Medical Societies and Congresses

Medical Societies and Congresses. Historically, medical societies originated in deep antiquity—in the eastern despotisms, in ancient Greece, and in Rome. They usually also served as places for training physicians. In the first centuries of our era, the Alexandrian "school" was such a center for eastern and Greco-Roman science. Subsequently, medical "schools" moved from Greece and Rome to Western Europe—to Italy, France, Germany. The Salernian "school" in Italy (Civitas Hippocratica) and the "school" of Montpellier in France (scholasticism in medicine) reflected new stages in the organization of scientific-medical forces in Europe. New production relations, the emerging manufacture, became prerequisites for the organization of physicians. Thus, in England as early as 1519, the "Royal College of Physicians" was organized. In 1800, the "Royal College of Surgeons of London" was founded. Only at the end of the 18th century did scientific thought, scientists, and physicians find a firm basis for organizing scientific societies. The period of industrial capitalism in Europe mobilized and organized scientific forces in all fields of exact sciences and natural sciences, not excluding medicine and public health. In this respect, first place belongs to England as the most industrial country. In 1831, at the initiative of the famous physicist D. Brewster, the British Association for the Advancement of Science was organized, and in September of the same year, the first congress of this association was convened in the city of York. In July 1832, the idea of the British Association was taken up in the provinces. Dr. Zieveking considers the date July 17, 1832, a major event in the history of the medical estate in England. Here the consolidation and organization of English physicians began. According to Zieveking's view, before the English physicians stood three major tasks: "the spread of a rational-physical view in science, the entry of physicians into government to carry out sanitary-preventive measures, and the founding of a university that would give, together with a humanities education, a professional education (similar to the German one)". This viewpoint of Dr. Zieveking reflected the mood of the majority of English physicians of that time: dissatisfaction with the entire organization of medical affairs in the country, its inconsistency with the entire socio-economic structure. At this same congress of the British Association, Carpenter made a major report on public medicine, in which he subjected all sanitary affairs in the cities of England and especially their pollution to severe criticism; he raised the problem of the removal of filth, predicting a great future for the idea of utilizing filth; however, he immediately stipulated that with this radical measure, "one will have to wait" until "the huge capitals which are now used for Turkish, Egyptian, Honduran and other loans" are directed to sanitary purposes. France followed the same path. The French Academy of Sciences originated as early as the 1660s. The Great French Revolution, its rationalist scientific currents, the growth of industrial capitalism in France, in turn, exerted a powerful influence on the development of science. In 1820, the Paris Medical Academy (Académie de médecine et de chirurgie) was organized, including 100 full members (membres titulaires) and a number of corresponding members (membres libres). The main task of the Paris Medical Academy was to give opinions on questions of social medicine and public hygiene. In Germany, medical organizations and societies originated as early as the middle of the 17th century: in 1644, the "Collegium medicum" was organized in Hamburg. In the middle of the 18th century (1731-45), medical societies were organized in Nuremberg, Frankfurt, Leipzig. At the beginning of the 19th century, in connection with the development and growth of industrial capitalism in Germany, a call was issued for the development of medical societies. The initiator was the famous naturalist and natural philosopher Oken. At his initiative in 1822, the first "congress of naturalists and physicians" was convened in Leipzig. It is characteristic that in his report at this first congress, Oken referred to the examples of England and France; he posed the question: "why in England and France, thanks to the combined efforts of first-class scientists, so many remarkable works are published in the form of encyclopedias of natural sciences, medicine, crafts, arts? Why is there nothing similar in Germany?" Oken saw the reason not in the fact that England and France were rapidly moving along the path of industrial development, far surpassing Germany, but in the fact that among German scientists there was "unity and personal ties"; he called for this unity and for personal ties. The "congress of naturalists and physicians" was to carry out this task. It should be noted that this motive was dominant at that time in the organization of all medical societies and congresses. In Germany, this call found a wide response: from the first Leipzig Congress of Naturalists and Physicians until 1886, 59 congresses took place, a significant number of them being international. Soon other countries followed the example of Germany. Here it should be noted that the initiative for organizing societies and congresses of naturalists and physicians belonged to the Geneva citizen-scientist H. de Saussure. In 1815, he (not a physician, but a naturalist) put forward the idea of organizing a Society of Naturalists, to which physicians also joined. H. de Saussure at that time was already a corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences, which had awarded him a prize. A biographer of H. de Saussure (after his death) described him as a man "imbued with the spirit of research, looking at science as a benefactor of humanity. H. de Saussure directed his efforts to subjects of an applied nature for the benefit of the masses and especially the lower and suffering classes of society." In his own Switzerland, two leagues from Geneva in 1815, he convened the first congress of the founders of the Society of Naturalists. In 1816, in Bern, 66 members of the Society of Naturalists gathered and constituted congresses. The tasks of the Swiss congresses were set as: 1) reading papers on subjects of general interest, these papers being previously submitted to a permanent bureau and approved by it; 2) papers of special interest can be communicated in separate meetings of members, distributed into sections: physics and chemistry, zoology, botany, mineralogy, geology, medicine and surgery, agriculture and technology; 3) hearing reports from cantonal societies and individual members (where there are no cantonal societies) regarding the natural history of their country; 4) appointing topics for prizes and distributing promised prizes; 5) mutual communication of discoveries, new experiments, private observations, considered worthy of attention. From the very beginning, it was decided to attract foreign honorary members to the Swiss society. A printed bulletin was established. Scientific publications began in 1817. The "Annual" of the society began to be published in 1824, the "Memoirs of the society" in 1868 already consisted of 20 volumes. H. de Saussure's idea was quickly adopted by all the largest states of Europe: England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc. Societies and congresses of naturalists and physicians, national and international, were convened in all countries in the largest scientific centers. Already armed with academies of sciences, medical academies and governmental, royal, tsaric colleges in various countries under various names, H. de Saussure's idea, embodied by private initiative and the independent activity of scientific societies, under the pressure of the demands of industry, trade, science and technology, received broad development. The network of scientific societies and congresses of naturalists and physicians grew in all countries. H. de Saussure's idea deepened and expanded. Congresses differentiated according to various branches and specialties in all fields of science. Medical societies and congresses began to develop not only in large university and capital cities, but also in large scientific provincial centers. Specialization in the medical field concerned various special branches of medicine: congresses of surgeons, therapists, ophthalmologists, etc., were convened. International congresses of naturalists and physicians were convened: the first in Paris in 1867, the second in Florence in 1869, the third in Vienna in 1873, the following: in Brussels in 1875, in London in 1876, in Geneva in 1877, in Amsterdam in 1879. To these international congresses, thousands of scientists of all specialties of natural sciences, medicine and public health traveled from all ends of the world, from all countries and states of Europe and America. In connection with the organization of these congresses, the organization of permanent scientific societies, voluntary associations for various specialties in various more or less large provincial cities and even large settlements, also grew. The voluntary public initiative of scientists and physicians of all branches and specialties during the 19th century increased extraordinarily. The tasks of all these scientific societies were almost everywhere the same: scientific communication, presentation of reports, discussions on them, publication of works, periodic publication of journals, professional mutual assistance. During the 19th century, scientific societies and in particular medical societies thus became large accumulators of scientific-medical knowledge, experience, practice, national and international connections between scientists and physicians.

During this period, scientific-medical societies to a large extent also served as mouthpieces for the social and political sentiments of the most radical part of the medical profession. The growth of scientific societies and congresses continued in the early 20th century. This growth and development of scientific-medical societies and congresses was interrupted in connection with the beginning and development of the imperialist world war, and primarily the international scientific role of the press was undermined due to interruptions and almost cessation of exchange in international publications. National strife and national chauvinism were the cause of this. The post-war period, associated with the crisis of capitalism, is characterized by a crisis in the activities of M. o. and s. In an international sense, they remain divided, their activity sharply decreases, they sharply change their appearance in the socio-political and social sense, the character and content of their work changes, the activity of most M. o. and s. acquires an openly reactionary, chauvinistic, fascist character (mysticism, anti-technologism, etc.). Russian M. o. and s. of the pre-revolutionary period in general repeat the paths of development of M. o. and s. of the capitalist countries of Western Europe. In 1804, at Moscow University, at the initiative of the trustee of this university, M. I. Muravyov, the first M. o. was founded under the name "Physical-Medical Society". On September 27, 1804, the Council of Moscow University was informed of the "highest permission" to open the "Society for the Competition of Medical and Physical Sciences." The first chairman of the Society was elected Professor of Anatomy and Surgery F. F. Karestan. The name of the society apparently indicates imitation of the Royal London Society. At the very beginning, the Society had up to 100 members, including ordinary, extraordinary, and honorary members. The birth of the first M. o. was preceded by the creation of the first medical journal in St. Petersburg in 1792 under the name "St. Petersburg Medical Gazette." In 1808, the first part of the "Proceedings" of the society was printed in Latin under the title "Commentationes societatis physico-medicae." This book contained the charter of the society and 5 scientific articles. In the same year, the first part of the "Medico-Physical Journal" in Russian was printed, which contained 14 articles, the charter of the society, and a list of its members. Most copies of this book were destroyed in 1812 during the Moscow fire. In 1821, it was reprinted with additions. In 1810, Professor Krestan was replaced by Professor of Obstetrics N. M. Richter. During 1811 and 1812, Richter published in German 2 volumes of "History of Medicine in Russia" and the second part of "Commentationes societatis physico-medicae," which were also destroyed during the Moscow fire. After the Napoleonic War, in 1815, the activity of the Moscow Society was resumed. In 1818, Volume III of "History of Medicine in Russia," compiled by Richter, was published and translated into Russian. In 1821, the third part of "Comment, societ. physico-medicae" and the second and third parts of the "Medico-Physical Journal" were published (for details, see the brochure by Prof. I. Neyding "Medical Societies in Russia" for the XII International Congress of Physicians in Moscow, published 1897). After Moscow, the first to be organized was the "Society of Russian Physicians" in St. Petersburg in 1833, the second was the "Society of Odessa Physicians" in 1849, the third was the German circle in St. Petersburg under the name "Deutscher Aerztlicher Verein," the fourth was the "St. Petersburg German Society of Physicians" in 1859; in the same year 1859, the "Society of Naval Physicians" was founded in St. Petersburg. The sixties mobilized physicians to self-organize their forces; during the sixties, the following M. o. of physicians were organized: "Society of Russian Physicians in Moscow" in 1861, in 1862 the "Nizhny Novgorod Society of Physicians" was organized, in 1863 the "Oryol Society of Physicians" was established, in 1865 the "Orenburg Physical-Medical Society," in 1869 the "Pskov Society of Physicians," in the same year at Kazan University the "Kazan Society of Physicians" was founded. The seventies and eighties were a period of greatest development of M. o. The most important societies organized in chronological order during these years were the following: "Novocherkassk Society of Pediatricians"-1871, "St. Petersburg Surgical Society"-1873, "Novgorod Society of Physicians"-1874, "Moscow Medical Society"-1875, "Odessa Bacteriological Society"-1876, "Podolsk Society of Physicians"-1876, "Society of Psychiatrists" (St. Petersburg)-1879, "Society of Physicians of Samara Province"-1882, "Rostov Medical Society" (Rostov-on-Don)-1881, "Russian Surgical Society named after N. I. Pirogov" (in St. Petersburg)-1882, "Society of Pediatricians of St. Petersburg"-1885, "Military-Sanitary Society of St. Petersburg"-1885, "Russian Syphilidological and Dermatological Society of St. Petersburg"-1885, "St. Petersburg Anthropological Society"-1887, "Russian Society for the Protection of Public Health"-1887, "Moscow Obstetrical-Gynecological Society"-1887, "Russian Bacteriological Society" (in Moscow)-1887, "Society of Neuropathologists and Psychiatrists at Moscow University"-1887, "Russian Ophthalmological Society in Moscow"-1889. Dr. Ya. B. Eiger and Dr. D. N. Zhbankov determined the number of these societies to be from 40 to 60; M. o. were organized in small provincial cities, even in large villages. Dr. Zhbankov includes in the number of M. o. and organizations the broad network of zemstvo societies and organizations, the broad network of zemstvo conferences, departments of Pirogov societies. The organization of these M. o. continued in the nineties and in the first decade of the 20th century until 1914. During the 19th century, a number of M. o. closed due to the weakness of their existence, a number due to administrative-police pressure; this befell the most active societies, which revealed not only professional-scientific, but also socio-social functions. This applies to periods of the most revolutionary sentiment in the country, when M. o. allowed themselves to go beyond the narrow professional and scientific framework and connect questions of science and public health with questions of politics, the socio-social situation of the country and the population. During these periods, the tsarist government used all means of pressure on M. o. During these periods, societies were forced to change their charters, adapt to the reactionary demands of the government, save themselves under the banner of professional mutual aid; these measures of self-defense and self-preservation of M. o. were widely used in the revolutionary periods of 1905 and during the Russo-Japanese War. In general, Russian M. o. sharply differed from Western European ones precisely in that they more vividly responded to socio-social phenomena in the country. In the history of the development of medical congresses, the following facts are important to note. At the end of the fifties, the idea of scientific congresses first appeared in Russia through Kiev Professor of Zoology Kessler (1856), who, with the assistance of N. I. Pirogov in the Ministry of Public Education, promoted and implemented the idea of organizing the first "Congress of Natural Scientists and Physicians." The congress met in Kiev on June 12, 1861, with Kiev University as its organizer. The number of members of the first congress was 44, predominantly from the Southwestern region, with significant participation of teacher-educators. In a speech delivered at this congress by Professor Kessler, it was expressed the wish that these congresses be repeated annually and that in the near future general congresses of all Russian natural scientists be established—at least once every 3-4 years at first. The second congress of natural scientists and physicians, also predominantly from the Southwestern region, was held in Kiev in June 1862; the same Professor Kessler spoke at it with a speech reflecting the unanimous wish of the first congress for the establishment of similar congresses of "all Russian natural scientists," noting the petitions of several scientific societies—the Kiev Society of Physicians, the Moscow Physical-Medical Society, the Moscow Society of Nature Testers. Thus, the first Kiev congresses were of local significance. The beginning of the sixties, the first years of the "era of great reforms," is characterized by a large flow of petitions from scientific and M. o. and assemblies, scientific and medical press for permission to hold scientific congresses. The idea was concentrated mainly on congresses of natural scientists and physicians, which had gained broad citizenship rights in Western Europe. Only in 1867 did the physical-mathematical faculty of St. Petersburg University receive permission to convene the first all-Russian congress of natural scientists in St. Petersburg, which took place on May 12, 1867. The charter of the Ministry of Public Education provided for the organization of the following departments (sections) at the congress: anatomy and physiology, zoology and comparative anatomy, botany, anatomy and physiology of plants, mineralogy, geology and paleontology, chemistry and physics, astronomy and mathematics. In the presence of the anatomy and physiology department, medical science was not included in the circle of natural sciences at the first congress. However, the same congress included this section by established practice. The first congress was held with great success. At the congress, all the outstanding scientific forces of the time participated: professors—Mendeleev, Beketov, Faminzin, Yunge, Kessler, Ovsyannikov, Svetlov, Shchurovsky, and others.

The proceedings of the first congress constituted a voluminous folio of 135 printed sheets, of which 32 sheets were devoted to zoology, 23 to anatomy and physiology, 20 to botany, 15 to physics and chemistry, and 7 to mineralogy and geology. The department of anatomy and physiology, which essentially constituted a major section of scientific medicine, heard more than 35 reports, with the speakers being, on one hand, professors Zedkauer, Pelikan, Danilevsky, Navrotsky, and others, and on the other hand, a number of students who would later become famous figures—Tarkhanov, Slavyansky, Lavdovsky, Ge, the physician Bertensok, and others. Zedkauer's speech was on the topic 'On the influence of natural sciences on hygiene'. Particularly interesting and characteristic was the speech of Professor Semashko. His speech at that time had an explicitly anti-government character. It developed the idea of satisfying the needs of the people—pointing to the necessity of striving for means to develop the people. 'Our industry and commerce cannot withstand modern competition, and the general calamity from underdevelopment looms threateningly before us' (as summarized by A. Pogozhev). Professor Semashko's conclusion: 'however, it is insufficient to popularize the natural sciences; schools are also needed that would cultivate naturalists from the people, and these scientific figures, returning to their milieu, would spread knowledge among the masses: to improve the domestic life of the peasant, increase his food supply, enlighten his intellectual horizon—such is our great contemporary task'. Characteristic were the public responses that the first congress of natural scientists and physicians received. The most characteristic document is the appeal 'from the circle of women' that was submitted to the name of the congress committee and read by Professor Beketov at the second general meeting of the congress. The women appealed to the congress on behalf of women educators, mothers, and pedagogues; they called on the congress to help mothers and educators become true, not nominal, conductors of natural science education in the family and school. No less characteristic is the letter received from the city of Cherdyn, Perm Province, from a group of administratively exiled individuals, at the head of whom stood the well-known physician-publicist V. O. Portugafov. The letter, greeting the congress and seeing in it a reflection of the slogan 'bread and knowledge' being heard from everywhere, expressed confidence that the congress of natural scientists would become a stimulus and instrument for the realization of this slogan. The second all-Russian congress of natural scientists was held in Moscow in August 1869 on the foundations approved for the first congress. At the request of the first congress, three new departments (sections) were organized at the second, including the section of scientific medicine. In the interval between the first and second congresses, societies of natural scientists and physicians were organized at universities. The number of members of the second congress somewhat decreased—instead of 465 in 1867, it dropped to 427 in 1869, while the number of non-local members slightly increased—167 instead of 113. A total of 40 cities participated in the second congress. The work proceeded in 9 sections. The section of scientific medicine turned out to be the largest (135 people), although with a very small number of non-local members. At this congress, special attention was paid to the organization of medical statistics in the section of scientific medicine; in connection with this issue, Dr. Yu. B. Ukke proposed introducing into practice a special program for sanitary-hygienic surveys of cities and villages, and this idea found wide application in the practice of cities and villages, especially in the zemstvo provinces, during the next several years.

The third congress of natural scientists and physicians was held in Kiev in August 1871 under unfavorable conditions (cholera epidemic). In connection with this, the attendance at the congress was reduced—267, including about 100 from Kiev, but the congress was considered successful in terms of the quantity and seriousness of scientific reports. In the section of scientific medicine, 25 reports were heard. At the general meetings, main reports were given by professors A. P. Valter, I.O. Vysotsky (from Kazan, report 'On the tasks of medical societies'), Professor A. O. Kovalevsky (report 'On the activities of congresses of Russian scientists'). At this congress, the periodicity of the congresses was established. The fourth congress of natural scientists and physicians was convened in Kazan in August 1873. This congress was distinguished by the fact that the organizing force of the congress was the Kazan Society of Physicians, which had arisen in 1868 and had taken an exceptional position among the small network of medical societies in Russia. About this society, Professor N. O. Vysotsky had already reported at the third Kiev congress, characterizing it as 'the cradle of public health in Russia'. Before the opening of the congress, a meeting of this society was held with a report by its chairman A. V. Petrov. The report was devoted to characterizing the activities of this society for five years. This activity was mainly directed at developing public health and hygiene work in the city and countryside. The Kazan Society of Physicians tried to connect its activities with the activities of urban and zemstvo institutions. Around the society was concentrated a whole series of major public health workers of that time (E. A. Osipov, I. I. Molession, V. O. Portugafov, Peskov, and others). The Kazan Society of Physicians at that time became the organizational center of public health activity and proposed to the fourth congress of natural scientists, along the line of the medical section, a program of activities. The program turned out to be broad and concerned the following questions: organization of medical statistics, organization of medical assistance to the poor urban population, attracting zemstvo medicine to the statistical-hygienic direction in connection with the prevention of epidemics and the organization of sanitary committees and congresses, the fight against syphilis and prostitution, the fight against smallpox and the development of vaccination in villages, folk medicine and the fight against quackery, the prevention of epizootics, and other questions. This entire program was accepted by the congress and formed the basis of its work. Incidentally, at this congress, M. M. Gran first raised the question of 'introducing public medicine' (social hygiene) into the curriculum of medical faculties. The chairman of the congress was Professor N. O. Kovalevsky—a well-known physiologist of Kazan University, his assistants were Professors Kessler and Butlerov. The main reports at the general meetings were: 'Hygiene and Civilization' by Professor I. P. Skvortsov, 'The relationship of hygiene to each member of society' by Professor Andreev, 'On the organization of a special department of military medicine', 'On the necessity of forming new societies for the purpose of studying the causes of the spread of syphilis' by N. S. Miller. Among the speakers at the medical section were Professors Skvortsov, Shcherbakov, Molession. The reports proceeded under the sign of striving to influence rural and urban medicine, zemstvo and urban self-government; the works 'on scientific medicine' proceeded under the chairmanship of Professors Sklifosovsky, Ukke, Minnkh, Andreev. Among the reports, the report of M. K. Sventsitsky 'On the spread of goiter in Kazan Province' attracted attention.

The congresses of natural scientists for a long time remained the main citadel of scientific public life. After the Kazan congress, there followed a series of other congresses. Subsequent congresses were held: 5th—in Warsaw (1874—344 members), 6th—in St. Petersburg (1879—1,409 members), 7th—in Odessa (1883—641 members), 8th—in St. Petersburg (1889—2,224 members), 9th—in Moscow (1894—2,170 members), 10th—in Kiev (1898—1,694 members), 11th—in St. Petersburg (1901—number of members unknown), 12th—in Helsinki (1902—northern congress of natural scientists), 13th—in Tbilisi (Tiflis) (1913—3,500 members). A review of these congresses shows that from 1858 to 1913, the congresses of natural scientists were the main organizational form of unity for scientific workers in the natural sciences, medicine, and public health. Special congresses in Russia also began to emerge in the 1860s; the first series of such congresses were pharmaceutical congresses; the first of them was held in St. Petersburg in 1864; the second congress—an international one—was also held in St. Petersburg in 1874. Special congresses in the field of medicine developed, as in Western Europe, significantly later in connection with the development of specialization in the natural sciences and medicine and the branching off of separate branches. In Russia, special congresses began in 1881. Below is a list of special congresses that have taken place since that time (in chronological order of their emergence), with the number of these congresses up to 1925. Anti-epidemic congresses........

1881—11 » psychiatrists and neuropathologists ....

obstetricians and gynecologists . . . . .

physiologists, anatomists, pathologists

1922 - The indicated data are provided by Zhbankov. This list does not include the Pirogov congresses (see Pirogov Society, congresses), zemstvo and other public congresses. According to the author, this list clearly does not register many congresses, but for a special perspective it is sufficiently complete until 1925. Based on this list, one can judge how the differentiation of specialized congresses developed in accordance with the growth of science and its practical-technical application in life. It is most interesting to compare the development of specialized congresses for two periods covering this span - the prerevolutionary and Soviet. For the entire 53-year period, there were 113 specialized congresses in 19 specialties, on average a little more than two congresses per year; for the Soviet period (until 1925), there were 44 specialized congresses, on average more than 5 per year; the years of the Soviet period sharply changed the objectives, structure, scientific themes, and social composition of specialized congresses. A number of specialized congresses (maternity and infant care, physiology, anatomy, pathology, and others) appeared that had no place in the prerevolutionary period, the pace and activity of specialized congresses sharply increased, and the themes of specialized congresses changed. But the comparison of these two periods is most expressive when comparing the position, role, and significance of medical 03 congresses of the prerevolutionary and revolutionary (October) periods. In the prerevolutionary period, obtaining permission for each specialized congress was a major event; years would pass before this permission was obtained; endless petitions, personal influence, and connections of prominent scientists were required to obtain permission for a congress; at best, congresses were 'tolerated' under strict police control with the fear that 'politics' would break out at these congresses. The entire history of prerevolutionary medical congresses is the history of obstacles and barriers to congresses. The best document for this is the history of the first All-Russian Congress of Therapists based on documents in the report by Prof. Shervinsky (congress 1909). The history of specialized congresses during the period of the October Revolution and Soviet power presents a completely opposite picture (for details on M. o. i. s. after the October Revolution, see articles in individual disciplines: Therapy, Surgery, Ophthalmology, Pediatrics, etc.). In the Soviet period, scientific specialized congresses became a continuous and necessary companion in the construction of public health. This is especially true for the period of planned construction of the national economy. The eve of the first five-year plan and its process, the beginning of the second five-year plan, take place under the slogan of the highest mobilization of scientific forces, under the slogan of Stalin: 'In the period of reconstruction, technology decides everything.' This applies equally to all branches of the national economy, including medicine and healthcare. Congresses are an instrument for mobilizing these scientific forces. Here these scientific forces are given broad freedom and initiative; government, professional, and party organs not only meet voluntary initiative halfway but are themselves initiators and stimulators of congresses. Planning of themes in accordance with the needs of various branches of the national economy, responses to the needs of the working population with the aim of improving the material, cultural, and living conditions of the working population in a scientific and practical sense, the objectives of this planning and the themes of congresses, the application of the method of individual and collective competition and shock work - these are the paths and methods of work of these congresses. The statistics of these congresses are instructive not only in comparison with the prerevolutionary period of Russia, but also with the capitalist countries of Europe and America. The planned purposefulness of these congresses has the sole goal of 'catching up and surpassing' world science and technology at the fastest possible pace and placing it at the service of socialist construction. Proceeding from this principle, the activity of scientific societies and a long series of scientific congresses and conferences that accompany them from top to bottom, starting from the Academy of Sciences and ending with the scientific-production collective of an industrial center, a kolkhoz, sovkhoz, a scientific expedition to the Arctic and the most remote outskirts of the Soviet Union, takes place. The scientific research work of all these organizations, congresses, and conferences is directed toward a single goal: the discovery and mastery of the productive forces of the country, involving the broadest working masses in this work. In the field of medicine and healthcare, science strives not to lag behind industry, commerce, and agriculture and raises the problems of man as a productive force, the improvement of his labor, culture, and living conditions to an unprecedented height. The results and achievements in this field during the first five-year plan are enormous, and the prospects for growth and development in this field on the path to a classless socialist society during the second five-year plan are even more grandiose. The structure and organization of M. o. i. s. have been sharply and definitely changed by the October Revolution on the basis of the above-mentioned organizational prerequisites. As the reconstruction period approached, when the Party and government clearly defined the further paths of socialist construction, when the role of science in the era of socialist construction clearly emerged, when in broad discussions of the Communist Academy, Academy of Sciences, a number of socio-scientific organizations and the press the role of the Marxist-Leninist method in science, in particular in the field of natural science, medicine and healthcare, was clarified, the role of scientific-medical societies in the process of the grandiose socialist construction of the current and future periods was also clearly defined. During this period, the appearance and profile of the Soviet physician and scientific worker sharply changes; the army of Soviet physicians and scientific figures in its mass is reoriented toward socialist construction in an ideological and productive sense; the reorganization of M. o. begins. The cooperation of scientific-medical forces and societies takes on new forms; new methods of scientific-medical work acquire a character sharply different from capitalist societies, and the planning and concreteness of scientific work in accordance with the needs of the socialist national economy become widespread. In this new, socialist orientation, Soviet scientific-medical societies acquire a new appearance and new organizational forms. In recent times, M. o. have found their place in the system of the People's Commissariat of Health (NKZdr.) and their organizational form in connection with the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) of June 16, 1932, which approves the new 'Regulations on voluntary societies and unions,' establishing a standard charter for voluntary societies and unions. In the management of scientific research institutes of the NKZdr., a special inspectorate of scientific societies and a Council of Scientific Medical Societies is organized. The Council includes representatives of all societies under the jurisdiction of the NKZdr. and persons specially appointed by the NKZdr. The competence of the Council includes: representation before higher government bodies, general guidance and supervision of the activities of societies, assistance to the cause of mutual aid in the scientific work of societies and coordination of their activities, coordination of the activity plan of all M. o. in accordance with health plans, etc. The Council includes the main group of all-union medical societies: therapists, surgeons, pediatricians, pathologists, ophthalmologists, otorhinolaryngologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, radiologists, venereologists, dentists, urologists, endocrinologists, etc. The total number of M. o. Sotsa significantly exceeds one hundred. The number of registered members exceeds 17,000. The reorganization of Soviet scientific-medical societies in recent times has proceeded along the line of restructuring societies into associations of physicians, their concentration and consolidation, and scientific planning of their activities and themes in accordance with the plans for socialist construction of the national economy in the field of healthcare and the preventive and curative direction of medicine. At present, the following medical societies exist: therapists, surgeons, otorhinolaryngologists, pediatricians, dermatologists and venereologists, endocrinologists, physiotherapists, ophthalmologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists, radiologists and radiotherapists, pathologists and pathophysiologists, dentists, urologists, neurologists and psychiatrists, resort physicians, phthisiatricians, obstetricians and gynecologists, homeopaths.