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.
60/148 (page 58)
![23 November 1989] [Continued The question of international comparisons of R&D (v) is a very complex subject. An attempt at such a comparison was presented in the Appendix to the EIRMA lecture by Mr I R Yates on “Defence, Development and Economics’. This drew attention to the many problems involved in making such international comparisons of Defence R&D and the many inconsistencies in the reporting by different countries, subsequently incorporated in the Annual Review comparisons. This analysis described reasonably comparable reporting to UK in the USA scene (explained further in Question 9), the need for substantial correction to German data, the lack of satisfactory data in Italy and the unusual R&D situation in Japan. None of the countries were reporting according to Frascati definitions, since their primary concerns were their differentiation between research, development and production for defence budgeting purposes. Question 8 In your initial response to the Sub-Committee you stated that “fair comparison based on Frascati ought to be possible provided that a consistent approach was taken”’. Does this imply that the Frascati definitions are not consistently applied? If so how can this be improved? What will be the effect of the revision of SSAP13 on this situation? In our view, Frascati definitions are not consistently applied. As previously stated, a more concise and user friendly set of definitions and supporting documentation would be a major improvement, and it would benefit the interpretation of SSAP13 revised. We would look to Government, specifically MoD, to make the major contribution to improving the quality of R&D statistics. Question 9 What are the specific inadequacies of the Frascati definitions, and how might they be amended? For example, the OECD is considering supplementing the “basic” and “‘applied’”’ research categories with a “strategic” research category. The US Department of Defense sub-divides “‘experimental development” into “exploratory”, “advanced” and “engineering development’? (Annex 2). Does industry perceive any advantage in the use of these, or other, categories to classify their R&D spending? The key problem is the need to differentiate between R&D and the much more expensive downstream activities and so any changes to Frascati should be focused in this area. There are no inadequacies in the Frascati definitions, as such, if they are used to identify the question of “appreciable novelty content”. However, the Defence Ministries and consequently the defence industries have to go on with further engineering development to bring their development projects to a satisfactory production standard, including proving and qualification of this standard for release for military service use. This division of development activities is reflected on the USA documentation mentioned in the question. This is the logical progression of Defence R&D project activity. We are not required to draw these divisions in our dealings MoD in UK. Question 10 Taking, as examples, one or more companies from a number of different industrial sectors would you identify the activities, funded by those companies, which they would define as falling: (a) within the Frascati definition of (i) basic research, (ii) applied research, and (iii) experimental development; (b) outside the Frascati definition of R&D, but within the range of related activities which they may have difficulty in distinguishing from R&D. , In BAe studies, we have found that a review of the nature of the work covered by ‘“‘Prototypes” or “‘Pre- Production” vehicles is the relevant focus for establishing an understanding and proper interpretation of R&D expenditure. We have discovered no simple formula but the “appreciable element of novelty” has been the dominant criteria. Thus, for aircraft, the first one or two prototypes might qualify but later aircraft will be used for work associated with integrating numerous sub-systems which would be repetitive in character and not novel. A similar but more extreme situation occurs in the development of motor cars and I suspect in the development of drugs. Question I] In the ‘Annual Review of Government Funded R&D’ there is an “apparent discrepancy” between the amount that government says it spends on R&D in industry and what industry says it receives from government. How does this situation arise and how can it be improved? It is difficult for BAe to comment but we suspect that the main problem in industry lies in the lack of technical consideration which is given ie the replies emerge from the financial system without proper review](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218540_0060.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
