that this panel was charged with examining the status of NCSES’ science, technology, and innovation (STI) indicators, Fealing was in a position to describe the statistics that her panel thought would be useful to produce to understand innovation activities in the United States and worldwide.
As mentioned by Charles Larson, Fealing said, there is an important difference between R&D statistics and indices for innovation. The statistical tabulations for National Patterns are mainly information on R&D stocks; in contrast, indicators on innovation activities include measures of R&D flows, science and technology outputs and trade, knowledge networks, and human capital stocks and flows. The hope is to obtain data not only on the current status of R&D but also of trends.
Fealing noted the challenges faced by the panel in devising a conceptual framework for scientific discovery and technological innovation. This framework needs to include not only the traditional elements—inputs, outputs, and effects—but also the institutional elements that influence the functioning of the system. The panel was also tasked with providing the best priority framework to NCSES that can guide the development of STI indicators for such a system. Fealing showed the audience an example of a model for a national innovation system and pointed out that there is a lack of information on linkages or spillover effects. Her experience with the panel has convinced her that data on spillover effects between actors and activities in the system and the resulting outputs and outcomes are particularly useful for informing policy decisions. Another data gap of concern is subnational—STI statistics such as state and local funding to industrial R&D performers—as noted earlier in the workshop.
In its interim report (National Research Council, 2012a), the panel’s recommendations to NCSES focused on improving or developing new indicators on:
1. how labor force mobility is related to STI activities by exploring existing longitudinal data from various surveys,
2. innovation and firm size based on data from the restructured BRDIS,
3. understanding firm dynamism by matching BRDIS data to surveys from the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
4. indicators on payments and receipts for R&D services between the United States and other countries by using the BRDIS data on firms’ domestic and foreign activities.
The panel also recommended that NCSES host working groups to further develop subnational STI indicators and to fund exploratory activi-