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.

    141/148 (page 139)
    Fisheries: The “primary purpose” classification is more related to the reason for doing the R&D, whereas Frascati describes the nature of the work itself. However, perhaps coincidentally, there is a close relationship between the primary purpose code and the Frascati heading in the case of the work undertaken by DAFS Fisheries Research Services. PP code 3 is equivalent to “experimental development”, PP code 5 if “applied-specific”; PP code 2 is mostly “‘applied- specific” with about 10% of expenditure in the “‘applied-strategic” category. SHHD (CSO): The “primary purpose”’ classification is broader based than Frascati. Again CSO funded health research is a small part of a large block and it is questionable whether the ‘“‘primary purpose”’ classification adds anything to the exercise. SED: The primary purpose of SED’s research activities in applied specific research so the “primary purpose” definition accords with Frascati. SDD: The “‘primary purpose” classification is more easily recognisable for our interests i.e. support for policy. IDS: All out spending on Economic Research falls within “‘primary purpose 2’—support for policy formation and implementation. SDA spending falls within “primary purpose 8” —Technology Transfer. The question of advantages of the primary purpose definitions over Frascati definitions is not particularly relevant in the IDS context. Question 10. 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? Answer 10. IDS, DAFS, SHHD, SDD, SED: Research work is mainly commissioned in-house, or with universities or other research establishments. Very little R&D work as commissioned with industry. Thus the Scottish Office has no comment on this question. Question 11. It has been suggested that the number of scientifically and technically qualified personnel employed on R&D is a better indicator of R&D effort than is the figure for R&D spending. Do you agree? Answer 11. Agriculture: No. It is important to have an understanding of the different costs of different types of research. Within Agricultural R&D, capital costs tend not to be as high as in some other branches of science. ‘““Expenditure”’ may thus equate reasonably well with “effort”, without too much distortion. Across scientific sectors, ‘““manpower’’ may well be a better guide because of the very high capital and non-salary costs involved in some types of research but this could be misleadingly interpreted as an index of total investment in R&D for the sector concerned. ’ Fisheries: No. It is not a good idea to use the number of technically qualified personnel as an indicator of R&D effort, rather than the financial expenditure. To emphasise performance measures based on head counts rather than real money would not give those in charge of research programmes the right incentives to be economical. Scottish Office Liaison Division “Dover House Whitehall 14 July 1989 Memorandum by the Training Agency Ql. We follow the Frascati definitions in broad terms but this varies slightly from the definitions we use in our day-to-day operations. Q2. Broadly the definitions we use in our day-to-day operations are the same but they relate more specifically to our policy and progamme requirements than the Frascati definitions.