Definitions of R & D : report with evidence.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
1990
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Definitions of R & D : report with evidence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    20/148 (page 18)
    es ate 0-0 reese ee OOOO 0,0, 0 0.0 @. re er etete”. o, FIGURE 4 GERD AS A % GDP (1987) USA 2S nis eis ete ie sean eee ae eee 1.98 If however the comparison, still including defence R&D as well as civil, had covered total TRARY: FRANCE WY YY ZXZ7Z7@|M]MMMCHXC€C@—@*™W™{Meea LAUNUATNUTATUAUA UU TA TA TTA UA TTA TU TT THOTT R&D (GERD), the figures would be as follows:- UK W. GERMANY ess Sasuuuaemeeeenenes JAPAN fill UU ras SWEDEN XQ w}wi 0 0.5 1 1.5 Zz fe 3 GERD AS A % GDP SOURCE: ‘MAIN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS’, OECD, 1989, No.2, TABLE 4. 1.100 Lord Caithness’s answer (see paragraph 1.90) was not strictly relevant to the question about R&D carried out by British industry in the context of which it was given. It introduced the comparison of total R&D - the figures are as in Figure 4 above—rather than industrial R&D, and the statement that the United Kingdom is in the middle of a group consisting of France, West Germany, Italy, Japan and the USA conceals more than it reveals. The relevant comparison, for R&D funded by industry, would be was follows:- FIGURE 5 INDUSTRY FUNDED R&D AS A % GDP (1987) LEAL FRANCE WY @|©||wu UK a? eetacototesececerece! re eoha tat sta ent ats® Pe ‘atate na’ 2. ma ate ent 2, 2. 10_6_6_€_6_6_0_6_0_6_8_2_6_6_6_0_8_8_0_8_0_9_0. o, SWEDEN Sw; www WwW S © OOOO OOO ox o OOOO °. SO OOD 2, OOYVOD QOQO0O ©. 0.0.0, 0.0.9.0. 0.0 0.0.0, 0,0, 0.0 0.0. 0.0.0 ©0000, 0.0.0.0. 0.0.0.0,0.0.0 0.0.0 Boone) MMMM MMM ADP PDN DD DDG Med 0.00 0.20 0. 10 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 INDUSTRY FUNDED R&D AS A % GDP DERIVED FROM: ‘MAIN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS’, OECD, 1989, No.2, TABLES 4 and 6. 1.101 On this basis, the United Kingdom’s performance is below the level of Japan, Germany and the United States again. 1.102 Mr Jackson, in his answer to a debate on British science (see paragraph 1.90), made clear the downward effect of Britain’s ‘relatively low industrial investment in R&D” and also the impact of the United Kingdom’s “relatively high commitment to defence”. His legitimate conclusion was that “our financial inputs as a proportion of GDP are broadly in line with those of our competitors”. The figures above however suggest that the conclusion is not very informative, in that it did not specify which financial inputs were in line with other countries