106 SOCIAL SCIENTIST NSF, in effect, to finance applied research as well as basic, [n 1971 about 10 percent of the NSJF funds was spent on problem-oriented research. Some members of the scientific community view this change as a setback for those who for years advocated the establishment of a basic research centre. They see the NSF's present situation as ^fatally compromised'/' The nature atld extent of inefficiency prevailing in the organisation ofR and D in the USA is apalling. Drug companies spend 11 percent of their net sales revenue on re&earch (advertising and marketing accounts for 24.S percent), of which about 65 percent is supposed to be on basic and applied research. But paradoxically, American drug companies have failed to initiate a single fundamentally new trend in drug research during the past 40 years. They have, however, succeeded exceedingly well in the mass manufacture of modifications of basic drugs discovered elsewhere in the world. A good percentage of the R and D investment goes toward rediscovering already established parents and formulations purely with a commercial motive. Ntkolayev quotes Senator Harlcy Kilgore; ^We have a rather backward view of research. It has been purely commercial, dollar-conscious, nickel-conscious, penny-conscious. We led^thc world in applied research and applied engineering; but we have taken from others—from Germany, from France, and from Italy—the basic ideas. We talk about the atomic bomb. The principle of atomic fission was discovered long ago. We made a spectacular application of it. The people of the United States think that we have th^t secret of the atomic bomb, but actually its basic principles were discovered in Europe originally, and other principles far in advance of those may be discovered any day abroad and the application which we have made may become obsolete... Science is the great frontier, but unfortunately we h^ive gone ahead only in those fields which paid dollar dividends." Nikolayev make an excellent critique of the R and D policies and practices adopted by the most powerful capitalist State, the USA. Unfortunately, he docs not attempt any comparison with the policies and practices followed in the USSR, the first socialist State in the world. No doubt, social necessities get due priority in the planning and organisation of scientific and industrial research in the Soviet Uaion* But have they succeeded in establishing a qualitatively different science and technology? The chain of scientific and technical innovations and discoveries, when plotted against time, may appear as a curve of singular solutions. But it Is logical that this curve should necessarily get conditioned and influwwd by the political and economic philosophy that guides and a»otivaus a society. Capitalism developed a technology qualitatively different from that of feudalism; should we not expect a similar qualitative shift under socialism and Communism? It appears that the Comoiuni&tic principle of Trom each according to his abilities and to each according to bis needs9, and the related cultural values and attitudes lead ing to the