Berkay Kaan Kabadayı

Rigid Hierarchies vs. Meritocratic Freedom: Cold War Scientific Research Models

During the Cold War, scientific progress was also a crucial background for the prestige of the two superpowers. Behind their headline achievements -- from Sputnik to the Moon landing -- there are different institutional structures. While the Soviet model was based on centralized control, like in every aspect of life, the Americans opened space for free thought and speech. This writing explores how each model functioned in a historical context and how their legacies carry forward into modern science.

Cold War Science and Competing Institutions

By the mid-20th century, science became a national priority for both countries. With a centralized state approach, the Soviet Union employed a diverse group of researchers and engineers, making it the world's largest scientific establishment by the 1980s. On the other hand, the United States also dramatically expanded federal funding for research after World War II and created significant partnerships between government and universities. The Soviets organized a deterministic approach, where every step was rigorously checked and controlled, while American science flourished in a free system where universities and laboratories were forged by the competition and peer review. Clearly, these structures were shaped by ideology: Communist central planning versus democratic capitalist free thought.

The Soviet Model: Centralized Hierarchy in Research

In the USSR, scientific work was concentrated in specialized research institutes rather than universities. The Academy of Sciences or branch ministries mainly controlled those institutes following the demands of the state. Thus, it seems hard to mention free minds as this rigid hierarchy controlled the research priorities and funds, which were often given by five-year plans and political interests. The Soviet scientific community became "an enormous, very hierarchical, and predominantly institutional apparatus" -- largely self-contained and insulated from market forces. Moreover, scientists had nearly no contact with the industry or the marketplace as Soviet science advanced in isolation from practical application or commercial feedback.

Such centralization has some pros and cons. For example, once a goal was set, mostly to compete with the U.S., the USSR could spare immense resources to pursue it. The rigid hierarchy in the state system can mobilize minds and capital, as it has the power to even relocate experts across the country. As I mentioned before, Communist planners were willing to sacrifice even consumer needs to support funding. This system led to great achievements -- the first satellite in space (Sputnik 1957) and an early lead in the space race.

However, the centralized approach also carried significant weaknesses. For example, the absence of an open critique that is not under the influence of the state led to serious issues like the Lysenko affair. In 1948, Soviet authorities (swayed by agronomist Trofim Lysenko) banned genetic research, declaring the heretical Lamarckian theory as the only accepted doctrine. This unfortunate approach adversely affected Soviet biology for decades, shutting the door on molecular genetics and crop innovations at a critical time.

In the early 1960s, Soviet computer scientists were initially exploring diverse approaches. However, Moscow decided to copy IBM's computer designs rather than develop original ones, which affected all electronic engineering doctrine. This top-down lag lagged the USSR in computing technology. By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union was estimated to be 20 years behind the U.S. in computing. In 1986, the U.S. had about 1.3 million mainframe and mini-computers, whereas the USSR had only around 10,000. Once a centralized decision was made, a wrong turn like this could cost scientists decades to recover.

Another consequence of the Soviet hierarchy was an isolated scientific environment from the world. Especially under Stalin and through the early Cold War, Soviet scientists were often isolated from their Western peers. International collaboration was tightly restricted or forbidden. Research findings were published mainly in Russian journals, limiting global cooperation. Secrecy was a primary concern in many fields (e.g., defense research), and even different ministries' institutes sometimes duplicated work due to poor communication. All in all, this hierarchy led to stagnation in science and contributed to the Soviet Union's economic downfall in the 1980s.

The American Model: Decentralized Meritocracy in Science

In contrast, the United States was a far more decentralized research ecosystem. After WWII, initiatives like Vannevar Bush's Science: The Endless Frontier urged the U.S. to fund basic research broadly for national benefits. The result was a great and, most importantly, free network of universities, private labs, and government agencies all performing research, with funding dispersed through competitive grants. Instead of government intervention, merit based peer review was the base of this system such as expert panels, rather than central planners, deciding the projects. A brief excerpt from shows this commitment: Center for Strategic and International Studies notes, the U.S. employed a "rigorous and decentralized peer-review structure" for both grant funding and publication. This emphasis on independent evaluation helped align resources with talent and innovative ideas, reinforcing a culture where ambition and creativity were rewarded regardless of formal rank. Young researchers could challenge established ideas and which is a sharp distinction from the Soviet norm of deference to academic elders.

Another aspect of the American model was its integration with the broader economy. Scientific research in the U.S. was closely linked to industry, as universities were in partnership with government and private-sector sponsors. Ideas flowed freely between academia and industry, supporting patent and innovation increases. For example, federally funded research in fields like electronics often ended up in the private sector and led to the creation of commercial innovation (e.g., Silicon Valley itself grew out of defense-funded projects, later supercharged by market entrepreneurship)

Moreover, American scientists mostly had the freedom to collaborate internationally, attend conferences abroad, and publish openly. This openness allowed for a global exchange of ideas and kept the U.S. science at its best. It's also important to note that, unlike the Soviet Union, the U.S. had the economic capacity and ideological background to "let the free market foster the best innovation" rather than "throwing money at the problem" in a top-down approach. Of course, the U.S. government also pours money into big pursuits (from the Apollo program to the Cold War arms race), but while also maintains a competitive, merit-based system.

Modern Implications and Legacy

Though the Cold War has long ended, the legacy of these two models still echoes. In the 1990s, reforms in Russia introduced a more merit-based system (e.g., programs that provided grants on a competitive merit basis to post-Soviet scientists) Still, the elements of the old hierarchy continued as the Russian Academy of Sciences is challenged by bureaucracy and limited funding that adversely affects productivity. Meanwhile, the American model of science based on meritocracy and free thought became a norm in the world. Research communities are based on peer review and the English-language literature as standards. As Michael D. Gordin said, today, "there is only one" global science system, and it largely resembles the model developed in the United States after World War II. Today, the tension regarding academic freedom continues. For example, China has blended a strong state presence with competition.

In conclusion, the Soviet and American experiences show a powerful lesson on how we should organize science. The Cold War proved that innovation thrives not just on funding like the Soviets did but on freedom, an institutional system, and free thought. Today, while the United States still leads the world in science with its culture of meritocracy and openness, it also witnesses disturbing attempts to politicize science in recent years. The tale of two Cold War superpowers should remind us that when governments attempt to dictate policies or give ultimatums threatening to cut funding, they risk the progress and innovation. Considering the desperate need for free minds capable of generating innovative and authentic ideas, we need to ensure not only the free institutional frameworks in science but also freedom in every aspect of life.

Sources

1. Christoph M. Schneider (ed.), Research and Development Management: From the Soviet Union to Russia (Physica-Verlag & IIASA, 1994)

2. Seth Center and Emma Bates, "Tech-Politik: Historical Perspectives on Innovation, Technology, and Strategic Competition," CSIS Brief (Center for Strategic & International Studies, Dec 2019)

3. Jonathan Chan, "Fallen Behind: Science, Technology, and Soviet Statism," Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society, vol.. 8, no. 3 (2015) –

4. Michael D. Gordin, "The Soviet Science System," The Point, no. 8 (Summer 2014): 118–127

5. Irina Dezhina and Elizabeth A. Wood, "US-Russian Partnerships in Science: Working with Differences," Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 38, no. 5 (2022): 349–365 – (As referenced in summaries)

Email us at: