Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 82
Endnotes Supplement ~ 1. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 1993, NSB 93-1 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1993), pp.328, 337. 2. Vannevar Bush, Science- Tbe Endless Frontier, Appendix 3,"Report of the Committee on Science and the Public Welfare" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19451. 3. Bush,Science The Endless Frontier, 1945. 4. See, for example, Bruce L.R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washing- ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 19901; Jeffrey K. Stine,A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985, Science Policy Background Report No.1 prepared for the Task Force on Science Policy, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 19861. 5. Bush, Science Tbe Endless Fro ruttier, 1945. 6. The Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, Delivering Results: A Progress Report or' Brain Research (New York: The Charles A. Dana Foundation, 19951; Sandra Ackerman for the Institute of Medicine, Discovering the Brain (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 19921; Office of Science and Technology Policy, Maximizing Human Potential: Decade of the Brain 1990-2000 (Washington, D.C.: Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Execu- tive Office of the President, 19911; Constance Pechura and Joseph B. Martin, eds., Mapping the Brain and Its Functions (Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press, 19911. Supplement 2 1. Calculated from Table C-8 in National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1993, 1994, and 1995, NSF 95-334 (Arlington,Va.: NSF/Division of Science Resources Studies, forthcoming). 2. National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Studies,"Data Brief: U.S. R&D Funding Will Not Pick Up in '95," No.13 (October 18,1995), Appendix Table B-3. The sample design for estimating industry expenditures was revised for 1991 and later years. The effect of the changes in sample design was to increase the estimate of industry R&D and thus reduce the federal share of the national R&D total by several percentage points compared with earlier surveys. Industry has contributed about 59 percent of national R&D investment in recent years. Moreover, industrial support for R&D has increased over the past 2 decades, in most years more rapidly than federal funding. A recent Battelle Memorial Institute survey also estimated that the federal government is funding 36 percent of the national investment in research and development in 1995. See"Punding Forecast," R&D Magazine, January 1995, pp. 4LS-7LS. 3. National Science Foundation, "Data Brief: U.S. R&D Funding Will Not Pick Up in '95," 1995, Appendix Table B-2. The changes in sample design in the survey of R&D expenditures by industry for 1991 and after have the effect of reducing the federal share of R&D funding of industry R&D compared with earlier surveys by NSF. 4. All constant-dollar R&D and FS&T data are in FiscalYear 1987 dollars, calculated from current-dollar data using the GDP deflators following standard NSF and OMB practice. FiscalYear 1995 estimates have not been adjusted to account for recisions totaling nearly $2 billion in R&D budget authority enacted by Public Laws 104-6 (April 1995) and 104-19 Duly 1995) (see American Association for the Advancement of Science, Interim Report on CongressionalAppropriations for R&D in FY 1996 ~ Washington, D.C.: AAAS,1995),Table A, for more details on recisions by agency and program). 5. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research and Development FY 1996, ALAS Report (Washington, D.C.: AAAS, 1995), p. 3; Interim Report on Congressional Appro- priations for R&D in FY 1996, 1995, p.6. 82
OCR for page 82
ENDNOTES / 83 Supplement 3 1. Office of Science end technology Policy, Science in the National Interest (Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, August 1994), p.15. 2. National Science Foundation (including data from Department of Commerce), data for the United States,Table B-15,"National Expenditures for R&D as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product, by Source of Funds: 1953-94," National Patterns of RED Resources: 1994, NSF 95-304 (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1995), p.71; data on other countries,Table B-20,"National Expenditures for the Performance of R&D as a Percentage of GDP, by Country: 1970-93," p.77. 3. See Forging the Future: Policy forAmerican Manufacturing, report of the Manufacturing Subcouncil to the Competitiveness Policy Council (Washington, D.C.: Competitiveness Policy Council, March 1993), pp. 218-219. Supplement 4 1. Material about hypertension treatments is based largely on research undertaken by Rebecca Henderson and her colleagues (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) through a project titled"Understanding the Role of the Public Sector in Pharmaceutical Innovation," and on the historical research of Harriet Dustan (IJniversity of Vermont), Edward Roccella (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), and Howard Garrison (Federation of American Societies for Experi- mental Biology). 2. Historical research of Harriet Dustan University of Vermont), Edward Roccella (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), and Howard Garrison (Federation of American Societies for Experi- mental Biology). 3. Illustrations from telecommunications and computing, along with many conclusions in this section, are taken from a report of the Computer Science end telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press, 9951. 4. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Infor- mation Infrastr?~ct~cre, 1995. 5. Norman F. Ramsey, Lyman Physics Laboratory, Harvard University, "Response to Vannevar Bush Award," personal communication to Robert Cook-Deegan, National Academy of Sciences, June 9,1995. 6. Many of the points in this and the next section are adapted from Donald E. Stokes's forth- coming book, Pastez~r's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution, 1996~. 7. George Porter, Lord of Luddenham, Imperial College of Science,Technology and Medicine, London, confirmed by electronic mail message (via his secretary Betty Sayers) to Robert Cook- Deegan, National Academy of Sciences, August 10,1995. 8. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nation's Infor- mation Infrastructure, 1995. 9. Susan Rosegrant and David R. Lampe, Route 128: Lessons from Boston's High-Tech Community (New York: Basic Books, 1992), p. l6. 10. Institute for the Future, The Future of America's Research-Intensive Industries, Report R- 97, Menlo Park, Calif., 1995. 11. Institute for the Future, The Future of America's Research-Intensive Industries, 1995. 12. Alfonso Gambardella, Science and Innovation: The US. Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1995~; Rebecca Henderson and lain Cockburn, Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Working Papers Series,Working Paper No.4466 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, September 19931; Rebecca Henderson,"The Evolution of Integrative Capability:
OCR for page 82
84 / ENDNOTES Innovation in Cardiovascular Drug Discovery," in Industrial (; Corporate Change,Vol. 3, No.3, Winter 1994 (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp.607-630. 13. Edwin Mansfield,"Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Charac- teristics, and Financing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1995, pp.55~5; Francis Narin and Dominic Olivastro, "Status Report: Linkage Between Technology and Science," Research Policy 21: 237-249,1992; Francis Narin and Richard P. Rozek,"Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Pharma- ccutical Industry Research Performance," Research Policy 17: 139-154,1988. 14. Francis Narin and Dominic Olivastro,"Status Report: Linkage Between Technology and Science," 1992, at p. 248. 15. David Swinbanks,"MITI Clears New Path for lapan's Universities," Nature 376 (13 fury), 1995; Science end technology agency, Japan, White Paper on Science and Technology, 1995: Fifty Years of Postwar Science and Technology in Japan (Tokyo: Prime Minister's Office, July 1995~. 16. Science end technology agency, Japan, White Paper on Science and Technology, 1995.