Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)

The information-based theoretical model for public support of basic research, developed in the USA at the end of the 1950s, has held up well in political practice, in spite of its neglect of training benefits, of necessary prior investment in research infrastructure and of its consequently limited relevance outside the USA. At the same time, US practice in basic research has often been misinterpreted as being driven by short-term usefulness, whereas its key features are massive and pluralistic government funding, high academic quality, and the ability to invest in the long-term development of new (often multidisciplinary) fields. Challenges for the future include greater (and often ill-judged) pressures from governments for demonstrable usefulness of the basic research it supports, the entirely separate development of direct links to application in biomedical and software fields, and more complicated links between national basic research and application resulting from the changes in the internationalization of corporate R&D. And perhaps we can learn as much from successful practices in Scandinavia and Switzerland as from the USA. Copyright 2001 by Oxford University Press.

[1]  K. Pavitt,et al.  CORPORATE ACTIVITIES IN SPEECH RECOGNITION AND NATURAL LANGUAGE: ANOTHER "NEW SCIENCE"-BASED TECHNOLOGY , 1999 .

[2]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? , 2001 .

[3]  V. Bush Science, the Endless Frontier , 1999, Science, the Endless Frontier.

[4]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[5]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[6]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Chemicals and long-term economic growth : insights from the chemical industry , 1998 .

[7]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[8]  D. Pestré La production des savoirs entre académies et marché - Une relecture historique du livre : « The New Production of Knowledge », édité par M. Gibbons , 1997 .

[9]  K. Pavitt SPRU Electronic Working Paper No 5 The Social Shaping of the National Science Base , 1998 .

[10]  Keith Pavitt Why European Union funding of academic research should be increased: a radical proposal , 2000 .

[11]  Jorge Niosi The Internationalisation of Industrial R&D , 1999 .

[12]  T. Kealey The Economic Laws of Scientific Research , 1996 .

[13]  M. Sharp,et al.  Technology Policy in the European Union , 1998 .

[14]  Telecommunications Board Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research , 1999 .

[15]  Michel Callon,et al.  Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993 , 1994 .

[16]  Stefano Brusoni,et al.  Knowledge Specialisation and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More Than They Do? , 2001 .

[17]  N. Rosenberg Science, Invention and Economic Growth , 1974 .

[18]  T. Kealey Why science is endogenous: a debate with Paul David (and Ben Martin, Paul Romer, Chris Freeman, Luc Soete and Keith Pavitt) , 1998 .

[19]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States , 2002 .

[20]  G. Pisano The governance of innovation: Vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry☆ , 1991 .

[21]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation☆ , 1993 .

[22]  A. Jaffe Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[23]  Y. Gingras,et al.  The place of universities in the system of knowledge production , 2000 .

[24]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Key National Factors in the Emergence of Computational Chemistry Firms , 1997 .

[25]  A. Elzinga The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[26]  Bhaven N. Sampat,et al.  The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US Academic research and technology transfer , 2001 .

[27]  Ivo Zander,et al.  How do you mean `global'? An empirical investigation of innovation networks in the multinational corporation , 1999 .

[28]  Paul A. David,et al.  FROM MARKET MAGIC TO CALYPSO SCIENCE POLICY A Review of Terence Kealey's The Economic Laws of Scientific Research , 1997 .

[29]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry , 2001 .

[30]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[31]  P. David,et al.  The research network and the new economics of science: from metaphors to organisational behaviours , 1998 .

[32]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  National systems of innovation under strain: the internationalisation of corporate R&D. , 2000 .

[33]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[34]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities , 1995 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[36]  R. Nelson The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[37]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation , 2000 .

[38]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Economic policy and technological performance: The economic theory of technology policy: an introduction , 1987 .

[39]  Diana Hicks,et al.  Research excellence and patented innovation , 2000 .

[40]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[41]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[42]  Diana Hicks,et al.  A Morphology of Japanese and European Corporate Research Networks , 1996 .

[43]  L. Zucker,et al.  Virtuous Circles of Productivity: Star Bioscientists and the Institutional Transformation of Industry , 1995 .

[44]  P. Weingart From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles? , 1997 .

[45]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Economic policy and technological performance , 1987 .

[46]  G. Greenhill The Influence of Science , 1922, Nature.

[47]  T. Shinn The ‘Triple Helix’ and ‘New Production of Knowledge’ as Socio-Cognitive Fields , 2003 .