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 the training of physicians. In the first centuries of our era, the Alexandrian 'school' was such a center of Eastern and Greco-Roman science. Subsequently, medical 'schools' moved from Greece and Rome to Western Europe—Italy, France, Germany. The Salernitan 'school' in Italy (Civitas Hippocratica) and the 'school' of Montpellier in France (scholasticism in medicine) reflect new stages in the organization of scientific-medical forces in Europe. New production relations and the nascent manufacture were the prerequisites for the organization of physicians. Thus, in England, the 'Royal College of Physicians' was organized as early as 1519. 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 the organization of scientific societies. The period of industrial capitalism in Europe mobilized and organized scientific forces in all branches of the exact sciences and natural history, not excluding medicine and public health. First place in this regard belongs to England as the most industrialized country. In 1831, on 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. Sieveking considers the date of July 17, 1832, a major event in the history of the medical profession in England. Here begins the rallying and organization of English physicians. In Sieveking's opinion, three major tasks faced English physicians: 'the dissemination of a rational-physical view in science, the entry of physicians into government membership to implement sanitary-preventive measures, and the founding of a university that would provide professional education along with a humanitarian one (similar to the German ones).' This point of view of Dr. Sieveking reflected the mood of the majority of English physicians of that time: dissatisfaction with the entire organization of medical affairs in the country and its inconsistency with the entire socio-economic system. At this same congress of the British Association, Carpenter made a major report on public medicine, in which he severely criticized all sanitary affairs in the cities of England and especially their pollution; he put forward the problem of sewage disposal, predicting a great future for the idea of waste utilization; true, he immediately stipulated that this radical measure 'will have to wait' until 'the enormous capitals that are now used for Turkish, Egyptian, Honduran, and other loans' are directed toward sanitary purposes. France followed the same path. The French Academy of Sciences originated as early as the 1660s. The Great French Revolution, its rationalistic scientific currents, and the growth of industrial capitalism in France, in turn, exerted a powerful influence on the development of science. In 1820, the Paris Academy of Medicine (Académie de médecine et de chirurgie) was organized, including in its composition 100 full members (membres titulaires) and a number of free members (membres libres). The main task of the Paris Academy of Medicine was to provide opinions on issues of social medicine and public hygiene. In Germany, medical organizations and societies originated as early as the mid-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, and Leipzig. At the beginning of the 19th century, in connection with the development and growth of industrial capitalism in Germany, a call went out for the development of medical societies. The initiator was the famous naturalist and natural philosopher Oken. On his initiative, the first 'Congress of Naturalists and Physicians' was convened in Leipzig in 1822. 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, are so many remarkable works published in the form of encyclopedias of natural sciences, medicine, crafts, and 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, having far outstripped Germany, but in the fact that among German scientists there was no 'unity and personal connections'; he called for this unity and for personal connections. The 'Congress of Naturalists and Physicians' was to fulfill 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 were held, a significant number of them international. Soon, other countries followed Germany's example. Here it is necessary to note that the initiative for organizing societies and congresses of naturalists and physicians belongs to the Genevan citizen-scientist Gass. In 1815, he (not a physician, but a naturalist) put forward the idea of organizing a Society of Naturalists, to which physicians also joined. Gass at that time was already a corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences, having been awarded a prize by it. A biographer of Gass (after his death) characterized him as a man 'imbued with the spirit of research, looking at science as a benefactor of man. Gass directed his works toward subjects of an applied nature for the benefit of the masses and especially the lower and suffering classes of society.' In his native 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 the congresses. The tasks of the Swiss congresses were set as follows: 1) reading of papers on subjects of general interest, with these papers being communicated in advance to the permanent bureau and approved by it; 2) works of special interest may 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) setting topics for prizes and distributing the promised prizes; 5) mutual communication of discoveries, new experiments, and private observations deemed 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 'Yearbook' of the society began to appear in 1824, and the 'Memoirs of the Society' in 1868 already comprised 20 volumes. Gass's idea was quickly adopted by all the major states of Europe: England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and others. 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 government, royal, and tsarist colleges in various countries under various names, Gass's idea, implemented by private initiative and the self-activity of scientific societies, under the pressure of the demands of industry, trade, science, and technology, received wide development. The network of scientific societies and congresses of naturalists and physicians grew in all countries. Gass's idea deepened and expanded. Congresses were differentiated by various branches and specialties of all fields of science. Medical societies and congresses began to develop not only in large university and capital cities but also in large provincial scientific 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, from all corners of the world, from all countries and states of Europe and America, thousands of scientists of all specialties of natural science, medicine, and public health gathered. In connection with the organization of these congresses, the organization of permanent scientific societies and voluntary associations in various specialties in various more or less large provincial cities and even large settlements also grew. Voluntary public self-activity of scientists and physicians of all branches and specialties increased extraordinarily during the 19th century. The tasks of all these scientific societies were almost everywhere the same: scientific communication, presentation of reports, discussions on them, publication of works, periodical publication of journals, and professional mutual aid. During the 19th century, scientific societies, and in particular medical ones, thus became large accumulators of scientific-medical knowledge, experience, practice, and national and international connection between scientists and physicians.

During this period, scientific-medical societies to a significant extent also serve as mouthpieces for the social and political sentiments of the most radical part of medical workers. The growth of scientific societies and congresses continues into the beginning of the 20th century. This growth and development of scientific-medical societies and congresses is interrupted in connection with the beginning and development of the world imperialist war, and above all, the international scientific role of the press is undermined in connection with interruptions and the almost complete cessation of exchange in the international press. National discord and national chauvinism serve as the cause of this. The postwar period, associated with the crisis of capitalism, is characterized by a crisis in the activities of medical societies and congresses. In an international sense, they remain disconnected, their activity declines sharply, they sharply change their appearance in a socio-political and social sense, the character and content of their work changes, and the activity of the majority of medical societies and congresses acquires a clearly reactionary, chauvinistic, fascist character (mysticism, anti-technicism, etc.). Russian medical societies and congresses of the pre-revolutionary period generally repeat the paths of development of medical societies and congresses of the capitalist countries of Western Europe. In 1804, at Moscow University, according to the idea of the curator of this university, M. N. Muravyov, the first medical society was founded under the name "Physico-Medical Society." On September 27, 1804, the "highest permission" for the opening of the "Society of Competition of Medical and Physical Sciences" was communicated to the Council of Moscow University. Prof. of anatomy and surgery F. F. Keresturi was elected the first chairman of the Society. The name of the society apparently testifies to an imitation of the Royal Society of London. At the very beginning, the Society had up to 100 members, including ordinary, extraordinary, and honorary ones. The birth of the first medical society 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 "Transactions" 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 1st part of the "Medico-Physical Journal" was printed in Russian, which contained 14 articles, the charter of the society, and a list of its members. A large part of the copies of this book perished in 1812 during the Moscow fire. In 1821, it was reprinted with additions. In 1810, Prof. Keresturi was replaced by the professor of obstetrics N. M. Richter. During 1811 and 1812, Richter released from the press in German 2 volumes of "History of Medicine in Russia" and the second part of "Commentationes societatis physico-medicae," which also perished during the Moscow fire. After the Napoleonic War, in 1815, the activity of the Moscow Society was resumed. In 1818, the III volume of "History of Medicine in Russia," compiled by Richter, was published and translated into Russian. In 1821, the 3rd part of "Commentationes societatis physico-medicae" and the 2nd and 3rd parts of the "Medico-Physical Journal" were published (for details, see the brochure by Prof. I. Neiding "Medical Societies in Russia" for the XII International Congress of Physicians in Moscow, pub. 1897). The first to be organized after Moscow was the "Society of Russian Physicians" in St. Petersburg in 1833, the second to emerge was the "Society of Odessa Physicians" in 1849, the third was a German circle in St. Petersburg under the name "Deutscher Aerztlicher Verein," the fourth to be organized was the "St. Petersburg German Society of Physicians" in 1859; in the same year, 1859, the "Society of Naval Physicians" emerged in St. Petersburg. The sixties mobilized physicians for the self-organization of their forces; during the sixties, the following medical societies of physicians were organized: "Society of Russian Physicians in Moscow" in 1861, in 1862 the "Society of Nizhny Novgorod Physicians" was organized, in 1863 the "Oryol Society of Physicians" was established, in 1865 the "Orenburg Physico-Medical Society," in 1869 the "Society of Pskov Physicians," and in the same year, at Kazan University, the "Kazan Society of Physicians" emerged. The seventies and eighties were the period of greatest development of medical societies. Among those organized in chronological order during these years, the largest societies 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, "Society of Podolsk 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 estimated the number of these societies at 40 to 60; medical societies were organized in small provincial towns, even in large villages. Dr. Zhbankov includes in the number of medical societies and organizations a wide network of Zemstvo societies and organizations, a wide network of Zemstvo meetings, and branches of Pirogov societies. The organization of these medical societies continued in the nineties and in the first decade of the 20th century until 1914. During the 19th century, a number of medical societies were closed due to the weakness of their existence, and a number due to administrative-police pressure; this fell to the lot of the most active societies, which revealed not only professional-scientific but also social-public functions. This refers to the periods of the most revolutionary sentiment in the country, when medical societies allowed themselves to go beyond the framework of narrowly professional and scientific matters and link 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 medical societies as well. During these periods, the societies were forced to change their charters, adapt to the reactionary demands of the government, and save themselves under the banner of professional mutual aid; these measures of self-defense and self-preservation were widely used by medical societies during the revolutionary periods of 1905 and the time of the Russo-Japanese War. In general, Russian medical societies differed sharply from Western European ones precisely in that they responded more vividly to the socio-social phenomena of the country. In the history of the development of medical congresses, it is important to note the following facts. At the end of the fifties, the idea of scientific congresses was revealed for the first time in Russia by the 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 Naturalists and Physicians." The congress gathered in Kiev on June 12, 1861, with Kiev University acting as its organizer. The number of members of the first congress was 44, predominantly from the Southwestern Territory, with significant participation of teachers and instructors. In a speech delivered at this congress by Prof. Kessler, a wish was expressed that these congresses be repeated annually and that in the near future general congresses of all Russian naturalists be established—for the first time, at least every 3-4 years. The second congress of naturalists and physicians, also predominantly from the Southwestern Territory, was also held in Kiev in June 1862; the same Prof. Kessler spoke at it with a speech in which he reflected the unanimous desire of the first congress for the establishment of such congresses of "all Russian naturalists," and noted petitions for this from several scientific societies—the Kiev Society of Physicians, the Moscow Physico-Medical Society, and the Moscow Society of Naturalists. 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 medical societies and assemblies, and the scientific and medical press, for permission to hold scientific congresses. The thought is concentrated mainly on congresses of naturalists and physicians, which had received broad rights of citizenship in Western Europe. Only in 1867 did the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University receive permission to convene the first All-Russian Congress of Naturalists in St. Petersburg, which took place on May 12, 1867. The charter of the Ministry of Public Education provided for the organization at the congress of the following departments (sections): anatomy and physiology, zoology and comparative anatomy, botany, plant anatomy and physiology, mineralogy, geology and paleontology, chemistry and physics, astronomy and mathematics. Despite the presence of a department of anatomy and physiology at the first congress, medical science was not included in the circle of natural sciences. However, the same congress included this section as a fait accompli. The first congress was a great success. All the prominent scientific forces of that time took part in the congress: professors Mendeleev, Beketov, Famintsyn, Yunge, Kessler, Ovsyannikov, Svetlov, Shchurovsky, and others.

The proceedings of the first congress formed a voluminous folio of 135 printed sheets, with zoology accounting for 32 sheets, anatomy and physiology for 23, botany for 20, physics and chemistry for 15, and mineralogy and geology for 7. The anatomy and physiology department, which essentially constituted a large section of scientific medicine, heard more than 35 reports, with the speakers being, on the one hand, professors Zdekauer, Pelikan, Danilevsky, Navrotsky, and others, and on the other, a number of students, future celebrities—Tarkhanov, Slavyansky, Lavdovsky, Ge, the physician Bertensok, and others. Zdekauer's speech was on the topic "On the influence of natural science on hygiene." Professor Semashko's speech was particularly interesting and characteristic. For that time, his speech had a clearly anti-government character. It developed the idea of satisfying the needs of the people—pointing to the necessity of striving for the means for the development of the people. "Our industry and trade cannot withstand modern competition, and the universal calamity of underdevelopment looms threateningly before us" (paraphrased according to A. Pogozhev). Professor Semashko's conclusion: "It is not enough, however, to popularize natural sciences; schools are also needed which would educate naturalists from the people, and these scientific figures, having returned to their environment, would spread knowledge among the masses: to improve the domestic life of the villager, to increase his food supply, to enlighten his intellectual horizon—this is our great modern task." The public responses that the first congress of naturalists and physicians received are characteristic. The most characteristic document is the appeal "from a circle of women," which was received in 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 upon the congress to help mothers and educators become true, and not nominal, conduits of natural-scientific education in the family and school. No less characteristic is the letter received from the city of Cherdyn, Perm Governorate, from a group of administratively exiled persons, at the head of which stood the well-known physician-publicist V. O. Portugalov. The letter, welcoming the congress and seeing in it a reflection of the slogan "bread and knowledge" resounding from everywhere, expresses confidence that the congress of naturalists will serve as a stimulus and tool for the realization of this slogan. The second All-Russian Congress of Naturalists took place in Moscow in August 1869 on the foundations approved for the first congress. At the petition of the first congress, three new departments (sections) were organized at the second, including a section of scientific medicine. In the interval between the first and second congresses, societies of naturalists and physicians were organized at universities. The number of members of the second congress decreased somewhat—instead of 465 in 1867, it dropped to 427 in 1869, while the number of out-of-town members increased somewhat—167 instead of 113. In total, 40 cities took part in the second congress. The work proceeded in 9 sections. The section of scientific medicine turned out to be the most numerous (135 people), although with a very small number of out-of-town members. In the section of scientific medicine at this congress, special attention was devoted to the organization of medical statistics; in connection with this issue, Dr. Yu. B. Ukke put forward a proposal for the introduction into practice of a special program of sanitary-hygienic surveys of cities and villages, and this idea received wide application in the practice of cities and villages, especially in Zemstvo governorates, over the course of a number of the next few years.

The third congress of naturalists and physicians took place in Kiev in August 1871 under unfavorable conditions (a cholera epidemic). In connection with this, the number of congress participants was lower—267, including about 100 Kievans, however, in terms of the quantity and seriousness of the scientific reports, the congress was considered successful. In the section of scientific medicine, 25 reports were heard. At the general meetings, professors A. P. Valter, I. O. Vysotsky (from Kazan, report "On the tasks of medical societies"), and Professor A. O. Kovalevsky (report "On the activity of congresses of Russian scientists") spoke with the main reports. At this congress, the periodicity of the congresses was established. The fourth congress of naturalists and physicians was convened in Kazan in August 1873. This congress is distinguished by the fact that the organizing force of the congress was the Kazan Society of Physicians, which arose in 1868 and occupied an exceptional position among the small network of medical societies in Russia. Professor N. O. Vysotsky had already reported on this society at the third Kiev congress, characterizing it as the "cradle of sanitary affairs in Russia." Before the opening of the congress, a meeting of this society took place with a report by its chairman, A. V. Petrov. The report was devoted to the characterization of the activity of this society over five years. This activity was directed mainly toward the development of sanitary-social and hygienic work in the city and village. The Kazan Society of Physicians tried to link its activity with the activity of city and Zemstvo institutions. A whole series of major sanitary-social workers of that time (E. A. Osipov, I. I. Molesson, V. O. Portugalov, Peskov, and others) concentrated around the society. The Kazan Society of Physicians at that time became the organizational center of sanitary-social activity and proposed a program of activities to the fourth congress of naturalists along the lines of the medical section. The program turned out to be broad and concerned the issues of: the organization of medical statistics, the organization of medical aid to the poor urban population, the involvement of Zemstvo medicine in a 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 suppression of epizootics, and other issues. This entire program was accepted by the congress and formed the basis of its work. Among other things, at this congress, M. M. Gran first raised the question of the "introduction of social 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 Relation of Hygiene to Each of the Members of Society" by Professor Andreyev, "On the Organization of a Special Department of Military Medicine," and "On the Necessity of Forming New Societies with the Goal of Studying the Causes of the Spread of Syphilis" by N. S. Miller. Among the speakers at the medical section were professors Skvortsov, Shcherbakov, and Molesson. The reports took place under the sign of a desire to influence rural and urban medicine, the Zemstvo, and city self-governments; the work "on scientific medicine" proceeded under the chairmanship of professors Sklifosovsky, Ukke, Minkh, and Andreyev. Among the reports, the report by M. K. Sventsitsky "On the Spread of Goiter in Kazan Governorate" attracted attention. The congresses of naturalists remained the main citadel of the scientific public for a long time. The Kazan congress was followed by a series of other congresses. Subsequent congresses took place: the 5th—in Warsaw (1874—344 members), the 6th—in St. Petersburg (1879—1,409 members), the 7th—in Odessa (1883—641 members), the 8th—in St. Petersburg (1889—2,224 members), the 9th—in Moscow (1894—2,170 members), the 10th—in Kiev (1898—1,694 members), the 11th—in St. Petersburg (1901—number of members unknown), the 12th in Helsingfors (1902—Northern Congress of Naturalists), the 13th—in Tbilisi (Tiflis) (1913—3,500 members).

A review of these congresses testifies that from 1858 to 1913, the congresses of naturalists were the main organizational form of the unity of scientific workers in natural science, medicine, and public health. Special congresses in Russia also originated in the 1860s; the first such series of congresses were pharmaceutical congresses; the first of them took place in St. Petersburg in 1864; the second congress—an international one—also took place 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 field of natural science and medicine and the branching off of individual branches. In Russia, special congresses began in 1881. Below is a list of special congresses that took place from that time (in chronological order of their origin), with an indication of 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.