Socialism and Science
By Thomas Isenhour

Socialism was as big a failure for scientific research as it was for economics. Almost 20 years have passed since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and, in my perception, scientific research is still operating, at least in Bulgaria, under the previous socialistic model.

The strength of American science is the peer-review system that rewards good ideas whether they come from senior or junior scientists. The United States never bought into the classical European educational system where only the senior professors could determine the course of research. Europe, mainly France, Germany, England and Italy, made this system work because, even though it took seniority to set your own agenda, the quality of science determined who were the seniors in charge. Internal politics played only a small role at great universities such as Cambridge and Goettingen.

The communists expanded on the worst aspects of the European system by making party membership and, hence, politics a determining factor in selecting the science to be pursued and the scientists to be supported. Central planning of science was a disaster. Remember the incredible efforts of the Soviet Union to be a leader in the space research? Even though they shocked the world by putting the first artificial satellite in orbit in 1957, they never duplicated the American effort of putting a man on the moon in 1969.

The ability of the U.S. peer-reviewed system to select young, bright scientists for research funding was evident in my experience as a program director at the National Science Foundation in 1982-83. I handled the review of 200 proposals in analytical chemistry that year. Of the 70 that were chosen for funding, for an average of $100,000, only two applicants received the full budget they requested. They were both assistant professors in their first academic appointments. They were the best two proposals I saw that year.

I saw the political system at work in the communist countries when I served on the U.S. Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) from 1986-92. IUPAC sets chemical standards and defines nomenclature and literature systems for chemistry worldwide. There are more than 100 member nations and getting worldwide agreement is a formidable task. The U.S. team worked well together as every member was a leading research chemist from a university, industry or national laboratory. However, the teams from the communist countries were not only not leaders in their science, many had no science training at all but had obtained their prestigious appointments politically. Not much of note ever came from these members.

In 1992-93 I served as the Provost in the founding of the American University of Bulgaria. Bulgaria is slightly smaller than Virginia and has about the same population. I became well acquainted with the Bulgarian research establishment and I was appalled. The entire country was not as well equipped as the chemistry department of one major university in our country. A political unit called the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences controlled the entire research effort of the country. There was no competition and very little was accomplished.

At that time I wrote, “Will Bulgaria join the West? Not for a long, long time. The gap is very far. My fear is that countries like Bulgaria will settle into some form of mediocre socialism. Maybe it’s the best that they can hope for.”

I was recently asked to serve on a review team on chemical research in Bulgaria for the minister of education and science. Here was a chance to see what had transpired in the last 15 years. In May I led the review team that included the former minister of science of Slovenia and a leading German university chemist on a weeklong review of the seven chemical institutes and central laboratory of chemistry within the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. We also visited the two universities conducting chemical research. All units were located in the capital, Sofia.

Bulgaria became a member of the European Union in 2007 and a lot of progress has been made. If things like transportation infrastructure are any indication, Bulgaria is better off than Russia, which I also visited this summer. However, the scientific establishment is just where it was 15 years ago. Only the most senior members of the Academy of Sciences are allowed any influence in setting the agenda. Institutes, which vary greatly in quality, continue to be under-funded at approximately the same level as in the past. There are no incentives for progress.

Let me give you a poignant example. Under communism, Bulgaria had a thriving microelectronics industry. They exported computers and control devices throughout the communist world. The industry was so successful that it spun off an Institute for Research in Solid State Physics to pioneer developments that could be commercialized. When communism collapsed, Bulgarian microelectronics products were not competitive with those of the West and the industry died. I visited the several acres of manufacturing buildings that once housed the industry and now stand vacant on the outskirts of Sofia. But, across the highway, the Institute for Research in Solid State Physics is still in business. It just doesn’t have a customer. The weeds on the grounds of the Institute are four feet high and it doesn’t look like a modern instrument has been purchased in 20 years. However, the Institute is still doing the same kind of research that it did when Bulgaria had a successful industry within the non-competitive communist world.

Needless to say, our recommendations to the minister do not include small changes in the research operation. We basically said they have to create an incentive system to reward success and start supporting their young people. Among their other problems, virtually all of the top science and engineering graduates in Bulgaria immigrate to Europe or the United States. There is nothing for them at home.

In “The Demon-Haunted World,” Carl Sagan parallels science and democracy, stating that both are based on the principle of open debate, have mechanisms for correcting errors and do not depend upon authorities that must be believed and obeyed.

America has set the standard for the world by freeing its young people from the authorities of the past and establishing systems to attract good thinking and reward good thinkers. The incentive mechanism is just as important in research as it is in economics. Systems that fail to reward innovation are bound to become obsolete. Universities and industries that want to participate in the future, instead of the past, can do so only by attracting bright young people and supporting them.

Isenhour is a professor of chemistry and biochemistry and former ODU provost.