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.

    138/148 (page 136)
    Question 3. Do you experience any difficulty in converting your figures for R&D spending into the format required for the Annual Review? Do you encounter any other problems in making returns to the Annual Review? Answer 3. Yes. It tends to be the nature of the work described in DAFS Agricultural Research Objectives (ROs) that it does not fall discretely into single Frascati Categories. Each RO must thus be assessed for its percentage contribution to the 4 categories described in 7 a — b below. It would be quite exceptional for a single RO to span all 4 categories, but it is usual for an RO to span 2 categories at least. For Fisheries R&D, a procedure has been developed to simplify the conversation of expenditure into the format required for the Annual Review. At the beginning of each year, the primary purpose code and the proportion of R&D (as opposed to non-R&D) is decided for each project in the programme of work agreed by DAFS customers. Within the Scottish Home and Health Department (SHHD), the Chief Scientist’s Office (CSO) finds it is necessary to translate expenditure which it categories for its own purposes under 4 main areas of research activity — health services, biomedical, equipment for the disabled, and scientific and medical equipment — to the headings used for the AR. It is not difficult, but is an additional time-consuming step which has to be taken, with no benefit to the CSO. The Frascati system is rather more sophisticated than the CSO needs and we wonder whether there is any scope for making simpler separate provision for such minor spenders. Frascati has been formulated for the big battalions; the relatively small amount of funds at the disposal of CSO, £5.1m in 1989-90, all used in the public sector, have a very marginal effect on the various relevent categories within the Annual Review. A further complicating factor for CSO is the fact that strictly it does not undertake R&D; it funds research. Related development, when it takes place is in the setting of the NHS and is funded from the general grant allocated to the Health Boards. Similar points to CSO’s are made by the Scottish Development Department (SDD) which has an even smaller R&D budget of around £1 million for 1988-89. A range of professional groups and clerical grades may be engaged in particular research and research may be only part of their duties. It is time-consuming for SDD staff to convert their own statistics into the format required for the AR. Question 4 What explanatory notes or guidelines do you use in interpreting the Frascati definitions? Are they adequate for this purpose. What degree of subjectivity is involved in categorising your R&D spending? Answer 4 Explanatory notes for the 4 categories are provided by DTI. These are reasonably helpful. It is the nature of research that it tends to be a continum from basic to applied and development, and there are inevitably grey zones between the idealised descriptions given in the guidelines. Thus, some DAFS decisions are made subjectively but in as consistent and fair a way as possible. MAFF and DAFS have agreed common definitions to be applied in fisheries research, aiming at a more objective approach. The Industry Department for Scotland (IDS) has a smali budget for R&D (some £200,000 in 1988-89, for Economic Research). Apportioning the amount of staff time (in order to calculate the cost of internal research/supervision of external research) is a subjective process, particularly in relation to estimates for future years: it is difficult to provide such estimates as research projects often arise at short notice and other work impinges on time spent on research. Question5 Do the Frascati definitions provide a clear means of differentiating between: . 1. basic and applied research; 2. research and development; 3. R&D and other related activities; for the purposes, in each case, of: 3.1 compiling statistics of your department’s R&D spending; 3.2 compiling R&D statistics within a scientific and/or industrial sector; 3.3 comparing R&D activity between different scientific and industrial sectors; 3.4 making international comparisons of R&D activity? Answer5 Regarding 3.1. There are always some doubts in Agriculture over deciding exactly what is basic research; in Fisheries it is more difficult to decide what is development. Problems are also met over date- gathering exercises where interpretation of the data may form a separate research objective. In such cases work has sometimes been described at S&T (Science and Technology) rather than R&D. We have also been asked by Whitehall for S&T figures which equate to Frascati + Technology Transfer. Regarding 3.2-3.4. There is a minimal problem in comparing statistics compiled on an equivalent basis. Thus DAFS (Agriculture) canfeel reasonably confident in comparing the nature of the research programmes of its different contractors. The problem arises when comparing statistics derived from different sources. In DAFS (Fisheries), the main use of the Frascati definitions has been in compiling statistics of fisheries R&D spending with DAF S. The Frascati definitions have not been used much in the fisheries sector for the other purposes noted in the questionnaire (ie industrial activities and international comparisions).