relationship with repre-
sentatives of the nonscientific modes of
inquiry, to he the sole custodian of the
moral rules tshich guide him and his
colleagues in their professional work, to
play a decisive role in determining the
lines of scientific development, and to
maintain working relations with the
international community of scientists.
The Stalinist "science" of ethics was the
prime enemy of the ethics of science.
Today much of the Stalinist "ethos"
of science is history. The idea of the
international nature of science has be-
come a rule in the assessment of the
growth of scientific thought. As anti-
objectivism crumbled, sociology has
been recognized as a legitimate science
and may well inaugurate an era of scien-
tific studies of the social problems en-
gendered by the Soviet system. The
struggle for the ideological purity of
science has quietly subsided beyond
recognition. Ideology is still equated
with the established facts of science-
hut ideological interference with scien-
tific work has been drastically reduced.
Scientists have generally won their
struggle against the technological orien-
tation of the Academy of Sciences,
although many problems still remain to
he resolved in favor of the best interests
of science.
All this should not lead to a conclu-
sion that Soviet science has won a full
victory over the degrading and crippling
effects of Stalinist policies. Stimulated
by considerable relaxation of political
and ideological controls, the men of
scientific knowledge are presently en-
gaged in a quiet and subtle quest for
the motive force of this quest.
In preparation for the celebration of
the 50th anniversary of the October
Revolution, Soviet scholars have pub-
lished summaries and professional ap-
praisals of the major scientific achieve-
ments of their country. The staff of the
Academy of Sciences alone has prepared
for publication nine massive volumes
tinder the general title "Fifty Years of
Soviet Science and Technology." The
scientists can rightfully point out the
Soviet triumphs in many areas of the
physical and mathematical sciences and
can boast of a gigantic institutional net-
work dedicated to the advancement of
scientific knowledge. In the 19th century
most leading Russian scientists wrote in
French and German in search of a
wider public that would read and appre-
ciate their work. Today the Russian
language is the second language of
world science. Over 100 Soviet scientific
journals are now translated into English
cover-to-cover.
In addition to appreciating the prog-
ress made by their country in many
areas of scientific scholarship. individual
scientists-usually the leading academi-
cians with international reputations-
are now also asking questions of anoth-
er order: they want to understand the
working of the forces which have stood
in the way of greater scientific achieve-
ment. With Petr Kapitsa, for example,
they want to know why Soviet produc-
tivity in science is appreciably smaller
than in the United States (5). Or, again
with Kapitsa as their spokesman. they
want to find out why the Soviet Union
does not have a true community of
scientists, with its own esprit de corps,
ethical code, and protective institutional
mechanisms-all indispensable for a
continuous growth of science (6).
The relationship of science to moral-
ity and the culture of science in general
have now come in for a broad reap-
praisal initiated by thoughtful scholars
opposed to the moral and intellectual
claims of official scientism. The gradual-
ly unfolding reappraisal has received
particularly strong impetus from the
performance of Brecht's drama Galileo
in a Moscow theater in recent years.
forces inimical to the development of
modern science. In a highly fictionalized
account he concentrated on one prob-
lem: Galileo's confrontation with the
moral obligations of a scientist to sci-
ence and society. Ridden with guilt for
"postponing" the beginning of the age
of reason by his convenient "retreat"
from the heliocentric theory, Brecht's
Galileo was more than vindicated by his
clear understanding and enunciation of
the moral foundations of science and of
the nature of his "crime." He showed
clearly that the ties between science and
the ethical code are not explicable in
deterministic terms. His involved and
rather diffuse argument indicated that
the idea that rationalism, distilled from
a scientific analysis of underlying condi-
tions. ensures a moral programing of
behavior is too simple, sterile, and even
dangerous. He showed even more elo-
quently that science has its own moral
code which is much narrower than the
code of total society and in many re-
spects quite unique. Doubting and
challenging every authority are, accord-
ing to him, the unique imperatives of
scientific work.
Brecht's Galileo "sinned" not in dis-
avowing his discoveries upholding the
heliocentric system but in violating the
ethical principles of the scientific pro-
fession. When the Inquisitor asked him
"Can society stand on doubt and not on
faith?" he did not answer that science
"trades in knowledge which is the prod-
uct of doubt." He transgressed the mor-
al code of science because he "surren-
dered" his knowledge to the powers
outside of science to use it---or, rather,
abuse it-as it suited their ends,
Brecht's Galileo gave a brief discourse
on the ethos of science. He emphasized
skepticism and free challenge as golden
rules of scientific work. He made it clear
that science cannot grow unless scien-
tists have the supreme authority in
selecting the topics of research and un-
less the scientific contributions of a
scientist are judged only by his peers.
Above everything else, he noted that the
members of the scientific community
must have the moral qualities to fight
for the integrity of science and guard
against the disruptive interference of
forces external to science.
An interpreter of Brecht's Galileo re-
minded the readers of Voprosy Filosofii
Brecht did not adhere too closely to the of the following statement written by
growth of science, as a system of knowl- documented history of the salient mo- Einstein in memory of Marie Curie:
edge, an institutional Q-pi;W4e4J1 oC RQWarA n2QQNQ11;1f; 0): 'flAAgPo$$t9r1314RI99 t1t@Q11o$QO4 iaies of its leading
15 MARCII 1969 1209
 Approved For Release 2005/01/11: CIA-RDP88-01314R000100120019-2
personalities that are perhaps of even
greater significance for a generation and
for the course of history than purely
intellectual accomplishments. Even these
latter are, to a greater degree than is
commonly credited, dependent
stature of character" (7).
rather than in Soviet ideology. Accord-
ing to hint, science and morality are
not only made of different cultural ma-
terial but are also subject to different
principles and tempos of development.
Since the time of Rousseau, he said, sci-
ence has marched at an accelerating
speed and has become it major compo-
nent of modern culture; during the
The current search of Soviet scientists
for a reassessment of the relationship of
science to morality and for a deeper
understanding of the moral foundations
of science is part of a growing quest for
a firm separation of science from ideol-
ogy. Scientists operate on the safe
assumption that the identification of
science and the officially defined moral
code of Soviet society has opened the
gates- for the ideological control of sci-
ence-for the subordination of the
welfare of science to the interests of
ideology. While textbook writers and
orthodox philosophers of Soviet ideol-
ogy still cling to the dictum that "moral
truths" are essentially "scientific truths,"
A. N. Nesmcianov. the former President
of the Academy of Sciences, states in
Literaturnaia Gazeuz that "I do not see
any connection between science and
morality . . . . Morality varies not only
from society to society but also from
individual to individual. An honest
merchant in bourgeois society could he
considered an exploiter and a speculator
in our society, but science, say mathe-
matics, physics and chemistry, is the
same everywhere" (8).
Nesmeianov's statement has not gone
unchallenged, but it is significant that
the challenge has conic exclusively from
the defenders of ideological orthodoxy
who cling tenaciously to the moral phi-
losophy of science as evolved under the
aegis of Stalinism. A. D. Aleksandrov
could only repeat the old dictum that
"the unity of science and morality, the
unity of the scientific explanation of
the world and the moral demand for its
change is the alpha and omega of the
Communist world view." Science, ac-
cording to Aleksandrov, has an intel-
lectual and a moral function: to under-
stand the world and to change it. It is
."indispensable for morality as light is
for vision" (9).
P. S. Aleksandrov welcomed the hos-
pitality of Literaturnaia Gazeta to back
up Nesmeianov's statement. Like Nes-
meianov, he too is interested in the in-
to many grand delusions. He states:
"The discovery of penicillin by Fleming
coincided chronologically with the
tragic events of World War lI which
created it need for its wide application.
The synchrotron, lunar flights, and in-
sulin have hardly improved on the
world in which Euler and D'Alembert
lived" (10). He made no effort to single
out Soviet society as an exception to
this sweeping and categorical assess-
ment of the state of morality in the
modern world.
Neither Nesmcianov nor Aleksandrov
actually thinks that science and morality
are totally unrelated. Although they
have not elaborated their positions philo-
sophically. it is clear that they share
Henri Poincarc's view that science
"studies everything" but always "from
the same angle," and that although
"there will never he scientific ethics in
the strict sense of the word," science
,.can he an aid to ethics in an indirect
manner" (1 / ). A writer summed up
the "new" view in Voprosy Filosofli:
11. . . . the level of knowledge pos-
sessed hy'individual persons as well as
by entire epochs does not correspond to
the level of moral consciousness. . . .
The differences in the 'tempo' of de-
velopment of knowledge and moral
consciousness are strongly felt and can-
not he resolved by a simple exaggera-
tion of the power of scientific knowl-
edge" (12).
The technique of exaggeration used
by Nesmeianov and Aleksandrov has
paid handsome dividends: it has not
only provoked a lively discussion of the
scientific foundations of morality but
has intensified the ongoing reexamina-
tion of the cultural matrix of science.
It has spearheaded and systematized
the current search for an affirmation of
the inalienable right of scientists to de-
fine the domain, and the limits, of sci-
entific inquiry and to safeguard science
-not from ethics, esthetics, metaphys-
ics, and religion-but from pseudosci-
ence.
for it genuine community of scientists
which would protect the moral and in-
tellectual interests of science. Petr Ka-
pitsa sums up the problem in the fol-
lowing statements:
"It is easy to see that the progress
of science requires the existence of it
fully developed scientific community....
The creation of a healthy and advanced
community of scientists is an enormous
task to which we give far too little at-
tention. This task is more difficult than
the training of selected young talent or
the construction of large institutes. .. .
The community of scientists alone can
objectively judge the achievements of
science. . . . Only an advanced scientific
community can fully appraise the intel-
lectual power of a scientific discovery
independently of its direct practical
significance" (13) .
Science progresses through system-
atic and responsible challenges of all
relevant authority. It does not advance
through the worship of established
knowledge but through constant intel-
lectual doubt and search for proofs. Or-
ganized, responsible. and articulated
skepticism is solidly built into the pro-
fessional mentality of true scientists. It
is the cornerstone of the ethos of sci-
ence. Its violation has been the major
cause of the uneven growth of Soviet
science. While some sciences have kept
pace with the most advanced ideas in
their respective fields and have made
substantial contributions to the most
modern areas in research, others have
lost the pioneering zeal and some have
seriously retrograded. Until recently a
major source of this unevenness was
the officially enforced limitation on crit-
icism of certain ideologically relevant
scientific orientations or propositions-
such as Marxist-Leninist historicism,
Michurinian evolutionism. Lenin's cau-
tion against "mathematical idealism,"
and physical and physiological deter-
minism.
Today, a concerted effort to ensure
an even growth of scientific thought has
received the highest priority in the
world of Soviet scientific scholarship.
The philosophy of dialectical material-
ism has retreated from many epistemo-
logical and ontological positions that
have proven to he impediments to the
normal growth of science. Dialectical
materialism has been stretched so far
that now it is viewed as essentially com-
patible with the philosophical views of
Current writings on the professional Einstein and Bohr, which were consid-
terrelationship of science and~ alit roble yf, tfi `~o~~, r ~f~t al~s delusions only Was Of as it has evolved in VPc~s ern ceitiizzaotonn el t~min6e / icth b1ISov'i~'fFs oya J 14 e' is 'S6J1'! tic cientists have dis- ele
sea
 covered, however, that itafpbL&dslr6r FkUM&t@tZdbS/W11/tF'fiald9t-pbOiem 13R f 1bW1fo0jV2'e"el of its in-
to disturb the normal growth of science vision, which has not yet been recog- ternal development. Einstein's special
than to restore a healthy impetus to un- nized in our country."
impeded development.
The work of a scientist should be
judged by his peers acting as represen- Historical Materialism versus the
tatives of science. Until recently, So-
viet science-as amply illustrated by the
case of genetics-suffered from a seri-
ous institutional impediment: it har-
bored "peers" whose criticism did not
evolve from an identification with sci-
ence but with official ideology, and
who acted as outsiders in the house of
science. Today it is admitted that it was
the disregard of the most elementary
moral rules that caused the tragedy of
Soviet genetics.
In its ultimate goals, science is utili-
tarian-its contributions are measured
in terms of its share in the progress of
human welfare. However, the scientist,
and not the ideologist, should he
granted the irrevocable right to assess
and define the nature and the scope of
the practical usefulness of science.
Stalin had a pathological fear of "pure
science" and endeavored to make the
Soviet Academy of Sciences a techno-
logically oriented institution. Since 1959
the government has yielded to the pres-
sure of many leading scientists to "de-
technologize" the Academy, but even
today there are individual scholars who
claim that much more has to he done
to create the conditions conducive to a
more even and versatile development
of science. Today very few Soviet sci-
entists would challenge the idea that the
power of science as a source of social
well-being is not measured by visible
and imminent practicality but by the
magnitude, richness, and abstraction of
its theory, the main wheels of its prog-
ress. However, the question asked by L.
A. Artsimovich, director of the power-
ful N. P. Lebedev Institute of Theoreti-
cal Physics, should the Academy, as the
pace-setting Soviet scientific institution,
serve as a source of expedient scientific-
technical aid to various government
projects or should it concentrate on
basic research, is still waiting for an
answer more favorable to the needs of
science (14). In his speech commemor-
ating the 100th anniversary of the birth
of Ernest Rutherford, the famous Brit-
ish pioneer in nuclear physics, Kapitsa
makes the bold and challenging state-
ment that "science has lost freedom"
because "it has become a productive
force" (15).
states:
-not
called science of science is a philosophi-
cally articulated collective effort by So-
viet scientists to codify their own views
on the logical, ethical, psychological,
organizational, and sociological prob-
lems of science, and to help Soviet sci-
ence meet the modern problems of
growing complexity and accelerated
growth. Of particular relevance is the
question: does historical materialism
provide a sufficient explanation of the
growth of science? Can the development
of scientific thought in individual coun-
tries, and in general, he explained in
terms of socioeconomic causation or
determinism? A careful reading of the
most recent literature shows that the in-
tellectual monopoly of historical ma-
terialism is being challenged, at least in
this particular area. Today there is a
lively interest in the inner logic of the
development of science-the growth of
scientific thought determined by the in-
ternal logical mechanisms of science
rather than by external conditions. Ex-
ternal causation is not dismissed but its
undivided reign has been subjected to
serious challenge.
The argument in favor of the "inner'
logic" of scientific development has
been clearly set forth by B. M. Kedrov,
director of the Academy's Institute of
the History of the Natural Sciences and
Technology. The historian of science,
according to Kedrov, must study the
effects of `rnaterial conditions" on sci-
entific work and the effects of science
on "material conditions," but this is not
enough: he must also study the internal
logic of the growth of scientific thought
which cannot be explained merely by
an interaction of science and technol-
ogy. or science and production, but re-
quires an analysis of the entire process
of knowledge, including the phases in-
dependent of the ties between science
and production. Kedrov says that the
materialistic interpretation can explain
why, and under what conditions, sci-
ence is faced with a specific problem,
but not how it can solve it (16).
Modern history offers many examples
Another academician showing that, in search for a solution
"We must be for utilitarianism to specific practical problems, science
theory of relativity is not so much an
adaptation of science to the socio-
economic needs at the beginning of the
20th century as it is a grand and cre-
ative synthesis of certain unique in-
tellectual strands in the development of
modern science generated by the rise of
the very impractical non-Euclidean
geometries (particularly Riemann's), the
Michelson-Morley experiments designed
to establish the existence of ether, Lo-
rentz's transformations, and the discov-
ery of the physical and chemical nature
of radiation. Kedrov states explicitly
that historical materialism cannot ex-
plain why the theory of chemical struc-
tures and the periodic law of elements
were discovered in Russia of the 1860's
and not in scientifically and industrially
more advanced Western countries. To
understand why Butlerov "invented"
structural chemistry and Mendeleev for-
mulated the periodic law of elements it
is necessary to lay bare the complicated
mechanism of the inner logic of the
growth of science which tolerates no
deterministic explanations.
The emphasis currently placed on the
inner logic of science growth is part of
the general igterest in the future expan-
sion of science and in the organiza-
tional adaptability of its institutional
maze. But it also has a profound socio-
logical significance: together with the
increasing defense of the moral code
of science it has been part of a con
certed search for the autonomy of sci-
ence-for a genuine community of
scholars.
The most important feature of the
growing emphasis on the autonomy of
science has been a quiet renouncement
of the intellectual imperialism of scien-
tism, a philosophy which seeks to es-
tablish a hegemony of science over all
other modes of inquiry. Implicit in the
burgeoning criticism is the notion that,
in order to advance, science must not
reign over, but must be tempered and
enriched by, and legitimately harmon-
ized with, the other sources of wisdom.
Nesmeianov and his colleagues are con-
vinced that there could be no meaning-
ful cultural autonomy for science with-
out the cultural autonomies of other
modes of inquiry.
The very fact that a scientist may
stand up in the defense of true science
and its sustaining values is an index of
the improved intellectual atmosphere in
which he works and lives today. It
2g hat
primitive, but c A proveduFor Rel ase 2005/01/11r CI - DAt 8n~113 *96%a SOb1e88t~
a good deal
 of criticism voiced by 3 dvC 'I~'~1P'Rel sf~n210' / 'li/f~lnfr~+~lp~tt '~t$- 314 '1 (,~ ~Q1TS~i~r~" I,IKr~t of the Sol-let
beyond Soviet reality.
modern societies are
Scientists in all have been made by individual members
confronted with of the Academy of Sciences of the
the moral and intellectual challenge en- U.S.S.R..
gendercd by the momentous expansion, careers in
industrialization, and "collectivization"
of science, its rapidly increasing pene-
tration into every phase of social and
personal life, and its grossing depen-
dence on outside subsidies and over-
seers.
The search of Soviet scientists for a
critical reassessment of the broader
cultural effects of modern science and
the ongoing technological revolution is
still sporadic and lacks an open, direct,
the men ssith
science.
distinguished
1. M. Berthrlot, Srien,e at Sf?rale? (Calmann
Ics%, Paris, 1K971, P. 2; K. limiria,ev, S?a-
ehirrrrrri,r (Sr1'khoiili. \losiow, 1919), vol.
K. P. 1116.
2. V. I. Vcrnadskii, Orlrerkl 1 reek! (Nauchno.
I lunuko-ickhmche%koe itd-s n. Petrograd,
19221. vol. 2. P. 49.
3. V. 11. Tugarinos, O T.,erunntiaklr Zhi:ni I
as' rat tiara 11td?so l enIngrrdskugu 1.'nivcrsitrta,
Icnmgrad, 11401).p. 111.
4. 1'. li. Icdorenko, Omar)' .lfark,i,nko-
f a run+kai I rrke s lid-vo Kicvskogo Unisrrsi-
lela. Kiev. 19651. r. 94.
----. I'aa?khi 1 L-i,lre,kah Sauk $7, No. 1
169 (1965).
V. 1. Tohgkh, I'apnnp Fila,ofii 21, No. 4.
85 119671; A. Firtaean, Out of 3f ' Later
1'earr 1%%lsdom library, New Turk, 1950),
p. 211x.
A. N. Ne%mcianov, I.iG?ronanaia (ia:eta (4
Jan. 1967).
A. 1). Aleksandrov. ibid. (29 M:u.h 1967).
P. Alrksandrov, rhid, (25 J:m. 19(,7).
Ilenri Pulnrare, .Iadrern,airr and Stience:
lent 11)osrr Publications, New York,
1961), p. Ill.
V. I Iolsl kh, Vaprn.r frlo,afii 21. No. 4,
79-(l) (1967).
P. L. Kapitsa. I',pekhi Fiac/re,krkh Nuuk
97, No. 1. 16(4 (1965).
L. A. Arisimosash at al, I'e,tnik Akadrntil
\aak SAAR 35. No. 2. 12 14 (19611.
P. L. Kapilsa, Aa?l Mir 42, No. M. 215
(19661; V. K. %fdAlirn), Se?trnee 153, 727
(1966).
8. M. Kedrov. I apru,i l,tarii F.,te,n o:nantia
r FeAhnrki No. 21. K 9 11967).
Approved For Release 2005/01/11: CIA-RDP88-01314R000100120019-2
1212 SCIENCE. VOL. 159