Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
82 / ENDNOTES Endnotes Supplement 1 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, ScienceâThe Endless Frontier, Appendix 3,âReport of the Committee on Science and the Public Welfareâ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945). 3. Bush, ScienceâThe 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, 1990); 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 1986). 5. Bush, ScienceâThe Endless Frontier, 1945. 6. The Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, Delivering Results: A Progress Report on Brain Research (New York: The Charles A. Dana Foundation, 1995); Sandra Ackerman for the Institute of Medicine, Discovering the Brain (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992); 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, 1991); Constance Pechura and Joseph B. Martin, eds., Mapping the Brain and Its Functions (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991). 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, âData Brief: U.S. R&D Funding Will Not Pick Up in â95,â 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 âFunding Forecast,â R&D Magazine, January 1995, pp. 4LS-7LS. 3. National Science Foundation, âData Brief: U.S. R&D Funding Will Not Pick Up in â95,â 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 Fiscal Year 1987 dollars, calculated from current-dollar data using the GDP deflators following standard NSF and OMB practice. Fiscal Year 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 (July 1995) (see American Association for the Advancement of Science, Interim Report on Congressional Appropriations 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, AAAS Report (Washington, D.C.: AAAS, 1995), p. 3; Interim Report on Congressional Appro- priations for R&D in FY 1996, 1995, p. 6. 82 82
ENDNOTES / 83 Supplement 3 1. Office of Science and 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,âNational Expenditures for R&D as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product, by Source of Funds: 1953-94,â National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1994, NSF 95-304 (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1995), p. 71; data on other countries, Table B-20, âNational Expenditures for the Performance of R&D as a Percentage of GDP, by Country: 1970-93,â p. 77. 3. See Forging the Future: Policy for American Manufacturing, report of the Manufacturing Subcouncil to the Competitiveness Policy Council (Washington, D.C.: Competitiveness Policy Council, March 1993), pp. 218â219. 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 âUnderstanding the Role of the Public Sector in Pharmaceutical Innovation,â and on the 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). 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 and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nationâs Information Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995). 4. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative to Support the Nationâs Infor- mation Infrastructure, 1995. 5. Norman F. Ramsey, Lyman Physics Laboratory, Harvard University, âResponse to Vannevar Bush Award,â personal communication to Robert Cook-Deegan, National Academy of Sciences, June 19, 1995. 6. Many of the points in this and the next section are adapted from Donald E. Stokesâs forth- coming book, Pasteurâs 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 Nationâs Infor- mation Infrastructure, 1995. 9. Susan Rosegrant and David R. Lampe, Route 128: Lessons from Bostonâs High-Tech Community (New York: Basic Books, 1992), p. 16. 10. Institute for the Future, The Future of Americaâs Research-Intensive Industries, Report R- 97, Menlo Park, Calif., 1995. 11. Institute for the Future, The Future of Americaâs Research-Intensive Industries, 1995. 12. Alfonso Gambardella, Science and Innovation: The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Rebecca Henderson and Iain 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 1993); Rebecca Henderson, âThe Evolution of Integrative Capability: 83
84 / ENDNOTES Innovation in Cardiovascular Drug Discovery,â in Industrial & Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, Winter 1994 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 607-630. 13. Edwin Mansfield, âAcademic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Charac- teristics, and Financing,â The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1995, pp. 55-65; Francis Narin and Dominic Olivastro, âStatus Report: Linkage Between Technology and Science,â Research Policy 21: 237-249, 1992; Francis Narin and Richard P. Rozek, âBibliometric Analysis of U.S. Pharma- ceutical Industry Research Performance,â Research Policy 17: 139-154, 1988. 14. Francis Narin and Dominic Olivastro,âStatus Report: Linkage Between Technology and Science,â 1992, at p. 248. 15. David Swinbanks,âMITI Clears New Path for Japanâs Universities,â Nature 376 (13 July), 1995; Science and Technology Agency, Japan, White Paper on Science and Technology, 1995: Fifty Years of Postwar Science and Technology in Japan (Tokyo: Prime Ministerâs Office, July 1995). 16. Science and Technology Agency, Japan, White Paper on Science and Technology, 1995. 84