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.

    66/148 (page 64)
    23 November 1989] [Continued Chairman 120. But the distortion is both something that matters and that can be cured? (Mr Yates) Yes. 121. We should grill the Ministry of Defence when we take evidence from them as to why they are not doing it? (Mr Yates) Yes, if I might suggest, how can they readily do it, how easily can they do it? Lord Flowers 122. Could I ask Mr Yates about motivations for all this. The MOD for its own purposes does it that way, that satisfies its purpose, whatever that 1s. I suppose it only matters that they do not do it the way the rest of us do it because people go round making statements, giving lectures and inventing policies if they happen to be Ministers, on the basis that the United Kingdom does or does not do as much R & D or whatever as other countries. Then it becomes a matter of some importance, but for another reason. (Mr Yates) Yes. 123. So there is only any point in trying to get these classifications more accurate if there is a particular purpose that one has in mind, is there not? (Mr Yates) Yes. 124. So really in what you have been doing to try and help sort this out what has been your purpose? (Mr Yates) I believe that the way the figures are published does tend to overstate the total apparent research and development in the United Kingdom for the reasons I have said, and that what appears as about, let us say, 2:3 per cent. of gross national produce as R & D (which is in the same category as France, Germany, the United States and Japan) is actually, if you make the correction I believe is necessary, rather less than 2 per cent. Lord Kearton 125. You draw the conclusion in your paper that we need to spend £1 billion plus a year on civil research and development. (Mr Yates) Because if you take the quoted MOD expenditure of £2:3 billion and you then do your sums you end up with £1-2 billion missing. Lord Flowers 126. Your motive is in the context of trying to get more money spent on research and development? (Mr Yates) Yes. Lord Shackleton 127. In order to get accuracy in the published figures. This is really where we come in. (Mr Yates) Yes. Chairman 128. How important do you think it is that the figures should reveal what is called Knowledge and Technology Transfer Potential, or KTTP? Technology transfer is obviously frightfully interesting but how important is it to see that the returns do show that? (Mr Yates) | think it is perhaps going to a level of accuracy or attempted accuracy which is perhaps unnecessary. It is an interesting concept and I think in some ways it is an important one. It depends what you are looking for. Lord Kearton 129. I thought it was self-defence on the part of the industry, they were keen to know how much national effort because they wanted to show there was a spinoff on the civil side. (Mr Yates) Well, interestingly enough it was an ACOST concept, not an industry concept, and it was in the context of the ACOST sub-committee on which I was. There was an attempt to find out what could be transferred from the Ministry of Defence or had potential for transfer into the civil sector—hence this definition. 130. In your own paper it is very low in your own view. I think you quote a figure of 20 per cent. or so. (Mr Yates) That is the ACOST figure really. I should point out it is a two-way business. There is civil technology from modern computers and software which transfers back into the Ministry of Defence. It is not all one-way. Chairman 131. The OECD I think are considering this. Do you think something should be added to the existing Frascati definition to include technology transfer? (Mr Yates) No. It depends on your objective. I think we should not regard KTTP as being an alternative to the Frascati definition. I think that is clear. Nor in a sense is it just a refinement of it. In a sense it addresses another question. If you want to keep the national statistics fairly clear, then I think one would look to the Frascati type definition, the innovation, basically the level of novelty, and that is clear enough, I think, and is probably sufficient for practical purposes. If you then need to go for some other reason to see what potential for knowledge or technology transfer between sectors is, then you go to the KTTP thing, but I would not think it necessary to apply it across all the statistics, which would be the implication of going to that solution. 132. You said in your report that you tried to turn your Own companies within British Aerospace into a greater conformity with Frascati. Why did you do this? (Mr Yates): Two reasons. I think one wanted basically to improve the efficiency of the management of research and development. Secondly, it was to keep track of that which was generated internally out of profits, and that which came from contracts in the Ministry of Defence. So in a sense I was also in that part of it trying to track through the potential KTTP. 133. Have you found difficulty or have the companies themselves found difficulty in doing this? (Mr Yates) Not really, no. What you need is some guidelines to interpret the Frascati definition—it needs perhaps to be a little more user-friendly, if I may say that, and you need to explain what you mean in more homely terms. 134. They give a fairly extensive listing of examples, do they not? Why are they not using them?