Search

In this paper we ,have approached the problem by estimating ex post the social benefits resulting from the support given by the National Research Development Corporation (N.R.D.C.) to the development of a potato harvester. In doing this we have encountered difficulties of estimation and we have gained some insight into the real problems which one would face if one had been trying to foresee these developments ex ante. Obviously each project would present its own set of problems in estimating future benefits, but the conceptual similarities in these problems made the study of a particular project useful. The paper has shown that in certain cases and under certain assumptions a monetary value can be put on the national benefits arising from innovation--the net benefits to purchasers and royalty income to public bodies. Detailed analysis showed that: (a) Royalty income (the private gain to the public bodies) from the successful innovation covered direct expenditure on it. (b) Royalty income was quite inadequate to cover also expenditure on failures, which are a feature of the overall process of innovation. (c) If the net benefits to farmers are included, then public support for this series of inventions seems justified. (d) Although an arbitrary assumption was made about the time saved due to N.R.D.C., it revealed the importance of rapid development of innovation. If the N.I.A.E. potato harvester had been delayed longer than about two years beyond what actually occurred we are doubtful whether the firm would have found the investment worthwhile. (e) By the time the bulk of royalties had been received interest charges formed a large part (52%) of the cumulative cost: first costs were incurred about 10 years before first benefits were received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses British science policy in the mid-1960s, with focus given to the themes of scientific research finance, the distribution of funds between different scientific fields, and the training of scientific researchers and technical support staff. The author notes the relatively small amount of public spending on science in Great Britain during this period and argues that this spending is largely wasted on the electronics industry and national defense. He distinguishes between funding for solid state physics, electronic physics, theoretical chemistry, and astronomy, and emphasizes the impact of scientific research on human life. Also discussed is the need for more technicians and improved status for engineers within intellectual circles.

The article focuses on the reports of Heyworth Committee concerned with teaching and research in economics in Great Britain. In 1962-63 the Committee estimates that in all about £5 million was being spent on research in social sciences. Of this, about £2.9 million was financing university research. About £0.6 million was financing independent non-university research institutes. The research organizations of the government absorbed about £10 million. Official support of research in dependent overseas territories, work in technical colleges and by various other bodies and individuals absorbed the final £0.5 million. Of this total, possibly as much as £10 million may have been going to university and institute research in economics, including the research time of teachers. The Committee proposed that 400 awards for postgraduate research and advanced-course studentship should be made in 1965-66 as against about 220 in 1964. It also recommended the creation of 20 research fellowships.