104 SOCIAL SCIENTIST inventions arc only of secondary importance to them since they are considered as doubtful investments. More than the indifferent attitude towards new developments, what is intriguing is their opposition to new trends in research that may undermine their competitive position in the market or render their existing productive capital obsolete. The monopolies thus resort to all sorts of methods, both foul and fair, to block or at least delay such trends and in this they often succeed to get the support of the State. Nikolayev gives a graphic description of the troubles an eminent American invemor, E Armstrong, had to face during the endless litigation he was forced into with the monopoly company^ American Telegraphs and Telephones (ATT), in connection with his inventions related to radio feed-back and frequency modulation. Driven to despair by the prolonged litigation, in which the U S Fe^al Communication Commission colluded with the monopoly, Armstrong committed suicide in 1954. The basic contradiction in the capitalist mode of prodwiif^ ^Jae alienation of labour from the means of production, tD^nife^.kself in the organisation of scientific and industrial research ^ urcll. In the ultimate analysis, wage labour is the basis of R a^ ^)^>rk, and the type of research to be undertaken is dictated by ^^peo&t motives of the capitalist. To imagine that the creative urge in man w-illftrrd its full expression under such circumstances is a fallacy. The book quotes a study by an American sociologist, W H Grosvenor, that only 12 out of 72 outstanding inventions made between 1889 and 1&29 came from 'Corporation Research' of the monopoly companies. Yet another study by a team of American economists and lawyers reveals that only 12 out of 61 outstanding inventions in the first half of the 20th century came from big corporations, while 33 came from invidividual inventors and 16 from small firms or laboratories. A survey of the concentration of patent holdings also indicates a similar trend. This meagre share of the monopoly corporations is particularly revealing when compared with the massive share of their R and D expenditure in national outlays. It clearly disproves the theory that large monopoly corporations serve as an effective mechanism for organising scientific and industrial research. In fact, what it indicates is that the interests of monopoly capital and those of society often conflict with each other and that scientific workers, who are the paid employees of large corporations, find their initiative curbed by these corporations. Disillusioned and aliented, the scientists and engineers in the USA are increasingly confronting the establishment and coming to the forefront of democratic struggles. State Intervention Plagued with several problems facing scientific and industrial research under monopoly capitalism, the State has stepped into this area in its typical role as.underwriter of monopoly capital. The US Govern-