Discussion
This paper deals with the influence of J. D. Bernal’s ideas on the system of Soviet scientific planning with a particular focus on the foundation of the All-Soviet Institute of Scientific and Technological Information (VINITI) and its first centralized depository of scientific publications.
The article first reconstructs the canonization of Bernal both as predecessor of social studies of science emergence and the person who is traditionally seen as the promoter of collective externalist perspective on science organization that was supposedly put in the essence of Soviet approach. It further rebuilds the early-Soviet attempts to promote the organization of scientific planning and contributes to a more complex understanding of how these ideas were eventually formed locally. Then, it shows the contradictions between Bernal’s vision of Soviet science and how it was actually seen by founding father of VINITI–Alexander Nesmeyanov. Finally, based on the archival materials obtained from so-called “Bernal Archive” in Cambridge University Library we claim that the foundational principles of organized scientific approach in regard of VINITI was rather a natural state of Soviet system evolution, then a brought from outside perspective significantly shaped by Bernal as often portrayed in rather recently canonized history.
The main aim of this paper is to reconstruct the direction of intellectual exchange between Bernal and Soviets in regard of VINITI foundation and more broadly–ideas of science planning, including the idea of the centralized depository. It is possible that Soviet scholars developed their own approach gradually from the first attempts in 1920s, through presentation of their ideas at London Congress in 1931 to eventual foundation of VINITI. It is also possible that Bernal’s ideas well-resonated with Soviet ones and not vice versa: the level of mutual influence is also not evident. Being more visible as a public figure, having a certain reputation and direct contacts with the USSR, the canonization of the key role of Bernal in such a story became more easily acceptable to those who worked in the West.
We believe that this history can be written in a more nuanced way through the analysis of archival data, shedding a light on how communication was going firsthand. We argue that such a history currently does not take into account the importance of local efforts, preferring instead the Western-centric approach through the praise of the one particular figure, i.e. J. D. Bernal–the approach that he criticized for a long time, suggesting the need to consider a collective and externalist aspects in science operation instead.
