Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining priorities and investment levels in scientific research and development

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The differing viewpoints on resource allocation in research and development are reviewed and the criteria for rational planning discussed. The significance of different sets of criteria and their practicability are explored and it is concluded that the application of cost-benefit analysis methods, while imperfect, is the best basis for rational decisionmaking in the present state of knowledge. Society has as yet no clearly defined goals and this poses problems for the analyst particularly since social attitudes appear to be undergoing a particularly rapid change at the present time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Price, D., Little Science, Big Science. New York. Columbia Univ. Press, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cook, Sir J., “Science Information problem,” Advancement of Science, 23 (October 1966), 305.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shils, E. (ed.), Criteria for Scientific Development, Public Policy and National Goals, London: MIT Press, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Greenberg, D. S., The Politics of Pure Science, New York: The New American Library, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weinberg, A. M., “Scientific Choice and the Scientific Muckrakers; Review article,” Minerva, 7 (1969), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weisskopf, V. F., Review of ref. 4, Scientific American, 218 (1968), 139.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Waddington, C. H., “Assessing the Priorities,” Science Journal 5A (October 1969), 106.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Symposium on Science Policy, Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, September 1969.

  9. Report of the Polymer Panel, Science Research Council, London: HMSO, 1969.

  10. Hill, K. M., L. G. Brookes and H. Hunt, “How much Basic Research is Enough? A Problem of Resource Allocation,” Jour. Long Range Planning, 1 (No. 3, 1969).

  11. Schonfield, A., “A Deadlock on the Left,” Encounter, September 1959, p. 11.

  12. Ewell, R. H., “Role of Research in Economic Growth,” Chem. Eng. News, 33 (1955), 2980.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Science, Economic Growth and Government Policy, OECD, 1963.

  14. Dennison, E. F., Sources of Economic Growth in the United States, C.E.D., 1962, cited in ref. 15.

  15. Williams, B. R., Technology, Investment and Growth, p. 121. London: Chapman Hall Ltd., 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aukrust, O., “Factors of Economic Development—A Review of Recent Research,” Productivity Measurement Review, February 1965.

  17. Medford, R. D., Computer Based Learning Systems, Chapter V. London: National Committee for Educational Technology, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sherwin, C. W., and R. S. Isenson, “Project Hindsight—A Defense Department Study of the Utility of Research,” Science, 156 (1967), 3782.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reviewed in P. M. S. Jones' Technological Forecasting as a Management Tool, Programmes Analysis Unit Report M.10. London: HMSO, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rivett, P., and R. L. Ackoff, A Managers Guide to Operational Research. London: Wiley, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Seiler, R. E., Improving the Effectiveness of Research and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lakhtin, G. A., “Operational Research Methods in the Management of Scientific Research,” Minerva, 6 (1968), 524.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marshak, T., T. K. Glennan, and R. Summers, Strategy for R & D, New York: Rand Corporation Research Study, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Prest, A. R., and R. Turvey, “Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey,” Economic Journal, 75 (1965), 683.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cost Benefit Analysis in the Public Sector, London: Treasury Management Accounting Unit, May 1969.

  26. Jones, P. M. S., and H. Hunt, Programme Evaluation as Practised by the Programmes Analysis Unit with Three Case Studies, Programmes Analysis Unit Report M.12. London: HMSO, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hunt, H., “Forecasting the Need for Research and Development,” Futures, 1 (1969), 328.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones, P. M. S., The Evaluation of R & D with Specific Reference to New Materials, S.C.I. Symposium, Lancaster, July 1969, London: Society for Chemical Industry, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hill, K. M, Technological Forecasting in Some Basic Industries, Ninth Commonwealth Mining and Metallurgical Congress, May 1969.

  30. Reder, M. W., Studies in the Theory of Welfare Economics, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Little, I. M. D., A Critique of Welfare Economics, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rothenberg, J., Economic Evaluation of Urban Renewal, Washington: The Brookings Institute, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mao, J. C. T., “Efficiency in Public Urban Renewal Expenditures Through Benefit-Cost Analysis,” Jour. Amer. Inst. of Planners, yMarch 1966, p. 95.

  34. Fulcher, M. N., and T. L. Burton, “Measurement of Recreation Benefit—A Survey,” Jour. Economic Studies, 3 (July 1968), 35.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Coburn, T. M., M. E. Beesley, and D. J. Reynold, “The London-Birmingham Motorway,” Road Research Laboratory Technical Paper 46, 1960.

  36. Dawson, R. F. F., The Cost of Road Accidents in Great Britain, Road Research Laboratory Report 79, 1968.

  37. Commission on the Third London Airport, Proposed Research Methodology for the Assessment of Short-Listed Sights. London: HMSO, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ridker, R. G., Economic Costs of Air Pollution, London: Praeger, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wolozin, H., ed., The Economics of Air Pollution, New York: Norton, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jones, P. M. S., “The Treatment of Property, Infrastructure and Amenity in Studies on Atmospheric Pollution,” Paper presented to Treasury Seminar on Land, Infrastructure and Amenity, Sunningdale, September 1969.

  41. Devine, E. J., “The Treatment of Incommensurables in Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Land Economics, 13 (No. 3, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jones, P. M. S., K. Taylor, D. J. Storey and M. Clifton, “A Study of the Costs of Air Pollution in the U.K.,” in progress.

  43. Wallage, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, “A Comprehensive Highway Route Selection Method,” Delaware-Raritan Committee on Route 1-95, Pennsylvania, 1966.

  44. Weddle, A. E., and J. Pickard, “Least Social Cost Analysis,” Paper Presented at Treasury Seminar on Land, Infrastructure and Amenity, Sunningdale, September 1969.

  45. Private Discussions, Professor Cherns, Loughborough College of Technology.

  46. Williams, R. M., “Individual & Group Values,” Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, 371 (May 1967), 20.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bauer, K., and N. Rescher, Values and the Future Impact of Technological Changes on American Values. New York: Free Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Technology and Values, Harvard University Programme on Technology & Society, Research Review No. 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, June 1969.

  49. Mesthene, E. G., “Technology and Human Values,” Science Journal, October 1969, p. 45.

  50. Arrow, K. J., Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  51. American Values, Stanford Research Institute, Long Range Planning Service Report 378, June 1969.

  52. Editorial, “Ecology is in,” New Scientist, 43 (1969), 411.

  53. Nicholson, R. L. R., The Practical Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to R & D Investment Decisions, NATO Conference on Cost-Benefit Analysis, The Hague, July 1969.

  54. Kahn, H., and A. J. Weiner, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculating about the Next Thirty-Three Years. London: Macmillan, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programmes Analysis Unit, Chilton, Didcot, Berkshire, England

    P. M. S. Jones

Authors
  1. P. M. S. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, P.M.S. Determining priorities and investment levels in scientific research and development. Policy Sci 1, 299–309 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145214

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145214

Keywords

Search

Navigation