Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Post-Cold War Institutional and Infrastructural Legacies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governance of Biotechnology in Post-Soviet Russia

Part of the book series: Global Issues ((GLOISS))

Abstract

The chapter identifies and elucidates those attributes and artefacts that have persisted despite the disintegration of the USSR and the establishment of Russia as a pro-democratic country with a market-oriented economy. In particular, it analyses infrastructural legacies in power relations, practices, and socio-economic and political dynamics that shape life science policy and practice.

Walking down the street

Distant memories

Are buried in the past

Forever.

– ‘Scorpions’, 1990

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, 8 March 1983, Orlando, FL, USA. Available at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/30883b.htm (accessed 3/09/2015).

  2. 2.

    See Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin, 1992).

  3. 3.

    In the popular culture of the countries of the Former Soviet Union, the concept of ‘change’ is a temporal signifier commonly used in everyday speech. Time is divided into two epochs: before the ‘changes’ and after the ‘changes’. On the final years of the Soviet Union, see Alexander Dallin and Gail Lapidus (ed.), The Soviet System in Crisis: A Reader of Western and Soviet Views (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991); Archie Brown, The Gorbachev Factor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Stephen White, Gorbachev and After (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). For an overview of Russian politics after 1991, see Richard Sakwa, Russian Politics and Society, 4th ed. (London: Routledge, 2008); Stephen White et al. (ed.), Developments in Russian Politics, 8th ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014); Michael Waller, Russian Politics Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005); Cameron Ross, Russian Politics Under Putin (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004); Rick Fawn (ed.), Realignments in Russian Foreign Policy (London: Frank Cass, 2003).

  4. 4.

    Boris Yeltsin played a key role in the attempted coup of 19–22 August 1991 (Avgustovskii putch) when a group of hardliners of the Communist Party tried to overthrow the Gorbachev regime. For a timeline of the events of August 1991, see [in Russian] ‘Avgustovskii putch GChKP. Khronika sobytii 19–22 avgusta 1991goda’, RiaNovosti, 19 August 2011, available at http://ria.ru/spravka/20110819/415632412.html (accessed 3/09/2015).

  5. 5.

    See Ukaz Prezidenta SSSR O Statuse Akademii Nauk SSSR, No.627, 23 August 1990, Moscow. The decree was later reversed by President Boris Yeltsin.

  6. 6.

    See Paul Josephson, ‘Russian Scientific Institutions: Internationalisation, Democracy and Dispersion’, Minerva, Vol. 32:1 (1994), pp. 1–24; Peter Aldhous, ‘A Scientific Community on the Edge’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), pp. 1262–1264; Colin Norman and Daniel Koshland Jr, ‘Editorial: Science in Russia’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), p.1235; Elena Mirskaya, ‘Russian Academic Science Today: Its Societal Standing and the Situation within the Scientific Community’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25 (1995), pp. 705–725; Toni Feder, ‘New Minister Is Unlikely to Resusciatate Russian Science’, Physics Today, Vol. 51:8 (1998), pp. 54–55; James Watson and Gerson Sher, ‘Does Research in the Former Soviet Union Have a Future’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), pp. 1280–1281.

  7. 7.

    See ‘The Soviet Brain Drain is the U.S. Brain Gain’, Bloomberg Buisnessweek, 3 November 1991, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1991-11-03/the-soviet-brain-drain-is-the-u-dot-s-dot-brain-gain (accessed 5/09/2015); R. Adam Moody, ‘Reexamining Brain Drain from the Former Soviet Union’, The Nonproliferation Review, Spring–Summer 1996; Irina Ivankhnyuk, Brain Drain from Russia: In Search for a Solution (Warsaw, Poland: Centre for International Relations, 2006); Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia: Crisis, Aid, Reform (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008).

  8. 8.

    See Susan Gross Solomon and Nikolai Krementsov, ‘Giving and Taking across Borders: The Rockefeller Foundation and Russia, 1919–1928’, Minerva, Vol. 39 (2001), pp. 265–298; Susan Gross Solomon, ‘Being There: Fact-Finding and Policymaking: The Rockefeller Foundation’s Division on Medical Eduaction and the “Russian Matter”, 1925–1927’, Journal of Policy History, Vol. 14:4 (2002), pp. 384–416; [in Russian] Alexei Kojevnikov, ‘Filantropia Rokfellera i sovetskaya nauka’, Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki (VIET), No.2 (1993), pp. 80–111.

  9. 9.

    Nikolai Krementsov, ‘From “Beastly Philosophy” to Medical Genetics’, op cit.

  10. 10.

    See David Finley. ‘Soviet-U.S. Cooperation in Space and Medicine: An Analysis of the Détente Experience’, in Nish Jamgotch Jr. (ed.), Sectors of Mutual Benefit in U.S.-Soviet Relations (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1985), pp. 137–151.

  11. 11.

    See Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia: Crisis, Aid, Reform (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008). For an overview of the biotechnology sector in the Soviet Union in the years of Perestroika, see Rod Greenshields et al., ‘Perestroika and Soviet Biotechnology’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 2:1 (1990), pp. 63–70. On the financial support provided by foreign donors, see Valery Soyfer, ‘Soros Support for Science Education in the Former Soviet Union’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), pp. 1281–1282; Peter Aldhous and Alexander Dorozynski, ‘Saving Russia’s Threatened Biological Heritage’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), p.1266; Richard Stone, ‘U.S., Russia to Provide Crucial Aid to Scientists’, Science, Vol. 268 (1995), p.979; Peter Aldhous, ‘Elite Groups Struggle on with a Little Help from the West’, Science, Vol. 264 (1994), pp. 1264–1267; Richard Stone, ‘Post-Cold War Science Thrives in the Heart of Siberia’, Science, Vol. 270:5243 (1995), pp. 1753–1755. On the reforms in the Russian science policy and system of science funding, see Nadezhda Gaponenko, ‘Transformation of the Research System in a Transitional Society: The Case of Russia’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25 (1995), pp. 685–703; Irina Dezhina, ‘Financing Russian Science: New Reforms and Mechanisms’, Problems of Economic Transition, Vol. 39:11 (1997), pp. 78–92; Valentina Markusova et al., ‘Information Behaviour of Russian Scientists in the “Perestroika” Period: Results of the Questionnaire Survey’, Scientometrics, Vol. 37:2 (1996), pp. 361–380; Theodore Gerber and Deborah Yarsike Ball, ‘Scientists in a Changed Institutional Environment: Subjective Adaptation and Social Responsibility Norms in Russia’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 39:4 (2009), pp. 529–567; Natalia Gorodnikova, ‘Transformation of R&D in Russia: The Role of Government Priorities’, in David Dyker and Slavo Radosevic (ed.), Innovation and Structural Change in Post-Socialist Countries: A Quantitative Approach, NATO ASI Series: Science and Technology Policy – Vol. 20 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), pp. 261–290; Natalia Kovaleva, ‘Higher Education and the Labour Market in Russia: Trends in the Transition Period’, in David Dyker and Slavo Radosevic (ed.), Innovation and Structural Change in Post-Socialist Countries: A Quantitative Approach, NATO ASI Series: Science and Technology Policy – Vol. 20 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), pp. 429–446.

  12. 12.

    See Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit.

  13. 13.

    Ibid. For an English summary of the mission, objectives, goals, and activities of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, see the organisation’s Erawatch page, available at http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ru/organisation/organisation_mig_0004 (accessed 6/09/2015). The official page of the Foundation in Russian is available at http://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/ru/ (accessed 6/09/2015).

  14. 14.

    In 2014, the Russian Fund for Technological Development was restructured and renamed Fund for Industrial Development. Information about the Fund and its history is available at the Fund’s official webpage, http://www.rftr.ru/fund/ (accessed 6/09/2015).

  15. 15.

    The Fund is still in existence at the time of writing and in 2014 celebrated its twentieth anniversary. Further information is available at the Fund’s official webpage, http://www.fasie.ru/ (accessed 6/09/2015).

  16. 16.

    On the Soviet patent system, see M.Hoseh, ‘The U.S.S.R. Patent System’, 4 Patent, Trademark and Copyright Journal of Research and Education, 220 (1960), pp. 220–232; Lisa Cook, A Green Light for Red Patents?: Evidence from Soviet Domestic and Foreign Inventive Activity, 1962 to 1991, April 2011, Michigan State University, USA.

  17. 17.

    See Raymond Zilinskas, ‘Biotechnology in the U.S.S.R, Part 2’, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 2 (1984), p.687; Bernie Burrus, ‘The Soviet Law of Inventions and Copyright’, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 30:4 (1962), p.709.

  18. 18.

    Raymond Zilinskas, ‘Biotechnology in the USSR, Part 2’, op cit.

  19. 19.

    For further information on ROSPATENT, see the organisation’s official webpage, http://www.rupto.ru/ (accessed 6/09/2015). On the restructuring of the patent system in Russia, see also Laura Pitta, ‘Intellectual Property Laws in the Former Soviet Republics: A Time of Transition’, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 8:2 (1992), pp. 499–505, especially p. 503.

  20. 20.

    Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit.

  21. 21.

    See, for example, Kathleen Vogel, ‘Pathogen Proliferation: Threats from the Former Soviet Bioweapons Complex’, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 19:1 (2000), pp. 3–16; Colin Macliwain, ‘Russian Weapons Labs Become the Top Priority for Western Funding’, Nature, Vol. 384 (1996), pp. 295–296; Anthony Rimmington, ‘Fragmentation and Proliferation? The Fate of the Soviet Union’s Offensive Biological Weapons Programme’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 20:1 (1999), pp. 86–110; Amy Smithson, Toxic Archipelago: Preventing Proliferation from the Former Soviet Chemical and Biological Complexes, Report No.32, December 1999, The Henry Stimson Centre, Washington DC; Stephen Black, ‘Threats to and from the Former Soviet Union’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 21:3 (2008), pp. 491–526; Richard Wenzel, ‘Recognizing the Real Threat of Biological Terror’, Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, Vol. 113 (2002), pp. 42–55. On the efforts to convert former weapon facilities to peaceful use and work, see Vlad Genin (ed.), The Anatomy of Russian Defense Conversion (Walnut Creek, CA: Vega Press, 2001); Erhard Geissler et al. (ed.), Conversion of Former BTW Facilities, NATO Science Series: Disarmament Technologies – Vol. 21 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998); Lev Sandakhchiev and Sergey Netesov, ‘Strengthening the BTWC through R&D Restructuring: The Case of the State Research Centre of Virology and Biotechnology “VECTOR”’, in Alexander Kelle et al. (ed.), The Role of Biotechnology in Countering BTW Agents, NATO Science Series: Disarmament Technologies – Vol. 34 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), pp. 53–60; John Compton, ‘Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Introduction of a Market Economy and the Future BTWC Compliance Protocol: Impact on the Russian Biotechnology Industry’, in Alexander Kelle et al. (ed.), The Role of Biotechnology in Countering BTW Agents, NATO Science Series: Disarmament Technologies – Vol. 34 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), pp. 61–68; Sonia Ben Ouagrham and Kathleen Vogel, Conversion at Stepnogosrk: What the Future Holds for Former Bioweapons Facilities, Occasional Paper No.28, February 2003, Cornell University Peace Studies Programme, Ithaca, NY; Gulbarshyn Bozheyeva et al., Former Soviet Biological Weapons Facilities in Kazakhstan: Past, Present, and Future, Occasional Paper No.1, June 1999, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey CA.

  22. 22.

    See David Steensman, Testimony Statement to the House Committee on Armed Services on US-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction and Non-Proliferation Programs, Department of Defence, Office of Inspector General, 4 March 2003; see also Justin Bresolin, Fact Sheet: The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, June 2014, available at http://armscontrolcenter.org/publications/factsheets/fact_sheet_the_cooperative_threat_reduction_program/ (accessed 27/03/2015). See also United States Government Accountability Office, Biological Weapons: Effort to Reduce Former Soviet Threat Offers Benefits, Poses Risks, April 2000, Washington, DC, Available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-138 (accessed 6/09/2015).

  23. 23.

    See Paul Bernstein and Jason Wood, The Origins of Nunn-Lugar and Cooperative Threat Reduction: Case Study 3 (Washington, DC: National Defence University Press, 2010); Sharon Weiner, ‘Reconsidering Cooperative Threat Reduction: Russian Nuclear Weapons Scientists and Non-Proliferation’, Contemporary Security policy, Vol. 29:3 (2008), pp. 477–501; John Shields and William Potter (ed.), Dismantling the Cold War: U.S. and NIS Perspectives on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997); Mary Nikitin and Amy Woolf, The Evolution of Cooperative Threat Reduction: Issues for Congress, CRS Report for Congress, June 2014, Washington DC; Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programme, official webpage available at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/offices/c55411.htm (accessed 6/09/2015); National Research Council, The Biological Threat Reduction Program of the Department of Defense: From Foreign Assistance to Sustainable Partnerships (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007); National Research Council, Countering Biological Threats: Challenges for the Department of Defense’s Nonproliferation Program Beyond the Former Soviet Union (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009), ‘Celebrating 20 Years of the Nunn-Lugar Program’, Nuclear Threat Initiative Newsroom, 3 December 2012, available at http://www.nti.org/newsroom/news/celebrating-20-years-nunn-lugar-program/ (accessed 6/09/2015). In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly announced that his country will not renew the agreement for a further extension of the Nunn-Lugar Programme. See David Herszenhorn, ‘Russia Won’t Renew Pact on Weapons with U.S.’, The New York Times, 10 October 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/europe/russia-wont-renew-pact-with-us-on-weapons.html (accessed 7/09/2015); Bryan Bender, ‘Russia Ends US Nuclear Security Alliance’, The Boston Globe, 19 January 2015, available at https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/19/after-two-decades-russia-nuclear-security-cooperation-becomes-casualty-deteriorating-relations/5nh8NbtjitUE8UqVWFIooL/story.html (accessed 7/09/2015).

  24. 24.

    For further information about the goals and activities of the ISTC, see its official webpage at http://www.istc.ru/istc/istc.nsf/fa_MainPageMultiLang?OpenForm&lang=Eng (accessed 6/09/2015). As of July 2015, the Russian Federation has officially withdrawn from the organisation and the ISTC Headquarters has been moved from Moscow to Astana, Kazakhstan.

  25. 25.

    For further information about the goals and activities of the STCU, see its official webpage at http://www.stcu.int/ (accessed 6/09/2015).

  26. 26.

    See Michelle Cook and Amy Woolf, Preventing Proliferation of Biological Weapons: U.S. Assistance to the Former Soviet States, CRS Report for Congress, April 2002, Washington DC, especially pp. 7–13.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    [in Russian] ‘Strategia natsional’noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii do 2020 goda’, approved by a Presidential Decree No.537, 12 May 2009, Moscow. Full text in Russian is available at http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html (accessed 7/09/2015). Author’s translation. On the link between basic life science research and national security, see [in Russian] A. Spirin, ‘Fundamental’naya nauka i problemy biologicheskoi bezopasnosti’, Vestnik RAN, Vol. 74: 11 (2004), pp. 963–972.

  29. 29.

    See [in Russian] ‘Kompleksnaya programma razvitiya biotekhnologii v Rossiiskoi Federatsii na period do 2020‘, 24 April 2012, Moscow. Full text in Russian is available at http://economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/innovations/development/doc20120427_06 (accessed 7/09/2015). English summary is available at http://bio-economy.ru/upload/BIO2020%20(eng)%20-%20short.pdf) (accessed 7/09/2015).

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Oleg Morozov and Raif Vasilov, ‘I nakormit, i vylechit: K 2010 godu mirovoi rynok bioekonomiki sostavit bolee 2 trillionov evro’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No. 4572, 25 January 2008, available at http://www.rg.ru/2008/01/25/biotehnologii.html (accessed 7/09/2015). Author’s translation.

  32. 32.

    [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, O Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, reorganizatsii gosudarstvennykh akademii nauk i vnesenii izmenenii v otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii, No.253–FZ, 27 September 2013, full text of the Act published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6194, 30 September 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/09/27/ran-site-dok.html (accessed 7/09/2015).

  33. 33.

    On the issue of the future of the Russian Academy of Sciences after1991, Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit.

  34. 34.

    See [in Russian] Sergei Belanovskii, Otsenka sostoyaniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk: Kratkii otchet, 2005, Centre for Strategic Research, Moscow, available at http://polit.ru/article/2005/12/15/ran/ (accessed 7/09/2015). On the need for an institutional reform, see also [in Russian] Irina Dezhina, Reforma RAN: Prichiny i posledstviya dlya nauki v Rossii, No.77, May 2014, IFRI, Paris, France, available at http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_rnv_77_ran_reforma_rus_dezhina_may_2014.pdf (accessed 7/09/2015). On the debate on the need for a reform, see [in Russian] Alexandr Ogurtsov, ‘Kto zakazal klasterizatsiju?’, Nezavisimaya gazeta, 26 October 2005, available at http://www.ng.ru/science/2005-10-26/13_claster.html (accessed 7/09/2015); Sergei Belanovskii, ‘Nauka: ot finansovogo audita k vlasti effektivnykh menedhzerov’, Polit.ru, 15 December 2005, available at http://www.polit.ru/article/2005/12/15/science/ (accessed 7/09/2015).

  35. 35.

    Sergei Belanovskii, Otsenka sostoyaniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk: Kratkii otchet, op cit. By contrast, Dezhina points out that among the chief criticisms levelled at the Academy has been the poor management of property. She further rejects the allegation of the lack of links between the Academy and universities elaborating on their close collaboration. See Irina Dezhina, Reforma RAN: Prichiny i posledstviya dlya nauki v Rossii, No.77, May 2014, IFRI, Paris, France, http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_rnv_77_ran_reforma_rus_dezhina_may_2014.pdf (accessed 7/09/2015). For a comparative analysis of the performance of the Russian Academy of Science vis-a-vis its foreign counterparts, see Quirin Schiermeier, ‘Russia to Boost University Science’, Nature, Vol. 464 (2010), p.1257.

  36. 36.

    Irina Dezhina, Reforma RAN: Prichiny i posledstviya dlya nauki v Rossii, No.77, May 2014, IFRI, Paris, France,http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_rnv_77_ran_reforma_rus_dezhina_may_2014.pdf (accessed 7/09/2015), p.14.

  37. 37.

    See [in Russian] Irina Dezhina ‘Reforma RAN: Popytki i Itogi’, Polit.ru, 3 August 2014, available at http://polit.ru/article/2014/08/03/science/ (accessed 22 April 2015).

  38. 38.

    Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit. On the same point, see also [in Russian] Roy Medvedev, Vladimir Putin: Tret’ogo sroka ne budet? (Moscow: Vremya, 2006), p.40. For a draft of the Conception, see [in Russian] Kontseptsiya uchastiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii v upravlenii imushestvennymi kompleksami gosudarstvennykh organizatsii, osushestvlyayushtikh deyatel’nost’ v sfere nauki, available at http://www.intelros.org/lib/doklady/nauka/nauka3.htm (accessed 10/09/2015).

  39. 39.

    See [in Russian] Irina Dezhina, ‘Osnovnye naprevleniya reform v rossiiskoi nauke: tseli i rezul’taty’, Informatsionnoe obshestvo, No.1 (2006), pp. 50–56. For a detailed overview of the early RAN reforms, see [in Russian] N.A. Gordeeva and M.M. Fil’, Pravo i reformirovanie nauki: problem i resheniya (Moscow: Novaya Pravovaya Kul’tura, 2005); Irina Dezhina, Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie nauki v Rossii (Moscow: Magistr, 2008).

  40. 40.

    [in Russian] Irina Dezhina, ‘Osnovnye napravleniya v rossiiskoi nauke’, op cit.

  41. 41.

    See [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, O vnesenii izmeninii v Federal’nyi zakon “O nauke i gosudarstvennoi nauchno-tekhnicheskoi politike”, No.202–FZ, 4 December 2006, published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.4243, 8 December 2006, available at http://www.rg.ru/2006/12/08/nauka-dok.html (accessed 28/09/2015).

  42. 42.

    Andrey Allakhverdov and Vladimir Pokrovsky, ‘Kremlin Brings Russian Academy of Sciences to Heel’, Science, Vol. 314 (2006), p.917.

  43. 43.

    Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit.

  44. 44.

    On the controversy surrounding the RAN reform, see [in Russian] Anton Didikin, Pravovoe regulirovanie innovatsinnoi deyatel’nosti v Rossii (Novosibirsk: IFPR SO RAN, 2014); Vladimir Gubarev, Ubiistvo RAN: Noveishaya istoriya nauki v Rossii (Moscow: Algoritm, 2014). A detailed database and timeline with relevant materials, documents, and meeting proceedings is available [in Russian] at http://www.ccas.ru/reforma/reforma.htm (accessed 10/09/2015). The database is hosted on the web page of the Dorodnicyn Computing Centre of RAS (Vychislitel’nyi tsentr im. A.A. Dorodnicyna, Rossiskaya akademii nauk), http://www.ccas.ru/index-e.htm (accessed 10/09/2015).

  45. 45.

    See Irina Dezhina, Reforma RAN: Prichiny i posledstviya dlya nauki v Rossii, op cit.

  46. 46.

    Ibid. See also [in Russian] Tamara Shkel’, ‘Zakon o reforme RAN uchel popravki akademikov’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 29 September 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/09/27/ran2-site.html (accessed 11/09/2015).

  47. 47.

    See [in Russian] Ukaz Prezidenta RF, O Federal’nom agentstve nauchnykh organizatsii, No.735, 27 September 2013, published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6194, 30 September 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/09/27/fano-site-dok.html (accessed 11/09/2015).

  48. 48.

    See [in Russian] ‘Putin predlozhil ustanovit’ godovoi moratoria na reformy RAN’, Forbes, 31 October 2013, available at http://www.forbes.ru/news/246824-putin-predlozhil-ustanovit-godovoi-moratorii-na-reformu-ran (accessed 11/09/2015). On the same point, see also [in Russian] Kira Latukhina, ‘Za grantom: Vladimir Putin obsudil s uchenymi reformirovanie nauki’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6265, 23 December 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/12/23/putin-ran.html (accessed 11/09/2015).

  49. 49.

    See [in Russian] Vladimir Kuz’min, ‘Komu FANO nado: Kabinet ministrov utverdil polozhenie o FANO’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6218, 28 October 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/10/25/kotukov-site.html (accessed 11/09/2015); Yurii Medvedev, ‘Akademicheskii treugol’nik’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6644, 8 April 2015, available at http://www.rg.ru/2015/04/08/kotykov.html (accessed 11/09/2015); Nataliya Demina, ‘Reforma v bol’shikh kavychkakh’, Troitskii variant, No.143, 3 December 2013, pp. 6–7, available at http://trv-science.ru/2013/12/03/reforma-v-bolshikh-kavychkakh-2/ (accessed 11/09/2015); Marina Sklyarenko i Roman Romanyuk, ‘V trevozhnom ozhidanii akademicheskogo effekta’, Ekspert Severo-Zapad, 12 February 2015, available at http://www.expertnw.ru/news/2015-02-12/v-trevozhnom-ozhidanii-akademicheskogo-effekta (accessed 11/09/2015).

  50. 50.

    See I. Libin et al., ‘The Reform of the Russian Academy of Science: Possible Causes and Consequences of the Reform: For Whom the Bell Tolls’, [in Russian], Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal eksperimental’nogo obrazovaniya, No.8 (2014), pp. 115–117, available at http://www.rae.ru/meo/pdf/2014/8-2/5915.pdf (accessed 7/09/2015); [in Russian] Askol’d Ivanchik, ‘Reforma buksuet, ili Apofeoz bjurokratii’, Troitskii variant, No.176, 7 April 2015, p.2, available at http://trv-science.ru/reforma-buksuet/ (accessed 7/09/2015); Vladimir Gubarev, ‘“Reforma RAN” na chinovnichii maner’, Pravda.Ru, 15 March 2014, available at http://www.pravda.ru/science/academy/15-03-2014/1198830-ran-0/ (accessed 11/09/2015); Aleksandr Yemel’yanenkov, ‘Trio “Akademiya” v poiskakh sebya’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, No.6334, 19 March 2014, available at http://www.rg.ru/2014/03/19/fortov.html (accessed 11/09/2015); Kira Latukhina, ‘Putin: Gosudarstvo ne budet komandovat’ uchenymi’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 December 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/12/20/sovet-site.html (accessed 11/09/2015).

  51. 51.

    See [in Russian] Ol’ga Kolesova, ‘Chemodan, vokzal…reforma RAN vyzvala u molodykh zhelanie uekhat’’, Poisk, No.4–5, 31 January 2014, available at http://www.poisknews.ru/theme/ran/8940/ (accessed 11/09/2015). On the issue of a possible ‘brain drain’ among perspective scientists, see also [in Russian] Nikolai Podorvanyuk, ‘Zhalko, esli vperedi vybor – professiya ili strana’, Gazeta.Ru, 17 December 2013, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2013/12/17_a_5806413.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015); Richard Stone, ‘Embattled President Seeks New Path for Russian Academy’, ScienceInsider, 11 February 2014, available at http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/02/embattled-president-seeks-new-path-russian-academy (accessed 11/09/2015); Quirin Schiermeier, ‘Putin’s Russia Divides and Enrages Scientists’, Nature, Vol. 516 (2014), pp. 298–299.

  52. 52.

    Dariya Mendeleeva, ‘Reforma Rossiiskoi akademii nauk: chto budet dal’she?’, Pravoslavie i Mir, 27 May 2015, available at http://www.pravmir.ru/reforma-ran-poryadok-dostizheniya-haosa/ (accessed 11/09/2015); Alexey Yablokov, ‘Academy “Reform” is Stifling Russian Science’, Nature, Vol. 511 (2014), p.7; Nataliya Demina, ‘God Posle Reform: byurokratizatsiya usililas’’, Troitskii variant, No.158, 15 July 2014, p.2, available at http://trv-science.ru/2014/07/15/god-posle-reformy-byurokratizaciya-usililas/ (accessed 11/09/2015).

  53. 53.

    On the civil society initiatives that developed as a result of the RAN reform, see [in Russian] Boris Shtern, ‘Klub “1 iyulya”’, Troitskii variant, No.133, 16 July 2013, p.5, available at http://trv-science.ru/2013/07/16/klub-1-iyulya/ (accessed 28/09/2015). Beside the dissident Club ‘1 July’, other initiatives include [in Russian] Komissiya obshestvenogo kontrolya v sfere nauki (Committee for Public Control over Science), available at http://rascommission.ru/statements/125-club-1-july-20-04-2015 (accessed 28/09/2015); and [in Russian] ‘Sokhranim nauku vmeste’ (‘Save Science’ Movement), available at http://iph.ras.ru/save_ran.htm (accessed 28/09/2015). The latter social movement also maintains a web platform, available at http://www.saveras.ru/ (accessed 28/09/2015).

  54. 54.

    A notable exception in this regard constitutes the ‘Dynasty’ Fund set up by Dmitrii Zimin, Honourable President of the Open Joint Stock Company ‘VympelKom’ which own the Beeline trademark – one of the main mobile network providers. The Fund operates four principal sponsorship programmes, namely ‘Support for Science and Education’, ‘Popularisation of Science’, ‘Social Science Enlightenment’ and ‘Special Projects’ related to culture or aimed at solving a social problem. Further information is available at http://www.dynastyfdn.com/ (accessed 7/09/2015). On 5 July 2015, the Fund’s Council took a decision to terminate its activity, see [in Russian] http://www.dynastyfdn.com/news/1296 (accessed 11/09/2015). For news reports on the topic see Paevl Kotlyar and Nikolai Podorvanyuk, ‘Konets “Dinastii”’, Gazeta.Ru, 8 July 2015, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/07/08_a_7629877.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015); Pavel Kotlyar, ‘Esli “Dinastiyu” zakroyut, eto budet moshtnyi signal’, Gazeta.Ru, 12 May 2015, http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/05/12_a_6683177.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015).

  55. 55.

    See [in Russian] Evgenii Onishchenko, ‘Byurokraticheskaya revolyutsiya’, Troitskii variant, No.177, 21 April 2015, pp. 1–2, available at http://trv-science.ru/2015/04/21/byurokraticheskaya-revolyuciya/ (accessed 11/09/2015). See also [in Russian] Erofei Esperazus, ‘Byudzhet vsekh institutov RAN sokrashen’, Moskovskii komsomolets, 27 March 2015, available at http://www.mk.ru/science/2015/03/27/nachalsya-vtoroy-etap-reformy-ran-finansirovanie-institutov-sokratyat.html (accessed 11/09/2015).

  56. 56.

    Evgenii Onishchenko, ‘Byurokraticheskaya revolyutsiya’, op cit.

  57. 57.

    Interview, 29 May 2015, Moscow, Russia.

  58. 58.

    See [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, O vnesenii izmenenii v Federal’nyi zakon “O nauke i gosudarstvennoi nauchnoi-tekhnicheskoi politike” i statiju 251 chasti vtoroi Nalogovogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v chasti utochneniya pravovogo statusa fondov podderzhki nauchnoi, nauchno-tekhnicheskoi i innovatsionnoi deyatel’nosti, 13 July 2011, Moscow. Full text of the Act is available at http://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/ru/documents (accessed 7/09/2015).

  59. 59.

    See [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, Ob avtonomnykh uchrezhdeniyakh, No.174–FZ, 3 November 2006, Moscow. Full text of the Act is available at http://www.rg.ru/2006/11/08/zakon-doc.html (accessed 7/09/2015).

  60. 60.

    See [in Russian] Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva RF, Ob ustave federal’nogo gosudarstvennogo bjudzhetnogo uchrezhdeniya “Rossiiskii fond fundamental’nykh issledovanii”, No.133, 15 February 2012, Moscow. http://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/ru/documents (accessed 7/09/2015).

  61. 61.

    See [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, O Rossiiskom nauchnom fonde i vnesenii izmenenii v otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii, No.291–FZ, 2 November 2013. Full text of the Act is available at http://www.rscf.ru/?q=node/17 (accessed 7/09/2015).

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    See [in Russian] Postanovlenie, O federal’noi tselevoi programme “Issledovaniya i razrabotki po prioritetnym napravleniyam razvitiya nauchno-tekhnologicheskogo kompleksa Rossiina 2014–2020 gody”, No.426, 21 May 2013. Full text is available at http://fcpir.ru/upload/medialibrary/332/tekst-programmy.pdf (accessed 7/09/2015). The programme can be seen as a continuation of Russia’s earlier efforts to enhance the standing of its universities. On this point, see Quirin Schiermeier, ‘Russia to Boost University Science’, Nature, Vol. 464 (2010), p.1257. On ‘Megagrants’, see Irina Dezhina, ‘State of Science and Innovation in 2011’, in S.Sinelnikov-Murylev et al. (ed.), Russian Economy in 2011: Trends and Outlooks, Issue 33 (Moscow: Gaidar Institute, 2012), pp. 344–375.

  64. 64.

    See Quirin Schiermeier and Konstantin Severinov, ‘Russia Woos Lost Scientists’, Nature, Vol. 465 (2010), p.858; Editorial, ‘Seizing the Moment’, Nature, Vol. 467:7313 (2010), p.251; Quirin Schiermeier, ‘Russia Revitalises Science’, Nature, Vol. 473 (2011), pp. 428–429; [in Russian] Nikolai Podorvanyuk i Aleksandra Borisova, ‘Poshli navstrechu nauchnomu soobshesvu’, Gazeta.Ru, 30 October 2010, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/29_a_3433172.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015).

  65. 65.

    On the problems and limitations of the existing science funding mechanisms in Russia, see Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit. While some of the complaints about the quality of the peer-review system voiced by the Russian scientific community are not uncommon among scientists in the West (see, for example, Daniel Greenberg, Science, Money and Politics, op cit.), there have been reports about quite serious problems. See [in Russian] ‘Eto takie khoroshie lyudi, kak im mozhno ne dat’ deneg: Kak uchenye raspredelyayut den’gi na fundamental’nuyu nauku v Rossii’, Gazeta.Ru, 16 July 2014, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2014/07/16_a_6116337.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015); Nikolai Podorvanyuk, ‘Voprosy lukavstva v nauke stali reshat’sya’, Gazeta.Ru, 30 January 2015, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/01/30_a_6392429.shtml (accessed 11/09/2015); Aleksandr Fradkov, ‘Ideal’naya ekspertiza’, Troitskii variant, No.159, 29 July 2014, pp. 1–2, available at http://trv-science.ru/2014/07/29/idealnaya-ehkspertiza/ (accessed 11/09/2015).

  66. 66.

    Loren Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia, op cit.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. On the various criteria for science funding, see [in Russian] Aleksandr Khlunov, ‘RNF: teoriya vs. praktika’, Troitskii variant, No.151, 8 April 2014, p.4, available at http://trv-science.ru/2014/04/08/rnf-teoriya-vs-praktika/ (accessed 11/09/2015). What is more, once awarded the grant apparently could be terminated at any point if the researcher fails to meet any of the bureaucratic requirements. For instance, in 2013 the RFFI annulled more than 20% of the nearly 300 initially approved awards to junior scientists justifying its decision by a late receipt of the contract from the awardees. The case is staggering, for according to the RFFI rules, ‘the fund preserves the right to re-consider its decision whether to terminate a grant if the Contract has been received after the deadline’. On the latter issue, see [in Russian] Mariya Logacheva, ‘Molodym vezde u nas – chto? Ili edinyi bilet – kuda?’, Troitskii variant, No.144, 24 December 2013, p.2, available at http://trv-science.ru/2013/12/24/molodym-vezde-u-nas-chto-ili-edinyjj-bilet-kuda/ (accessed 11/09/2015).

  69. 69.

    There is very limited Russian literature on the bioweapons programme and the few existing works are based on information already made available through Western academic scholarship. See, for example, [in Russian] Lev Fedorov, Sovetskoe biologicheskoe oruzhie: istoriya, ekologiya, politika (Moscow: International Social-Ecological Union, 2005); N. Kalinina, Mezhdunarodnye i natsional’nye problemy biologicheskoi bezopasnosti i perspektivy ikh resheniya (Moscow: IMEMO RAN, 2012); Aleksei Arbatov (ed.), Protivodeistvie bioterrorizmu: politicheskie, tekhnicheskie i pravovye aspekti (Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 2008). Igor Domaradskii, an esteemed academician and microbiologist, published his memoirs in Russian in 1995 under the title Perevertysh (lit. Changeling). There he discussed his involvement in the Soviet biological weapons programme during his time at the Institute for Applied Microbiology at Obolensk near Moscow. Subsequently, the book was translated into English, see Igor Domaradskij and Wendy Orent, Biowarrior: Inside the Soviet/Russian Biological War Machine (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003).

  70. 70.

    See [in Russian] N. Kalinina, Mezhdunarodnye i natsional’nye problemy biologicheskoi bezopasnosti i perspektivy ikh resheniya (Moscow: IMEMO RAN, 2012); p.46. Also see [in Russian] Verkhovnyi sovet Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Postanovlenie, Ob obespechenii vypolneniya mezhdunarodnykh obyazatel’stv Rossiiskoi Federatsii v oblasti khimicheskogo, bakteriologicheskogo (biologicheskogo) i toksinnogo oruzhiya, No. 3244–1, 8 July 1992. The Resolution confirmed that Russia accepted the obligations of the USSR under the BTWC. In an interview given shortly after the publication of Ken Alibek’s book Biohazard the then Head of the Biodefence Control Department (Upravleniya po biologicheskoi zashtite) of the Ministry of Defence, Valentin Evstigneev, reasserted the narrative presented in the 1992 CBM underscoring that the principal goal of the Soviet military programme was the development of adequate biodefence. When asked about the Soviet biological offensive capability, he explained ‘that the development of biodefence measures required the development of a model of offensive measures. It was this cycle of work that constituted the so called offensive element of the Ministry of Defence’s programme […] and which in 1992 was banned and terminated’. According to Evtigneev, all equipment which could potentially be deemed questionable for peaceful purposes was dismantled in 1989 and ever since Russia could be suspected only of intentions, for in his words, there were no clear internationally agreed criteria regarding the definition of a ‘biological weapon’, the relevant equipment necessary for its production, and the equipment and technical production means which should be prohibited. See [in Russian] Interview with Valentin Yevstigneev, ‘Shtamm Eboly v Rossiju privezli razvedchki’, Yadernyi kontrol’, Vol. 46:4 (1999), pp. 16–26. Author’s translation. On the issue of denial, see Jan Knoph and Kristina Westerdahl, ‘Re-Evaluating Russia’s Biological Weapons Policy, as Reflected in the Criminal Code and Official Admissions: Insubordination Leading to a President’s Subordination’, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, Vol. 32 (2006), pp. 1–13.

  71. 71.

    See [in Russian] Ukaz Prezidenta RF, Ob obespechenie vypolneniya mezhdunarodnykh obyazatel’stv v oblasti biologicheskogo oruzhiya, No 390, 11 April 1992.

  72. 72.

    See Tatyana Elleman, ‘Russian Federation’, in Kathryn McLaughlin et al. (ed.), Bioweapons Monitor 2014 (Bradford: University of Bradford, 2014), p.207, available at http://www.bwpp.org/documents/BWM%202014%20WEB.pdf (accessed 8/09/2015).

  73. 73.

    Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, Summary Record of the Twelfth Meeting, BWC/CONF.I/SR.12, 21 March 1981, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, available at http://www.unog.ch/bwcdocuments/1980-03-1RC/BWC_CONF.I_SR.12.pdf (accessed 8/09/2015).

  74. 74.

    Matthew Meselson et al., ‘The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979’, Science, Vol. 266:5188 (1994), p.1206.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    See Jeanne Guillemin, Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999). See also Jeanne Guillemin, ‘Detecting Anthrax: What We Learned from the 1979 Sverdlovsk Outbreak’, in Malcolm Dando et al. (ed.), Scientific and Technological Means of Distinguishing Between Natural and Other Outbreaks of Disease, NATO Science Series: Disarmament Technologies – Vol. 35 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), pp. 75–86.

  78. 78.

    Jeanne Guillemin, Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), p.232. In April 1992, President Yeltsin approved a law designed to grant financial support to those families who suffered losses during the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak. The law, however, avoided any mention of the causes of the outbreak. See [in Russian] Zakon, Ob uluchshenii pensionnogo obespecheniya semei grazhdan, umershikh vsledstvie zabolevaniya sibirskoi yazvoi v gorode Sverdlovske v 1979 godu, No.2667–1, 4 April 1992.

  79. 79.

    Nicolas Isla, Transparency in Past Offensive Biological Weapon Programmes: An Analysis of Confidence Building Measure Form F, 1992–2003, Occasional Paper No.1, June 2006, Hamburg Centre for Biological Arms Control, Hamburg, Germany. Available at http://www.biological-arms-control.org/publications/FormF_1992-2003.pdf (accessed 26/04/2015).

  80. 80.

    See Nicolas Sims, The Evolution of Biological Disarmament, SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies, no.19 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p.13.

  81. 81.

    See David Kelly, ‘The Trilateral Agreement: Lessons for Biological Weapons Verification’, in Trevor Findlay and Oliver Meier (eds.), Verification Yearbook 2002 (London: VERTIC, 2002), pp. 93–109.

  82. 82.

    Milton Leitenberg and Raymond Zilinskas, The Soviet Biological Weapons Program, op cit., p.711. In 1997 an ISTC-sponsored international scientific conference took place at one of the civilian institutes situated in Kirov, namely the Volga-Vyatka State Scientific Centre for Applied Microbiology. For more information on this event, see National Research Council, The Unique U.S. – Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013), p.40.

  83. 83.

    See A.P. Pomerantsev, ‘Expression of Cereolysine AB Genes in Bacillus AnthracisVaccine Strain Ensures Protection against Experimental Hemolytic Anthrax Infection’, Vaccine, Vol. 15:17/18 (1997), pp. 1846–1850.

  84. 84.

    See Jonathan Tucker, ‘In the Shadow of Anthrax: Strengthening the Biological Disarmament Regime’, The Non-Proliferation Review, Spring 2002, pp. 112–121; Jan van Aken and Edward Hammond, ‘Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons’, EMBO Reports, Vol. 4 (2003), pp. S57–S60; William Broad, ‘Gene-Engineered Anthrax: Is It a Weapon?’, New York Times, 14 February 1998, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/14/world/gene-engineered-anthrax-is-it-a-weapon.html (accessed 5/05/2015).

  85. 85.

    See U.S. Department of State, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, August 2005, available at http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/51977.htm (accessed 8/09/2015).

  86. 86.

    See U.S. Department of State, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, July 2014, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/230108.pdf (accessed 8/09/2015).

  87. 87.

    House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, Subcommittee Hearing: Assessing the Biological Weapons Threat: Russia and Beyond, 7 May 2014, Washington DC, available at http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-assessing-biological-weapons-threat-russia-and-beyond (accessed 8/09/2015).

  88. 88.

    See [in Russian] Vladimir Putin, ‘Byt’ sil’nymi: garantii natsional’noi bezopasnosti dlya Rossii’, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 February 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/02/20/putin-armiya.html (accessed 8/09/2015). Author’s translation.

  89. 89.

    See Milton Leitenberg, Testimony Statement, The Biological Weapons Program of the Soviet Union, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, Subcommittee Hearing: Assessing the Biological Weapons Threat: Russia and Beyond, 7 May 2014, Washington, DC, p.44, available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA14/20140507/102195/HHRG-113-FA14-Transcript-20140507.pdf (accessed 8/09/2015).

  90. 90.

    See [in Russian] Ministerstvo inostrannykh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Komentarii Departamenta informatsii i pechati MID Rossii po povodu iskazheniya v Kongresse SShA pozitsii Rossii po voprosam KBTO, 12 May 2015, available at http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/EFB4514EC9DD87C744257CD60051B081 (accessed 8/09/2015).

  91. 91.

    See N. Kalinina, Mezhdunarodnye i natsional’nye problemy biologicheskoi bezopasnosti i perspektivy ikh resheniya, op cit., p.51.

  92. 92.

    David Finley, ‘Soviet-U.S. Cooperation in Space and Medicine: An Analysis of the Detente Experience’, op cit., p.139.

  93. 93.

    On the US-Soviet cooperation on the eradication of smallpox, see Frank Fenner et al., Smallpox and Its Eradication (Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1988).

  94. 94.

    National Research Council, The Unique U.S. – Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013), Chapter 7.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p.92.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., pp. 93–94.

  97. 97.

    Interview, 7 April 2014, Novosibirsk, Russia.

  98. 98.

    Interview, 15 April 2014, Moscow. Russia.

  99. 99.

    Quirin Schiermeier, ‘Russian Scientists See Red over Clampdown’, Nature, Vol. 449 (2007), pp. 122–123.

  100. 100.

    See [in Russian] Dmitrii Butrin et al., ‘Rossiya blyudet chelovecheskii obrazets’, Kommersant, 30 May 2007, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/769777 (accessed 11/09/2015).

  101. 101.

    See, for example, Amy Ninetto, ‘“Civilisation” and Its Insecurities: Traveling Scientists, Global Science, and National Progress in the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok’, Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, Vol. 86 (2001), pp. 181–201; Bryon McWilliams, ‘Russia Says Scientist Revealed State Secrets’, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51:26 (2005), p.A38; [in Russian] Dariya Sukhikh, ‘Zachem FSB i Gostaina b’yut po sud’bam uchenykh v Rossii’, Troitskii variant, No.194, 22 December 2015, pp. 1–2, available at http://trv-science.ru/2015/12/22/zachem-fsb-i-gostajjna-bjyut-po-sudbam-uchenykh-v-rossii/ (accessed 7/02/16). On the legal framework pertaining to state secrets, see [in Russian] Federal’nyi zakon RF, O gosudarstvennoi taine, No. 5485–1, 21 June 1993 (last amended on 8 March 2015), available at https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_2481/ (accessed 7/02/16); Ukaz Prezidenta RF, Ob utverzhdenii perechnya svedenii, otnesennykh k gosudarstvennoi taine (s izmeneniyami i dopolneniyami), No.1203, 30 November 1995 (last amended on 28 May 2015), available at http://base.garant.ru/10105548/#block_1000 (accessed 7/02/16).

  102. 102.

    Amy Ninetto, ‘“Civilisation” and Its Insecurities’, op cit.

  103. 103.

    National Research Council, The Unique U.S. – Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology, op cit.

  104. 104.

    See [in Russian] Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva RF, O perechne mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii, poluchaemy nalogoplatel’shchikami granty (bezvozmezdnaya pomosh’) kotorykh ne podlezhat nalogooblozheniju i ne uchityvajutsya v tselyakh nalogooblozheniya v dokhodakh rossiiskikh organizatsii – poluchitelei grantov, No.485, 28 June 2008, Moscow, available at http://www.rg.ru/2008/07/03/granti-nalogi-dok.html (accessed 9/09/2015).

  105. 105.

    See [in Russian] Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva RF, O vnesenii izmeneniya v perechen’ mezhdunarodnykh i inostrannykh organizatsii, poluchaemy nalogoplatel’shchikami granty (bezvozmezdnaya pomosh’) kotorykh ne podlezhat nalogooblozheniju i ne uchityvajutsya v tselyakh nalogooblozheniya v dokhodakh rossiiskikh organizatsii – poluchitelei grantov, No.585, 2 August 2010, available at http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_103411/ (accessed 9/09/2015).

  106. 106.

    Aleksej Bogoriditskii, ‘Russia’, The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, Vol. 12:3 (2010), pp. 28–34.

  107. 107.

    Eli Kintisch, ‘Geopolitics Disrupt Scientific Exchange with Russia’, ScienceInsider, 1 August 2014, available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/08/geopolitics-disrupt-scientific-exchange-russia (accessed 9/09/2015). For analysis of the broader impact of the sanction on Russian science, see [in Russian] Irina Dezhina, ‘Sostoyanie nauki i innovatsii’, in B. Mau et al. (ed.), Rossiiskaya ekonomika v 2014 godu: Tendentsii i perspektivy (Moscow: Gaidar Institute, 2015).

  108. 108.

    Guided tour of the sculpture complex, 30 May 2015. For a brief overview of the sculpture complex, see [in Russian] Neobychnye pamyatniki Moskvy: No 20 Porokam (Moscow’s Unconventional Monuments: No 20 Vices), available at http://www.unmonument.ru/mon020.html (accessed 9/09/2015).

  109. 109.

    See InterAcademy Council / IAP, Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise: A Policy Report, September 2012, p.x, available at http://www.interacademies.net/file.aspx?id=19789 (accessed 9/09/2015).

  110. 110.

    See [in Russian] Lyubov Borusyak, ‘Mozhet li etika ogranichit’ nauku: Beseda s filosofom Borisom Yudinym’, Polit.Ru, 19 August 2009, available at http://polit.ru/article/2009/08/19/b_judin/ (accessed 9/09/2015). On the issue of pseudoscience (lzhenauka) in Russia today, see [in Russian] David Raskin, ‘Uchenye o bolevykh tochkakh rossiiskoi nauki’, Troitskii variant, No.177, 21 April 2015, pp. 4–5, available at http://trv-science.ru/2015/04/21/uchenye-o-bolevykh-tochkakh-rossijskoj-nauki/ (accessed 11/09/2015).

  111. 111.

    Nikolai Krementsov, Revolutionary Experiments, op cit., p.62.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., p.26.

  113. 113.

    See [in Russian] A. Lavrov and D. Mal’mstad, Andrei Belyi i Ivanov-Razumnik: Perepiska (St Petersburg: Atheneum, 1998), p.408.

  114. 114.

    See [in Russian] G.L. Mikirtichan et al., ‘Rossisskaya Federatsiya’, in O.I. Kubar’, Eticheskaya ekspertiza biomeditsinskikh issledovanii v gosudarstvakh-uchasnikakh SNG (sotsial’nye i kul’turnye aspekty) (St Petersburg: Phoenix: 2007), pp. 248–316.

  115. 115.

    Alexei Sozinov et al., ‘The Development of Ethical Review Practices in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Past, Present, and Future’, Pharmaceutical Medicine, Vol. 22:5 (2008), p.278.

  116. 116.

    See [in Russian] Yurii Lopukhin, ‘O bioetike: Bioetika v Rossii’, Vestnik RAN, Vol. 71:9 (2001), pp. 771–774.

  117. 117.

    See, for example, Robert van Voren, ‘Political Abuse of Psychiatry: An Historical Overview’, Schizophrenia Bulletin, Vol. 36:1 (2010), pp. 33–35; Richard Bonnie, ‘Political Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union and China: Complexities and Controversies’, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 136–144.

  118. 118.

    See, for example, [in Russian] Vladimir Gubarev, ‘Chaepitiya v Akademii: v zerkale jizni’, Pravda, 15 May 2012, available at http://www.pravda.ru/science/academy/15-05-2012/1114971-rem_petrov-0/ (accessed 9/09/2015).

  119. 119.

    National Research Council, The Unique U.S. – Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology, op cit., p.88. Also see National Research Council, Biological Sciences and Biotechnology in Russia: Controlling Diseases and Enhancing Security (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

    Tatyana Novossiolova

Authors
  1. Tatyana Novossiolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Novossiolova, T. (2017). Post-Cold War Institutional and Infrastructural Legacies. In: Governance of Biotechnology in Post-Soviet Russia . Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51004-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation