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.

    45/148 (page 43)
    [Chairman contd.] programme—and we find in all these areas this document to be useful. It was a very important initiative taken by the Cabinet Office, not a functional department, some years ago. We think, however, there are a number of directions in which it could and should be improved. If you actually look at the most recent one for 1988, there are disquieting signs of things being left out which were in before. I think it would probably be more useful if I started by pointing out the gaps rather than what is good, with a view to thinking how it might be improved. The three or four areas where we think it could be improved are, first, in knowing where Government money goes to. There used to be a table in earlier years, which I cannot find in the latest review, which listed as columns all the Government departments as sources of funds, as was the different industries receiving the funds; and it was possible to see thereby how much money was going, for example, from MOD into the electronics industries, aerospace industries, and the like. That table is not available in the most recent Annual Review, and we think it is a very important table if we are to understand the impact of policy. Second, another table which is not here concerns the Research Councils, and specifically it would be good to know what percentage of Research Council money is spent in universities, Government laboratories and internationally. There are very important policy implications related to that distribution, and there is no table in the Review. Third, the data on industry is grossly inadequate, as is the gathering of data on business enterprise R&D, which reflects underlying inadequacies in what is going on in the Department of Industry. I am not casting doubt on the commitment or competence of the official involved, but it seems to me they have too few resources to do a decent job compared to other countries. Finally, I think much more use could be made, as in other countries—and I have brought some documents from Australia, the USA and Canada—of other indicators (bibliometric indicators of papers, patents, citations and so on) especially for the purposes of international comparison, because it is extremely important to understand how well or badly Britain is doing compared to the rest of the world. I have been rather blunt about what I think the limitations are, and there are other examples I can give; there is a need for greater specificity, for example, on the defence question. 3. That information is not obtainable, for instance, from the Research Councils by looking at their annual reports? (Professor Pavitt) Yes, it could be, but I think that for tired academics or tired policy-makers, it would be useful to have these data together in a reasonably accessible, open fashion. However, there are data on industial R&D which are not as good as we think they should be, and I have a letter from a colleague, David Sawers, a very distinguished economist in this area, who said I could pass it on to you, pointing out the inadequacies of British industrial R&D statistics compared to those in other countries, and the difficulties he has found in getting hold of them. Lord Chorley 4. Which other countnies are good in this respect? (Professor Pavitt) United States, Canada, increasingly Australia, Japan. On Government, Germany; the German Government puts in a report every two years to Parliament on Government R&D expenditures in great detail. Some of these statistics we have here. Lord Kirkwood 5. Is ita mandatory requirement that research and development spending by companies should be revealed in their annual reports? Is that the source of information? (Professor Pavitt) No, my Lord. As far as I know, in no European country is such mandatory disclosure required, but for reasons which I cannot explain, but can only observe the consequences of, more resources and concern is spent on collecting statistics and presenting them either on what Government does or what industry does. The industry data are not ona firm by firm basis, but on a sector by sector basis. Lord Nelson of Stafford 6. Is that inadequacy due to lack of definition as to what is research and what is development, or is it lack of willingness on the part of a firm to disclose it, or lack of actual knowledge within the firms? (Professor Pavitt) I cannot answer the last question. I would guess that would be variable, but the real problem seems to be that, compared with what happens in the other countries I have mentioned, British statistics on business enterprise R&D come out later and in far less detail. We have anecdotal evidence to suggest that increasingly these data are being almost “‘privatised’’, one has to pay for what was previously freely available. I think this reflects to some extent the inadequate level of resources given to survey activities in the Department. 7. Have you, or anybody, talked to industry through the trade associations on that issue at all? (Professor Pavitt) No. We have talked directly to the Department itself and we have made comparisons with other countries through our links with OECD. We have also spoken with analysts in various firms, and we do note in this country considerable variability in the seriousness and adequacy of the R&D data collection. But I think the reason why the British industrial statistics on R&D are weak is the lack of resources in Government devoted to their collection. Baroness Lockwood 8. When you say that information which was previously freely available is now only privately available, that would seem to suggest that the information has in the past been collected but it is not now being published? (Professor Pavitt) That is right. 9. What kind of information are you talking about? (Professor Pavitt) If you look at the latest Business Monitors on industrial R&D, there are