RND Stat Derek Bosworth Robert Wilson Alison Young

REVIEWS OF UNITED KINGDOM STATISTICAL SOURCES
Volume XXVII
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Other volumes in this series published by Chapman & Hall
xxm
XXIV
XXV
XXVI
XXVII
xxvm
XXIX
Agriculture, G. H. Peters
Local Govemment, J. M. Gillespie
Family Planning, P. F. Selman
International Aspects 0/ UK Economic Activities, P. Bucldey and R. D.
Pearce
Research anti Development, D. L. Bosworth, R. A. Wilson and A. Young
The Food Industries, J. Mark and R. Strange
Distribution, C. Moir and J. A. Dawson
Available from Chapman & Hall 2-6 Boundary Row, London SEI 8HN
Telephone 071-522-9966
(No further titles will be published in this series)

Edited by M. C. FLEMING
Professor of Economics ,
Loughborough University
Volume
xxvn
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
DEREK L. BOSWORTH
Manchester School of Management ,
UMISr
ROBERT A. WILSON
Institute for Employment Research,
University of Warwick
and
ALISON YOUNG
OECD, Paris
Published for The Royal Statistical Society and

The Economic and Social Research Council
Springer-Science+Business Media, B.Y.
First edition 1993

ISBN 978-0-412-35640-7
ISBN 978-1-4899-2983-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-2983-9
1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

Originally published by The Economic and Social Research Council in 1993.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1993
Typeset at the Oxford University Computing Service
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or
criticism or review, as permitted under the UK Copyright Designs and Patents
Aet, 1988, this publication may not be reprodueed, stored, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, without the prior perrnission in writing of the
publishers, or in the case of reprographie reproduction only in accordance
with the terms of the Iicences issued by the Copyright Licensing Ageney in
the UK, or in aecordance with the terms of Iicences issued by the appropriate
Reproduetion Rights Organization outside the UK. Enquiries conceming
reproduetion outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers at
the London address printed on this page.
The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to
the aeeuraey of the information eontained in this book and eannot aecept any
legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data available
@J
Printed on permanent acid-free text paper, manufaetured in aecordance

with the proposed ANSIINISO Z 39.48-199X and ANSI Z 39.48-1984
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXVII

Foreword
Membership
VB
0/ Joint
Steering Committee
Editorial Introduction
IX
Xl
Guide to the Series and How to Use it
Review No. 45: Research and Development Statistics

Subject Index
XV
1
219
FOREWORD
The Sources and Nature 0/ the Statistics 0/ the United Kingdom , produced under the
auspices of the Royal Statistical Society and edited by Maurice Kendall, filled a
notable gap on the library shelves when it made its appearance in the early post-war
years. Through aseries of critical reviews by many of the foremost national experts,
it constituted a valuable contemporary guide to statisticians working in many fields
as weil as a bench-mark to which historians of the development of statistics in this
country are likely to return again and again. The Social Science Research Council
(now the Economic and Social Research Council) and the Society were both
delighted when Professor Maunder came forward with the proposal that a revised
version should be produced, indicating as weil his willingness to take on the onerous
task of editor (a task in which he was assisted from 1985 by Professor Fleming). The
two bodies were more than happy to act as co-sponsors of the project and to help in
its planning through a joint steering committee. The result, we are confident, will be
judged a worthy successor to the previous vo1umes by the very much larger 'statistics
public' that has come into being in the intervening years.
W. SOLESBURY
Secretary
Economic and Social Research Council
D. A. LIEVESLEY
Honorary Secretary
Royal Statistical Society
vii
MEMBERSHIP OF JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE

(December 1987)
Chairman: Miss S. V. Cunliffe
Representing the Royal Statistical Society:
Mr M . C. Fessey
Dr S. Rosenbaum
Mrs E. J. Snell
Representing the Economic and Social Research Council:
Mr I. Maclean
Miss J. Morris
Secretary: Mr D. E. Allen
ix
EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
The series of Reviews 01 United Kingdom Statistical Sources is meant to serve a dual
purpose: to provide an authoritative guide to statistical sources in the UK (both
official and unofficial) and a critical appraisal of the nature and limitations of the
available data. To maximise its usefulness as a source of reference, each volume in
the series folIows a standard format which incorporates a number of features
designed to meet the varied needs of different users. A detailed guide for users
follows this introduction but the key points to note for users in a hurry is that the
text, which pro vides a commentary on the sources and nature of the data, is followed
by a Quick Reference List ( QRL ) , which provides a quick and easy means of
identifying what statistics are available, and a QRL Key to Publications which lists
the statistical source publications.
This volume may be regarded as a companion to volume 19 in the series on
Intellectual Property Rights by D. L. Bosworth published in 1986. That volume
covered statistical sources relating to patents and other outputs associated with R&D
activity. In contrast, this volume covers sources relating to the initial inputs of
resources into R&D. The importance of R&D as the mainspring of technological
change and economic growth requires no emphasis. Research on the determinants of
investment in R&D, on the interaction between such investment and economic
activities generally and international comparisons of R&D expenditure are a
continuing focus of attention. At the same time, the question of the appropriate role
of government in this field is a frequent topic of debate . But the lack of an
authoritative review of the sources and nature of the data available in the area has
been an important deficiency. This volume, therefore, is meant to fill a long-felt
need.
A few words must be said about the preparation and authorship of this volume.
The work was initially undertaken by Alison Young of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) but, regrettably, the pressure of
other duties denied her the time to complete the work and it remained dormant for
many years . At the last moment, when the volume was about to be abandonded,
Derek Bosworth and Robert Wilson agreed to take over and they have undertaken
all the work required to complete it, including extensive redrafting and checking and
the preparation of much new material. As a consequence, the outcome is a volume in
which it is not possible to attribute responsibility for the different parts of it to
individual authors and it appears, therefore, as the joint work of all three authors,
each being named in alphabeticalorder.
Regrettably, this volume is one of the last in the series to appear under the joint
sponsorship of the Royal Stat istical Society and the Economic and Social Research
xi
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
Council (ESRC). The work received the generous financial support of the ESRC
(formerly the Social Science Research Council) from the start of the series in 1969
until the end of 1987. During that time work on 25 volumes covering 43 review
topics was completed (although three of these volumes were not published until
1988). Several reviews were then abandoned, but progress on four other volumes was
sufficiently far advanced to make their completion seem feasible in a short space of
time without further financial support. Unfortunately, this optimism was misplaced.
Although it has proved possible to avoid the abandonment of these volumes ,
progress has been slow and has only been maintained with the aid of ad hoc funding
obtained from time to time to support either the authors' , or the editorial, work . In
this respect we are particularly grateful to the Department of Trade and Industry for
making a small grant to help meet the editorial costs of this volume .
The original objective of the series was to try to cover every field of economic and
social statistics in the Uni ted Kingdom; unfortunately its ach ievement proved to be a
much more lengthy task than was originally anticipated and the series is still
incomplete. However, thc need for such aseries and , moreover, aseries which is
regularly updated remains as strong as ever. More than twenty areas are still
uncovered and many of the early volumes now stand in need of extensive revision.
Although a valuable Guide to Official Statistics is now regularly published under
government auspices every two years or so, it does not provide a substitute for the
series because, valuable though it is, it is confined very largely to current sources of
official statistics and, perhaps more important, it ventures no appraisals to assist in
the use and interpretation of the available data. It is thus a complement to this series
rather than a substitute for it. One must, therefore, hope that some further financial
sponsorship may yet prove forthcoming which will enable the series to be continued
in one form or another.
Until the end of 1987, the series was directed by a Joint Steering Committee of the
Royal Statistical Society and the ESRC. It only remains here to express gratitude to
the members of the Committee, who directed the overall strategy with as admirable a
mixture of guidance and forbearance as any editors of such aseries could desire. At
the same time they bear no responsibility for shortcomings in execution . Especial
thanks are due to David Allen, the Secretary of the Committee, who was involved
with the project almost as long and almost as closely as anybody. One must also pay
tribute to the work done by Professor W.F. Maunder as editor throughout the whole
period to 1987. A very great deal is owed to hirn both for the development of the
original idea and for his perseverance and determination in bringing so many
volumes through to completion, as well as for helping to initiate work on so many
others (including this volume) . Statistics users owe hirn a great debt.
The authors join me in thanking as weil all those who gave up their time to attend
the seminar which was held to discuss the first draft of the review and which
contributed materially to improving the final version . We are most grateful to
Chapman and Hall Limited for their support and in particular to their production
department, who put all the pieces together. The subject index entries have been
compiled by Mrs Marian Guest who acted as editorial assistant until October 1989.
Special thanks are also due to Mr Ray Burnley of the Social Studies Data Processing
Unit at the University of Exeter , who has given a great deal of help with the final
editorial stages and again has masterminded our use of the Lasercomp System at
xii
EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Oxford University Computing Service, and to the latter for the use of this facility.
Finally, we also wish to record our appreciation of the permission granted us to
reproduce certain copyright material by the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office.
Michael Fleming
Loughborough University
June 1992
xiii
GUIDE TO THE SERIES AND HOW TO USE IT

The Scope and Nature of the Series
The purpose of the series is twofold . The primary aim is act as an authoritative work
of reference to the sources of statistical material of all kinds, both official and
unofficial, in the United Kingdom. The intention here is to enable the user to
discover what data are available on the subject in which he or she is interested and
from where they may be obtained. The second aim is to provide a critical appraisal
of the nature and limitations of the available data so that the user is able to interpret
them safely and avoid pitfalls in their use.
Data are regarded as available not only if published in the normal printed format
but also if they are likely to be released to a bona fide enquirer in any other form,
such as duplicated documents, computer print-out or even magnetic tape. On the
other hand, no reference is made to material which, even if it is known to exist, is
not accessible to the general run of potential users. The distinction, of course, is not
clear-cut and mention of a source is not to be regarded as a guarantee that data will
be released; in particular cases it may well be a matter for negotiation. The latter
caution applies with particular force to the question of obtaining computer print-outs
of custom-specified tabulations.
The intention is that the source for each topic should be reviewed in detail, and
the brief supplied to authors calls for comprehensive coverage at the level of
'national interest' . This term does not denote any necessary restriction to statistics
collected on a national basis (stilliess, of course, to national aggregates) but it means
that sources of a purely local character, without wider interest in either content or
methodology, are excluded. Indeed, the mere task of identifying all material of this
latter kind is an impossibility. The interpretation of the brief has obviously involved
discretion and it is up to the users of these reviews to say what unreasonable gaps
become apparent to them. They are cordially invited to do so by communicating
with the Editor.
The Format and Content of Reviews

To facilitate the use of the series as a work of reference, a common format is
adopted for each review. This involves the incorporation of six standard features :
I. Text
2. Quick Reference List (QRL)
3. QRL Key to Publications
4. Bibliography
xv
5. Subject Index
6. Specimen Forms and Questionnaires
Each of these is described in turn below.
1. The Text . This is designed , in so far as varying subject matter permits, to folIow a
standard form of arrangement, covering introductory material on the activity covered
and its organisation, core material on the available sources and a discussion of
desirable improvements.
The introductory material is meant to give a c1ear background understanding of
how data are colIected, what is being measured, the stage at which measurements are
made , what the reporting units are, the channels through which returns are routed
and where they are processed . Coupled with this is a discussion of specific problems
of definition and measurement. This is folIowed by core sections or chapters on
available sources. Wherever possible these are arranged according to subject (rather
than source) . But in practicc thcy may be arrangcd according to the author's
discrction - by origin, by subject subdivision, or by type of data - as there is too
much heterogeneity between topics to permit any imposition of complete uniformity
on alI authors. A final chapter is devoted to a discussion of general shortcomings
and desirable improvements. In case a contrary expectation should be aroused, it
should be said that authors have not been asked to produce a comprehensive plan
for the reform of statistical reporting in the whole of their field. However , a review
of existing sources is a natural opportunity to make some suggestions for future
policy on the colIection and publication of statistics within the scope of their review
and authors have been encouraged to take fulI advantage of it.
2. The Quick Reference List (QRL) . This provides a detailed list of alI the series and
categories of data that are available and, again, is generalIy arranged according to
subject. It also includes cross-references to the sections of the text in which the data
are discussed as welI as publication references. Each publication shown as a da ta
source is given aserial number and the prefix 'QRL'
3. The QRL Key to Publications. This gives fulI details of the publications shown as
data sources in the QRL.
4. The Bibliography. This gives references to works discussing wider aspects of the
activity and the statistics including methodology. These publications are identified by
aserial number and the prefix 'B'.
5. The Subject Index. This acts as conventional line of inquiry on textual references.
But an important feature is that it is a computerised system. For an individual
review this introduces the possibility of easy permutation of entries and this is fulIy
utilised in order to facilitate search by giving as many variants as possible . The index
is prepared in the editorial office, not by the author.
6. Specimen Forms and Questionnaires. FinalIy, specimen copies of the more
important returns or forms used in data colIection are reproduced, as appropriate, as
appendices so that it may be seen what tabulations it is possible to make as welI as
helping to c1arify the basis of those actualIy available.
XVI
GUIDE TO THE SERIES AND HOW TO USE IT
How to Use the Series

As we have indicated, the standard format adopted for each review in the series is
designed expressly to facilitate its use for reference purposes. The features which it
incorporates provide three possible 'ways in' for the user. These are :
I. The Contents List
2. The Quick Reference List
3. The Subject Index
For users most interested in discovering qu ickly whether or not a particular sort of
data is available and where it is published, the Quick Reference List should be the
most useful feature to consult first. Inc1uded within the list are cross-references to
discussions and descriptions of the data in the text and references to the publication
sources for the data (QRL reference) . To facilitate its speedy use, it is arranged by
subject as far as possible and the list is itself preceded by its own summary contents
list.
The contents list provides, of course, a summary indication of the subject matter
of each chapter but also shows the main sub-divisions into which it is divided. It is
useful, therefore, for anyone interested in locating material in the book on broad
subject areas, rather than more specific statistical sources.
The subject index provides an alternative means of locating information but one
which is intermediate between the Quick Reference List and the contents list. It gives
references to the subject matter at a more detailed level than the contents list, but it
does not duplicate the degree of detail of the entries, relating to particular categories
of statistical data, given in the QRL.
xvii
45: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

STATISTICS
D. L. BOSWORTH
Professor of Economics
School of Management
University of Manchester
Institute of Science
and Technology
R. A. WILSON
Principal Research Fellow
Institute of Employment Research
University of Warwiek
ALISON J. YOUNG
Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
Paris
REFERENCE DATE OF SOURCES REVIEWED

Th is review is believed to represent the position, broadly speak ing, at December
1987. Major changes since then are noted in the Addendum at the end of this
volume .
CONTENTS OF REVIEW 45
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acknowledgements
9
12
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
13
13
14
15
15
16
17
18
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Introduction and General Concepts

Coverage of the Review
Sources and Methodology
Definition of Research and Development
1.3.1 Definitions
1.3.2 Distinctions Between R&D and Other Activities
1.3.3 Distinction Between Research and Higher Education and Training
1.3.4 Distinction Between R&D and Other Scientific and
Technical Activities
Scientific and Social R&D
Expenditure and Employment
1.5.1 Expenditures
1.5.2 Manpower
R&D Content and " M ainly R&D" Accounting
1.6.1 Applied to Performing Units
1.6.2 Calculation of Full-time Equivalents
Performance and Source of Funds
Occupation versus Level and Type 0/ Qualification
1.8.1 Occupation
1.8.2 Level and Type of Qualification
1.8.3 Occupation crossed with Level and Type of Occupation
Problems of Comparison
1.9.1 Between Different Sources
1.9.2 Problems of Comparison over Time
1.9.3 Problems of International Comparison
2 Tbe National Survey

2.1 Origins
2.2 Basic Characteristics
2.2.1 The National R&D Effort
2.2.2 Major Fields of Science
2.2.3 Method of Accounting for R&D
3
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
27
29
29
30
30
30
30
2.3 System 0/ Sec tors and Sub-Sectors

2.3.1 Industry
2.3.2 General Government Sector
2.3.3 Higher Education
2.3.4 Other
2.3.5 Abroad
2.4 Surveys and Publications
2.4.1 Introduction
2.4.2 Frequency and Time Period
2.4.3 Survey Method
2.4.4 Publications
2.5 Expenditure Data
2.5.1 Total Intramural Expenditure on R&D
2.5.2 Total Intramural Expenditure by Type of Cost
2.5.3 Current R&D Expenditure by Type of Activity
2.5.4 Sources of Funds
2.5.5 Extramural Expenditure
2.5.6 Gross Expenditure in R&D
2.6 Employment Data
2.6.1 Total R&D Manpower
2.6.2 Scientists and Engineers
2.6.3 Technicians
2.6.4 Other Supporting Staff
2.7 Price Indices
2.7.1 Industry
2.7.2 Public Sector
2.7.3 Government
2.7.4 Higher Education and Other
2.8 International Comparisons
2.8.1 National Sources
2.8.2 International Sources
31
31
33
35
36
37
38
38
38
39
40
41
41
41
42
43
46
47
47
47
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
53
55
55
56
56
57
58
58
60
60
64
64
64
65
65
66
Net Government Expenditure on R&D
3.1 Origins
3.2.1 General Budgetary Procedures and Publications
3.2.2 Estimates and Outturn
3.2.3 General Definition of Net Expenditure
3.2.4 Difference Between Net Expenditure and Gross Expenditure
3.2.6 Coverage and Method of Identifying R&D
3.3.1 Surveys
3.3.2 Publications
3.4 Data A vai/able
3.4.1 Institutional Classifications
3.4.2 Functional Classifications
CONTENTS
3.5 Derived Series

3.5.1 Price Indices
3.5.2 Comparison with Other Series
3.6.1 EEC
3.6.2 OECD
3.6.3 Special Problems
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
71
71
71
71
Tbe Science Budget
4.1 Origins
4.2.1 Coverage
4.2.2 Main Fields of Science
4.3.1 The Science Budget Proper
4.3.2 Additional Sources
4.4 Data A vailable
4.4.1 Expenditure: Science Budget Proper
4.4.2 Tables in the CSO and ACSP Reports
4.4.3 Tables in the Annual Review
4.4.4 Research Council Annual Reports
4.5 Miscellaneous Sources
4.6 Sources 0/ International Comparisons
5
Individual Departmental R&D Reports
5.1 Origins
5.2.1 General Characteristics
5.2.2 Methods of Accounting for R&D
5.2.3 Net and Gross Expenditure
5.2.4 Classification Units for Central Government R&D Expenditure
5.3.1 List of Reports
5.3.2 Reports of the Major R&D Spending Departments
5.4 Data Available
5.5 Department 0/ Energy
5.5.1 General Pattern of the Department's R&D
5.5.2 Tables in the Annual Report
5.6 Department of Industry
5.7 Ministry 0/ Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
5.7.1 General Pattern of the Ministry R&D
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
78
78
81
81
83
83
84
84
84
85
85
85
85
86
86
86
86
88
88
88
93
93
93
5.8 Departments 0/ the Environment and Transport

5.8.1 General Pattern of the Departments' R&D
5.8.2 Tables in the Annual Reports
5.9 Department 0/ Health and Social Security
5.9.2 Tables Available in the Departmental Report
5.10 Home Office
5.10.1 Department's R&D Activities
5.10.2 Data Available from Other Sources
5.11 Overseas Development Administration
5.11.3 Comparison with Other Sources
5.12 Department 0/ Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS)
5.12.1 DAFS R&D Activities and Related Reports
5.13 Information on Individual Departments from the Annual Review
95
95
95
98
98
98
100
100
100
100
100
101
101
101
101
102
103
6 Triennial Scientific and Technological Manpower Surveys

6.1 Origins
6.2.1 Types of Manpower Included
6.3 System 0/ Sectors and Sub-Sectors
6.3.1 Industry
6.3.2 Government
6.3.3 Higher Education Sector
6.3.4 Summary of Unsurveyed Sectors
6.3.5 National Territory
6.4.1 General Remarks
6.4.2 Surveys
6.5 Data Available and Comparison with Other Sources
6.5.1 Industry
6.5.2 Government
6.6 Comparisons with Other Series
105
105
106
106
107
107
107
108
108
108
109
109
109
109
109
111
111
III
112
112
113
7 Miscellaneous Sources
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Industry
7.2.1 Private Industry
7.2.2 Nationalised Industries
7.2.3 Research Associations
115
115
115
115
117
117
CONTENTS
7.3 Government
7.3.1 The Estimates
7.3.2 Annual Reports
7.3.3 Special Reports
7.4 Higher Education Sector
7.4.1 Annual Statistics
7.5 Other Bodies
118
118
118
119
120
120
120
120
Conclusions
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Introdu ction
Industry
Government and Higher Education
Future Developments
Conclusions
123
123
123
124
125
126
Quick Reference List Table of Contents

Quick Reference List
Quick Reference List Key to Publications
127
128
170
Bibliography
191
Appendix: Specimen Forms and Questionnaires
197
Addendum
215
Subject Index
219
LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

List of Tables in the Text
3.1
Coverage of Net outturn data 1961 /62-1965/66 compared with

programme headings 1966/67-1970/71
62
Relation between PESC headings and departmental R&D

spending - 1979/80
82
Functional Classification for R&D Expenditure of the Department

of Industry
89
Functional Classification, Departments of the Environment

and Transport
96
Functional Classification of R&D used by the Department of Health

and Social Security
99
5.5
Functional Classifications used by the Overseas Development Agency
102
5.6
Civil 'Oriented' R&D by Central Government Departments 1979/80
103
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
List of Figures in the Text
3.1
Flows of Funds: Net and Gross Expenditure on R&D
59
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABRC
ACARD
ACSP
AEA
AFRC
ARC
BEC
BG
BSC
BSO
BTG
CBI
CEC
CEGB
CEI
CERN
CMEA
CNAA
CNR
CNRS
COI
CREST
CSE
CSII
CSM
CSO
CSP
DAFS
DE
DES
DOE
DHSS
DI
DSIR
DTI
EEC
Advisory Board for the Research Councils

Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development
Advisory Council on Scientific Policy
See UKAEA
Agricultural and Food Research Council
Agricultural Research Council
Business Education Council
British Gas
British Steel Corporation
Business Statistics Office
British Technology Group
Confederation of British Industry
Commission for the European Communities
Central Electricity Generating Board
Council of Engineering Institutions
Le Centre European pour Recherche Nucleaire (European Commission
for Nuclear Research)
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
Council for National Academic Awards
Consiztio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Italy)
Conseil National pour la Recherche Scientifique
Central Office of Information
Cornite de Recherche Scientifique et Technique (EEC)
Certificate of Secondary Education
Centre for the Study of Industrial Innovation
Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Central Statistical Office
Council for Scientific Policy
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland
Department of Employment
Department of Education and Science
Department of the Environment
Department of Health and Social Security
Department of Industry
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
Department of Trade and Industry
European Economic Community
9
10
ELDO
ESA
ESF
ESRC
ESRO
EVA
FBI
FE
FSM
FTE
GCE
GCSE
GDP
GERD
GNERD
GPO
GVF
HE
HMSO
HNC
HND
HSE
ICL
ISY
JCO
MAFF
MinTech
MLH
MOD
MPBW
MRC
MSC
NABS
NC
NCB
NCC
NERC
n.e.s
NHS
NIRNS
NRDC
NSE
NSF
ODA
OECD
OEEC
RESEARCH AND DEV ELOPMENT STATISTICS
European Launeher Development Organisation

European Space Agency
European Science Foundation
European Space Research Organisation
European Stat istical Vnit of Account
Federation of British Indu stry
Further Education
Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
FulI Time Equivalents
General Certificate of Education
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Gross Domestic Product
Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development
Gro ss National Expenditure on Research and Development
General Post Office
General Vniversities Fund
Higher Education
Her (His) Majesty's Stationery Office
Higher National Certificate
Higher National Diploma
Health and Safety Executive
International Computers Ud
International Statistical Years
Joint Consultative Organisation
Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food
Ministry of Technology
Minimum List Heading
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Public Building and Works
Medical Research Council
Manpower Services Commission
Nomenclature for Analysis and Comparison of Scientific Programmes
and Budgets
Nature Conservancy
National Coal Board
Nature Conservancy Council
Natural Environment Research Council
not elsewhere specified
National Health Service
National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science
National Research and Development Corporation
Natural Science and Engineering
National Science Foundation
Overseas Development Agency (Overseas Development Administr ation)
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Organisation for European Economic Cooperation
ABBREVIATIONS AND AC RONYMS
ONC
OND
PESC
PNP
PSI
QSE
RA
R&D
RC
RCS
RD&D
Ordinary National Cert ificate

Ordinary National Diploma
Public Expenditure Sur vey Committee
Private Non-Profit
Policy Studi es Institute
Qualified Scientists and Engineers
(Industrial) Research Associations
Research and Development
Research Council
Ro yal College of Science
Research Development and Design (Research, Development and
Demonstration)
Royal Institute of Chemistry
RIC
Research Requirement Committee
RRC
RSC
Roy al Society of Chemistry
Research and Development Scientists and Engineers
RSE
Scientists and Engineers
S&E
S&T
Scientists and Techni cians
Science and Engineering Research Council
SERC
Scottish Horne and Health Department
SHHD
Standard Industrial Classification
SIC
Statistical Office of the European Communities
SOEC
Science Research Council
SRC
Social Science and Humanities
SSH
Social Science Research Council
SSRC
Select Committee on Science and Technology
SST
Science and Technology Indicators Unit (OECD)
STIU
University Grants Committee
UGC
United Kingdom
UK
UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energ y Authority
UN
United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
World Health Organisation
WHO
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This contribution to the ESRC/RSS series on UK Statistical Sources has evolved
through a number of stages. Alison Young began the first draft which was presented
at a seminar in January 1981. Derek Bosworth and Rob Wilson have built on this
early draft, updating and adding to the material, and take responsibility for any
remaining errors.
We would like to note the special role that the Department of Trade and Industry
has played in the collection of R&D survey data in the UK . In addition, our thanks
go to John Bowles from the DTI for his help on a number of occasions.
This book would not have been possible without the dedication of the team of
workers at Exeter, particularly Marian Guest and Professor Maunder until 1987 and
then Linda Lilburne (working under Professor Fleming's direction at
Loughborough). Thanks also go to Peter Miller and Samantha Wilson for the library
searches that they undertook and the collation of information about many of the
sources that appear in this volume, and to Joan Bosworth for her efforts in helping
to organise the QRL.
12
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

1.1 Coverage of the Review
Research and Development (R&D) is an activity which is carried out over a wide
range of sectors and sub-sectors of the economy. In consequence there are a
multitude of statistical sources which contain some data on resources (money and
personnel) used for R&D. These sources may be divided into four broad classes. The
first class includes regular official surveys designed specifically to collect R&D
statistics for a whole economic sector (government, industry, the universities, etc.)
using standard instructions and classifications. These 'R&D surveys proper' are
discu ssed in Chapters 2 and 3. The second group of sources comprises regular
(usually annual) reports by official bodies (for example the Research Councils) on
their R&D activities which include statistical tables . These 'annual reports' are
discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The third group of sources covers other regular
official statistical surveys and publications which yield some R&D data (for example
the Defence estimates, and the triennial surveys of qualified manpower) and they are
discu ssed in Chapters 6 and 7. Chapter 7 also includes a fourth group of sources
which comprises ad hoc official reports quoting R&D statistics (for example reports
of the Select Committee on Science and Technology) and various non-official studies
and reports. The coverage of this fourth class, in particular, is illustrative rather than
exhaustive.
The underlying idea of the review is to use the specific R&D surveys described in
Chapters 2 and 3 as a framework and in later chapters to try and explain where the
data from other sources fit into this framework and how far their specifications and
characteristics vary from those of 'R&D da ta proper' as defined by the relevant
national and international standards. This normative approach means that data in
the later chapters are evaluated using criteria which were not necessarily relevant to
the aims of the authors of the sources concerned. Such evaluations should not be
read as criticisms.
At the time of writing, full national R&D surveys had been undertaken regularly
from 1955 (with a triennial or greater frequency). The review thus covers data for
the period 1955 to 1986 but with more detail for the period after 1966 than for the
earlier years .
It is perhaps useful at this stage to point the reader to one or two other reviews
which cover R&D statistical sources. Particularly useful in this respect are the
Cabinet Office guide to sources of information about UK Government R&D:
Government Research and Development: A Guide to Sources of Information [B.49] and
Annual Review of Government Funded R&D 1985 [QRL.51] Annexe D . In addition ,
there is the Guide to Ojjicial Statistics, which is regularly updated (e.g. Guide to
13
14
Official Statistics No. 4 [B.50] pp. 340-342 and Guide to Official Statistics No. 5
[B.51] p. 111). In particular, Guide No . 4 sets out the general sources of R&D data,
sources relating to government funded R&D, Research Councils' activities and
industrial research, in four separate sections.
This Review of statistical sources focuses primarily on R&D inputs (i.e.
expenditure, personne1, etc.), rather than R&D outputs. The latter are partly dealt
with e1sewhere, in the companion Review of UK Intellectual Property Statistics by
Bosworth [B.7].
1.2 Sources and Methodology

There is no handbook of methodology for R&D statistics in the United Kingdom .
Information has to be gleaned from the notes and appendices to the various studies
and, where these are available, from the questionnaires used in the major surveys
discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. The basic source for R&D methodology in general is
the 'Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental
Development' [B.56], otherwise referred to as the 'Frascati Manual', published by
OECD. The relevant UK authorities have played an important role in the
quinquennial revisions of this Manual and with one or two exceptions UK R&D
data are collected in line with 'Frascati Standards' . Unless elsewhere specified,
references in the present review are to the 1981 version of the Manual, [B.56].
Other international organisations have issued complementary methodologies
notably the various European Economic Community standards for government R&D
budgets, which will be discussed in Chapter 3 and the 'Nordic Manual' issued in
1974 [B.52], which, although principally relevant to Scandinavia, contains some
interesting general methodological discussion.
UNESCO has also published a number of norms and methodological documents
dealing with the measurement of resources devoted to R&D [B.66] and Manual on
the National Budgeting 0/ Scientific and Technological Activities [B.55]. UNESCO is
interested in the whole area of scientific and technical activities. See also The
Measurement 0/ Scientific and Technological Activities [B.16] and Measurement 0/
Output 0/ Research and Experimental Development [QRL.13]. The basic definitions
of R&D are compatible with those used by the CEC and by OECD but the
c1assifications have been specially designed to permit comparison between market
and planned economies and also between developed and developing countries. On
the whole they appear to have had little effect on the way data are actually collected
in the United Kingdom.
The rest of the present chapter is, therefore, based mainly on the international
standards outlined in the Frascati Manual [B.56] either as defined in the manual
itself or as paraphrased in national survey questionnaires. The primary aim is to
identify the special problems of measuring resources devoted to R&D in the United
Kingdom.
15
1.3 Definition of Research and Development

1.3.1 Definitions
The official international definition of R&D is currently as follows: 'Research and

Experimental Development comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis
in order to increase the stock of knowledge , including knowledge of man, culture
and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications'
(Frascati Manual, [B.56] p. 15), However, the UK authorities have generally
preferred to retain an earlier international definition of 'creative work undertaken
on a systematic basis to increase the stock of scientific and technical knowledge and
to use this stock of knowledge to devise new practical applications.' [QRL.153] p. 3.
Furthermore R&D is, in principle, generally defined as being the sum of three
exhaustive and mutually exclusive activities : basic research , applied research and
experimental development, described in the UK surveys as follows:
i)
Basic Research is original investigation undertaken in order to gain new
scientific knowledge and understanding. It is not primarily directed towards
any specific practical aim or application.
ii)
Applied Research is also original investigation undertaken in order to gain new
scientific or technical knowledge . It is, however, directed towards a specific
practical aim or objective.
iii) Experimental Development is the use of scientific knowledge in order to
produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes,
systems or services.' [QRL.153]
The aims of government R&D expenditure are set out in Annual Review of
Government Funded R&D [QRL.51], p. 5 :
Advancement of Science. Work funded primarily in order to increase human
i)
knowledge, i.e. to advance scientific understanding of natural phenomena.
This research contributes to the scientific base of the nation and, although,
originally funded with no specific application in view, much of it eventually
results in lang term benefit through the eventual application of knowledge
gained. The heading is equivalent to the OECD term 'basic research' .
ii)
Support for Policy Formulation and Implementation. Applied research and
experimental development carried out in order to meet the Government's own
needs for knowledge of improved products or processes.
iii) Improvement oJ Technology. Applied R&D, funded by Government
Departments but often carried out within industry, to advance the technology
of different sectors of the UK economy.
iv) Support for Procurement Decisions. Applied R&D which contributes to the
specification and development of goods and services required by Departments
and to equip the purchasing Department to act as an informed buyer.
Support for Statutory Duties . Applied R&D which assists Departments to
v)
carry out statutory responsibilities or other obligations.
vi) Support for Other Activities. Applied R&D which cannot be classified under
the other headings.
An enormaus amount of time and effort has been spent in the Uni ted Kingdom
and elsewhere on discussing and re-drafting all these theoretical definitions . What is
16
more important from a practical point of view is to ask how R&D should be
circumscribed for the purposes of measurement. Which activities does it include and
which does it exclude?
R&D needs to be distinguished i) from post-R&D innovative activities and
production in industry, ii) from education and training in the higher education sector
and iii) from a number of other scientific and technological activities. In all these
cases a useful criterion, first used in the United States, but later quoted in the
'Frascati Manual' and paraphrased in the instruct ion to several UK surveys, is tha t:
"The guiding line to distinguish R&D activity from non-research activity is the
presence or absence of an element of novelty or innovation. Insofar as the activity
follows an established pattern, it is not R&D . Insofar as the activity departs from
routine and breaks new ground, it qualifies as R&D.' (See notes to the various
questionnaires). The word 'innovation' is perhaps misplaced as we shall see below,
but otherwise this is a useful guide.
1.3.2 Distinction Between R&D and Other Innovative Activities
Scientific and technological innovation consists of all those scientific, technical,
commercial and financial steps needed for the successful development and marketing
of new or improved processes and equipment (or the introduction of a new approach
to a social service). R&D is only one of these steps and one of the main problems
when surveying R&D in industry is to decide where it ends and where the next stage
of the process begins. For example, should the costs of prototypes and pilot plant be
included in R&D? What about the operating costs incurred during pilot production
runs? A theoretical discussion of these points will be found in the Frascati Manual
[B.56] (pp. 69-77).
In the United Kingdom virtually all the industrial R&D data discussed in the
review comes from the same source, i.e. aseries of surveys made by the Department
of Trade and Industry (and its predecessors). In practice, therefore, the instructions
from this survey (which will be discussed at length in Chapter 2) effectively define
the borderline.
They specify that R&D includes 'the prototype or pilot-plant stage and all work
done on development contracts with government departments, the Atomic Energy
Authority and similar public bodies. Firms in the aerospace industry should include
expenditure on development batches'. Respondents are also told to exclude:
i)
Routine testing and analysis of all kinds, whether for control of materials ,
components or products, and whether for control of quantity or quality .
ii)
Market research, operational research, work study, cost analysis, management
science, surveying, 'trouble shooting'.
iii) Royalty payments for the use of the results of research and development
unless required as an essential part of the research and development
programme within the unit.
iv) Trial production runs where the primary objective is not further improvement
of the product.
v)
Design costs to meet changes of fashion and artistic design work.
vi) Legal and administrative work in connection with patent applications, records
and litigation . Work involved in the sale of patents and licensing
17
arrangements. Experimental work performed solely for the purposes of patent

litigation.
The specifications used for surveys of government R&D which yield information
about government R&D contracts placed with industry indicate the position of the
line drawn between development and production:
i)
If the primary objective is to make further improvements on the product or
process, the work comes within the definition of R&D. If, on the other hand,
the product or process is substantially 'set' and the primary objective is to
develop markets or to do pre-production planning, or to get the production
process going smoothly, then the work is no longer R&D .
ii)
The design, construction and testing of prototypes normally falls within the
scope of R&D .
iii) Development inc1udes the engineering activity required to advance the design
of a product or process to the point where it meets specific functional or
economic requirements and can be turned over to the manufacturing units.
The costs of trial production runs should not normally be inc1uded as R&D
unless problems that are encountered require further R&D work.
1.3.3 Distinction Between Research and Higher Education and Training
Research is c1early one of the prime functions of universities (and, to a lesser extent,
of other institutions of higher education) but it is sometimes extremely difficult to
distinguish resources devoted to research from those devoted to education and
training, especially in the cases of 'General University Funds and postgraduate
studies' (see Frascati Manual [8.56] p. 59-64 and 174-176).
1.3.3.1 General University Funds. Some university R&D projects are financed by
specific contracts, grants or other earmarked funds, but a large proportion of such
research is undertaken by university staff interspersed with their teaching and
administration activities and is financed from 'General University Funds', i.e. in the
United Kingdom the grant from the University Grants Committee (UGC) . Such
research is not separately accounted for in university statistics and has to be
estimated on the basis of the share of time which staff spend on research as opposed
to their other activities, (see [8.68] and Bowles in Economic Trends [QRL.8], p. 95).
The basis and coverage of such estimates has varied in the period under review and
also between different series.
1.3.3.2 Postgraduate Studies . Some postgraduate studies are based almost entirely
on course work and have a negligible research content. However, high level
postgraduate courses nearly always require the student to undertake a substantial
piece of independent and novel work. According to international standards (Frascati
Manual [B.56] p. 60-64) such work is bona-fide research and should be inc1uded in
total university R&D. However, there are two schools of thought in the United
Kingdom, one of which agrees that resources devoted to research by postgraduates
should as far as possible be inc1uded, and a second which believes that the activities
concerned are training in research and not research proper and thus the resources
involved should not be credited to R&D.
Prior to the middle 1960s this question does not seem to have been examined and,
on the whole, postgraduate studies were inc1uded in official UK R&D data rather
18
than excluded. This type of problem is mentioned, for example, in [QRL.153] , p. 6.

Since the mid-1960s two sets of series of data have existed, one of which includes
postgraduate studies as far as possible and the other which excludes them.
The resources devoted to postgraduate research should include time spent by the
students and by their superiors and by supporting staff (technici an s, typists, etc.). In
expenditure terms they comprise the relevant labour costs of student, supervisor and
supporting staff plus the other costs of the research project (materials, overheads
etc .). Some of these costs may be met from earmarked research contracts and grants,
but others will be met from 'General University Funds' . It is for this reason that
there are two series of estimates for 'scientific' university R&D financed from the
Treasury Grant which appear in different publications in the Uni ted Kingdom . The
upper one contains an estimate for postgraduate research, the lower one does not.
However, this does not 'include the labour costs of the postgraduates themselves as
in the United Kingdom they are usually supported by means of individual grants. '
(They are rarely, as is the general case in continental Europe, on the university
payroll.) The Research Councils are the main providers of such grants although there
are other public and private sources. Both the Research Councils and the other
sources pay these grants direct to the students concerned. The Research Councils
also pay a 'Research Training Support Grant' to the university in respect of the
students they finance. It follows that there are also two series of data for research
support by the Research Councils, one induding payments to , and in respect of,
postgraduate students and the other excluding them . In the cases of the Agricultural,
Medical and Natural Environment Research Councils the difference is small but is
mueh larger for the Scienee and Engineering Research Council (SERC) and the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the latter was formerly the Social
Science Research Council (SSRC). For an early description of the structure of the
Research Councils and their links with other government agencies, see Rose and
Rose , Science and Society [B.29], p. 101. A more recent listing can be found in
Annual Review 0/ Government Funded R&D , 1985 [QRL.51].
1.3.4 Distinction Between R&D and Other Scientific and Technical Activities
The following scientific and technical activities, some of which have already been
mentioned, are also formally excluded from R&D :
i)
All legal administrative work in connection with patent applications, records
and litigation. Work involved in the sale of patents and licensing
arrangements. Experimental work performed solely for the purpose of patent
litigation.
ii)
Routine testing and analysis of all kinds, whether for control of materials,
components or products, and whether for control of quantity or quality.
iii) Scientific information activity which comprises all aspects of communication
amongst scientists (e.g. the publication, dissemination and translation of
information resulting from research and development). Generallibrary and
technical advisory services are included under this heading.
iv) General or broad-purpose data eollection (e.g. geologieal and geophysieal
survey work, mapping and exploration activities, including those of oil and
mineral eompanies; hydrographie and oceanographic survey work of a routine
19
nature not specifically re1ated to the development of new knowledge or

theories; daily meteorological records, monthly production statistics, the
collection and arrangement of specimens for museums, zoological gardens and
so forth).
v)
Testing and standardisation inc1uding such public and quasi-public functions
as the establishment of stand ard s, calibration of secondary standards and
non-routine quality testing which are separately identifiable from research and
deve1opment.
vi)
Market research
The above definitions are taken from various UK questionnaires. They cover
approximately the same ground as the current international standards except that no
mention is made of the exc1usion of 'specialised medical care' and 'policy-related
studies' and the inc1usion of 'routine space exploration', etc. (Frascati Manual [B.56]
p.52, 54 and 67), although two of them are mentioned in the 1980 government
questionnaire.
1.4 Scientific and Social R&D

It is usual when collecting R&D statistics to make a distinction between R&D in the
natural sciences and engineering (NSE) and in the social sciences and humanities
(SSH). Until relatively recently in the UK, data were collected for the NSE only.
This is usually referred to as 'scientific' R&D. The collection of data for R&D in the
'social sciences' dates from the 1970s.
It is almost certainly more difficult to measure R&D in the social sciences than in
the natural sciences and engineering, but the UK authorities seem to have suffered
particularly serious qualms about doing so. The problems concerned are dealt with
in Annexe 1 to the Frascati Manual [B.56], which was written by Jeremy M .
MitcheII, a British consultant, and at greater length in a mimeo by the same author
available from OECD.
'Scientific research' covers 'rnedical sciences' and other science, agriculture,
engineering and technology. Adefinition of 'social sciences' is given in the official
surveys discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. It c1early inc1udes economics and c1early
exc1udes the humanities. However, the CSO ([QRL.152], [QRL.153], p. 130) suggests
that it is a residual, i.e . all R&D which is not covered by the 'disciplines covered in
scientific R&D' including multi-disciplinary work . Note that the medical sciences
have not always been inc1uded in 'science and technology', especially in earlier
manpower series (Chapter 6).
1.5 Expenditure and Employment

Resources devoted to R&D can be measured both in terms of expenditure and
employment. Most of the data available for the United Kingdom are for
expenditure. Very little in the way of employment data is available before the 1970s
and even now whole sectors are excluded.
20
1.5.1 Expenditures
Theoretically, R&D expenditure should cover both current and capital expenditure
but should exclude depreciation allowances. This generally applies to most R&D
expenditure da ta collected in the Uni ted Kingdom. However, a special problem
occurs in the government sector with respect to materials, services and facilities used
in the performance of R&D by government establishments, but paid for on the
general budget of the Department of Environment (earlier the Ministry of Public
Buildings and Works). In R&D surveys proper, imputed sums are generally included
for these , but such sums are often excluded in ancillary sources.
1.5.2 Manpower
Theoretically, manpower indicators should include all persons employed directly on
R&D plus R&D managers and staff providing direct services, such as clerical staff.
All the above should be included, regardless of their level of responsibility or of the
type or level of education they have received . Those providing indirect services, such
as canteen staff, commissionaires, office cleaners, etc., should be excluded. However,
such ' total R&D manpower' data are rarely available before the 1970s. What data
are available are usually only for scientists, engineers and technicians.
1.6 R&D Content and 'Mainly R&D' Accounting
1.6.1 Applied to Performing Units

R&D is not just what research institutes or laboratories do. It is both less and more
than this , since it is unlikely that many of the units included in an R&D survey will
have only one activity. Most perform a mixture of R&D and other scientific and
technological activities or R&D and production activity.
Thus the identification of R&D may involve three stages (Frascati Manual [B.561,
p. 147).
The 'identification and measurement of the total activity of all specialised
i)
R&D units.
ii)
Subtraction from this total of their activity which is non-R&D.
iii) Addition to this of any R&D activity performed outside research units , e.g. in
production units, education departments or hospitals.'
If all these stages are followed through then only the 'R&D content' of the unit's
activities will be included. If, however, only the first stage is attempted, then 'mainly
R&D' accounting has been used . For example, both approaches will be found in the
case of the Research Councils. Sometimes all their activities can be considered as
R&D (thus, 'mainly R&D' accounting). Sometimes certain of them, notably support
for postgraduate education, are excluded (R&D content accounting). In theory,
'R&D content' accounting has been used throughout our period in the official R&D
surveys, although its actual application has tightened up considerably. However, the
data in many of the ancillary sources, such as the reports of various committees and
annual reports, generally use the 'mainly R&D' approach.
21
1.6.2 Calculation 0/ Full-Time Equivalents

The text above deals with the activities of whole units such as laboratories and
research establishments. The same distinction between 'mainly R&D' and 'R&D
content' can be made for individuals working in these units. Thus it is possible to
collect da ta for all persons working mainly on R&D or to collect a full-time
equivalent (FTE) or even ' person-years' on R&D, which corresponds to R&D
content accounting.
1.7 Performance and Source of Funds
R&D activities are often financed by one unit and performed by another and these
units may be in different parts of the same sector (i.e, payments by the DHSS for
R&D performed by the Medical Research Council, or a sub-contract passed from an
aerospace firm to an electronic firm) or even in different sectors of the economy, (i.e.
research grants from the MRC to universities, or an R&D contract from the MOD
to the aerospace industry).
The term 'sectors' can be used to refer to a variety of different levels of
disaggregation from product groups upwards to industrial Divisions (i.e. the previous
SIC Orders). In broad terms, however, the Government chooses to break down the
statistics by seven sectors (see, for example, [QRL.152] and [QRL.153] as folIows:
Central Government . This 'is defined as in the government sector of the national
accounts for the period in question. Thus it inc1udes the UKAEA and
Research Councils'.
Local Authorities. These 'are also defined as in the local authorities sector in the
national accounts, except that R&D work done or financed by their further
education establishments falls under higher education', below .
Private Industry. "This inc1udes firms in private manufacturing, construction, mining
and quarrying industries, private water companies and the distributive and
wholesale trades. Agriculture is not inc1uded, nor are any of the private
service industries not listed above'.
Public Corporations . These 'are also defined in the national accounts and are those
listed in the descriptive handbook for the national accounts figures' (National
Accounts Statistics: Sources and Methods [B.60]). The list of public
corporations has been amended from time to time, particularly in the recent
periods of privatisation. A listing can be found in the footnotes of National
Income and Expenditure (now UK National Accounts) [QRL.109] in successive
years. Arecent statement of the privatisation of previously public
corporations can be found in an artic1e on 'Privatisation' in The Observer
[B.63], p. 67.
Industrial Research Associations . These inc1ude 'co-operative research associations
and other organisations grant-aided by the DTI and also the other industrial
research associations'.
Higher Educat ion. This 'covers the universities and the spending of the local
education authorities on the polytechnics'.
Private Non-Profit-Making Bodies. These inc1ude 'such research performing and/or
financing charitable bodies as the Cancer Research Campaign and the major
grant-dispensing private foundations'.
22
Tracking these flows of funds down is one of the main problems of work with
R&D statistics. Furthermore, each flow may be reported in two ways, as a receipt
from an external source by the performer and as an extramural payment by the
source unit. In principle, the performers' reports are to be preferred as they are
generally better placed to measure the ' R&D content' of expenditure, whereas
funding sources are more likely to report on a 'mainly R&D' basis . Although
'performer-based' reporting is theorctically best, a good deal of the data discussed in
this review are 'source-based' .
1.8 Occupation Versus Level and Type of Qualification

In theory, people working on R&D may be analysed either in terms of their current
occupation or in terms of their level and type of qualification. Again, in theory, the
best approach to use depends on the type of question being asked. In practice, most
UK sources use a mixture of the two approaches which tends to produce either
overlapping categories or gaps . The following, rather theoretical, discussion is
provided as a background to the descriptions of the data provided in Chapters 2 and
6.
1.8.1 Occupation
Four occupation levels may be identified: R&D scientists and engineers; technicians;
clerical and administrative staff; and other supporting staff.
1.8.1.1 R&D scientists and engineers (RS Es) . These are also sometimes referred to
as 'researchers', 'scientists and engineers' or 'research staff'. The latter term is used in
the questionnaire for the only official UK survey to collect such data ([QRL.153] and
Appendix 1). This questionnaire does not offer any further explanations. The official
international definit ion is: 'Persons actually engaged in the conception andfor
creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems' [B.56].
1.8.1.2 Technicians. The question of how to define the job of a technician has
been more widely discussed. The questionnaire for the 1968 Survey of Engineers and
Technological and Scientific Manpower, quoted in [QRL.194] (this survey will be
discussed in Chapters 6 and 7) indicates that "Technicians and other technical
supporting staff occupy positions between that of the qualified engineer, technologist
or scientist on the one hand and the skilled foreman , craftsman or operative on the
other. In most cases they are in jobs-v-in which they are either subject to the
direction of an engineer, technologist or scientist or are engaged primarily in the
application of proven techniques. Within these prescribed limits their education and
accumulated specialised skills enable them to exercise technical judgement. By this is
meant an understanding, by reference to general principles, of the reasons for and
the purposes of their work and an ability to select the appropriate established
techniques and skills to carry it out.'
The principal border-line problem between research staff and technicians occurs in
the case of R&D which involves the use of extremely sophisticated equipment. The
persons who operate and maintain this equipment may not themselves be directly
engaged in the conception and creation of new knowledge, but their job may take
INTRODUCTIO N AN D G ENERAL CONCEPTS
23
equivalent intellectual dem and s. The French, for example, identify such persons
sepa rate ly in cert ain studies as 'ingenieurs non-chercheurs.'
1.8.1.3 Clerical and Administrative Stajf. A rath er similar problem arises in the
case of the supervisor of the person who is actua lly engaged in the conception and
creat ion of new kno wledge, particularl y when the former is an ex-researcher.
Accord ing to internation al sta ndards, based on original United States practice,
persons who supervise the scientific or intellectual aspects of a researcher's work
should be included with research ers, whereas persons prin cipally engaged in work on
budgets, social security payment s, etc., should be included with clerical and
adm inistrative staff. UK sources have generally preferred to include all R&D
administration with clerical work in the clerical and admini strative class.
1.8.1.4 Other supporting stajf. This group comprises indu str ial staff of various
kind s, and broadly the same problems outlined abov e are relevant for this group.
1.8.2 Level and Type 0/ Qualification

Both these criteria are significa nt in the context of comparing the various series of
R&D emplo yment data available in the United Kingdom.
1.8.2.1 QSEs. The se are persons with university degrees or equi valent in science,
technology and engineering, but not in the medical and allied sciences or in the social
sciences and hum anitie s. Th ey include persons with university degrees, with
equ ivalent technical awards and/or membership of selected profe ssional institutes.
(Further deta ils can be found in Chapters 6 and 7).
1.8.2.2 Other university graduates or equivalent. This class covers: persons with
university degrees or equi valent in medicine, pharm acy, dentistry or veterinary
sciences; persons with university degrees or equ ivalent in the social sciences or
humanities.
1.8.2.3 All other qualifications. Thi s is a residual class which covers a wide range
of qualifications, includ ing: other post-secondary qualifications, such as HNC,
HND, HTD and equi valent Business Education Council (BEC) qu alifications;
Higher Secondary qu alifications, such as GCE A Level, ONC, OND, OTD and the
equivalent BEC qual ification; Lower Secondary qualifications, such as GCE 0
Level, CSE , GCSE, Cit y & Guilds, etc.
1.8.3 Occupation Crossed with Level and Type 0/ Qualification
No UK survey of R&D employment has ever publi shed a full cross-classification of
qu alification and occupation, although such a cro ss-tabul ation would be extremely
interesting. Most surveys have used a mixed approach where the highest level has
been defined in term s of occup ation. Thus it assumes th at, on the one hand there are
no RSEs who do not have a university degree or equivalent and on the other th at
there are no technicians or administra tive staff with university degrees or equivalent.
The first of those assumptions is probably fairly accurate in recent years, but
probably not for the earlier years of the period covered by this review, before the
major expans ion of university education in the 1960s. (It is still far below the 100 per
cent figure). It is quite possible that in the 1950s there were persons working as RSEs
whose highest form al qualification was HNC. (In Fr ance in 1963, nearl y a third of
24
all industrial 'chercheurs' did not have a university degree or equivalent). Since the
university expansion we can expect significant numbers of graduates to be working at
virtually all levels. By 1968, for example, approximately 29 per cent of all QSEs
working on R&D in the government sector were employed as technicians
[QRL.113] . Similarly, one might currently expect to find significant numbers of SSH
graduates in administrative and clerical posts .
1.9 Problems of Comparison

1.9.1 Between Different Sources
This type of difficulty is, of course, not peculiar to R&D statistics. It is, however, a
particularly common problem when assembling R&D data for a number of reasons.
First, R&D is an activity which is undertaken in virtually all sectors and sub-sectors
of the economy. The reader interested in compiling data for a given field or area of
R&D will be using da ta reported by a wide range of institutions whose practical
application of the theoretical concepts of R&D accounting may vary, particularly
between funders and performers, or who may indeed have been asked different
questions. For example , in the case of health-oriented R&D one must try to fit
together R&D on drugs, medicine and medical equipment performed in industry,
R&D by health departments in government, biomedical R&D financed or performed
by the Medical Research Council and medical research in private non-profit
institutes and in the universities. A second reason for problems in matehing different
sources for R&D data within the United Kingdom in the 1950s and 1960s is that
R&D expenditure data were collected quite separately from R&D employment data.
For example, the two types of data used different sampling frames for industry.
The third reason reflects recent policy attitudes towards R&D . Immediately after
the implementation of A Framework for Government Research and Development
[QRL.83], more data were issued for publicly funded R&D , but at the cost of
excessive fragmentation. All the important R&D data available for the period
1955/56 - 1972/73 could be found in about a dozen publications, supplemented by
the annual Memoranda of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Annual
Reports of the Research Councils. The result was about two dozen reports issued
annually containing some R&D data, all using different classifications and some
using different definitions. These problems of comparability occur for many kinds of
R&D data. They are, however, at their worst for military and civil aerospace R&D
and also for governrnent-funded R&D for other high technology programmes, in
particular, in the earlier years, for nuclear energy and, latterly, for electronics .
The diversity of government reporting of R&D was criticised in the Report by the
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Science and
Government [QRL.164]. The Government's response was to introduce 'Annual
Reviews of Research' in 1983. The main concern of the Annual Review was to
provide information about central Government expenditure on R&D, which is not
contained in a single separate R&D budget, Annual Review of Government Funded
R&D . 1985 [QRL.51] p. 1. The 1983 Review attempted to establish a consistent data
base for the period 1977/78 to 1982/3, along with consistent procedures for the
25
regular reporting of information. The surveys have evolved, over time, with better
information about R&D employment, a clearer set of definitions (i.e. on 'strategic'
rather than 'seedcorn' research), more information on nationalised industries , etc.
1.9.2 Problems 0/ Comparison over Time
1.9.2.1 Changes in concepts and definitions. The quality of United Kingdom R&D
da ta has certainly improved during the period under review. In the main this is not
the result of changes in concepts and definitions, but rather of the improved
applicat ion of those already existing. This is particularly true of the mid-I960s, when
a number of improvements and revisions were introduced. Two types of data have,
however, suffered considerably from changes in methodology: information about
expenditure in the higher education sector and statistics on R&D employment.
1.9.2.2 Institutional changes. During the period under review the institutional
arrangements for the funding and performance of R&D by government have
undergone two major upheavals ; the first as a result of the Science and Technology
Act of 1965 [QRL.166]; the second followed the application of the White Paper on
the organisation of R&D [QRL.83] in the early 1970s. Furthermore there has been
an almost steady stream of individual institutional changes as industries have been
nationalised/privatised, public corporations set up, old ministries broken up and new
ministries or departments formed, etc. These changes have nearly all affected the
R&D series in one way or another. The major cases will be discussed in the chapters
which follow. (See also the footnotes to UK National Accounts - formerly National
Income and Expenditure [QRL.109]. A discussion of recent privatisation can be found
in [B.63].
1.9.2.3 Changes in the price, quality and mix 0/ factors devoted to R&D. Analyses
of trends in the amount of resources devoted to R&D generally stress the importance
of one factor, i.e. the research scientists and engineers (RSEs) who actually generate
new knowledge. However, their work depends on the support of auxiliary staff
(technicians, clerical and administrative staff etc.) and on the availability of suitable
materials, equipment, buildings and other supporting services. Conceptually , for
there to be an increase in the volume of R&D in an institution, sector or nation ,
there must be an increase in the number of RSEs with no change in their 'R&D
environment'. The first UK work on this topic was The Sophistication Factor in
Science Expenditure [B.ll] by Cohen and Ivens, although they built on previous
American studies of expenditure per scientist and engineer, notably Arnow [B.l],
Brunner [B.9], Milton [B.23] and Searle [B.31].
Obviously the first element to be excluded when examining trends in this way is
the effect of inflation, particularly for the second half of the 1970s when the rapid
rate of inflation made comparisons over time at current prices meaningless. One
possibility is to deflate the R&D data using a general price index such as the implicit
deflator of the Gross Domestic Product. However, over half of R&D expenditure is
on labour costs and only about one tenth is in the form of capital expenditure . Thus
the rate of inflation for R&D can be expected to be different from, and indeed
probably higher than, that in the economy at large.
The calculation of such special 'R&D price indices' raises all the classic problems
of price index work . (See, for example, [B.71] and [B.6]). The main practical problem
26
is, however, to obtain the price series. The most accurate approach would be to
establish special price series specific to the various types of resources devoted to
R&D in different sectors , fields, industries, etc. This has been attempted in the
United States for defence R&D [B.47] and in Germany [B.38], but never in the
United Kingdom, as the cost and the difficulty of obtaining the basic data is too
great. The most common approach, therefore, is to use proxy indices for the main
types of resources, which are either applied direct to the R&D data by type of cost
(e.g. [QRL.21O] and [B.6]) or used to produce an index based on the cost pattern in a
set year (e.g. [B.72]). In the more sophisticated cases, different price series are used
for each industry or field whereas in the simpler models one index is caIculated for a
whole sector. A general discussion of the topic will be found in Frascati Manual
[B.56], p. 269-295. Further details of the main 'R&D price indices' available will be
given in the chapters dealing with the type of da ta they are designed to deflate.
Once allowance has been made for general inflation, i.e. the effect of changes in
price of a fixed basket of R&D goods, one has a first approximation of changes in
the volume of R&D activities, either in total or per RSE . Then comes the question
of changes in the quality of the inputs which cannot be dealt with by deflation based
on proxy price series. Cohen and Ivens [B.ll] coined the term 'sophistication' to
describe residual changes in the amount of resources per RSE after deflation. Since
then it has come to be used mainly in connection with equipment (Nicholson [B.25]
pp. 512-30), linked to the increase in costs brought about by the installation and
maintenance of more complex equipment, and often associated with the underlying
idea that such equipment is necessary to maintain RSE 's 'environment' or even their
'productivity'.
Equipment is not the only factor devoted to R&D whose quality has changed over
the period under review. The R&D labour force has undergone major changes. The
average level of education of supporting staff in general and of technicians in
particular has certainly risen. The case of the RSEs themselves is open to discussion .
Cohen and Ivens identified what they called the 'youth factor' which has since
become known as the 'ageing factor'. Until recently, R&D has generally been an
activity for young graduates. The number of senior R&D posts has traditionally been
fairly small and staff were expected to move on to other activities after aperiod as
RSEs. For example, the amount of time spent on R&D was known to decline with
rank in the universities [B.68]. However, in recent years, at least up to the early
1980s with the economy sluggish and the university boom over, the degree of upward
or outward mobility of RSEs has declined considerably, not only in the United
Kingdom but also in a number of other OECD countries. RSEs are staying put and
'ageing' and so research teams are not being renewed by the entry of young RSEs .
Thus, there is some feeling that the overall quality of the RSE labour force may be
declining. On the other hand, the average cost of employing RSEs is rising not only
because of increases in salary rates for the various grades , but also because in many
sectors staff receive regular increments within their grade . Furthermore, established
staff may cost more in terms of social benefits, such as family allowances, than
recent graduates. It is this increase in cost which Cohen and Ivens referred to as the
'youth factor' and, at that time, put at 2.5 per cent p.a. Either this increase has to be
treated as a special form of inflation, or it has to be taken to reflect an increase in
quality, incremental or grading drift. Treating this as an increase in quality may be
27
inappropriate in the light of the arguments about the higher contributions of younger
RSEs, although the precise relationship between productivity and age has never been
firmly established.
Some degree of substitution is possible between the types of resources devoted to
R&D and has certainly taken place over the period under review. Cohen and Ivens
found an increase both in the number of supporting staff and in the volume of
capital equipment per RSE in the public sector during the period 1955-1964 [B.ll].
More recent studies of industrial R&D, 1967-1975 [QRL.167] suggest that there has
been a decline both in supporting staff and capital expenditure per RSE , but an
increase in the balance of expenditure on materials and bought-in services.
1.9.3 Problems 0/ International Comparison
Although this is too vast a field to examine thoroughly in this review, it is worth
identifying the main types of problems which arise.
1.9.3.1 Divergences between national and international standards. Most countries
collect R&D data broadly in line with the standards laid down by international
organisations. However, there are a number of divergences from these standards, for
example: in the United States industrial R&D da ta include depreciation instead of
capital expenditure; in Japan R&D employment da ta in the higher education sector
are over-estimated because all academics who claim to work regularlyon R&D are
included (and very few academics admit to not working 'regularly' on R&D), in
addition, Japanese data include all disciplines whereas other countries generally do
not. Such divergences are usually known even if they cannot be accurately
quantified.
1.9.3.2 Divergences between dijferent sets 0/ international standards. The United
Kingdom collects data in line with the 'Frascati Standards' of the OECD area . The
countries of Eastern Europe have their own system of 'CMEA Indicators on Science
and Technology.' A satisfactory explanation of exactly what the latter comprise does
not currently exist in English, but they are clearly different from the OECD series in
a number of respects. Theoretically, a link between the two is provided by the
UNESCO system for statistics of science and technology.
1.9.3.3 Institutional dijferences. Even where a country responding to an
international organisation does its best to observe all the standards concerned, there
will always be differences caused by the cultural and organisational history of the
country concerned. Those differences can obviously be very large when comparisons
are made with countries with a totally different economic system, e.g. the CMEA
countries. But such variations can and do occur even between the relatively similar
countries of Western Europe. For example, in the United Kingdom the higher
education sector is narrowly defined to include only teaching establishments. All the
Research Council units, including those situated in universities, are allocated to the
Government sector. In France, however, the Conseil National pour la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS), which corresponds to the Research Councils , is officially part
of the higher education sector and all its research units are included along with
universities. When making international comparisons of R&D data, especially
outside industry, itis always worthwhile to check on the institutional background.
Social and cultural factors mayaiso affect other types of R&D data, notably the
sub-classification of R&D manpower by qualification and /or function and the
28
breakdown by type of activity.

1.9.3.4 Exchange rates. The classic method of making direct international
comparisons is to convert the expenditure of the country concerned into a common
currency, such as the dollar. However, in the case of the Uni ted Kingdom, the
normal exchange rate has historically over-estimated the internal cost of R&D
compared with a number of countries, notably the United States and, more recently,
the continental countries, and even Japan, although this conclusion may be changed
somewhat by recent realignments of currencies.
The earliest efforts made to calculate purchasing power parities for R&D were
made by Freeman round about 1960. These calculations compared the industry in
the United Kingdom and the United States [B.17]. They were extended to a wider
range of countries for 1961 [B.18]. This approach established the most popular
method for estimating such rates, i.e. weights based on a type of cost breakdown,
specific parities for salaries of R&D manpower and proxy parities drawn from more
general studies (in Freeman's case, the Gilbert and Kravis studies [QRL.69] and
[B.19]). Rather a different approach was used by Brunner in a study of the basic
research costs in Europe and the United States in the middle 1960s [B.43] and [B.9].
McDonald [B.21] concentrated on a novel method of deriving equipment costs from
foreign trade data. A gap followed until the results of a new round of international
purchasing power parities for national accounts became available in the middle
1970s, see Kravis , Heston and Summers International Comparisons of Real Product
Purchasing Power [QRL.16] and Kravis, Kenessy, Heston and Summers A System of
International Comparisons of Gross Product Purchasing Power [B.19]. The United
Kingdom is included in both volumes of the UN exercise and the 1975 EEC study
[B.53]. The OECD secretariat has used both these EEC and UN detailed sources to
estimate special weighted R&D purchasing power ratios for industrial R&D for the
1970s Trends in Industrial R&D [QRL.209]. It has used the ordinary GDP purchasing
power parities now published by the CEC and OECD for later work. A general
discussion of constructing R&D exchange rates will be found in Frascati Manual
[B.56] p. 296-306.
CHAPTER 2
THE NATIONAL SURVEY

2.1 Origins
The first official attempt to calculate the total amount of national resources devoted
to scientific R&D was made for the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (ACSP)
for the year 1955, and the results were published in their annual report for 1956/57
[QRL.39] . The ACSP had a mandate to advise on alt aspects of science and
technology and their interest in R&D was strictly economic. They argued that, 'Any
expansion of the economy and any increase in our standard of living will depend
largely on the development of new processes and new products wh ich we can selt in
overseas markets. For a country so placed the importance of our efforts in scientific
research and development can hardly be over-estimated' [QRL.39]. ACSP's estimates
of private industry's expenditure on R&D were based on the preliminary results of
an enquiry conducted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
(DSIR) in 1955. The value of Government R&D contracts with private industry was
estimated separately by ACSP. Both sets of data were published in the 1955/56
annual report. However, the complete findings of the 1955 survey were later
published by DSIR in Estimates 0/ Resources Devoted to Scientific and Engineering
Research and Development in British Manufacturing Industry . 1955 [QRL.76].
Thi s first survey was modelled largely on those already undertaken by the
National Science Foundation in the United States. It is worth noting that there was
alread y some experience of related unofficial surveys in the UK, primarily those of
the FRI Scientifi c and Technical Research in British Industry [QRL.173]. We return to
the se in Chapter 7 below. The basic characteristics ha ve varied little in subsequent
surveys although the quantity and quality of the data coltected have improved
considerably (see section 2.4.2). Over this period similar concepts have been adopted
and refined in most of the advanced market economies.
In fact it is not strictly correct to speak of the ' na tional R&D survey' but rather of
'national R&D totals' as the latter are built up from the results of several surveys
each with its own questionnaire and slightly different specifications (see, for example,
Appendix I). The two largest ones deal with R&D financed and/or performed: (i) by
industry; (ii) by Central Government. Less detailed surveys of R&D are undertaken
in other sub-sectors (private non-profit-rnaking (PNP) institutes, local authority
(LA), and further education (FE)) and special estimates are made for R&D
performed by uni versities.
Some data are available about government R&D from the inter-war period
[QRL.153], p . 135. This ha s become increasingly comprehensive over time, although
it was not systematised during the early post-war period. This culminated in the
criticism s contained in the report on Science and Government produced by the
29
30
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology [QRL.I64], para 20. In
response, the British Government decided to introduce a system of annual reviews of
Government Research. The first Annual Review of Government funded R&D was
for 1982/83, published in January 1984 [QRL.53]. Subsequent reviews have followed
[QRL.54] and [QRL.51). We return to this in detail below.
2.2.1 The National R&D Effort

2.2.1.1 GERD. The most common R&D expenditure aggregate for a country is the
'Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D', or GERD, which is defined as 'Total
intramural expenditure for R&D performed on national territory during a given
period ' (Frascati Manual, [B.56]). Thus, it includes foreign-financed R&D performed
on national territory, but largely excludes horne financed R&D performed abroad.
GERD is usually presented in the form of a matrix showing the flows of funds for
R&D performance between the sectors .
This aggregate is sometimes referred to in older UK reports as the Gross National
Expenditure on R&D. However in official international nomenclature this term
(shortened to GNERD) is reserved for another national aggregate , i.e. total R&D
financed by a country excluding foreign funded R&D at horne, but including
payments for R&D abroad. In the case of purely UK data there need be no
confusion as all the surveys except the first were designed to collect Gross Domestic
Expenditure on R&D. However some foreign sources , notably for France, contain
data for GNERD.
2.2.1.2 Total R&D manpower. According to the international standard, the
employment aggregate corresponding to GERD should comprise total employment
working directly on R&D on national territory during a given period expressed as
full-time equivalents (F.T.E.) (Frascati Manual, [B.56]). In practice, after a brave
first shot at measuring the total national R&D labour force in 1955/56 [QRL.39]
!ittle effort was made to collect data on total R&D employment in the United
Kingdom until the middle 1960s and a complete national aggregate is still not
available.
National surveys in the UK have concentrated on scientific R&D and a full range of
expenditure data are collected together with a certain amount of employment data.
Scientific R&D data are collected and pub!ished separately from Social Science R&D
data. Social Science R&D data have only been collected from the mid-1960s and
then only for central government and more recently, for the private non-profit
sector. It is, therefore, not possible to calculate a Social Science GERD in the
absence of data for the industry and higher education sectors.
2.2.3.1 R&D content accounting. In principle , the national R&D survey covers only
R&D activities proper. The related scientific and technical activities of units
TH E NATIONAL SURVEY
31
principally engaged on R&D should be excluded and any R&D activities by other
units should be included. In industry, however, respondents are instructed to include
all work on development contracts with government departments, the Atomic Energy
Authority and similar bodies, and firms in the aerospace industry are told to include
work on development batches.
2.2.3.2 Performer-based accounting, The national survey is based on the accounts
of performers which can be aggregated to GERD without danger of
double-counting. Where R&D work is contracted out, it is assumed to be covered in
the returns of the contractor, see Bowles [QRL.8] , p. 96. Similarly , flows of funds
between units and between sectors are , in principle, as reported by performers. Some
funder-based information is collected on extramural expenditure but where, as often
occurs , the funder's report differs from that of the performer, the latter's account is
nearly always preferred. For a discussion see, for example, [QRL.153], p. 4. Each
reporting unit provides information based on its own accounting years. Thus,
variations in accounting years can lead to discrepancies between financer and
recipient estimates of R&D at any given point in time [QRL.153] , p. 131, (see seetion
2.4.2.2 below). For a fuller discussion of these discrepancies see Statistical News
August 1970 [8.73] and Bowles' article in Economic Trends [QRL.8] .
2.3 System of Sectors and Sub-sectors

The system comprises four sectors of performance: industry, government, higher
education and other. The source of funds account includes the same four sectors,
plus abroad. The sector definitions are broadly based on national accounts except
that the higher education sector is declared separately. Each sector is made up of a
number of sub-sectors. In addition, the industry and government sectors each have
their own sub-cla ssification . For a more detailed discussion of the definitions. of the
various sectors, see [QRL.153], pp . 130-131 and Bowles [QRL.8], p. 95.
2.3.1 Industry
Industry comprises three sub-sectors: private industry, pub1ic corporations, and
research associations. In addition a sub-classification by industry is given.
2.3.1.1 Private industry , Private industry covers all private firms in industries
thought to perform significant amounts of R&D . Currently it covers manufacturing,
construction, mining and quarrying, private water companies and the distribution
and wholesale trades. Agriculture and forestry are currently excluded along with
storage, banking, insurance, real estate and any other private service industriesnot
already ment ioned, [QRL.153], p. 131. In the surveys undertaken in the ~1 95 0' s
[QRL.39], p. 20, private industry covered only the manufacturing sector.
Construction was added in 1961 /62 [QRL.44] and the other non-rnanufacturing
industries were included from 1964/65 onwards (Statistics 0/ Science and Technology
1964-65 [QRL.185]) .
The coverage of private industry has also been affected by institutional changes ,
notably nationalisation and privatisation (see the discussion and sources given in
Chapter 1). In 1981 , for example, the private industry figures still included a number
32
of companies in which the government owned major shareholdings (such as Rolls

Royce, British Leyland - now Austin Rover, Ferranti and British Nuc1ear Fuels). It
also included the British Aerospace Corporation 'for reasons of comparability'
Bowles [QRL.8], p. 96.
2.3.1.2 Public corporations. The coverage of this sector is usually consistent with
the annual 'National Income and Expenditure' volume for the survey year concerned
[QRL.109]. The number of bodies inc1uded in this sub-sector has increased after
1955/56 [QRL.39], both at the expense of other sub-sectors of industry (e.g.
nationalisation of steel as from 1967/68) [QRL.153], p. 131 and of the government
sector (inclusion of GPO as from 1961 /62). However, British Aerospace has
continued to be treated as part of private industry . Again, the recent privatisation of
various sectors of British industry has reversed these previous trends (see section 1.7).
2.3.1.3 Industrial Research Associations. This sub-sector should inc1ude all those
private non-profit institutions which primarily exist to render R&D services to
(private) industry. The core of the sub-sector is made up of the co-operative and
other research associations which, in 1955/56 [QRL.39], pp. 6-7, were still
grant-aided by the DSIR (see also [QRL.44], p. 35. The early history of the
Industrial Research Associations is charted briefly in DSIR 1965 [QRL.135]. When
the DSIR was broken up in 1965, the Ministry of Technology took over the job of
grant-aiding many of them and subsequently handed on the responsibility to the
Department of Industry (in its various guises). These grants were gradually phased
out in the mid-1970s in favour of extramural contract support in a move which had
been suggested in the 1950's [QRL.39], pp. 6-7. At that date 30 research
associations were linked with the Department of Industry, four (Building Services,
Construction Industry, Timber and Water) with the Department of Environment and
five (Flour Milling and Baking, Campden Food Preservation, British Food
Manufacturing Industries, British Industrial Biological Research, and Processors and
Growers) with the Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food.
Since 1966/67 the sub-sector has also included an unspecified number of 'other
research associations'. In 1964/65 these were c1assified in the present sub-sector in
some tables and in the 'Other' sector in others. Prior to this any such institutions
surveyed were included in 'Other'. From the 1966-67 enquiry onwards, the surveys
were carried out by the department with responsibility for the corresponding private
industry results [QRL.153], p. 134. These surveys were based on the whole
population rather than a sampIe, although not all research associations replied in
every year [QRL.153], p. 134. The question s were essentially the same as those asked
of private industry.
Industrial research associations have been transferred between sectors of the
accounts . In 1967-68, for example, the former British Iron and Steel Research
Association ceased to be such and became part of British Steel, a public corporation
[QRL.153], p. 131. It is not c1ear how profit-making research institutes have
historically been treated in the UK survey. As registered companies they should be
included in 'Private Industry', but the official explanation of the 'Other' sector refers
to 'private research organisations'.
2.3.1.4 Classification in the industry sector. As might be expected, the classification
in this sector is by industry. There are at least two major problems: first, the method
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
33
of classification has changed significantly over the period under review; second, the
classification of industries itself has changed.
The question of how R&D activities in the business enterprise sector should be
broken down between industries has been a matter for discussion between experts for
many years. Should the ' unit classified' be the firm, the division (a group of
establishments with similar products), the establishment or even the R&D
programme or project? Should this unit be classified according to its principal
economic activity or according to the product towards which R&D is oriented? An
exhaustive theoretical treatment of this problem can be found in the Nordic Manual
[B.52]
In the earlier UK surveys, for example, from 1955/56 to 1961/62 inclusive
([QRL.39] and [QRL.44]), the method adopted was one of classifying whole firms
according to their main economic activity. A relatively short list of industries was
used and a breakdown was provided for private industry only .
From 1964/65 onwards a different approach has been adopted. Each respondent in
all three sub-sectors reports information separately for each product field for which
R&D is performed. Product groups that are commonly associated in production and
usually similar in their production processes are grouped together, and are
amalgamated with groups that generally correspond closely to industry groups
because establishments are usually defined in terms of their principal products (see
notes to [QRL.61]). However, it is pointed out that 'the classification must be
regarded as approximate since the allocation of research and development to an
individual product group is not always straightforward and a single programme of
research and development sometimes covers a range of product groups. Comparisons
over time may be affected by differences in the allocation of research programmes to
product groups' Trade and Industry June 1977 [QRL.202], pp . 642-643, (see also
Lieberman [B.20], pp . 12-13). Data are published separately for 30-50 industries.
The actual classification used was originally based on the 1948 SIC and then on
the 1958 SIC (Shenfield and Sharman [B.32]) up until 1969/70 and, until the 1980s,
the 1968 SIC Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1968 [QRL.180]. In essence,
for much of this period, product areas are allocated to their associated Minimum
List Headings (MLHs) and these are , in turn, allocated to SIC orders. More recently,
as we discuss below, the latter have been replaced by two and three digit industry
groups. However, on occasion, it was found necessary to define some product groups
more widely than normal for other purposes, particularly to accommodate the
distribution of R&D work in certain public corporations [QRL.153], p. 134. More
recently, there has been a much more fundamental overhaul of the classification,
resulting in the 1980 SIC which became operative in government statistics from 1980
to 1984, Indexes to the Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1980 [QRL.92] ,
depending on the series involved.
2.3.2 General Government Sector

General Government comprises two
government. For further discussion, see
2.3.2.1 Central government. Central
sector in Great Britain and Northern
sub -sectors: central government and local

[QRL.153], pp . 131-2.
government covers the central government
Ireland (except 1955/56), as defined in the
34
annual National Income and Expenditure volume for the survey year concerned. It,
thus , covers not only central government departments as such, but also the UKAEA
and the Research Councils . In the case of the Research Councils, it should be noted
that not only all Research Council establishments but also all Research Council units
are considered to be part of the central government sector, although the latter are
often situated at universities (and may even be outside the UK, as in the case of
CERN (Rose and Rose [B.29], pp. 191-4, see also [QRL.44], pp. 2-5).
The coverage of this sector has varied somewhat over the period under review, the
main cause being the Post Office Act of 1961 and the Science and Technology Act of
1965. For these and other changes, see section 2.3.4.
The returns of central government identify the functional headings which are
discussed in more detail in the footnotes to the tables (e.g. [QRL.153], pp. 26-64)
and the associated notes and commentary (e.g. [QRL.153], pp. 4-6) . In general, a
number of functional headings fall exclusively within the remit of a given
department. On occasion, however, the responsibil ity for different sections of a given
function lie in different departments. It would appear that in some instances R&D
expenditure may have been allocated by function and , in other cases by department
and that the treatment has changed over time [QRL.153], pp . 131-2.
2.3.2.2 Local government. Local authorities are, also, in principle, defined as in the
national accounts, except that, for R&D purposes, their Further Education
establishments are included in aseparate 'Higher Education' sector . The sub-sector
includes not only local authorities as usually understood, but also 'those publicly
constituted authorities which have the right to levy a rate within a restricted
geographical area in order to finance (or partially finance) their statutory
responsibilities.' [QRL.153], p. 130. It therefore includes bodies such as river and
harbour boards.
In fact local authorities perform very little in the way of R&D activities although
they finance rather more , notably in the Further Education sector.
2.3.2.3 Classification in the government sector. The classification for this sector
has developed over the period under review. A basic distinction within central
government has always been made between defence departments, civil departments
and the research councils. A 'one-off' classification relating to departmental
responsibilities (Agriculture, Health, etc.) was used in 1961 /2 and 1964/65
([QRL.153], pp . 4-5) which is difficult to unravel but seems to be tied to the then
current classification of net central government spending on R&D (see Chapter 3).
This is the only performer-based survey in which the R&D activities of the Research
Councils are distributed between the various functions , e.g. the Medical Research
Council under Health, the Agricultural Research Council under Agriculture and the
Department for Scientific and Industrial Research under industry. From 1966/67
onwards a functional breakdown has been used, (compare for example [QRL.153],
Tables 6 and 6A) based on the classification used in the annual Memorandum by the
Chief Secretary to the Treasury for R&D by Central Government in Great Britain
[QRL.153], pp. 4-5. A review of R&D in the 1970's noted that the UK functional
analysis was based on the Public Expenditure Survey Supply Estimates for 1980/81
(Cmnd 7869) and 1981 /2 (Cmnd 8184) [QRL.190] - see Bowles [QRL.5], p. 97. See
also Bowles article in Economic Trends August 1986 [QRL.lO], p. 89. It follows that
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
35
no such breakdown can be made for R&D in Northern Ireland or for R&D financed
by local authorities.
The main problem with this classification is that it is based on ministerial
functions and the resulting series are affected by changes in ministerial
responsibilities and transfers of research establishments. There is, anyway, a major
break between 1964/65 and 1966/67 because of the Science and Technology Act of
1965 and subsequent major upheavals were caused by the break up of the Ministry
of Technology and the establishment of the Department of the Environment. There
was also the abolition of the DSIR and the major reconstruction of the Research
Councils, Rose and Rose [B.29], pp. 100-2 and [QRL.153] , p. 5. In addition to these
major changes, there has also been a steady triekle of modifications as individual
R&D establishments (often those originally belonging to the DSIR) have changed
hands, some of them three or four times over the period under review. The 'Notes
and Commentary' to [QRL.153], p. 5 also point to the 'major reorganisation of
departments and functions in 1970'. This led to arecasting of the functional
headings, with 1970/71 as the 'link year' (1966/67 was the 'link year' for the earlier
change of headings).
2.3.3 Higher Education

Higher education is not a sector in national accounts. The universities are included in
the personal sector and further education in (local) government. It is separately
identified in R&D accounts because of its special role, notably in the nation's basic
research efforts . Higher education comprises two sub-sectors: universities and
further education.
2.3.3.1 Universities. This sub-sector comprises all universities in the United
Kingdom [QRL.153], p. 131 , as defined in Volume 6 of Statistics of Education issued
by the Department of Edueation and Science for the survey year eoncerned
[QRL.184] and, more recently, in [QRL.211], [QRL.212] and [QRL.213] . That is a
rather narrow definition. Only teaching establishments and research units wholly
controlled by universities are incIuded. The sub-sector excIudes all other research
units situated at universities but principally financed by outside sources, notably
those funded by the Research Councils (which are included in the government seetor)
and those financed by charities (which are included in 'other'). It also excludes any
payments made to individuals employed or attending the universities which are not
paid through university accounts. Such individual payments, which include certain
fellowships and payments to university teachers for consultancy, are deemed to be
payments to 'individuals' who are included in the 'other' sector. It probably also
excludes any R&D financed and performed by sub-units of universities whose
finance does not pass through university accounts, notably Oxford and Cambridge
colleges. It should also be noted that this sector includes university medical schools,
but excludes the hospitals with which they are associated. The latter are included
along with other National Health Service hospitals in the government sector.
2.3.3.2 Further Education. This sub-sector includes further education
establishments receiving a direct grant from the Department of Education and
Science, e.g. the Cranfield Institute of Technology and the Royal College of Art
[QRL.153], p. 131, and those grant-aided from loeal authorities, notably the
36
polytechnics. Further education in Scotland (e.g. the Central Institutes) are

apparently included, see Statistics of Science and Technology [QRL.185], p. 6. The
main change in this sub-sector during the period under review was the granting of
university status to most of the Colleges of Advanced Technology , which also
affected the R&D accounts between the 1964/65 and 1966/67 surveys.
2.3.3.3 Sub-classification. The official international classification for R&D in the
higher education sector is by major field of science. Unfortunately, no breakdown is
made for universities and further education R&D in the United Kingdom , although
the data must be available for the universities as their R&D is actually estimated by
field of science (see section 2.4.3.3). Some information about areas of research can be
gleaned from other sources. For example, the Research Councils often publish quite
detailed statements of the research supported at the universities and , in addition,
there are the universities' own annual reports (see, for example, Chapter 7 below).
2.3.4 Other
Logically, this sector would seem to correspond to the National Accounts 'personal'
sector, less universities. In practice, it is a small and somewhat unstable rag-bag of
institutions, bodies and payments. Furthermore, unlike the other sectors, its coverage
as a sector of performance differs from that as a source of funds .
2.3.4.1 Other as aperformer. Broadly speaking, 'other' as aperformer contains
three sub-sectors: private non-profit (PNP) institutes proper, government-linked
institutes and individuals [QRL.153], p. 131. The PNP sector proper contains
institutes financed and controlled by the main charities, for example the Cancer
Research Campaign Laboratory, [QRL.153], p. 131. The core of the
government-linked sub-sector is made up of two sets of agricultural research
establishments, the first financed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
(Scotland) (later the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland), and the
second by the Department of Education and Science via the Agricultural Research
Council. A list of both sets will be found in the Annual Reports of the Agricultural
Research Council [QRL.24]. It also includes one or two bodies supported by the
Medical Research Council and more recently the Natural Environment Research
Council. Up until 1961 /62 the Royal Observatories and the National Institute of
Oceanography were probably also included, see the Annual Report of the Advisory
Council on Scientific Policy for 1961-62 [QRL.44]. In the 1961 /62 survey the
National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science (NIRNS) which was otherwise
normally included in the UKAEA (see footnotes to various Advisory Council
Reports, e.g. [QRL.44], p. 35) was credited to the 'other' sector. For a discussion of
NIRNS see Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1959--60
[QRL.42]. In 1965 all these (including NIRNS) were incorporated in the new Science
and Natural Environment Research Councils, (Rose and Rose [B.29], pp. 100-2).
The individual and miscellaneous sub-sector is in fact based on extramural
expenditure (see section 2.5.4.5) and includes recipients of public and private grants
or contracts for R&D , such as research fellows, consultants and, also, learned
societies and private research associations. If post-graduates are included then
training grants to post-graduate students from Research Councils are also included
in this sector [QRL.153], p. 131.
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
37
It is probable that in 1955/56 [QRL.39] and to a lesser extent in 1958/59 [QRL.42],

some extramural expenditure abroad was also inc1uded in this sector.
2.3.4.2 Other as a source of funds. According to the technical notes to [QRL.153],
p. 131, 'other as a source of funds inc1udes receipts by the other sectors, government
industry, etc ., - from donations, etc. , made by individuals and from various
transactions such as the sales of patents, licences, equipment, etc. It mayaiso
inc1ude, without possibility of identification, some of the receipts of 'other' accruing
to 'other' from industry for contract research' . Before 1964/65 it also inc1uded
payments from abroad [QRL.44], p. 35 and [QRL.153], p. 10.
2.3.4.3 Sub-classification. With the exception of 1964/65 ([QRL.153], p. 12) when
a distinction was made between 'PN P' and 'other' institutes, no furt her breakdown
of R&D performed in this sector has been provided. The relative size of the
sub-classes can only be estimated from other sources, notably the Agricultural and
Medical Research Councils Annual Reports [QRL.24] and [QRL.28] and the
extramural expenditure of other sectors (see 2.5.4 .5 below).
2.3.5 Abroad
Abroad as a sector of performance should be exc1uded from GERD and from the
corresponding employment aggregate. 'Abroad' is not defined in a purely
geographical sense , i.e. as all R&D units situated outside the UK. Nor does it appear
to be defined strictly in line with the national accounts concept of 'non-residence'.
For an R&D project to be exc1uded from the national R&D effort, it must be
performed abroad and must not be an integral part of a UK programme. In
consequence military and civil testing at Woomera, for example, was inc1uded
(though actually undertaken in Australia) as was the Dragon nuc1ear project (which
as an international programme should, according to national accounts methodology,
be treated as being abroad) . On a much smaller scale the research units of the
Research Councils situated geographically abroad are also inc1uded in Gross
Domestic R&D. Note that in the case of Woomera there is a risk of double counting
at international level, as the Australians reported substantial foreign-financed defence
R&D in the middle 1970s.
Abroad as a source of funds does not seem to present any conceptual problems
other than that it was not separately dec1ared until 1964/65 (see, for example,
[QRL.157], Table 2, pp . 10-11). However practical problems arise in the case of
international programmes and multinational companies. Some indication of the likely
size of these problems can be found in the discussion of R&D carried out within the
UK by foreign-controlled enterprises (see, for example, Trade and Industry April 6,
1979 [QRL.206], p. 34) and from other sources of international technology data (see
Bosworth [B.7]). These will be discussed furt her in the section dealing with sources of
funds . Finally, it should be noted that, because 'Total expenditure on R&D in the
country is, where possible, measured from figures of the performance rather than
those of the funders... the figures of payments to industry in the ta bles of gross R&D
expenditure of central government are not compatible with the figures of total R&D
performed in the United Kingdom', Bowles Economic Trends No. 370, [QRL.8], p.
96.
38
2.4.1 Introduction
R&D data for the various sectors and sub-sectors defined above are usually obtained
by means of separate surveys using different questionnaires. These surveys are
undertaken by different agencies at different intervals in time and often in respect of
somewhat different periods. The results of all these surveys are aggregated to find
national totals and are issued in 'final publications' . However, some results are
available earlier and are issued in 'preliminary publications' (compare, for example
[QRL. 7] and [QRL.8]) .
Appendix I contains the questionnaires used in recent national surveys . The
following text describes only the main characteristics of the surveys , especially the
more recent ones .
2.4.2 Frequency and Time Period
2.4.2.1 Frequency. The regularity with which national research and development
aggregates can be constructed is effectively determined by the frequency of the
industry surveys of research and development, which in the early stages were held
triennially (i.e from 1958/59 [QRL.95] to 1964/65 [QRL.185]) . For a discussion of the
early changes to the surveys see, for example, [QRL.153] p. 135. The survey was
held annually from 1966/67 to 1969/70 [QRL.153] and , then, triennially until 1981
(see, for example, [QRL.5], [QRL.7], [QRL.8], [QRL.60] and [QRL.56]). After the
1981 surve y it was agreed to undertake a small scale inquiry in 1983 and a full
survey in 1985. This move was designed to meet the conflicting need for more
regular data with the burden placed on the firms which are required to complete the
forms [QRL.8] p. 88. Thus, information became available on a biennial basis
between 1981 and 1985 ([QRL.9] and [QRL.58]). Since that time it has become
available annually (on a small sampIe basis) and in detail every four years (see the
notes in [QRL.lO] p. 82 and [B.IO] p. 3). However, da ta for central government has
been collected in respect of all years since 1966/67. Data for Social Science R&D are
of more recent origin and are fully available for the government sector only.
2.4.2.2 Time period. The actual time period for which expenditure data are
collected varies between the sectors as the dates for which employment statistics are
requested. The GERD is thus reported for a split year e.g. 1975/76 or 1981 /82 with
the bulk of the expenditure in the earlier year. The (partial) total national R&D
labour force is reported for the end of the financial year concerned.
In industry, private firms and research associations report information for the
calendar year or for the business year ending in the financial year concerned. Thus
for 1978/79 they reported either for 1978 or for a business year ending somewhere
between April 6th 1978 and April 5th 1979. (See also [QRL.153], p. 132 and Bowles
[QRL.8] , p. 96). Manpower data were collected for 31st December of the calendar
year 'concen1.ed (e.g. 31st Dec. 1975) until the change to average employment during
the year i n 1978/79. Public corporations mostly report their R&D expenditure for the
government financial year (e.g. Ist April 1978 - 31st March 1979). Manpower data,
as in the other sub-sectors of industry, is reported for 31st December.
Central government in the United Kingdom and the majority of local authorities
in England & Wales report for the financial year , Ist April - 31st March, [QRL.153] ,
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
39
p. 131. In the earlier years of the survey Scottish local authorities had financial years
running from mid-May to mid-May, [QRL.153], p. 132. In earlier years, employment
data were collected for 1st April for the whole sector and more recently at Ist
January. The 1983 survey of government R&D , for example , included:
i)
full details of expenditure in 1981 /82 and 1982/83
ii)
'provisional outturn' figures in Iimited detail of expenditure in 1983/84
iii) 'Forecast outturn' figures in limited detail of expenditure in 1984/85, 1985/86
and 1986/87, at cash prices
iv) numbers employed (full-time equivalent) on I January each year from 1982
to 1987'
Bowles [QRL.8], p. 95.
Universities report expenditure for the academic year of the government financial
year concerned (i.e. beginning of August to end of July). Thus, the period to which
the estimate relates generally starts four months later and runs on for some four
months after the end of the financial year in question [QRL.153], p. 134. The
accounting year for further education establishments is variable [QRL.153], p. 134.
PNP institutes proper report R&D expenditure for the nearest financial year to the
calendar year concerned, and this is necessarily variable [QRL.153], p. 134. The
R&D expenditure of Research-Council-linked institutes is reported for the
governmental financial year. 'Miscellaneous' is based on extramural expenditure by
other sectors and the period covered varies accordingly.
2.4.3 Survey Method

2.4.3.1 Industry. R&D in private industry tends to be concentrated in certain
manufacturing industries and in relatively few, generally very large, firms. (For a
discussion , see, for example , Taylor and Silberston [B.35]). The survey authors thus
have two aims. First they must be sure to identify and to obtain reasonable returns
from all the 100 or so really big R&D spenders who, in 1975 for example , taken
together contributed '86 per cent of total R&D employees , 89 per cent of R&D
expenditure, and received 98.5 per cent of government financing of industrial R&D'
Trade and Industry [QRL.206] , p. 32. Second, they must account for R&D spending
in the mass of smaller companies in a wide range of manufacturing and
non-manufacturing industries which perform the remainder. Various sampIe frames ,
sampIe fractions and grossing up methods have been used over the period (see Table
A [QRL.153], p. 133) in order to try and fulfil these two aims. In 1975/76
expenditure recorded on returns actually received accounted for 97 per cent of the
final estimate, compared with 94 per cent in 1972 [QRL.206], p. 34. Note that the
1975 survey was the first survey to be compulsory. In 1978 the percentage dropped
slightly to 96 per cent but increased again to 98 per cent in 1981 when a revised
register was used, see Bowles [QRL.8], p. 96.
Research associations and public corporations are all surveyed. Prior to 1968/69
slightly different questionnaires were used than for private firms, but since then a
common questionnaire has been used [QRL.153] , p. 6. The list of public corporations
is the same as in the corresponding national accounts and , following national
accounts practice, the Post Office is allocated to public corporations and the
UKAEA to government, see Bowles [QRL.8], p. 96.
40
2.4.3.2 Government. Prior to 1966/67 special surveys were made of R&D

performed by central government establishments. Since then the survey has been
undertaken as part of the annual PESC exercise. At least, one element of central
government R&D expenditure is, however, only an estimate. This is the R&D
thought to be performed in National Health hospitals alongside their regular care
activities and financed out of their general budget. Such estimates have been included
since 1966/67 although they have sometimes been omitted from provisional results.
R&D by local authorities, where available, is generally surveyed on a sampie basis.
No further details of this survey are available . In recent national surveys R&D by
local authorities is only an estimate.
2.4.3.3 Higher Education . R&D expenditure by universities in Great Britain is
estimated by the University Grants Committee on the basis of the general financial
returns made to them by the universities. Similar estimates are made by the
government of Northern Ireland for the Ulster universities. The basis of these
estimates is not revealed as a matter of principle. The methods of estimating seem to
have changed several times over the period under review. In particular, a change
took place between 1969/70 and 1972/73 in order to apply the results of a survey of
how university staff divided their time between teaching, research and administration
in 1970 [B.68]. Estimates of the spending on the training of post-graduate research
students and research in the social sciences and humanities were first included in
1981 , and the government contribution via the UGC was apportioned using the,
rather dated , information for 1969/70 on the allocation of academic time [QRL.5], p.
110 and [QRL.7], p.108.
2.4.4 Publications
2.4.4.1 National aggregates and final publications. During the period covered by this
review four agencies in turn have taken overall responsibility for issuing the results
of the national R&D survey. From 1955/56 to 1961 /62 the surveys were undertaken
for the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy and the results were published in their
Annual Reports for the years following the survey [QRL.39], [QRL.40], [QRL.41],
[QRL.42], [QRL.43], [QRL.44], [QRL.45], and [QRL.46]. The responsibility was then
passed to the Department of Education and Science which organised the surveys for
1963/64, 1966/67, 1967/68 and issued their results in aseries called Statistics 0/
Science and Technology [QRL.185], [QRL.186], and [QRL.187]. The Central
Statistical Office then took over responsibility for co-ordinating the surveys and, for
example, dealt with those for 1969/70, 1972/73 and 1975/76. The results in the first
two of these were issued in a new CSO series called, Research and Development
Expenditures [QRL.153] and [QRL.152]. Provisional results for 1972/73 were also
published published in Trade and Industry [QRL.204] and a break down by company
size appeared about two years later in the same source, [QRL.205]. The results for
1975/76 and preliminary 1978/79 results appeared in Economic Trends [QRL.I] and
[QRL.2]. Results for 1975 were also presented in Trade and Industry [QRL.202] and
these were again, later, broken down by enterprise size (and by foreign ownership)
[QRL.206]. Detailed results for 1975 appear in Business Monitor [QRL.60]. Summary
results for 1978 were reported in British Business (formerly Trade and Industry)
[QRL.57] and the detailed results in Business Monitor [QRL.60]. From autumn 1980
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
41
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) took over overall responsibility and
has continued to publish annual articles in Economic Trends [QRL.5], [QRL.6],
[QRL. 7], [QRL.8], [QRL.9] and [QRL.lO]. Some of the information is also reported
in British Business [QRL.56] . These articles not only contain statistical tables and
notes but also comments on the main results and the trends which they reveaI.
National aggregates have also been published in the Annual Abstra ct 0/ Statistics
[QRL.8] . One of the main problems with R&D da ta in the 1960s and 1970s was the
long time lag between the collection of the data and their final publication. For
example , the final publication with the 1972/73 data only came out in 1976 and
certain tabulations for 1975 were published in 1979. However, the decision to
publish articles rather than separate reports resulted in the summary results of the
1978 exercise becoming available in August 1980 [QRL.57] with the final results
following a year later in August 1981 [QRL.5].
2.4.4.2 Sector publications. Although the four bodies mentioned above have been
responsible for co-ordinating the national surveys, different ministries have
undertaken the surveys of the individual sectors. In the case of the government,
higher education and other sectors the data have merely been handed over to the
co-ordinating body for publication. However, in the case of the data for industry,
data have also been issued separately.
The first three government surveys of industrial R&D made during the main
period covered in this review were organised by the DSIR, and they issued aseparate
report for both the 1955 survey [QRL.76] and the 1958 exercise [QRL.95], but not in
respect of 1961 /62 which was published by the Advisory Council [QRL.44]. Since
1964/65 the industry survey has been undertaken by a unit situated successively in
the Ministry of Technology, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department
of Industry and then the Department of Trade and Industry again . (The
questionnaires which are currently sent by both the DTI and the BSO, will, in the
future , be the responsibility of the BSO). As the industry data have often been
available weIl before that for other sectors, they have traditionally been released first
in Economic Trends [QRL.8] or in Trade and Industry [QRL.204] now British
Business [QRL.57]. These articles generally provide a commentary on the results,
unlike the DES and CSO final publications, which tend to be purely statistical. A
table on R&D in private industry also appe ars in the Annual Abstract 0/ Statistics
[QRL.8] .
2.5 Expenditure Data
2.5.1 Total Intramural Expenditure on R&D
This is the basic R&D expenditure measure . Total intramural expenditure includes
all funds used for the performance of R&D within a particular unit, organisation,
seetor of the eeonomy, ete., whatever the source of finance. It includes both current
and eapital expenditure. It is measured gross, i.e. eurrent expenditure on R&D
excludes aetual or imputed provisions for depreeiation.
2.5.2 Total Intramural Expenditure by Type 0/ Cost
The expend iture by type of eost involves the distinetion between eapital and current
eosts and between their component parts. This breakdown is important for two
42
reasons: first because it is the way in which total intramural expenditure should be
built up; and second, because it allows one to examine the 'factors of production'
devoted to R&D. (To our knowledge, no-one has attempted to construct estimates of
R&D capital stock, although the government publishes perpetual-inventory-based
estimates of gross domestic fixed production capital). This breakdown is also
required for the calculation of R&D price indices and R&D exchange rates.
Some information on type of cost has always been collected for private industry.
A systematic breakdown between current and capital expenditure throughout the
national survey was introduced in the 1961 /62 exercise. A particularly detailed
breakdown was used in the 1964/65 survey, with five sub-c1asses of current
expenditure and two sub-c1asses of capital expenditure. Since 1966/67 the following
c1assification has been used:
i)
sa1aries and wages - shou1d in fact cover all 1abour-costs, including 'all
overtime payments, bonuses and commissions and holiday pay and should be
gross, i.e. before deductions for income tax, insurance, contributory
pensions, etc. Employers' contributions to national insurance and pension
schemes should also be included' (Industry Questionnaire, 1972/73);
ii)
materials and equipment;
iii) other current expenditure;
iv) capital - land and buildings;
v)
capital - plant and equipment.
2.5.3 Current R&D Expenditure by Type 01 Activity

2.5.3.1 General. The breakdown between basic research , applied research and
development is one which is of particu1ar interest to the users of R&D data, notably
science po1icy-makers, but it is much less popular among those who actually collect
the data, who tend to belicve that the element of subjective judgement by
respondents is too high. Thc use of this breakdown in the case of social science
research poses special problems (see Frascati Manual, [B.56] para 140). In fact, the
type of activity data for social science R&D does not appear to have been issued in
the UK .
The breakdown was first attempted for total intramural R&D expenditure on
scientific R&D in selected sectors in 1961 /62 [QRL.44]. Since 1964/65 the breakdown
has been adopted for current expenditure on scientific R&D (see, for example,
[QRL. 71]). The definitions given in the questionnaires are as folIows.
i)
Basic or fundamental research - work undcrtaken primari1y for the
advancement of scientific knowledge without a specific practical application
10
ii)
view.
Applied research - research undertaken with either a general or a

particular application in view.
iii) Development - the use of the resu1ts of basic and applied research
directed to the introduction of useful materials, processes , products, devices
and systems, or the improvement of existing ones. (In practice, it includes the
prototype or pilot plant stage and all work done on development contracts
with government departments, the UKAEA and other public bodies. Firms
in the aircraft industry should include expenditure on development batches).
See also [QRL.44], p. 15, [QRL.152], p. 2 and [QRL.153], p. 3.
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
43
Recently, the government has introduced the concept of 'strategic' research

(originally termed 'seedcorn' research) [QRL.54] , and the definition of this was
subsequently tightened [QRL.51], p. I. 'Strategie research , therefore, is defined as
applied research which is in a subject area which has not yet been advanced to the
stage where eventual applications can be clearly specified', [QRL.51] , p. 57.
2.5.3.2 Industry. Although this distinction is supposed to be particularly difficult
to apply in industry , a full breakdown is provided for all sub-sectors (see, for
example , [QRL.152] ,Table 14, pp. 38-39).
2.5.3.3 Government . Two major problems occur in the government sector. First, a
certain amount of current expenditure, notably by defence departments, is not
broken down. Second , a number of bodies have made sudden changes in their
reporting habits. This is particularly obvious in the case of the Research Councils. In
the 1960s both the ARC and the NERC reported much of their current expenditure
as applied research but with some basic research and development. From 1970 to
1972 a larger share of current expenditure was credited to basic research . After that
time they appeared to count expenditure financed by the Department of Education
and Science as basic research and expenditure financed by mission-oriented ministries
as applied research. These changes certainly reflect what the Research Councils were
supposed to be doing according to the government of the day, but it is not what is
meant by 'performer-based' reporting. Other cases of 'quick change' can be found,
e.g. that of the industrial R&D establishments included in the sub-class 'other trade
and industry' between 1967 and 1968.
2.5.3.4 Higher Education. Reporting habits for the higher education sector have
also varied. In 1961 /62 and 1964/65 it was assumed that 90 per cent of university
R&D was basic and 10 per cent was applied. Between 1966/67 and 1968/69 a more
or less 50/50 breakdown between basic and applied research was used. Compare, for
example , Tables 5 and 5A [QRL.153], pp. 22-23. The breakdown was abandoned in
1969/70 see Table 5B [QRL.153] , p. 24. The breakdown for FE establishments is
based on their survey responses, but is not alwa ys available separately.
2.5.3.5 Other. The breakdown for the 'other' sector generally applies only to 'PNP
institutes proper' and occasionally also to Research-Council-linked institutes.
2.5.4 Sources 0/ Funds
2.5.4.1 General. As we have already noted, there are considerable flows of funds
between units, industries, and sectors of the economy for the performance of R&D,
notably, but not exclusively, between government and other sectors . For example, in
1978/79 government financed 29 per cent of industrial R&D , 85 per cent of R&D in
its own laboratories, 78 per cent of higher education R&D and 70 per cent of 'other'
R&D, British Business [QRL.57], p. 620. Such a breakdown is obviously of primary
interest to policy makers and has, thus , been collected for scientific R&D since the
earliest national surve ys.
These national totals are built up by aggregating the results at various levels.
Theoretically each performing unit should be asked to distinguish between R&D
financed out of 'own fund s' and financed by 'outside sourees', broken down between
the five sector s defined in section 2.3 (industry, government, higher education, other
and abroad). This has indeed been the approach in most sur veys, although it is
44
probable that in the less comprehensive surveys, for the years 1955/56 to 1961 /62
[QRL.44], a number of gaps were filled with estimates based on other units' and
sectors' extramural expenditure .
If these results are to be aggregated they must be based on intramural expenditure
on R&D performance. The Frascati Manual suggests that source of funds data
should actually be collected for total intramural expenditure [B.56]. However, in the
United Kingdom respondents report for intramural plus extramural R&D
expenditure. In order to avoid double counting when aggregating to the sector and
national total (GERD), the extramural expenditures then have to be excluded. This
is generally done by assuming that all extramural expenditure is financed out of the
'own funds' of the unit concerned (see, for example, [QRL.8], p. 96). This is certainly
the standard approach in the industry sector, although it is possible that some
adjustment is made in the government sector for obvious transfer payments . (For
example, the Science Research Council's expenditure on hardware for its space
programmes might have been paid initially to the MOD , which then might have
placed the corresponding contracts with industry).
The UK survey varies from standard international practices in at least one way,
i.e. with respect to what are called 'retained receipts' of R&D establishments .
According to the Frascati Manual [B.56] only receipts for the performance of R&D
should be credited to external sources. Receipts from the sales of other goods and
services (e.g. licences, patents , vaccines, agricultural produce, scientific journals, use
of test facilities), which are subsequently used to finance the performance of R&D,
are the 'retained receipts' of the performing unit and should be included in its 'own
funds'. This rule is designed to avoid unnecessary differences between the extramural
expenditure of the original funder and the receipt of the performer. In such cases, the
unit which pays the royalties or purchases the vaccines, etc., clearly does not , and
should not, count the transaction as being for R&D. However, in the UK surveys
such 'retained receipts' are generally not included in thc 'own funds' of the
performing unit, but are credited to their source of origin. This approach was
discontinued in the industry sector from 1968/69, (it explains the apparently high
receipts of industry from 'other' in 1964/65 [QRL.153], pp. 12-13 and 1966/67
[QRL. I53], p. 16), but was still used in the government sector where all
appropriations in aid are credited to their source of origin, thus giving the erroneous
impression that industry finances an appreciable share of government-performed
R&D (see especially the 1972/73 survey [QRL. I52]).
2.5.4.2 Industry. In the industry sector, where the source of funds data are
collected and published for intramural plus extramural expenditure by product field ,
a major problem has always been how to measure government R&D support, for a
number of reasons including:
i)
varying time-periods covered by the reports of the agencies and firms
concerned;
ii)
varying concepts of what constitutes 'R&D activity' (i.e. government's
concepts are often wider than those of the performers);
iii) varying coverage of what constitutes a flow of funds for R&D, for instance,
firms may report the sums including taxes and Government excluding taxes,
(conversely, government may include the cost of materials and services
supplied in relation to the contract to the firms which themselves may only
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
45
report direct cash flows).

Government nearly always report higher extramural expenditure to industry than the
latter reports receiving. The problem was found not to be unique to the UK , but
common to a number of OECD countries [B.29], p. 10.12. Theoretically , of course,
the performers' report is to be preferred.
In 1955/56, [QRL.76] and 1958/59 [QRL.95], this difference was not perceived and
the government report was used. The problem was first noted in 1961 /62 [QRL.44]
and was investigated further following the 1966/67 survey [B.22]. From 1966/67 to
1969/70 the difference between the two was added back into the 'performer-based'
data industry by industry, cost dass by cost dass, activity by activity, etc., without
the slightest hint to the reader [QRL.153], p. 4. However, after this 'adjustment', the
expenditure data were not comparable with the employment data and rather than
starting to invent R&D workers, the whole exercise was abandoned. Revised
'performer-based' data for 1966/67 -1969/70 were issued (Annual Abstract 01
Statistics 1973 [QRL.23], p. 259) and , since then, the government funding has been
strict1y as reported by the performing firms. Note that no arrangements are made for
accounting for sub-contracting, Government-financed R&D is credited to the
primary contractor only.
2.5.4.3 Government. In the government sector the main problem has been to fit
the needs of the survey to government accounting practices. As has been noted
above, all appropriations in aid used for R&D are credited to their sector of origin.
The main additional dass of receipts are the so-called 'non-exchequer funds of
national health hospitals' which, where included, are credited to 'other' as a source
of funds. The amount of detail available for the government sector has varied. Up to
and including 1964/65, sources of funds were shown separately for the defence
departments, the civil departments and the Research Councils (including transfers
between these groups) . From 1966/67 to 1972/73 a breakdown was provided for the
whole government sector only. Compare, for example, [QRL.153], Tables 3 and 3A,
pp. 12-14.
2.5.4.4 Higher Education. In the early part of the period until the introduction of
the Annual Reviews, the pattern of funding in higher education changed more
radically over the period than the various revisions in the estimation methods. The
early published data do not make any distinctions within total government support
for university R&D. It would have been interesting to know how much was financed
out of the UGC grant, how much out of Research Council grants and how much
out of grants and contracts from mission-oriented ministries, and to be able to trace
the pattern of funding over time. Some idea can be gained from the governmental
extramural expenditure to higher education, but the total of these expenditures
usually varies considerably from higher education's estimated receipts from
government (see the discussion in section 2.5.4.2).
2.5.4.5 Other. The pattern of 'source of funds' in the 'other' sector of performance
has varied according to the extent of the sector, notably of the 'miscellaneous' item.
In earlier years 'other' R&D financed by industry was simply industry extramural
expenditure to miscellaneous performers and in the 1950s survey it even included
payments to abroad and payments in respect of licences, patents and 'know-how ',
[QRL.76], p. 31, p. 43 and p. 49. (see also [QRL.44], p. 35). In 1972/73 these
extramural expenditures dropped substantially and in 1975/76 they were omitted
46
completely, (compare, for example, [QRL.l), p. 100 and [QRL.2], p. 99). Similarly,
in earlier years 'other' R&D financed by government included not only bona fide
publicly funded R&D in PNP institutes proper and in the Research Council linked
institutes, but also miscellaneous extramural expenditure to 'individuals'. These fell
substantially in 1967/68 when payments to postgraduates were excluded for the first
time. The situation for 'other' as a source of funds in other sectors is just as
complicated and the data should be treated with great circumspection.
2.5.4.6 Abroad. Abroad only exists as a source of funds in the national
performance system. Note that prior to 1961/62 'abroad' was not distinguished in the
national survey and any funds received from foreign sources were credited to 'other'
[QRL.76], p. 31.
Most flows of fund s from abroad are in connection with R&D organised at
international level either by multinational corporations or by inter-governmental
agencies. In both cases the institutional arrangements concerned will have an
important impact on the amount of fund s reported as coming from abroad. For
example, in some multinationals, R&D in subsidiaries, although to some extent
managed by the mother firm, is financed out of the subsidiaries budget. In this case
the sums concerned are 'own fund s'. Other multinationals, however, finance
subsidiaries' R&D out of a central 'R&D budget' at the mother firm. In this case the
subsidiaries will report substantial R&D receipts from abroad. A similar problem
arises with multinational projects where individual governments agree to put large
sums into the scheme on the understanding that equally large contracts will be put
out to their national industry. Sometimes it is the government itself which pays out
the money to industry for the international agency concerned. The mo st obvious case
of this in the UK was ELDO, where a cancelled UK military launeher project was
revamped as the first stage of the international launcher. It is extremely difficult to
identify who paid who for wh at (there were also retrospective payments), but in
general the government seems to have given itself the benefit of the doubt as a
source of funds. Aerospace R&D in general is an area where there are a good deal of
sub-contracting and transfer payments, both at international and national level, and
the data on sources of funds should be treated with circumspection in all the sectors
concerned.
2.5.5 Extramural Expenditure

Extramural expenditures are source-based and are thus not strictly part of the
national R&D accounts. However, such data are extremely useful in that they
provide a check on the performer-based data and some information which is not
available elsewhere (note the discussion contained in 2.5.4.2). Extramural
expenditure are only available for industry and central government.
The industry data include extramural payments to other units in the industry
sector. However, it is not possible to trace the flows between industries from the
published data. Information in the form of an input-output table at a disaggregated
level would reveal the technological links within the economy. In addition, the data
do not specify payments by ind ustry to abroad. In the 1960s, for example,
information was published about the flows of R&D expenditure from various
manufacturing industries to government establishments, universities and other FE
TH E NAT IONAL SU RVEY
47
esta blishme nts, and to 'other' [QRL.153], pp . 66-75. By 1975, whil e retammg the
sou rce det ails, the se head ing s had been amalgam ated to ' R&D financed by industry
a nd carried out by oth er sectors', [QRL.202], p. 640. It is not c1ear whether
payments a bro ad sho uld be excluded or should be credited to the foreign sector
concerned. A detailed breakdown by sector of destin ation was published in the
1960s, broken do wn by th e three broad sources of fund s (other, firm s, oversea s and
go vernment) [QRL.153], pp . 76- 85, but details of intra-industry transfers (i.e.
'c o ntract work and sa les') appear to have been di scontinued (see, for example,
[QRL.202]).
The published government da ta show expenditure to the three other national
secto rs and to abroad, but not extramural payments to other government
esta blishments.
2.5.6 Grass Expenditure on R&D

Gross expenditure on R&D is calcul ated as the sum of intramural and extramural
R&D expendit ure. This is a sensible measure for the individual un it, for example a
firm , as it reflect s how it sees its own expenditure. However , it po ses serious
problems of aggregation becau se of problems of double counting , with the same
research being reported in both the ' perfo rmer' and 'funder' acco unts (for a detailed
discu ssion , see [QRL.153], p. 7). This mea sure is availa ble for industry and
govern me nt.
2.6 Employment Data

In the first national survey (1955/56) a brave attempt was made to compile d ata for
scientific R&D employment, as weil as for R&D expendi tu re in all sectors of the
eco nomy . For the next decade such R&D employment data were obtained via the
triennial surveys of scien tific and technical personnel (see Ch apter 6). In effect , the
work based initially on the triennial sur vey, broadened into a wider study of the
stocks of qualified scientists and engineers, etc. without distinguishing R&D. The
collection of employment da ta as part of the R&D survey wa s reintroduced in 1967
([QRL.20 1], p. 396) and the resuIt s first published in the early 1970s.
2.6.1 Total R&D Employment

Total R&D employment should include all types of workers directly engaged on
R&D (including scientists, engineers, technicians, administrative and c1erical staff and
ind ust rial wo rkers), but excluding those providing an ancillary service such as
canteen sta ff or cha uffeurs. Theoretically, the y should be expressed in full-t ime
equivalents, preferably for the sa me time period as the expenditure data, in accord
with the ' F rascati' definition [QRL.57], p. 621.
2.6.1.1 Industry . The precise cover age of the 1955/56 data is not stated. The data
availa ble on a ' triennial plu s' basis for 1967 to 1978 co ver a ll persons employed on
December 31st of the yea r conce rned, who wo rk more than half the week on R&D
[QRL.57], p. 621. The 1978 qu estionnaire included qu estions both on full- time
48
equivalent and on the old basis in order to reveal the difference between the two
measures. In practice, the difference between the two measures was reported to be
negligible.
Since the downward revisions of the data in respect of government support
mentioned in section 2.5.4.2 on source of funds the employment data have been
generally comparable with the expenditure data.
2.6.1.2 Government. The basis of the 1955/56 calculation is not entirely clear from
the published information. Although R&D employment data have been collected
both for scientific and social science R&D in central government, since the late
1960s, data have only been published for the years 1972 and after. The data are in
full-time equivalents for Ist April of each year. As in the industry case , the
employment data are usually linked with the preceding year's R&D expenditure
(expenditure 1975/76 with employment April 1976). The central government R&D
employment data are generally comparable with those for R&D expenditure except
for the heading 'health and social security', where the expenditure data usually
include an estimate for expenditure by National Health hospitals, but no
corresponding employment estimate is made.
R&D employment in government departments is now reported in the Annual
Review [QRL.51] pp.48-50. There appears to be separate information for highly
qualified and other employment (compare, for example, Tables 7.1 and 7.2 op. cit.),
The figures provide a guide only to the volume of R&D conducted within the
government's own research establishments. They exclude universities and other
institutes supported solely from government funds , but described as independent
bodies (op. cit . p. 48). Information on those employed directly by Research Councils
and the UKAEA were included for the first time in the 1985 Annual Review
[QRL.51] p. 48. Data for local government have not been published in anational
report. An estimate for 1975 was included in the UK response to OECD. In 1975 it
was 0.8 thousand persons working on scientific R&D, of which 0.2 thousand were
scientists and engineers.
2.6.1.3 Higher Education. The estimate for 1955/56 was made on the assumption
that university teachers spent 50 per cent of their time on R&D . It includes 5,300
graduate students and assumed that supporting staff spent 75 per cent of their time
on R&D. These would seem to be rather on the high side in the light of surveys in
the 1960s [B.68]. The same procedure is currently used for R&D expenditures. The
Annual Review [QRL.51], for example, notes that 'since Universities' research
activities and expenditure cannot be clearly distinguished, and thus the UGC's
objectives in funding the expenditure cannot be clearly distinguished from its wider
objectives in funding the university system, the assignment of resources to research
for the purpose of this review is based on a notional attribution of universities'
departmental and central expenditure between research and teaching' [QRL.51] p. 85.
Questions on R&D. employment are included in the Frascati Manual
questionnaire, but to date no results have been published. In fact the absence of any
data for the universities for later years seems rather strange when we remember that
the R&D expenditure estimates are based on the results of these detailed employment
surveys.
2.6.1.4 Other. This was the only sector excluded from the 1955/56 estimate. Since
the middle 1960s questions on R&D employment have been included in the
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
49
questionnaire sent to PNP 'institutes proper' but the results have not been published.
Presumably nothing in the way of R&D employment da ta is available even to the
survey authorities for the Research-Council-linked institutes or for miscellaneous
individuals supported by extramural expenditure (although some insights might be
gleaned from the various Research Council publications). Note that some of these
individuals, notably university staff and private consultants might also be counted
elsewhere by their employers.
2.6.2 Scientists and Engineers

Scientists and engineers may be defined either in terms of occupation (i.e. 'working
as') or in terms of qualification (i.e. 'trained as') , although, properly speaking, the
terms should be reserved for occupational analysis. It is argued that, 'Experience has
shown that in the context of the discussion of the substitutability in employment
analysis a clear distinction must be drawn between the subject of qualification held
by the individual and the type of post filled. It follows that the word 'scientist' or
'engineer' must be strictly reserved for those QSEs holding scientific or engineering
posts, that is they are scientists or engineers by occupation [QRL.113] p. 26 (see also
[8 .5], [8.8]) .
2.6.2.1 Industry . Data were issued as part of the information about the
employment of scientists and engineers for the period since 1955/56, on at least a
triennial basis . In the surveys up to and including 1964/65 the da ta are for qualified
scientists and engineers using the standard national definitions of the fields and levels
of qualification included in this concept (see Chapter 6). Since 1968/69 the survey has
been based on occupation (see, for example, [QRL.20 I] p. 399). In 1968/69 and
1969/70 a further distinction was made within the class of those occupied as scientists
and engineers between those with a university level qualification in science and
technology and those with other qualifications (presumably lower levels or other
fields). These details by qualification do not appear to have been released .
Professional staff working on administration are not included in 'scientists and
engineers' but in 'other supporting staff' .
2.6.2.2 Government, The da ta for 1955/56 are probably for QSEs as defined in
Chapter 6. Since 1972, data have been published annually for 'scientists and
engineers' in central government. A breakdown between the different budget
functions is shown and a breakdown between 'scientific' and 'social sciences' , but
these are not cross-classified.
Scientists and engineers in the government sector are defined exclusively by level of
qualification. They include all persons holding a university degree or equivalent
qualification. Respondents are asked to distinguish between persons with degrees in
'medical science', in 'other science, agriculture engineering and technology' and in
'other subjects', although this breakdown does not appear to have been published. In
so far as all degrees and equivalent qualifications are concerned, this is different
again from the old QSE definition and the use of the title 'scientists and engineers' in
the national publication (though not in the questionnaire) is a misnomer in that, if
respondents have answered correctly, they will have included not only 'scientists and
engineers' in occupational terms, but also any technicians with degrees and
administrative staff with business diplomas, secretaries with arts degrees, etc. Note
50
RESEAR CH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
that according to the 1968 survey of persons with qualifications in engineering ,

technology and science described in Chapter 6, no less than 29 per cent of all persons
with such qualifications working mainly on R&D in the government sector were
actually occupied as technicians.
2.6.2.3 Higher Education and Other. No data are available for higher education,
except the estimate for 1955/56 mentioned in section 2.6.1.3. Data for 'graduates' are
collected for PNP proper on the same basis as for government, but do not appear to
be published.
2.6.3 Technicians
Technicians can also be defined in terms of occupation or qualification, although
again, the term is more properly used for occupational analysis .
2.6.3.1 Industry, Data are, for example, available by occupation from the R&D
survey for December 1968, 1969, 1972 and 1975. In the two earliest surveys a
distinction was requested between technicians with university or equivalent
qualifications in science and technology, and those with other qualifications. This
breakdown does not appear to have been published . The survey material cited in
Chapter 6 shows that, in 1968, in private industry and the research associations,
approximatively 11 per cent of all technicians working mainly on R&D held such a
qualification.
2.6.3.2 Government. Data are available for central government by function or by
major field of science annually since 1972. Technicians are defined by occupation,
except that those with university level qualificat ions are excluded . Judging by the
1968 survey cited above, this would lead to the numbers being under-estimated by
about 15 to 20 per cent.
2.6.3.3 Higher Education and Other. No data are available for higher education.
Data are collected for PNP proper, as for central government, but are not released.
2.6.4 Other Supporting Sta./f
2.6.4.1 Industry . 'Other R&D employment' data are available by industry since 1968.
They include persons occupied as professional, administrative, clerical and industrial
employees. In 1968 and 1969 respondents were asked to report persons with degrees
or equivalent qualifications in engineering, science and technology separately, but
this breakdown was not published. In 1968, 1969 and 1972 a distinction was made in
the questionnaire and in the published results between 'administrative and clerical
(including professional staft)' and 'other, including industrial staff' . This breakdown
has now been abandoned.
2.6.4.2 Government . Data are available for central government from 1972 onwards
by budget function or by main field of science. Other supporting staff includes all
persons without a university degree (or equivalent) working as administrative, clerical
staff or as other supporting staff. A distinction is made in the questionnaire between
administrative and clerical on the one hand and 'other supporting staff' on the other,
but this breakdown is not published (see, for example , [QRL.l] p. 116).
2.6.4.3 Higher Education and Other. No data are available for higher education for
1955/56 for all supporting staff, including technicians . Nothing is published for
'other' sectors.
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
51
2.7 Price Indices
2.7.1 Industry
In order to make meaningful comparisons of the level of R&D actrvity overtime,
expenditures need to be deflated to ensure that any remaining changes are real rather
than the result of inflation . It was noted, in the mid-1970s, for example, that 'the
sharply rising costs of employment, capital and material inputs into R&D in recent
years have aroused considerable interest in the possibility of obtaining estimates of
R&D expenditure at constant prices' [QRL.206] p. 34.
One of the earliest series of price indices for industrial R&D are those used by
Schott for R&D in private industry for the period 1947-1970 [QRL.22] . They are
based on a constant weighting pattern distinguishing salaries and wages, plant,
materials and equipment and land and buildings. The proxy price indices, based on
1963 = 100 were, for labour costs, the average earnings of administrative, technical
and, clerical employees , and for the other two sub-classes , indices selected from the
Monthly Digest of Statistics [QRL.I07] and Feinstein's earlier estimates [QRL.12].
Only one overall index was established and this was applied to basic research,
applied research and development expenditures. A similar index was developed by
the OECD secretariat for a study of trends in industrial R&D (private industry, plus
public corporations and industrial research associations) OECD [QRL.208]. A
constant weighting system was used distinguishing labour costs, other current costs,
land and building and instruments and equipment. Proxy indices were established
with base 1970 = 100, as folIows: for 'other current costs' the implicit deflator of the
domestic product of indu stry ; for land and building the implicit deflator for gro ss
fixed capital formation (non-residential); and for instruments and equipment the
implicit deflator for equipment costs (excluding transport equipment), all drawn from
OECD National Accounts Data [QRL.108]. In the first version of the study , salary
costs were represented by an index of manufacturing earnings but in later editions
five salary lines were included, three drawn from the annual salary surveys of the
Royal Institute of Chemists [QRL.122] and two from general industrial wage indices
in the Annual Abstract [QRL.23] . Only one final index was calculated and was
applied to data for individual industries, although separate indices would have been
desirable .
In a later study of 23 countries [QRL.168] , even this degree of sophistication
proved impossible, and OECD were forced to adopt a GDP deflator. They pointed
out that, 'special price indices indica te a higher rate of inflation for R&D than in the
economy at large. The growth rates quoted here for real growth in R&D funding are
thus probablyon the optimistic side' (op. cit., p. 309).
Bosworth [B.6], dealing with the period 1958-1975 in private industry, used a
different approach. Current price R&D data were deflated individually cost -class by
cost-class and industry by industry. His total R&D price index was, thus , an
'implicit' deflator. R&D labour costs were deflated on the assumption of constant
real labour costs per person employed over the period (which assurnes no 'quality
changes ') . 'Other current costs ' were deflated generally using the 'materials and fuels'
price index for the industry concerned, as published in the Annual Abstract of
Statistics [QRL.23] or in some cases, the output price index for the corresponding
52
industries. The price indices for capital expenditure were those used to translate fixed
capital formation from current to fixed costs in the Monthly Digest 01 Statistics
[QRL.I07].
Two of these three studies, Schott [QRL.22] and Bosworth [B.6], finish up with
R&D indices which indicate a more rapid rate of inflation than the implicit GDP
index throughout the period . The OECD index is more or less in line with the GDP
index up until 1970, but pulls away after that, although still finishing up somewhat
lower than Bosworth (probably because it gives a relatively heavy weight to
professional chemists' salaries, which were held down by the various stages of the
wages policy in the UK).
The latest series of price indices for industrial R&D have been developed at the
Department of Industry and were first issued in an article in Trade and Industry
[QRL.206] in 1979. The exercise covers R&D in manufacturing industry for survey
years 1964/75 with 1975 as a base year. Separate price relatives are identified for
seven major product groups (chemical and allied, mechanical engineering, electronics,
other electrical engineering, motor vehicles, aerospace and other industries) and five
types of expenditure (salaries and wages, materials, other current expenditure, land
and buildings and plant and machinery), giving 35 combinations. Furthermore, a
further sub-division into four classes was made within wages and salaries: (i) overall
employers' indirect contributions; (ii) earnings of scientists and engineers ; (iii)
earnings of technicians and draughtsmen; (iv) earnings of other supporting staff.
Following established national accounts practice the separate expenditure for each
product group were individually deflated . The resulting implicit R&D price index for
all manufacturing industry shows higher R&D inflation throughout the period than
the OECD study, especially for 1972-75 where it indicates that R&D costs rose by
70 per cent.
This official index is to be welcomed as a technical improvement on the preceding
unofficial studies . Further details of this exercise can be found in [QRL.210].
Deflated R&D expenditure series were, for example, published in Trade and Industry
April 1979 [QRL.206] and British Business, 8th August 1980 [QRL.57]. Nevertheless
there are always inherent dangers in a simple application of price indices designed for
other purposes. However, further significant improvement only appears possible if
the official statisticians address the question of quality and price directIy by survey
or case study methods.
2.7.2 Public Sector
In more recent publications, R&D in the government, higher education and other
sectors are shown deflated using a special price index developed from public R&D
funding by the CEC secretariat (see section 3.5.1).
2.7.3 Government
It might be thought that R&D data at fixed prices could be derived from the PESC
exercise. However, government R&D performance da ta are always final outturn,
including price increases . A price index for expenditure on R&D in government
laboratories was developed by Cohen and Ivens for their examination of the
THE NATIONAL SURVEY
53
sophistication factor in science expenditure [8.11] . It covered the period from

1954/55 to 1964/65 and was for selected groups of government establishments only .
This was a very important study from a conceptual point of view, but the index is
now completely out of date.

Cohen and Ivens [8.11] also looked at R&D in a small number of university
departments. Since then, no price indices for R&D at universities appear to have
been constructed, although there are price indices for higher education expenditure in
general. No special price indices are available for the 'other' sector and indeed the
work may not be justified, given the size and mixed coverage of the sector.
2.8.1 National Sources

There are essentially two ways of obtaining data for international comparisons: first,
from the national publications of the countries under comparison; second, using
international sources. It is not possible to deal with all the foreign publications which
readers might wish to use in the present review.
2.8.2 International Sources

2.8.2.1 CEC. At the time of writing SOEC does not publish performer-reported
R&D data on a regular basis. It does assemble a certain amount of data in order to
establish a set of 'R&D indicators' (which mainly consist of ratios between different
R&D series or between R&D series and economic series) to be submitted annually to
CREST. The R&D series concerned are usually drawn from the OECD data bank
(see below).
2.8.2.2 OECD. The Science, Technology and Industry Directorate undertakes
biennial surveys of resources devoted to R&D in the OECD's 25 member countries,
known as the 'International Survey of the Resources devoted to R&D in OECD
Members Countries' (ISYs). The United Kingdom has participated in alm ost all of
these surveys since the first in 1963, [QRL.188] and [QRL.189] (only omitting that of
(1977). The OECD surveys cover all the breakdowns of expenditure mentioned in
sections 2.5.1-2.5.5 except extramural expenditure and total gross expenditure. They
also cover total R&D employment by occupation and by level of qualification. The
Science and Technology Indicators Unit, which manages the ISY swaps, also
maintains the STIU data bank of the principal R&D time series derived from the
ISY returns and national publications.
OECD member governments make considerable efforts to bring their national
statistics into line with ' Frascati Standards' when reporting for ISY's and for this
reason the data issued by OECD are probably the best source available for
international comparisons between ad vanced capitalist countries. Some of these data
have been published in OECD reports (for example [QRL.188] [QRL.189] , [QRL.98]
54
and [QRL.99]), and OECD Science and Technology Indicators [QRL.168] contains
time series for the 1970s. Data are also issued regularly in the Science Resources
Newsletter [QRL.165]. However the raw detailed results of the ISY exercises and the
contents of the da ta bank are not entirely available from the national publications.
Clearance to receive some of these documents can usually be obtained from the
Department of Industry.
2.8.2.3 UNESCO . The UNESCO division of statistics on science and technology
has been collecting R&D data on a regular basis since 1969. An annual survey is
undertaken of the main Science and Technology series with more detailed da ta
collected every two year s. The UNESCO data base currently covers about 80
countries. The data have been published in the UNESCO Statistical Yearbook
[QRL.183] since 1969 and in the United Nations Statistical Yearbook [QRL.182]
since 1973. (For a more detailed discussion of content, definitions, etc. see the 1987
Yearbook [QRL.183] , 'Table of Contents' and V-I -V-3). UNESCO have also, at
various times, provided: guidelines for the standardisation of science and technology
statistics [B.66]; guidel ines on the collection of R&D statistics [QRL.88] ; guidelines
on the development of national scientific and technological data bases [B.44] and
[B.54]; and details of the budgetary methods, procedures and instruments needed to
prepare a science and technology budget [B.55]. In an attempt to disseminate
international information about science and technology, UNESCO has published a
World Directory [QRL.216] , broken down by subject (op . cit. p. xiv). The obvious
interest of UNESCO surveys is that they provide data in a common framework for
comparisons between a wide range of countries, including comparisons between the
United Kingdom and Eastern European countries. Unfortunately, the UNESCO
secretariat does not have sufficient staff to be able to evaluate individual countries'
responses and can only reproduce the footnotes sent with the national replies. The
degree of international comparability of the data is, therefore, difficult to assess.
Recent controversy broke out in the UK when UNESCO data appeared to reveal
that the supply of scientists and engineers in the UK was at least as large as her
main industrial competitors, at a time when industry was reporting severe skill
shortages. The source of the discrepancy may well have been the problems of
comparability of the da ta from different countries outlined above.
CHAPTER 3
NET GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON R&D

3.1 Origins
The budget is an obvious source for data on government R&D expenditure.
However, with the exception of certain items with a very high R&D content, such as
votes to the Research Council, R&D is not separately specified in the Estimates or in
the public expenditure series. Nevertheless, from 1953/54 an attempt was .made to
establish an expenditure table based on the estimated R&D content of what were
then the Civil Estimates . This table was published yearly both in the Annual Report
of the Advisory Council on Science Policy [QRL.39] and in the Memorandum by the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (FSM) [QRL.I05]. As from 1961 /62 the coverage
of the exercise widened somewhat and the series in the FSM [QRL.105] and its
successor the Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (the CSM)
[QRL.190] parted company slightly from that contained in the ACSP Annual Reports
[QRL.39] and the later statistics published by the DES, DTI and the CSO
[QRL.185], [QRL.186], [QRL.187], [QRL.71], [QRL.152] and [QRL.153]. Over the
years the latter series has been considerably improved, at first in line with national
science policy interests and later (when UK science policy became almost entirely
fragmented) in line with EEC requirements [B.61] and [B.62].
From 1983, there has been an Annual Review 0/ Government Funded R&D
[QRL.53] (see also the discussion contained in Chapter 2). This was established by
Cmnd 8591 [QRL.87] the Government's response to the report by the House of
Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology [QRL.164] and [QRL.75]. The
1983 Review concentrated on establishing a data base covering Government R&D for
the period from 1977/78 to 1982/83 and upon developing procedures for collecting
data on a more regular and consistent basis. The 1984 Review incorporated
information on planned expenditure in line with the aggregate expenditure plan given
in the White Paper [QRL.214]. As well as details of the individual departmental
programmes, information was published on international companies and on
employment of qualified manpower. The 1985 Review contained numerous further
improvements. Since the main objective is future planning, the Review contains some
additional information analysed in a different manner to the other sources
mentioned . Part I of the Review contains various tables which attempt to provide :
i)
a summary of past and projected R&D by Government Departments and
Research Councils,
ii)
an analysis of R&D by primary objective,
iii) broad international comparisons,
iv) data on the link between R&D expenditure and technological development in
the UK economy .
55
56
Part II contains more detailed data on R&D conducted by individual departments

and research councils. Material in Part II is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
Although these series are based largely on the budget, they are not a 'science
budget ' in the sense of a compilation of R&D votes for discussion by an advisory
group or by an inter-ministerial committee during the budgetary process (such as
exists, for instance, in France, the Netherlands or Belgium). Only one part of
government R&D expenditure, the vote to the Research Councils, is subject to
special procedures and can be properly described as a 'science budget'. The special
statistical series concerned will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The present chapter deals with tables covering total central government net R&D
expenditure. These can be divided into five main sub-classes: (i) The early tables
(1953/54-1960 /61); (ii) the Memorandum tables (1961 /62-1981 /82); (iii) outturn
tables (since 1961 /62); (iv) EEC specification tables (since 1970/71); and finally, the
Annual Review tab1es.
Centra1 government expenditure is for Great Britain on1y in (i) and (ii). R&D
financed by the government of Northern Ireland is included in series (iii) and (iv).
3.2.1 General Budgetary Procedures and Publications
During the earlier years covered by this exercise the budget was prepared, voted and
published in the form of the 'Estimates' comprising the Civil Estimates
(incorporating the Memorandum by the Financia1 Secretary to the Treasury) and the
Defence Estimates . Since 1961 there have been two interrelated but separate systems.
First there are the Supply Estimates [QRL.190] or budget proper by which most
centra1 government expenditure is authorised by Parliament from year to year. The
Supply Estimates are drawn up in line with the White Paper on Public Expenditure:
Planning and Control [B.64], [QRL.215] and [B.65]. Each October the Treasury
requests the Departments to send their estimates of expenditure for the coming year.
These estimates are considered by the Treasury and discussed with Departments, if
necessary with reference to the ministers concerned . They are presented to Parliament
in April and are, in due course, appropriated (i.e. approved by Parliament) in the
annual Appropriation Act. (There are special arrangements under which expenditure
is authorized on an interim basis in the period before the Appropriation Act is
passed.) The Supply Estimates are published on or before the day they are presented
to Parliament. They are prefaced by the Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury with, up to 1981 /82, its special R&D tab1es.
The second system, the Public Expenditure Survey, was introduced following the
setting up of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee (PESC) in 1961 to develop
long-term assessments of public expenditure as a who1e, in relation to prospective
resources on a five-year rolling basis [B.69]. These annual Surveys are managed ,
subject to the overall direction of Ministers, by the Treasury working through PESC,
a Committee of senior officials chaired by the Treasury but on which all
Departments are represented . The resulting reviews covered ten years (half
57
retrospective and half forward-Iooking) . Until the late 1970s this was based on
expenditure in 'real ' terms rather than cash limits. The PESC reports include a
forecast of public expenditure as a whole and a breakdown between main
programmes and sub-programmes. The programme headings, known as 'PESC
headings' are designed on a functional basis to reflect the objectives of government
expenditure. The report [QRL.214] itself does not contain a separate analysis of
R&D expenditure but where the amount involved is substantial (for example, the
sums voted to the Research Councils) it can be identified over the ten years covered
by each review. The government R&D survey already described in Chapter 2, is
attached to the PESC system and it is from this that the 'outturn' and 'EEC' series
are derived.
The budget cycle ends with the Appropriations accounts which are prepared at the
end of the financial year and which record the actual payments and receipts.
In general, the 'early' and 'Memorandum' series have the same characteristics as
the Estimates , whereas the 'outturn' and 'EEC' series are more similar to the Public
Expenditure Survey results.
3.2.2 Estimates and Outturn
Government budgets go through a number of stages from the earliest preparation to
final expenditure. The end of the line in the United Kingdom process is 'outturn', i.e.
actual expenditure at current (or 'outturn') prices. Immediately before this comes
'provisional' or 'forecast' outturn which is estimated outturn based on incomplete
information, i.e. before the Appropriation Accounts are prepared.
Expenditures measured at earlier stages are based on different ways of estimating
the levels of prices in the year under review. During the 1950's the rate of inflation
was so low that the price difference between 'Estimates' and outturn was almost
negligible and both can be considered as being at current prices.
Between the introduction of the PESC system and the change to cash limits at the
end of the 1970s, data in the Estimates were prepared at 'Estimate prices' whereas
data from PESC sources were at 'Survey prices'. Estimate prices were established for
the coming year only and were prices ruling in the Autumn preceding the financial
year in question. Survey prices were used as a basis for the rolling exercise described
in the preceding section and all the time series were rebased for each review. For
purchases of goods and services (including pay) they were the prices ruling in the
Autumn preceding the survey (e.g. 1980 survey prices are those of Autumn 1979).
For transfer payments , such as pensions and benefits, they were the average price
level for the current year (e.g. the 1980 survey prices were those for 1980/81).
From 1978/80 onwards, the estimates in 'Estimate prices' are forecasts of the
expenditure expected to rule when the expenditure occurs and departments are
expected to keep their expenditure within these 'cash limits' although, at first, full
allowance was not made for salary increases. The 'cash limits' approach has also
now been extended to the PESC exercise.
To sum up, for the five classes of R&D data identified:
i)
The early data are generally taken from the 'Estimates'.
ii)
The Memorandum tables are taken from the Estimates and are at 'Estimate
prices'.
58
iii)
iv)
v)
The outturn tables are 'outturn' at current prices though the series as
published often ends with a year of forward data collected in 'Survey prices'
but rebased in 'Estimate prices'.
The EEC series as reported in UK sources are outturn at current prices but
forward data are reported to EEC itself for the most recent years. Again
these are collected at 'Survey prices' but may be rebased in 'Estimate prices'.
The Annual Review tables are outturn at current prices although certain
tables contain estimates in 'real' terms. The basic data correspond to that
published in the outturn series.
3.2.3 General Definition 0/ Net Expenditure

The figures presented in all five series relate to net government expenditure in the
sense of the sums of money provided by Parliamentary vote from taxation for
government financed R&D. This is less than the total which the government spends
on financing R&D as it exc1udes all 'appropriations in aid' devoted to R&D. Such
'appropriations in aid' for R&D inc1ude (i) receipts from other horne sectors and
from abroad for the performance of R&D (e.g. industry R&D) contracts with the
UKAEA or WHO grants to the MRC ; (ii) receipts from other central government
departments or bodies for the performance of R&D; (iii) 'retained receipts' from
other horne sectors, abroad, etc, for the provision of non-R&D products and services
(e.g. sales of journals, produce , patents, licences, etc). Of these the first is obviously
not part of central government resources, the second certainly is, but has to be dealt
with carefully to avoid double counting and the third is part of government funding
by international (but not according to UK) , standards [B.45].
3.2.4 Difference between Net Expenditure and Gross Exp enditure

This section deals with the difference between 'net ' and 'gross' expenditure , as
described in section 2.5.1 .1. The relationship between net and gross measures is
shown in Figure 3.1. The main differences are that net expenditure exc1udes
appropriations in aid and is measured before transfers between government
departments, whereas gross expenditure inc1udes appropriations in aid and is
measured after transfers . Some departments and establishments have lower net
expenditure than gross, whereas for others the reverse is true . For example, during
the period 1972 to 1981 , the Medical Research Council net expenditure comprised
only its vote from the Department of Education and Science, but it also received a
major transfer from the Department of Health and Social Security, minor transfers
from other government departments and grants from other national sectors and from
abroad. (Since the end of 1981 the DHSS is no longer responsible for financing a
substantial share of MRC research as the corresponding funds have been transferred
to the DES) The MRC makes only very minor transfers to other government bodies,
so its gross expenditure was considerably higher than its original net vote. The
reverse is true for the Overseas Development Agency which transfers much of its
R&D vote to other government bodies, notably the MRC and ARC who organise
the actual performance of the R&D projects concerned.
Figure 3.1 Flows of Funds: Net and Gross Expenditure on R&D
Transfers from
other government
departments
Transfers from
other sectors
and from
abroad
Net Vote
(Science Budget)
,
Total Net R&D
Expenditure (A)
Appropriations in
Aid
Ir
Gross R&D Expenditure (B)
,
Intramural R&D (C)
(e.g. Research
Council Units
and Establishments
Notes (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
"
Extramural R&D (D)

(e.g. grants to the higher
education sector,
payments to
industry and abroad)
As in Chapter 3
As in national survey, section 2.5.7
"
Transfers
to other
government
departments
Support for
post-graduate
education
(notR&D)
(E)
60
3.2.5 Major Fields 0/ Science

The series of net R&D expenditure tables vary somewhat in the treatment of the
major fields of science.
3.2.5.1 Early tables. No distinction was made between 'scientific' and 'social
seience' R&D, though little of the latter was probably included .
3.2.5.2 The Memorandum tables. The tables in the estimates never distinguished
between 'scientific' and 'social science' R&D . The coverage of the latter improved
considerably from the mid 1960's onwards, but never included an estimate for social
science R&D financed via the UGC grant.
3.2.5.3 The outturn tables. From 1961 /62-1965/66 the outturn tables dealt with
'scientific' R&D only. From 1966/67 onwards separate series have been issued for
'scientific' R&D and for 'social science' R&D [QRL.152]. However as noted in
[QRL.152] the information on social sciences is both incomplete and less reliable
than that for the natural sciences and engineering. The treatment of social sciences
has gradually been improved, and from 1980/81 onwards humanities are also
included [QRL.7]. However, even then many tables are restricted to cover natural
seience and engineering only.
Up until the publication of [QRL.152] most estimates excluded social science R&D
financed via the UGC grant. Indeed even after this publication, estimates in the
outturn series ([QRL.l], [QRL.2], [QRL.6] and [QRL.5]) excluded this type of R&D.
From 1980/81 onwards an estimate has been incorporated into selected tables based
on the results of an enquiry conducted in 1969/70 on the use of academic staff time
([QRL.7] p.120]).
3.2.5.4 EEC series. The series prepared for the EEC group 'scientific' and 'social
science' R&D, but have the same coverage as 'outturn'.
3.2.5.5 The Annual Review tables. These tables exclude R&D for the humanities
(e.g. arts , philosophy, languages, history, etc) principally at universities which are
included in the outturn series.
3.2.6 Coverage and Method 0/ Identifying R&D
3.2.6.1 Coverage. The coverage of the tables in terms of the number of agencies and
programmes included has grown considerably over the period under review.
Furthermore the coverage has varied significantly between the different series. Only
the main problems will be mentioned. Readers interested in a specific function
should check the coverage carefully.
The early series, 1953-60, were rather emde. They only dealt with Civil R&D and
even this was not wholly covered as all R&D by the UKAEA was excluded and no
allowance was made for the R&D content of grants to universities via the UGC .
The coverage of the Memorandum series [QRL.105] grew steadily. From 1961 /621966/67 Defence R&D was only partially included and was not separated out. This
was because most defence R&D at that time was financed by the Ministry of
Aviation which also dealt with civil aerospace . From 1967/68 onwards Defence R&D
was fully included and separated out. R&D expenditure by the UKAEA was first
included in 1963/64 and the estimated R&D share of UGC grants in 1970/71.
A complete set of outturn tables exist from 1961 /62 to the end of the period.
However, a number of items were added retrospective!y for the period 1961 /62-
61
1966/67 and the data originally published for these years were incomplete. A
comparison of the coverage of the outturn ta bles for 1961 /65 with those for
subsequent years is given in Table 3.1. Further retrospective revisions were made in
[QRL.152] for 1966/67-1973/74. Social Science R&D expenditure financed through
UGC funds was not included until 1981 [QRL.7].
There are no problems of coverage with the EEC tables which begin from 1970/71
only nor with the Annual Review data. The coverage of the latter is fairly
comprehensive and corresponds broadly with the outturn series (but see section
3.2.5.5 above) . The breakdown given in Table 5.6 (below) the sort of detail that is
available (although this da ta excludes defence related R&D which is included in the
outturn series).
3.2.6.2 R&D Content. An effort has been made from the earliest period to use
' R&D ' content accounting i.e. to report only the R&D share of the various votes.
However, the approach has probably become more sophisticated over the period.
Furthermore, there were still some differences between the outturn and the
Memorandum sources in the last edition of the latter in 1981 /82.
The main changes during the period occurred in 1966/67. Prior to that date all the
expenditure of the Research Councils (the Medical Research Council, the
Agricultural Research Council and the Department for Scientific and Industrial
Research) was credited to R&D . When the DSIR was broken up its industrial
functions went to the Ministry of Technology and its scientific functions to three new
research councils : the Science Research Council, the Natural Environment Research
Council and the Social Science Research Council , and its library function to the
Department of Education and Science (for a discussion see Rose and Rose [B.36]
Chapter 6).
As from 1966/67 the Ministry of Technology applied R&D content reporting to
the expenditure of the ex-DSIR R&D establishments and to payments to the
grant-aided research associations. As from 1967/68 data for the Research Councils
excluded support for post-graduate studies from their R&D expenditures; the DES
excluded selected library expenditure completely. (Note that these dates apply to the
outturn series - such modifications usually took some time to work their way
through to the Memorandum series.) Support for postgraduate students is
identifiable separately in ABRC and individual Research Council annual reports.
Another major change occurred with respect to the R&D content of the UGC grant.
This was adjusted downwards quite considerably as from 1970/71 in the outturn
series but later in the Memorandum series (1975/76).
General University Funds in the Memorandum series included an allowance for
the supervising of postgraduate studies which is excluded from the outturn and EEC
sources. The other main differences between the Memorandum and the outturn series
at the end of the 1970's came under the industrial function. First of all, the
expenditures of the NRDC were considered to be R&D in the Memorandum but not
in the outturn tables (grants to ICL were treated in the same way). Secondly, it
seems that a larger share of acrospace expenditure was credited to R&D in the
'Estimates' than in the outturn series, notably in respect of Concorde. Here, as
elsewhere, accounting for aerospace R&D is a headache. However , the least accurate
figures are still probably for University R&D (see above) and for civil R&D by the
62
UKAEA. From April 1986 R&D by the UKAEA was excluded from the
government statistics.
As noted in Chapter 1, proper 'R&D content' accounting involves not only
excluding the non-R&D expenditure of R&D units, but adding in R&D resources
contributed by other agencies. A peculiar example of this occurs in government net
spending in that the Department of the Environment (earlier the Ministry of
Building and Public Works (MBPW provides facilities and services for government
R&D establishments. Estimates for these sums have been included throughout the
period but seem to be more generous before 1966/67 than afterwards. It is not clear
how far this is due to a change in R&D content accounting and how far to a
transfer of financing responsibilities from the MBPW to the other ministries.
Table 3.1
Coverage ofNet outturn data 1961/62-1965/66 compared with programme headings
1966/67-1970/71
PESC headings 1966/67 to

1970171(1)
Corresponding items to 1965/66)(2)
Earlier period (1961/62
Defence
Defence (adjusted to exclude meteorology,

oceanography and astronomy)
External Relations
Overseas Research (total)

Industry: DSIR (Tropical Products Institute)
Roads and Transport
Transport (total)
Industry: DSIR (Road Research Station)
Industrial Services
Technology:
Industry: DSIR (establishments n.e.s and support
of Research Association)
Industry: Ministry of Power
Technology /Atomic Energy
Atomic Energy (total)
Technology: Aerospace
Industry: Ministry of Aviation
Research Councils
Agricultural Research Council
Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry: Agricultural

Research Council
Medical Research Council
Medical and Health: Medical Research Council

(except support of post-graduate studies)
Natural Environment Research

Council
Defence (Navy support of oceanography)

Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry: Nature
Conservancy
NET GOVERNM ENT EXPENDITURE ON R&D

1970/71(1)
Earlier period (1961 /62
Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry: Development

Fund
Indu stry: DSIR (Geological Research Institute)
Other Science grants
Defence (Navy support of astronomy)

Industry:
National Institute for Research on Nuclear
Science
DSIR Radio Research Station
University Grants
CERN and ESRO subscriptions
Universities and Learned Societies: Learned
Societies
Other: Department of Education and Science
Agriculture, Fishing and

Forestry
Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry: Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Depart of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
Fore stry Comm ission
Hou sing and Environmental

Services
Other: Ministry of Hou sing and Local

Go vernment
Law and Order
Other: Horne Office and Scottish Horne

Department
Health and Welfare
Medical and Health: Health departments
Financial Administration and

Common Services
Industry: DSIR Building Research Station

MPBW support
Other: Ministry of Public Building and Work s
Miscellaneous Services
Defence: Meteorology
Medical and Health: General Registrars Office
Government of Northern
Ireland
Other: Go vernment of Northern Ireland (except

estimated support of Belfast University)
Universities in the UK
Universities and Learned Societies: Universities

Other: Go vernment of Northern Ireland (support
of Universit ies)
63
64

1970/71(1)
Earlier period (1961 /62
Should be excluded
Research Councils: Support of postgraduate

studies
DSIR: ST information activities
(1) As quoted in Economic Trends NO.205 November 1970 p. xix [QRL.71]

(2) As quoted in Statistics of Science and Technology 1970 Table 12 [QRL.187]

3.3.1 Surveys
In general, until the mid-1960s all the series were compiled from the Civil Estimates
or from the corresponding final outlay series with the compiler estimating the R&D
content with the aid of the results of the most recent national survey of government
R&D, as described in Chapter 2. For the early series the compilation and attendant
estimates of R&D content were made by the ACSP secretariat. The compilation and
estimates for the Memorandum series were made in the Cabinet Office whereas the
'outturn' series were prepared by the DES. From 1966/67 onwards, the annual
survey of government R&D undertaken as part of the PESC exercise, as described in
Chapter 2, has also contained a section on net R&D expenditure, from which the
'outturn' series are derived. A separate return is made for each vote in the outturn
series. The EEC series are derived from the same survey as the outturn data. In fact
from 1970/71 to 1973/74 they are the outturn data , rearranged as far as possible
according to the EEC classes. The UK only entered the EEC exercise fully after the
revision of the latter's classification in 1975. From then onwards a detailed question
was included in the annual government R&D survey requesting each agency to
distribute its net R&D expenditure between the EEC objectives. Up until its
disappearance in 1982/83, the Memorandum table was assembled by the Treasury on
the basis of a summary survey with one return per Department. From 1983 these
results have also been collected by the Cabinet Office as part of the Annual Review
[QRL.53].
3.3.2 Publications
The early series were published in both the Annual Reports of the ACSP [QRL.39]
and in the Estimates : Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
[QRL.I05]. Until 1980/81 the Memorandum series appeared in the Supply Estimates :
Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury [QRL.190j. Each year's issue
contained data for the current and coming year, each at their respective 'Estimates
prices'. In 1981 /82 the table was not published but was available on request. In
1982/83 it was completely discontinued . The outturn series were first published in the
Statistics of Science and Technology series [QRL.185] issued by the DES and then in
65
the two CSO Reports [QRL.152], [QRL.153] (see also [QRL.71]). Thus, although
they were collected annually they were only published together with full R&D survey
reports, usually trienn ially. Since 1979, however, they have been published more or
less annually in the Economic Trends artic1es [QRL.l], [QRL.2], [QRL.6], [QRL.5],
[QRL. 7], [QRL.8], [QRL.9] and [QRL.lO]. In all cases a time series is shown.
The EEC series are published in the United Kingdom in the same sources as the
outturn series. These are time series on an outturn basis. The forward estimates are
published annually in Government Financing 0/ Research and Development [QRL.86] a
Eurostat publication. Finally, the Annual Review tables are published in [QRL.51].
3.4 Data Available
There is an important distinction between institutional and functional c1assifications

(see section 1.7 and Frascati Manual [B.56]).
3.4.1 Institutional Classifications
3.4.1.1 The Vote. The smallest 'institutional' unit is the vote. Data at this level were
reported in the Memorandum series even inc1uding the 'early period', in [QRL.105].
However, the vote is a very elastic sort of unit. For example, in the 1978/79 R&D
table in the Memorandum [QRL.190] they ranged from 1.7 'Defence, Procurement,
Administration and Common Services Research and Development, f394 million', or
'IV .5.A. UKAEA R&D fl22 million', to '23.A. Other transport services: salaries etc.
of Staff, Welsh Office, fl7 thousand', or 'IX.8.D Water Safety Research f3
thousand.' It would be possible to build up a time series from the Memorandum
R&D table [QRL.190], [QRL.105] at the level of the vote, but this would be an
exceedingly long job and a difficult one as the number and coverage of votes changes
from year to year, whereas this source provides data for only two years at a time.
[QRL.190] is the only source quoted so far to give information on the votes,
(although the outturn data are actually collected at this level). If the reader wants to
follow them up, then the proper source is the relevant volume of the Supply
Estimates proper.
3.4.1.2 Departm ent oforigin. The highest level of institutional c1assification is the
department of origin. This is available for the early series and for the Memorandum
series from [QRL.190], which contained aseparate table for government R&D
funding by department. The outturn series and the EEC series are published in
functional c1asses only. It was possible to trace the department of origin for the
earlier years of the outturn series, but this becomes increasingly difficult for more
recent years. The Annual Review [QRL.51] series is more explicit in this respect.
3.4.1.3 Institution performing the R&D. None of the sources give a systematic
breakdown of the data by the intended performer. A certain amount of information
can be obtained from the votes in the Memorandum series [QRL.190], but even less
information can be derived from the outturn series. Up until 1970/71 total net
outturn was divided into two c1asses: 'Overseas', and 'United Kingdom' , but this
distinction has now been abandoned.
The section of the questionnaire designed to collect the EEC series requests
respondents to identify payments to industry and payments to multinational projects.
66
Neither sets of data are published by the national authorities. The EEC collects
information on the payments to multinational projects [QRL.86], however, except for
one or two years in the early 1970's it has stocked the data but has not published
them.
3.4.2 Functional Classifications
Four main functional classifications have been applied to the R&D series.
3.4.2.1 ACSP classification . This classification was first introduced in the ACSP
Annual Reports [QRL.39] and applies throughout the early series. It covers civil
R&D only and comprises seven classes: A. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; B.
Industry and Communications (including the DSIR); C. Medical and Health
(including the MRC); D. Overseas Research; E. Nuclear Science (including NIRNS
and the UKAEA); F. University and Learned Societies; G . Other. A sub-division is
given to the ministry or institution concerned.
3.4.2.2 Early outturn classification. The early outturn classification has nine
sub-classes and was applied to the revised outturn series for the years 1961 /621966/67. It was a mixture of the ACSP classification and that used for the 1964/65
government performance survey . The classes are : defence; agriculture, fishing and
forestry (inc. ARC); Atomic Energy (excluding NIRNS); industry (including the
DSIR and NIRNS); medical and health (including the MRC); overseas research;
transport (including the Road Research Laboratories for 1965/66); universities and
learned societies; and other (including total Government of Northern Ireland). It is
possible to reconstitute the interior of the various classes using the ACSP reports
[QRL.39] and the detailed tables in the 1968 and 1970 editions of Statistics 0/
Science and Technology [QRL.186] and [QRL.187] .
3.4.2.3 PESC headings . These are the functional headings used for the whole
public expenditure planning exercise and are therefore not particularly designed for
use with R&D data. These functions correspond broadly to departmental
responsibilities but there are some differences .
The list currently used [QRL.214] comprises some 20 functions. Table 5.1 in
Chapter 5 shows the link between these headings and the early outturn
classifications. Although the PESC headings are supposed to be functional, the
contents of the classes are extremely sensitive to institutional reorganisation. For this
reason the user should take care at attempting to construct a con sistent time series.
In the Memorandum series such revisions generally apply from the budget year
concerned. The outturn series tend to be issued in series of several years at a time on
broadly the same basis with one over-Iapping year (e.g. 1966/67-1970/71 [QRL.152]
and 1970/71-1975/76 [QRL.155]. In this case the break in 1970/71 took into account
the dissolution of the Ministry of Technology and the founding of the Departments
of the Environment, Energy and Trade and Industry.
3.4.2.4 EEC classification . The EEC Nomenclature is known as NABS after the
French acronym for 'Classification for the analysis and comparison of scientific
programmes and budgets' . It exists in two versions : the original eleven-digit
classification [B.61] and the revised version known as NABS 1975 [B.62]. A full
description of the NABS 1975 can be found in [B.62].
The outturn series reproduced in UK publications gives two series: (i) 1970/711973/74 in original NABS. This is in fact net outturn data in PESC classes
67
rearranged to fit the EEC specifications; (ii) from 1973/74 in NABS 1975. This is
collected on a quite different basis. For the latter, all government bodies responding
to the national survey are asked to break down their net R&D expenditure by NABS
1975 classes. It is therefore, practically impossible to link EEC-based data with the
PESC-based data, except for obvious cases (such as defence). It should be noted that,
according to NABS , general university funds (i.e. the R&D content of the UGC
grant) are includedin Advancement of Knowledge. It also appear s that the Research
Councils have chosen to classify their grant from the DES as 'Advancement of
Knowledge' .
3.4.2.5 Annual Review classification. The Annual Review introduced very detailed
classification by Subject Area (for individual departments) and by primary purpose
code . The latter is a sixfold breakdown comprising: advancement of science; support
for policy; improvement of technology; support for procurement decisions ; support
for statutory duties; and support for other activities. The subject area breakdown is
much more detailed and differs between each department or research council.
3.5 Derived Series
3.5.1 Price Indices

Special R&D price indices for government R&D funding in EEC countries are
prepared annually by SOEC for use in [QRL.86]. This SOEC price index for the UK
has now been adopted for national use [QRL.I], [QRL.2], [QRL.6], [QRL.5],
[QRL.7], [QRL.8] , [QRL.9] and [QRL.IO]. It is probably better suited for use with
the final expenditure series at outturn (current) prices in national publications than
with the formal estimates reported to the SOEC and quoted in their publications.
3.5.2 Comparison With Other Series

The PESe headings appear in a wide range of other analyses of government
expenditure. For example, it is possible to make comparisons between the R&D table
and other tables in the CSM [QRL.190] or between the outturn series and the
corresponding table in the Nat ional Income and Expenditure ' Blue Book' [QRL.109] .
3.6.1 EEC
For detailed comparisons with a relatively narrow range of countries, the EEC series
are best, especially those based on NABS 1975 [B.62]. These are issued annually in a
series entitled Government Financing 0/ Research and Development [QRL.86]. This
currently gives detailed data at two and three digit levels of NABS 1975 in nat ional
currency and in EUA (European Statistical Unit of Account) with a percentage
distribution within each one -digit class for arecent year, plus da ta for three recent
years for the NABS one-digit classes: in national currency; in thousands of EVA ; as
a perccntage of total R&D financing; as a percentage of civil R&D financing; an
68
EUA per capita population at current prices and per 10,000 units GDP. It also
pro vides a longer time series for total government R&D funding at current and at
fixed prices, together with a short analysis of recent trends.
It should be noted that the data for the other EEC countries are not outturn but
final budget data. In some cases, notably the Netherlands, these are considerably
lower than final expenditures. Furthermore the data quoted for the United Kingdom
are nearly always 'estimated' rather than outturn as the SOEC does not revise its
time series retrospectively.
3.6.20ECD
For the earlier years a good source is Changing Priorities for Government R&D: An
Experimental Study of Trends in the Objectives of Government R&D Funding in 12
OECD Member Countries, 1961-72 [QRL.68]. The 12 countries are: the United
Kingdom, France, Be1gium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands,
Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States.
In 1975 the Frascati Manual was revised to inc1ude specifications for collecting
government R&D funding data using a new c1assification which was compatible with
both the Nordforsk and NABS 1975 c1assifications. The latest version of the Manual
[8.56] now contains a substantial chapter on the topic.
The OECD has collected data on government R&D funding by socio-economic
objectives since its 1975 survey and the Science and Technology Indicators Unit now
maintains a data bank using the c1assification mentioned above for over 20 member
countries for the period from 1970. Selected series from this bank were published in
Science and Technology for the Eighties [QRL.169] and further information is
available in [QRL.168]. Data are also published in the Science Resources Newsletter
[QRL.165].
3.6.3 Special Problems of International Comparisons of Government R&D Funding by
Socio-Economic Objectives
The main problem here, over and above the general questions already discussed in
section 1.8.3, has to do with how one balances the need for international
comparability with real international differences in government objectives and how
they use R&D to try and reach them. Two approaches are generally defined:
i)
purpose analysis , where the item of expenditure (usually a vote) is allocated to
a c1ass on the basis of the 'purpose' of the funder;
ii)
content analysis, where the item of expenditure (usually the project) is
allocated to a c1ass on the basis of its content, usually by the performer.
Both the EEC and the OECD recommend the purpose approach, of which the
PESC system is an obvious example (though not direct1y used for responses to either
organisation). This should be borne in mind when making comparisons. For
example, the figures quoted for heaIth R&D contain only moneys voted for R&D
programmes specifically financed for the purpose of improving human heaIth. They
do not contain R&D performed in universities financed out of general university
funds or, in most countries, R&D performed by the local equivalent of the Medical
Research Council, as these two types of R&D are generally considered to be
69
financed primarily for the 'advancement of knowledge'. Furthermore, according to

NABS 1975, R&D in hospital management should not be credited to human health ,
but to social services. It is obvious that the institutional arrangements for financing
health R&D in the broadest sense in a country will probably make a good deal of
difference to how much money is finally credited to human health as a purpose in an
international series.
There are two ways out of these difficulties. The first is to produce a more and
more detailed classification which dictates to the respondent where a vote or
programme should be classified. Taken to extremes this ceases to be a 'purpose'
classification and becomes a 'content' classification, largely losing touch with the
original broad aim of the funder. The other is to try and take 'institutional factors'
into consideration when making international comparisons, for example differences
in the funding and performance patterns of the UK Research Councils as compared
with the CNRS in France or the CNR in Italy. Unfortunately, since Changing
Priorities [QRL.68] no international publication has done so in a systematic way.
The 1984 Annual Review [QRL.54] makes an attempt to present a broad
comparison of R&D across EEC countries by NABS objective, and at an aggregate
level extends the comparison to the US and Japan.
CHAPTER 4
THE SCIENCE BUDGET

4.1 Origins
The Science and Technology Act of 1965 created a new body , the Council for
Scientific Policy (CSP), which replaced the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy
(see, for example , [QRL,46] p. land [QRL.124] p. 5). The new Council had a
narrower but more intensive role than its predecessor. Instead of advising on a wide
range of ad hoc problems, the CSP dealt with 'science' only as opposed to
'technology' and more specifically with advising the Secretary of State for Education
on Science and the pattern of resources of the Research Councils . The basic idea was
that, as part of the PESC exercise, the total amount of funds to be made available
for the 'science vote' should be fixed in advance and that the CSP in co-operation
with the Research Councils should recommend how the sum should be carved up
between the Councils . For the first time, therefore, the United Kingdom had a
'science budget' in the sense understood in a number of other countries where such
procedures for centralised discussion of some or all government R&D expenditure
existed. The CSP was wound up in 1972 and was replaced by the Advisory Board for
the Research Councils, which had a broader membership and revised terms of
reference, but which continued to be responsible for the science budget.
Although the 'science budget' per se has existed only since 1965, special tables
giving information on various aspects of R&D etc. by the Research Councils taken
together already existed in the ACSP Annual Reports see, for example, [QRL,39].
Furthermore, additional information on the Council s can be obtained from their
annual reports which will, therefore, also be discussed in this chapter.

4.2.1 Coverage
The science budget generally covers expenditure by the Research Councils . Three
periods can be identified: 'pre Science Budget' up to 1965; the 'CSP Science Budget' ,
1965-1972; and the ABRC (or post-Rothschild) period since 1972.
4.2.1.1 Pre Science Budget. During the 'pre Science Budget' period there were four
Research Councils : the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) ; the Medical Research
Council (MRC); the Nature Con servancy (NC) and the Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research (DSIR). Prior to 1962/63 the ARC and the NC were financed by
MAFF and MRC by DHSS. From that year they were grouped under the heading
of 'universities and scientific research'.
4.2.1.2 1965-1972. Following the Science and Technology Act of 1965, the DSIR
was broken up, its industrial activities were transferred to the new Ministry of
71
72
Technology and its scientific activities were taken over by two new bodies , the
Science Research Council (SRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC), which also absorbed the Nature Conservancy. (Both the new Research
Councils also took over some R&D activities from other bodies) . Al1 these were
financed by the Department of Education and Science and, taken together, their
votes, plus payments to the British Museum (Natural History) and to the Royal
Societies, constituted the Science Budget. Note that the vote to the Social Science
Research Council (SSRC) was first included in the Science Budget in 1972/73, the
last year of the CSP mandate. In that year the Science Budget represented about 16
per cent of al1 government R&D funding and about 28 per cent of government civil
R&D funding .
4.2.1.3 Since 1972. From the time the ABRC was established the coverage of the
Science Budget was cut back significantly. In line with the White Paper, Framework
for Government Research and Development [QRL.84], from 1973/74 part of the sums
originally destined for the ARC, (more recently the AFRC), NERC and MRC were
transferred to other departments on the understanding that they would be returned
to the Councils in the way of commissioned research. Thus the AFRC is now
financed by the DES, but also by the MAFF; the NERC is financed by DES,
MAFF, DTI and DOE. The Medical Research Council was financed by DES, DHSS
and SHHD up until the end of 1981 since when it has gone back to being mainly
funded by the DES. Only the DES vote to the Research Councils is included in the
Science Budget properly speaking. The Science Budget continues to include 'Science:
grants and services' , i.e. grants to the Natural History Museum and the Royal
Societies and there has been no change in the methods of financing the SRC, (more
recently the SERC). In 1983/84 the Science Budget represented 12 per cent of net
government R&D funding and about 24 per cent of net government civil R&D
funding [QRL.51]. Since 1983 details of the Science Budget have been given in the
Annual Review [QRL.53] and [QRL.51] . under the general heading of the DES
programme.
4.2.2 M ain Fields of Science

The 'science budget' and the corresponding early tables do not general1y distinguish
between 'scientific' and 'social science' R&D. Where, therefore, such a distinction is
made, by convention al1 R&D by the Councils, except by the SSRC (more recently
the ESRC), is credited to 'scientific R&D' (although the DSIR did finance some
social science R&D) .

It is assumed in the Science Budget and in allied tables [QRL.80] that the whole of
the expenditure of the Research Councils go to R&D. In the case of the 'Scientific'
Research Councils the only difference between this approach and that used in the
national R&D survey and the net expenditure series is that the science budget
includes support of postgraduate education, whereas the other surveys (such as
[QRL.51]) do not. In the case of the ESRCjSSRC, the difference is much more
substantial. This item is often included under a catch-all 'other' category (separate
THE SCIENCE BUDGET
73
from government) in the outturn series. More recent estimates, including those
published in the Annual Review also exclude such expenditure, although the
individual research council reports and the ABRC reports enable it to be separated
out.
It should be noted that, unless elsewhere specified, the Science Budget does not
include 'civil accommodation services' provided by the DOE for the Research
Councils.
4.3.1 Science Budget Proper

The data for the Science Budget proper are planned and measured during the PESC
exercise. A first projection of the total science budget appears in the Public
Expenditure White papers [QRL.214] . Statements of proposed forward expenditure
are invited by the ABRC (earlier the CSP) from each of the Research Councils.
These proposals are not published but are discussed at various levels and submitted
to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who then informs the Research
Councils of the figures to be used when preparing their Estimates. Up until 1988
these appeared in the R&D table in the CSM [QRL.190] excluding payments for
postgraduate education, and in the Supply Estimates themselves, where they are
grouped in the Education and Libraries, Science and Arts chapter. Time series will
be found in the reports published by the CSP [QRL.124] and the ABRC [QRL.80],
[QRL.176] . More recently all this information has been brought together in the
Annual Review [QRL.51] .
4.3.2 Additional Sources

Even before the establishment of the Science Budget proper some tables on the
activities of the Research Councils were published in the Annual Reports of the
ACSP [QRL.39]. These were carried through to the SST [QRL.187] and CSO R&D
publications [QRL.152], [QRL.153]. Furthermore additional information on the net
R&D expenditure of the Councils can also be found in the net expenditure series
described in Chapter 2 and on their gross expenditure for the national survey
described in Chapter I, (see [QRL.185], [QRL.186], [QRL.187], [QRL.152] and
[QRL.153]) . Even more detailed information can be derived from the Annual Reports
of Research Councils themselves [QRL.28], [QRL.24], [QRL.47], [QRL.134],
[QRL.133], [QRL.33]. For earlier years the reports published by the DSIR [QRL.27]
also contain quite a lot of useful material. As noted above, more recently, data have
also been published in the Annual Review [QRL.51].
4.4 Data Available
4.4.1 Expenditure
4.4.1.1 Science Budget proper. The Science Budget proper shows total net
expenditure of the Research Councils, plus research grants. A breakdown is given
74
between the individual Research Councils. The ABRC Reports [QRL.80], [QRL.176]
and [QRL.197] also give some further details, notably information on the receipts of
the Councils from customer departments.
4.4.2 Tables in the CSO and ACSP Reports
Two special tables on the Research Councils were published regularly from the
middle 1950s to the mid-1970s, at first annually in [QRL.39] and after then in
[QRL.185] , [QRL.186] and [QRL.187] and [QRL.152] and [QRL.153] . One or other
of them also turn up in other sourees, notably [QRL.184] and [QRL.23].
The first of these tables shows total expenditure of the Research Councils divided
between current and capital expenditure and the numbers of research institutes and
research units . Expenditure is measured gross and includes receipts from other
departments as weil as the DES and also includes expenditure on postgraduate
studies.
The second table shows expenditure by the Research Councils in support of
research at univer sities. It should be noted that only the first class of expenditure in
the table 'Research grants to universities' are clearly counted as transfers from the
Research Councils to the university for the performance of R&D in the national
survey, though the sums are usually slightly lower than in the government extramural
expenditure (see 2.5.6.3) as the latter also includes payments to Further Education
establishments. 'Expenditure on research units within universities ' and 'Expenditure
on research units or institutes associated with universities' are counted as part of the
intramural expenditure of the Research Councils, and thus of the government sector
in the national survey . 'Studentships, fellowships and bursaries' contain two
elements : payments for postgraduate studies which are, from 1967 onwards, excluded
from R&D in the national survey; and a smaller element of payments for R&D
fellowships counted in the national survey as extramural expenditure to individuals
and thus to the 'Other' sector (2.3.4). The treatment of 'Research Training Grants'
has varied in the national survey results.
4.4.3 Tables in the Annual Review
From 1983 a summary of R&D by the Research Councils has been published in the
Annual Review [QRL.53] and [QRL.51], alongside information on R&D conducted
by the various government departments. As weil as aggregate data, information is
also presented in detail for each Research Council.
4.4.4 Research Council Annual Reports
All the Research Councils are obliged to publish a grant-in-aid account in their
annual reports showing receipts and payments. These correspond to the votes to the
Councils as described in the 'Education, Libraries, Science & Arts' class of the
Supply Estimates [QRL.190], though the degree of detail varies between the two
sources. Some councils restriet themselves to the statutory minimum but others
provide a good deal more in the way of statistics.
The statistical tables in the annual reports are useful for two reasons: first, because
they appear regularly and rapidly after the close of the year concerned and thus
THE SCIENCE BUDGET
75
provide outturn data which may not emerge from the national survey until a good
deal later (several years in the 1970's) and secondly , because some give more detailed
information than is available from other sources .
4.4.4 .1 Medical Research Council ( M R C). The MRC has a complex pattern of
receipts and expenditure but these are fully documented in the grant-in-aid account
in their Annual Report [QRL.28]. The receipts are given in some detail which is
extremely useful, particularly to anyone who is trying to obtain a total picture of
health R&D expenditure. On the expenditure side intramural expenditure is shown
for the main MRC establishments broken down by type of cost. These generally
closely match the results for the Council quoted in the national survey. Extramural
expenditure is shown by type of programme rather than by sector of destination but
generally corresponds to extramural expenditure in the national survey allowing for
the fact that the latter excludes payments in respect of postgraduate studies . A
problem revealed by the Annual Report is that research grants are made not only to
universities, medical schools and to selected 'other national' institutes but also to
teams at National Health Hospitals. In the national survey, such hospitals should be
included in the government sector. It follows that although such outlays appear in
payments in the grant-in-aid account in the Annual Report they ought not to appear
in the extramural table in the national survey results as the latter does not show
transfers within the government sector. In so far as R&D by National Health
Hospitals is included in the national survey it is not clear whether or not these MRC
financed programmes are in fact picked up in government intramural expenditure as
described in Chapter 2. Net expenditure in the MRC Annual Report agrees with that
of the Council as described in Chapter 3 except in the treatment of support for
postgraduate studies . The MRC annual report contains a grant-in-aid account not
only for the year under review and the preceding year but also a time series table
giving the main elements for a five year period, with percentage annual increases and
proportional allocations.
The Annual Report has from time to time also included a short 'facts and figures'
table giving data on staff numbers, numbers of grants and salaries paid , numbers of
training awards of various kinds and some information on the research done by
universities . Over the years tables have been regularly included giving a programme
breakdown of MRC expenditure by type of illness. This covers all expenditure by the
Council, further details on commissions for the health departments will be found in
the DHSS's annual report. The layout of the subject area tables have varied
somewhat. In some years tabulations indicate which projects are relevant to which
subject area . In more recent years a table has been included showing expenditure
broken down by primary subject area and a second showing expenditures which are
both of primary and secondary relevance to each subject area . The sum of the latter
is thus not meaningful as the same project may properly be included under one or
more additional headings according to its relevance. The functional classification
used in the MRC Report is, as might be expected, framed in medical terms rather
than in terms of the type of patient concerned . It is, thus, not comparable with the
functional classification used in the annual R&D report of the DHSS.
4.4.4.2 Agricultural Research Council(ARC) . The grant-in-aid account in the
ARC Annual Report [QRL.24] is generally rather less informative than that in thc
MRC report, particularly on the receipts side. Further detail on receipts will be
76
found in the relevant class of the Supply Estimates [QRL.190] and for transfers from
MAFF in the latter's Annual Report . When setting out to use the expenditure data
and to compare them with the national survey series the main problem is to
distinguish between the various blocks of agricultural research institutes supported
by the ARe. The Council's intramural activities include the expenditure of its
headquarters, its own research institutes, research units and external scientific staff.
In the national survey, up to 1972/73, the capital expenditure of 'Other Research
Institutes' was also included in the ARC's intramural expenditure. Since then both
the current and the capital expenditure of these 'other institutes' has been credited to
extramural expenditure in 'other national' sector in the national survey. The ARC
also administers grants made by the DAFS to research institutes in Scotland. These
grants are not included in the grant-in-aid account but a table is included in the
Annual Report. The grants are not credited to the ARC as a source of funds in the
national survey but to the PESC heading 'Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry' where
they are quoted as extramural expenditure to the 'other national' sector . Net R&D
expenditure in the Annual Report agrees with that describcd in Chapter 3 except that
the latter excludes support for postgraduate studies . In 1983 the ARC was renamed
the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC).
4.4.4.3 Science and Engineering Research Council(SERC). The Science Research
Council (SRC) was set up after the Science and Technology Act of 1965 and its first
Annual Report [QRL.47] was issued in respect of 1965/66. It inherited some
responsibilities from the DSIR, notably postgraduates and other university grants,
subscriptions to CERN and ESR and the Radio Research Station from the UKAEA
(NIRNS) and from the Navy (Royal Observatories).
The SRC has a relatively simple pattern of receipts with 98 per cent of its R&D
financed by the grant-in-aid from the DES . The expenditure section of its
grant-in-aid account shows current and capital outlays for its own establishments
which correspond to intramural R&D expenditure in the national survey. Extramural
expenditure in the Annual Report is considerably higher than that quoted in the
national survey for two reasons. First the SRC is a major source of support for
postgraduate studies which are not included in R&D expenditure in the national
survey (the sums are not separately available in the Annual Report but are shown in
the relevant volume of the Estimates). Secondly, because the SRC, which is in charge
of the national space science programme, makes substantial payments to the
Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence to develop the relevant hardware.
Such transfers within the government sector are not shown in the extramural table in
the national survey . It is not clear how much of these space funds are spent in
government aerospace establishments and how much are passed on in industrial
contracts. The SRC also makes other transfers within government, e.g. for
Astronomy and Space central facilities and to the UKAEA for the rent of Neutron
Beam facilities.
The SRC Annual Report does not deal with R&D manpower nor does it include a
function breakdown of its expenditure. It does contain further statistical information
on studentships and on grants to universities and FE establishments. Only total
annual outlays on grants are reported in the grant-in-aid table but a breakdown
between major fields of science will be found in the relevant volume of the Estimates
[QRL.105] or [QRL.190]. The additional tables in the Annual Report give the number
THE SCIENCE BUDGET
77
and value of grants considered and recommended by each SRC Board or Committee
(which correspond to a field of science classification), the total value of SRC
Research grants by institution and by Board or Committee and the distribution of
grants by size. The SRC was renamed the Science and Engineering Research Council
(SERC) in 1981 [QRL.134].
4.4.4.4 Natural Environment Research Counci/( NERC) . The NERC was set up in
1965, inheriting the Geological Research Institute from the DSIR, the Nature
Conservancy (previously an independent Research Council), the Development Fund
from MAFF and support for oceanographic R&D from the Navy and from the
ODA. In 1967 it also took over the Antarctic Survey from the Navy. The early
Annual Reports [QRL.133] contain only a minimum of data as it took some time to
pull the accounts of all the constituent elements together.
It has never been easy to get from the data in the NERC Annual Report to those
in the national survey . Prior to the introduction of the new framework for
government R&D in the early 1970's the NERC had a relatively simple pattern of
receipts with over 90 per cent of its R&D expenditure financed by the grant-in-aid
from the DES . Since then the pattern has become increasingly complex. In 1978-79
only about 65 per cent of its expenditure was financed by its own grant in aid and
30-35 per cent was for commissioned R&D, mainly for the Department of Energy
(about 12 per cent), the Department of the Environment (about 9 per cent) and the
Department of Industry (about 6 per cent) with smaller contributions from the
Ministry of Overseas Development and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (about 2-3 per cent each) . These receipts are fully documented in the
Annual Report but sometimes for a different year than the expenditure account.
The expenditure account (which usually quotes provisional figures only) identifies
R&D by the component Institutes of the Council which taken together with
Headquarters' of various kinds correspond to intramural expenditure in the national
survey. It shows payments to grant aided laboratories, included in the 'other
national' sector in the national survey and Research Grants are separated from
Training Awards and Fellowships. A further breakdown of the latter can be found in
the relevant volume of the Supply Estimates [QRL.190].
The NERC has gone further towards the use of functional classifications than any
other Research Council in its 'Main Field Budget' which shows the main features of
the NERC programme classified in 38 sub-divisions of five major divisions: Earth,
Seas, Inland Waters, Terrestrial Environments and Atmosphere. Full detail is also
given, project by project, on commissioned R&D showing support by the
commissioning department, other departments and by NERC itself from the Science
Budget. Furthermore, a full breakdown of research grants by institutions is shown
with numbers of grants and expenditure in the year concerned . This is very useful as
it reveals what proportion of grants go to universities, to polytechnics and to other
institutes. (When linking back to the national survey for such tables it should be
remembered that the HE sector includes not only universities and polytechnics but
also the Cranfield Institute of Technology, and other FE establishments).
4.4.4.5 Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) . The Social Science
Research Council (SSRC) was the last of thc new Research Councils to be set up
after the Science and Technology Act of 1965, and subsequently acquired the new
title of ESRC as from January Ist 1984. Its principal characteristic is that less than
78
half its expenditure is considered to go to R&D proper of which about two-thirds is

for grants to universities [QRL.33].
The ESRC is financed almost exc1usively from its grant in aid from the DES .
Other minor contributions are given in the receipts section of the grant-in-aid
account. The expenditure account distinguishes between R&D and non-R&D
activities. Information is given on the number and value of research grants but not
on the institutions concerned. A breakdown of such grants is given by size of grants
and by 'subject areas'.
4.5 Miscellaneous Sources

In addition to the main research council reports there are a number of other relevant
publications. For example, the joint SRC/SSRC committee was established in 1968
to provide support for work in the inter-disciplinary area involving science and
engineering and social science. This body produced a number of annual reports
which inc1uded data on grants awarded [QRL.32]. In addition, various
sub-committees have produced reports which contain data on annual grant awards
by subject area and area of application. See, for example, [QRL.29], [QRL.30] and
[QRL.31]. The SRC/SERC also publishes data on research grants covered in an
annual report (see, for example, [QRL. 102]). These data have been analysed in
[QRL.82] and [B.14].
4.6 Sources for International Comparisons

The European Science Foundation (ESF) compiles data on the R&D expenditure of
35 of its 46 member organisations inc1uding the five British Research Councils, the
Royal Society and the British Academy. Data are currently available for the period
from 1970 onwards [QRL.77]. Expenditure is divided into two broad classes: 'direct'
and 'indirect'. 'Direct' expenditure is sub-divided among 'institutionalised research'
(intramural and centralised schemes) and 'grants' cross-classified with a list of 44
fields of science grouped in six main fields used in the OECD and UNESCO R&D
data banks i.e. natural sciences, engineering, medical sciences, agricultural sciences,
social sciences and humanities. 'Indirect' expenditures are sub-divided among 7
sub-classes: international collaboration, information and library, computer,
international fellowship and training grants, other indirect support, administration
and publication.
The following organisations are inc1uded in the ESF series:
Austria
Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Fonds zur
Forderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique
Belgium
Det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab
Denmark
Forskningssekretariat (SNF, SLF, SJVF, SSV, SHF, STVF)
The Academy of Finland
Finland
TH E SCIENCE BUDG ET
79
Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale

(IN SER M)
Centre Nation al de la Recherche Scient ifique (CN RS)
Institut de Recherche Fondamentale du Commissariat a
I'Energie Atomique
Federal Republic Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (D FG)
Konferen z der Akademien der Wissenschaften in der Bundes
01 Germany
Republik Deut schland
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG)
National Hellenie Research Foundation
Greece
Medic al Research Council
Ireland
Royal Irish Academ y
National Board for Science and Technology
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
Italy
Nederlandse organisatie voor zuiverwetenschappelijk onderzoek
Neth erlands
Koninklijke Nederlandse Ak ademie van Wetenschappen
Norges Almen viteskapalige Forskningsrad
No nvay
Det Norske Videnskapakademi
Junta Naci on al de Investigacao Cientifica e Tecnologica (JNICT)
Portugal
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
Instituto Nacional de Investigacao Cientifica
Consejo Sup erior de investigaciones Cientificas
Spain
For skn ingsradsn amnden
S weden
Humani stisk samha llsvetenska pliga Forskn ingsradet
Kung\. Vetenskap sakdemien
Kung\. Vetterhets-, historie- och antikvitetsa kademien
Medicinska Forskn ingsradet
Naturveten skaplig a Forskningsradet
Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique
S witzerland
Th e Scient ific and Technical Research Council of Turkey
Turkey
United Kingdom Agricultural Research Council (ARC)
Medic al Research Council (MRC)
Natural En vironment Research Council (NERC)
The Royal Society
The British Academy
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Savet Zajednic a za Nauka Jugoslavije
Yugosla via
Savet Akademija nauke i umjetnosti SFRJ
France
CHAPTER 5
INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTAL R&D REPORTS

5.1 Origins
During the discussions of the Green Paper, A Framework for Government Research
and Development , [QRL.83] and [QRL.84], the Select Committee on Science and
Technology issued areport [QRL.83] in which they commented that neither
Parliament nor the public was given sufficient information about departmental R&D
and recommended that, 'all government departments with R&D activities should
publish a standard form annual report on these activities. Those reports should
include:
i)
Statistics explaining the size of their total R&D budget.
ii)
The amount and objectives of research expenditure on separate projects.
iii) Progress reports on projects.
iv) Assessment of the results of former R&D work.
v)
Machinery for dialogue with potential users, customers and contractors.
The government accepted this suggestion more or less as it stood [QRL.85] and
announced that such annual reports would be issued in the summer following the
year covered and that there would be an annual summary bibliography.
This meant that a whole new set of sources of information would become available
for that part (25 per cent) of central government R&D expenditure which goes to
'oriented' civil departmental R&D (with the balance made up by the Science Budget
15 per cent, the estimated R&D content of the UGC grant 10 per cent and Defence
50 per cent).
These reports began to appear in 1973, but for most departments the first issue
was on R&D activities in 1973/74 or 1974. Initially they appeared more or less
annually. In many cases, however, only a few reports were produced , and in most
cases publication is far from regular . The promised summary bibliography has
appeared four times - 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1979 [B.49].
These departmental reports reflect the general philosophy of the White Paper
[B.82] that government-financed applied R&D should be planned and managed by
individual departments on the 'customer-contractor' principle. In most of the
departments 'Requirements Boards' were set up to act as the 'customers' and the
R&D data reported reflect their needs and interests .
Following furt her rationalisation in response to the House of Lord s Select
Committee [QRL.164] and [QRL.87] the Annual Review [QRL.53] and [QRL.51] has
largely taken over the role played by the individual departmental reports (see section
3.3.2 above). The Cabinet Office has attempted to draw together , on a consistent
basis, data from all government departments. Data are presented on detailed subject
areas and by primary purpose as weil as on the distribution of funding for each
department in turn .
81
82
Table 5.1
Relation between PESe headings and departmental R&D spending I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
1979/80
Defence
Ministry of Defence (all)
Overseas Aid and Other Overseas Services
Ministry of Overseas Development (all);
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (all)
Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (virtually all);
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland (all)
Forestry Commission (all)
Scottish Office (77 per cent of total department spending)
Department of Environment for New Wales (6 per cent of total Department
spending)
Trade, Industry, Energy and Employment (in the outturn series this is divided
between Energy, Aerospace and other Industry)
Department of Energy (all);
Department of Industry (all);
Department of Environment New Wales (5 per cent of total Department
R&D spending);
Department of Employment (all);
Department of Trade (3 per cent of total Department R&D spending) ;
Scottish Economic Planning Department
Government Lending to Nationalised Industry
NoR&D
Roads and Transport
Department of Transport
Department of Trade (92 per cent of Department R&D spending)
Housing
No R&D
Other Environmental Services
Department of the Environment (81 per cent of Department R&D spending)
Scottish Office (23 per cent of department R&D spending)
Welsh Office (84 per cent of department R&D spending)
Law , Order and Protective Services
Horne Office (97 per cent of department R&D spending);
Scottish Horne and Health Department (negligible)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (negligible)
Education and Libraries, Science and the Arts
Department of Education and Science (in R&D series this is split between
general university grant, research councils and others)
Health and Personal Social Services
Department of Health and Social Security;
Scottish Horne and Health Department (99 per cent of Department R&D
spending);
83
Scottish Education Department (49 per cent of Department R&D spending);

Social Security
No R&D
13. Other Public Serv ices
Customs and Excise; HM Treasury;
Civil Service Department
Public Record Office
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
Ordnance Survey
Horne Office (3 per cent of department R&D spending)
14. Common Services
Office and General Accommodation Services and Stationery and Printing
Department of the Environment (8 per cent of Department R&D spending)
Stationery Office (all)
15. Northern Ireland
No R&D
Source: Supply Estimates: Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasur y,
1979/80
12.

5.2.1 General Characteristics
The general characteristic of the R&D series in the departmental reports is the lack
of agreed standards for defining and classifying this expenditure.
The Select Committee also recommended that some standard definitions of R&D
should be drawn up for the United Kingdom in co-operation with OECD and the
EEC [QRL.82]. The government replied rather tartly that it 'attached considerable
importance to the question of agreed definitions of R&D ', and that the UK adhered
to the OECD standard definitions of all surveys on R&D [QRL.85]. Unfortunately,
this rule was not strictly adhered to . In some cases, the differences are minor, but in
others the departments either already had their own established R&D accounting
terminology which differed significantly from that adopted at national level for
statistical surveys, or seem to have decided to start from zero.
Each department developed R&D classifications to meet its own needs and
especially those of its Requirements Boards . Furthermore, in many of the
departments the first R&D reports were issued before the new structure for
managing R&D had really got und er way. Statistical series quoted in the early issues
were sometimes abandoned to be replaced by others more relevant to the
Requirements Boards' needs and interests . (This review will deal only with those
series which have appeared on a regular basis.) For all these reasons it is very
difficult to use the data in the reports in conjunction with the relevant sub-classes of
the National Survey results discussed in Chapter 2 or the Net spending series
discussed in Chapter 3. A further problem is that the departmental R&D reports do
not distinguish between 'scientific' and 'social science' R&D .
84

The aim of the departmental reports is not to produce accurate R&D statistics but to
report on the progress of their R&D activities. The latter usually comprise all the
department's programmes or projects with a significant R&D content. The series are
thus based on the 'mainly R&D ' approach.
Nevertheless, some departments, notably the Department of Industry, do attempt
to distinguish within this total between R&D proper and ' R&D supporting S&T
activities', for example they specify items which are known to have a rather high
'non-R&D' content, such as contracts with industry or payments to international
agencies. The departmental reports tables are very largely 'source-based'. Only the
R&D activities of their own establishments are 'performer-based'. The data are
generally available for expenditure only. Some of the reports give outturn, or outturn
plus estimates for more recent years. Others cite only estimates. In general, in the
case of estimates, they are not very explicit as to which years' prices have been used.
5.2.3 Net and Gross Expenditure

The concept of gross expenditure used is often wider than that in the national
survey, in that it includes not only total intramural expenditure plus extramural
expenditure to other national sectors and to abroad, but also payments to other
government departments. The departmental reports are, together with the Research
Council annual reports, the only sources which permit one to track down such
payments between government departments and establishments. This can be very
important if one is attempting to get a picture for an R&D area treated by several
departments, such as health or civil space.
Some departments give information on net expenditure, and for others it can
generally be derived from the custorner-contractor table.
5.2.4 Classification Units for Central Government R&D Expenditure

5.2.4.1 Classification by department . The only regular source to give R&D spending
for central government classified by department is the now defunct table in the
Memorandum Series [QRL.105] discussed in Chapter 3. This table could be used as
the main link between the departmental R&D reports and the established R&D
series.
The main problems in using this table as a link are that its definition of R&D is
slightly wider than that in the finaloutturn tables as, for example, in [QRL.152] and
[QRL.153] and that the data are usually estimated at survey prices.
A certain amount of data, department by department, will also be found, together
with a general description of the working of the system, in Review of the Framework
for Government Research and Development [QRL.163].
5.2.4.2 The classification by PESC heading. Government R&D expenditure in the
national survey, discussed in Chapter 2, and the net central government series,
discussed in Chapter 3, are presented in functional PESC classes. There is a link
between departmental responsibilities and PESC headings, but there is rarely a
one-to-one relationship, as can be seen from table 5.1 (which is based on the detailed
R&D table in the Memorandum [QRL.105]) . This means that, prior to 1983, it is
85
difficult to fit the detailed da ta available from the individual reports into the broader
framework set by the R&D surveys proper. Following the publication of Annual
Review [QRL.53] and [QRL.51] these problems have largely disappeared .

5.3.1 List 0/ Reports
For the early 1970s a full list of all relevant government annual R&D reports will be
found in Government Research and Development: A Guide to Sources 0/ Information
[B.49], including very many which are intended to give scientific and technical
information and contain little or no R&D data. Unfortunately this publication has
not appeared since 1979.
5.3.2 Reports 0/ the Major R&D Spending Departments
In fact, of the 27 government departments which reported any net civil R&D
spending in the Memorandum [QRL.105] in 1979/80, the first 5 were responsible for
80 per cent of all civil oriented R&D (i.e. excluding the science budget and the UGC
grants) and the first eight for 95 per cent of the total (as can be seen from Table
5.6).
The rest of this chapter will concentrate on the 8 largest R&D spending
departments which publish regular R&D reports. The remaining discussion in this
chapter is divided into two parts. The first of these, in section 5.4-5.11, deals with
the material published in individual departmental reports. As noted above these
appe ared from about 1973 onwards, although in many cases they were only
produced for a few years. The second part, in section 5.12, covers the period from
the early 1980s when further rationalisation had seen the re-emergence of these data
in a much more convenient form in the Annual Review of Government Funded
R&D. Since the latter is generally much more accessible, most space is devoted to
attempting to disentangle the complexities of the individual departmental reports.
Unless elsewhere specified, comparison between the R&D series in the
departmental reports and those in the national survey (as described in Chapter 2) or
in the net spender series (as described in Chapter 3) relate to 1978/79. Departments
are discussed in descending order of net R&D spending in 1979/80 according to the
Memorandum [QRL.I05] except that the Department of Transport is grouped with
the Department of Environment. In addition to the eight departmental reports
covered in detail below, annual reports have also been published regularly by DES
[QRL.26] and the Department of Employment [QRL.149].
5.4 Data Available

It is difficult to generalise about the main types of tables available. Initially most of
the reports contained a minimum of two statistical tables : a 'customer-contractor'
table and a 'functional breakdown'. The former usually shows from where the
86
RESEAR CH AND DEVELOPM ENT STATISTI CS
department derive s its R&D fund s (sometimes linked back to the vote s) and by
whom its R&D programmes are performed. The latter shows a breakdown of the
department's efforts according to the aims, objecti ves or scientific fields of its R&D
activities.
Once the new structure for managing each dep artment's R&D had been set up ,
two new sets of table s usually emerged . First, sepa ra te customer-contractor tables
each with its own functional c1assification, and secondly what one ma y call 'project
tabulations'. These are lists of all the projects financed und er the va rious functional
headings with details on the performer etc. They may not ha ve annual figures or
data on the whole cost of the project,
5.5 Department of Energy
5.5.1 General Pattern
0/ the Department's R&D
The Department of Energy was set up in January 1974. The special characteristic of
the Department is that although it has a watehing brief over the whole public sector
energy R&D effort it actually directly controls a relatively small part of this effort .
Thus 85 per cent of its tot al R&D spend is made up of the estimated R&D content
of the general Nuclear Energy Vote to the UKAEA and onl y 15 per cent goes to its
own programmes. Furthermore, the department produces only a bout 60 per cent of
to tal energy R&D spending in the public sector with about 40 per cent provided by
the nationalised industries.

The first annual report on R&D was issued in respect of 1973/74 [QRL.140] . It
contains onl y one regular statistical table giving R&D expenditure in two sections.
i)
The Department of Energy' s own R&D programmes; international
non-nuclear projects and nuclear R&D other than UKAEA
ii)
R&D by the UKAEA distinguishing between R&D performed by the
authority and design and development contracts with indu str y, together with
R&D by the nationalised industries distinguished between the British Gas
Corporation, the Electricity Council and Electricity Generating Board and
the National Coal Board.
Except for the R&D performed by the UKAEA, expenditure is reported annually.
The privatisation of British Gas and the proposal to do the same for the electri city
industry will ob viously affect this data series in future year s.
R&D financed by the Department of Energy is wholly included under the PESe
heading 'T rade Industry Energy & Employment' . This is a very large class and the
sub-classification used in the Memorandum [QRL.105] changed considerably over
the yea rs. The outturn series have always been divided into 'Aerospace', 'Energy' and
'Other Industry and Trade Empl oymen t'.
On the whole the data in the annua l report correspond bro adl y to the 'energy'
class but there are three reasons why a direct link cannot be made.
i)
87
There are two concepts in the energy area , R&D (Research and
Development) and R,D&D (Research, Development and Design). The series
in the annual reports (in line with the accounting system of the International
Energy Agency) probably include some design expenditure.
ii)
R&D data for 'Energy' as a PESC class in the 'national' survey are gross and
those in the 'outturn survey' are net whereas the data in the national report
are a mixture of the two.
iii) Judging from the Memorandum Tables [QRL.105] in the late 1970s the
UKAEA vote was always included under 'Energy ' but R&D in nuclear
technology was sometimes included under 'Other Industry, Trade and
Employment'.
The R&D data for the nationalised industries are credited to enterprise both as a
sector of performance and as a source of funds in the national survey. The UKAEA,
has until recently however, been regarded as part of central government [QRL.152],
(p. 87). From April 1986 the UKAEA will no longer be included in the latter
according to [QRL.lO] (p. 89).
The UKAEA is not only a major government performer of energy R&D but has
also acted as a contractor of R&D for a wide range of government departments.
Since the Science and Technology Act of 1965 (section 4), which made provision for
the authority to conduct non-nuclear energy research it has played a significant role
in this area and from 1974 following the Control of Pollution Act (section 101) this
has been broadened to include R&D into pollution. The authority also plays a
significant role in the national defence R&D effort of course, but separate data on
this function are not available. Two sections of its annual report are of interest: first
that dealing with civil nuclear energy R&D financed under the Nuclear Energy Act;
and second, that dealing with non-nuclear R&D performed for outside agencies.
Prior to 1968/69, UKAEA annual reports showed the government cash grant for
civil nuclear R&D , which corresponded to the series in the Memorandum [QRL.105]
broken down by programme area. However, these series (as was the Memorandum
figure) were approximations because the cash grant (net vote) is broken down by
type of cost and not by type of activity. The authority accounts for expenditure by
activity in terms of operating costs which include not only cash spent but also
expenditure accrued and an appropriate share of the use of plant equipment stores
and materials provided and paid for in previous years together with interest on
capital employed. These series, shown in the annual report from the 1968/69 issue,
are substantially higher than the Memorandum. There is a break in the operating
costs time series by major programme between 1972/73 and 1973/74 caused by a
reclassification of work in support of the nuclear power programmes. The report has
from time to time also contained data on the deployment of qualified scientists and
engineers by major programme.
The amount of data on non-nuclear R&D in the annual reports has declined
substantially. In the late 1960s details were given both of R&D undertaken under
individual ministerial Directives (cash expenditure by project) and work against
repayment (operating cost by project and total cash expenditure) together with the
number of QSEs involved. The reports in the early 1970s contained much less detail
and the more recent reports provide no information whatsoever. There is a marked
difference between the amount reported both gross and net in the operating costs
88
table (in the Accounts) which apparently covers only R&D financed out of UKAEA
resources and the much higher figure given in the graphs published in the main body
of the report (since 1973); the latter use a different classification which includes
non -nuclear R&D , (see, for example , page 12 of the 1975/76 Annual Report
[QRL.34]) . These differences reflect (amongst other things) the fact that the graph
excludes expenditure on contracts for reactor design and component development on
behalf of the Department of Energy , while the operating account excludes R&D on
non-nuclear research. Details of the latter can be found under commercial
transactions in aseparate table within the main accounts. This includes work carried
out for government departments. It is given in aseparate table . From this table it is
possible to get some idea of the share of R&D financed by requirements boards,
industry and government departments.
5.6 Department of Industry
0/ the Department 's R&D
The Department of Trade and Industry was set up in 1970. It issued its first R&D
report for 1972/73. In 1974 it was split up into the Department of Industry and the
Department of Trade. The 1974/76 report is for the Department ofIndustry only .
The reports describe the programmes undertaken by the Department in the fields
of industrial technology and innovation through the work of its nine Requirements
Boards (I - Chemical, 2 - Minerals, 3 - Chief Scientist , 4 - Computer Systems
and Electronics, 5 - Electrical Technology, 6 - Engineering Materials, 7
- Garment and Allied Industry, 8 - Mechanical Engineering and Machine Tools ,
9 - Metrology and Standards, Ship and Marine Technology) and by its industrial
divisions .
About 85 per cent of the Department's R&D spend comes from its own resources
and about 15 per cent from external sources. The majority of the receipts are carried
by the Department's six research establishments (I - the National Physical
Laboratory, 2 - the National Energy Laboratory, 3 - the Warren Spring
Laboratory, 4 - Laboratory of the Government Chemist, 5 - the National
Maritime Institute, 6 - the Computer Aided Design Centre). About 35-40 per cent
of the Department's R&D spending, as reported in the annual report, is intramural
and 65 per cent extramural, mostly in industry.
5.6.2 Tab/es in the Annua/ Report

5.6.2.1 Nature 0/ the data. Research and Development is taken to include technology
transfer and research support activities and thus goes beyond R&D as defined in
Chapter 1. It includes appropriate technology support under both the Science and
Technology Act 1965 and for 1979 onwards under the Industry Act 1972.
Development and launehing aid for civil aircraft and engine projects are not
included.
In the earlier years a distinction between R&D proper and the technical activities
was made but this has now more or less disappeared. Expenditure prior to 1976/77
89
were given in vote costs which link back to the net central government spending
series [QRL.160] whereas from then on tables are in 'Full Economic Cost' including
appropriate overhead and support costs in the Department of Industry
establishments. These are generally at current prices.
5.6.2.2 Customer-contractor table. Throughout the period a contractor table was
included showing the performers of total DI R&D. In the early years it did not show
the receipts of DI establishments but has done so since 1974/75. By the late 1970s
contractor tables were also included for the expenditure of each Requirements
Board .
5.6.2.3 Functional classifications. From 1972/73 to 1974/75 the first version of the
EEC NABS classification was used (see Chapter 3). Since then the main classification
has been by the subject areas covered by the nine Requirements Boards for the
Department's R&D together with a number of project classes. Each Requirement
Board has a functional classification within its own area. Taken together these give a
complex classification. Table 5.2 gives the details pertaining to 1979/80.
Table 5.2
Functional Classification for R&D Expenditure of the Department of Industry
Main classes
Sub-classes
1. Microelectronics Credits
Applications
Microprocessor Applications Project

Microelectronics Industry Support
Programme and other
microelectronics schemes
Software products scheme
No
2. Development of New
Products and Processes
Product Need and Process

Development Schemes
Computers and electronics
Instruments and automation
Vehicles
Machine tools
Chemieals and textiles
Aircraft equipment
Mechanical equipment
Medical
Other
Other
Advanced Computer Technology
Project
Sectoral schemes - machine tools
Textile machinery
Printing machinery
Other Electronics Applications
Division
No
Contractor
Table
90
Main classes
Sub-classes
Contractor
Table
Contracts, pre-production orders etc.

Other Computers, Systems and
Electronics
Division contracts etc.
3. Technology Transfer
No
Yes
4. Chemieals and Minerals

Requirements Board
By programme
Mineral resources
Mineral processing
Metals extraction
Reclamation
Chemical manufacture
Process plant
Physical properties data
Other
Related work
Mineral reconnaissance programme
Mineral intelligence programme
Mineral exploration grants
Yes
5. Chief Scientists
Paper and board

Printing
Packaging
Furniture
Miscellaneous
Yes
6. Civil Aeronautical
Technology
Aero-engine research
Airframes research
Equipment research
Capital facilities
Yes
7. Computers, System and

Electronics Requirements
Board
By sector
Computing
Control engineering
Electronic technology
Total
Related spending not shown elsewhere
Surveys and students
European Infomatics Network
Production Control Consultancy
Yes
Requirement Board
No
91
Main classes
Sub-classes
8. Electrical Technology
Requirements Board
Electrical machines
Switchgear, accessories and cables
Domestic appliances
Batteries and electrochemistry
Electrical standards
MisceIIaneous
Yes
9. Energy conservation
Energy Conservation Demonstration

Project Scheme
Industrial Energy Thrift Scheme
Yes
10. Engineering Materials Requirements Board
Iran and stee1

Ferrous foundries
Non-ferrous metals
Polymers, composites and rubber
Ceramies and glass
Yes
11 . Garment and AIIied

Industry Requirements
Board
Spinning
Weaving
Wet processing
Knitting
Clothing
Carpets
Leather
Footwear
Non-woven
Other
Yes
12. Mechanical Eng ineering

and Machine Tools Requirements Board
By programme
Computer-aided engineering
Production technology
Engines and vehicles
Pumps, valves and fluid power
Machinery R&D
Forming techniques
Other
Related work
Vehicles Division projects
Yes
13. Metrology and Standards

- Requirements Board
Dimensional, mechanical and optical

Electrical
Ionising radiation and ultrasonics
Thermal
Yes
Contractor
Table
92
Main classes
Sub-classes
Contractor
Table
Fluid flow
Chemical
Environmental
Acoustics
Calibration
BS Specifications
14. Ship and Marine
Technology Requirements
Board
Shipping
Marine engineering and vibration
Cargo handling and shipboard
equipment
Navigation
Ship handling and simulators
Marine technology
Oceanography
Underwater technology
Seabed mining
Protein
Pollution
Misce1laneous
Small craft
Yes
15. Space Technology
ESA Applications Programme and

other ESA activities
UK Space Technology Programme
Extramural
Intramural
Capital facilities
No
16. Research Establishments

Technical Services
No
No
Source : Departmental Report (1979/80)

5.6.2 .4 Comparison with other sourees. The R&D expenditure of the Department of
Industry falls wholly under the PESC heading Industry, Trade and Employment.
This heading has been variously divided up in the Memorandum [QRL.l05] but in
the national survey and outturn series has always been divided up between 'Energy',
'Aerospace' and 'Other Industry, Trade and Employment'. The Department finances
virtually all the R&D under the 'Aerospace' heading and most of the natural science
and engineering R&D in 'Other Industry Trade and Employment'.
The data quoted in the annual report give both more and less than the series
derived from the national survey and the net outturn series. On the one hand they
93
include spending on technical services and technology transfer which are excluded
from the Department's R&D return, but on the other they exclude the estimated
R&D content of development and launehing aid for civil aircraft and engine projects.
Thus the amounts quoted in the annual report for space and for civil aeronautical
technology are considerably lower than total 'aerospace' in the R&D survey.
However , the rest of the Department's R&D spend, as quoted in its annual report, is
somewhat higher than its share of 'Other Industry and Employment' . The
Department also departs from standard R&D practice in the contractor table by
considering payments to joint space technology programmes conducted by the
European Space Agency as being payments to British industry. When examining the
contractor table on 'Civil Aeronautical Technology' and similar data for 'space' in
the annual report it should be remembered that the government aerospace
establishments are part of the Ministry of Defence which also manages much of the
DI work in this area .
5.7 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
01 the Ministry
R&D
Prior to 1973/74 MAFF had a gross R&D spend in the national R&D survey which
was roughly equal to its net central government expenditure, i.e. it had a relatively
self-contained spend with little in the way of transfers to and from other government
departments other than minor receipts from the Ministry for Development.
In 1973/74 MAFF took over significant sums from the Science Budget which are
paid ma inly to the Agricultural Research Council but also to the Natural
Environment Research Council. In 1979/80 these funds represented about 55 per cent
of R&D expenditure from MAFF votes.
During the middle and late 1970s advice was given to the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, the Agricultural Research Council and the Department of
Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland on priorities for an state-aided R&D on
agriculture and food by the Joint Consultative Organisation (JCO) which comprised
members of the farming and food industry, scientists and economists and members
of the Department's professional, technical and administrative services. The JCO was
made up of five advisory boards dealing with animals, arable crops and forage,
horticulture, food science and technology, and engineering and buildings. In 1980 a
simplified structure was introduced with a lower key Consultative Board.

5.7.2.1 Nature 01 the data. The R&D spend of the MAFF does not present any
special problems in this respect. In the early reports data were shown for net
expenditure only. As from the 1976 report, a second table was added showing the
'full economic cost' of R&D .
5.7.2.2 Customer-contractor table. Two tables in the report indicate the destination
of MAFF R&D funds. Of the two, the net spending table in the annexe is the more
detailed, distingui shing an the major bodies whose R&D is supported by the MAFF.
5.7.2.3 Functional classifications. The functional classification distinguishes five
major classes corresponding to: agriculture; food; fisheries; flood protection and
94
drainage; and other. Agriculture is divided into five sub-classes: animals ; arable;
horticulture; engineering; and other. These broadly correspond to the categories
adopted by the ARC and to those adopted in the national tables .
5.7.2.4 The National Tables. Each year from 1975 onwards the Annual Report has
included a table showing the total direct government spending on R&D for
agriculture food and fisheries. It includes R&D financed by MAFF, by the
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland (DAFS) and the R&D financed
by the Department of Education and Science via the Agricultural Research Council
and the Natural Environment Research Council. It excludes postgraduate research at
university , agriculture R&D at units financed out of the UGC grant and research
carried out by private industry. An estimate for the latter is quoted in a footnote in
the 1975 report. As from 1979/80 NERC spending on R&D of which a minor part
relates to fisheries is removed from the body of the table and quoted in a footnote
only [QRL.142].
5.7.2.5 Other tables. Prior to 1976/77 some information on the staff of MAFF
establishments was given. Further information on the fisheries component of MAFF
R&D can be obtained from the Fisheries R&D Board Reports.
5.7.2.6 Comparison with other series. The net expenditure in the
'customer-contractor' table matches the MAFF departmental spend on R&D in the
Memorandum [QRL.105]. Virtually all the MAFF R&D spend falls under the PESC
heading Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Only some minor spending on
emergency food services is excluded from this heading and included under 'Law,
order and protective services.'
As from 1976 onwards the data in the MAFF annual Report on R&D [QRL.142]
seems to match the national survey results as discussed in Chapter 2, and the outturn
series discussed in Chapter 3 allowing for the fact that the PESC heading also covers
DAFS and the Forestry Commission. The comparison is easier to make for 1978/79
and 1979/80 when the gross and net series were quoted separately. The 1982 issue
quotes data from Scotland separately. They also confirm that the data for DAFS on
the MAFF report are compatible with the regular R&D series.
Comparison shows that the amounts which MAFF reports paying to the ARC
and NERC for the performance of R&D corresponds with the latter's reports of
receipts in their own Annual Reports [QRL.24] and [QRL.133]. Furthermore, the
functional breakdown of the R&D spend corresponds to the MAFF and ARC
reports both for the MAFF on the ARC and for the latter's spend out of its own net
vote. The NERC Annual Report [QRL.133] contains a more detailed breakdown of
receipts from MAFF.
In brief 'Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ' is one of the few areas of government
R&D funding where the series in the national survey (Chapter 2), the outturn tables
(Chapter 3), the Research Council Reports (Chapter 4), and the individual
department reports fit together to give a reasonably full picture of who is financing
the R&D, who is performing it and the functional areas that are involved.
95
5.8 Departments of the Environment and Transport
5.8.1 General pattern of the Departments ' R&D

The Department of the Environment was set up in 1972 and its first annual report
on R&D [QRL.155] was issued in respect of activities in 1973. During the early
1970s its R&D remit was widened as it took over funds from the science budget to
become one of the main 'customers' for commissioned R&D by the Natural
Environment Research Council. In 1976 it was split up when the Department of
Transport was established. From 1977 until 1982 the two departments issued a joint
R&D report [QRL.133]. Since 1982 the DOE has issued aseparate report [QRL.136]
and [QRL.137].
In addition to its own R&D report the Department of the Environment also
finances R&D via grants to the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside
Commission and the Sports Council. The way in which the departments fonnulate
and consume their R&D funds has changed several times over the period under
review. For example, originally 15 Research Requirement Committees were set up
but in 1976/77 their number was reduced to six dealing respectively with Planning
Resources and the Countryside, Housing, Building and Construction, Environmental
Protection, Highways and Safety and Transport. The first four were attached to the
Department of the Environment and the last two to the Department of Transport. In
1979/80 there were further changes and the two departments became more
independent in R&D terms and new RRCs were added.
5.8.2 Tables in the Annual Reports

5.8.2.1 Nature of the data. The Department of the Environment finances R&D in
two ways: first it supports and manages R&D programmes relevant to its own
mission, and secondly, as the general supply department within government, it
finances overhead and capital costs for R&D undertaken in other government
establishments. The Annual Report deals with the first kind of funding only
[QRL.155].
5.8.2.2 Customer-contractor table. A contractor table has always been included in
the report [QRL.155] showing the destination of the gross spend. In the later years
expenditure by the two departments was shown separately. As from 1980/81 receipts
of the Department's research establishments are also shown . It does not include the
R&D content of growth to 'other organisations' (see functional classification).
5.8.2.3 Functional tables. The Report [QRL.155] has always shown a functional
breakdown of the departments R&D spend in a good deal of detail although the
actual classification used has changed over the period. Table 5.3 illustrates the
version used in the 1980/81 report. It covers net spending on R&D excluding grants
to 'other organisations' (Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council,
Sports Council, Centre for Environmental Studies and the Royal Society) and the
cost of staff R&D at Headquarters and in the agencies in receipt of the grants.
5.8.2.4 Other tables. Prior to 1976 a table was included showing staff at research
establishments.
96
Table 5.3
Functional Classification, Departments of the Environment and Transport
Sphere of Interest
Subject Areas
Environmental protection
and water quality
Air pollution
Solid waste management
Water quality and health
Toxic substances in the environment
Sewage disposal
Water resources
Freshwater pollution
Estuary and marine pollution
Coastal protection
Noise
Water Research Centre
Radio-active waste
Management
Waste treatment
Geological research
Oceanographic research
System studies
Environmental studies
Radiological assessments
Planning, countryside and

local government
Inner cities
Development plans and strategic planning
Land and land use policy
Minerals planning
Geological projects
Automated cartography
Local government
Ancient monuments and historic bridges
Rural affairs
Housing
Global trends
House ownership
Public rented sector
Private rented sector
Condition of the stock
Building standards, design, construction and
materials
Housing for special needs
Building and construction
Building performance and design, energy

conservation and building services
Components
97
Foundations and sub-structures

Structure design and integrity
Fire
Construction management and economics
Materials utilisation
Maintenance and preservation
Research Associations (sponsorship)
Advisory services
Civil Emergency Task Force
Highways
Bridges
Ground engineering
Highway design, materials and maintenance
Highway planning and evaluation
Traffic management communication and control
Safety
Vehicle safety
Road use safety
Transport systems
Public transport
Transport planning
Freight
Ports and harbours
Passenger studies
Energy on transport
British Rail
London Transport
Source: Departmental Report (1980/81) [QRL.133]

5.8.2.5 Comparison with other series. The PESC heading system used in the gross
central government spending and net central government spending series in the late
1970s [QRL.214] was not adjusted to the re-establishment of the Department of
Transport. Consequently, all that Department's R&D spend, and about 80 per cent
of that of the Department of the Environment is included under 'Environmental
Services'. The PESC heading used in the Memorandum Series [QRL.105] was
changed to divide off the Transport from other environmental services. The 20 per
cent of the Department of the Environment R&D spend not included under an
environmental heading corresponds to services and capital supplied to establishments
included under other headings.
The sum of net spends of the two departments as reported in the Annual Report
[QRL.133] seems to fit the corresponding series of net outturn data, allowing for the
fact that the latter contains the corresponding Scottish R&D spend. The sum of the
gross R&D spends, however, is higher than the corresponding sum in the national
survey results largely because both departments, but especially the Department of the
Environment, pay significant sums to other government departments for the
performance of R&D (mainly to the NERC) and to local authorities.
98
5.9 Department of Health and Social Security

0/ the Department's
R&D
The Department does not itself have any major R&D esta blishments and acts mainly
as a source of funds for R&D concerned with health and welfare . For much of the
period under review this support was of three kinds : i) the Department initiated and
funded R&D programmes in support of its own missions, ii) it financed
commissioned research performed by the Medical Research Council , iii) as the
original source of fund s for the NHS system it financed any R&D performed by
NHS hospitals in other NHS unit s.
The Department only took over funding part of the MRC R&D gradually
between 1972 and 1976, and a system of co-ordinating the work of the Department
and the MRC was set up . However, in 1980 the sums involved were returncd to the
Science Budget financed by the DES . Some , most probably not all, of the R&D
carried out by NHS establishments is covered by the 'locally organised clinical
research scheme'.
Since the loss of these fund s, only about half of the Department's R&D is directed
toward s health problems with the rest going to welfare and social security.
5.9.2 Tables Available in the Departmental Report

5.9.2.1 Nature 0/ the data. The ma in characteristic of the R&D data quo ted in the
DHSS R&D Report [QRL.158] is that they are framed in terms of the Department's
esta blished terminology plus special func tional classification s. These do not in any
way refer to either the terminology used in, for example , the Supply Estimates
[QRL.190], or in the Memoranda [QRL.I05]. In particular , it is never specified
whether expenditures are 'net' or 'gross'.
Another example is the main classification used which shows ' Research' and
'Developments' with the latter broken down into ' Revenue' and 'Capital', This is in
fact a mixture of 'ty pe of activity' and 'type of cost'. Expend iture on ' Research'
cover s both current and a minimal amount of capital expenditure. Expenditure on
'Developments' is divided into 'current' and 'capital' expenditure; 'revenue' being the
normal NHS terminology for what might be called running costs , i.e. the
Department provides the authorities with revenue to meet their annual outgoings.
5.9.2.2 Customer-contractor table. Up to and including 1976 the Report [QRL.48]
included a table in Expend iture classified according to agenc y which showed the
destination of research funds but not of 'developments' , Since 1977, a contractor
table has been included [QRL.15 8].
5.9.2.3 Functional table. Up to and including 1976 a table was included giving a
detailed functional breakdown of the Department's R&D spend (concerned with
'Research' and 'Development'). The se functional sub-classes were further developed
in th e chapters discussing the main topi cs. A functional breakdown of pa yments to
the MRC was included. Since 1977 only the first functional table has been included
using the classification shown in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4
Functional Classification of R&D used by the Department of
Health and Social Security
I . Health services
a) Public and environmental

health
b) Planning and organisation

c) Hospital services
i) Nutrition
ii) Environmental
health
iii) Control of infection
iv) Preventative
procedure
v) Pharmaceutical
i) Reproduction
ii) Particular diseases
iii) Other hospital
services
d) Nursing services
e) Primary health care
f) Personnel
2. Personal Social
Services and
particular dient
Group I
a) Children
b) Mental health
c) Social handicap
d) Local authority social

services
e) Research by DHSS social
research branch (except
Social Security Inquiry 3a)
t) Miscellaneous
3. Other research
programmes of
the department
a) Social Security
b) NHS building and
engineering
c) NHS equipment, appliances
and supplies
d) NHS computer R&D
e) Medical Research Council
Source: 1980 Report [Q RL.158]
i) Child care
ii) Child health
i) Mental illness
ii) Mental handicap
iii) Forensie
i) Elderly
ii) Physical disablement
iii) Homeless and
addiction
99
100
5.9.2.4 Comparison with other sourees. The whole of the Department's R&D spend
falls under the PESC heading ' Health and Personal Social Security'. The R&D tables
in the Annual Report are framed in terms which make it extremely difficult to
compare them with other series. Nor does any general classification exist for health
similar to that for agriculture, food and fisheries which would permit an evaluation
of total health R&D in the country and its broad components.
5.10 Horne Office

The Horne-Office does not publish an annual report on its R&D activities.
5.10.1 The Department 's R&D Activities

As far as the Horne Office's own Research Unit is concerned the Programme of
Research which is produced each year and noted in the Cabinet Office Guide [B.49]
details current and recently-completed projects carried out by the Research Unit or
supported by grant. This research is only concerned with the social sciences. The
Commission for Racial Equality also produces an annual report as noted in the
Cabinet Office Guide [B.49]. Apart from
these, the Directorate of
Telecommunications, the Scientific Advisory Branch and the Police Scientific
Development Branch of the Horne Office are all involved in R&D activities and
produce annual accounts of work undertaken during the year which are available to
those with a legitimate interest but which are not published.

A certain amount of expenditure data can be found in the Memorandum Tables
[QRL.105] where the Horne Office is included under the PE SC heading 'Health and
Personal Social Security'.
5.11 Overseas Development Administration
0/ the Department 's R&D
This department has been known by various titles: the Ministry of Overseas
Development; the Overseas Development Agency ; and currently the Overseas
Development Administration. Although there have been some changes in
responsibility these titles are freely interchanged here. The main characteristic of the
Administration's R&D spend is that it comes exclusively from its own vote but that
there are significant transfers to other government departments. Its net R&D
expenditure, as described in section 3.2.2, is therefore significantly larger than its
gross R&D spend as defined in section 2.5.7.
The Administration's expenditure on R&D has four components:
Grants for R&D projects
Support for British scientific establishments for R&D performed by their
'overseas' units or divisions
101
Support to international centres .

R&D carried out for specific developing countries.
5.11.2.1 Nature 0/ the data. As far as possible an 'R&D content' approach seems to
be used in the Annual Report [QRL.143], notably for the Ministry's own two main
R&D establishments, the Tropical Products Institute and the Centre for Overseas
Pest Research.
5.11.2.2 Customer-contractor table. The earlier reports included a total R&D
expenditure table derived from the Estimates but this has now been discontinued. A
total can be derived from the text.
The report does not contain a formal contractor table but one can be built up
from data given in the text, notably the sections dealing with support for British
scientific establishments.
5.11.2.3 Functional tables. Two types of functional classification are used in the
report. These are shown in Table 5.5. The first, which has been included with slight
variations since the earliest report, gives total grants for R&D projects which
represent about 40 per cent of the Ministry's total R&D spend broken down between
14 functional classes (15 for the 1980 report onwards). The second is a 'functional
tabulation' and uses a slightly wider classification covering research grants, grants to
British institutions and R&D in aid to specific countries but not support to
international centres. Taken together the tabulations cover about 90 per cent of the
spend . They do not give annual expenditure but rather list projects under each
heading giving their total cost, starting date and duration, project leader, country of
primary research and a short project description.
5.11.3 Comparison with Other Sources

It is relatively easy to link the customer-contractor data in this report with the
corresponding series in the net central government spending tables and the
government expenditure by PESe heading to the national survey results. The
Ministry of Overseas Development was responsible for the quasi totality of the R&D
expenditure under the heading 'Overseas Service' as the only other item is a very
small sum for communications equipment in connection with overseas representation.
5.12 Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS)

The Department does not publish an annual report on its R&D activities.
5.12.1 DAFS R&D Activities and Related Reports
DAFS is the major R&D performing Department in the Scottish Office. The
Department funds agricuItural R&D work at seven agricultural research institutes
and at the three Scottish agricultural colleges in addition to carrying out research at
its Agricultural Scientific Services Station and the Royal Botanic Gardens. A certain
amount of information on those establishments and the R&D work which they
102
Table 5.5
Functional Classification s used by the Overseas Development Agency
For Grants
For Project-tabulation
Medicine and health

Agriculture
Livestock product and health
Economic and social
Fisheries
Trypanosomiasis
Nutrition
Forestry
Pest controls
Engineering
Population
Energ y
Environment
Education
Geology
Water reserves
Environment
Agriculture
Livestock product and health
Trypanosomiasis
Pest control
Forestry
Fisheries
Harvest technology
Nutrition
Medicine and health
Economic and social
Population
Education
Engineering
Con struction
Transport
Energ y
Source : Departmental Report (1980) [QRL.143]

undertake is contained in the annual report on Scottish Agriculture. Each research
institute and agricultural college produces an annual or biennial report on its work .
DAFS is also responsible for Fisheries R&D which is carried out at its Marine
Laboratory, Aberdeen and Fre shwater Fisheries Laboratory, Pitlochry. An account
of the Laboratories' work is contained in the ' Fisheries of Scotland Report' ,
published annually by HMSO. Both Laboratories publi sh Triennial Reviews and the
Marine Laboratory publi shes 'Scottish Fisheries Research Reports' in an occasional
series.
5.12.2 Data Available fr om Other Sources

A significant amount of information on DAFS R&D can be found in the national
tables (in the MAFF Annual Report on R&D [QRL.142] . Further information on the
fisheries component can be obtained from the reports of the Fisherie s Research and
Development Board [QRL.198] published jointly by MA FF and DAFS. Some data
can also be deri ved from the Memorandum R&D tables [QRL.105] .
103
Table 5.6
Civil 'Oriented' R&D by Central Government Departments 1979/80
Ern
Department of Energy
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Department of the Environment
Department of Health and Social Security
Overseas Development Agency
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland)
Horne Office
Department of Education and Science (excluding the science
budget and the UGC grant)
Scottish Horne and Health Department
Department of Trade
Scottish Office
Stationery Office
Forestry Commission
Scottish Education Department
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
Welsh Office
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
Ordnance Survey
Scottish Development Department
Civil Service Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Customs and Excise
Scottish Economic Planning Department
Public Record Office
154.921
131.530
50.002
39.966
33.228
22.948
20.128
19.366
8.091
7.423
4.577
Per
cent
30.3
25.7
9.8
7.8
6.5
4.5
3.9
3.8
1.6
1.5
0.9
4.120
0.8
2.897
0.6
2.849
0.6
2.837
0.6
2.192
0.4
0.914
0.2
0.839
0.2
0.823
0.2
0.657
0.1
0.320
0.1
0.307
0.1
0.070
0.0
0.065
0.0
0.040
0.0
0.038
0.0
0.037
0.0
511.785 100.0
Source: Supply Estimates: Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Note: Exc1udes Science Budget and UGC Grant.
5.13 Information on Individual Departments from the Annual Review
Part II of the Annual Review [QRL.53] and [QRL.51] contains a comprehensive and
consistent data base of R&D expenditure for each government department. The data
are based on the OECD 'Frascati' definition and are mostly gathered in parallel with
the national survey (e.g [QRL.IO]) and are consistent with it. The estimates of R&D
expenditure inc1ude costs arising from R&D but falling on other public expenditure
104
votes (e.g superannuation). They may therefore differ slightly from, for example, the
Supply Estimates. Statements in individual departmental reports (where available)
mayaIso include expenditure related to R&D but which lies outside the Frascati
definition (e.g encouraging industry to exploit the results of R&D) . It is planned that
in future years these discrepancies will gradually be removed .
For each department a statement is given of the objectives of the R&D and its
principal features . There are two types of tables. The (a) tables give detail of subjects
covered and primary purpose. Expenditure is in cash terms. The (b) tables give data
on the distribution of funding among different classes of recipient. These tables
provide an estimate of the work conducted within each department, since the
intramural component includes receipts from other bodies. These are however
identified and subtracted to avoid double counting in the totals. Details of the
primary purpose classification have been given in Chapter 2. The subject
classification varies considerably from one department to another due to their
different responsibilities. The distribution of funding ((b) tables) distinguish 12
categories aIthough these are not given in every case. They include: Intramural;
Research Councils ; Other Government Departments; Universities; Private Industry;
Public Corporations; Research Associations; Overseas; Non-Industrial Research
Institutes; Professional and Learned Societies; Persons ; and others . In addition to the
big R&D spending departments discussed in the previous sections data are also
presented for the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Education and Science
on a comparable basis. The latter includes data on UGC general expenditure as weil
as on the Research Councils . The latter are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
CHAPTER 6
THE TRIENNIAL SCIENTIFIC AND

TECHNOLOGICAL MANPOWER SURVEYS
6.1 Origins
The origins of the triennial surveys date back to the Barlow Committee of 1946
[QRL.171] which made some estimates of stocks and flows of scientists based on
actuarial calculations applied to university output in the basic sciences. Nevertheless,
as for many other series discussed in this review, the first really serious work was
done for the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy, in this case for its Committee on
Scientific Manpower which was set up in 1951. Following the vernacular of the time,
the surveys use the term 'manpower' rather than employment. To avoid confusion ,
we follow this style in this chapter.
The Scientific Manpower Committee's first review, carried out in collaboration
with the Technical Personnel Committee of the Ministry of Labour and National
Service, was published in the fifth Annual Report 0/ the Advisory Council , 1951-2
[QRL.37]. At that stage the Committee was unable to establish a statistical basis for
the study of qualified scientists and technologists [QRL.175], p. 8. However, in the
year prior to the ninth Annual Report of the ACSP [QRL.38], the Council sponsored
two inquiries into scientific manpower. The first of these examined the recruitment of
scientists and engineers by the engineering industry (Recruitment 0/ Scientists and
Engineers by the Engineering Industry [QRL.119]). The second was held in 1956 by
the Office of the Lord President of the Council in tandem with the Ministry of
Labour and Nat ional Service. It was sponsored jointly by ACSP [QRL.38] and DSIR
[QRL.76], pp. 7-8. The purpose of the exercise from the Committee's point of view
was to set a goal for the universities and technical colleges in order to meet present
and future demands for trained scientific manpower. A discussion of the outputs of
the higher educa tion sector can be found in the various annexes to the Robbins
Report [8.67]. From the discussion which appeared in the various reports of the day,
the economy appeared to be facing acute shortages of qualified scientists and
engineers [QRL.171], pp. 1-2. These surveys were undertaken triennially from 1956
to 1968 [QRL.171], [QRL.l72], [QRL.175], [QRL.148], [QRL.IlO] and [QRL.187].
The last two triennial manpower surveys, for 1965 and 1968, are discussed in the
DESjMinistry of Technology publication [QRL.113], Section IX. A number of ad
hoc comparisons are undertaken between surveys, for example, the first of the
triennial surveys compares results with those of the Barlow Committee [QRL.171],
pp. 9-10 and the 1965 Report indicates why the results for 1959 may differ from
those of the Census 0/ Populat ion 1961 [QRL.148], p. 52 and [QRL.62], pp. xiii and
xiv. There are at least three major differences between the triennial manpower
105
106
surveys and the analogous census results: self-coding versus employer-coding; the
inclusion and exclusion of individuals located in smal1 establishments and the
self-employed; the extent to which al1 industrial sectors are covered [QRL.175], pp .
10-11.
A compilation of the statistics from the triennial surveys on a broadly comparable
basis is presented in Persons with Qualifications in Engineering, Technology and
Science, 1959 to 1968 [QRL.113] . This publication made an attempt to integrate the
Triennial Surveys with Census of Population data. A further and more recent
attempt to establish long-term trends in QSEs [QRL.67] also utilised the surveys of
the various professional institutes, discussed in chapter 7, and the 1971 Census
results [QRL.64]. This source contains some useful comparisons of the differences in
definitions and coverage between censuses [QRL.67], pp. 44-47. However, this line
of development was largely devoid of any direct information about R&D .
The Triennial manpower surveys undertaken from 1956 to 1968 were designed to
identify stocks and flows of scicntists and technologists and to forecast 'demand' .
While they reveal a certain amount of da ta on QSEs , and later on technicians
working on R&D, the R&D aspcct is almost a by-product. Nevertheless, the surveys
are the only source for R&D man power data in the late 1950's and during most of
the 1960's. The turning point comes in 1968 which is the last year for which R&D
data were given separately in this series and the first for which separate data for
R&D scientists and engineers are available from the national survey (see section 2.6).
6.2.1 Types
0/ Manpower
Included
6.2.1.1 Qualified Scientist s and Engineers. QSEs are defined in terms of their level
and field of qualification. The level of qu alification covers: university degrees, CNAA
awards, diplomas of technology, associates of selected educational institutes (e.g.
Cranfield Col1ege of Technology, City and Guilds of London Institute, etc.),
graduate or corporate membership of selected professional institutes (e.g. Institute
of Electrical Engineers, Royal Institute of Chemistry). (See, for example, [QRL.175] ,
pp . 23-24).
The field of qualification widened over the period of study. It started off in 1956
covering only the basic natural sciences, plus the main fields of engineering
[QRL.171] , pp . 2-3. In 1962, the agricultural sciences (including the veterinary
sciences), pharmacy and selected technologies were added, [QRL.175], p. 8, although
it should be noted that pharmacists were omitted in the presentation of some
subsequent results for the sake of comparability [QRL.148], p. 42. The list of
technologies continued to expand in both the 1965 and 1968 surveys (see, for
example, [QRL.187]) .
6.2.1.2 Technical supporting staff. Although the surveys were principal1y concerned
with QSEs they also col1ected some da ta on technical supporting staff. In 1956 and
1959 data were col1ected for persons with HNCs and HNDs. The list of fields was
wider in 1959 than in 1956. In 1962 no questions were asked about supporting staff.
In 1965 and 1968 questions were asked on technicians defined in terms of
TRIENNIAL MANPOWER SURVEYS
107
occupation (excluding those in medical and dental work). The 1965 and 1968 surveys
devoted particular attention to defining and describing the occupational definition of
'technician' [QRL.187] , p. 110, which has always been problematic because of the
heterogeneity of this group. Both the 1965 and the 1968 surveys revealed that
significant proportions of those occupied as ' technicians' held diplomas which also
made them eligible for inc1usion as 'QSEs'. Care should be taken when using the
QSE and technician data for these years to make sure that this possible element of
double counting is exc1uded.
6.2.2 Major Fields 01 Science

It foIIows from the above that the coverage of data on R&D manpower taken for
this manpower survey correspond broadly to 'scientific' R&D in the national survey,
except that the present series exclude persons working on 'scientific R&D' who hold
qualifications in medicine, dentistry or in the social sciences. As persons with
qualifications in the social sciences are wholly exc1uded, the bulk of social science
R&D must also be exc1uded.
6.2.3 Method 01 Accounting fo r R&D
The respondents to the survey were asked to divide their stocks of QSEs (and later
technicians) into three classes: those working on R&D; those working on
manufacturing, production, operations, maintenance, construction and design for
manufacturers; and those on other work inc1uding management and sales. The R&D
series thus comprise persons direct1y engaged on the following types of work :
i)
basic research - work undertaken for the advancement of knowledge;
ii)
applied research - research undertaken with either a general or a particular
application in view;
iii) development - including the construction of pilot plants or prototypes and
work done under development contracts with government departments, the
AEA and other public bodies .
They exc1ude routine testing and quality control, market research (see, for example ,
[QRL.148], p. 48 and [QRL.113], p. 119).
The data are thus based on the 'working mainly on R&D' approach (see section
1.5), with adefinition of R&D which is compatible with that used in the R&D
expenditure surveys of the same period.
6.3 System of Sectors and Sub-sectors

The da ta are collected on a system of sub-sectors, which can be regrouped to fit
those used for the national R&D survey (for a detailed discussion , see [QRL.II3],
pp . 43-45). A somewhat different grouping to the one used below is used in
[QRL.113]: manufacturing [QRL.1l3], pp . 43-46; government research (government
departments, armed forces, Research Councils, industrial RAs) ; Iocal authorities
and construction (excluding teachers) ; education services [QRL.I13], pp . 47-48 ;
other, unsurveyed sectors [QRL.113], pp . 48-52.
108
RES EARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
6.3.1 Industry
In the published results of the sur vey, industry comprises manufacturing and
construction onl y. Private mining and agriculture were always excluded. The 1965
and 1968 sam pies, for example, were randomly selected from manufacturing
establishments with l l or mo re employees and firms in con struction with 35 or more
employees (30 in 1965) [QRL.1 87], p. 110. Attempts were made to extend the survey
to include selected service industr ies but the degree of uncertainty associated with the
results was unacceptable and they were never published (see, for example, [QRL.148],
p.41 ).
Data for the public corporations were collected in all the surveys. Furthermore as
the result s for this sub-sector show the individual corporations separately, it is
poss ible to identify and adjust for changes in coverage, notably in respect of the
UKAEA which was treated as a public corporation in the 1955 and 1959 exercises.
It is not clear whether the category of industrial research associations in the QSE
survey s comprises all industrial RAs or only those which were grant-aided by the
DSIR, prior to the Science and Technology Act of 1965. Apparently, in 1965 this
sub-sector also included the Rutherford High Energy Laboratory, part of the
NIRNS, which is usually classified with the UKAEA prior to its transfer to the SRC
in 1966. (See, howe ver, section 2.3.5.1)
There was never a common classification for all units in the sector, as was
developed for the R&D surveys. Data for private manufacturing industry were
broken do wn by groups of between 20 to 50 Minimum List Headings, according to
the main economic acti vity of the establishment. Data for publ ic corporations were
issued for individu al corporations. No further detail was given for industri al
research associat ion s.
6.3.2 Government
Central government alwa ys comprises defence departments, civii departments and the
Research Councils. From 1962 onwards the UKAEA was included. Local
government was always included in the QSE surveys. At best an institutional
classification is given for central government, identifying defence departments, civi1
dep artments, the Research Councils and the UKAEA . The data for the Research
Councils are not comparable over the period. In 1955, 1959 and 1962 this heading
covers the ARC, the MRC and the DSIR. In 1965 it covers the ARC and the MRC
onl y with the DSIR included in civil departments. The 1968 data came after the
reorgani sation and thus include the ARC, MRC, SRC and NERC. When using the
data for defence departments, care should be taken to identify whether or not
uniformed personnel are included.
6.3.3 Higher Education Sector

The surv eys alwa ys identified an education sector but apparently never asked
respondents a question on R&D activities. Ne vertheles s the data are valuable in that
total stocks of QSEs and, later, technicians are given which ca n be used to make
estimate s. Un iversities and techn ical colleges are identified sepa ra tely throughout the
period. In using these dat a one should remember that a number of institu tion s have
109
been transferred to the former class from the latter over the period (particularly in
the mid-1960s) . The only sub-cl assification available is according to the subject of
qualification.
6.3.4 Summary 0/ Unsurveyed Sectors

To some extent the discussion of this section is pre-empted in the earlier analysis of
different industries. However, it seems useful to bring together the unsurveyed
industries in a single section.
No allowance for PNP or similar institutes was made in the published results of
the surveys . It is not clear whether the government-linked institutes mentioned in
section 2.3.5.1 were included in the government sector or whether they were
excluded . In the last survey in 1968 about 50 independent and research institutes
were approached but it is not specified where they were inc1uded in the results .
While the numbers of QSEs available from the Census of Population [QRL.62],
[QRL.63] , [QRL.64], [QRL.65] and [QRL.66] provide detail for all sectors, the
triennial surveys (which are the source of information about R&D activities of such
manpower) excluded: agriculture; distributive trades; insurance and banking;
scientific and technical services; medical services; other professional and scientific
services; miscellaneous services [QRL.113] pp. 48-49. These are c1early important
omissions [QRL.113], p. 48, even given the prevailing industrial structure of the day .
They would be significantly more important in the light of the growth in services in
recent years .
6.3.5 National Territory
Theoretically the studies cover QSEs and supporting staff employed in Great Britain.
Northern Ireland is always excluded. Th is differs from the R&D surveys proper. It is
possible that the numbers reported fr the earliest surveys also inc1ude some QSEs
who were employed by British firms but who were working abroad (however, see
[QRL.171] , p. 9).
6.4.1 General Remarks

The QSE survey varied from the national R&D survey in that the data were
obtained through a single survey using a common questionnaire for all sectors of the
economy and in that the results were reported in a single publication (see, for
example , [QRL.76], p. 7). Furthermore they came out rapidly. A useful summary of
the broad changes in the survey can be found in [QRL.113], pp . 43-45.
6.4.2 Surveys
6.4.2.1 Questionnaires. Copies of the questionnaires used for the surveys were
usually published in the associated reports. The survey for 1956, for example , can be
110
found in [QRL.76] , pp . 32-50. Those for 1965 and 1968 can be found in the Report
on the 1965 Triennial Manpower Survey 0/ Engineers, Technologists, Scientists and
Technical Supporting Staff [QRL.148] and Persons with Qualifications in Engineering,
Technology and Science , 1959 to 1968 [QRL.1l3] respectively .
6.4.2.2 Survey method. Here a distinction must be made between : manufacturing
industry (sampled); construction (sampled); all other sectors excluding those
described in 6.3.4 (full coverage) (see, for example , [QRL.187], p. 110). As the
sam ple in manufacturing industry was designed to collect information on all QSEs
and not on R&D only, it had to be wider than that used in the R&D surveys proper.
The first enquiry [QRL.171] sought information from all manufacturing
establishments employing 500 workers or more, with 1 in 4 sampies of employers in
the 200-499 range and 1 in 2 of those employing 100-199. No establishments with
less than 100 workers were included in the survey . 3700 usable replies were received
from the 4379 questionnaires sent out [QRL. 76]. In 1968 nearly 8,000 firms were
included in the sample, as against 2,500 in the final sam pie for the 1972 R&D
survey. In 1956 and 1959 only firms with more than 100 employees were included
but from then on the lower limit dropped to 11. There do not seem to have been any
further important changes in the sampie frame from that described for 1962 in
[QRL.175] . The response rate was usually 85 to 90 per cent (see, for example,
[QRL. 76], p. 7) dropping to 81 per cent in 1968 [QRL.187] , p. 110.
The sampie in the construction industry was based on an MPBW list of firms with
more than 30 employees. About 600 firms were approached. The response rates were
lower, around 80 per cent , dropping to 65 per cent in 1968.
In the other sectors all establishments thought likely to employ QSEs and
technicians were approached. It is not clear whether the list of these was extended
over the period or not. [QRL.113] gives a list of types of institute approached in
1968 together with the response rates. This source also provides detailed information
of changes in coverage vis-a-vis 1965 [QRL.113], pp . 69-70.
6.4.2.3 Date and units. Data were collected for January of the year concerned. The
specific date varied from one survey to another. This date was chosen to coincide
with the general Ministry of Labour survey, whose results were used to gross up the
sampIe in manufacturing. The unit classified was, in theory, the establishment.
However, a number of firms appear to have sent consolidated returns for all their
establishments. Surveys of establishments clearly pose certain problems. In some
firms R&D may be allocated to special units with no associated manufacturing while
in others they are part of an establishment with a wide range of activities . This gives
rise to problems regarding allocation to industries and any breakdown by size of
activity [B.37], p. 6. A more recent discussion of the breakdown by product group
can be found in [QRL.152], pp. 49-50. Product groups are directly linked to
Minimum List Headings (MLHs) and , thereby to SfC Orders, which have themselves
been the subject of change over the years (see, for example, Standard Industrial
Classification, Revised 1968 [QRL.180]).
111
6.5 Data Available and Comparison with other Sources
6.5.1 Industry
6.5.1.1 QSEs. Data for R&D became available sector by sector over the period,
beginning with private manufacturing and some nationalised industries, for which a
full triennial series exists, 1956-1968. The numbers of QSEs working on R&D are
dec1ared for construction from 1959 and for the industrial RAs from 1962. In 1965
and 1968 a distinction is made between QSEs working as R&D technicians and other
QSEs on R&D .
The data for QSEs for 1956, published in the present series [QRL.171], vary
slightly from those in the overall national survey results cited in Chapter 2. The
difference for 1968, when manpower data first became available through the R&D
survey, is much more important. Thus the present survey reports 35 thousand QSEs
working on R&D in industry in January 1968 (exc1uding QSEs working as
technicians), whereas the R&D survey [QRL.152] shows 66 thousand QSEs in
December 1968. This difference exists for private industry, for the public
corporations and for the research associations. As the details on the level of
qualification of the RSEs mentioned in Chapter 2 have never been published, it is
not possible to judge whether this discrepancy is caused by the existence of large
numbers of RSEs who are not QSEs, or from differences in the coverage of the
surveys. RSEs who are not QSEs comprise those who have qualifications in medicine
and dentistry or in the social sciences, humanities, etc . or who have less than
university level qualifications. It is c1ear that this source of discrepancy will vary
between sectors and over time. This can be checked by means of other sources, such
as Census of Population data. The discussion in [QRL.113], p. 48, for example, notes
that, for agriculture and medical services (which are in fact not covered by the
triennial surveys), QSEs represent a 'minority group within the total of highly
qualified manpower'
6.5.1.2 Technicians. Although data were collected on the total numbers of workers
with technician qualifications (HNC and HND) in the 1956 survey, no detail was
given for R&D . Data about persons employed as R&D technicians are available for
all three sectors in 1965 and 1968 with a sub-division between those with QSE
qualifications and those with other qualifications.
The technician data collected in the present series seem to fit reasonably well with
those collected through the R&D survey, allowing for the fact that there was a
steady dec1ine in the number of technicians working in R&D since the late 1960's.
6.5.2 Government
6.5.2.1 QSEs. Data on QSEs working on R&D in central government are available
triennially from 1959 to 1968, but for local government for 1965 and 1968 only. A
distinction between QSEs working on R&D as technicians and on R&D in other
capacities is made in 1965 and 1968.
Although data were collected on R&D employment in the national survey from
the mid 1960s, the first results were only issued for 1972, which makes it difficult to
compare the results of the two surveys. Furthermore, the latter data are reported in
112
terms of FTEs. In 1968 the triennia1 manpower survey showed 12.5 thousand QSEs
working main1y on R&D (of which 8.8 thousand were not working as technicians
and 3.7 thousand working as technicians). In 1972 the R&D survey showed 16.3
thousand graduates working on scientific R&D expressed in FTEs. The figurcs are
broadly comparable for the UKAEA, somewhat higher in 1972 for the Research
Counci1s and substantially higher for 'government departments'. Four reasons for the
difference can be advanced:
i)
changes in numbers employed derived from the R&D survey;
ii)
inclusion in the 1972 data of the FTE of graduates working part-time on
R&D;
iii) inclusion in the 1972 data of persons working on scientific R&D with
university or equivalent qualifications in fields not included in the triennial
manpower series, principally medicine, pharmacy, dentistry and perhaps also
social sciences and humanities
iv) inclusion of the armed forces in the 1972 data.
The Central Statistical Office and, later, the Department of Industry have never
released the detailed man power data, and it is not possible to check which of those
reasons is the most important.
6.5.2.2 Technicians. R&D technician data are available from the tricnnial
manpower survey for 1965 and 1968 only for eentral and loeal government. The
loca1 government data appear to include FE establishments. A breakdown is given
between R&D technicians who are also QSEs and those who are not.
If one compares the number of technicians working mainly on R&D in 1968 who
were not QSEs with the number of technicians (excluding graduates) working on
scientific R&D in 1972 expressed in FTE from the R&D survey [QRL.152] one finds
a figure of 13 thousand in 1968 and 17 thousand in 1972. Here the major differences
seem to occur in the cases of the Research Councils and the UKAEA.

Although the triennial manpower series is complete for the total number of QSEs
employed in universities and FE and schools, a breakdown was never given between
R&D and other activities. As already noted, the 'other' sector is entirely excluded
from the series.
6.6 Comparisons With Other Series

A major area of interest associated with the R&D data derived from the triennial
manpower series is the ability to compare the numbers of R&D QSEs and R&D
technicians with the total numbers of QSEs and teehnicians employed in the various
seetors . This possibility has largely been lost in that the new R&D manpower series
collected with R&D expenditure data are not compatible with the more recent total
QSE series, whieh are now based mainly on Census of Population data, but whieh
continue to use the old QSE definition.
In conclusion it is worth noting that, although the triennial man power survey was
discontinued in 1968, it was superseded by the studies of highly qualified manpower
113
(with no separately identifiable results for R&D) and the (approximately) triennial
R&D surveys reviewed in Chapter 2 above. While the divergence of the work into
the surveys of highly qualified scientists and engineers can be traced back to some of
the early triennial manpower surveys , such as [QRL.175], it is most apparent in the
last of the surveys [QRL.113]. This avenue also used information from other sources,
such as the professional institutes, which we turn to in Chapter 7 below .

The R&D data collected in the triennial manpower series were submitted to both
OECD and UNESCO for their early R&D surveys. However, these early da ta are, in
general, not comparable with those for the other countries which already collected
R&D manpower data on an FTE basis, together with expenditure. The main
exception is the United States, which collects data on all scientists and engineers for
all sectors with a breakdown between R&D and other activities in higher education
and government. Industrial R&D personnel data are , as in the UK, collected
together with R&D expenditure data.
Readers interested in total stocks of scientists and engineers should consult the
UNESCO Statistical Yearbook [QRL.183]. The section of the UNESCO
questionnaire dealing with such total stocks was redrafted and considerably
improved in their 1981 survey. As background, see [QRL.103], [QRL.117] and
[QRL.118] . The OECD 1979 R&D survey questionnaire also included experimental
tables on total stocks of scientific and technical personnel.
CHAPTER 7
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
7.1 Introduction
Earlier chapters of this review have largely discussed publications that appear
regularly and deal primarily with the amount of resources devoted to R&D . This
chapter discusses two other types of source: publications which appear regularly but
which contain relatively little in the way of R&D data and special one-off studies of
R&D in one or more fields, industries or groups of institutions. The list of such
sources enumerated in the present chapter is not exhaustive, it seeks only to guide
the reader to the types of additional material available.
7.2 Industry
7.2.1 Private Industry

7.2.1.1 CBI. The main non-governmental body to concern itself with collecting
industrial R&D statistics is the Confederation of British Industry (CBI , formerly the
Federation of British Industry, FBI) . It held several sur veys of scientific and
technological activities in manufacturing industry for years before the period under
review, i.e. 1930, 1933, 1938, 1946 and 1951 (see, for example, Scientific and
Technical Research in British Industry [QRL.173], p. 4 - this information is also
used in [QRL.22]. More recently, the CBI undertook a very detailed survey in respect
of 1959/60 which gives a wide range of information on R&D and some other
technological activities [QRL.96] and a much simpler one for the years 1978 to 1982
published in 1983 [QRL.154]. A good assessment of the methodology of the 1959/60
survey and its comparability with the corresponding DSIR survey can be found in
[QRL.96] and C. Freeman [B.17]. The da ta in [QRL.96] inc1udes information about
both R&D expenditure and employment, much of which is broken down by MLH
and by firm size (i.e. large, medium and smalI).
It also provides some information about external research expenditures and
membership of research associations and the like. Finally, it provides the only known
source of information about product versus process R&D effort and about perceived
contributions of R&D to firm performance. Survey questionnaires are published in
Appendix B [QRL.96], pp . 121-126.
7.2.1.2 Individual Industry Employer Associations. Both of the CBI surveys cover all
manufacturing industries. Some employers' associations for individual industries
col1ect and publish R&D data, for exam pie the Office of Health Economics which is
funded by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, [QRL.III].
7.2.1.3 Professional Institutes. Information about the characteristics of scienti sts
and engineers working on R&D in industry and in other sectors can be obtained
115
116
from the results of surveys undertaken by professional associations. In the late 1960s
a number of these associations contributed to the QSE surve ys discussed in Chapter
6 [QRL.l92] [QRL.193] [QRL.194].
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and its predecessor the Royal Institute of
Chemistry (RIC) have produced regular reports on the remuneration of its members
for many years. At the time of writ ing the most recent RSC survey available was
that for 1986 [QRL.122]. Earlier surveys were published annually for 1981-85,
although these were not all as detailed as that for 1986. These continued the series
conducted by the RIC which were published triennially from 1953 to 1977, with
'updates' (based upon much smaller sampIes) produced for most of the intervening
years between 1972 and 1980. The survey is primarily aimed at infonning members
about salaries in the profession. Information is often reported on sample numbers
however, which enable changes in the situation of employment by sector and
industry of employment and by type of work including various R&D categories, to
be traced.
The Institute of Physics conducts a similar survey of its membership, although this
has not been going for as long as the RSC series (which can be traced back to the
turn of the century). The Institute of Physics published a detailed surve y in 1956/57.
It then amalgamated with the Physical Society before producing a further survey in
1960 and has subsequently published results at more or less three-yearly intervals
[QRL.122]. The Institute of Mathematics and its Application, the Institution of
Biology , the Institution of Geologists and the Institution of Metallurgists have also
conducted salary surve ys from time to time. These are generall y less frequent and
less detailed from tho se published by the RSC (see [QRL.195] , [QRL.55] , [QRL.59]
and [QRL.121D.
Lastly, but by no means least, there are the surveys conducted by the Engineering
Council and its predecessors the Council of Engineering Institutions and the
Engineers Guild. The most recent report available at the time of writing was that for
1985 [QRL.191]. A corresponding report was published in 1983. Earlier surveys were
published by the Council of Engineering Institutions in 1966 and 1968 and
bi-annually from 1971 to 1981. Prior to this, surveys for 1959/60 and 1962/63 were
conducted by the Engineers Guild. In 1955/56 the Mechanical, Civil and Electrical
Engineering Institutes took part in the general survey of professional earnings
conducted under the auspices of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists'
Remuneration [QRL.128]. These, together with separate surveys conducted by the
Mechanical, Civil and Electrical Engineering Institutes in 1955/56, constitute a
broadly comparable data set to that available for chemists and physicists.
There are of course numerous statistical difficulties associated with these surveys ,
but the results are generally based on quite large samples with good response rates.
Furthennore, comparisons with alternative data sets, such as the very comprehensive
Census of Population, suggests that the samples obtained are representative of the
total population. There are , however, many changes in definition and coverage so
users wishing to make comparisons, between specialisations or over time should take
considerable care. Some of the pitfalls are discussed in Wilson [B.39] and related
publ ications.
7.2.1.4 Company Accounts. A further possible source for data on R&D in private
industry is the annual reports of companies. Occasionally, such data have already
117
been assembled for several companies [QRL.162] and [QRL.93] but this has never
been done on a systematic basis in the United Kingdom. When such data can be
found , they are of course based on the firm's own concepts of R&D.
7.2.1.5 Further Sources. Occasionally special extracts from national R&D surveys
have been published, for example that dealing with Scientific and Engineering
Manpower in Small Firms in 1968 [QRL.II]. Many authors have used the data
from industry in analyses which have led them to interpolate da ta for non-survey
years, to include data for earlier years or to make comparisons between R&D and
non-R&D data. (See, for example, J. Cox [QRL.II] and K. Pavitt [B.27], Freeman
[B.17] and [B.15], K . Schott [QRL.21] and [QRL.22]).
7.2.2 Nationalised Industries

There are very few special studies of R&D in the nationalised industries and there
are few sources other than the official surveys discussed in Chapter 2. Perhaps the
most important source already covered is now the Annual Review [QRL.51], pp.
41-43. However the National Coal Board do maintain a research unit whose task it
is to develop and innovate new methods of recovering and utilizing coal products.
More information about public corporations in the energy industry can be found in
the Annual Report of the Department of Energy [QRL.140] and their R, D and D
spending are given in the report of the House of Commons Energy Committee
[QRL. 74]. R&D data published by the UKAEA [QRL.34] are discussed in Chapter
5.
Like private firms, some public corporations publish some R&D dat a in their
annual financial report, e.g. British Steel [QRL.36], the NCB [QRL.130], and the
British Gas Corporation [QRL.35]. In 1967/68 the former British Iron and Steel
Research Association was transferred to the British Steel Corporation [QRL.83], p.
131.
7.2.3 Research Associations
Until 1964 a good deal of information about R&D spending by the grant-aided
research associations could be derived from the Annual Report of the DSIR
[QRL.27] .
There seem to have been two waves of interest in the industrial RAs, the first
associated with aseries of OECD studies in the early 1960s [QRL.162] and the
second in the early 1970s which resulted in three special studies including the
Bessborough Report [QRL.94] and two independent exercises, the first by Johnson
[QRL.14] and the second for the Centre for the Study of Industrial Innovation
(CSII) [QRL.150].
The CSII study, for example, contains information about the evolution of
industrial RAs (both in terms of numbers and expenditure) since approximately 1920
[QRL.150]. It also provides some comparative data for 1968 and 1978 from CSII
questionnaire surveys (op. eil. pp. 22-25). The Bessborough Report [QRL.94], on the
other hand, is largely devoted to a 'blow-by-blow' account of the activities of each
RA. In addition, it provides a number of other pieces of information, including a list
of RAs and addresses (op . eil. Appendix I), and a set of tabulations from the RA
118
questionnaire issued by the Committee of Directors of RAs in November 1971 (op.

eit. pp. 184-192).
7.3 (;overnnment
The main governmental publications on R&D have been discussed in detail in
Chapters 3, 4 and 5. There are, however, a number of other sources which contain
information on R&D and re1ated matters , even though this is not their central
concern.
7.3.1 The Estimates
For much of the early part of the period under review the annual Defence White
Paper and Defence Estimates contained re1atively little in the way of information
about R&D, and both publications were merged into the present Supply Estimates
[QRL.190]. From 1980/81, Volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates
[QRL.18l] has contained a good deal more information inc1uding functional time
series on spending and employment of military and civilian staff on defence R&D
and also details of the sector of destination of gross defence R&D expenditures
which tie in with the series discussed in Chapter 2. Information is now published in
the Annual Review [QRL.5l], pp. 79-82, broken down by research and by
development, and by distribution of funding. Development expenditure is further
disaggregated by sea, land and air systems, and general support (op. cit. p. 82).
The treatment of R&D in the body of the Supply Estimates [QRL.190] has also
improved, especially the volume dealing with Education and Science, Arts and
Library .
7.3.2 Annual Reports
Chapter 5 dealt in some detail with the special R&D reports issued by the eight
departments with the biggest R&D spending. However, many other departments
have fulfilled their obligation to publish data on their R&D activities by inc1uding
the information in their annual reports. Typical examples are the Department of
Education and Seience [QRL.26], the Nature Conservancy Council [QRL.127] and
the Commission for Racial Equality [QRL.25].
A large proportion of government intra-mural civil R&D is performed by the
UKAEA (i.e. as much as 40 per cent in some years), their Annual Report [QRL.34]
should therefore be of particular interest. UKAEA data have been discussed in some
detail in chapter 5, and hence, they are only given the most cursory treatment here.
In the early and middle 1960s an attempt was made to publish data which were
compatible with government R&D series. The Authority then went over to
publishing its annual accounts on the 'accruals basis' and it became very difficult to
match the resulting data with those in other series. However, some information on
'net' spending reappeared in the report.
Similar problems arise with the Annual Report of the National Research and
Development Corporation (NRDC) [QRL.50] where the accounts are given in
119
purely commercial terms. In this connection it is worth remembering that the

activities of the NRDC are not considered to be R&D in the series discussed in
Chapter 2. The NRDC was established following the Development of Innovation
Act, 1948 to secure the exploitation of inventions arising from public research (or
any other invention which appears to be not being fully exploited; and to acquire,
hold , dispose and grant rights in connection with such inventions). The Corporation
provides funds although it does not actually carry out any development work as
such. From 1981/82 the NRDC was combined with the National Enterprise Board to
form the British Technology Group, under the banner of which the more recent
annual reports have been produced. The statistical information included in the
annual reports (published since 1948, [QRL.50]) is only of limited value but does
include data on total income and expenditure as weil as information on: patent rights
assigned; applications and patents held; and data on other activities such as licensing
agreements, joint ventures with industry and development projects.

Since the mid-1950s the government has undertaken several major reviews of its
R&D activities, including the 'Enquiry into the Organisation of the Civil Service' in
1963 [QRL.123] and that of the Framework for Government Research and
Development [QRL.163]. The former contains little R&D data but the various
reports connected with the latter are better sources of information, especially for
relations between government, the Research Councils and the universities (see section
7.4 below).
One-off official studies were also made of individual topics such as the Report 0/
the Committee on Social Studies [QRL.132], the plan for a new organisation of
industrial R&D in government laboratories [B.53] and the Report on Marine Science
and Technology [QRL.131], all of which contain some R&D data.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology took a
mass of evidence and issued a great deal of information about government R&D
funding. Leaving aside their enquiries into university research (see 7.4.1 below)
amongst the most useful, as far as R&D statistics are concerned, are the reviews of
defence R&D [QRL.178] and of space R&D [QRL.199]. The House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology also report on R&D activity [QRL.164].
The Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development was established in
1976 with the aim of advising ministers on general issues connected with applied
R&D. It has published numerous reports ranging from The Application 0/
Semi-Conductor Technology (1978) through Facing International Competition: the
Impact on Product Design 0/ Standards Regulation. Certification and Approvals (1972)
and Medical Equipment (1986). It does not however collect or publish any primary
data on R&D but acts as a clearing house for discussing problems and ideas
concerned with applied R&D. Since 1983 it has published a joint report with ABRC
which is primarily concerned with general issues involved in the allocation of
resources to R&D but which, again, contains little in the way of data [QRL.100].
120
7.4 Higher Education Sector
7.4.1 Annual Statistics

Unti1 1979-80 the main general source on university spending and employment was
Volume 6 of the Stat istics 0/ Education series, entitled 'U niversities' [QRL.184] issued
jointly by the University Grants Committee and the Department of Education and
Science. This includes both data on ear-marked receipts for research and the general
university spending data which are used by the UGC as a basis for calculating
'scientific' R&D expenditures as quoted in the national survey (see Chapter 2). The
expenditure and the associated employment data have also been used by the OECD
Secretariat to estimate 'social science' R&D expenditures and the FTE employment
of university teachers on both 'scientific' and 'social science' R&D [QRL.168] p. 81.
Payments received specifically for research are shown divided between
'government' and 'other' sources (for Great Britain only) and in total by main field
of science and by universi ty (United Kingdom only) . Data are also shown for
research staff by main field.
Another annual series of information is the survey of first destination of university
graduates [QRL. 79] and the annual report of the UGC itself. Since 1980/81 the
Statistics 0/ Education series has been discontinued although most of the data are
still available from the DES . The material for universities has, however, continued to
be published on behalf of the UGC by the University Statistical Record under the
heading of University Statistics. This is in three volumes . Volume I covers students
and staff, Volume 2 - destinations of university graduates and Volume 3
- finance, [QRL.211], [QRL.212] and [QRL.213].

The Robbins Report of 1964 [B.67] reveals a substantia1 amount of qualitative and
some quantitative information about university research in the 1960s, notably the
percentage of time which academics were believed to spend on R&D as against
teaching or other activit ies. These were the best estimates available until the
publication of the results of the diary study undertaken in 1969 [B.68], (quoted in
Chapter 2).
Both the Council for Scientific Policy [QRL.147] and the Select Committee on
Science and Technology [QRL.l77], [QRL.178] and [QRL.179] undertook special
studies of university research and especially of relations between the Research
Councils and the universities. A number of individual authors have also taken a
special interest in the latter, especially Blume [B.3] and Farina and Gibbons [B.13]
and [B.14]. Several of the science policy studies commissioned by the Department of
Education and Science deal with the costs and environment of university research,
for example Bevan [B.2] and Blume and Sinclair [B.4].
7.5 Other Bodies

As already noted in Chapter I the 'other sector', corresponding broadly to the
concept of the PNP sector in international practice, contains a mixed bag of
121
organisations and individuals, and not much in the way of supplementary

information is available about them. A significant part of the sector is made up of a
number of agricultural research institutes financed by the ARC or by DAF
(ScotIand) . Some statistics on the R&D spending of these institutions will be found
in the Annual Report of the ARC [QRL.24] and the relevant volume of the Supply
Estimates [QRL.190]. The most useful source in the case of medical R&D financed
or performed in the sector is the Handbook 0/ Medical Research Charities [QRL.89].
With a certain amount of difficulty it is possible to trace back these series from the
annual reports of the individual charities, although, since these are financial accounts
it is sometimes difficult to identify the R&D content. Perhaps the most important
other agency in this sector is the Royal Society which publishes a yearbook with
details of its R&D activities [QRL.2l7].
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Introduction
When the ACSP began their series of national R&D expenditure surveys and the
scientific and technological (S&T) manpower series, they were entering a field of
statistics where few other countries had much experience. The other pioneers were
the US and Japan. Twenty-five years later, R&D statistics are a well-developed field,
with established international standards. While there have been some important
milestones, the improvements in the R&D statistics for the UK have been
evolutionary rather than radical.
8.2 Industry
The movement from triennial to biennial and then to annual statistics for industry is
to be welcomed. In fact, the Confederation of British Industry stepped in to fill the
gap between the full 1978 and 1981 surveys of industrial R&D by making its own
sample survey of approximately 50 firms which permitted it to make estimates of
trends in R&D expenditure by private industry from 1978 to 1981 [QRL.154].
The burden on industry of more frequent surveys is to some extent offset by the
two-tier system with regular smaller-sca1e surveys supp1emented by less frequent
detailed surveys. This approach has also been used with some success in the
Netherlands, by the Central Bureau of Statistics.
Of course, the top R&D spending firms are also probably the firms being bothered
by government statistical surveys of all kinds . Nevertheless they are also the most
likely to keep internal records of their R&D spending and staff for their own
purposes (and these records are probablyon computer). Experience in the United
States, where the National Science Foundation which is responsible for R&D surveys
has made considerable efforts to cut the burden on respondents, showed that large
firms (and universities) gave high priority to continuity and regularity in the content
and periodicity of surveys as this permitted them to set up the software to assemble
their responses for their records and to amortise the cost over many surveys. The
NSF now alternates a long form and a short form in the industry sector (although it
has reverted to annual long-form surveys in the higher education sector) .
Another way of finding out what is happening to industrial R&D in the UK
would be to try and assemble data for the top 50 spenders without being too fussy
about the technical details. This might be done by undertaking an unofficial survey
with the questions tailored, as far as possible, to the types of data which the firms
collect for their own purposes. In the United States, for example, both McGraw Hill
123
124
and Battelle undertake an annual survey of current and intended R&D by the major
firms .
Another possibility is to collect the data from firms' annual reports. This is done
annually in the Uni ted States by Business Week and also by a specialist bulletin
called Inside R&D and similar data have been published in Japan. It is possible that
a British annual or business register might copy th is idea and publish data on a firm
by firm basis. The new R&D information which is beginning to appear in company
accounts make this areal possibility. Despite outlining these developments, we are
not proposing them as alternatives to the official statistics. The official series now
form a long and, despite the problems outlined above, largely consistent, time series.
Unofficial estimates will alm ost certainly show major divergences. In particular, it is
likely that, left to their own devices, firms will tend to include a much wider range of
activities under the R&D heading. In addition, the new da ta from company accounts
is likely to be minimal (and there may be a settling down process, as firms decide
what to report and what not to report). It would therefore be amistake to believe
that such sources can entirely replace the official estimates in an area where market
forces are often argued to break down, where the inconsistencies are often large,
long-term and strategic (impinging on Britain's dynamic performance, security, etc .)
and where the government has often found itself directly involved in decision making
and in major expenditures.
8.3 Government and Higher Education

The data for central government for R&D expenditures and manpower are also
generally up to international standards and the speed of issue has improved
considerably over the last couple of years, especially since the emergence of the
Annual Review [QRL.53]. It would be desirable if the definitions of the various types
of R&D manpower for this sector could be coordinated with those used in the
industry sector.
The R&D data for the Higher Education sector are perhaps the weakest link in
the system. Only fairly recently has the emphasis on 'scientific research' been relaxed
and estimates published for social services and humanities. Furthermore, the da ta
published for the universities are notional estimates made by applying standard
percentages to various sub-classes of university expenditures.
It must be admitted that measuring the amount of resources devoted to R&D in
the higher education sector poses problems in most countries and in many cases the
estimates are made by applying percentages to general series . (Although in both the
United States and Japan special annual surveys of R&D are undertaken). The main
problems in the UK are that the estimates are incomplete and that the details of the
methodology have never been made explicit for the sources and methods of the
national survey results . This is not for lack of basic material. In general, higher
education statistics for the UK are of good quality and provide considerable detail.
Furthermore, a large amount of information about research grants to universities is
available from the science budget and the Research Council reports.
The basis for the percentages used to make the R&D estimates still appears to be
the result of a survey of how university staff spent their time in 1969. It would, of
CONCLUSIONS
125
course, be most interesting to know whether or not that pattern has changed and
another diary survey would be welcomed. Furthermore, the inclusion of a full
explanation of how these data were estimated would genera te a much more refined
discussion of what they do or do not show .
8.4 Future Developments
While there have been important improvements in our knowledge about R&D
activity, the developments have been evolutionary and there are some areas of
concern where a more radical approach might be more appropriate. In this section
we outline one or two areas where some form of exploratory study would be
justified .
The information collected in official surveys has been almost exclusively about
R&D inputs. A considerable amount of academic debate has been concerned with
the productivity of the R&D process (i.e. to what extent R&D inputs are translated
into R&D outputs - both level and quality) and there are strong grounds for
collecting both input and output data. While there is a considerable amount of
unofficial activity in this area in other countries, there is relatively little UK work
(again, the FBI survey was something of a pioneer in this area [QRL.96], e.g. Table
9, although the particular approach used was unlikely to yield substantive
information). It is planned that the Annual Review [QRL.51] will at some future
date contain data on both inputs and outputs.
Clearly, in general, inputs and outputs relate to different dates , but such
relationships can be teased out by appropriate statistical techniques. Alternatively
attempts might be made to try and allocate R&D inputs to specific outputs or vice
versa, in some form of cross-sectional study. While such exercises are immensely
difficult, they may give rise to a more complete understanding of the R&D process
for both the corporate planner/manager and the academic.
A related issue concerns the construction of appropriate R&D indices . While the
early unofficial, and the later official, estimates are to be welcomed, a more complete
picture can only emerge if comparable price data are collected from firms. Again ,
this is probably not an argument for changing the official surveys in the first
instance, but for exploratory studies of R&D costs , which can provide comparative
information vis-a-v is currently-used deflators.
Breakdowns of the basic /applied/development type are always likely to give rise to
important reporting problems amongst respondents. However, there is again a case
for exploratory studies based on other disaggregations. One example concerns the
distinction between product and process change. Again , the FBI survey undertaken
in the late 1950s made a first stab at obtaining data of this type [QRL.96] , Table 8.
However, the lessons learnt from this exercise appear to have been lost. While
considerable empirical literature has been built up on product versus process
innovation (see, for example, the work at PSI [QRL.17], [QRL.18], [QRL.19] and
[QRL.20], as well as [QRL.4]), equivalent work has not been undertaken on R&D.
The stylised view of the world sometimes expressed is that R&D is primarily product
orientated, and that process change is primarily one of innovation - adopting new
products in which new technology is embodied. This seems to be naive and requires
empirical exploration.
126
While a considerable amount of information is available about R&D by product

group, there remain a number of areas of uncertainty. One example concerns the
relative importance of civilian versus defence orientated R&D. At the present time
this is unclear even in the government-funded R&D. It has become a more important
issue with the realisation that civilian and defence R&D might make quite different
contributions to the UK's dynamic performance. Thus even if the UK had a
comparable overall R&D commitment as her main industrial competitors, this might
be translated into quite different levels of economic and social return.
While a considerable amount of information exists about intra- and extra-mural
expenditures it is not currently possible to construct a commodity by commodity
flow matrix of R&D expenditures (or an analogous table for Royalties, etc). This
aspect links up with the need to more fully understand the way in which R&D is
organised and located in particular companies, including the multinationals (where at
least some unofficial work has been undertaken [B.26] and [B.36]). Data of this type
are required for a more complete understanding of information networks and
technology flows.
8.5 Conclusions
We hope that, if nothing else, this book (in conjunction with Bosworth [B.7]), has
outlined the main statistical sources available in the R&D area and has highlighted
the more important data limitations. To put these comments into context, however,
we would add that, despite their problems, the available data have been a major
resource which has been used by academics and industrial and political decisionmakers. The data have been useful in understanding and guiding technological
developments, which are recognised to be a major force for economic and social
change. The quality of statistics we have, reflects the far-sightedness and persistence
of a relatively small number of individuals.
QUICK REFERENCE LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS

128
128
Total R&D (Aggregate Measure)

Current prices
Constant prices
132
Expenditure by Government
Totals
Gross expenditure
Net expenditure
Civil R&D
Defence R&D
Individual government departments
Research Councils
Universities & Higher Education
145
147
Expenditure by Private Sector

Current prices
Cons tant prices
Intramural
Industrially -perforrned R&D
148
148
149
149
152
Overseas Royalties
153
R&D Employment
Age
Economic activity rate
By firm size
By industry
By occupation
By qualification
By Government, Research Associations, Nationalised Industries etc.
Spatial
Type ofwork
Flows
Vacancies
Unemployment
154
154
154
154
155
158
160
162
163
163
164
167
167
Wages and Salaries, Expenditure on

Wages
Earnings
167
167
168
133
133
134
139
141
143
144
127
Area
Tot al
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1967/68
onwards
1955/56
1955/561958/59
1955/561961/62
1955/561964/65
1955/561964/65
1961/621964/65
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621969/70
1964-1 975
1964-1 978
1964-1982
1966-1 981
1966-1 981
GB
UK
1955/56
Date s
GB
Total R&D (Aggregate Measure) Curre nt Prices
Types of Data and Breakdowns
[QRL. 23]
[QR L.I]
[QRL. 2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL. 8]
[QRL.1 53]
[QR L.187]
[QR L.186]
[QR L.185]
[QRL.146]
[QRL.1 24]
[QR L.44]
[QRL.76]
[QRL.42]
[QRL.39]
QRL
Publ ication
2.4.4.1,3. 1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1,6.2. 1.1 ,6.2.1.2,

6.3. 1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3.3.2,3 .5.1
2.5.4.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2. 1,2.4.4. 1,3.1 ,3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
4.1,4.5.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1,2.5.3. 1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,

4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.2, 2.5.4.6, 6.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
Text Reference
QUICK REFERENCE LIST
rn
</l
()
-l
:>
-l
Vi
-l
</l
-l
s:m
'"Cl
r-
m
<
m
0
0
::r::
:>
Z
("J
;.::l
:>
</l
;.::l
N
00
By Performer
1972-1983
1955/56
1955/56
1955/561958/59
1955/561961/62
1955/561964/65
1955/561964/65
1961/621964/65
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621969/70
1964-1975
1964-1978
1964-1982
1966-1981
1966-1981
UK
GB
GB
1972-1983
UK
UK
1967/68
onw ard s
1969/701972/73
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1969/701972/73
UK
[QRL.9]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.23]
[QRL.l]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.146]
[QRL.1 24]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.76]
[QRL.42]
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3, 6.5.1.1,
6.5.2.2
2.4.1,2.4.4.1 ,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1 ,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4 .2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4. 1, 3.3.2, 2.5.1
2.5.4.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1 ,3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
4.1,4.3.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.1,2.2.1.2,2.3.1,2.3.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,
4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.1, 2.4.4.2,2.5.4.2,2.5.4.6,6.1 ,6.4.1,6.4.2.2
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
[QRL.39]
[QRL.9]
1.4,1.7, 2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2 .3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
[QRL.152]
\0
-l
C;;;
r-
Z
orn
tTl
tTl
'Tl
tTl
c:::
I:)
By performer by type of expenditure

(capital & current expenditure)
1955/561961/62
1961/621961 /62
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621969/70
1964- 1975
1964-1982
1966-1981
UK
By performer by type of work (basic,

applied)
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1969/701972/73
1955/561961 /62
1961/621961/62
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621969/70
1964- 1975
1964- 1982
1966- 1981
UK
UK
1969/701972/73
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.152]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[Q RL. 186]
[QRL. 185]
[Q RL.44]
[QRL.152]
[QRL. 1]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.8 ]
[QRL. 153]
[QRL. 187]
[QRL. 186]
[QRL. 185]
[Q RL.44]
QRL
Publication
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1. 1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,2.5.4.5,2.6.4.2,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4. 1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3 .3.2,2.5.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4. 1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3, 6.5.1. 1, 6.5.2.2
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2
2.3.1, 2.3.2. 1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3 .3.2,2.5.1
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4. 1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6. 1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3, 6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.3. 1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2. 1, 2.4.4. 1, 3. 1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3. 1, 2.3.2. 1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5
Text Reference
eil
eil
...,
...,;l;>
...,Vi
Z
...,
3:
"t:l
<:
rn
r-
Z
0
0
;l;>
::t:
(")
;l;>
;tl
;tl
eil
rn
By performer by source of funds
By performer by sector (government,

indu stry, unive rsitie s)
1955/56
1955/561958/59
1955/561961/62
1955/561964/65
1955/561964/65
1961 /621964/65
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621967/68
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1955/56
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1969/701972/73
1973-1984
1955/561961 /62
1961 /621961 /62
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621967/68
1961 /621969/70
1964-1975
1964-1982
1966-1981
UK
UK
1973- 1984
UK
[QRL.187]
[QRL.186]
[Q RL. 185]
[QRL.146]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.76]
[QRL.42]
[Q RL.39]
[Q RL.9]
[Q RL. 152]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.8 ]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.1 87]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.9]
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2. 1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3. I, 6.4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1 ,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
4.1,4.3.1
2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4. 1, 2.5.4.5
2.1,2.2.1.2,2.3.1,2.3.4.1 ,2.4.4.1,3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,

4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.2, 2.5.4.6, 6. 1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2. 1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3,2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3. 1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3.3.2,2.5.1
1.4,1.7,2.4.4. 1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3. 1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3, 6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1, 2.4.4. 1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.1,2.3.3. 1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2. 1,2.4.4.1,3. 1,3 .3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3 .2, 4.4.2
2.3.1,2.3 .2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
\;J
-l
Vi
tTl
tTl
tTl
'Tl
'rn"
'Z"
7'
c:
I:)
1967/68
onwards
1969/701972/73
1972- 1983
1955/561961/62
1961/621961/62
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621969/70
1964-1975
1966-1981
1969/701972/73
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Total
UK
1964-onwards
1961/621969/70
1964-1975
1964-1978
1966-1981
1966-198 1
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
To tal R&D (Aggregate Measure) Co nstant Prices
By source of funds by secto r
Types of D ata and Breakdowns
[QR L.23]
[QR L.152]
[QR L.I ]
[QR L.8]
[QR L.153]
[QR L. 187]
[QRL.186]
[Q RL.185 ]
[QR L.44]
[QRL.9]
[QRL. 152]
[QRL.23]
[QR L. I]
[Q RL.2]
[QR L.7]
[QR L.8]
[QRL. 153]
QRL
Publicatio n
2.5.4.2,2.7.1,4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4 .2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2. 1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1 ,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3. 1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4. 1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,3.3.2,3.5. 1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4. 1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.5.4.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2
Text Reference
CIl
-l
Vi
-l
;I>
-l
CIl
-l
l"l1
s:
-e
r-
l"l1
0
0
l"l1
<:
;I>
:t
l"l1
;I>
;0
CIl
rn
;0
IV
Totals
Expenditure by Government
By sector
1964-onwards
1964-1975
1964-1978
1964-1982
1966-1981
1972-1983
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1945/461966/67
1955/561961 /62
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621967/68
1961 /621969/70
1961 /621969/70
1964-1977
1964-1979
1964-1982
1966-19 81
1966-19 81
1972-1983
UK
UK
1964-1975
1964-1978
1964-19 82
1966-1981
1966-1981
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
[QRL.71]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.146]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.23]
[QRL. I]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL. 8]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4.1,2.4. 3.3,2.4.4.1 ,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
3.1, 3.3.2
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5
2.5.4.2,2.7.1, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3 .5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1,2.4.4.1,3 .3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
w
w
-'l
U;
r-
trl
'Tl
trl
'rn"
'Zrn"
o
c:
n
::-::
.o
1972- 1983
1973/741978/79
1973/741978/79
1981/821987/88
1982
Ann ually
Annu ally
1961-1 967
I 983-annua lly
I 984-annua lly
1986- annu ally
Annually
UK
UK
UK/EEC
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Intramural by dep artment , total
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1945/461966/67
1961/621969/70
1961/621969/70
1964- 1977
1964- 1979
1964- 1982
1966-1 981
1966-1 981
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
Date s
Area
Expenditure by Government G ross Expenditure
[Q RL. 1]
[QRL.5 ]
[QR L.6]
[Q RL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL. 187]
[QR L. 153]
[QRL.146]
[QRL. 86]
[Q RL. 105]
[QRL.l 09]
[Q RL. 124]
[Q RL.53]
[QR L.54]
[Q RLS '.]
[Q R L.l 90]
[QRL. 51]
[QRL. 2]
[QR L.9]
[QRL.IO]
[Q RL. 152]
QRL
Publication
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4 .2
2.4.4. 1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4. 1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4. 1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4. 1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
3.1, 3.2. 1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4.1, 3.5.2, 4.3. 1, 4.4.4, 5.9.2.1,

7.3.1, 7.5
1.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1, 2.1, 2.5.3. 1, 2.6.1.3, 3.3.2,

4.2.1.3,4.2.3,4.4.3,5.1, 5.2.4.2,5.13,7.2.2,7.3.1, 8.4
3.3.2, 3.4.1.3, 3.6.1
3.4.1.1, 4.4.4.3
1.7, 1.9.2.2, 2.3.1.2, 3.5.2
4.1,4.3.1
2. 1, 3.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.4 .3, 5.3, 5.2.4.2, 5.13, 8.3
2.1,2.5.3.1,3.6.3
2.4.4. 1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
1.4,1. 7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3,3 .2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5. 1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4. 1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1, 5.5.3, 5.13
Text Reference
Vl
-:l
cn
-:l
-:l
Vl
-:l
s:
-e
m
<
m
r-
0
0
::I:
('"J
i':l
rn
Vl
rn
i':l
By discip1ine
1972-1983
1983/841986/87
1973/741978/79
1981/821987/88
1961 -1967
1983-annually
1984-annually
1986-annually
Annually
UK
UK
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981 /821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1970/711973/74
UK
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL. 2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.1 87]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.53]
[QRL.54]
[QRL.52]
[QRL.190]
[QRL.51]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.10]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.71]
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3,3. 3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.1, 3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1,1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
3.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4.1, 3.5.2, 4.4.4, 5.9.2.1
1.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1, 2.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.6.1.3, 3.3.2,

4.2.1.3,4.2.3,4.4.3, 5.1,5.2.4.2,5.13,7.2.2,7.3.1,8.4
4.1,4.3.1
2.1,3 .1,4.2.1.3,4.4.3,5.3,5.2.4.2,5.13, 8.3
2.1, 2.5.3.1, 3.6.3
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1, 3.1,3 .2.5.3,3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1,3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
3.1, 3.3.2
Vl
<.,;.J
-l
Vi
r-
orn
~
;tI
t'!'l
'Tl
t'!'l
;tI
t'!'l
()
tO
Intramural by department by type of

expend iture
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1968/69
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981 /821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
UK
By type of work
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QR L. I]
[QR L.71]
[QRL.15 2]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187 ]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QR L.7]
[QR L.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL. I]
[QRL. 152]
[QRL. 153]
[QRL. 187]
QRL
Publication
2.4.4. 1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4. 1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4. I, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2. I.I , 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8. I.I , 2. 1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3 .3.2
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3, 2.5.4.1,3. 1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3. I.I , 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4. 1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2. I.I , 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2. 1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,
2.5, 3. 1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
Text Reference
tTl
n
CIl
-l
:>
-l
i
-l
CIl
-l
tTl
s:
-e
tTl
t""'
<
rn
Z
0
0
:>
:t
;:e
:>
tTl
CIl
;:e
0\
Extramural by department by
discipline
Extramural by department
1961-1967
1964-1965
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1968/1969
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
UK
[QRL.152]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.71]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 6.3.1,

6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2

2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3.3.2
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
-....,J
c:;;
...,
tT'l
l"
(j
tT'l
;:0
tT'l
'Tl
tT'l
;:0
;;<:
(=i
c:
,Q
By sector

1974/751976/77
1977 /78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1966/671968/69
1966/671970j71
1968/69
1970j711973/74
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.l]
[QRL.71]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.I0]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.l]
QRL
Publication
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.l.l, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1,2.5.4.5,3.2.5.3,3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1,1.3.3.2,1.4,1.7,1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3.3.2
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2,3.4.2.3,4.3.2,4.4.2,5.2.4.1,5.5.3,6.4.2.3,
6.5.l.l,6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.l.l, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1
2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1,5.5.3,5.13
2.4.4.1,2.5.4.5,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1,2.5.4.5,2.6.4.2,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
Text Reference
n
en
Z
....,
en
....,
:>
....,
Vl
....,
s::tT'J
"t:I
t""
tT'J
0
0
tT'J
<:
:>
Z
::e
()
::r:
:>
tT'J
::e
tT'J
en
00
......
By dep artmcnt
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Expenditure by Government Net Expenditure
Total
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
1961/621967/68
1964/65
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1966/671968/69
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
1961/621967/68
1964/65
[QRL.1 52]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.18 5]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL. 5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.1 85]
[QRL.1 86]
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4. 1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3 .2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4 .2
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1,2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1,3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
'00
\;j
Vi
....,
t"'"
tT'l
tT'l
tT'l
"Tl
tT'l
'"
'oz"
(=j
.0
By objective/functio n
By discipline
Types of Dat a and Breakdowns

1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
UK
1974/751976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1978/791979/80
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1955/561961/62
1961/621966/67
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
1966/671970/71
1970/711973/74
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.185]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.1 53]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.I]
QRL
Publ ication
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1, 3.1,3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1, 3.3.2,3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2 .1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
Text Refer ence
Vl
--l
c:;;
--l
;J>
--l
Vl
--l
~
tTl
tTl
rn
<:
r0
-e
Cl
Cl
;J>
:r:
tTl
;J>
;;tl
Vl
rn
;;tl
Expenditure by Government Civi1 R&D
UK
UK
GB
UK
GB
UK /EEC
UK
UK
1961-1967
1939/401956/57
1939/401957/58
1939/401958/59
1939/401959/60
1972-1983
1982/831985/86
1973/741978/79
1981 /821987/88
1982
UK
UK
GB
1967/68
onwards
1970/711973/74
1961/621967/68
1961 /621969/70
1961 /621969/70
1964-1977
1964-1979
1964-1982
1966-1981
1966-1981
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
GB
[QRL.41]
[QRL.40]
[QRL.39]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.38]
[QRL. 86]
[QRL.51]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.23]
[QRL.l]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL. 8]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.15 3]
[QRL.1 86]
2.4.4.1
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,

4.1,4.3.2,4.4.2
2.4.4.1
4.1,4.3.1
6.1
1.1,1.3.1,1.3.3.2,1.9.1,2.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.6.1.3,3.3.2,

4.2.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.4.3, 5.1, 5.2.4.2, 5.13, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4
3.3.2, 3.4.1.3, 3.6.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.3 .2,3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
1.3.1,1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.5.4.2,2.7.1,4.4.2
2.4.1.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
.\>0.
-J
v;
tTl
l'
tTl
;:0
tTl
."
tTl
;:0
;>:::
(=j
c:
,Q
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
1973/741978/79
1973-1984
1974-1985
1975-1983
1981/821987/88
1939/401960/61
1939/401961/62
1945/461962/63
1955/561964/65
1960/611962/63
1961/621963/64
1961/621966/67
1961/621968/69
1962/631964/65
1964-1977
1964-1979
1964-1982
1965/661967/68
1971-1983
1972-1983
UK
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.86]
[QRL.51]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.46]
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
3.3.2, 3.4.1.3, 3.6.1
1.1 , 1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1,2.1,2.5.3.1,2.6.1.3,3.3.2,
4.2.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.4.3, 5.1, 5.2.4.2, 5.13, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4
2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3 .2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 4.1
[QRL.185]
[QRL.187]
2.4.4.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
7.3.3
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
Text Reference
[QRL.45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.146]
[QRL.123]
[QRL.43]
[QRL.42]
QRL
Publication
--
cn
-'I
-'I
-'I
cn
-'I
tr1
-e
3::
rn
r-
Cl
Cl
tr1
<:
::r:
tr1
;;0
;;0
rn
cn
1973/741978/79
1973-1984
1974-1985
1981/821987/88
I983-annually
I984-annually
I986-annually
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
1961 -1972
Annually
1939/401957/58
1939/401960/61
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621968/69
1964/65
1964-1977
1964-1979
1964-1982
1965/661967/68
1967-1968
1968
1971 -1983
1972-1983
I983-annually
I984-annually
I986-annually
UK/OECD
UK
GB
Expenditure by Government Defence R&D
UK
UK
UK
[QRL.53]
[QRL.54]
[QRL.52]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.51]
[QRL.2]
2.4. I, 2.4.4. I, 3.3.2, 3.5. I

2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.I, 2.4.4. I, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5. I3
1.1,1.3 .1,1.3.3.2,1.9.1,2.1,2.5.3.1,2.6.1.3,3.3.2,
4.2.1.3,4.2.3,4.4.3,5.1,5.2.4.2,5.13,7.2.2,7.3.1,8.4
2. I, 3.I, 4.2. I.3, 4.4.3, 5.3, 5.2.4.2, 5.I3, 8.3
2.I, 2.5.3.I, 3.6.3
7.3.3, 7.4.2
2.3.1.4
2.4. I, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4. I, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6. I, 3.3.2, 3.5. I
1.3.3. I, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4. I, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4. I, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4. I, 3.3.2, 3.5. I
2.4.4.I, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. I
[QRL.178]
[QRL.180]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.189]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.187]
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3. I, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2. I, 2.4.4. I, 3. I, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3. I, 6.4.4.2
2.8.2.2
2.4.4. I, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.I
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.I, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.I, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. I
2.4.4. I, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. I
2.4.4. I, 3.I, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.1,2.2.1.2,3.3.1,2.3.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,3.4.2.1,
4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.4. I, 2.4.4. I
2. I, 3. I, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.3, 5.3, 5.2.4.2, 5. I3, 8.3

2. I, 2.5.3. I, 3.6.3
[QRL.185]
[QRL.42]
[QRL.68]
[QRL.181]
[QRL.39]
[QRL.53]
[QRL.54]
[QRL.52]
c:::
v.>
-l
Vi
r'
tt1
tt1
:;0
tt1
.."
tt1
~
:;0
()
Area
Dat es
Annually
1972/73annually
1972/73annually
Annually
1972/73
Annually
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Ministry of Agriculture
Departmen t of Employment/
Manpower Services Commission
NCC
Department of 1ndu stry/D epartment

of Trade a nd 1ndustry
UK
UK
UK
GB
1973/76annually
1977- annually
Department of Health and Social

Security
Departm ents of the Environment/

Tran spo rt
UK
1973/74annually
1976/77
1976/771978/79
1976-1 987
1973/76annually
1976/661977/78
1977/8 1annua lly
1984-1986
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Expenditure by Government Indi vidual Gov ernment Department s
[QRL.1 59]
[QRL.1 38]
[QRL.1 27]
[QR L.149]
[QR L.49]
[QRL.142]
[QRL.1 58]
[QRL.48]
[QRL.137]
[QRLI 56]
[QRL.1 39]
[QR L.155]
[QRL.74]
[QRL.I44]
[QRL.145]
[QRL.140]
QRL
Publicat ion
7.3.2
5.3.2
5.1
5.7.2.6,5. 12.2
5.9.2.2, 5.11
5.9.2.2
5.8.1
3.4.2.3, 5.8.1
5.5.2, 7.2.2
Text Reference
VJ
-l
:>
-l
Vi
-l
VJ
-l
3:
rn
"0
r'
rn
<:
Z
Cl
Cl
:>
::I:
(J
;>;l
:>
m
VJ
m
;>;l
UK
UK
Annually
UK
GB
Atomic Energy Authority
British Steel Corporation
Totals
Annually
1939/401956/57
1939/401957/58
UK
GB
GB
1961-1967
Annually
UK
UK
Expenditure by Government Research Councils
GB
Annually
1972/731981 /82
Annually
UK
BG
GB
1976-1982
Annually
UK
1961-1963
Annually
Annually
Annually
NRDC/BTG CEGB
UK
Department of Education and Science GB
Health and Safety Execut ive
1974-annually
1974/751976/77
UK
Overseas Development Administration GB
Fisheries R&D Board
UK
UK
1977/78annually
Annually
1981-1982
UK
[QRL.39]
[QRL.214]
[QRL.38]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.190]
[QRL.36]
[QRL.34]
[QRL.35]
[QRL.74]
[QRL.74]
[QRL.129]
[QRL.132]
[QRL.26]
[QRL.90]
[QRL.91]
[QRL.143]
[QRL.198]
[QRL.161]
[QRL.157]
[QRL.160]
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,

4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
4.1,4.3.1
3.1,3.2.1,3.3.2,3.4.4.1,3.5.2,4.3.1,4.4.4,5.9.2.1,
7.3.1,7.5
3.1, 3.2.1, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.1, 5.8.2.5
6.1
5.5.3, 7.2.2
7.2.2
7.3.3
5.11.2.1
5.12.2
5.6.2.1
c:::
Vl
"'"
....
-l
tn
l"
otrl
trl
;tI
'Tl
trl
rn
~
;tI
fi
,Q

1939/401958/59
1939/401959/60
1939/401960/6 1
1939/401961/62
1955/561964/65
1960/611962/63
1961 /621963/64
1961/621966/67
1961 /621968/69
1962/631964/65
1964/651969/70
1964- 1977
1964-1982
1965/66
1965/661967/68
1969/701973/74
1970/711975/76
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
OB
OB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Date s
Area
[QRL.15 2]
[QRL.80]
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6. 1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
4.4.1.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
[QRL.186]
[QRL. 1]
[QRL.6]
1.3.1,1.3.3.2, 1.4,1.7,1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3 .1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4. 1,2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1 '
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
Text Reference
[QRL.153]
[QRL.46]
[QRL.l 87]
[QRL.l85]
[QRL.45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.l46]
[Q RL.43]
[QRL.42]
[Q RL.4 I]
[QRL.40]
Q RL
Public ation
.j:>.
m
m
CI)
ri
-l
-l
:>
i
-l
CI)
-l
r-e
m
<:
m
Z
Cl
Cl
:>
::r:
;:Q
:>
CI)
;:Q
0"1
4.3.2, 4.4.4.4, 5.7.2.6, 5.8.1, 5.8.2.5

4.3.2, 4.4.4.3
4.3.2, 4.4.4.3
[QRL.13 3]
[QRL.47]
[QRL.134]
[QRL.33]
1957/581965-66
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
UK
UK
SSR CjESRC
Total
UK
UK
UK
1964-1982
Annually
1947- 1952
Expenditure by Government Un iversities & Higher Educ ation
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
[QRL.6]
[QRL.184]
[QRL.13 2]
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

4.4.2, 7.4.1
2.3.4.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.4.1
[QRL.28]
[QRL.146 ]
5.9.2.2
[QRL.48]
[QRL.146]
1957/581965/66
1973/76annually
Annually
n
:;.::
+:-.J
-l
Vi
r-
tT1
tT1
:;0
tT1
.."
tT1
:;0
2.3.1.3
[QRL.135]
UK
GB
,Q
7.2.3
[QRL.27]
[QRL. 24]
[QRL.146]
2.3.4.1,2.3.4.3,4.3.2,4.4.4.2,5.7.2.6,7.5
4.4. I.l
I.l, 1.3.l , 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1,2.1,2.5.3.1,2.6.1.3,3.3.2,
4.2.1.3, 4.4.3, 5.1, 5.2.4.2, 5.13, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4
2.1, 3. 1, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.3, 5.3, 5.2.4.2, 5.13, 8.3
2.1,2.5.3.1,3.6.3
[QRL.197]
[QRL.51]
[QRL.53]
[QRL. 54]
[QRL. 52]
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
[QRL.2]
Annually until
1964
Annually
1957/581965/66
Annually
1973/741978/79
1978/79
1981/821987/88
I983-annually
I984-annually
I986-annually
GB
UK
UK
SRCjS ER C
N ER C
MRC
DSIR
Agricultural RC
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
UK
GB
Expenditure by Private Sector Intramural

By performing sector
UK
UK
UK
UK
Expendit ure by Private Sector Constant Prices

UK
Total
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1985 annually
1958
1960/611962/63
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621967/68
1961 /621968/69
1964-1975
1966/671972/73
1966-1972
1967-1978
1967-1981
1967-1975
1965-1975
1964-1978
1964-1981
1975-1985
1966/671972/73
1966-1972
1967-1980
1967-1981
1967-1978
1967-1975
1968/69
1972-1983
1972
1980/81
1985
[QRL.204]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.202]
[QR L.206]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.187]
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2. 1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4. 2
[QRL.185]
[QRL.1 86]
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.2
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.5.4.2,2.7.1,4.4.2
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,

2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4. 1
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1, 2.7.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
3.1,3.3.2
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
[QRL.95]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.23]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.204]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.71]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.153]
c:
./::00
\0
rVi
...,
otT1
tT1
;e
tT1
'Tl
tT1
;e
n
;><:
,Q
By typ e of capita l
By product group
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
UK
GB
UK
1958
1961 /621966/67
1961 /621967/68
1985- annually
1958
1960/611962/63
1961 /621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961 /621968/69
1964-1975
1966/671972/73
1966-1972
1967-1978
1967-1981
1967-1975
1968
1968/69
1972
1972-1975
1985
1968
1968/69
1972
1985
GB
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
[QR L.186]
[QRL.95]
[Q RL.l 85]
[QRL.204]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.73]
[QRL.71]
[QRL. 205]
[QRL.l]
[QRL. 60]
[QR L.206]
[QR L.153]
[QRL.1 87]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.23]
[QRL.95]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.73]
[QRL.71]
[QRL. 205]
[QRL.60]
QRL
Publication
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3. 3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4 .2
3.1,3.3.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1,3 .1, 3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.4, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.5.4.2, 2.7.1,4.4.2
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.2
2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5
3.1,3.3.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
Text Reference
......
Vl
Vl
...,Vl
::j
;J>
...,Vl
::::
tTl
Z
...,
"1l
tTl
l'
<:
tTl
Z
tl
;J>
::r:
;0
;J>
rn
Vl
rn
;0
By type of work
By funding sector
1964/65
1964/651969/70
1966-1 967
Annua lly
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1961/621968/69
1964-1 975
1966/671972/73
1966-1 972
1967-1 978
1967-1 981
1967-1 975
1968
1968/69
1972
1972-1 975
1985
1961/621966/67
1961/621967/68
1961/621968/69
1964-1 975
1966/671972/73
1966-1 972
1967-1 978
1967- 1981
1967-1 975
1972-1 975
1985
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
[QR L.186]
[QR L.183]
[QRL.1 53]
[QR L.185]
[QR L.204]
[QRL. 57]
[QR L.56]
[QRL. 202]
[QR L.l]
[Q R L.60]
[QR L.206]
[QRL.1 53]
[QR L.187]
[QRL.1 86]
[QR L.185]
[QR L.204]
[QRL. 57]
[QR L.56]
[QRL. 202]
[QR L.73]
[QRL.71]
[QR L.205]
[QR L.l]
[QR L.60]
[QRL. 206]
[QR L.153]
[QR L.187]
2.3. 1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2. 1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.8.2.3, 6.7
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6. 1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3 .1,3.3.2,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3.3.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2 , 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6. 1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7. 1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2,1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7. 1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
c:
VI
-l
Cii
Cl
t'tl
r'
t'tl
;;>;l
t'tl
"T1
t'tl
;;>;l
;><:
(=i
tJ
Area
Dates
Financed by Government
By manufacturing industry
1964/651969/70
1964/65
1964-1975
1966-1983
1966/671972/73
1966/67
1966/671967/68
1967-1978
1972-1975
1975
1981
1981-1983
1985- annually
1953-1964
1964-1981
1955-1964
1964-1975
1966-1983
1967-1978
1967-1980
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1953-1964
1961 /62
1964-1981
UK
UK
UK
Expenditure by Private Sector Industrially-performed R&D
Typ es of Data and Breakdowns
[QRL.146]
[QRL. 206]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.2 3]
[QRL.124]
[QRL. 8]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.58]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.1 87]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.1 85]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.8]
QRL
Publication
2.3.5,2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1,2.7.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7.1
2.4.4. 1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.5.4.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2

4.1,4.3.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
4.1,4.3.1
2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3.1, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4.1,2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5,3. 1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
Text Reference
t'I1
'"
()
-l
Vi
'"
-l
>-l
-l
zt'I1
."
t'I1
<:
r-
t'I1
t:l
t:l
>Z
o
::c
;:0
>-
'"
t'I1
;:0
Vl
1964
1964-1967
1965
1967-1978
1971 -1974
1974-1977
1976-1979
1977-1980
1978-1981
1979-1982
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1972-1975
1983-1985
UK
UK
By overseas enterprises by product
UK
1972-1975
1983-1985
UK
UK
By overseas enterprises
1964-1970
1972
1975
1985
UK
UK
UK
By size of enterprise by product
UK
1972
1975
1985
UK
UK
UK
By size of enterprise
Overseas Royalties
1972-1975
1981
1981 -1983
UK
UK
UK
[QRL.1]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.153]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.58]
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1,2.1,2.2.3.2,2.3,2.4,

2.5,3.1,4.3.2,4.4.2
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
1.4,1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1,2.4.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1 ,2.7.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
....
W
Vl
o-l
Cii
t""'
tTl
tTl
i'l
tTl
'"l'l
tTl
i'l
(=i
,0
1972
1975
1959
1962-1965
1962-1968
1965
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
By industry
By occup at ion
By occupat ion by type of work
By qu alification
By qualification by sector
By sector
GB
[QRL.175]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.205]
[QRL. 206]
1959-1962
1962-1965
1972
1975
1959
1959
1962-1965
1962-1965
[QRL.113]
[QRL.67]
1959-1968
1959-1975
[QRL.175]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.1 87]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.1 85]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.206 ]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.113]
By age by qua1ification
1958-1 979
1959-196 8
[QRL.113]
QRL
Publication
GB
GB
R&D Employment Econ omic Activity Rate
GB
GB
R&D Employment By Firm Size
GB
GB
Dates
1959-1968
Area
GB
By age
R&D Employment
T ypes of Data and Breakdowns
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6

2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2. I.I, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6

3.1, 6.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2,6.1,6.2.3,6.3.4,6.4.1,6.4.2.2,6.5.1.1,6.6
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
Text Reference
rn
CI)
>-l
CI)
::l
>-
>-l
CI)
>-l
tr1
3:
tr1
<:
r0
-e
tr1
Cl
Cl
>Z
::r::
::0
>-
tr1
CI)
::0
"'"
VI
By occupation
R&D Employment By Industry
By type of work
1959
1962-1965
GB
GB
1972
1972-1975
1972
1975
1975
1975
1981
1955
1956
1959-1968
1961-1971
1962-1968
1962-1965
1968-1983
1969-1978
1972-1975
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
1955
1956
1956
1959-1968
1961-1971
1962-1968
1962-1965
1968-1983
1969-1978
1972-1975
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
1972
UK
[QRL.76]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.I13]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.201]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.200]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.76]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.I13]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.205]
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I. I, 6.6

3.1, 6.1
6.1, 6.2. I.l , 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1, 6.2. I.l, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7.1
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.2,2.5.4.6,6.1,6.4.1,6.4.2.2
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1

2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I.l , 6.6
2.1,6.1
6.1, 6.2. I.l, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1, 6.2. I.l, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7.1
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.I, 5.3.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.6.2.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.2, 2.5.4.6, 6.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2

6.1, 6.2. I.l, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I.l
6.1, 6.2. I.l , 6.4.2.2, 6.6

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.4.1
Vl
Vl
-l
t:
tTl
'Tl
tTl
;>;l
tTl
;>;l
'rn"
(=)
c:
10
GB
GB
By qualification level
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6

1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
[Q R L. 11 3]
[Q R L. 11 3]
1959- 1968
[QRL.186 ]
[QRL.187]
1959- 1968
1966
UK
By qualification type by type of work
1965- 1968
GB
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1

6. 1
3.1,6. 1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
2.3. 1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.4.4. 1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
[QR L. 171]
[QR L. I72]
[QR L.67]
[QR L. I I3]
[QRL.148]
[QR L.175]
[QRL.185 ]
1956
1956
1958-1975
1959- 1968
1962/68
1962
1962-1 965
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
By qua lification type
2.6.2.1
1.4,1.7,2.4.4. 1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1 ,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4. 1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1 , 6.6

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.2. 1, 2.4.4.1
2.6.2.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
Text Reference
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
[QR L. I]
[QRL.200]
[QR L.20 1]
[QR L. 152]
[QR L. 113]
[QRL.175]
[QR L. 148]
[QR L.201]
[Q R L.I]
[QR L.200]
[QRL. 56]
QRL
Publicatio n
[QR L.148]
1962/1965
1975
1975
UK
UK
GB
1967- 1972
1972-1 975
UK
UK
By occupation by sector
By occupation by type of work
1959-1968
1962
1962- 1968
1972
1975
1975
1981
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
Dates
Area
By occupation by qualification type
Types of Dat a and Breakd owns
Vl
VJ
(i
-i
Cii
-i
)-
-i
VJ
-i
."
-<
rn
r-
Cl
Cl
)-
:I:
;:tI
;:tI
m
VJ
m
)-
0\
1975
1977/78
1978/89
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1981
1978
1981-1983
1985
1968-1969
1967-1974
1958
1972-1975
1966/67
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
By wag es
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1956
1956
1958-1973
1962-1965
1962
1975
1981
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
1967-1 973
1967-1972
1972-1975
UK
UK
UK
By type of work
By sector
1962-1968
GB
[QRL.153]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.58]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.71]
[QRL.73]
[QRL.95]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.200]
[QRL.201]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.148]
6.1
6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4 .2
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4 .1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3 .2, 4.4 .2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4 .5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.4.4 .1,2.5.4 .5,3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4 .1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2 ,
2.5.4.1, 3.3 .2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4 .2.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.3. 1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4 .1
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1, 2.6.1,2.7.1
2.4.2.1
2.4.4.1
3.1,3.3.2
6.1,
6.1
3.1,
6.1,
6.1,
2.6.2.1
1.4,1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1, 3.1,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4 .1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2: 3.5.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4 .1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
c:::
VI
-.J
.....:j
v.;
r-
tTl
tTl
rn
"Tl
tTl
;>::
(=i
Tot als
R&D Employment By Occupation
Multinationals
1966
1967/68
1975
1969/70
1972/73
1973
1968
1975
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
1938/391962/63
1938/391960/61
1938/391961 /62
~9 59/60
1938/391954/55
1938/391955/56
1938/391956/57
1938/391957/58
1938/391958/59
1938/39-
1965
GB
GB
Dates
Area
2.4.4.1
[QRL.46]
[QRL.45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.43]
[QRL.4 2]
[QRL .41]
[QRL.40]
[QRL.39]
[QRL. 38]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.203]
[QRL.204]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.207]
[QRL.1 86]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.185]
QRL
Publicat ion
2.4.4.1, 4.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1,3.3.2, 3.4.2, 4. 1,

4.3.2, 4.4.2
4.4.4.1
6.1
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.7.1
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
Text Reference
;:tI
>--l
u;
--l
fiVJ
--l
VJ
--l
rn
'"C
r-
tTl
-<
tTl
0
0
;:tI
>o
::r:
>Z
rn
VJ
rn
Vl
00
By qualification by sector
By qualification
1955
1956-1959
1956
1956-1962
1958-1975
1959-1968
1960-1965
1960-1964
1960/611964/65
1962/68
1968-1972
1969-1975
1969-1978
1975-1985
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
1959-1968
1962/68
1978-1979
1979-1980
1981-1982
1984-1985
1985-1986
UK
UK
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
1956-1959
1956-1959
1959-1968
1959/62
1962/68
1978-1979
1979-1980
1981-1982
1982-1983
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
1951/52-
annually
UK
[QRL.l13]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.I13]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.201]
[QRL.200]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.76]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.l13]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.37]
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.7.1

2.4.4.1
2.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.2, 2.5.4.6, 6.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
3.1, 6.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2,6.1,6.2.1.1,6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.6.2.1
6.1
\0
VI
.-
-l
rVi
tTl
:::0
tTl
Z
rn
'Tl
tTl
:::0
fi
10
1982-1983
1984-1985
1985-1986
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
UK
Level by sector
1984-1985
1985-1986
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1956-1959
1956-1959
1959-1965
1965/68
1956-1959
1975
1975-1985
1978-1979
1979-1980
1981-1982
1982-1983
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
GB
1956-1959
1956-1959
1959-1968
1961-1971
1962/68
1967-1972
1969-1973
1969-1978
1972-1975
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
Dates
Area
Level
R&D Employment By Qualification
By sector
Types of Data a nd Breakdowns
[QRL.171]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.II3]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.I 72]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.113]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.201]
[QRL.200]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.152]
[QRL.9]
[QRL.IO]
[QRL.8]
QRL
Publicat ion
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2 .2, 6.5.1.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1

1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1
2.4.4 .1,2.4.4.2, 2.5.4 .1,2.6.1,2.7.1

1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4. 1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.3.2, 3.4.2.3 , 4.3.2, 4.4 .2, 5.2.4 .1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4 .5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4 .1
2.4.4.1 ,2.5.4 .5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2,3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4 .1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2,2.3.1.1, 2.4.1,2.4.3.3, 2.4.4 .1,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4 .1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
3.1, 6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.6.2.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4 .2,

2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2 .1, 2.4.4 .1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
Text Reference
Vl
()
...,
::l
Vl
)-
...,Vl
Z
...,
tTl
2!:
"0
r-
<
tTl
tTl
0
0
)-
o
::r:
;:c
)-
rn
Vl
rn
;:c
0\
1956-1 959
1959-1 965
1965/68
1956- 1959
1956- 1959
1967/1968
1956-1 959
1959-1 968
1959/62
1962/68
1965
1965/66
1975-1 985
1956-1 959
1956-1 959
1958-1 975
1959-1 968
1959/62
1975
1978-1 979
1979-1 980
1981-1 982
1982-1 983
1984-1 985
1985-1 986
1959-1 968
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
Level by qu alfication type
Type
Type by sector by type of work
Type by scetor
1959-1 968
1956-1 959
GB
GB
[QR L.113]
[QR L.9]
[QR L.I O]
[QR L.I 72]

[QR L.171]
[QRL. 67]
[QR L.113]
[QR L.175]
[QRL.I]
[QR L.2]
[QR L.5]
[QR L.7]
[QR L.8]
[QR L.186]
[QR L.60]
[QR L.171]
[QR L. 113]
[QR L.175]
[QR L.148]
[QR L.185]
[QR L. 172]
[QR L. 187]
[QR L.l71 ]
[QR L.113]
[QR L.148]
[QR L.I72]
[QR L.l I3]

[QR L.I 72]
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4. 1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
3.1,6.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. 1.1, 6.6
6. 1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.4. 1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4. 1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.1,2.4.4.1, 3.3.2,3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
6.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3. 1, 6.4.4.2
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1. 1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. 1.1, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2. 1
2.3. 1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4. 1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
6.1,6.2.1.1, 6.3.5,6.4.2.2,6.5. 1.1

1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4. 1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6. 1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
6.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2

6.1
0 '\
-l
rVi
om
."
m
m
;;o:l
m
;;o:l
i"':
(=i
Area
Dates
QRL
Publication
By type of work
Totals
1975
1975-1985
1978-1979
1979-1980
1980-1981
1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
1984-1985
[QRL.9]
1985-1986
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
OB
OB
1959-1962
1959-1968
1972-1975
UK
UK
Annual1y
1956-1959
1956-1959
1959/62
1959-1968
1961 /62
1961-1971
1962/68
1967-1972
1969-1973
1969-1978
1972
OB
OB
OB
OB
OB
UK
OB
OB
UK
UK
UK
UK
[QRL.175]
[QRL.113]
[QRL.lO]
[QRL.1]
[QRL.60]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.5]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.56]
[QRL.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.135]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.113]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.201]
[QRL.200]
[QRL.57]
[QRL.205]
2.4.4.1
[QRL.152]
R&D Employment By Government, Research Associations, Nationalised Industries etc.
6.1, 6.2. I.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6

1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I.1, 6.6
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1

2.3.2.3,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.3.2,3.5.1,5.5.3,5.13
1.4, I.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4.1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,3.2.5.3,3.3.2,3.5.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1,2.2.3.2, 2.3.I.1 , 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3,2.4.4.1 ,2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1,2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
6.1
6.1, 6.2.I.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.l, 6.6
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
3.1, 6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.6.2.1
Text Reference
;:Q
fi
cn
-l
:l
cn
cn
3::
o
"tl
m
r-
<
o
o
m
;l>
o
::r:
;:Q
;l>
cn
m
m
0\
IV
1969/70
1972/73
1975
1975
1975
1977/78
1978/79
1978
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1981
1981-1 983
1983/84
1985/86
1985
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
OB
OB
OB
1956-1 959
1956-1 959
1959-1 962
1975
UK
Int ern ati onal
R&D Employment Type of Work
1955
OB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1969
1958
1966/671969/70
1966
1968/69
1968
1968
1969/701972/73
UK
UK
OB
UK
UK
UK
UK
OB
Region
R&D Employment Spatial
By wages /ea rnings
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.171]
[QRL.175]
[QR L.206]
[QRL.76]
[QR L.56]
[QR L.58]
[QR L.9]
[QRL.l O]
[QR L.60]
[QRL.203]
[QRL. 204]
[QRL.I]
[QRL.202]
[QRL.206]
[QR L.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL. 57]
[QR L.7]
[QRL.8]
[QRL.185]
[QRL. 186]
[QR L.71]
[QRL.7 3]
[QR L.207]
[QRL.1 52]
[QR L.95]
[QRL.153]
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1
6.1, 6.2. 1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4. 1,2.7.1
2.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.4.2, 2.5.4.6, 6. 1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5 .5
2.3.5, 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1,2. 7.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.4.4. 1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,2. 5.4. 1, 2.6. 1,2.7. 1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3. 1.1, 2.4. 1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.2.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4. 1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4.1
1.4, 1.7, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4. 1, 3.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1,6.5.2.2
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2. 1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3. 1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3.3.2
c:
0\
-l
V;
r-
otT1
tT1
i'l
tT1
."
tT1
i'l
'"
J::)
Entrants
R&D Employment F10ws
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
GB
GB
UK
GB
Annu ally
1938/391954/55
1938/391955/56
1938/391956/57
1938/391957/58
1938/391958/59
1938/391959/60
1938/391960/61
1938/391961 /62
1938/391962/63
1951 /52annu ally
1956-1959
1956
1956-1962
1958-1975
1958-1974
1962/65
1966
1968-1975
1969
GB
UK
Dates
Area
[QRL.171]
[QRL.I72]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.37]
[QRL.46]
[QRL.45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.4 3]
[QRL.42]
[QRL.41]
[QRL .40]
[QRL.39]
[QRL.135]
[QRL.38]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.1 86]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.1 85]
QRL
Publicat ion
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1

6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
3.1,6.1
6.1
2.4.4.1, 4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1,2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2.1,

4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
2.3.1.3
6.1
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1

2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1, 6.1
2.3.1.1,3.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
Text Reference
::l
v.>
::l
ov.>
-l
;I>
v.>
-l
s:tTl
r0
-e
-<
tTl
tTl
Z
0
0
;I>
o
::r:
;:tl
;I>
rn
v.>
rn
;:tl
.;:..
0-
1960- 1964
1960/611964/65
1958-1 974
1959-1 968
1958-1 974
1959-1 968
1938/391954/ 55
1938/391955/56
1938/391956/57
1938/391957/58
1938/391958/59
1938/391959/60
1938/391960/61
1938/391961/62
1938/391962/63
1951/52annua lly
1956-1 962
1958-1 975
1958-1 974
1959-1 968
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
Entrants by industry
Ent ra nts by indust ry by qu alificat ion
Entrants by level
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
1959-1 968
1960-1 965
GB
GB
[QRL.175]
[QRL. 67]
[QR L.72]
[QR L.113]
[QRL. 37]
[QRL .46]
[QRL. 45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL .43]
[QRL.42]
[QRL.4I]
[QRL.40]
[QRL. 39]
[QRL. 38]
[Q RL.72]
[QR L.I13]
[QRL. 72]
[QR L.113]
[QR L.186]
[QR L.187]
[QR L.113]
[QR L.185]
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4. 1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. I.I , 6.6
6.1, 6.2. I.I , 6.4.2.2, 6.6

3.1,6.1
6.1
2.4.4.1, 4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.3. 1, 2.5.4. 1, 2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1
2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.2. 1,

4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
6.1
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4. 1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1. 1, 6.6
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5. 1.1, 6.6
1.8.3,2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4,6.4.1,6.4.2.2,6.5. 1.1,6.6

2.3.1.1, 2.3.3. 1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2. 1, 2.4.4. 1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4 .2
VI
0'1
-l
rVi
i"
m
m
'Tl
i"
""m
c:
1956-1964
1958-1974
1959-1968
1938/391954/55
1938/391955/56
1938/391956/57
1938/391957/58
1938/391958/59
1938/391959/60
1938/391960/61
1938/391961/62
1938/391962/63
1951/52annually
1958-1975
1958-1974
1960-1965
GB
GB
GB
GB
By occupation
By qualification
GB
GB
GB
GB
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
1960-1964
1956-1964
1958-1974
GB
GB
By level by occupation
GB
Dates
Area
[QRL.186]
3.1, 6.1
[QRL.67]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.185]
2.3.1.1,2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2,2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1,3.1,3.4.4.2,4.3.2,4.4.2
6.1
2.4.4.1,4.1
2.4.4.1
2.3.1,2.3.2.1,2.4.4.1,2.5.3.1,2.5.4.1,2.5.4.5
2.4.4.1
2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1
[QRL.37]
[QRL.46]
[QRL.45]
[QRL.44]
[QRL.43]
[QRL.42]
[QRL.41]
2.4.4.1
2.1,2.2.1.2,2.3.1,2.3.4.1,2.4.4.1,3.1,3.3.2,3.4.2.1,
4.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1
[QRL.39]
[QRL.40]
6.1
1.8.3,2.6.2,6.1,6.2.3,6.3.4,6.4.1,6.4.2.2,6.5.1.1,6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6
Text Reference
[QRL.38]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.72]
[QRL.1l3]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.72]
QRL
Publication
.-
tTl
tTl
VI
(j
::l
:>
--l
Vl
--l
VI
--l
~
tTl
'"0
<:
tTl
r
tTl
0
0
:>
Z
:I:
(j
:;c
:>
VI
:;c
0'1
0'1
1969
1969/70
1972/73
1975
1975
1975
1977/78
1978/79
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
GB
UK
1958
1966/671969/70
1966
1968/69
1968
1968
1969/701972/73
GB
UK
1959-1968
1965-1968
1965-1968
GB
GB
GB
1959-1962
1965
1965
GB
GB
GB
1959-1968
1959-1975
GB
GB
Wages and Salaries, Expenditure on Wages
R&D Employment Unemployrnent
R&D Employment Vacancie s
Losses
1960/611964/65
GB
[QRL.203]
[QRL.204]
[QRL.l]
[QRL.202]
[QRL. 206]
[QRL.2]
[QRL.6]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.186]
[QRL.71]
[QRL.7 3]
[QRL.207]
[QRL.1 52]
[QRL.95]
[QRL.15 3]
[QRL.113]
[QRL.l13]
[QRL.187]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.148]
[QRL.185]
[QRL.l13]
[QRL.67]
[QRL.18 7]
2.4.4.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.4.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.3.1.4, 2.4.4.1, 2.5.5
2.3.5,2.4.3.1,2.4.4.1,2.7.1
2.4.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.4, 1.7,2.4.4.1,2.5.3,2.5.4.1,3.1 ,3.2.5.3,3.2.6.1,

3.3.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.5.3, 6.4.2.3,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.2
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.2
1.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8.1.1, 2. 1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2
3.1,3.3.2
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.6

6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.3, 6.4.2.1
2.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1,2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.1,2.4.4.1, 3.1,3.3.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.2
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
1.8.3, 2.6.2, 6.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.6

3.1, 6.1
2.4.4.1, 3.1, 3.4.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2,

6.3.1, 6.4.4.2
0"1
-.J
-l
ri
tT1
tT1
;:tI
tT1
."
tT1
;:tI
'"
c::
10
By qua1ification
By occupation
By industry
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
GB
1955 triennia lly
1955 triennially
1955 triennially
1955 trienn ially
1955 triennially
1955 triennially
1955 triennially
1955 triennia lly
1955 triennially
1955 triennially
1978
1980/81
1981/821982/83
1981
1981 -1983
1983/84
1985/86
1985
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Dates
Area
Wages and Sa1aries, Expenditure on Earn ings
Types o f Dat a and Breakd owns
[QR L. 191]
[QR L.122]
[QRL.120]
[QR L.191]
[QR L.122]
[QR L.120]
[QR L.191]
[QR L.122]
[QR L.120]
[QR L. 191]
[QR L.56]
[QR L.58]
[QR L.9]
[QR L. 10]
[QR L.60]
[QR L.57]
[QR L.7]
[QR L.8]
QRL
Publication
2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,2.5.4.1,2.6.1,2.7.1
2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6. 1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
1.3.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3. J.l , 2.4.1, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.5.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1
2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1
2.4.2.1
2.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5. 1
2.3.2.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.4.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.13
2.4.4. 1
Text Referen ce
Vl
(=i
-l
Vi
-l
-l
Vl
-l
zrn
."
<:
rn
r-
Z
0
0
m
::c
il'
m
Vl
m
il'
00
0\
QUICK REFERENCE LIST
169
Autho r or Or gan isation
Arru nda le, R.
Arru nda le, R.
Bishop, H.E.
Bourner, T., Davies, H.,

Wood s, A. and Woods , M.
Bowles, J.R .
Bowles, J.R .
Bowles, J.R .
Bowles, J.R .
Bowles, J.R.
Bowles, J.R.
Reference
[QR L.I]
[QRL. 2]
[QR L.3]
[QR L.4]
[QR L.5]
[QR L.6]
[QR L.7]
[QRL. 8]
[QR L.9]
[QRL.IO]
" R&D: Expenditure and Employment

in the Seventies" in Economic Trends
No. 334
"Ce ntra l Govern ment expendit ure on
R&D" in Economic Trends No. 346
" Research and Development:
Preliminary Estima tes for Expenditure
in the Un ited Kingdom in 1981" .
Econom ic Trends No. 359, pp. 108-121
" Research and Development in the
United Kingdom in 1981" Economic
Trends No . 370, pp. 81-96
"Researc h and Developm ent in the
United Kingdom in 1983". Economic
Trends No. 382, pp. 82-93
"Centra l Governm ent Expenditure on
Research and Development in 1984"
Economic Trends No. 394 pp. 82-89
HMSO, London
" R&D: Expenditure and

Employrnent" in Economic Trends No.
309
" R&D: Expenditure and Employment,
1978" in Economic Trends No. 321
"Science Statistics: Part l Manpower"
in S tatistical News No. 2
"The Diffusion of Micro- Electronic
Technol ogy in South-East England" .
in Bosworth, D.L. (Ed.) Employment
Consequences 01 Technological Change
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, Lond on
HMSO, London
Macmillan,
London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Publisher
Title
Augu st 1986
August 1985
August 1984
September 1983
August 1982
August, 1981
1983
August 1968
Jul y 1980
July 1979
Frequency or
date
(Listed alpha betically by author, where authors are namcd, and th en alpha betically by title)
QUICK REFERENCE LIST KEY TO PUBLICATIONS

Remarks
Vl
()
-l
{;i
-l
:>
-l
Vl
-l
'"rns:
r-
tTl
<
tTl
Z
Cl
Cl
:>
o
:c
;l:l
:>
tTl
Vl
tTl
;l:l
-...J
Freeman, C .
Johnson, P.S.
Kr avis, I.B ., Kenessey, Z.,

Heston, A . and Summers, R.
Kr avis, I.B. , Heston , A. and

Summers, R .
Northcott, J. and Rogers , P.
Northcott, J. and Rogers , P.
Northcott, J., Rogers, P.,

Kn etsch , W. , de Lestap is, B.
Northcott, J., Rogers, P. and

Zeilinger, A.
Schott, K .
Schott, K .
[QRL.1 3]
[QRL.14]
[QRL.15]
[QRL.16]
[QR L.17]
[QRL.18]
[QRL.19]
[QRL.20]
[QRL. 22]
[QRL.21]
[QRL.12]
Cox , J.G. Committee of

Inqui ry on Science and
Enginee ring Manpower and
Resear ch in Small Firms
Feinstein , c.H.
[QRL.ll]
Cambridge
University Press,
Cambridge
UNESCO, Pari s
Statistical Tables 0/ National Income,

Expenditure and Output 0/ the UK,
1855-1965
Measurement 0/ Output 0/ Research
and Exp erimental Development.
Statistical Reports and Studies.
STjSj16
Co-operative Research in Industry : An
Economic St udy
Martin
Robertson ,
London
A System 0/ International Comparisons John Hopkins
0/ Gross Product Purchasing Power.
University Press,
UN International Comparison
Baltimore
Project: Phase I.
International Comparisons 0/ Real
John Hopkins
Product Purchasing Power UN
University Press,
International Comparison Project :
Baltimore
Phase 11
Microelectronics in Industry: the
Policy Studies
Pattern 0/ Change. No. 625
Institute, London
Microelectronics in Industry : What's
Policy Studie s
Happening in Britain
Institute, London
Microelectronics in Industry - an
Policy Studies
International Comparison: Britain ,
Institute, London
Germany , France. No . 635
Microelectronics in Industry : Sur vey
Policy Studie s
Statistics
Institute, London
Industrial Research and Development
Oxford University
Expenditure: an Econometric Analysis
Unpublished Ph .D . thesis.
"Investment in Private Industrial
R&D in Britain" in Journal 0/
Industrial Economics Vol. XXV No . 2
HMSO, London
Research Report No . 2
Dec. 1976
1975
1982
1985
1982
1982
1978
1978
1973
1970
1976
1971
-.l
CI:>
<3
fi
>
....,
r-
cl:l:I
"tI
....,
><:
r-
Q
:;cl
[QR L.33]
[QR L.32]
[QR L.31]
[QR L.30]
[QR L.28]
[QR L.29]
[QR L.27]
[QRL. 26]
Annual Report
Mcd ical Research Counc il
Science Research Counc il and Annual Report 1979/80
Social Science Research
Co uncil Joint SRC/SSRC
Co mmittee
( Aeronautical and Mechanical
Science Research Counc il
Engineering Commi ttee ) Annual
Report 1974/75
Engineering Processes Commi ttee
Annual Report 1979/80
Manufa cturing Technology Commi ttee
Science Research Coun cil
Annual Report 1978/ 79
Social Sciencc Research
Annual Report
Co uncil
Annual Report
Annual Report
Annu al Report
Annual Abstract 01 Statistics

Annu al Report
Centra l Statistica l Office

Agricultural Research
Coun cil
Co mmission for Racial
Equality
Department of Edu cation and
Science
Department of Scientific and
Industrial Resear ch
[QRL. 23]
[QRL. 24]
[QRL. 25]
Title
Author or Organis ation
Reference
Annual
Annu al
Annual until
1964
Annual
1980
1975
1980
1979
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO , London
HMSO, London
SRC/SSRC joint
publication,
London
SRC, London
SRC, London
SRC , London
Annual
Annu al
Annual
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Frequency or
date
Publisher
Renamed the
Economic and
Social
Research
Council in
1983
1964 Repo rt
gives
retr ospective
inform ation
including some
data.
Remark s
Vl
-l
Vi
>
-l
-l
Vl
-l
tT1
."
tT1
<:
r-
tT1
Z
Cl
Cl
>
::r::
Ci
>
;tI
tT1
Vl
tT1
;tI
-.J
IV
Annual Report and Accounts

Annual Report and Accounts
Annual Report 0/ the Ad visory Council
on Scientific Policy , 1951-52
Annual Report 0/ the Advisory Council
on S cientific Policy , 1955-56 Cmnd 1I
on Scientific Policy 1956-57 Cmnd 278
on S cientific Policy, 1957-58 Cmnd
597
on Scientific Policy , 1958-59 Cmnd
893
on Scientific Policy 1959-60 Cmnd
1167
on Scientific Polic y , 1960-61 Cmnd
1592
on S cientific Policy 1961-62 Cmnd
1920
2163.
2538.
British Gas Corporation

British Steel Corporat ion
Office of th e Lord President
of the Council
Office of the Lord President
of the Council
of the Council
of the Council
[QRL.35]
[QRL.36]
[QRL.37]

of the Council

of the Council

of the Council

of the Council

of the Council

of the Council
[QRL.41]
[QR L.42]
[QRLA3]
[QRL.44]
[QRLA5]
[QRLA6]
[QRLAO]
[QRL.39]
[QRL.38]
Annual Report
Un ited Kingdom Atomic

Energ y Authorit y
[QRL. 34]
Annu al
Annual
1952
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1963
1963
1964
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO , London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Annual
BSC, London
HMSO, London
UKAEA
Information
Services Branch
-..l
....,
Vl
o-l
;I>
()
r-
c0:1
"tI
o-l
-<
rn
,Q
;:tl
t""
Cabinet office
Cabinet Office
Cabinet Office
[QRL.52]
[QRL.53]
[QRL.54]
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
1984
1985
1986
1985
Cabinet Office
[QRL.51]
HMSO, London
Annual
HMSO, London
Annual Report and Statement of

Accounts
National Research and

Development Corporation
[QRL.50]
Annual Review of Government Funded

Research and Development, 1985
Annual Review of Government Funded
Research and Development, 1986
Annual Review of Research 1983
Annual Review of Research 1984
Annual since
1972-3
HMSO, London
Annual Report on Research
[QRL.49]
Annual 1973-76
HMSO, London
Annual Report on Departmental R&D
Department of Health and

Social Security
and the Manpower Services
Commission
[QRL.48]
Annual
HMSO, London
Annual Report of the Council
[QRL.47]
Frequency or
date
Publisher
Title
Author or Organisation
Reference
Separated into
the
Employment
Service and the
Training
Commission
(TC) in 1988,
subsequently
TC became the
Training
Agency
Renamed
British
Technology
Group.
Renamed the
Science and
Engineering
Research
Council
(SERC) in
1981. See also
DSIR.
Remarks
trl
'"
(l
'">-l
::l
'">-l
>
>-l
trl
"t:l
t""'
trl
<:
trl
t:1
t:1
>
Z
:r:
(j
:;tI
'"trl
>
:;tI
- .l
Dep artment of Trade and

Industry
Department of Trade and

Industry
Institute of Geologists
Business St atistics Office
Busine ss Statistics Office
OPCS
OPCS
OPCS
OPCS
OPCS
[QRL.57]
[Q R L. 58]
[QRL.59]
[Q RL.60]
[QRL.61]
[QRL.62]
[QRL.63]
[QRL.64]
[QRL.65]
[QRL.66]
HMSO, London
HMSO,
Edinburgh
HMSO,
Ed inburgh
HMSO, London
HMSO,
Ed inburgh
HMSO, Lo ndon
HMSO, London
" Ind ustry Carried Out Research a nd

HMSO, London
Development Worth n .8 billion in
1981" Br itish Business pp . 750-753
"Industrial Expenditure a nd
HMSO, London
Employment on Scientific Research
and Dev elopment in 1978" British
Business pp . 619-622
" Ind ustria l R&D in the UK in 1983:
HMSO, London
Chemical, Electrical, Motor Industries
Step Up Research" British Business.
pp . 130-132.
"Remuneration Survey, 1977" British
Geologist Vo l. 3 No . 3
Department of Trade and

Industry
[QRL.56]
" Ind ustrial Research a nd

Development Expenditure and
Employrnent" Business Mon itor
M014
" Report on the Cen sus of
Production" Business Monitor PA
1001.
Censu s 1961 , Great Britain , S cientific
and Technological Qualificat ions,
General Registry Office
Census 1966 , Great Britain , S cientific
and Techno logical Qualifications
Census 1971 , Great Britain , Economic
A cti vity , Part 11
Census , 198 1, Econ omic Acti vity,
Great Britain
Census 1981 , Qua lified Manpower,
Great Brita in
" Remunera tio n Survey 1968" ,

Biologist . Vol. 15 No . 3. pp . 82-84
In st itute of Biology
[QRL.55]
1985
1984
1975
197 1
1962
February 1985
September 1977
18 January 1985
8 August 1980
9 December
1983
Subsequent
sur veys
publi shed
tr ienni ally
Formerly
Trade and
Indu stry
Subsequent
surveys
published
tri enni ally .
Formerly
Trade and
Indu stry
Fo rmerly
Trade and
Indu stry
;>::l
-.I
Vl
Vl
;>
....,
(=i
r-
l:l:I
"0
-<
....,
;>:::
rn
l'
!O
OECD
OE EC
OE CD
Depa rtm ent of Trade and

Industr y/ Department of
Ed uca tion and Science.
[QR L.67]
[QRL.68]
[QRL. 69]
[QRL.70]
[QRL.7I]
Department of Scientific and

Indust rial Research
[QRL.76]
[QR L.75]
Hou se of Co mmons Energy

Co mmittee
Hou se of Lord s
[QR L.74]
[QRL.73]
[QR L.72]
Author or Org ani sation
Reference
1958
August 1977
OE EC, Pari s
OECD, Paris
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
1958
1982
1984
1974
March 1976
Nov. 1970
1975
OECD, Par is
HMSO, London
1977
HMSO, London
Changes in the Population of Persons

with Qualifications in Engineering
Technology and Science, 1959 to 1976
Stud ies in Technological Manpower
No. 6
Changing Priorities Jor Government
Research and Development. An
Experimental S tudy oJ Trends in the
Objecti ves of Government in 12 0 ECD
Member Countries
Comparative Na tional Products and
Price Levels
Contributions to the OECD , workshop
on R&D dejia tors DSTI /SPR/77.22
"Ex penditure on Scientific Research
and Development " in Economic
Trends No. 205
"New Suppl y of Persons Qualified in
Engineerin g, Tec hnology and Science
and First Employment of those who
were University Gradu ates 1958-74"
in Economic Trends, pp . 98-120
" Reso urces devoted to R&D by
Manufactu ring Indu stry" in Economic
Trends No. 245
Energy Research, Development and
Demonstration in the UK (3 vo lumes).
Engineering Research and Development
Select Co mmittee on Science and
Techn ology, Second Report.
Estimates of Resources devoted to
Scientific and Engineering R&D in
British Manufacturing lndustry 1955
Frequency or
date
Publisher
Title
Remarks
m
m
;r;.
CIl
-l
Vi
-l
;r;.
-l
CIl
-l
zm
rn
<:
r0
-e
Z
Cl
Cl
;r;.
:I:
i'"
CIl
i'"
-.J
0-
[QRL. 87]
[QRL.86]
[QRL. 85]
[QRL. 84]
[QRL. 83]
[QRL.82]
[QRL.81]
[QRL. 80]
[QRL.79]
[QRL.78]
[QRL.77]
HMSO, London
Parliament
Government Observations on Science

and Government Session 1981-82.
Cmnd 8591
Eurostat
1972
HMSO , London
HMSO, London
HMSO , London
1982
Annua1
1973
1972
1971
1975
HMS O, London
HMSO , London
1974
Annua1
HMSO , London
HMSO, Lond on
1975
The Foundation,
Strasbourg.
OECD, Paris
European Science Foundation European Science Foundation Internal Document

Exp erimental Price Deflator fo r
OECD
Industrial R&D DSTR /SPR /75.52
University Grants Committee First Employm ent of University
Graduates
Advisory Board for the
First Report of the Advisory Board fo r
Research Counci1s
the Research Councils Cmnd 5633
Se1ect Committee on Science First Report on S cientific Research in
British Universities Session 1974-5
and Techno1ogy
Se1ect Committee on Science First Report on R&D Session 1971-2
and Technology
A Framework fo r Government
Research and Development Cmnd 4814
A Framework fo r Government
Research and Development Cmnd 5046
Select Committee on Science Government Comm ents on First and
and Techno1ogy
Fourth Reports Session 1971-72.
Cmnd 5177
Euros tat
Government Financing of R&D
Contains
retrospective
da ta (e.g.
report
published in
1984 contains
data for
1975-1983).
Government
comment s on
the Report by
the House of
Lords Se1ect
Committee on
Science and
Techno1ogy
-..J
-..J
Z
Vl
15
>
-l
r-
ctl:1
-e
-l
-<
trl
r-
;l:l
AJ
Central Stati stical Office
Central Office of Informat ion
Committe e of Enquiry into

Research Associations
(Ch airman : Earl
Bessborough)
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Development
Industrial Resear ch
Expenditure 1958
Federat ion of British Industry Industrial Research in Manufa cturing
Industry 1959-60
OEEC
An International Comparison 0/
National Products and Purchasing
Power 0/ Currencies
1nternational Su rvey 0/ the Resources
Dire ctorate for Science,
Technology and Industry,
Devoted to R&D by OECD Member
OE CD
Countries. International Statistical
Year Statistical Tables and Notes.
Direct or ate for Seience,
1nternational Survey 0/ Resources
Devoted to R&D by OECD Member
Technology and Industry,
Countries. International Statistical
OECD
Year 1975. UK DSTI/SPR/77.37 .17E
[Q RL. 90]
[QRL.92]
[QRL.93]
[QRL.94]
[QRL.99]
[QRL.98]
[QRL.97]
[QRL.96]
[QRL.95]
Health and Safety Research Report of

the Research and Laboratory Services
Division of HSE
Index es to the S tandard Industrial
Classification, Revised 1980
COI R4631 Industrial Research in
Britain
Industrial Research and Development
Association of Medic al
Re search Charities
Health and Safety
Commission
Health and Safet y Executi ve
[QRL.89]
[QRL.91]
UNESCO, Paris
A Guide to the Collection 0/ Statistics

on S cience and Technology (ST. 77.
WS/4)
Handbook 0/ British Medical Research
Charities
Health and Safety Commission Report
UNESCO
[QRL. 88]
OECD, Paris
OECD, Paris
OEEC, Pari s
FBI , London
Conferen ce of
Industri al
Research
Associations
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Association of
Medical Ch arities
HMSO, London
Publ isher
Title
Author or Or gani sation
Re ference
June 1978
1963 and
bienni ally from
1967
1954
1961
1960
1973
1961
1981
Annual
Annual
Annual
1977
Frequency or
dat e
Remar ks
Vl
;J>
...,
Vi
...,
Vl
...,
Z
...,
zm
0
-e
rn
r-
<
Z
Cl
Cl
;J>
o
::c
;>:l
m
Vl
m
;J>
;>:l
-....I
00
UNESCO
Parliament
Institute of Metallu rgists
Central Stat istical Office

OECD
Central Stat istical Office
[QRL.104]
[QRL.105]
[QRL.106]
[QRL.107]
[QRL.108]
[QRL.109]
[QRL.102]
[QRL.103]
[QRL.10I]
Advisory Counci1 for Applied

Resear ch and Development
and the Advisory Board for
th e Resear ch Councils
Ad visor y Counci1 for App1ied
and the Advisory Board for
the Research Council s
Science Research Coun cil
UNESCO
[QRL.1 00]
1969
Annual
UNESCO, Paris
HMSO, Lond on
Monthly Digest of Statis tics

Nat ional Accounts 1951-80. Main
Aggregates
Nat ional lncome and Expenditure
An nual
1970
SRC , Swindon
UNESCO, Paris
List of Research Grants Current

Manual for Surveying N ational
Scientific and Technological Potential
UNESCO Science Policy Stud ies and
Document s No . 15
The Measurement of Sc ientific and
Technological Activities Stati stical
Repo rts and Studi es, ST/S/l 5
Memorandum by the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury
" Remuneration Survey" The
Metallurgist and Mat erials
Technologist pp. 317-325
Monthly
1982
Annual
HMSO, Lond on
OECD, Par is
HMSO, London
July 1974
Dec.1986
HMSO, London
Joint Report Th e Science Base and

Indu stry, Cmnd 34
1983
HMSO, London
Joint Report, Cmnd 895
Change of
name - now
United
Kingdom
Nati onal
Accounts
Surveys were
also condu cted
in 1960, 1963,
1968 and 1971.
From 1979
data were
incorporated
into CEI
surveys of
engineers.
Second Joint
Report
Fir st Joint
Report
-..J
\0
V>
-l
;l>
r(=)
c:
t:l:l
"0
-l
rn
'-<"
r-
;>;:l
Central Office of Information

UNESCO
[QRL. 116]
[Q RL. 117]
Promotion 0/ the Seiences in Britain

Provisional Guide to the Collection 0/
Science Statistics (COM jM O j 3)
Institu te of Ph ysics
[QR L.11 5]
HM SO, Londo n
UNESCO
1976
1968
1976
HM SO, Lond on
OTI
[QR L.1 14]
1971
HMSO, London
OTI
[QR L. 113]
1975
O ECO
[QR L. 11 2]
OEC O, Paris
Office of Hea1th Economics
[QR L. 111]
1978
OECO , Paris
The Objectives 0/ Government R&D

Funding 1970-76. S urvey 0/ the
Resources Devoted to R&D by OECD
M ember Countries Intern ational
Statistica1 Year 1973. Vol 2B
Statistical Tab1es and Notes.
Office 0/ Health Economics Briefi ng
No. 1 Health Care Research
Exp enditure
Patterns 0/ Resources Devoted to
Research and Exp erimental
Development in the OECD area
1963-71
Persons with Qualifications in
Engineering , Technology , and S cience
1959-68. Studies in Technologica1
Man power No. 3
Persons with Qualifications in
Engineering , Technology and S cience
Census of Population 1971 , Great
Britain.
" Remuneration of Physicists: the
Institute of Physics Sam pie
Remuneration Survey, 1984" Physics
Bulletin Vol. 35 pp . 155-157
Oirectorate of Sciencc,
Techno1ogy and Industry,
OECO
[QR L.110]
Frequency or
date
OH E, Lo ndon
Publi sher
T itle
Rcference
Surveys were
also conductcd
in 1956, 1960,
1964 and
triennially from
1968
Remarks
Vl
()
-l
Vi
-l
-l
Vl
-l
tTl
3::
"0
r-
<
rn
rn
Z
tl
tl
::c
tTl
;l;l
Vl
rn
;l;l
00
Advisory Council on
Scientific Policy
Institute of Physics
Institute of Metallurgists
Ro yal Society of Chemistry
Committee of Enquiry into

the Organisation of the Civil
Service
Nature Conservancy Council
[QRL.119]
[QRL.120]
[QRL.121]
[QRL.122]
[QRL.123]
[QRL.124]
[QRL.125]
[QRL.126]
[QRL.127]
UNESCO
[QRL.1l 8]
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report Cmnd 2171
Remuneration Survey 1986
Recomm endations concerning the

International Standardisation 0/
Statistics on S cience and Technology
Adopted by the General Conference at
its Twentieth Session
Recruitment 0/ Scientists and
Engineers by the Engineering Industry
Renumeration 0/ Physicists The
Institu te of Physics Sampie
Renumeration Survey
Renumeration Survey, 1974
HMSO,
HMSO,
HMSO,
HMSO,
London
London
London
London
HMSO, London
Ro yal Society of
Chemistry,
London
Inst itute of
Physics,
London
Institute of
Metallurgists,
London
HMSO, London
UNESCO, Paris
1966
1967
1972
Annual from
1974
1963
Annual
1974
1984
November 1955
November 1978
Second Report
Third Report
Surveys were
also conducted
in 1960, 1963,
1968 and 1979.
From 1979,
data were
incorporated in
CEI Survey of
Engineers
Annual
(continuation
of an earlier
series from
1953-77 and
smaller interim,
mainly annual,
surveys
1972-80)
See also
Physics Bulletin
00
'"
-l
)-
(=j
l'
c::
t:I:l
'1::1
-l
-<
tT1
?':
r-
;l:l
10
[QRL.141]
[QRL.142]
[QRL.138]
[QRL.139]
[QRL.140]
[QRL.137]
[QRL.136]
[QR L.135]
[QRL.134]
[QRL.133]
[QRL.132]
[QRL.1 30]
[QRL.1 31]
[QRL.129]
Departmcnt of Indu stry

Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food
Report on R&D
Report on R&D
Report Cmnd 939

Ro yal Commission on
Doctors' a nd Dent ists'
Remunerat ion
Central Electricity Generatin g Report and Accounts
Board
Report and Accounts
National Coal Board
Report oJ an lnterdepartmental
Working party on Mar ine Science and
Technology
Department of Education and Report of the Committee on Social
Science
Studies
Natural Environm ent
Report of the Council
Research Council
Science and Engineering
Report of the Council
Research council
Department of Scientific and Report of the Research Council for the
Year
Industrial Research
Report on the Department of the
Dep artmen t of the
Environment Research and
Envi ronment
Development Ap ril 1982 - Ma rch 1984
Report on the Department of the
Department of the
Environment
Environment Research and
Development April 1984 - M arch 1986
Report on Research and Development
Department of Trade
Department of Ener gy
Report on R&D
[QRL.1 28]
Title
Author or Org anisation
Reference
1965
Annual
Annual
Annual
1985
1987
Annual
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, Lond on
HMSO, Lond on
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Annual
Annual
1969
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Annual
Frequency or
date
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Publi sher
Since 1973-4.
See also
[QRL.I44] and
[QRL.145]
See various
Appendi ces
Remarks
00
tTl
[/l
-l
Vi
-l
;J>
-l
[/l
-l
'"t:I
ztTl
tTl
<
r-
rn
Z
0
0
;J>
o
::c
'"
tTl
;J>
'"
[/l
1966
HMSO, London
Research Associations: the Changing

Patt ern
The Research Associations in the UK
Committee on Manpower
Resources for Science and
Te chnology
Centre for the Study of

Industri al Innovation
Dept of Scient ific and

Industri al Research
Confeder ation of British

Industr y
Dcp artment of the
Environment
[QRL.148]
[QRL.149]
[QRL. 150]
[Q R L. 151]
[QRL. 153]
[Q R L. I54]
[QRL.155]
R&D Report
R&D Exp enditure and Employment.

Studies in Official Statistics No . 27
Exp enditures. Studies in Official
Statistics No . 21
R&D in Recession too ?
1966
1971
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Report on Science Policy

Report 0/ a Study on the Support 0/
Scientific Research in Universities
Report on the 1965 Triennial
Manp ower Sur veys 0/ Engineers
Technologists, S cientists and Technical
Supporting Staff
Research
Council for Scient ific Policy

[Q R L. 146]
[QRL.147]
[QRL.152]
1979
HMSO, London
Report on R&D 1977-78, Energy

Paper No. 38
Dep artment of Energy
[QRL.145]
HMSO, London
CBI
HMSO, London
Centre for the

Study of
Industrial
innovation
Report for the
OECD
HMSO, London
Annual 1973-76
1983
1973
1976
1964
Annual from
1972-73
1972
1976-77
HMSO, London

Energy Paper No 28
[QRL. I44]
HMSO, London
Annual
HMSO, London
Report on R&D
Oversea s Development
Agcncy
[QRL.143]
Since 1974. See

more recentl y
Annual Report
0/ the Overseas
Development
Administration
Sec also
[QRL.140] and
[QRL.145 ]
See also
[QRL.140] and
[QRL.145]
00
-w
CIl
..,
(=i
r-
ctl:I
"'0
..,-<
tT1
;;>":
t""
'"
I:)
Dep artment of the

Environment and Tr ansport
DTI
[QRL.156]
OECD
Civil Serv ice Department
House of Lord s
Science and Technology

Indi cators Un it, OECD
[QRL.160]
[QRL.1 61]
[QRL.162]
[QRL.163]
[QRL.164]
[QRL.165]
[QRL.159]
Dep artment of Health and

Social Security
[QRL.158]
[QRL.157]
Refe rence
AnnuaI1977-81
HMSO, London
Research Establishment Review

The Research System . Vol. 1 France,
Germany and UK
Framework fo r Government Research
and Development , Cmnd 7499
Science and Government Select
Comm ittee on Science and
Techn ology, Session 1981-82. (2
volumes).
Science Resources Ne wsletter
OECD, Paris
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
OECD, Par is
R&D Requirements and Programm es: HMSO, London

Report
HMSO, London
Requirements and Programm es: Report
July 1982
1979
Annual
1974
Annual
Annu al
Annual
1983
Frequency or
date
Publisher
R&D Report 1981-82: AReport on the COI , HMSO,

Promotion and Support 0/ Inno vation
London
by the Department of Industry
Together with a Summary Of the
Activities of its Research
Establishments.
R&D Report and Handbook
HMSO, London
R&D Report
Title
Annual around
1980/81, but
more frequ ent
in recent years.
The Unit and
Bulletin have
since been
renamed-see
[QRL.174].
Superseded by
[QRL.160]
Since 1977-78
Since 1977
Remarks
Vl
()
-l
Vi
>-l
-l
Vl
-l
t'I1
'"~
r-
t'I1
<
t'I1
Z
0
0
>;:l:l
o
::c
>-
t'I1
Vl
t'I1
;:l:l
00
OECD
OE CD
DTI

of the Council, and Ministry
of Labour and Socia1 Services
Advisory Council on
Scientific Poli cy, and
Committee on Scientific
Manpower
FBI
[QR L.168]
[QRL.169]
[QRL.170]
[QRL.171 ]
[QRL.I77]
[QRL.176]
[QRL.175]
[QRL.174]
[QRL.173]
Scientific and Engineering Manpower

in Great Britain
Scientific and Engineering Manp ower

in Great Britain
Science and Technology Act 1965

Chapter 4
"Trends in the Level and Pattern of
Expend itu res in the OECD Area since
1971 " Science and Technology in the
Management of Complex Problems
Science and Technology Indicators:
Resources devoted to R&D
Science and Technology Policy fo r the
1980's
Science and Technology Report
1984-85: AReport on the Promotion
and Support of Innovation in S cience
and Technology.
Scientific and Technical Research in

British 1ndustry A Statistical Surve y
by the FBI Industry Secretariat.
Scien tific, Technological and Scientific, Technological and Industrial
Industrial Indicators D ivision , 1ndicators Newsletter.
OE CD.
Advi sory Council on
Scientific and Technological M anpower
in Great Britain 1962, Cmnd 2146
Scientifi c Po1icy
Advi sory Board for the
Second Report of the Ad visory Board
Research Counci1s
Jor the Research Councils
Select Committee on Science Second Report on S cientific Research
and Technology
in British Universities (Session
1975-76)
OECD
[QRL.167]
[QRL.I72]
Parl iam en t
[QR L.1 66]
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
OECD, Paris.
FBl, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
COI, HMSO,
London
OECD, Paris
OECD, Paris
OECD, Paris
HMSO, London
1975
1976
1963
Ju1y, 1947
1959
1963
1956
1987
1981
1984
1976
1965
See [QRL.165]
Reprinted
version of 1956
report.
Reprinted 1959
r-
00
Vl
CIl
(3
-l
n
>
r-
tl:l
'"cl
-l
-<
;:0<:
oi"
[QRL.190]
[QRL.189]
[QRL.1 88]
[QR L.187]
[Q RL. 186]
[QRL.1 85]
[QRL.182]
[QRL.1 83]
[QRL.1 84]
[QRL.1 81]
[QRL.180]
Standard Industrial Classification,

Revised 1968
Seerctary of State for Defence Statement on the Def ence Estimates 2.
Def ence St atistics
Statistical Yearbook
UN
Statistical Yearbook
UNESCO
University G rant s Committee Stat istics of Education Vol. 6
Universities
Department of Educati on and Statist ics of Science and Technology
Science, and Ministry of
Teehnology
Dcpartment of Education and Sta tistics of Science and Technology
Seience, and Ministry of
Tcchnology
Dcpartment of Education and Statistics of Science and Technology
Scien ce, and Ministry of
Teehnology
OECD
A Study of Resources Devoted to R&D
in OECD Member Countries in
1963-4. Vol. 1 Thc Overall Level of
R&D Efforts in OECD Member
Countries.
OE CD
A Study of Resources devoted to R&D
in OECD Member Countries in
1963-4. Vol. 2 Stati stical tables and
notes
Parliament
Supply Estimates: Memo randum by the
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Second Report. Defence Research.

1968-69
Six th Special Report
Select Committee on Science

and Technology
Select Committee on Science
and Teehnology
CSO
[QRL.178]
[QRL.179]
Title
Reference
Annual
Annual
Annual
UN, New York

UNESCO, Paris
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
OECD, Paris
OECD, Pari s
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Annual
1968
1967
1970
1968
1967
Annual
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
1974
1970
Frequency or
date
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO,London
Publisher
Since 1980
Remarks
00
Vl
n
o-l
o-l
;J>
o-l
Vl
o-l
tT1
-e
3::
tT1
r-'
<
tT1
Z
Cl
Cl
;J>
o
:r::
tT1
;J>
;:0
;:0
tT1
Vl
0\
1970
1968
HMSO, Lond on
Institute of
Mathemati cs,
Southend
OECD, Paris
[QR L.202]
[Q RL.20 1]
[QR L.200]
[QR L.198]
[QR L.199]
[QR L.197]
[QR L.196]
[QR L.195]
[QR L. 194]
OECD
Technical Change and Economic

Po/icy. Science a nd Techn ology in the
New Econo mic an d Social Co ntext
Adviso ry Board for the
Third Report oJ the Advisory Board Jor HMSO, London
Resea rch Co uncils
the Research Councils Cmnd 7467
Fisheries R&D Board
Third Report 1976-77
HM SO, London
Subco mmi ttee on Techn ology Thirteenth Report Session 1966-67,
HMSO, London
Space Research and Development
a nd Scientific Affairs of the
Estima tes Co mmittee
DTI
"Employment o n Scientific R&D in
HMSO, Lond on
Indust ry in 1975" in Trade and
1ndustry
"E m ployrnent o n Scient ific R&D in
DTI
HMSO, London
British Indust ry" in Trade and
lndustry
DTI
"Ind ustrial Expenditure a nd
HMSO, Lond on
Employment o n Scientific R&D in
1975" in Trade and Industry
1970
HMSO, London
The Survey oJ ProJessional Engineers

1968. St udies in Technologica l
Manpower No. I
The Survey oJ Profe ssional Scientists
1968. Studi es in Techn ological
Manpower No. 2
A S urvey of the Remuneration oJ
Members oJ the Institute, 1968
[QR L.193]
24th June 1977
13th Fe b.1975
Ist Jul y 1977
1978
1967
1979
1980
1967
HMSO, London
The Su rvey of ProJessional Engineers

1966
Ministry of Technology and

the Council of Engineering
Institutes
Mi nist ry of Techn olog y and
Co uncil of Engineering
Institutes
Minist ry of Techn ology a nd
Co uncil of Engineering
Institutes
Institut e of Math ematics
[QRL.l 92]
Biannual fro m
1985.
Engineering
Co uncil, London
Survey oJ Chartered and Technician

Engineers, 1985
Engineering Co uncil
[Q R L. 191]
Subseq uent
surveys carried
out trienni ally.
See also ea rlier

surveys
pu blished by
the Co uncil of
Enginee ring
Institu tion s
00
-.l
CIl
-l
n
;I>
-e
c:::
l:I:l
r-
-l
-<
tT1
r-
o;;:l
Author or Organi sation
DTI
DTI
DTI
DTI
DTI
OECD
OE CD
Dep artment of Indu stry
UGC
UGC
UGC
Parli ament
Parl iament
UNESCO
Reference
[QRL.203]
[QRL.204]
[QRL.205]
[QRL.206]
[QRL.207]
[QRL.208]
[QRL.209]
[QRL.21O]
[QRL.211]
[QRL.212]
[QRL.21 3]
[QRL.214]
[QRL.215]
[QRL.216]
University S tatistics Vol 2. First

Destinations
University Statistics Vol 3. Financ e
White Paper on Public Expenditure
White Paper on Public Expenditure:
Planning and Control Cmnd 9143
World Directory 0/ Research Proj ects,
Studies and Courses in Science and
Technology Policy
"Industrial Expenditure on Scientific

R&D in 1969-70" in Trade and
Industry
"Industrial Expenditure on Scientific
R&D : Provisional Results of the 1972
survey" in Trade and Industry
"Industrial R&D in 1972 Analysed by
Size of Compan y" in Trade and
Industry
" Industria l R&D in 1975" in Trade
and Industry
" Research and Development by
Manufacturing Indu stry" in Trade and
Industry
Trends in Industrial R&D in the
OECD Area 1967 to 1975
Trends in Industrial R&D in Se1ected
OECD Member Countries 1967-1975,
Annex 11
UK Industrial R&D Exp enditure at
Constant Prices
University Statistics Vol I. Students
and Staff
Title
1979
OECD, Paris
UNESCO, Pari s
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
1981
Annual
Annual
1984
Universities
Annu al
Statistical Record ,
Cheltenham.
Annual
Note by the DI
1978
2nd Ma y 1974
6th April 1979
26th No v.1976
OECD, Paris
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
5th Sept. 1974
21st Dec.1972
HMSO, London
HMSO, London
Frequency or
date
Publisher
Specially
Roneotyped
Draft
Remarks
tT1
Vl
n
-l
:l
Vl
;J>
-l
Vl
-l
'"3:
r-
tT1
Z
0
0
tT1
<:
;J>
o
:r:
i"
tT1
;J>
m
Vl
i"
00
00
[QRL. 2l7]
Ro yal Society
Yearbook
Royal Society,
London
Annual
00
\0
CI>
<5
z
>-l
r-
ce
c::
."
-<
-l
o
rn
;>"
r-
::0
t:)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Publications with named authors are listed alphabetically by author first, other
publications are then listed alphabetically by title)
[B.I]
[B.2]
[B.3]
[BA]
[B.5]
[B.6]
[B.7]
[B.8]
[B.9]
[B.IO]
[B.ll]
[B.I2]
[B.13]
Arnow, K .S., Indicators of Price and Cost Change in Research and

Development Inputs . The 1966 Business and Economic Statistics Section,
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 1966.
Bevan , E.G., An Analysis of Equipment Costs in University Science and
Engineering Departments. Science Policy Studies NO.5 Department of
Education and Science. HMSO, London, 1972.
Blume , S.S., ' Research Support in British Universities: the Shifting Balance
of Multiple and Unitary Sources', Minerva, Vol.VII NoA, 1969.
Blume, S.S. and Sinclair, R ., Research Environment and Performance in
British University Chemistry. Science Policy Studies No.6, Department of
Education and Science. HMSO, London, 1973.
Bosworth, D .L., 'Technological Manpower', Higher Education and the
Labour Market . Programme of Study into the Future of Higher Education.
Society for Research Into Higher Education. Monograph 1. SR HE,
Guildford, 1981.
Bosworth, D .L., Price Indices for Research and Development in Private
Manufacturing Industry. Loughborough Un iversity, Department of
Economics, Occasional Paper No.18, November 1977.
Bosworth, D .L. , Reviews of UK Statistical Sources Vol XIX: Intellectual
Property Rights. Pergamon, Oxford, 1987.
Bosworth, D .L. and Wilson, R .A., 'The Labour Market for Scientists and
Technologists' in Lindley, R .M . (Ed .), Economic Change and Employment
Policy. Macmillan, London, 1980.
Brunner, E., The Cost of Basic Scientific Research in Europe: Department of
Defence Expenditure , 1956-68. The Rand Corporation RM 5275, 1967.
Channon, P., 'Comment', British Business, 27th February 1987.
Cohen A.V. and Ivens L.N., The Sophistication Factor in Science Expenditure ,
Science Policy Studies NO.I . Dept.of Education and Science. HMSO,
London.
Cox , l.G. and Kriegbaum, H ., Growth, Innovation and Employment: an
Anglo-German Comparison. Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of
Industrial Society, London, 1980.
Farina C. and Gibbons, M., 'The Impact of the Science Research Councils'
policy of selectivity and concentration on average levels of research support:
1965-74' , Research Policy, Vol.10 No.3, luly 1981.
191
192
[B.14] Farina C. and Gibbons, M., 'A Quantitative Analysis of the Science
Research Council's Policy of Selectivity and Concentration', Research Policy,
Vol.8 No.4, pp. 306-38 October 1979.
[B.15] Freeman C., The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd Edition. Frances
Pinter, London 1983.
[B.16] Freeman, c., The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities.
UNESCO Statistical Reports and Studies, Paris, 1968.
[B.17] Freeman, c., 'Research and Development, a Comparison Between British
and American Industry', National Institute Economic Review, No.20, May
1962.
[B.18] Freeman, C. and Young, A., The Research and Development Effort in
Western Europe, North America and the Soviet Union. OECD, Paris, 1965.
[B.19] Kravis I. B., Kenessy, Heston, Summers et al., A System of International
Comparisons of Gross Product and Purchasing Power. John Hopkins
University Press, 1975.
[B.20] Lieberman, M. B., Patents , Learning by Doing, and Market Structure in the
Chemical Processing Industries, Discussion Paper. Stanford University,
Stanford, 1986.
[B.21] Macdonald, A. S., 'Exchange Rates for National Expenditure on Research
and Development'. Economic Journal, Vol.No.83, pp. 477-87 November
1972.
[B.22] Mainwaring, D. B., 'Government Spending on Research and Development In
Private industry'. Statistical News, No .1O, August 1970, HMSO, London .
[B.23] Milton, H . S., Cost of Research Index 1920-65, Memo AD 629 7000.
Research Analysis Corporation, Maclean , Virginia, March 1966.
[B.24] Mollar Anderson, Experiences from a Compilation of Data on Central
Government Funding of Research and Development and Analysis by Objectives.
Nordforsk, Stockholm, 1973 Paris, 1975.
[B.25] Nicholson, J.L., 'The Measurement of Quality Changes', Economic Journal,
Vol.No.97 , September 1987, pp. 512-30.
[B.26] Pavitt, K.(Ed), Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance.
Macmillan Press Ltd, London, 1980.
[B.27] Pavitt, K. and Walker, W., 'Government Policies Towards Industrial
Innovation: A Review', Research Policy , Vo1.5, 1976.
[B.28] Plew, Lefor, The M easurement of Scientific Activities in the Social Seiences
and Humanities. UNESCO (CSR SI), Paris, 1975.
[B.29] Rose, H . and Rose, S., Science and Society. Penguin Harmondsworth, 1970.
[B.30] Schott, K., "The Relations between Industrial Research and Development
and Factor Demands', Economic Journal, Vol.No .88, March 1978, pp.
85-106.
[B.31] SearIe, A.D., Measuring Price Changes in Research and Development
Purchase, Business and Economic Statistics Section. Proceedings of the
American Statistical Association, 1966.
[B.32] Shenfield, M.1. and Sharman, A.R.W., Comparison of Ministry of Labour
Data. Greenford, Middlesex, 1967 (published privately).
[B.33] Sirrili, G., Manual for Statistics on Science and Technology Activities
(Provisional). UNESCO, Paris, 1980.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
193
[B.34] Swords-Isherwood, Nuala, Research and Development in Recession in British

Industry. Technical Change Centre, London, 1983.
[B.35] Taylor C.T . and Silberston, Z.A., Economics of Patents. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1973.
[B.36] Teece D .l ., 'Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: the Resource Cost
of Transferring Technological Know-How', Economic Journal, VoI.No.87,
pp . 242-261 .
[B.37] Wabe, l.S., 'Practical Difficulties in a Manpower Forecasting Exercise' in
Wabe, l.S. (Ed.), Problems in Manpower Forecasting, Saxon House. 1974.
[B.38] Weichselberger, K. and Wulsten, A-R., Preisindex fur die im Bereich von
Forschung und Entwicklung Eingestzten Mittel. Bundesministinum fur
Forschung und Technologie, November 1975.
[B.39] Wilson R .A., 'A Longer Perspective on Rates of Return', Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, Vo1.32 No .2, 1985, pp. 191-8.
[B.40] Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, The Applications
oJ Semi-Conductor Technology. Cabinet Office, London, 1978.
[B.4I] Changing PrioritiesJor Government Research and Development. An
Experimental Study of Trends in the Objectives oJ Government in 12 0 ECD
Member Countries. OECD, Paris, 1975.
[B.42] Comparisons in Real Values of the Aggregates of ESA 1975, Luxembourg,
Eurostat, 1977.
[B.43] The Cost of Basic Research Effort: Air Force Experience 1954/64. RAND
Corporation. Memo RM-4-250-PR, February 1965.
[B.44] UNESCO, The Development of National Documentation Centres and
Bibliographie Bases for Science and Technology Policy, Science Policy Studies
and Documents Series. UNESCO, Paris, 1984.
[B.45] Draft Guidelines for Reporting Government Research and Development Funding
by Socio-econom ic Objectives. OECD, Paris, DSTI/SPR/78.40 .
[B.46] EEC Satellite Accounts. Statistical Office of the European Communities,
Luxembourg, Annual.
[B.47] Experimental Input Price Indices for Research and Development Fiscal Years
1961-65. Bureau of Laboratory Statistics for the National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C., NSF 70.7.
[B.48] Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, Facing
International International Competition : the Impact on Product Design of
Standards Regulation , Certification and Approval. Cabinet Office, London,
1972.
[B.49] Cabinet Office, Government Research and Development: A Guide to Sources of
Information. HMSO, London, Annual 1975-79.
[B.50] Central Statistical Office, Guide to Official Statistics No.4. HMSO, London,
1982.
[B.51] Central Statistical Office, Guide to Official Statistics NO.5. HMSO, London,
1986.
[B.52] Handbook for FoU-Statistik. Nordforsk, Stockholm, 1974.
[B.53] Ministry of Technology, Industrial Research and Development in Government
Laboratories . A New OrganisationJor the Seventies . HMSO, London, 1970.
194
[B.54] UNESCO, Manual for Develop ing National Databases on Scientific and
Technological Potential, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series.
UNESCO, Paris, 1984.
[B.55] UNESCO, Manual on the National Budgeting of Scientific and Technological
Activities. UNESCO, Paris, 1984.
[B.56] The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Proposed Standard
Practice for Surv eys of Research and Experimental Development ( "Frascati
Manual" ). OECD, Paris, 1976.
[B.57] Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, Medical
Equipment. Cabinet Office, London, 1986.
[B.58] Eurostat, Methods and Definitions Used for the Annual Report on Government
Financing of Research and Development, (Note by Sub-cornmittee Secretariat)
Crest. 12th July 1981.
[B.59] Methods and Definitions UsedJor the Annual Reports on Public Expenditure
on Re search and Development, Directorate of Demographie and Social
Studies, Statistical Office of the European Communities , Luxembourg, Nr .
31/76/rev, 1976.
[B.60] Central Statistical Office, National Accounts: Sourc es and Methods. HMSO,
London, 1968.
[B.61] Nomenclature for Analysis and Comparison of Scientific Programmes and
Budgets (NASB) First Version. European Community. Eurostat, Undated.
[B.62] Nomenclature for the Analys is and Comparison of Scientific Programmes and
Budgets (NASB) 1975 Version. European Community. Eurostat/200/75/1.
[B.63] 'Privatisation', Observer, pp. 65-68, 25th October 1987.
[B.64] Public Expenditure: Planning and Control Cmnd . 2915. HMSO , London ,
1966.
[B.65] HM Treasury, Public Expenditure White Papers : Handbook on Methodology.
HMSO, London, 1972.
[B.66] UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the International Standardisation of
Statistics in Science and Technology. UNESCO, Paris, 1978.
[B.67] Report of the Committee on Higher Education Chairman: Lord Robbins.
HMSO, London, 1963.
[B.68] Report of an Enquiry into the Use of Academic Staff Tim e. Committee of
Vice Chancellors of Universities of the UK. 1972.
[B.69] Report of the Plowden Committee on the Control of Public Expenditure.
HMSO, London, 1961 .
[B.70] Report of the Working Party on Liaison between Universities and Government
Research Establishments. HMSO, London, 1967.
[B.7I] OECD, Research and Development Deflators: National Experience and
Possible International Approaches DAS/SPR /74.77. OECD, Paris, 1977.
[B.72] Science Resources Newsletter, Science and Technology Indicators Unit.
OECD, Paris, Biennially.
[B.73] Statslige Udgifter til Jorskring og udviklingsarkeijde i de nordiske land 1975 En
budget analyse. Nordforsk's projectgruppe for statsbugetanalyser,
Stockholm, February 1976.
[B.74] Statistical New s, August 1970. HMSO , London.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[B.75] Parliament, Supply Estimates: Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the

Treasury. HMSO, London, Annual
195
APPENDIX
SPECIMEN FORMS AND QUESTIONNAIRES

The contents of this appendix are listed below.
Form 71 and Form 72: Central Government Expenditure and Employment on
Notes for Survey Forms 71 and 72
Form ROll: Survey of Scientific Research and Development Carried Out within the
United Kingdom , 1985
ROll Notes
197
198
ISERIAL
~
An inqu iry conducted by the
Q Government Statistical Service
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Statistics Division 2C
Hoorn 343, Sanctuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
LONDON SW1P3DB
~ IN CONFIDENCE
Telephone: 01-215-3177
01-215-3413
Form 71
GRD 85/1
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND EMPLOYMENT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Financial Year 1984/85

Science and technology, and social science
Department
, . , .. '
PES main programme . '
, . , , . , , . . . .. Division/branch . , ,
'
,. .,
PEShead in 1984/85'.. , . , . . , . . . . , . . , , , , . . , , , , , . ..
If any of the expenditure to be included in the response to this quest ionnaire is for R&D in biotechno logy or information
technology , please tick the appropriate box and telephone either of the two numbers below for details of the small
addit ional amount of informat ion required.
Biotechnology
Information technology
Officer responsible for contents of form

BLOCK CAPITALS PLEASE
Address . . ,
,
, .. ,
' .,
,. ,,
,
,,,,,,.,
,. . "
, .. ,
Telephone no. (includinq GTN)
Please completa this form and return it to the above address ss soon ss possible and, in sny event, by 2 December 1985,
Form 72 may be returned separately.
If you haveany difficultiesor queries please telephone John Bowles on 215-3177 or John Woolf on 215-3413.
Recd.
Statn
Ch. 1
Ch. 2
Ent .
Ent . eh.
NABS
NABSch.
CAB. OFF .
.
.
199

EXPENDITURE ON R&D - 1984/85 OUTTURN
INTRAMURAL EXPENDITURE
Expenditure on R&D performed in th is department
Seienee and technology
Current expenditure
Wages and salaries oncludong ernp lovers' Nat ional I nsuranee contributions
and impl ied superannuation Iiabilitv
"
,
.
..
E thousands
1---------.,I
Matenals and eqUlpment
Other expenditure, includ ing overheads (e.g. travel and subs istence ,
heating and Iighting, accommodat ion , rent and rates , p rovision of public
services ,telecommun icati on s and adm inistrative expensesl
. . . . ~_,
tE
Capital expenditure
tEl,
E tho usands
r;-t
Total curre nt exp end iture (1 to 3)
Sociel seien ce
.GJ'--
I [2]1....--
...1
GJ~
Land and bu ildings (includi ng new co nst ruction ]
Plant and equ ipment (includ ing vehlcles) .
Total capital expendi ture (5 plu s 6)
'~I-I
.o
_ ~1
Total expenditure on R&D performed in this department

(4 plus 71 .
. ~I
[EI-_
~I
EXTRAMURAL EXPENDITURE
Expend iture on R&D performed elsewhere in eentral government
Researc h Coun cils (please speci fy whic h Couneils carri ed o ut th e wor k)
~I
,-,
.~
10
~'-----
GJ'-
11
Expenditure on R&D performed outside c entr al government (inc lud in g current and capi t al gran ts)
12
Privat e industry
14
Publ ic co rpo rat ions (please soec itv)
15
Ind ustri al researc h associations
16
Overseas (please specify any inte rna tio nal o rqanisat ions ]
17
18
~I
~
U niversit ies and further educa ti o n estab li shmen ts
13
15
Non- indu str ial research i nsti tutes

Professional and learned soci eti es .
19
Persons
20
Ot her (please spec ify)
21
Total expenditu re on R&D performed outside eentral

government (12 to 201
.GI
22
TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURE ON R&D (8 plus 11

p1u121)
~I
HE
I ffiJ
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
' ~l
I
~I
EI
~I
200

Soc ial .ciance
Sc ience end technology
Rec:eipts eppropriellld in eid from :

23
Research Coune ils
24
Oth er V ot es and central sov ern ment funds
25
Pub lic corp orations .
26
Indu st ry
27
Other sou rces
29
Totel receipts approprieted in aid (23 to 28 ),
30
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON RlIoD122 minul 291
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
. ~'--------'
~I' - - - - - - -
Overseas
28
Ethousencll
E thousends
23
. ~'---_ _I
.ElL-
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON RlIoDIN SCIENCE

:"ND TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
~' - - - - - - -
r.
Current expenditure by type of research, in the field of .clenee end technology only
31
Basic resear ch
32
App lied researc h .
33
Experi me ntal developm ent .
34
Totel current expenditure by type of .-erch (3 1 to 33 )

(This should equ al bo x 4 fo r science and
techno logy.only l
32
33
.~
AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT ON RlIoDIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1984185 IN THIS DEPARTMENT
Numbers (full tim e equ ivalen tl of persons engaged on . or sup oortinq, R&D
pe rfor med within th is departmen t'
35
Persan s with a degree o r equivalent Qualificat ion
Techn icians
37
Adm inist rat ive an d c1erical sta tt
38
Oth er supporti ng staff
39
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ON RlIoD135 to 381 . .

(These are the people wh ose wages and se laries are
recorded in line t , abov e .l
' ~'-----
.6
Oth ers with out a degree or equ ivalent Qualification :
36
Number
37
38
For off ice use

81
6
37
38
.B
El'-
Number
85
82
86
83
87
84
88
89
201

TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R&D li.e. the sum of both figures in line 30)
III1llysed by Europe8n Community objectives (NABS)
Total net expenditure
Please enter the NASS code

in th is column
of which expenditure
on international projects
( thousands
( thousands
CP84
CP84
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R&D

_
(This figure should equ81 the sum of both figures in line 30)
202
SERIALI
~ An inquiry eondueted by the
f::::i Government 5tatistieal Service

~ IN
CONFIDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

5tatisties Division 2C
Room 343, Sanetuary Buildings
20 Great Smith Street
LONDON 5W1P 3DB
Telephone: 01215-3177
012153413
Form 72
GRD85/2
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND EMPLOYMENT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Financial Yean 1985/86 to 1988/89
Science and technology, and social science
Department
;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division/branch
PES main programme
PES head in 1984/85
If any of the expenditure to be included in the responseto th is questionnaire is for R&D in biotechnology or information
technology . pleaset ick the appropr iate box and telephone either of the two numbers below for details of the small
additional amount of inf ormat ion required.
Biotechnology
Information technology
Officer responsible for contents of form

BLOCK CAPITALS PLEASE
Address
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Telephone no. (including GTN)
Please complete this form and return it to the above address assoon al poslible and, in any &Vent, by 27 January 1988.
If you have any difficulties or queries please telephone John Bowles on 215-3177 or John Woolf on 215-3413.
Recd.
Statn
Ch.1
Ch.2
Ent.
Ent. eh.
NABS
NABS eh.
CAB. OFF.
.
.
203
SPECI ME N FORMS AND QUESTIO NNAIR ES

EXPENOITURE ON R & 0
Lines may be aggregates of t he camponent s shown on t he an alysis of th e outturn year in form 7 1
1985/86 Pro visiona l outturn

INTRAMURAL EXPENOITURE
Ig 85 1 ~l ll l
Expend iture on R & 0 in th is department
II
11
Illcp1851C'1 2 1
1986/87 Estimated
DJID ~
Sodal science
Sc ien ce and teehnology
Sc ience end teehnology
Current expenditure
1.
Wages and salarles. incJudi ng empl oye rs

Nati onall nsura nce con tr ibut ion s and im plied
supe ra nnua tion liabllitv .
.GJ
( t hou sands
I GJ
:tB
2& 3 Mate rials and equ iprnen t, and ctber
expenditure
4.
T otal cu rrent expenditure ( 1 tc 3)
7.
Total cap ita l ex pend it u re
8.
Total expenditure on A & 0 performed in th is

departmant (4 plus 7)
ffi
I [2]
I 0
.0
.0
[ t hou sands
[2]
( thousands
I []
I 0
I0
EXTRAMURAL EXPENOITURE
Expenditure on R & 0 performed elsewhere in central government
.~
.E I
GJ
GJ
B
EI
.~
[3:i]
TOTAL GRass EXPENOITURE ON R & 0

(8 plus 11 plus 211
.~
lEJ
29.
Total rece ipts appropriated in aid .
. ~I
30.
TOTAL NET EXPENOITURE ON R 8< 0

(22 m inus 291
.J
~
~
~
~
Researc h Cauneils
.~
10.
Oth er expe ndi ture. fin anced t ro m t his su bprogr am me. carried out by other d epar trnent s
11.
To ta l expendi ture on R & 0 performed

elsewhere in central govemment (9 plus 10) .
21.
To ta l expenditure on R & 0 pe rform ed

ou ts ide ce ntral govemment. including current
and cap ita l gran ts
22-
9.
TOTAL NET EXPENOITURE ON R & 0 IN SCIENCE

ANO TECHNOLOGV ANO SOCIAL SCIENCE .
I
I
a==
AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT ON R & 0 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN THIS OEPARTMEN T
Num bers (full t ime eq ulvele nt ) of pe rsons engaged on , or suppo rti ng. R & 0
performed wit hi n t his depanment.
Numbe r
35 .
Persons wit h a degree o r equ lva len t qu alificatlon
.E I
Number
~'-----
Oth ers without a degree o r equiva lent qualification :

36 .
Tec hnic lans
37 .
Adm inist rative and cleric al staff
.~
6
~6 ~6
38 .
Other supponlng sta ff
39.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ON R & 0 (35 to 38 ) .
37
37
37
(T hese are t he peo ple whose waces and salaries

are reco rded in tine 1. above ]
For
off ice
u'"
85
82
86
83
87
84
88
89
~
82
83
84
204
outturn
1987/88 Estimated outturn
1988/89 Estimated outturn
~~~~~
Science and teehnology
Social science
GJ
E thousandl
I Q
E thousands
Soci., science
E thousandl
~I
tE
rn[2]
I ~l
I 0
I 0
0
~
~
GJ
I GJ
E thousandl
Bj
Soc iaf science
E thousandl
~l
tE
~I
I [?]
I 0
[!]
GJ
~I
~I
~
GjJ
I GJ
[E]
[E]
~
~
~
~
~
~I
~
~
~
~
=:J
Science and technology
Number
Number
Number
~I
I 0
I ~
Number
Number
~---- ~---- ~'---- ~I' - - - - ~- - - -
~3:
~3:
~3:
~3:
38
38
38
38
~ ~
89
89
3:38
~
~ t-~- t;
-----1
L..:.89~_ _------,
205

TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R .. D IN 1985/86 Provi.ional outtum
_ I y * by Eu_n Community objecti.... INABSI
Tota' net expenditure

1985/86
(une 30, cols 1+2)
Pi.... enter
the full NA6S
code in this column
.E thousands
CP 85
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R" D iN 1986/88

IThIl fIgu ......... Id _al tha ..m of cola 1 ...d 2 In llna 301 '--
of
which~
expenditure
on international
projects
E thousands
CP 85
--'
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R" D IN 1988/87 Estimatad outturn

_Iyaad by Eu_n Communlty objactI_INABSI
Total net expenditure

of which .
1966/67
expenditure on
inte rnat io nal
projects
f: thousands
[ thousands
CP86
CP 86
__I 11.--_---'
For office use
NA6S ch apters
1. Exploration and exploitation of the Earth
2. Infrastructure and general planning of land use
3 . Contral of environme n ta! pollution
4.
Protection and promotion of human health
5. Production , distribution and rational

ut ilization of energy
6 . Agricultural production and technology
7. Indu st rial production and technology
6. Socia l structures and relat io nships
9. Exploration and exploitation of soece
1O. Research financed from General Unlversitv
Funds
1 1. Non -oriented research
1 2.
Other clvil research
13 . Defence
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE ON ALL R & D Wne 301

IThis figure should equal the sum of cols, 3 and 4 in line 30)'--------'
end also part of

total in
P8vments 10 firm.
E thou..ndl
CP85
206
NOTES FOR SURVEY FORMS 71 AND 72
INTRODUCTION
1.
Th is annual survev is conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry to obtain details of centrat government
expenditure on research and development (R&D). The data, together with similar details from surveys of R&D in the
indust ri al and other sectors, are used to produce estimates of the national R&D effort. The results of this survey are also
needed to fulfil the United Kingdom 's obligation to the European Community to provide annual details of net government
R&D expenditure. Moreover , there is considerable and cont inuing public interest in the whole question of invest ment in the
future. and up to date st at isti cs of R&D expenditure and emp.!oyment in the U K prov ide important ind icators in this area.
As in earlier vears, the colle cted results of the survey will appear in an article in the CSO publication "Econom ic Trends"
dur ing 1986 . The most recent art icle in this serles, giving the results of the 1984 survev. appeared in the August 1985
edition .
DEFINITIONS USED IN THE SURVEY
2.
The survey uses the def initions of the "Frascati Manual" (The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities
OECD - Paris 1981) published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Summarised
passages from the manual are set out below for general guidance. in paragraphs3. 4 and 5.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
3.
Researchand experimental development may be def ined as creative work undertaken on a systematic basis to increase
the stock of knowledge of man. culture and societv . and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. R&D
must be dist inguished from a w ide range of related activities with a scientific and technological base. These related activities
are very closelv linked to R&D in terms of operat ions, institutions and personnet. but they should , as far as possible. be
excluded when measuring R&D. The criter ion for dist inguishing R&D from non-R&D activ it ies is the presence or absenceof
an appreciable element of noveltv.
TYPES OF R&DWORK
4.
Three categories of R&D wor k are normally distinguished :

Basic research is orig inal investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge and understanding . It is not
pr imarily directed towards any specific practical aim or application . but may be oriented towards an area of
interest to the performing organisation .
Applied research is also original invest igat ion undertaken in order to gain new knowledge . It is however, directed
primarily toward a specif ic practi cal aim or objective .
Experimental development is the use of ex ist ing knowledge in order to produce new or substantially improved
matertals. devices. produ cts. processes. svstems or services. This includes th e desiqn, construction and operation
of prototypes and pi lot plants.
ACTIVITIES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM R&D

5.
The following related activities should be excluded from the measurement of R&D .
a.
Education - all education and tra ining of manpower in the f ields of science, engineering. medicine. agriculture.
the social sciences and the hurnanities , in universities (including postgraduate tra ining) and in specialised institutions of
higher and post-secondar y educat lon . except for the element of un iversity research which is carried out ov postgraduates as part of their research training .
b.
Scientific and technical informat ion services - the specialised activities of colle cting and disseminating
Informat ion, e.g. bibl iograph ic services, official scientific and technical information services, except where these are
conducted solely or pr imarily for the purposes of R&D support.
c.
General-purpose data collect ion - concerning. for exarnple, the medi cal situation . th e natural environment
(routine topographical mapp ino. geological . hydrological and oceanographic and meteorolog ical surveying as weil as
rout ine astronomical observations) and explorat ion and prospecting act ivities of oil and mining corneanies. except
where the data collect ion is condu cted solely or prirnarilv as part of the R&D process.
d.
Testing and standardisation - the maintenance of nationa l standards, t he cali brat ion of secondary standards
and the testing and analysis of material s, cornponents, produ cts. pro cesses, soils, atmospheres. etc. (Note that research
into meth ods of testing and standardising is included in R&D .1
e.
Feasibility studies fo r engineering pro ject s - investigation of pro posed engineeri ng project s bv means of existing
techniqu es in order to provide additional inform ation before decidinq on impl ementat ion .

f.
Specialised medical care - except where there is an element of experimental development.
g.
Patent and licence work - all administrative and legal work connected with patents and licences.
207
h.
The costs of trial production runs or "experimental production" including tooling up for full scale produetion
(tool making and tool trv-out) should not normally be included in R&O unless technical problems that are encountered
require further R&O work . For example , after a new product or process has been turned over to produetion unlts there
will still be technical problems to be solved, some of wh ich may demand further R&O . Such " feed-back" R&O should
be included.
ECONOMIC SECTORS
6.
Central government covers the central government sector in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as defined for national
accounts' purposes. Public corporations are also those bod ies so defined for national accounts' purposes (seethe list of public
corporations in the CSO " Blue Book", United Kingdom National Accounts, 1985 edition, HMSOl. Universities and further
education establishments include universities in the United Kingdom and local authority establishments of further education.
Non-industrial research institutes include those associatedwith universities but financed by government . " Ot her" includes
local authorities (other than local authority further education establishments).
COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
7.
The questionna ire is in two parts. Form 71 seeksdetails of outturn expenditure for the financial year 1984/1985.
Form 72 extends the time scaleof the inqu iry from 1985/86 to 1988189. Your completed form 72 may be sent to OTI
separately from form 71 .
8.
It is important that the full costs of R&O be reported, and that costs are not reported twice. In particular where part
of the cost of R&O activities may be met from sub-programmes not normally associatedwith R&O, then these secondary
costs should be included in the responses to headings 1 to 8. Examples of this situation occur with accommodation and
staff costs. You are asked to complete a separate Form 71 or 72 for each sub-programme (PES head) under wh ich R&O
expenditure occurs. The secondary costs of the support for R&O should be included, estimated from other sub-programmes,
if necessary. These supporting costs should include the employers ' element of National Insurance contributions , and the
implied cost of the non-contributory superannuation scheme, within "wages and salaries"; and the full cost of administration,
as detailed in the heading for " ot her expenditure" . In particular, the cost of staff whose role may be purely administrative,
disbursing grants for R&O performed outside the Oepartment, should be included in headings 1 to 4, together with the
number of persons involved in headings 35 to 39. You will f ind the Treasury "Ready Reckoner for Staff and other costs"
useful in making these estimates.
9.
Expenditure figures should be shown to the nearest (1,000, exclusive of VAT, and where figures can only be estimated
approx imately or allocated on an arbitrary basis, this should be recorded in a footnote or covering memorandum. Lines
numbered 30 in the questionnaire should show a total which agrees w ith the relevant totals in the Public Expenditure Survey
(PES).
10. In contrast to the requirements of the main public expenditure survey, gross expenditure (line 22) and receipts
appropriated in aid (Iine 29) need to be detailed separately here. The difference between the totals in these two headings
appears in line 30.
11. Expenditure on R&O performed outside the government sector includes all current and capital grants and may involve
the free supply of goods and materials, etc. If the cost of purchasing such items is not included in the rnain PES return this
should be noted in a covering memorandum . Current expend iture on intramural R&O in line 4, is analysed according to the
type of work being undertaken, basic research,appl ied researchor experimental development, in Iines 31 to 34 of form 71 or
72. These terms are defined in paragraph 4.
12. In lines 35 to 39 the number of people employed on intramural R&O should be the full-time equivalent (in whole manyears) of the number of man-hours devoted to this type of work . All personneI whose wagesand salariesare shown in line 1
should be included, even though some may be unskilled support staff or involved solely in administration.
13. The questionna ire asks for an analysis of the total net R&O expenditure in line 30 by the "objectives" of the European
Community c1assification for analysing science budgets (NABS , from the French acronym "Nomenclature pour "Analyse et
la comparaison des Budgets et programmes Scientifiques"). Sim ilar analyses, by these same object ives, are needed for
expenditu re on internat ional projects, and also for payments to pr ivate and public industry for work performed outside the
government sector. Expenditure showri in line 30 for 1984/5 should be included in the appropriate total net expenditure
column in form 71 . The NASS obj ectives are listed separately from this questionnaire, where the code numbers for each
heading are shown. The appropriate two-digit code should be entered in the left-hand column of page 4 of forms 71 and 72 ,
against the expenditure on each of the indi vidual objectives making up the total. If vour return needs more objectives than
the pageallows pleasecontinue the analysis on aseparate sheet.
14.
Figures at only chapter heading level are needed for the NABS analysis for the financial year 1986/7.
208
c;t>
I"":::J.
\..IR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATlSTlCS
A compulsory inquiry
conducted by the
Gove rnment Stat istical Service
IN CONFIDENCE
Department of Trade and Indust ry

BUSINESS STATISTICS OFFICE
Government Buildings Cardiff Road
NEWPORT Gwent NP9 1XG
Tel : Newport (0633) 56111 ext 2695

Telex : 497121 Answer Back BSONPT G
,------------,
EIIJ
R011
+-- Please quote

in any enqu iry
Please amend
where appropriate
the narne , address
and pos tede
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE STATISTICS OF TRADE ACT 1947

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hereby requires you by law to provide to the Business SUtistics Office
the information called for in this inquiry form. The information is required for the purposes of the appreciation of
economic trends and the provision of a statist ical service for Government and industry.
Pluse complete this form and return it to the Business Statistics Office bv 15 June 1986.
NB The informatio n qiven by you will be treated as conf identia l in strict accordance wi t h t he A ct and subject to t he
fur ther rest ri ctio n that info rmation about individual businesses will be used and d iselosed under Min isterial direct ion
to oth er government departm ents for stat istlcat purposes on lv.
SURVEY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ANO OEVELOPMENT CARRIEO OUT WITHIN THE UNITEO
KINGOOM. 1985
Dear Contr ibuto r
We are conduct ing th is inqu iry to obtain up -to -date statisti cal info rmation about seient if ic research and development in
industry . T he informati on collected is impo rtant to th e work of government departm ents in determin ing poli cy on seience
and techno loqv . The details fr om your ret urn wi ll be combi ned w ith th ose f ro m th e returns of oth er contributors to
provide summary stati stics and for th e benefit of industry and th e publ ic generally th e results w ill be publ ished in Brit ish
businessand Business Monito r M0 14. as were the results for t he 1981 Survey.
Some notes to help you comple te your return are enclosed. If yo u have any diff iculties or wo uld like fur th er information
about this particular lnquirv. my staft will be pleased to help you . The telephone extension of t he person dealing wi th t his
inqu iry is shown above.
Yours faithfull y
R.ASH
Dir ector
209
For offic ial use only
IN CONFIDENCE
AI
Please refer to the enclosed notes before complet ing this fo rm.
Estimates are acceptable where you cannot gin exaet f igures.
Please show all values rounded to the nearestE thousand
(e.g. ES3,400 should be entered es 531.
B1
Day
Period covered by the return .
1.
Month
Year
AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DURING THE YEAR (see note 1)
1.1
Scientists and engineers.
1.2
Technicians, laboratory assistantsand draughtsmen
1.3
Other (includi ng professional, administrative , c1ericaland industrial employees)
1.4
TOTAL (1.1-1 .3)
number
of which:
a.
Total employment in Scotland
2.
b.
Total employment in Wales .
c.
Total employment in Northern Ireland.
GROSS EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN

THE UNITED KINGDOM (see note 2)
WITHIN THE UNIT
e thousand
CURRENT EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Expenditure on salaries and wages
2.2
Material s and equipment
2.3
Other (fuel , rent , rares, maintenance etc. and standard

overheads if applicable) .
2.4
Total current expenditure on research and development

of wh ich:
a.
Basic research .
b.
Applied research
c.
Development .
GL:ffijr----~
.G L..-
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

2.5
To tal capital expenditure on research and development

of which:
a.
Land and buildings
b.
2.6
Plant and machinery (includ ing vehicles)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE WITHIN THE UNIT (questions 2.4 and 2.5)
OUTSIDE THE UNIT
2.7
--J
-----'
Total expenditure outside the unit (R&D contracted out to other organisations
in the UK)
. . . . . . . . . .
.~L- __--.JII
of which :
a.
Expend iture on research performed by Universities ~o
and oth er institutes 01 higher education . . . .
'-.
b.
Other (please soecifv)
21
210
RESEARCH AN D D EVELOP MENT STAT ISTICS
IN CONFIDENCE
RD11
CLASSIF ICATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND EXPENDITURE BY PRODUCT GROUP (give an ana lysis of eac h entry made
on the op pos ite page)
Ente r as colurnn headings below the appropr iate prod uct group num ber from the list on page 3 of the accompany ing not es. If
you only have expenditure in one group enter t he pro duct grou p numbe r and the wor d "ALL" at the head of t he fir st column.
Where th e expenditu re for a produ ct group is lesstha n f ive per cent of your ent ire expenditure on research and develop rnent ,
y ou need to record only t he produc t group numb er and t hen th e total in headin g 2.6: you need not compl ete t he oth er
headings in that pro duct group column.
Product Group Num ber
~
1.1
12
1.3
1.4
B
EI
num ber
2.2
2.3
2.4
~I
EI
G
,,:24 m
:
[J
G
B
~I
EJ
r. tho usand
2.1
EI
numb er
EI
[EI
EI
number
EI
[ thousand
(. t housand
G
EI
G
G
num ber
num ber
1~1
I]
I]
I~
I~I
[ thou sand
11
( th ousand
~I
~I
~I
IE]
11
II
I~
EI
EJ
lEI
11
m m ~
IG
EI
lEI
[i]
~I
EI
lHE
I~
EJ
I~
EI
EI
2.7: ~
2.4c
14
25
E1
25
2:5:
2.6
2.7
27
17
21
I~I
211
SPEC IMEN FO RMS AND QUESTIONNA IR ES
IN CONFIDENCE
3.
SOURCES OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (seenote 3)

How much of the total expenditure shown at Questions 2.6 do you estimate is receivable from the following sources:
( thousa nd
3.1
Central Government departments l inciu ding U KAEA and research councils but
exciuding Mi nistry of Oefence)
22
23
3.2 Ministry of Oefence . . . . . . . . .
24
3.3
Work commissioned by U K private industry .
3.4
Work commissioned by oublic corporatio ns (inciu di ng the Post Office)
25
3.5 Overseas li nciuding fun ds from the European Comrnunitv and from
26
yo ur parent company basedabroad)
3.6
Ot her li nciudi ng own fun ds) .
3.7
TOTAL (should equal expenditure at quest ion 2.6)
27
28
CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE BY PRODUCT GROUP (give an analysis of eachentry made above)

Enter ascolumn headings below the appropri ate product group number f rom t he list on page3 of the accompanyi ng
not es. If you only haveexpenditure in one group enter th e product group number and t he wo rd "ALL" at the head of
t he f irst col umn.
Where t he expenditu re fo r a prod uct group is less than five per cent of your entire expendi ture on research and
development , you need to record only the product group number and then t he to tal in heading 2.6: you need not
complete t he ot her headings in that product group colum n.
Product Group N umber
e thousa nd
( thou sand
( thousand
e thousa nd
( thousan d
3.1
22
22
22
22
22
3.2
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
,2 5
25
26
27
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4,
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
~L-
GL.-.__---J~'--
__
~I~__--,I]
-----J~,-
GENERAL COMPANY DATA

Sales and employ ment fo r t he U K based activi ties of the company or group of companies.
E tho usand
4.1
4.2 Average number of persons on the payroll during the year . . . . . . . .
Name of person to be contacted should this be necessary

BLOCK CA PITA LS PLEASE
Telephone No/E xt
.0
Telex No . ...
num ber
Signature
Position in company
.~
Total value of all sales and wo rk done and servicesrendered to ot her

organisations . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . .
.
Date
212
~ A compulsory inquiry
VJJ;jJ conducted by the
Government Statistical Service
\JI"\IN CONFIDENCE
Department of Trade and Industry

BUSINESS STATISTICS OFFICE
Government Buildings Cardiff Road
NEWPORT Gwent NP9 1 XG
Tel : Newport {06331 56111 ext 2695

Telex : 497121 Answer Back BSONPT G
RD11 NOTES
NOTES ON COMPLETING THE RETURN

SURVEY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE
UNITED KINGDOM, 1985
GENERAL NOT ES
COVERAGE OF THE RETURN
PLEASE NOTE THAT PREFERABLY ONLY ONE RETURN SHOULD BE MADE FOR A GROUP OF COMPANIES
UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL mUT EXCLUDING ANY COMPANIES MA INLY OPERATING
OVERSEAS). IF A SINGLE RETURN CANNOT BE MADE , PLEASE LET US KNOW THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES
OF ANY CONSTITUENT COMPANIES TO WHOM SEPARATE FORMS SHOULD BE SENT .
DEFINITION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVElOPMENT

The guiding line to distinguish research and development activitv (R&D) from non-research activity is the presenceor absence
of an element of novelty or innovation. If the activity departs from routine and breaks new ground it should be included ; if
it follows an established pattern it should be excluded .
Researchand development is divided into the following categories:
a.
BASIC OR FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH . Work undertaken primarily for the advancement of scientific
knowledge w ithout a specific pract ical application in view.
b.
APPlIED RESEARCH . Research undertaken with eithe r a general or a particular applicat ion in view.
c.
DEVELOPMENT. The use of the results of basic and appl ied researchdirected to the introduction of useful
materials, processes, products, devices and systems, or the improvemement of existing ones. It should include the
prototype or pilot plant stageand all work done on development contracts with Government departments , the Atomic
Energy Authority and simila r publi c bod ies. Firms in the aerospace indust ry should include expenditure on
development batches.
EXCLUDE such activities as:
d.
Rout ine testing and analysis of all kinds , whethe r for control of materials, components er products , and whether
for control of quantity or qual ity.
e.
Mark et research, operational research, work stud y , cost analysis, management science, surveying, 't rouble
shooting'.
f.
Royalties payments for the use of the results of research and development unless required as an essential part of
the researchand development programme within the unit.
g.
Trial produ ction runs where the primary objective is not further improvement of the product.
h.
Design costs to meet chanqes of fashion and art istic design work .
i.
Legal and administrative work in connection with patent applic ations , records and litigation ; work involved in the
sale of patents and licensing arrangements; experi mental work performed solely for the purposes of patent litigation.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
In the constru ct ion indu stry it is recognised that there can be parti cular difficulties in completing this questionnaire because
some development work may be carried out away from laboratories and be treated as part of the particular contract to wh ich
it directly spplies rather than as part of the Rand D budget If this part of development cannot be estimated , please ind icate
th is on th e questionnaire A note to thi s effect will be added to the publ ished figures.
213
NOTES ON COMPLETING THE RETURN (continued)

NOTES ON INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS
1.
EMPLOYMENTON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In answering questions 1.1 to 1.4, the number of man-hours should be converted to 'full -t ime equivalents' if some or 811 staff
are working only part-time on researchand development .
2.
GROSS EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Amounts should be recorded gross and, for that reasen, income from the results of researchand development by way of
royalties, sales, etc., should not be deducted. Show only actual expenditure, not calculated depreciation. VAT should be
excluded from the cost of purchases.
Wages and salariesshould include all overtime payments, bonusesand commissions and holiday pay, and should be grass, l.e,
before deductions for income tax, insurance. contributory pensions etc . Employers' contributions to nat ional insurance and
pension schemesshould also be included .
Grassexpenditure on R&D contracted out to other organisations in the United Kingdom should include commissioned work
put to Government establishments, universities, public corporations, public and private laboratories , as weil as to other
companies in private industry . It should also include subscriptions to industria l research associations and any other similar
bodies [transact ions between members of a group of companies should be excluded l.
Your expenditure overseas should be included only if it is an integral part of researchtak ing place in the United Kingdom .
This means including the cost of materials bought -in trom abraad for research in th is country. On the other hand, testing
abroad of systems researched here should be om itted.
3.
SOURCES OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Govemm...t. Expend iture against direct contracts w ith Government departments and grants from Government in the United
Kingdom.
Ove...... Amounts receivable tor work done for businesses or other bodies operat ing outside the United Kingdom,
INCLUDING your parent company or subsidiary compan ies if operating from overseas.
214
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATlSTlCS
RD11
NOTES ON COMPLETING THE RETURN (continued)

CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE SV PRODUCT GROUP
The followinglist 01 product qrouos contains, in the right hand colum n, a cross re/erence to the Activity Heading in the Standard Industrial
Classification (revised 1980) . Th is is given as a gui de towards consistent int erpr etat ion; the group numbers to be entered by you on pages 3 and
4 of the form are given in the flrst column. You are not restricted to live columns and additional groups may be entered on a lurther coov of
the form (available on request ) or a plain sheet 01 paper.
Product
group number
3
4
Description 01 produ ct group
Activitv Heading
EXTRACTIVE INOUSTRIES
1113-5,1200,1300,2100,
2310-96
MINERAL OlL REFINING

Mineral oil refin ing
Other t reatrnent of petroleum products (excluding petrochemical manufacture)
METAL MANUFACTURING
Iron and Steel
Non-ferrous metal s
NON-METALLIC MINERAL PROOUCTS
Bri cks , cement, building material s, asbestos and abrasives
Potterv , ch ina and glass

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
8
9
Synthetic resins and plastic material s, and synthetic rubber
10
11
Paint
Pharmaceut ical products
13
14
15
16
METALGOODS
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Industrial plant and steelwork
Matal-work inq machine tools and engineer s' tools
Construction , earth -mov ing, mechanicallifting and handling equipment, m ining
machinery
Other machinery and equipment incJuding textile mach inery, agricultural machinery
and wheeled tractors , int ernal combustion engines Onclud ing marine engine s), pumps
and valves, comp ressors and fluid power equip ment, and other mach inery and
equ iprnent
17
18
19
20
21
22
2210-35
2245-7
2410-60
2471-69
2514-5
2551
2570
Other chem ical products, including inorganic and organic chemieal s. fertilizers.
pesticides, man-made libres, and other chemi eals and alIied products
12
1401
1402
OFFICE MACHINERY AND DATA PROCESSING EOUIPMENT

Office machinery
Elect ronic data processing equipment
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

Insulated wires and cables
Baale elect rical eq u iprne nt
Telegraph and telephone apparatus and equ ipm ent
1520 ,2511-3,2516 ,2552-69,

2581-2600
3111-69
3204-5,3246
3221-2
3251-5
3211-2,3230-45,3261-90
330 1
3302
3410
3420
Electrical instruments and control systems
3441
3442
23
Radio and electronic capltal goods
3443
24
25
26
Components other than active components mainlv for elect ron ic equipment
Act ive c ornponents and electronic sub-assemblies
Electronic comsumer 9000 S and other electronic equ ipment not elsewhere
specified, includi ng gramopho ne records and pre-recorded tapes
27
Other elect rical goods

MOTOR VEHICLES AND OTHER TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT
28
29
30
Motor vehicles and parts
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Shipbuilding and reoalrs

Aerospace eouiornent manu/acturin g and repairing (excludinq electr onic equiprnent]
INSTRUMENT ENGINEERING
FOOD, DRINK AND TOBACCO
Food and d rink
Tobacco
TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Te xt iles orh er than man mad e fibr es
LEATHER, FOOTWEAR AND CLOTHING
OTHER MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
T imbe r and w oode n turniture
Paper and paper p rodu cts : pr inting and publishing

Processing 01 rubb er and plastics
O ther manufacturing industr ies
CONSTRUCTION
OTHER lplease speci fv )
3444
3453
3452 ,3454
3432-5,3460-80
3510-30,3633-4,3650
3610
3640
3710-40
4115-4283
4290
4310-99
4410-4560
4610-4672
4710-54
4811-36
3620,4910-59
5000-40
ADDENDUM
In dynamic areas such as technological change and, in particular, research and
development, it will always be the case that previously undiscovered material comes
to hand or new statistical developments occur when the main manuscript of a book
is nearing completion. In this addendum, we restriet our comments to a number of
sources of information about R&D which were just becoming available at the time
we were finalising this particular volume.
This brief note focuses on two relatively new sources of information which will
provide a major resource in future years . The first relates to data becoming available
from company accounts and the second is the various sources being developed by the
European Community. Finally, it notes the continuing appearance of new
publications and data.
UK Company Accounts
The changing situation was described in a number of draft papers which form part
of the output of the ESRC/DTI New Technologies and the Firm Initiative
(Goodacre, A., J . McGrath, K . Platt, R . Thomas, and R. Ball, 1989, 'Internal and
External Perceptions of Accounting Disclosure of R&D Expenditure'. Mimeo,
University of Stirling; Board, J. , 1989, 'D isclosure of Research and Development').
The treatment of R&D within company accounts is to write off all pure and
applied research expenditures immediately. On the other hand, development
expenditure may be carried forward and amortised, as long as a number of
conditions are met vis ci vis economic viabi1ity. From March 1990, a new accounting
standard, SSAP 13 (Revised), ca me into effect, which required companies to disclose
their previous year's R&D expenditure according to c1ear guide1ines. Thus, the
principal change compared with previous practice was to introduce disclosure of
R&D costs as an expense in the current year, including the amount of any
development costs amortised.
In the past there were relatively few companies that voluntarily revealed this
information. This source has been noted in the main report, particular1y where
comparative data across companies has been put together, as in the case of the
information contained in Chemical Age. There has been a considerable growth in the
literature which focuses on the effects of disclosure (and revealed R&D activity) on
company stock market performance. An interesting set of articles based on the newly
published data can be found in a two page spread in the Independent , 10 June 1991,
pp . 20-21 .
Disclosure in the UK has now been brought more into line with International
Accounting Standard 9 and certain other overseas standards. Nevertheless, it is fair
215
216
to say that the accounting treatment of R&D still varies significantly across
countries: it is less restrictive in Japan, but more restrictive in the USA, where the
accounts demand immediate writing off of all R&D expenditure. Equally, the
introduction of tax incentives for R&D in some countries, such as Australia, may
have induced companies to take a closer look at their definitions of R&D (even to
the extent of encouraging some element of creative accounting). Thus, international
comparative research based on such sources face inherent problems of compatibility
(see Delargy, P., J. Board and I. Tonks. 'Firm Financing and R&D Intensity: An
International Comparison'. Paper presented at Brunel University, April 1991 (not for
quotationj).
Thus, there may be some limitations on the comparability of information across
companies, in part caused by concealment and disclosure games undertaken by key
R&D players (Warren, P. and D. Bosworth, 1990, Strategie Manpower and Patent
Races Under Uncertainty, Dissembling and Learning, Discussion Paper No . 44.
Institute for Employment Research. Coventry: Universi ty of Warwick, September).
European Community Sources

The European Commission has become a major source of international funding
within the countries of the European Community (EC). Its various industrial R&D
programmes are set out in an extremely useful information pack available from the
Department of Trade and Industry (EC R&D: European Community R&D
Information Pack , The Enterprise Initiative, London: DTI. July 1991).
The European Commission itself publishes a wide range of material which can
provide a useful introduction to R&D activity in Community countries (e.g. EC
Research Funding: A Guide to Applicants , CEC , DGXII Science, Research and
Development, May 1990; European Community Research Programmes , Catalogue 0/
Research Programmes within the Framework Programme 0/ the European Community,
1987-1991. CEC, May 1990). In addition, the European Commission funds the
SPEAR and MONITOR networks which produce useful information bulletins .
EC R&D can be viewed either as a series of 'generations' of research or as a
sequence of overlapping, 'rolling' R&D Framework Programmes. The first
generation of research can be traced right back to the 1956 Euratom Treaty and the
European Coal and Steel Community research. This began to widen in the 1970s
and, more particularly, the early 1980s. The 'second generation' of research was, in
effect, summarised by ' First Framework Programme' (1984-1987), which attempted
to move to a more even coverage of funding in the areas of energy, environment,
industry, agriculture, raw materials and other R&D areas. The 'third generation' of
R&D activities were linked with the 'Second Framework Programme' (1987-1991).
At the time of writing , funding is taking place within the EC R&D 1990-1994
Framework Programme.
The Commission currently maintains the AMPERE database, which documents
funded research. This has replaced the earlier DIODON database. Information about
these databases is contained in a Memorandum written by L. Georghiou and B.
Barker to participants on aseries of projects funded as part of the Evaluation 0/ EC
R&D Programmes. This Memorandum relates to DGXII projects although similar
ADDENDUM
217
information is likely to be available from DGXIII. More information will emerge

about the extent, nature and distribution of EC funded R&D during the course of
the present Evaluation projects.
The database contains a variety of files, inciuding information about contracts,
proposals and contractors. It appears to be possible to collate information from
more than one of these files in a single search. The proposals file tends to have the
location of the project, while the contract file contains the legal address for
payments. The proposals file, however, only goes back to 1989, when AMPERE was
started. The contract file, which incorporates DIODON goes back to the First
Framework, but, by definition, does not inciude failed applications (which, anyway,
may be subject to restrictions on access for reasons of confidentiality). Information is
available about a variety of dimensions relating to the contract, inciuding size and
nature of the enterprise, but not, apparently, about the industry sector.
New Publications and Data

This volume was written over a considerable period of time, being updated, as it
was, from an earlier manuscript by Alison Young. It is difficult to give a precise
point in time at which coverage ceases, but it is reasonably complete to the end of
1989 and more recent material is covered by this Addendum. As noted above, new
sources on R&D appear with great regularity and it is very difficult to ensure
completeness of the most recent material. An example, would be the appearance of
Cabinet Office (1991), Definitions 0/ R&D, Command Paper No. 1467, London:
HMSO.
SUBJECT INDEX
Abroad, R&D performed 2.2.1.1, 3.4.2.1,
3.4.2.2
Abroad sector 2.3.5, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 2.5.4.6,
2.5.5
Accounting, Performer-based 2.2.3.2
Accounting practices 1.6, 2.2.3, 4.2.3, 5.2.2,
6.2.3
Accounting, R&D content 1.6.1, 1.6.2,
2.2.3.1, 3.2.6.2
Accounting years 2.2.3.2
Activity , Type of 2.5.3, 8.4
Ad hoc reports 1.1, 7
Administrative staff 1.8.1.3, 1.8.3
Administrative work 1.3.2, 2.6.2.2
Advisory Board for Research Councils
4.2.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.1, 7.3.1.3
Advisory Council for Applied R&D 7.3.1.3
Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 2.1,
2.4.4.1,3.3.1,3.4.2.1,4.1,4.2.1.2,4.3.1 ,
6.1, 7.4.2, 8.1
Aerospace Corporation, British 2.3.1.1,
2.3.1.2
Aerospace industry 1.3.2, 1.9.1,2.2.3.1,
2.5.4.6, 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.2, 5.6.2.4
Ageing factor 1.9.2.3
Agricultural colleges 5.11.1
Agricultural Research Council 1.3.3.2,
2.3.2.3,2.3.4.1,2.3.4.3,2.5.3.3,3.2.4,
3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.2,
5.7.1,5.7.2.6,6.3.2,7.5
Agricultural Scientific Services Station 5.11.1
Agriculture 1.4, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.4.1, 3.4.2.1,
3.4.2.2,4.4.4.2,5.7,5.11,6.2.1.1,6.3.1,
6.5.1.1
Agriculture and Food Research Council
4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.2
Aims of R&D 1.3.1,3.1,3.6.3
Aircraft industry 2.5.3.1, 5.6.2.4
Annual Reviews 2.1, 3.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5.5,
3.2.6.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1.2, 3.4.2.5, 4.4.3,
5.1.2, 8.4
Ant arctic Survey 4.4.4.4
Applied research 1.3.1, 2.5.3, 6.2.3
Appropriations in aid 3.2.3
Armed Forces 6.5.2.1
Arts and Library 7.3.1.1

Association of British Pharmaceutical
Industry 7.2.1.2
Astronomy 4.4.4.3
Austin Rover 2.3.1.1
Australia 2.3.5
Aviation, Ministry of 3.2.6.1
Baking , Flour milling and 2.3.1.3
Barlow Committee 6.1
Basic research 1.3.1, 2.5.3, 6.2.3
Belgium 3.1
Bessborough Report 7.2.3
Biological Research , British Industrial 2.3.1.3
Biology, Institute of 7.2.1.3
British Aerospace Corporation 2.3.1.1,
2.3.1.2
British Food Manufacturing Industries
2.3.1.3
British Ga s 5.5.2, 7.2.2
British lron and Steel Research Association
2.3.1.3
British Steel 7.2.2
British Acad emy 4.6
British Industrial Biological Research 2.3.1.3
British Museum 4.2.1.2
British Nuclear Fuels 2.3. I.1
British Technology Group 7.3.1.2
Building services 2.3.1.3
Business Stati stics Office 2.4.4.1
Cabinet Office 3.3.1, 5.1
Cambridge colleges 2.3.3.1
Campden Food Preservation 2.3.1.3
Cancer Research Campaign 1.7, 2.3.4.1
Capital Costs 2.5.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2
CEGB 5.5.2
Census of Population 6.1, 6.3.4, 6.5.I.1, 6.6,
7.2.1.3
Central Statistical Office 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
6.5.2.1
Centre for Overseas Pest Research 5.10.4.1
Centre for Stud y of Industrial Innovation
7.2.3
CERN 2.3.2.1, 4.4.4.3
219
220
Changes over time 1.9.2, 2.3.1.4

Charities 1.7,2.3.4.1, 7.5
Chemist, Laboratory of Government 5.6.1
Chemistry, Royal Institute of 2.7.I, 7.2.1.3
Civil versus Defence R&D 8.4
Classifications 2.3.1.4, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.4.3, 3.4.1,
3.6.2, 5.1, 5.2.4, 5.6.2.3
Clerical staff 1.8.1.3, 1.8.3
CMEA 1.9.3.2, 1.9.3.3
CNR (Italy) 3.6.3
CNRS (France) 1.9.3.3, 3.6.3
Colleges, Agricultural 5.11.1
Colleges of Advanced Technology 2.3.3.2
Commission for Racial Equality 5.10.1,
7.3.1.2
Commission for the European Communities
1.2,2.8.2.1
Company reports 7.2.1.3, 8.2
Comparison of data 1.9, 3.5.2, 3.6, 5.6.2.4,
5.7.2.6,5.9.2.4,5.10.5,6.1,6.5.1.1,6.6,
7.2.1.1, 7.2.1.3
Comparisons, International 1.2, 1.9.3, 2.8,
3.1,3.6,4.6,6.7
Computer Aided Designer Centre 5.6.1
Concorde 3.2.6.2
Confederation of British Industry 7.2.1.1,
7.2.1.2, 8.2
Construction 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.3, 6.3.1, 6.4.2.3
Control of Pollution Act 5.5.3
Cost analysis 1.3.2
Cost, Type of 2.5.2
Costs, Capital 2.5.2, 2.7.1, 4.4.2
Costs, Current 2.5.2, 2.7.1,4.4.2
Council of Engineering Institutions 7.2.1.3
Countryside Commission 5.8
Cranfield Institute of Technology 2.3.3.2,
4.4.4.4
Current Costs 2.5.2,2.7.1,4.4.2
Custorner-contractor data 5.1, 5.2.3, 5.4.1,
5.6.2.2,5.7.2.2,5.7.2.6,5.8.1.2,5.9.2.2,
5.10.4.2
DAFS Marine Laboratory 5.11.1
Defence departments 2.3.2.3, 2.5.3.3, 2.5.4.3,
6.3.2
Defence, Ministry of 2.5.4.1, 4.4.4.3, 5.6.2.4,
5.12
Defence R&D 1.1,3.2.6.1,3.4.2.2,3.4.2.4,
5.5.3, 7.3.1.1
Defence R&D, Civil versus 8.4
Definition, Government sector 2.3.2
Definition, R&D 1.3
Deflators 1.9.2.3,2.7.1,8.4
Dentistry 6.2.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.1
Dentists Salaries, Doctors and 7.2.1.3
Dept Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland)
2.3.4,4.4.4.2,5.7.1,5.7.2.4,5.7.2.6,5.11,
7.5
Dept of Education and Science 2.3.3.1,
2.3.3.2, 2.3.4. I , 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.3.3,
3.2.4, 3.2.6.2, 3.3.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3,
4.4.2,4.4.4.4,4.4.4.5,5.3.2,5.7.2.4,5.9.1,
5.12,7.3.1.2,7.4.1
Dept of Employment 5.3.2
Dept of Energy 3.4.2.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.5, 7.2.2
Dept of Health and Social Security 3.2.4,
4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.1, 5.9
Dept of Industry 2.3.1.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.7.1,2.8.2.2,4.4.4.4,5.2.2,5.6,6.5.2.1
Dept of Trade 5.6.1
Dept of Trade and Industry 1.3.2, 1.7,
2.4.4.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.2.1.3, 5.6.1
Dept of Transport 5.3.2, 5.8
Dept of the Environment 1.5.1, 2.3.1.3,
2.3.2.3, 3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.4,
5.3.2, 5.8
Design costs 1.3.2
Design, Research development and 5.5.3
Development batches 2.5.3.1
Development, Experimental 1.3.1, 2.5.3,
6.2.3, 7.3.1.2
Development of Innovation Act 7.3.1.2
Directorate of Telecommunications 5.10.1
Distributive trades 2.3.1.1
Doctors and Dentists Salaries 7.2.1.3
Dragon project 2.3.5
DSIR 2.1, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3, 2.4.4.2, 3.2.6.2,
3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2,
4.3.2, 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 7.2.1.1,
7.2.3
Eastern Europe 1.9.3.2
1.3.3.2, 4.2.3, 4.4.4.5
Education 7.3.1.1
Education and Science, Dept of 2.3.3.1,
2.3.3.2, 2.3.4.1, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.3.3,
3.2.4, 3.2.6.2, 3.3.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3,
4.4.2, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5, 5.3.2, 5.7.2.4, 5.9.1,
5.12,7.3.1.2,7.4.1
Education sector, Further 2.1, 2.3.2.2,
2.3.3.2, 2.3.3.3, 2.4.2.2, 2.5.3.4, 2.5.5,
6.5.2.2, 6.5.3
Education sector, Higher 1.3.3, 1.7, 1.9.2.1,
1.9.3.3, 2.3.3, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.3.4,
2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.2, 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2.3, 2.6.3.3,
2.6.4.3,2.7.2,2.7.4,4.4.4.4,6.1,6.3.3,
6.5.3, 6.7, 7.4, 8.3
EEC count ries 1.2, 1.9.3.4, 3.5.1, 3.6.3
EEC series 3.2.1, 3.2.5.4, 3.2.6.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,
3.4.1.2, 3.4.1.3, 3.4.2.4, 3.5.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.3
ELDO 2.5.4.6
SUBJECT INDEX
Electricity Council 5.5.2

Electronics I. 9.1
Employer Associations 7.2.1.2
Employment and Manpower data 1.1, 1.4,
1.5, 1.9.2.1,2.2.1.2,2.3.5,2.4.2.2,2.6,
5.8.1.4,6,7.2.1.1,7.4.1
Employment, Dept of 5.3.2
Employment, Part-time 6.5.2.1
Energy 5.5.3
Energy Agency, International 5.5.3
Energy Committee , House of Commons
7.2.2
Energy, Dept of 3.4.2.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.5, 7.2.2
Energy Laboratory, National 5.6.1
Engineering 1.4, 4.5, 6.1, 6.2.1.1
Engineering Council 7.2.1.3
Engineering Institutions, Council of 7.2.1.3
Engineers 1.5.2, 1.8.1.1,2.6.2,2.8.2.2,6.7,
7.2.1.3
Environment, Dept of the 1.5.1, 2.3.1.3,
2.3.2.3, 3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.4,
5.3.2,5.8
Environment Research Council, Natural
1.3.3.2, 2.3.4.1, 2.5.3.3, 3.2.6.2, 4.2.1.2,
4.2.1.3,4.4.4.4,5.7.1,5.7.2.4,5.7.2.6,
5.8,6.3.2
Equipment 1.9.2.3
Estimates data 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 5.2.2, 7.3.1.1
European Space Agency 5.6.2.4
European Science Foundation 4.6
Exchange rates 1.9.3.4, 2.5.2
Exclusions from R&D 1.3.2, 1.3.4
Expenditure, Extramural 2.3.4.1, 2.5.4.1,
2.5.4.5, 2.5.5, 2.5.6.3, 2.6.1.4, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3, 5.2.3, 5.6.1, 8.4
Expenditure, Gross 5.2.3
Expenditure, Intramural 2.5.1, 2.5.4.1, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.I, 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.2.3,
5.6.1,5.12,7.3.1.2,8.4
Expenditure, Net 3.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 5.2.1,
5.2.3,5.7.1,5.10.5
Experimental Development 1.3.1, 2.5.3,
6.2.3, 7.3.1.2
Extramural Expenditure 2.3.4.1, 2.5.4.1,
2.5.4.5, 2.5.5, 2.5.6.3, 2.6.1.4, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3, 5.2.3, 5.6.1, 8.4
Extramural R&D, Government 2.1, 2.5.4.1,
2.5.4.2
Factors of Production 2.5.2
Federation of British Industry 8.4
Ferranti 2.3.1.1
Field of Qualification 6.2.1.1
Fields of science 2.6.2.2, 2.6.3.2, 3.2.5, 4.2.2,
4.4.4.3, 4.6, 6.3.3, 7.4.1
Firm , Size of2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 7.2.1.1
221
Fisheries Laboratory, Freshwater 5.11.1

Fisheries R&D Board 5.11.2
Fishing 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 5.7.2.3, 5.7.2.4,
5.11.1
Flour milling and Baking 2.3.1.3
Food 5.7.2.3
Food Manufacturing Industries , British
2.3.1.3
Foreign financed R&D 2.2.1.1, 2.3.4.1, 3.2.3,
5.10.3
Forestry 2.3.1.1, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 5.7.2.6
France 3.1
Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory 5.11.1
Full-time equivalents 1.6.2,2.6.1,6.5.2.1,
6.5.2.2,6.7,7.4.1
Functional breakdown 2.3.2.3, 3.4.2, 4.4.4.4,
4.5,4.6,5.4.1,5.6.2.2,5.7.2.3,5.8.1.3,
5.9.2.2, 5.10.4.3
Funds, Source of 1.7, 2.3.4.2, 2.3.5, 2.5.4,
2.5.5, 3.4.1.2, 5.2.2
Further Education sector 2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.3.3.2,
2.3.3.3, 2.4.2.2, 2.5.3.4, 2.5.5, 6.5.2.2,
6.5.3
Gas, British 5.5.2, 7.2.2
General University funds 1.3.3.1,3.2.6.2,
3.4.2.4, 3.6.3
General data collection 1.3.4
Geological Research Institute 4.4.4.4
Geologists, Institution of 7.2.1.3
Germany 1.9.2.3
Government Extramural R&D 2.1, 2.5.4.1,
2.5.4.2
Government departments 1.3.2, 1.9.1,
2.2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 2.6.1.2, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.4.1.2,
5, 6.2.3, 6.3.2
Government Expenditure on R&D 2.2.1,
2.2.2, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.5, 2.4.2.2, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.6
Government sector 1.1,1.5.1,1.7,1.8.3,2.1,
2.2.2,2.3.2.1,2.3.3.1,2.4.2.2,2.4.4.2,
2.5.3.3, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.3, 2.5.5, 2.5.6,
2.6.1.1, 2.6.1.2, 2.6.3.2, 2.6.4.2, 2.7.2,
2.7.3,6.3.2,6.5.2,6.7, 7.3.1, 8.3
Government sector Definition 2.3.2
Grants 2.3.4.1, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5, 4.5, 5.10.4.3,
8.3
Grants, Research Training 1.3.3.2, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.4
Gross Expenditure 5.2.3
Gross National Expenditure on R&D
2.2.1.1,5.10.5
Health 2.6.1.2, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 3.6.3, 4.4.4.1,
5.2.3, 5.9.1, 5.9.2.4
Health and Social Security, Dept of 3.2.4,
4.2.1.1,4.2.1.3,4.4.4.1,5.9
222
RESEAR CH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
Health Economics , Office of 7.2.1.2

Health Organisat ion, World 3.2.3
Higher Education sector 1.3.3, 1.7, 1.9.2.1,
1.9.3.3, 2.3.3, 2.4.3.3, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.3.4,
2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.2, 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2.3, 2.6.3.3,
2.6.4.3, 2.7.2, 2.7.4, 4.4.4.4, 6.1, 6.3.3,
6.5.3, 6.7, 7.4, 8.3
Horne Office 5.10
Hospitals, NHS 2.3.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.6.1.2,
4.4.4.1,5.9.1
Hou se of Commons Energy Committee 7.2.2
House of Lords Committee on Science and
Technology 1.9.1,2.1
Humanities 1.4, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.5.5
Industrial Research Associations 1.7, 2.3.1.3,
2.4.2.2, 2.4.3.1, 2.6.3.1, 5.12, 6.3.1,
6.5.1.1, 7.2.1.1, 7.2.3
Industries, Nationalised 1.7, 1.9.1, 1.9.2.2,
2.3.1.1, 7.2.2
Industry Act 5.6.2.1
Indu stry, Dept of 2.3.1.3, 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2,
2.7.1, 2.8.2.2,4.4.4.4,5.2.2,5.6,6.5.2.1
Indu stry sector 1.1, 1.7,2.1,2.3.1.1,2.3.1.3,
2.3.1.4, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.3.1, 2.5.3.2, 2.5.4.1,
2.5.4.2, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.6.1.1, 2.6.3.1,
2.6.4.1, 3.4.1.3, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 5.5.3,
5.7.2.5, 5.12, 6.3.1, 6.5.1, 7.2.1,8.2
Inflation 1.9.2.3, 2.7.1
Inno vat ion test 1.3.1
Institute of Biology 7.2.1.3
Institute of Mathematics 7.2.1.3
Institute of Physics 7.2.1.3
Institution of Geologi sts 7.2.1.3
Institution of Metallurgists 7.2.1.3
Inter-dis ciplinary areas 4.5
Intern ational Comparisons 1.2, 1.9.3, 2.8,
3.1, 3.6, 4.6, 6.7
Intern ational Energy Agency 5.5.3
International Standards 1.3.3, 1.9.3, 2.5.4.1
International programmes 2.3.5, 2.5.4.6,
3.4.1.3
Intramural Expenditure 2.5.1, 2.5.4.1, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.2.3,
5.6.1,5.12,7.3.1.2,8.4
Iron and Steel Research Association, British
2.3.1.3
Jap an 1.9.3.1 , 1.9.3.4, 3.6.3, 8.1,8.2,8.3
Jo int Con sultati ve Organi sation 5.7.1
Kno w-how 2.5.4.5
Laboratory of Government Chemist 5.6.1
Labour, Ministry of 6.1, 6.4.2.4
Learned societies 2.3.4.1, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2,
5.12
Legal work 1.3.2, 1.3.4
Level of Qualification 1.8, 1.8.2, 1.8.3,
1.9.2.3, 2.6.1.2,2.6.2, 2.6.2.1, 2.6.3,
6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 6.5.I.I
Library, Arts and 7.3. I.I
Licences 1.3.4, 2.5.4.5, 7.3.1.2
Local Go vernment sector 1.7,2.1,2.3.2.2,
2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.3.2, 6.3.2,
6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.2
Lord President of the Council 6.1
Mainly R&D accounting 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 5.2.2,
6.2.3
Management science 1.3.2
Manpower Survey, Triennial6, 8.1
Manpower Committee, Scientific 6.1
Manpower data, Employment and 1.1, 1.4,
1.5, 1.9.2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.3.5, 2.4.2.2, 2.6,
5.8.1.4,6, 7.2.I.I, 7.4.1
Manpower needs, Qualified 6.1
Manpower surveys, Qualified 1.1, 1.8.1.2,
2.6, 6.1, 6.2
Manufacturing 2.3.1.1,6.3.1,6.4.2.3,7.2.1.1,
7.2.1.2
Marine Laboratory, DAFS 5.11.1
Marine technolog y 7.3.1.3
Mari time Institu te, Nat ional 5.6.1
Market research 1.3.2, 1.3.4, 6.2.3
Mathematics, Institute of 7.2.1.3
Medical Research Coun cil 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1 ,
2.3.2.3, 2.3.4.1, 2.3.4.3, 3.2.3, 3.2.4,
3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 3.6.3,4.2. I.I ,
4.4.4.1,5.9.1,5.9.2.3,6.3.2
Medical schools 2.3.3.1
Medical science 1.3.4, 1.4, 1.9.1,6.2.2,
6.5.1.1, 6.5.2.1, 7.5
"Memorandum tables 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5.2,
3.2.6.1,3.2.6.2,3.3.1,3.4.1,3.4.2.3,
5.2.4.1, 5.2.4.2, 5.5.3, 5.6.2.4, 5.7.2.6,
5.8.1.5, 5.10.2, 5.11.2
Metallurgists, Institution of 7.2.1.3
Methodology 1.1 , 1.9.2.1,2.4.3,3.1,6.4.2,
7.2.I.I , 8.3
Military R&D 1.9.1
Minimum List Headings 2.3.1.4, 6.4.2.4,
7.2.1.1
Mining and quarrying 2.3.1.1, 6.3.1
Ministry of Aviation 3.2.6.1
Ministry of Defence 2.5.4.1, 4.4.4.3, 5.6.2.4,
5.12
Ministry of Labour 6.1, 6.4.2.4
Ministry of Overseas Development 4.4.4.4,
5.10.5
Ministry of Technology 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
2.4.4.2, 3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.3
SUBJECT INDEX
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

2.3.1.3,4.2.1.1,4.2.1.3,4.4.4.2,4.4.4.4,
5.7,5.11.2
Ministry of Building and Public Works
3.2.6.2
Multinational companies 2.3.5, 2.5.4.6
NABS 3.4.2.4, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 5.6.2.3
National Energy Laboratory 5.6.1
National Maritime Institute 5.6.1
National Physical Laboratory 5.6.1
National Survey 2, 4.4.2, 4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2,
4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4.2,
5.3.2, 5.5.3, 5.6.2.4, 5.7.2.6, 5.10.5, 5.12,
6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.3, 7.4.1, 8.1, 8.3
National Coal Board 5.5.2, 7.2.2
National Enterprise Board 7.3.1.2
National Inst itute of Oceanography 2.3.4.1
National R&D Council 3.2.6.2, 7.3.1.2
National Science Foundation 2.1, 8.2
Nationalised Industries 1.7, 1.9.1, 1.9.2.2,
2.3.1.1, 7.2.2
Natural Environment Research Council
1.3.3.2, 2.3.4.1, 2.5.3.3, 3.2.6.2, 4.2.1.2,
4.2.1.3,4.4.4.4,5.7.1,5.7.2.4,5.7.2.6,
5.8,6.3.2
Natural History Museum 4.2.1.3
Natural sciences 1.4, 6.2.1.1
Nature Conservancy 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.4.4.4,
5.8, 7.3.1.2
Navy 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4
Net Expenditure 3.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 5.2.1,
5.2.3,5.7.1,5.10.5
Netherlands 3.1, 3.6.1, 8.2
NHS Hospitals 2.3.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.6.1.2,
4.4.4.1,5.9.1
NIRNS 2.3.4.1, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 4.4.4.3, 6.3.1
Nordforsk 3.6.2
Northern Ireland 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.3, 2.4.3.3, 3.2,
3.4.2.2, 6.3.5
Nuclear Energy Act 5.5.3
Nuclear R&D 1.9.1,3.4.2.1,3.4.2.2,5.5.1,
5.5.2, 5.5.3
Occupational data 1.8, 1.8.1, 1.8.3, 2, 2.6.2,
6.2.1.2, 6.3, 7.2.1.2, 7.2.1.3, 8.3
Oceanographic R&D 4.4.4.4
Oceanography, National Institute of 2.3.4.1
OECD 1.9.3.2, 1.9.3.4,2.5.4.2,2.6.1.2,2.7.1,
2.8.2.2,3.6.2,3.6.3,4.6,5.2.1,5.12,6.7,
7.4.1
Office of Health Economics 7.2.1.2
Operational research 1.3.2
Other sector 2.3.1.3, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.4, 2.5.3.5,
2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.3, 2.5.4.5, 2.5.4.6, 2.5.5,
2.6.1.4, 3.4.2.1, 3.4.2.2, 4.4.2, 6.5.3, 7.5
223
Outturn data 3.2.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.2,

3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.2.2, 3.4.2.3, 3.6.1,
5.2.2, 5.2.4.1, 5.6.2.4
Overseas Research institutes 5.10.3, 5.12
Overseas Development Administration 5.10.3
Overseas Development Agency 3.2.4, 4.4.4.4,
5.10.3.1
Overseas Development, Ministry of 4.4.4.4,
5.10.5
Overtime 7.2.1.3
Own funds 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.6
Oxford colleges 2.3.3.1
Part-time Employment 6.5.2.1
Patents 1.3.4, 2.5.4.1, 2.5.4.5, 7.3.1.1
Performance, Sector of 1.7, 5.5.3
Performer-based Accounting 2.2.3.2
Performer-based data 2.5.4.2, 3.4.1.3, 5.2.2
PESC da ta 2.4.3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.4.2.3,
3.4.2.4, 3.5.2, 3.6.3, 4.1, 4.3.1, 4.4.4.2,
5.2.4.2,5.5.3,5.7.2.6,5.8.1.5,5.9.2.4,
5.10.5
Pharmaceutical Industry , Association of
British 7.2.1.2
Pharmacy 6.2.1.1, 6.5.2.1
Physical Laboratory, National 5.6.1
Physics, Institute of 7.2.1.3
Pilot production processes 1.3.2, 2.5.3.1,
6.2.3
Police Scientific Devclopment Branch 5.10.1
Policy-related studies 1.3.4
Pollution Act, Control of 5.5.3
Polytechnics 1.7, 2.3.3.2, 4.4.4.4
Post Office 2.4.3.1
Post Office Act 2.3.2
Postgraduates 1.3.3.2, 2.4.3.3, 2.6.1.3,
3.2.6.2, 4.2.3, 4.4.2, 4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2,
4.4.4.3, 5.7.2.4
Price indices 1.9.2.3,2.5.2,2.7, 3.5.1, 8.4
Private non-profit making sector 1.7, 1.9.1,
2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.4.1, 2.3.4.3, 2.4.2.2,
2.5.3.5, 2.5.4.5, 2.6.1.4, 2.6.2.3, 2.6.3.3,
6.3.3
Privatisation 1.7, 1.9.2.2,2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2
Product data 8.4
Product versus process R&D 7.2.1.1, 8.4
Production, Factors of 2.5.2
Production runs, Trial 1.3.2
Professional institutes 6.1, 7.2.1.3
Project tabulations 5.4.1, 5.5.3, 5.6.2.3,
5.10.4.3
Prototypes 1.3.2, 2.5.3.1, 6.2.3
Public corporations 1.7, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.4,
2.4.2.2, 2.4.3.1, 5.12, 6.3.1, 6.5.1.1
Purchasing power ratios 1.9.3.4
224
QSEs 1.8.2.1, 1.8.3, 2.6.2, 2.6.2.1, 2.6.2.2,

5.5.3, 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5,
6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.5.1.1, 6.5.1.2, 6.5.2.1,
6.5.2.2, 6.5.3, 6.6, 7.2.1.3
Qualification, Field of 6.2.1.1
Qualification, Level of 1.8, 1.8.2, 1.8.3,
1.9.2.3,2.6.1.2, 2.6.2, 2.6.2.1, 2.6.3,
6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 6.5.1.1
Qualified Manpower needs 6.1
Qualified Manpower surveys 1.1, 1.8.1.2, 2.6,
6.1,6.2
Quality control 6.2.3
R&D Definition 1.3
R&D accounting, Mainly 1.6.1, 1.6.2,5.2.2,
6.2.3
R&D, Aims of 1.3.1,3.1,3.6.3
R&D content Accounting 1.6.1, 1.6.2,
2.2.3.1, 3.2.6.2
R&D contribution to firms 7.2.1.1
R&D indicators 2.8.2.1
R&D , Military 1.9.1
R&D outputs 8.4
R&D performed Abroad 2.2.1.1, 3.4.2.1,
3.4.2.2
Radio research station 4.4.4.3
Requirements Boards 5.1,5.2.1,5.5.3,5.6.1,
5.6.2.2, 5.6.2.3, 5.8
Research Council, Medical 1.3.3.2, 1.9.1,
2.3.2.3, 2.3.4.1, 2.3.4.3, 3.2.3, 3.2.4,
3.2.6.2,3.4.2.1,3.4.2.2,3.6.3,4.2.1.1,
4.4.4.1, 5.9.1, 5.9.2.3, 6.3.2
Research Councils 1.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.6.1 , 1.7,
1.9.3.3, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.3,
2.3.5, 2.5.3.3, 2.5.3.5, 2.5.4.3, 2.5.4.4,
2.5.4.5, 2.6.1.2, 2.6.1.4, 3.1, 3.2.1,
3.2.6.2, 3.6.3, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.3, 4.4,
4.5,5.7.2.6,5.12,6.3.2,6.5.2.1,6.5.2.2,
7.3.1.3, 7.4.2, 8.3
Research development and Design 5.5.3
Research institutes 5.10.3, 5.11.1, 5.12, 6.3.4
Research institutes, Overseas 5.10.3, 5.12
Research, Seedcorn 1.9.1,2.5.3.1
Research , Strategie 1.9.1, 2.5.3.1
Research Training Grants 1.3.3.2, 4.4.2,
4.4.4.4
Retained receipts 2.5.4.1, 3.2.3
River and harbour boards 2.3.2.2
Road Research Laboratories 3.4.2.2
Robbins Report 6.1, 7.4.2
RoUs Royce 2.3.1.1
Royal Botanic Gardens 5.11.1
Royal College of Art 2.3.3.2
Royal Institute of Chemistry 2.7.1, 7.2.1.3
Royal Observatories 2.3.4.1, 4.4.4.3
Royal Society 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, 4.6, 7.5
Royalty payments 1.3.2

RSEs 1.8.1.1, 1.8.3, 1.9.2.3,6.5.1.1
Rutherford High Energy Laboratory 6.3.1
Salaries and wages 2.7, 7.2.1.3
Salaries, Doctors and Dentists 7.2.1.3
Scandinavia 1.2
Science and Engineering Research Council
1.3.3.2, 2.3.4.1, 2.5.4.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.4.4.3,
4.5
Science and Technology Act 1.9.2.2,2.3.2.1,
2.3.2.3, 4.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.5, 5.5.3,
5.6.2.1, 6.3.1
Science and Technology, House of Lords
Committee on 1.9.1,2.1
Science budget 3.1, 4,5.7.1,5.9.1,8.3
Science Research Council 3.2.6.2, 4.2.1.2,
4.2.1.3,4.4.4.3,4.5,6.3.1,6.3.2
Scientific Manpower Committee 6.1
Scientific Advisory Board 5.10.1
Scientific information activity 1.3.4
Scientific R&D 2.2.2, 2.6.2.2, 3.2.5, 4.2.2,
4.5,5.2.1,6.2.2,6.5.2.1,7.3.1.1,7.4.1
Scientists 1.5.2, 1.8.1.1, 2.6.2, 2.8.2.2, 6.7,
7.2.1.3
Scotland 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2.2,4.4.4.2, 5.7.2.6,
5.8.1.5,5.11
Scottish Home and Health Dept 4.2.1.3
Scottish Office 5.11.1
Sector of Performance 1.7, 5.5.3
Sectors 1.7, 2.3, 6.3
Seedcorn Research 1.9.1,2.5.3.1
Select Committee on Science and Technology
1.1,5.1,5.2.1,7.4.2
Service industries 2.3.1.1
Size ofFirm 2.4.3.1, 2.4.4.1, 7.2.1.1
Social science R&D 1.4, 2.2.2, 2.4.2.1,
2.5.3.1, 2.6.2.2, 3.2.5, 4.2.2, 4.5, 5.2.1,
6.2.2,6.5.2.1,7.3.1.3,7.4.1,8.3
Social Science Research Council 3.2.6.2,
4.2.1.2, 4.2.2, 4.4.4.5, 4.5
Social sciences, Welfare and 5.9.1
SOEC 3.5.1, 3.6.1
Sophistication factor 1.9.2.3
Source of Funds 1.7,2.3.4.2,2.3.5,2.5.4,
2.5.5, 3.4.1.2, 5.2.2
Space Agency, European 5.6.2.4
Space exploration 1.3.4, 2.5.4.1, 4.4.4.3,
5.2.3, 5.6.2.4
Sports Council 5.8
Standard Industrial Classification 2.3.1.4
6.4.2.4
Standardisation 1.3.4
Standards, International 1.3.3, 1.9.3, 2.5.4.1
Steel, British 7.2.2
Strategie Research 1.9.1, 2.5.3.1
SUBJECT IND EX
Subject area of research 4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.5, 5.12

Substituti on of resourees 1.9.2.3
Supp ort activities 5.2.2, 5.6.2.1
Support staff 1.3.3.2, 1.8.1.2, 1.8.1.3, 1.8.1.4,
1.9.2.3, 2.6.1.3, 2.6.2. I, 2.6.4, 6.2.1.2,
6.3.5
Sur vey data 1.1, 1.3.4, 2.4,6.4.2, 7, 8.1, 8.2
Survey, National 2, 4.4.2, 4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2,
4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.4.2,
5.3.2, 5.5.3, 5.6.2.4, 5.7.2.6, 5.10.5, 5.12,
6.1,6.2.2,6.2.3,6.3,7.4.1, 8.1, 8.3
Survey, Triennial Manpower 6, 8.1
Teachers 2.6.1.3
Technical colleges 6.3.3
Technicians 1.5.2, 1.8.1.2, 2.6.2.2, 2.6.3, 6.,
6.1, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.4.2, 6.5.1.2,
6.5.2.1, 6.5.2.2
Technology, Ministry of 2.3.1.3, 2.3.2.3,
2.4.4.2, 3.2.6.2, 3.4.2.3
Technology transfers 5.6.2.1
Telecommunications, Directorate of 5.10.1
Testing 1.3.2, 1.3.4, 6.2.3
Timber and Water 2.3.1.3
Tr ade and Indu str y, Dept of 1.3.2, 1.7,
2.4.4.2, 3.4.2.3, 4.2.1.3, 5.6.1
Tr ade, Dept of 5.6.1
Training 1.3.3, 2.4.3.3
Tran sport 3.4.2.2
Transport , Dept of 5.3.2, 5.8
Treasur y 3.2.1, 3.3.1
Trend s 3.6.1, 8
T rial Production run s 1.3.2
Triennial Manpower Sur vey 6, 8.1
Tropical Products Institute 5.10.4.1
225
Trouble-shooting 1.3.2
Type of Activity 2.5.3, 8.4
Type of Cost 2.5.2
UKAEA 1.3.2, 1.7, 2.2.3.1, 2.3.4.1,2.4.3.1,
2.5.3.1, 2.6.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.2,
3.4.2.1, 4.4.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 6.2.3,
6.3.1,6.3.2, 6.5.2.1,6.5.2.2,7.2.2,7. 3.1.2
UN 1.9.3.4
UNESCO 1.2, 1.9.3.2, 2.8.2.3,4.6, 6.7
Uniformed personnel 6.3.2
Uni versities 1.1 , 1.3.3, 1.9.1, 1.9.2.3,2.1,
2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.3, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.3.3, 2.5.3.4,
2.5.4.4, 2.5.5, 2.6.1.2, 2.6.1.3, 3.4.2.1,
3.4.2.2, 3.6.3, 4.4.2, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5,
5.7.2.4, 5.12, 6.3.3, 6.5.3, 7.3.1.3, 7.4.2
Univer sity funds, General 1.3.3.1, 3.2.6.2,
3.4.2.4, 3.6.3
Univer sity graduates 1.8.3, 4.1
University Gr ant s Committee 1.3.3.1,2.4.3.3,
2.5.4.4, 2.6.1.3, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.6.1,
3.2.6.2,3.4.2.4,5.7.2.4,5.12,7.4.1
USA 1.9.2.3, 1.9.3.1, 1.9.3.4, 3.6.3, 6.7, 8.1,
8.2, 8.3
Veterinar y sciences 6.2.1.1
Vote 3.4.1.1
War ren Sprin g Laboratory 5.6.1
Water , Timber and 2.3.1.3
Welfare and Social sciences 5.9. 1
Woomera 2.3.5
Work study 1.3.2
World Health Organ isation 3.2.3

RND Stat Derek Bosworth Robert Wilson Alison Young

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RND Stat Derek Bosworth Robert Wilson Alison Young

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REVIEWS OF UNITED KINGDOM STATISTICAL SOURCES

REVIEWS OF UNITED KINGDOM STATISTICAL SOURCES

Other volumes in this series published by Chapman & Hall

(No further titles will be published in this series)

REVIEWS OF UNITED KINGDOM STATISTICAL SOURCES

Published for The Royal Statistical Society and

Springer-Science+Business Media, B.Y.

First edition 1993

1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

Printed on permanent acid-free text paper, manufaetured in aecordance

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXVII

Guide to the Series and How to Use it

Review No. 45: Research and Development Statistics

MEMBERSHIP OF JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE

Chairman: Miss S. V. Cunliffe

Representing the Royal Statistical Society:

Representing the Economic and Social Research Council:

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

GUIDE TO THE SERIES AND HOW TO USE IT

The Format and Content of Reviews

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

GUIDE TO THE SERIES AND HOW TO USE IT

How to Use the Series

45: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCE DATE OF SOURCES REVIEWED

Introduction and General Concepts

2 Tbe National Survey

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

2.3 System 0/ Sec tors and Sub-Sectors

Net Government Expenditure on R&D

3.5 Derived Series

Tbe Science Budget

Individual Departmental R&D Reports

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

5.8 Departments 0/ the Environment and Transport

6 Triennial Scientific and Technological Manpower Surveys

Quick Reference List Table of Contents

Appendix: Specimen Forms and Questionnaires

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Coverage of Net outturn data 1961 /62-1965/66 compared with

Relation between PESC headings and departmental R&D

Functional Classification for R&D Expenditure of the Department

Functional Classification, Departments of the Environment

Functional Classification of R&D used by the Department of Health

Functional Classifications used by the Overseas Development Agency

Civil 'Oriented' R&D by Central Government Departments 1979/80

List of Figures in the Text

Flows of Funds: Net and Gross Expenditure on R&D

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Advisory Board for the Research Councils

RESEARCH AND DEV ELOPMENT STATISTICS

European Launeher Development Organisation

ABBREVIATIONS AND AC RONYMS

Ordinary National Cert ificate

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

1.2 Sources and Methodology

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

1.3 Definition of Research and Development

The official international definition of R&D is currently as follows: 'Research and

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

arrangements. Experimental work performed solely for the purposes of patent