Definitions of R & D : report with evidence.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1990
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Definitions of R & D : report with evidence. Source: Wellcome Collection.
54/148 (page 52)
![2 March 1989] [Continued [Chairman contd.] to try to see what are those steps and try to make the meaning of those steps understood generally, so that when companies, government organisations and so on are generating statistics or deriving statistics, that information effectively will be against some common base of understanding. I think that is the problem. 70. The Frascati Manual does give some examples in this field, does it not? A. It does. I think all I am saying is in a way that the current usage (if I can put it that way) is quite clear about basic research and applied research. The danger is that you sweep into exploratory development a very large spectrum of activities and I think that if you are in the business, for example, of using statistics to measure wealth-creation or investment in R&D or something of that kind, it is quite important to have a better understanding about what the ingredients are of those exploratory development statistics than perhaps is obvious from most interpretations that are generated. Thatis all. In other words, it is saying it is all there but one cannot read into that what one needs to read into it. Lord Nelson of Stafford 71. As a lot of the statistics are used for comparative purposes — one firm against another or one country against another—it is really rather more important, is it not, to have a common interpretation, in fact you might say an absolute interpretation? A. Yes indeed. 72. If you take the defence field, which we touched on earlier, would you know whether the United States and Germany and France interpret their R&D in the defence field in the same way as we do, particularly in relation to these big figures on flight testing, aero engine design and so forth? A. I think the answer is that there are minor differences of definition. I think in Germany they follow by and large the interpretation which we might have in the UK of effectively blocking into exploratory development virtually everything that occurs after applied research until you actually generate a set of drawings to produce a product. In the United States, although I do not pretend for one moment there is a readymade answer there, they do in their statistics generate a definition called research and development and trials and evaluation (RDTE) and, as I recall, the definitions break down into research. They do not try to say what is: basic and what is applied, although in most instances in the DoD they are not actually doing very much basic research, it is more applied research, so that research means applied research. Then they follow on to exploratory development, advanced development and engineering development, and I think in some ways, although even those are liable to misinterpretation, at least in my mind in terms of the processes that are actually happening, those items do tend to give you a meaningful description. To me, I would certainly see advanced development as meaning an area of some technological risk, of some finite innovation content and so on, compared with engineering development, which is probably slightly lower technological risk than advanced development and where the rate of innovation is probably less by definition. 73. The trouble is that in defence nothing stands still, does it? In those terms that you outline, would a mark 2 and a mark 3 and a mark 4 ofa particular aero engine or particular aeroplane or missile be development? A. I think I would see that example you give as engineering development in my terms and in US terms. Chairman 74. And you would not want that included in research and development statistics? A. No, I do not think I am really saying that at all. I think I am really saying that it is still research and development within the meaning of the term and I think it would be quite wrong to remove it to somewhere outside, because even in the very last stages of engineering development there is still an innovative content even if it is about manufacturing technology or something like that and, therefore, it obviously could have wider applications than purely that product. That would be my private definition about whether it is worth calling it R&D. 75. One of the main criticisms behind all these things was because all those three types of development are so expensive and, therefore, so much money goes into it, particularly in fields like electronics and aerospace, and because so much of what is spent in that is spent by the MoD, therefore when you look at the statistics as a whole that element distorts the whole purpose of having statistics? A. Indeed. 76. It has been suggested to us that you actually remove development altogether and have research statistics as a test of innovation and development statistics for totally different purposes? (Sir Colin Fielding) 1 think that is not an unreasonable point of view. My feeling is that, whatever you call it, I would certainly favour the idea of separating research and development, except that I think you have a very long period of common usage of the term “R&D”, and the difficulty is that whatever you call it in the future people will still talk of “R&D”. That is a problem. I think there is a lot to be said for it, if one can get away with it. I think my message much more is that development is a complex process, and it would be better in many respects if one could from a statistical point of view have some sub- definition of what that means so when looking at statistics you can see what that really means in relation to what you are trying to prove by the statistics. I think another aspect is that you have to look at what you decide to call it from the point of view of the conduct of business, because there is no doubt the conduct of business will drive people in companies to call things “R&D” or “‘development and research’”’ which might have slightly different meanings, so that is another matter altogether. Perhaps all we need concern ourselves with is when that information becomes public and how you define it from then on. Yes, I think there is something to be said for separating R&D, if you could overcome the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218540_0054.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
