Total national expenditures on R&D, as expressed and normalized in various ways, are given for six advanced countries in Table 8.10. While the data refer to the mid-sixties, they are probably relevant to current economic-technological strengths of the nations because the time-lag between R&D and significant commercialization is often of the order of a decade. The relatively heavy expenditures in the U.K. and even more so in the U.S. reflect large commitments to defense R&D, with France being the next heaviest. Canada, Germany, and Japan all showed relatively low expenditures on R&D per GNP.

By 1971 expenditures had risen in France to 1.8% of GNP (Table 8.11) but were then decreasing. Japan had risen somewhat more and was still increasing, while the U.K. had leveled off at about 2.0%. Expenditures in the U.S. had shown a relatively big drop from 3.3% to 2.6% and were still decreasing. On the other hand, expenditures in the U.S.S.R. in 1971 were 3.0% and increasing.

Table 8.12 shows the level of commitment of qualified scientists and engineers to R&D. In 1963–64 the commitment levels in Canada, France, and Germany were only a little more than half of those in Japan and the U.K., and about a quarter of the U.S. level. By 1971 France, Germany, and Japan had roughly doubled their commitments to R&D, and in the latter two countries the commitment levels were still increasing. In particular, Japan had already drawn abreast of the U.S. The U.S., on the other hand, showed little change between the 1963–64 and 1971 levels and in 1971 the trend was actually downward; in contrast to all the above countries, the commitment level in the U.S.S.R. in 1971 was 1–1/2 times that of the U.S. and was increasing.

Table 8.13 shows the distribution in 1963–64 of R&D scientists and engineers among the industrial, governmental, private nonprofit, and higher-education sectors in the various countries. The U.K. and the U.S. had relatively heavy concentrations in industry, while in Canada, France, Germany, and Japan the numbers in industry were about comparable to those in the other three sectors combined. Outside the industrial sectors, the governmental sectors dominated in Canada, France, and the U.K., while universities and nonprofit institutions dominated in Japan, the U.S., and heavily in Germany. This last reflects the importance of the Max Planck Institutes.

A closer look at the industrial sector is given in Table 8.14 which shows the R&D expenditures in terms of sources of support. The heavy support given to industry by the government (presumable mainly defense contracts) is dramatic in the U.S. and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in the U.K. and France. At the other end of the scale, governmental support of industrial R&D is quite low in Germany and nearly zero in Japan.

The breakdown of total national expenditures for R&D by percentage between the defense, space, and nuclear sectors on the one hand, and all other sectors on the other is shown in Table 8.15. Large variations among countries are evident. However, it is worth noting that as a percentage of GNP the expenditures on R&D in the “All Other (civilian) Sectors” differed relatively little, ranging from 1.1% to 1.5%, except for Canada which was 0.8%. Furthermore, Figure 8.2 shows that the dollar expenditures in these sectors in the U.S., Germany, France, the U.K. and Canada followed remarkably parallel growth rates from the mid-fifties to the mid-sixties.

For the purpose of this report, some particularly interesting comparisons are given in Table 8.16 on the structure of R&D expenditures in manufacturing industries. The industrial groupings for statistical purposes are as follows:

As might be expected, the countries with larger economic resources invest relatively more heavily in the science-based industries (reflecting also, in general, a greater proportion of effort going into defense R&D in those countries).

A more detailed breakdown of R&D expenditure in manufacturing industries in the major countries is given in Tables 8.17, 8.18 and 8.19.

The R&D technical manpower totals in Table 8.20 are particularly informative; there are strong efforts in certain industries in some countries reflecting particular local advantages in natural resources, but in nearly all industrial sectors where data are given, the total effort in the U.S. is greater, often considerably greater, then the combined totals of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the U.K. However, if all the figures were available, then probably the U.S. would lag somewhat the combined totals for the ferrous and nonferrous metal industries. This conclusion is further reinforced by the data given in Table 8.21 which, compares the U.S. expenditure and technical manpower on R&D with that of the whole of Western Europe. These figures might suggest that if there is any lag of U.S. industry vis-a-vis the world it is not because of an inadequate quantity of R&D effort; it is noteworthy that the U.S. industries with the narrowest lead, or even a lag, by this measure include predominently the basic materials industries—ferrous and nonferrous metals, chemicals, rubber, and textiles. If there are weaknesses in the U.S. R&D effort in these industries, perhaps one should look for explanation not at the magnitude of effort, primarily, but at its quality, its organization, and the general institutional barriers to innovation.

It appears that massive federally-supported R&D programs in those industries with defense and space contracts has contributed to U.S. leadership in the aerospace, computer, and nuclear industries. But it requires sustained massive support to maintain leadership as other countries are able to follow closely with much smaller R&D efforts simply by copying the technology, often making only modest modifications. The price of a small edge in technical leadership is extremely high and even with its huge resources, the U.S. may well have to select those industries in which, it needs to lead, technologically, and those in which, it can afford to follow closely.

Concerning priorities, it is useful to examine the trends in governmental R&D expenditures in various countries. Some of these are summarized in Table 8.22 where R&D has been grouped into 6 broad categories and given simple rank orderings. (The spacings between industrial rankings differ considerably and, of course, it has to be kept in mind that (i) defense and space expenditures dominate heavily in the U.S. while they are essentially absent in Japan, and that (ii) governmental funding of Japanese industrial R&D is negligible.)

Table 8.23 gives data on the percentages of highly qualified manpower in different industrial sectors and in the total labor force. These exhibit a slightly heavier indulgence in professional and technical people in most U.S. industrial sectors than the average of the Western countries but, apart from the service sector, the Japanese industrial sectors show a very much lower involvement of such personnel. The manufacturing, metal products, and chemicals sectors apparently perform with relatively fewer managers in the European countries than in their North American counterparts.

Some data on the allocation of resources in the early to mid-sixties for basic research are summarized in Table 8.24. In comparison with other countries, basic research as a percentage of all national R&D is slightly less in the U.S. and U.K. However, the U.S. effort does not seem to be extreme in either direction in all the industry sectors listed, especially when compared with the major industrial countries. Comparisons with the smaller countries are more difficult to make an account of widely varying local conditions. Since the early 1960’s, many U.S. industries have tended to reduce their effort on basic research but corresponding data on what industries in other countries have done are not readily available.

In the early 1970’s, the ratio of Japanese R&D expenditures to national income was about 2% and was projected to rise to about 2.7% by 1980 if earlier trends would continue. An ultimate goal of 3% was thought appropriate.

Most of the R&D expenditures are incurred by industry rather than by government in contrast to other advanced countries, though it is expected that the governmental share will increase, particularly for the support of:

In addition, the government will continue to promote industrial R&D through tax measures and other incentives, and will guide industrial research efforts through technology assessment.

Japan recognizes that basic research is an important element of science policy, and that history shows such research leads to important technological breakthroughs even though these cannot be properly foreseen at the time. Further, the official view that the more applied science and technology is directed toward social and economic needs, the greater is the need for basic research. The higher the level of basic science and technology, the greater the possibility of meeting changing social and economic needs.

Also, support of basic research “helps satisfy man’s desire to seek truth and understanding. At a time when people are seeking lives worth living and are beginning to pay attention to the need for qualitative improvement of their spiritual life, basic science merits special attention.”

Priority for governmental support of R&D is given to the following projects:

R&D directed toward maintenance and improvement of man’s mental and physical capabilities.

Interrelationships between productive activities, recreation, and optimum environmental conditions for human life.

Prevention and treatment of diseases of high mortality including apoplexy, cancer, and heart diseases, as well as mental and nervous disorders and diseases caused by pollution.

Artificial organs and blood; new methods of diagnosis and therapeutics using electronics, precision engineering, information theories, etc.

Development of new vaccines and safer drugs.

Food distribution and food safety.

Nutrition.

Quantity production of inexpensive, comfortable houses.

Better city planning.

Safer and more effective consumer products.

Super high-speed railways for heavy-load transportation.

Large scale civil engineering, bridges and tunnels.

Aeronautics suited to Japan.

Automatic traffic-control systems.

Information processing and communications; computers.

Safe atomic energy.

Conversion, storage, and distribution of energy.

Development of resources of the continental shelf.

Efficient use of idle resources; exploration for fresh resources.

Develop efficient use of water resources including desalination.

Develop multiple uses of forests.

Prevention and prediction of environmental pollution.

Effects of environmental factors on man and organisms.

Protection of natural environment.

Prediction of earthquakes, heavy downpours. Weather modification.

Prevention of urban disasters.

Prevention of labor and industrial disasters.

Large-scale mechanization of agriculture and biological, chemical, and physical controls in agriculture.

Large-scale stock farming.

Labor-saving in forestry.

Fish culture.

Develop new processes and automation for manufacturing industry.

Develop new industries.

Elevate technical level of smaller enterprises by automation.

Pioneering areas of science and technology:

Japan recognizes the crucial importance of arranging for effective collaboration among people from different disciplines and in different institutions if it is to meet its national objectives. Instances of such interdisciplinary cooperation are sparse in Japan compared with Europe and North America. There seems to be little collaboration across disciplinary lines or, for example, interchange of personnel between institutes, or active cooperation between research institutes.

It is felt necessary to establish means for smooth contacts among researchers and for exchange of information. Besides encouraging joint utilization of major research facilities and encouraging personnel exchange, the following measures have been suggested in Japan:

In accordance with the Comprehensive National Land Development Act of 1950, the Government of Japan published in May 1969 a “New Comprehensive National Development Plan” which set the tone for the agricultural, industrial, and economic development of the country, taking into account special consideration of different geographical regions of Japan. It notes that the phenomenal development of Japan was achieved by concentrating and accumulating economic activities in urban centers and by providing good communication (particularly rail) networks. But this has led to population density problems in the cities and a manpower draining from the rural areas.

In the earlier Comprehensive National Development Plan of 1962, these demographic problems were recognized and recommendations were made for efficient dispersal of industries and population to attain higher overall efficiency in the national economy. As a result, “New Industrial Cities and Special Areas have been formed as new growth centers for industry. The limitations of overcongested cities have been gradually recognized, and enterprises have started to recognize the advantages of decentralization and technological innovations.” In bringing about these changes in social patterns, the government has called for a “frontier spirit” based on the long-range view, not constrained by tradition.

“Japan envisages continued rapid progress in the so-called ‘Second Industrial Revolution’ based on the information revolution, internationalization, and technological innovation. They term the new society, the ‘information society,’ in which automation replaces (or augments) brainpower in the same way that machinery replaced muscle power in the first Industrial Revolution. “But this transformation of society will bring with it drastic changes in societal and economic structures and activities. New patterns of education, extending over a lifetime, will be needed.

“In the coming information society there will be a greater number of entities which carry out independent intellectual activities and a greater choice of directions to follow. Information will play a key note in all spheres of social activity. Every business organization will be reorganized as a creative, flexible body with a management information system and program team as its nucleus. Information collection and distribution will be regarded as a national asset. Thus it is necessary to modify and develop the communication network and information industry.”

Japan also foresees how “increasing international communications, exchanges of personnel, technology, and information will stimulate the development of the new society. World-wide research and technological innovations in space science, oceanography, biological science and human engineering will drastically change economic life. Laser technology will revolutionize the information system, new methods of rapid transportation will be developed, the technology of desalination will revolutionize water utilization, and progress in housing construction and urban technologies will alter the environment.

“To develop these technological innovations and adapt them to the conditions of Japan, technological development must be pursued on a selective basis. It is indispensible to build up indigenous, innovational technologies.”

In an effort to develop such new technologies, the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of MITI has sponsored a National Research and Development Program directed toward promoting R&D in selected technologies on a large scale with the close cooperation of the industrial and academic communities. The technologies selected are listed in Table 8.25. Particularly noteworthy, and reflecting the information-society goal, is that the two most costly projects are for electronic systems—large-scale computers and pattern-information processing systems. Both include the development of software as well as hardware, but it is of interest to examine the materials and device requirements which have been delineated for the latter. New devices, especially opto-electronic, will have to be developed and a number of development contracts have been let out to manufacturers for:

Some examples of new applications of the pattern-information processing system are:

Some general remarks:

The foregoing provides clues about how Japan will continue to implement its proven policy of creating new technologies and finding new markets wherever possible rather than just refining the existing ones. The President of the Sony Corporation, for example, has attributed the world-wide success of his company primarily to this knack of being the first with a new product—first with magnetic tape recorders, transistorized pocket radios, small transistorized TV, video tape recorders.

In the past Japan has also enjoyed a price advantage due to the lower labor costs in Japan. This is no longer the case. As MITI has recognized, the price advantage has, in turn, passed to other less-developed countries and, in addition, any attempts by Japan to cut export prices run up against problems of antidumping laws. So, MITI has declared that in the future more reliance should be placed on quality than on price advantages in the world market, and it has the information-intensive industries particularly in mind.

“The economy is being internationalized and thinking is in terms of global markets, but internally there are increasing social needs, environmental problems, and labor shortages. New directions for technical innovation are needed. It is necessary to abandon the conventional, narrowly-focussed approach (e.g., to optimize technically a production process) and to adopt a systems approach covering a broad domain of nature, man, and technology.

Up until 1960, Japan mostly imported new technology to stimulate existing industries (such as iron and steel, nonferrous metals, petroleum, synthetic fiber) and create new ones (electronics, petrochemicals). Since 1960, there have been increasing labor shortages which, have led to development of automation. Also, the liberalization of world trade has resulted in an increased pace of technical innovation. By about 1970, the range of industrial products had broadened considerably, as indicated in Table 8.26.

Some observations:

The main problems in promoting technological development are seen as:

When dependent on imported technology, Japan made few demands on its own scientific researches, nor did it try hard to use them. Science was often left to follow Western fashions and was not coupled well into technology.

From 1945 to 1954, basic industrial needs were given high priority—coal, iron and steel were the initial driving forces in Japan’s economic recovery. From 1955–1964, electronics and polymer chemistry led other industries. Later, automation became increasingly important and most recently, the development of data communication and other information systems.

Concerning personal needs—needs for food, clothing, and household goods were largely met by 1955. New building materials led to more durable houses. Leisure equipment has been expanding.

As for social needs—improved transport systems were developed, new drugs discovered, and sophisticated medical instrumentation developed. But social needs have kept growing, especially for improved environment and control of public hazards.

Besides all its positive results, technical innovation has helped create environmental problems—other factors also contributed, such as inadequate urban planning. The impacts of technology in Japan have not been thoroughly assessed. Some examples are given in Tables 8.27 and 8.28. On the other hand, examples can be given where some of the negative effects of science and technology have been alleviated by new processes and techniques, as in Table 8.29.

Government and industry in Japan have been spending increasingly on pollution control—R&D and technology. In 1970, governmental expenditures for pollution control research amounted to $3.91 M (including air pollution, water pollution, noise and vibration, odors, etc.). In 1969, industrial expenditures on developing pollution-control technology amounted to $31.9 M out of a total R&D expenditure of $702 M, or about 4.5% (see Table 8.30).

Principal technical approaches currently being pursued in pollution control are listed in Table 8.31. At present efforts are aimed mainly at improving disposal processes, but future R&D will aim at finding entirely different methods and adopting a systems approach to the whole subject.

So far, technical innovation in Japan has been conspicuously successful at producing new goods and competing in international commerce, less so in meeting social welfare needs and the demands of rising living standards. More attention will have to be paid in future to problems of waste disposal, materials recycling, and pollution arising from manufacturing processes. Furthermore, international cooperative studies will be needed on the overall materials cycle and on the ability of nature to sustain life. And throughout, psychological as well as physiological frictions at the man-machine interface will have to be alleviated.

However, there is a feeling in Japan that its technology must be developed more independently of other nations in the future, both to remain competitive and also to solve problems pertinent to Japan. The systems approach must be adopted with problems being attacked on a total basis. And the impacts of new technical innovations must be more adequately assessed beforehand.

Recent trends in R&D expenditures by individual ministries and agencies are summarized in Table 8.32. The major component of such public funds goes to the support of education—the universities. A breakdown of recent trends by category of expense or recipient is given in Table 8.33, again showing the universities are principal recipients of public R&D funds.

The relatively low level of support of R&D from public funds in Japan and the virtually zero support given with public funds to private industry has already been noted. As Table 8.34 indicates, public expenditures for R&D have held at about 30% of the nation’s total over the past five years, and most of this has been for the support of basic research in the universities. It is therefore of much interest to examine the expenditures for R&D by industry. This has been done recently by the M.I.T. Center for Policy Alternatives; the following data have been extracted from their report. ⁹

Total R&D expenditures by industry amounted to 895 billion yen in 1971, or 82.6% of the total private R&D outlay (Table 8.35). Among the five major classifications of industry (namely, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; mining; construction; manufacturing; and transport, communication, and public utilities), manufacturing industries accounted for 91% of the total, followed by transport, communication, and public utilities industries (6%), and construction industries (3%).

The electrical machinery industry, within the manufacturing category, spent 26% of the total, and the chemical products industry spent 21%. These two industries alone accounted for nearly one-half of the total R&D expenditures made by the manufacturing industries.

On the other hand, the increase in expenditure by the transport, communication, and public utilities industries is conspicuous, as is the increase registered by the food products industries. Nevertheless, the overall increase by manufacturing industries in 1971 seems low (8.7%). One striking exception is the enormous increase by the construction industries.

One index of the extent to which a firm’s viability depends on R&D is the ratio of R&D expenditures to sales. Table 8.36 shows these ratios for various Japanese industries in the years 1965, 1970, and 1971. Also shown, where known, are the corresponding figures for U.S. industries.

At an aggregate level, Japanese R&D expenditures relative to sales was 1.27% in 1971, a slight increase over the previous year. Drugs and medicines, and communication and electronic equipment industries reported the highest ratios (3.90 and 3.64% respectively). However, these ratios are still considerably lower than those of the U.S. counterparts (6.5 and 8.7%, respectively in 1970). On the other hand, Japan invests relatively more heavily in R&D than U.S. industries in food products, textiles, and notably, iron and steel.

Table 8.37 indicated how private firms have allocated their R&D expenditures between basic research, applied research, and development. The relative distribution of R&D funds among these three areas has remained rather constant over the past six or seven years, whereas the absolute amounts have grown substantially.

Table 8.38 shows how particular industries have proportioned their expenditures among the same three categories of R&D activities.

With respect to basic research, most of the chemical products manufacturing industries, such as drugs and medicines, rubber products, oils and paints, industrial chemicals, and food products industries spent more than the average of 9.1%. Most of the manufacturing industries, on the other hand, spent more than the average for applied research, as did the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries industries. And the industries which spent relatively more money for development research are the construction industries (77.3%), manufacturing industries (73.2%) and transport, communication, and public utilities industries (73.0%).

There is little if any interdisciplinary academic research or education in Japan, and also little coupling between universities and industries through joint or industrially-sponsored research programs. Thus, wherever interactions have taken place between the scientific disciplines, and between scientists and engineers, in order to achieve the technological successes that Japan is noted for, these must have occurred almost always In industrial laboratories and organizations. It is, therefore, of interest to examine the functioning of such organizations.

The President of the Sony Corporation, a company whose name is synonymous with the Japanese economic advance, has given his views on R&D In his company: “Definition of the terms research and development Is very wide and their range and limit vary according to the individuals and for the purpose It Is used. In enterprises it is very important to make the definition of the terms research and development very clear, according to the different positions and the different divisions. Often we find different thinking between the top executives and the actual people in charge about the meaning from the start. I have been stressing all along in our company, the terms always mean research and development of new products not in existence and which are related to the aims and works of Sony. At least in companies of the size of ours, I think it is important to watch out that more research for just academic truth should not become the main purpose.

“It is a big mistake to think that the final purpose of research and development should be limited only to products of today. Although we may be engaged in different projects of different stages—the completion of such projects expected for the next year, others for 3 years later and still others for 5 or 10 years later—those who are engaged in such research and development should be clearly oriented and must be appraised of the stage of his work and be shown the direction towards which he must proceed.

“When the project is big, it may be more effective to have the top executives directly giving the instructions. Especially when the tendency of the future industries required skill and technique of combining many heterogeneous fields, it may be more necessary, for the top executives, to start the initial efforts to combine these different activities. To combine the various fields within the company becomes more and more difficult as it gets closer to the actual work level. When I say combination, I don’t mean just a combination of technical problems but I mean all sorts of combinations and communications which are necessary to accomplish the project. However excellent the project may be in your company, the feasibility of commercialization must be analyzed from various angles, such as the company scale, financial ability, engineering strength, production capacity, marketing channels, distribution network, etc. I think only the top executives can comprehensively consider these different matters.

“In many enterprises, as their organization becomes bigger, division system becomes more popular. This system may have merits from the viewpoint that it defines clearly the extent and area of responsibility and also from the standpoint of self-supporting accounting system. However, it is not suitable from the viewpoint of developing new products which requires the uniting of the different fields. For this purpose it seems that today we must think of more flexible organization with emphasis on its functions….” “We learned that a programme combining separate items supporting each other is much more effective than the simple exchange of information of separate programmes of each item….” “Quite often, I believe the result of such efforts which have very clear targets have been much greater than what we expected. However, because our understandings were always very difficult the technical force required was tremendous. To compensate for this, we utilized or bought whatever we could from other companies and saved our main technical and production strength for the development of things which we must do ourselves. My conclusion in this matter is that: Deepness is more valuable than wideness.”

Concerning the problem of basic research in an industrial laboratory: “It is often said that each individual researcher should have complete freedom in selecting the theme and in determining its direction. However, I wish to express an opposition to this thinking. Even for the sake of searching truth I think it is more effective for the men in the higher level, sometimes top executives, to select the theme and determine the direction in which the researchers should advance because they often have a better view to give accurate judgement than the researcher himself.

“In modern enterprise, I do not believe that the first seed must always be found in basic research. It is pure luck if the basic research could discover a seed with a bright future. If a company evaluates any seed as an excellent one, the company should exert every effort to make it bear fruits through the processes of basic research, development, production and marketing. Often the judgement and appraisal of whether the seed is a good one or not is done on a limited narrow basis and so the seed is discarded. We must be careful not to let this happen.

“It is very risky for a company to place its future entirely in the hands of a basic research, when technical innovation and product revolution are moving forward very rapidly today. I am of the opinion that the seed should be picked up from anywhere, in the course of basic research, development, manufacturing, marketing, sales, servicing, or it can also be generated by the consumers. At any such section, only with overflowing enthusiasm of the creative mind can we expect active growth of an enterprise. If enterprise became only a watchman of automation, then enterprise cannot make any progress in the innovation field.

“Who has the initiative is not important. Problems can spring up at any section of this chain. We must realize that it is important to make a basic research team start functioning by a problem fed back from any section to it.

“I have often experienced that when a basic research team takes up a problem it shows much better efficiency with the same problem when it deals from a well focussed ground than a vague academic interest. When a problem is fed back, realistic data are readily available and the sphere of study becomes more clearly defined….” “In this respect the future tendency will be more mass game rather than individual game, and the meaning of basic research will change. I like to repeat once again—in a modern industry, the seed must not necessarily be found in basic research all the time.” ¹⁰

The number of persons with a higher education in the U.S.S.R. is very large, amounting to 4,891,000 on November 15, 1965. Of this total, as many as one-third were engineers in the Soviet sense of the term (this includes some personnel who in Western usage would be described as applied scientists and technologists).

In the past few years, there has been continued emphasis on the training of engineers, the proportion among the newly qualified increasing from 33.7 percent in 1961 to 39.0 percent in 1965. Within the broad category of “engineers,” the numbers qualifying in technical sciences closely associated with the science-based industries have increased very sharply; the annual number of new graduates with higher education in chemical technology,

electronics, electrical instrumentation and automatics, and radio technology and communication increased from 5.4 percent of the total in 1950 to 12.1 percent in 1965.

The total number of persons engaged in Soviet R&D in 1966 has been estimated from 1,655,000 to 2,291,000. A somewhat conservative estimate for the equivalent expenditure on R&D in 1965 is in the range $14.8 to $20.7 milliards. It is difficult to find breakdowns of these expenditures into fundamental research, applied research, and development. There has been an enormous expansion of Soviet R&D effort since 1955, but it has slowed down considerably in more recent years—by 1966 the increase in manpower was only 5.5%.

Much attention has been devoted in the past few years to increasing the supply and improving the quality of scientific instruments and materials supplied to research establishments. Nevertheless, outside the priority sectors, the equipment-base apparently lags behind that of other major industrialized countries.

At the All-Union Economic Conference in May 1968, Academician V.A. Trapeznikov, First-Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology, made the startling proposal that expenditure on Science should increase by 20–25 percent a year during the 1971–1975 five-year plan, implying that allocations to science should double every 3–3.5 years.

In the U.S.S.R. “mission-oriented fundamental research” is increasing in importance. The strengthened powers of coordination possessed by the presidium of the Academy have been a key element in this process. But of even greater significance is the increased role of governmental agencies outside the Academy in funding the fundamental research undertaken by the Academy establishments.

Fundamental science in the U.S.S.R. retains some autonomy or even independence. Its special status is universally acknowledged. Officials concerned with science planning, as well as the scientists themselves, concur that economic yardsticks cannot be applied to measure its value. Although great emphasis is generally being placed by the Soviet government on economic criteria and economic incentives, no one has seriously challenged the principle that the bulk of Academy research must be financed from the state budget without expectation of measurable economic return to the community. Moreover, it is also accepted that a substantial proportion of the funds of each research institute should be set aside for free research initiated by the institute without specific sanction by higher scientific or other authorities.

Apart from these explicit provisions for free research, the fundamental research system has in practice even more flexibility than it possesses on paper. In spite of the powers of coordination and control possessed by the presidium of the U.S.S.R. Academy, the directors of its major research institutes in fact have some latitude to influence the lines of research of their institutes.

Of equal importance to the autonomy exercised by the different elements making up the research system is the influence which the scientific community can at times bring to bear on the science policy of the government.

The high prestige, authority, financial status, and the relatively good physical conditions of the major Academy institutes have been a major factor in sustaining the strength of Soviet fundamental science in difficult years. But this favorable position of the U.S.S.R. Academy has meant that the most talented students and the best scientists have irresistibly been drawn towards it and to its outstanding research institutes. Other sections of the scientific community, except those concerned with high-priority defense and space projects, have found it difficult to obtain and retain staff of the highest quality.

This has resulted in two major disadvantages. “Branch of the economy” research establishments, and the practical R&D activities associated with them, have tended to be viewed as of rather lower status than Academy institutes, and there is somewhat less public regard for applied R&D than for the fundamental sciences. The Academy constitutes the elite.

At the same time, the organization of fundamental research under a separate administrative authority, subject to its own system of planning and control, has tended to produce barriers between fundamental science and technology, similar to those between universities and private industry in some countries of Western Europe.

The main function of the Higher Educational Establishments is considered to be the training of specialists, and this has a direct influence on the kind of research carried out.

A number of leading universities have established themselves as important centers for research, comparable in professional status with research institutes in the Academy of Sciences or in the ministerial system. These are, however, the exception because the heavy teaching obligations of faculty personnel leave them relatively little time for research.

Metallurgical research in the Soviet Union was on a relatively small scale before World War II though some Russian scientists were working abroad, in Germany and England. Research really started to expand within the U.S.S.R. during the War and subsequently was broadened even more, partly in recognition of its relevance to the economy.

Most metallurgical research is done in the institutes of the Academy of Sciences, in the institutes of the various Regional Academies of Sciences, and in institutes under various Ministries. There are large centers at the University of Moscow and the University of Leningrad but most centers in other universities are relatively small. Very often there is close interaction between a research institute and a neighboring university, e.g. in Sverdlovsk and Moscow. Sometimes there is also close coupling through joint appointments where a person may hold both a chair at the university and a directorate at the institute, e.g. Kharkov, Kiev. In general, facilities are very good, though crowded, and there is an abundance of technical and administrative help. Some centers have very useful groups for such central activities as crystal growth.

Most metallurgical research centers cover both metals physics and physical metallurgy. Two large institutes for metals physics are:

Institute for Metals Physics of Soviet Academy of Sciences, Sverdlovsk, and Institute for Metals Physics of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev. Both of these compare with the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart in size and scope of activity, with Kiev dividing its attention about equally between metals physics and physical metallurgy, and Sverdlovsk emphasizing metals physics rather more.

There is a large institute for ferrous metallurgy in Moscow under the Ministry of Industry. The institute is very spacious and well equipped with research equipment such as electron microscopes, high-pressure and X-ray equipment. Much of the work at this institute is quite applied in nature and aligned with the needs of industry.

There are several institutes of the Academy of Science that embrace work on metals within the general framework of experimental and theoretical solidstate physics. For example, at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kharkov, the group under Lifshitz covers electron theory of ideal crystals, dislocation theory, Fermi surfaces, precipitation and crystal growth theory, and the theory of lattice vibrations. Experimental groups are involved in low-temperature properties, especially superconductivity, and point defects in quenched metals.

The Institute of Crystallography in Moscow is concerned with dislocation theory, plastic deformation, electron diffraction, and structure determinations.

The Institute for Physical Problems (under P.L.Kapitza) is an important research center for metal physics with strong theoretical groups on the electron theory of metals, superconductivity, many-electron effects, band structures, ferromagnetism and phase transitions, and experimental groups on Fermi surfaces and hard superconductors.

Moscow University emphasizes particularly ferromagnetism and low-temperature phenomena, while the Physico-Technical Institute in Leningrad is concerned with plastic deformation and fracture.

It appears that there is considerable concentration on some topics in metals, while others are neglected. The prestige of people like Kapitza, Landau, and Lifshitz has led to strong programs on the basic electronic properties of metals. There is also intensive work on the physical metallurgy of transformations, order-disorder, precipitation, mechanical properties, and plastic deformation. Magnetism figures prominently at Sverdlovsk, Kiev, Leningrad, and Minsk. On the other hand, relatively little has been done on point defects and, until recently, on radiation damage. Overall, the emphasis in metals research reflects very much the stimulus emanating from the strong mathematical-physical schools concerned with solid-state problems.

There is also much attention on the liquid-metal state centered in various research institutes in the Urals. These are concerned with experimental investigations of the surface tension of liquid metals, adsorbtion and desorption at surfaces, diffusion in melts, viscosity, electrical and magnetic properties of melts, X-ray methods for determining structures of two-phase liquids, thermodynamic properties, effects of small amounts of additives on nucleation and crystal growth in casting processes, and theoretical foundations of these processes which are relevant to practical problems.

Further expansion of metals research is planned, particularly at Novosobirsk. In addition, a new Institute for Solid-State Physics is planned for Moscow which will include metals. A list of existing establishments involved with metallurgical (and materials) research is given below.

Soviet science in general, and solid-state physics in particular, is very vigorous, perhaps remarkably so when one considers the relatively poor physical facilities in many physics laboratories. Modern computers, microcircuits, even lasers are conspicuous by their absence. On the other hand, more conventional pieces of equipment (oscilloscopes, microscopes, spectrometers) are plentiful and seemingly well maintained. Furthermore, science and scientists are held in high esteem and the supply of talented people is substantial. Also, due to the highly centralized organizational structure of research, a number of individuals hold a great deal of power in the scientific life of the country. These individuals may be institute directors, such as V.M.Tuchkevich or P.L.Kapitza, or other prominent scientists whose achievements have placed them in a position of intellectual leadership. Examples are N.G.Basov, L.D.Landau, V.L.Ginzburg, and B.M.Vul. Most of the important recent Soviet achievements were the product of large groups headed by such leaders.

Many institutes are engaged in solid-state physics, and tend to be highly specialized. The quality of the work differs greatly from one institute to the other, with a few establishments holding dominant positions.

These are:

Group I—Three leading institutes:

A.F.Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, Leningrad

This institute, founded by loffe, was the first major scientific establishment in the U.S.S.R. and even today its alumni are leaders in a large part of Soviet physics. The present director is V.M.Tuchkevich, and the important groups in solid-state physics are in semiconductors, plasmas, and theory.

P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow

This has all the Soviet Nobel Prize winners, of which two (Basov and Prokhorov) can be counted as solid-state physicists. Besides the vast laboratories devoted to optics and lasers, there are also strong groups in semiconductors and in solid-state theory.

S.I.Vavilov Institute of Physical Problems and L.D.Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Moscow

These two institutes, formerly together, were separated only a few years ago. The directors are P.L.Kapista and I.M.Khalatnikov. The strongest groups in these institutes are in low-temperature physics (metals and fluids), solid-state theory, and magnetism.

Group II—Some other important institutes are:

Moscow State University

Institute of Semiconductors, Leningrad

Institute of Semiconductors, Kiev

Physical Engineering Institute of Low Temperatures, Kharkov

Institute of Radio Physics and Electronics, Kharkov

Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics, Moscow

Institute of Physics of Semiconductors, Novosibirsk

Institute of Metal Physics, Sverdlovsk

The vast output of solid-state research in the U.S.S.R. can be roughly separated into three categories:

The first category includes much of the research done at second-line institutions in such traditional fields as ferroelectricity, semiconductors, magnetism, crystallography. In contrast to similar routine work done in the West, the Soviet work seems to suffer doubly; from a lack of inspiration and from antiquated equipment and relatively primitive technical means. Although it is impossible to estimate accurately the proportion of Soviet research which belongs in this category, it is probably higher than in the U.S.

Regarding the second category, the Soviet system seems particularly well-suited for this type of work since the centralized structure and the greater emphasis on planning make large cooperative efforts easier to manage than under the more diversified American system. As an example of interesting systematic research in a field which was not especially fashionable at the time, we may cite the exploratory work on amorphous and liquid semiconductors at Leningrad (Regel, Goryunova, Kolomiets and Gubanov). This research anticipated by approximately ten years the recent upsurge of interest in the properties of amorphous materials which has occurred in the West. (It may be noted that switching devices in amorphous semiconductors have not caught on in the U.S.S.R. any more than in the West even though their discovery is attributed by the Russians to Lebedev in 1962 at Leningrad.)

It appears that there are two important areas in which Soviet work in solid-state physics is relatively weak: in band theory, probably due in large measure to the relative scarcity of computers as a research tool, and in the application of neutron-scattering techniques to the study of solids. Because of this situation, some significant recent developments in magnetism, phase transitions, and lattice dynamics have occurred entirely outside the Soviet Union.

However, there have been notable achievements during the past decade in the U.S.S.R. as will be evident from the following list:

As for the future, Ginzburg has stated what he considers to be outstanding unsolved problems in “macrophysics:”

Controlled thermonuclear fusion

High-temperature superconductivity

New forms of matter, such as metallic hydrogen or anomalous water

Nature of the condensed state of excitons in semiconductors

Critical-point phase transitions

To sum up, the major characteristics of Soviet solid-state physics are:

Its size and scope (comparable with the U.S.).

Centralized organization and planning.

Definite heirarchy of power and prestige.

Large differences in quality among institutes.

Significant power concentrated in individual hands.

Institutional rigidity which hampers innovation and linkage to technology.

Some major strengths of Soviet solid-state science are:

High prestige associated with science.

An excellent educational system leading to a significant pool of talent in the field.

Top institutes often have large groups, with a well-defined mission, and strong leadership by brilliant scientists. These institutes offer graduate training to the most talented students, thus assuring the maintenance of “ongoing” schools of Soviet physics.

Some weaknesses are:

Scarcity of advanced equipment.

Lack of computing facilities.

Institutional rigidity and inertia.

Existence of a large number of second-line institutes.

Germany has a federal system of government within which considerable autonomy is enjoyed by the individual states (Lander), especially in cultural and educational affairs. In the realm of academic research, there is more central coordination undertaken by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and in the role played by the Max Planck Institutes. In the area of applied and industrial research, a strong coordinating and sponsoring role is played by the Federal Ministry für Bildung und Wissenschaft. There is good cooperation between the Ministry and other agencies, especially the DFG, to bring about contacts and joint efforts between industry and universities. This reflects recognition of the serious communications gap that had persisted between the academic and the industrial establishments in Germany where the tradition of the autocratic, independent, securely tenured, professorships still has a very firm hold. Materials research has played a particularly important role in bringing about more collaboration both within universities and between universities and industry. Furthermore, the materials disciplines, including solid-state physics, are receiving much more attention in all respects than they did five to ten years ago when nuclear physics dominated science policy.

The key importance of materials research was recognized several years ago by the DFG. Under its Schwerpunktprogramme (lit. “centers of gravity”) in recent years, emphasis has been placed on metals research, semiconductor electronics, and materials-oriented solid-state physics and chemistry. Selection of a particular field into such a program serves to alert academic research organizations to areas of particular and immediate relevance to national needs, to provide stronger financing of such research, and to enhance coordination by means of colloquia and joint efforts among those sponsored.

The DFG has been particularly successful in fostering interdisciplinary research in the solid state, sponsoring facilities for materials preparation and characterization as well as for fundamental studies of the properties of materials. More recently and even more ambitiously, the DFG has undertaken to finance, quite generously and broadly, and coordinate fields of university research under the program called “Sonderforschungs Bereich” (Areas of Special Research). In this program, several institutes of one university are brought together under one theme (e.g. Defects in Solids, Solid-State Electronics) and obtain strong financing provided that a truly cooperative research program is offered and carried out. Again this approach was necessary in order to concentrate the highly individualistic and divergent separate institutes of the typical German university. It appears that materials research as a general theme has played a rather strong role in this program, and many contracts for such research have been granted.

The majority of the 53 Max Planck Institutes are devoted to fundamental research, particularly in the natural sciences, though some institutes do embrace applied research as well. Research in the institutes is complementary to that at the universities in many ways, and the organization can be compared with the Laboratories operated by the Research Councils in Great Britain, the C.N.R.S. in France, and the Academy of Sciences in the U.S.S.R. Institutes are built around highly qualified and productive scientists as directors and when a new director has to be appointed the Max Planck Society reassesses whether continuance of the institute in its present or a different research field is justified. Sometimes it is concluded that the institute should be handed over to a neighboring university, particularly if no suitably qualified successor can be found for the directorship.

The Federal Ministry in Bonn is sponsoring a program for R&D in “New Technologies” where again an important emphasis is being placed on materials development. Industries involved in these New Technologies may obtain partial funding by submitting contract proposals. The Ministry, with the aid of outside evaluating committees, has set clear priorities, particularly for electronic materials R&D where industry faces acute problems.

In its 1970 Report, the DFG summarized the total expenditures of the Federal Ministry for Education and Science, namely:

Priority is being given to education and directed or applied research, in that order. The DFG income from the Federal Ministry or private sources amounted to 257 MM in 1969, 318 MM in 1970 (increase of 24%), and 379 MM in 1971 (increase of 19%). The DFG notes that these increases, large as they may seem, were insufficient to cover inflation and the increase in personnel costs so that the number of projects supported did not increase. In fact, the number of research contracts being accepted dropped from 1969 to 1970 by 23.7% in the General Support Program, and by 27% in the Special Support Program.

The DFG has endeavoured to bring some research groups together into joint research contracts but has been rather disappointed by results except, to some extent, in the nuclear and aerospace fields—the success in the latter accounts for the reversal of the funding trend in the above table. In the international sphere, there has been some progress in joint ventures but also several disappointments—the latter especially when the scientific capabilities of various countries failed to match their national political aspiration.

The DFG, noting the trends in West Germany towards support of important new technologies to extend national capabilities, is tending to give preference to those research programs which have technological inventions with important societal value as a goal, e.g. electronics, communications, and traffic-control systems; biology, medicine, and environmental protection. Research in data processing, with both hardware and software programs, has been accorded a key position among the technology programs with the aim of inproving both the public and private economic sectors.

Much reform of the university and educational system is in progress. It is not clear what the eventual outcome will be, but research at the universities is being reduced relative to the educational effort. Of course, academic scientific faculties are not advocating this themselves—it reflects more the social and idealistic pressures currently at work.

Some relevant statistics reported by the DFG are follows:

B. Support of Natural Sciences and Engineering (Totals in MM)

C. Distribution of Research Contract Proposals (1970)

D. Specially Emphasized Areas (1970)

Several of the above research areas are worth describing here in further detail.

Solid-State Research—

The original purpose of this program was to establish a central institute of solid-state research in order to provide better support for this field and to create an adequate supply of personnel for this institute. Both goals have been reached with the foundation of the Max Planck Institute for Solid-State Research at Stuttgart and with the completion of solid-state research laboratories at the nuclear research establishment in Julich. At the same time, within this special-emphasis program, the number of applications for research contracts rose from 28 in 1964 to 127 in 1969 although efforts were made to concentrate the contracts into the fields of collective phenomena, electronic structure, and electron-phonon interactions.

Atomic and Molecular Collision Processes–

Investigations have been supported in:

Elastic and inelastic collision between neutral atoms and molecules and electrons.

Electron resonance capture.

Spin exchange and collision processes between free atoms, between atoms and electrons, and between atoms and solid surfaces

Transfer of excitation energy in collision processes.

Scattering of ions on atoms and molecules (charge-transfer reaction).

Electron Optics–

The goal of this program was to support electron and ion optics in general, but in particular:

Ultrahigh-resolution microscopy.

Ultrahigh-voltage microscopy.

Fundamental problems related to the development of superconducting lenses.

In parallel, the Fraunhofer Society has now made a commitment to build an Institute for Ultrahigh Resolution and Ultrahigh Voltage Microscopy.

Theoretical Chemistry–

The primary objective here was to support the education of young scientists in this field since the situation as regard the supply of suitable personnel was inadequate. The program does not include physical organic chemistry and does not embrace the applications of theoretical concepts; it is restricted to those who generate original theory.

Chemistry at Extremely High Pressures and Temperatures–

Support of experimental programs yielding quantitative information on the state, structure, reactions, and properties of matter at extremely high pressures and temperatures.

Semiconductor Electronics–

Physical, technological, and electro-technological aspects of semiconductor electronics are emphasized such as materials, technological problems, thin-films and interfaces, volume effects, electro-optics, integrated circuits, power electronics.

High Voltage DC Transmission–

Theoretical and experimental studies on high-power current rectifiers, first with mercury vapor rectifiers and later with semiconductor rectifiers (thyristors); investigations on the behavior of a network analyzer for high voltage DC transmission with 3 terminals; insulation problems with high DC voltage on open-air transmission lines and cables; testing of rectifiers with low-power synthetic monitoring circuit as well as with full-power installation.

Flow of Real Gases–

Investigations are supported on the physics and mechanics of flow in high-temperature dissociated and ionized gases, but excludes studies of nuclear processes. Included in the program are processes related to interactions between combustion and flow (reactive fluids), e.g. shock waves with subsequent combustion.

Cavitation–

Research on flow mechanics and the destruction of material due to cavitation; interactions of cavitation and corrosion in machines and structures,

Surfaces and Coating Techniques–

Surface treatments of metallic components and shaped parts. Main objective is research on the fundamentals of techniques for protection against chemical attack and mechanical destruction.

Boiling Processes–

Bubble boiling, film boiling, boiling with free convection, boiling with forced convection, local boiling, and boiling of saturated solutions are subjects of investigation supported by this program. Main applications of boiling processes are: steam-power plants, steam reactors in nuclear-power plants, evaporation in refrigerating and air conditioning systems, evaporators in industrial processing, boiling and cooling in chemical industries.

Welding–

Welding techniques with high-energy density, such as electron-beam welding, plasma welding, laser welding, friction and diffusion welding, and ultrasonic welding are investigated.

Materials Behavior for Construction and Shaping–

The goal of this program has changed. First, it was intended to support work on the behavior of materials under mechanical and thermal loading. This was later shifted towards research on the fundamentals of inorganic, nonmetallic materials. Studies of the mechanical behavior of these materials (fracture and deformation of ceramics, glasses, and adhesives) are now emphasized.

Mechanical Properties of Materials–

Special emphasis is given to the dynamic strength and vibration failure of materials and assemblies.

Composites–

Research is supported on production and behavior of composites; includes particle, fiber, and layer composites.

Generally, German industry looks for graduates broadly trained in basic knowledge and with evidence of ability and interest in development and manufacturing work. Too often, physicists do not have sufficient understanding of materials while metallurgists have insufficient knowledge of theory and fundamentals.

While physics graduates have a preference for research work they are also often suited for problems in development and manufacturing; yet university education tends to overlook these possibilities.

Industry has a preference for young people and often feels that university education takes too long. There have been various studies of how to shorten the educational period—these typically point to more intensive study and less time spent on technical details. Large classes characteristic of formal lectures are believed to be of little value.

The prevailing attitude of German industries is that fundamental research should be done at universities, leaving development work to industry. Indeed, German industry is inclined to believe that U.S. industry has been wrong in undertaking so much fundamental research even though it was possible because of heavy governmental support, particularly in the defense and space industries. Nevertheless, German metal-working industries have carried out relatively more fundamental research than have other industries, except for the electrical and chemical sectors. The latter industries carry out much more research and seem to gain much more from it. Metallurgical industries may reexamine their attitudes towards fundamental research, and a better understanding between them and the universities might result. As far as breadth of fundamental research is concerned, the metallurgical industrial laboratories in Germany are not quite on a par with their counterparts in the U.S.

National objectives and priorities for materials R&D in the U.K. fall within the policies for science and engineering as a whole, as carried out principally by the Department of Education and Science (DES), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and the Ministry of Defense (MOD).

In the DTI, materials R&D is an element in achieving the general objective “to assist British industry and commerce to improve their economic technological strength and competitiveness.” Thus, within the Research Division of the DTI, there is a materials section which is responsible for the coordination of work on materials in the research establishments and which seeks to promote bulk markets for new materials where these can contribute to improved industrial efficiency or substantial export orders. In practice, this activity operates mainly by placing extra-mural contracts on a part-cost basis. Materials research figures in the programs of most of the research establishments operated by the DTI.

The laboratory with the largest expenditure is the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) which is organized into three groups, one of them being designated the Materials Group. The Materials Group embraces the Division of Chemical Standards, the Division of Inorganic and Metallic Structure, and the Division of Materials Applications. Its function is to bring scientific knowledge to bear upon the everyday industrial and commercial life.

The National Engineering Laboratory (NEL) is also much concerned with materials; it studies fluids, fatigue, creep, fracture mechanics and brittle fracture, and applications of fiber reinforcement. The Warren Spring Laboratory is mainly involved with pollution, chemical engineering, mineral processing, industrial materials handling. The Safety in Mines Research Establishment studies engineering and metallurgy relevant to the mining industries, and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist is the principal establishment responsible for providing analytical services to all governmental agencies, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health and Social Security.

Outside the DTI laboratories, the government provides support to industry in a number of ways. There are approximately 40 research associations supported by the relevant industries and by government grants, either from the DTI, the Department of the Environment, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These research associations are autonomous bodies and the determination of their programs is a matter for the individual associations, but the government can give special support for work in particular areas. Many associations deal with engineering materials; others serve the textile industries (see later).

Further direct support for R&D in industry is given by way of government contracts. Major collaborative programs have been organized and in some cases these contain a significant materials content. Examples are—the government support for research on superconductivity and for the development of carbon fibers.

The DTI is also responsible for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) which, in its own establishments, undertakes a great deal of materials research. In the nuclear field, the Authority has a considerable degree of autonomy in determining its programs, but the DTI may issue directives to the Authority to undertake research in nonnuclear fields. Directives have been given providing for research in a number of fields such as ceramics, carbon fibers, and high-temperature chemical technology. The establishments of the DTI and of the UKAEA are both encouraged to undertake research for industrial firms on a repayment basis. To further this policy at the UKAEA establishment at Harwell, for example, a Ceramics Center and a Nondestructive Testing Center have been organized. Materials research appears to a considerable extent in the programs of the nationalized industries (transport, gas, coal, electricity, etc.), and they are virtually autonomous in the determination of their projects although these are formally subject to approval by the Secretary of State of the DTI.

The National Research Development Corporation (see later) is a quasigovernmental body, financed by public funds through the DTI, which undertakes the commercial development of research carried out by governmental establishments, universities, private industry, etc. A number of its projects are in the materials area.

Research in universities is the concern of the Department of Education and Science (DES), which operates through the University Grants Committee (UGC), and the Research Councils.

The Councils are incorporated bodies whose staff are noncivil servants and are responsible for allocating funds to specific research projects. In the materials field, the most important council is the Science Research Council (SRC) which covers, among other things, support for research in chemistry, enzyme chemistry and technology, chemical engineering and technology, metallurgy and materials, and polymer science. The Council gives grants to universities for programs directed by specified individuals and to enable postgraduate students to study for higher degrees. DTI liaison with the Research Councils is maintained by the appointment of DTI “assessors” to the Grant Awarding Committees.

In recent years the Science Research Council has identified special areas which merited support and has encouraged certain universities to develop special expertise in these areas. Examples in the materials field include polymer science, high-temperature technology, ion implantation, and composite materials. (See below for further discussion of the work of the SRC.)

Another governmental agency involved in civilian materials research is the Department of the Environment, which is now responsible for the Building Research Station and for the Forest Products Research Station.

In the Ministry of Defence (MOD), it is policy to maintain R&D programs in all relevant materials fields so as to enable the engineering of advanced weapon systems planned by the military staffs. The timescale of materials development necessitates a strong forward view to anticipate future requirements. The most advanced requirements are in aerospace where major objectives include improved structural efficiency by weight reduction and improved propulsion efficiency by increasing turbine entry temperatures. Especial emphasis is placed on the development and engineering of advanced composites.

It is MOD practice to conduct R&D as closely as possible to the engineering applications. Apart from a number of special governmental laboratories, materials R&D is conducted in government engineering establishments or extramurally, in the defense industry. Some specialized or fundamental elements are also funded in materials-supplying industries, research associations, or the universities, though the latter support is diminishing. Responsibility for financial and technical control rests in the Headquarters of MOD acting through technically-qualified officers from either research establishments or the Headquarters. Program definition is sought by close collaboration with the users, i.e. the weapons-system designers or service client. Appropriate scientific advice is obtained as needs and problems emerge. Budgetary and economic constraints impose severe limits on the practical projects that can be undertaken; the potential of competing technologies demands careful assessment.

It is clear that the whole of the U.K. national effort on materials is not planned in an overall fashion according to any set of criteria or according to considerations of technological forecasting; nevertheless, a high degree of deliberation goes into the formulation of individual programs.

Total expenditures on R&D by governmental agencies in the U.K. are given in Table 8.39.

The fields of research supported by the SRC include mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and all branches of engineering. The SRC manages national and international facilities which cover, particularly, nuclear physics, astronomy, radio, and space research.

The SRC was formed in 1965 and in its early years was mainly concerned with assimilating and consolidating its responsibilities inherited from various predecessors of SRC. Key features of SCR policy that have emerged involve:

It should be noted that research in the universities can be supported either through the SRC or through the University Grants Committee (UGC). Funding through the UGC recognizes the fact that teaching and research are essential academic functions while the SRC support, in general, is used for initiating researches of special timeliness and promise.

Over the period of 1965–1970, financial stringency has forced the SRC to develop steadily its policy of selectivity and concentration. Emphasis has also shifted in the direction of supporting more graduate studies rather than research studentships, and overall to favor awards in applied science and those having industrial potentiality rather than awards in pure science. Awards have also been used to encourage the movement of graduates into industry and schoolteaching and to promote university-industry collaboration. The SRC has leaned toward research and training in engineering, for example, by limiting the support for research assistants and increasing the support for technicians. It has increased the number of fellowships to facilitate the return flow of graduates from North America to the U.K. It has encouraged coupling between secondary schools and SRC Laboratories through joint appointments.

The SRC principles that guide selectivity and concentration in the support of research are broadly:

In spite of the SRC’s increasing concern to support work of economic and social value, most of its funds go to supporting fundamental, long-term, curiosity-oriented research as distinguished from mission-oriented research. “But as far as the research scientist or engineer himself is concerned, the interest and methods in either kind of research are often the same and one may turn into the other at short notice.” The SRC proclaims that “Basic research is of great intellectual and cultural interest but it also leads to advances in scientific knowledge which may have practical importance in the long-term and it provides an indispensible training medium at the graduate level in universities. One of the characteristics of fundamental science is the way in which discoveries in one field permeate other fields of science and technology so that the bodies of traditional disciplines are blurred and progress depends on interdisciplinary collaboration.” Nevertheless, as the data show, the SRC over the years 1967–1969 has reduced somewhat its support for basic research and increased its support for applied science and technology. This is in recognition of the fact that the SRC “must relate its support of university research and graduate education to national needs, for example in the engineering industries, and to social needs in transport, building, noise, and pollution.”

However, there are signs that, on the average, those students going into applied science graduate work have lower quality first degrees than those going on into pure science—“All eligible candidates for Advanced Course Studentships with first and upper seconds were successful. In applied science all eligible candidates with lower seconds received awards.” And for the research studentships, “all eligible candidates with first class honors were successful. In applied science all eligible candidates with upper second class honors were successful. In pure science 225 eligible candidates with upper second class honors were unsuccessful.” In connection with its awards, the SRC is trying a number of variations designed to enhance better university-industry coupling and the training of people for industry.

It should be realized that, roughly speaking, the number of SRC awards is approximately half of the number of graduate students working in fields within the realm of the SRC.

The number of first degree graduates was still rising in 1970—the forecast figures were 13,700 scientists and 9,700 engineers, with an estimated increase above the 1969 level of 8% overall, 3% in scientists, 16% in engineers. The overall increase in gradiations forecast for 1970–72 is 5% per year. The SRC is basing its planning up to 1975 on a growth rate of 5% per year in the number of graduates.

Policies, priorities and their implementation in the various scientific fields within the preview of the SRC are handled by various Boards. Those of most interest to COSMAT are the Boards of Engineering and Science.

Engineering Board:—Membership of the Board is about equally represented by the universities and industry. The Board is responsible for the support of research and graduate training in aeronautical and civil engineering, chemical engineering and technology, electrical and systems engineering, mechanical and production engineering, control engineering, metallurgy and materials, computing science, and polymer science. Separate committees are responsible for each of these areas.

The Board recognizes the underlying unity of science, technology, and engineering and expects to continue to give a measure of research support to pure science departments insofar as this is relevant to the furtherance of its own broad objectives; for example, in the field of materials science and polymers. The Board is also concerned with studies of creativity and innovation in engineering.

The pursuit of research aimed at advancing the state of knowledge in engineering or applicable science is not in question, nor the need to develop areas of potential importance bridging accepted disciplines since it is here that much work of immediate relevance is to be found. It is at the interface or overlap with industrial or governmental research and exploitation that the university role has to be more clearly defined.

From a review undertaken by the Metallurgy and Materials Committee, the following areas have been identified as meriting special attention: composite materials, surface and interfaces, and process metallurgy.

The Aeronautical and Civil Engineering Committee has identified in descending order of priority: transport, building design, sound and vibration, fluid flow, structures, and aeronautics.

The Mechanical and Production Engineering Committee has selected the following areas for further study: medical engineering, marine technology, and computer-aided design. It is also proposed to sponsor research into the fundamentals of grinding. Areas previously rated meriting special support include desalination, high-temperature processes, and electro-chemistry.

The Control Engineering Committee has sponsored concentrated programs at universities which include, for example, development of a mathematical model for a hot-strip rolling mill, its application in a much simplified overall control strategy, and the specification of an automation scheme which is expected to lead to increased productivity.

The Polymer Science Committee, relatively new, is concerning itself initially with synthesis, thermal stability and degradation, processing and physical/mechanical properties.

Science Board:—The Science Board, with its various committees, is responsible for pure and applied research and graduate training in biology, chemistry, enzyme chemistry and technology, mathematics, and physics (other than astronomy, nuclear physics, radio and space research).

The Science Board emphasizes the individual in research, and the cultivation of depth of thinking together with a measure of breadth of outlook. It emphasizes the support of high-quality work, and favors especially a few selected areas of high scientific promise or value to the community.

The Chemistry Committee identified photochemistry, especially research on nanosecond and picosecond flash photolysis, and organometallic chemistry as meriting special support.

The Physics Committee has surveyed needs in the whole of its field (see below). Experiments using neutron-beam facilities at Harwell are being sponsored covering studies of the magnetic structure of solids, the dynamics of magnetization, the position of light atoms in crystal structures, the dynamics of atom movements in liquids, molecular rotations and vibrations, and defects in crystals.

A Physics-Chemical Measurements Unit is providing an analysis service (infrared, NMR, Mössbauer spectroscopy) to universities, making use of facilities at Harwell and Aldernaston.

The Physics Committee has identified the following problems, new areas, and techniques likely to need special support in the near future. Solidstate physics, generally. Plasma physics; neutron beams and the need for a high flux beam reactor; synchrotron radiation for studying gases and solids; ion implantation in semiconductors and other solids; amorphous state; surface studies; use of on-line computers; collisions between atoms and low-energy heavy particles; dye lasers; radiative recombination and energy-transfer processes in solids; mode-locked lasers giving picosecond pulses; ferroelectric materials; technological magnetism; electronic structure of alloys to match recent advances in pure metals; laser scattering spectroscopy; nonlinear optics; electronic properties of polymers; inert-gas solids; critical phenomena at very low temperatures; superconductor tunnelling phenomena.

Clearly the physics community in the U.K. will be putting much of its emphasis on materials science.

Detailed breakdowns of recent support patterns by the SRC are given in Tables 8.40 and 8.41.

The Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, are relatively small, poor in many natural resources, but are highly developed countries. Survival and progress of their living standard in the face of competition from the larger economic units of the world are spurring mutual attempts to cooperate in the technological spheres; one of the areas for these attempts has been materials though so far not with very tangible results.

Denmark has no natural materials resources except for lime, clay, sand, and gravel.

There are three State Universities and a Technical University which perform research in building materials, metals, polymers, ceramics, textiles, and solid-state physics.

The Danish Academy of Sciences operates 22 applied research institutes; within the materials field these cover electronic materials, asphalt, wood, radioisotopes, paint, and natural organic materials. Some contract research is conducted in these institutes.

There is considerable activity in solid-state physics which embraces the Technical University, the Orietal Institute of Arhus University, and the Ris Research Center of the Danish A.E.C.

Industry sponsors some research institutes, for example, in building materials, and much in-house R&D in the chemical and electrical industries.

There is no official policy in the field of materials research but the Danish Loan Fund for Industrial Research provides some risk money for industrial R&D. Attempts are being made to establish a program in the field of building materials research by the Danish Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. For a time, attention was given to the possibility of establishing a central building materials research institute but the estimated costs were prohibitive and, instead, it was concluded that research in this field must be covered by co-ordinating the activities of the existing institutes and industries.

The most important raw material in Finland to date is wood—for building, fuel, paper and pulp, and pulp products. The industry now runs at the capacity of the forests. Research is directed at more efficient processing and use of wood.

Other industries have developed significantly since World War II, particularly in metals—iron and steel, nonferrous metals such as copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, chromium, selenium, vanadium, titanium, and rare earth oxides. Finland is relatively well endowed with the relevant minerals even though production so far is small. As a consequence, research is very active in the metals and mining industries and associated Geological Survey-sponsored programs. By contrast, little R&D is done in the metals-consuming industries though there are signs of growing awareness of materials questions. The chemical industry is expected to expand most rapidly in the next few years, and it is in need of more R&D not only because of its relation to the metals and forest industries, but also because of the increasing production of plastics.

Nuclear energy is also expected to grow in importance, and the Finnish A.E.G. has initiated programs for research on radiation damage, corrosion, etc.

There has been much university expansion going on, and the need for expanding teaching staff and facilities made it difficult to provide at the same time for research or the setting up of new interdisciplinary materials departments. Instead, academic research is carried out more along traditional departmental lines, metallurgy and solid-state physics being the most prominent in the materials field. However, the former is performed in engineering departments and the latter in physics departments, with the traditional sharp division between them.

This division between science and engineering also projects into the organization of National Scientific Commissions and the State Research Institutes. The State Institute of Technical Research is organized along traditional lines with laboratories specializing in various technologies. In a pending reorganization of this Institute, there is an attempt to make it more interdisciplinary by establishing an integrated materials division.

There are 4 universities in Norway (Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, and Tromso). Trondheim University also includes the Technical University of Trondheim where most of the academic research in materials in Norway is conducted. Some is also done at Oslo and only minor amounts elsewhere. Materials research is carried out in the traditional departments at Trondheim and Oslo—physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc. but at Trondheim there is a Professional Coordinating Council for constructional materials research.

There are research institutes to support industry and to cover specific technological fields; e.g., building research, pulp and paper research, wood working and wood technology, atomic energy, materials testing, etc. There are also some broader institutes such as the Central Institute for Industrial Research at Oslo (where about 40% of the activity can be termed materials research). Overall, most research is carried out in government or government-supported laboratories.

There is no national policy for materials research. The Research Council for Scientific and Industrial Research includes committees organized along traditional lines—chemistry, metallurgy, technical physics, etc. There is no committee for materials, and so materials research gets split up among the committees. Furthermore the projects are to a large extent evaluated by committees which are use-oriented. This has its advantages and disadvantages; an example of the latter is that separate corrosion programs are sponsored by each of several committees. However, there is growing awareness of the need to coordinate the activities of the committees in the materials field.

More than 25% (i.e., 9.5x10 of all the funds allocated by the Council go to projects directly concerned with materials. Of this, approximately 60% is directed to metallurgical research (e.g., electro-metallurgical processes, alloy development, corrosion, composite materials, quality improvement, welding problems, fracture mechanics, etc.); less than 10% (i.e., 0.8x10 Kr) to plastics and high polymers; somewhat more than 10% to electronic materials; about 6% to ceramics, and the rest to specific materials projects (e.g., building construction problems). The emphasis on metals reflects the fact that metallurgical products constitute the country’s largest export field, while shipbuilding and machine tools are the larger industries in the country.

Materials research is conducted at Swedish universities, special institutes, and industrial laboratories. The first two tend to emphasize fundamental research but are recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of materials research. They are beginning to coordinate the programs of research groups and to cooperate in optimizing the use of expensive equipment and facilities. Indeed, the Royal Institute of Technology KTH (Stockholm) and the Chalmers Institute of Technology CTH (Gothenburg) have organized materials research centers comprising various departments of the two institutions as well as interested parties from the outside. There is also an interdepartmental materials research body at Uppsala University.

In addition there are trade research institutes oriented to specific industries and sponsored by industrial groups. Certain special research institutes, though oriented towards particular industries, are not industrially-sponsored and are therefore rather independent.

Materials research, principally ferrous, is conducted mainly at KTH, the Institute for Metal Research, and the Swedish Atomic Energy Company. At KTH and the Institute for Metal Research the emphasis is on physical metallurgy and metallography.

Polymer research is also conducted at KTH and some at CTH.

Materials research at CTH is primarily solid-state physics and applied physics, with broad emphasis on surface physics and chemistry and the border area between solid-state theory and physical metallurgy. Applied work is focused on composites and powder metallurgy.

Materials research at the Lund Institute of Technology (LTH) is concerned mainly with building materials and fracture mechanics.

Materials research at Uppsala University is mostly physical metallurgy.

Ceramics and glass research is conducted at the Silicate Research Institute (Gothenburg) and the Glass Research Institute (Vaxjo)—both trade research institutes.

The Defense Research Institute is concerned with heat-resisting materials, composites, corrosion (especially with titanium metals), and protective coatings.

The Atomic Energy Company works on reactor applications, deformation and repture mechanics, structural defects, and corrosion.

The principal governmental body for sponsoring and overseeing materials research is the Swedish Board for Technical Development (STU), officially subordinate to the Ministry of Industry but enjoying considerable freedom while cooperating with other sponsoring agencies, private research organizations, and private industry. It makes use of expert committees to advise on R&D matters. One of these committees is concerned with the materials field; its chairman is the President of the Academy of Engineering Science. The STU offers three types of support—for research with no obligation for repayment, to industrial development projects with a conditional obligation to repay, and to collective trade research with the industrial sector in question as a financial partner to at least 50%.

The STU has given high priority to materials technology in its appropriations budget, amounting to between 15 and 20% of its total budget.

Steel is regarded still as a pivatal material for the future through advances in strength, toughness, weldability, and by improved production processes and the development of new alloys. Steam and atomic energy technologies call for greater heat, corrosion, and radiation resistance. Powder metallurgy is expected to grow in importance for forming more complex structural parts. It is anticipated that similar trends toward better toughness and heat resistance will also occur with the nonferrous metals based on aluminum and titanium.

Polymers are projected to become a rapidly growing structural material. Research will be necessary for developing polymers with advanced mechanical properties to substitute for metals, also with high-temperature and radiation resistance. Environmentally degradable polymers will also be needed.

Consumption of ceramics in the building industry is expected to decrease; bricks will be replaced by prefabricated wall sections, plastics will replace ceramic drain and sewer pipes. For lining furnaces, ceramics better able to withstand thermal shock will require continuing R&D.

Composites are regarded as a growth field—for aeronautical engineering, for weapons, transportation equipment, and for many parts in industry (e.g., pumps, pipes, etc.), where the extra strength is worth the extra cost. Less expensive composites and fibers are needed, particularly carbon fibers, and more automation of manufacturing processes.