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.

    55/148 (page 53)
    [Chairman contd.] common usage factor which in all the years I have been involved I have never managed to see anybody change; “R&D” is something which slips off the tongue all the time. Lord Nelson of Stafford 77. But you would not want to separate them too far? (Sir Colin Fielding) No. 78. The measurement of wealth-creation based on R without any D is not going to measure very much except academically? (Sir Colin Fielding) Without doubt, and that is why in many respects one is talking about R&D, because it is a linked process, a continuum in some ways. Chairman 79. Do you think both the MoD and the firms which do extramural R&D could without difficulty split up development into the three categories you have suggested? (Sir Colin Fielding ) Yes, I think they could. I think they would all need some sort of guidance in definition terms which would be capable of interpretation, but it would not be impossible, and to a large extent a lot of the companies, certainly when I was in the MoD, already tended to talk of it as engineering development in the way I have just been describing it, and the way it is described in the United States, and for the very reason there is a danger people see engineering development as a huge innovative process which should be matched to basic research or applied research, which is not quite true. It is innovative but innovative in a different sense, and in using that information you have to apply it in a different way. 80. But, sticking to Frascati, you would stop at exploratory development and cut out the other two? (Sir Colin Fielding) You might do. It may be sensible in a sense to build any changes into an extension of Frascati; in other words, to accept that it is a continuing process. You are talking of basic and applied research, and you are then going to talk of exploratory development, and then you are going to be talking of phases beyond that—whatever you decide to call them. Lord Nelson of Stafford 81. But where would manufacturing development fit into it? If you take micro-electronics, the biggest effort has gone into developing new manufacturing equipment and new technology. (Sir Colin Fielding) Yes, indeed. 82. Equally, under the American defence policy at one stage they include amongst their development contracts to industry substantial contracts for the development of production of manufacturing machinery? (Sir Colin Fielding) And they still do? 83. Where would you put that? (Sir Colin Fielding ) 1 think that depending on the nature of it I would group that largely between exploratory development and advanced development. 84. But you would include it in development? (Sir Colin Fielding ) Yes, because I see it as being applied to a very specific operation, whether it be in micro-electronics to process silicone or whether it be in methods of generating composite design and manufacturing processes for aircraft fuselages. 85. But Frascati does not cater for that? (Sir Colin Fielding) In a way, this is perhaps the concern about Frascati. I think Frascati does do that if you read the words broadly enough. The problem you are left with is ambiguity about the meaning of basic and applied research; you are left unclear about what exploratory development really means. Chairman 86. In your notes you say that in dealing with this problem methodologies need to be developed to break out this element of engineering development from exploratory development in a meaningful way which can be universally understood across boundaries. How do you suggest this should be done? (Sir Colin Fielding) In a sense, probably the only thing one can do is attempt to solicit a sufficient corpus of view about what might be reasonable divisions between exploratory development at the left-hand end and production at the right-hand end, and, having derived what seem to be sensible and meaningful divisions, to try to define those in as clear a way as possible so anybody reading that in a company or government can thoroughly understand what it is one is trying to do. If one is going to talk of extension, that is probably the only way of tackling it. I think you have to take broad, informed wisdom, because it is not only about defence and it is not even about engineering in the manufacturing industry. 87. So, when we go to the second stage of our inquiry, and we think of sending out a letter to firms asking if they could give examples in their field of basic and applied research—very much the same as your examples—it might be sensible for us to ask them: Would it be possible in their field to break down development into your three categories? (Sir Colin Fielding) Indeed, particularly in terms of external declaration, because in my experience companies do not always have that way of breaking down their own internal programmes from a management point of view, so they have to take what they are already doing to manage their programmes and distill that out into meeting the requirements of the statistics. 88. You heard at the tail end of our previous evidence a certain amount of scepticism about the value of these statistics and what they are used for. Do you feel there is a need to collect more and more detailed statistics so they can actually be used for useful purposes, whether by government or other people? (Sir Colin Fielding ) In spite of the difficulties and the kind of controversy they generate, I suppose I have to stick to a gut feeling it is right to try to do something meaningful if for no other reason than because at one level governments are trying to make